If the foregoing list be complete, it follows that out of 215 persons appointed to be executed in the towns and villages of Richmondshire, only 57 were actually put to death.

The lists for Cleveland and the Birdsforth Wapentake are as follows:

Those which at any tyme did assist or go to the rebells in

The names of the habitants of Birdsfurth Wapontayke which hayth bene at any tym with the rebebells.

On the 13th January Bowes wrote to Sussex :

"My humble duty remembered-Pleaseth your good L. I send you herewith all the books of Allertonshire and Cleveland to have your L. directions for the numbers to be appointed furth of them to be executed. I find very few or none (saving the market towns) either in Allertonshire or Cleveland that did go with the rebels in the first journey, and sure in Cleveland there [were] none; and it is very few that went in their return, and as it seemeth to me went rather forced than otherwise of good will. Wherefore I would be glad to know your L. pleasure in these causes. From Allerton the xiijth January." (Bowes MSS., xviii, 7.)

It appears, nevertheless, from certain detached entries in volume xiv that many were put to death in these districts-at Guisborough, Yarm, Great Ayton, Thirsk, and Northallerton, but there is no complete list. The list of those executed in Richmondshire, on the other hand, appears to be complete. How was it that 57 only were executed out of 215 appointed? The difficulty of apprehending the rebels to which Bowes refers would doubtless hamper his proceedings, and the severity of the winter operated in the same direction. About 8th January Bowes says:

"The circuit of my commission is great, the several places where the prisoners were taken far distant, the weather extreme, and the country (except in the bottom ways) impassable for snow; and therefore, I pray you, bear with me if all things be not done so speedily as you look for, for truly, as the time is, it is an impossibility."

Still, there was another reason also. It has been a fashion with historians to minimise the personal share of Elizabeth in these severities, and to cast the chief responsibility upon Sussex and his

confederates. Nothing, we are told, was naturally more distasteful to Elizabeth than cruelty, and when Sussex's arrangements were made known to her, she was only impatient that they should be completed.1 In reality the very reverse was the case. The Privy Councillors in the north were aghast at the orders they received from London, and many of them addressed strong remonstrances to the Queen upon the subject. Sussex himself laboured under 'hard constructions' at Court, for he was supposed to have tacitly favoured the rebellion, and to have connived at the escape of its leaders. By way of exhibiting his loyalty, he assured Cecil on the 4th of January that he had appointed 300 to suffer death in the bishopric, and besides these, a like execution should be done in Richmondshire; at Allerton, Topcliffe, and Thirsk, for the North Riding; also at Ripon, Wetherby, and Boroughbridge, for the West Riding-but the numbers at all these places were as yet uncertain. One at least, he says, shall be executed for example in every town where any went out to serve the earls; but he puts in the plea that the common people were dispersed when the earls left Durham, and therefore the execution is the longer in doing by reason of the apprehending and examining the constables; otherwise the guilty might escape and the unguilty suffer. (State Papers.)

A careful examination of the correspondence will show that Bowes, at all events, was in no hurry, and that he expected to have the orders countermanded. The Queen, on the other hand, was inexorable, and sent down repeated messages urging severity. On 13th January Bowes writes to Sussex: "I do this day intend to write to Mr. Gargrave to make appointment for my being at Rypon, and so to follow my course according to your lordship's former directions, if I be not countermanded by your lordship, and intending to be there on Wednesday in the morning at the furthest." (Sharpe, p. 152.) He did not, however, go to Ripon for at least ten days; he was still at Thirsk on the 23rd of the month. Sussex replies on the 14th that it is thought the executions be very long in doing, and he fears that the Queen's Majesty will find cause of offence. (Bowes MSS., i, 15.) Again, on the 19th, Sussex writes from Duresme:

"Sir George Bowes,-I received yesternight letters from the Court, whereby I perceive the Queens Majesty doth much marvel that she doth not hear from me that the execution is yet ended, and therefore I heartily pray you to use expedition, for I fear this lingering will breed displeasure to us both." (Bowes MSS., i, 16.)

1 Froude's History of England, chap. 53, vol. ix, p. 180.

The circumstances are quite consistent with the view that the northern councillors sent the best reports they could to London of the many executions "appointed," but that the number actually put to death fell very considerably short of that contained in the official list.

Mr. Froude is responsible for much of the misapprehension which exists on this subject. "On the 23rd of January," he writes, "Bowes reported that he had put to death 'about six hundred,' besides those who had been disposed of by Sussex." That is a very misleading way of putting it. It is not a quotation from any official report, as might be supposed; the statement is contained (not quite in those words) in a private letter, or rather what appears to be a draft or rough copy of a letter which Sir George sent to his cousin, Ralph Bowes. The paper is still at Streatlam, and is very hastily written; the letter itself is not preserved. It commences :

"Good Cosyn Rawffe,-My heartye comendatyons remembred, with desyre not to thynke muche that I have forborne so longe to wryte, which ys for no other cawse then that I could not fynde tyme or have fyt caryage. For the morrowe after I came owt of Barnard Castell, I was appointed Marshall of the Armye under the leding of th' Earle of Sussex, which fylled me so full of cawses dewryng the marche as I had skarsse fyve howres of the xxiiij to rest my weryed head and bones; and immydeatlye after beyng appointed to passe in a cyrcuyte thorough the Byshopbrygge, Richmondshyre, Allertonshyre, Cleaveland, Rippon, and so to Wedderbye, for syftyng of these rebells by martyall lawe. In which cyrcuyte and jorney theyr ys of theym execute six hundreth and odd..... From Thirske, where I end this xxiij of January, 1569[70].” On the back is written, "Copy of a letter sent to my cosyn, Rawffe Bowes." (Bowes MSS., ii, 17.)

If Bowes really used this expression, he must have meant that six hundred and odd was the number 'to be' executed in his entire circuit. He had not yet entered the West Riding at all at the date of this letter. The lists show that slightly over six hundred would be about the number "appointed" in the jurisdiction of Bowes, but that includes, and is not in addition to, the execution done at the city of Durham in the first week of January, when Sussex was present.

Twelve days after the date of this letter to Ralph Bowes, and when all the executions were ended, Sir Thomas Gargrave wrote to

1 History of England, chap. 53, vol. ix, p. 181.

Cecil objecting to the proposed oyer and terminer for attainting all offenders. He recommends a general pardon to all but such as should be excepted by name; if the Queen insists that all shall submit themselves without any assurance, that would leave many places naked and without inhabitants. "In my opinion," he adds, "the poor husbandman and mean subject, if not a great papist, will become good subjects. And there is by martial law already executed about 500 of the poor sort." (State Papers.) It is not at all likely that Gargrave would understate the number in a letter of that kind, even if the facts were known to him. Five hundred also is a round number, and it would be very easy to attach undue importance to a general statement like that.

The last word on the subject was spoken by Sir George Bowes in 1573, when, at the request of Lord President Huntingdon, he answered a set of interrogatories regarding the rebellion, then nearly four years past. To the question, "How many did suffer?" he

makes answer:

"The number that was appointed to suffer was seven hundred and odd, but what did directly suffer I cannot truly say, for that the execution in Bywell lordship, Hexhamshire, and Northumberland, which was parcel hereof, was appointed to Sir John Foster, then Lord Warden, and not dealt in by me; neither ever came there any certificate thereof to my hands, for all things was lapt up in haste. And there was sundry other places where there was of this number to be executed that none of the men could be gotten, for that they wholly fled and kept secret to my commission was ended; so that never any of the men in these townships came before me; and therefore it is unknown to myself the certainty of the numbers executed; but the appointment was seven hundred and some odd, as is aforesaid." (Letter of Huntingdon to Burleigh, Sharpe, p. 184.)