In the spring of 1535 three separate riots had occurred in Craven, with 3-400 participants. For taking part, eighty-two were indicted, and nineteen were imprisoned for five months without trial in the castles of Sandal, Wressle and Skipton.67 the figures are given in L.P. XIII.863, 992, 996.
In early June of that year Sir Richard Tempest, who had acted quickly to suppress the disturbances, called upon the government to provide some remedy in order to prevent further unrest. 68. L.P. VIM 863. Hoyle in Northern History, 22, p. 77 misleadingly dismisses this as an aside that attached no importance to the disturbances.
Influenced by news of similar disturbances in Lancashire, Westmorland and Cumberland, the government first interpreted remedy to mean punishment. By early July it had ordered several of the ringleaders from the Craven riots to appear before the council in London.69 69. For disturbances in other parts of the north, see L.P. VIII. 984. For the government's punitive policy towards the Craven rioters, see B.L. Add. MSS. 12, 097, f,1 (L.P. VIM 892); L.P. VIII. 984; SP1/239, f. 183 (L.P. Add. I. 996).
Yet nothing had happened by late August. Richard Tempest then proposed that most of those in prison should be released; otherwise they could not work the harvest and would fall behind with the rent.70 70. L.P. IX. 150, 196. Cumberland made a similar plea. See ibid., 150.
In October this advice was followed. Encouraged by his effectiveness, Tempest intervened again in support of those still in custody, arguing that the proposed penalty of an appearance before the king's council was too excessive.71 71. L.P. VII. 1314-15. Both documents are misdated by L.P. They belong to 1535, not 1534.
As a result, all the men were released and, following a bill of complaint exhibited in Star Chamber, a commission was established to look into the matter.72 72. L.P. IX. 949; J.W. Morkhill, The Parish of Kirkby Malhamdale (Gloucester, 1933), p. 145. The award made by the commission can be found in Lancashire County Record Office, DDMa, Box 27.However, it did so in such an aggravating manner that further rioting occurred in 1537.73 73. See below, p. 166
The rioters in 1535 had pulled down enclosures and houses. Their grievance was the curtailment of the common through intaking the waste in order to establish new rents from freshly created farmsteads or pastures.74 74. L.P. VII. 1315 (misdated 1534 instead of 1535); L.P. VIII. 863; SP11/93, f. 196 (L.P. VIII. 991) - describing the offending enclosure as having "encroached now of late of the common and was never enclosed before"; P.R.O. KB9/534/77. Accounting for the size of the riots was the practice of intercommoning which could lead people from several manors to take part in the same riot, simply because they all shared the same waste.75 75. See Hoyle, Northern History, 22, p. 77 for the enclosures of John Catterall which offended not only his own tenants of Rathmell but also the Percy tenants of Giggleswick and the Abbey of Furness' tenants of Stackhouse. The enclosing of John Lambert offended not only his own tenants of Airton but also Cumberland's tenants of Scosthrop and Middleton's tenants of Otterburn. See KB9/534/77. In all probability, Cumberland's enclosing offended his own tenants of Stirton and those of the abbey of Furness in the manor of Winterburn. See below, p. 165.
Responsible for the offending enclosures were the manorial lords John Caterall, John Lambert and the earl of Cumberland. Two of the riots occurred about Skipton and the third, about Giggleswick in Ribblesdale.76 76. L.P. VIM 863, 991.
Measured by the numbers (page 165) indicted, the largest riot was waged against the earl of Cumberland. This accounted for 49 per cent of the indictments. Moreover, Cumberland was also implicated in the second largest riot, the one affecting the manor of Airton in Kirkby Malhamdale. Although Lambert was its acting lord, Cumberland was recognised as its chief lord; and Lambert was also in his service as clerk of courts. The Airton affray accounted for about 34 per cent of the indictments. Thus of the two areas affected, the one around Giggleswick, the other around Skipton, much the greater disturbance occurred in the latter. The former, in fact, accounted for only fourteen of the eighty-two indictments, against about forty for the riot against Cumberland and twenty-eight for the riot against Lambert.777. For the numbers indicted, see SP1/93, f. 196 (L.P. VIII. 991); L.P. vm. 992; KB9/534/77. The indictment for the Airton riot names 33 persons, If the figure of 82 indictments for all three riots is correct (see L.P. VIII. 992), it means that c. 28 were actually indicted for that particular riot: that is, well in excess of the "twenty or above" proposed in L.P. VIII. 991. For Cumberland's connexion with Airton, see Hoyle, Early Tudor Craven, p. 9 ; Hoyle, Northern History, 22 (1986), p. 77.
Lambert's offence is well-known: he had enclosed moorland to which the tenants and freeholders of Airton, Otterburn and Scosthrop had commoning rights; but Cumberland's offence remains something of a mystery. Thanks to enclosing, he had offended some of his tenants and freeholders: that much is known.78 '8. L.P. VIII. 991. But where?
The offending enclosures were certainly erected in the vicinity of Skipton.79 79. Ibid., 863, 991. A clue to their exact whereabouts lies in the three rebel Captains Cumberland identified: presumably, one for each revolt. Assuming that Preston was held to have led the Airton riot and Braune the one in Giggleswick, this leaves Lancelot Nesfield as leader of the revolt against Cumberland.
Now the Nesfields were a prominent family in the lordship of Winterburn, a manor which adjoined the Cumberland manor of Stirton and of which Cumberland was, at this time, contentiously laying claim to be the leaseholder, suggesting that the offending enclosures were put up within this lordship or, and this is more likely, on moorland to which the manors of Stirton and Winterburn had intercommoning claims. Yet another possibility is that the riots involved the Inhabitants of Rylstone as well. Their commoning had been restricted several years earlier by Clifford enclosures on "Spelderstone Moor". Perhaps in 1535 the tenants of Rylstone struck back. 8080. See L.P. IX. 150/ii. For the Nesfield connexion with the manor of Winterburn, see Hoyle, Early Tudor Craven, pp. 19, 54-5, 71. For the possibility of a Rylstone involvement, see below, p. 170.
Although it was repeatedly emphasised that the disturbances were carried out by very poor men, and Tempest made the point that the rioters "had neither gentlemen nor men of lands or substance with them": in reality, they were the work of whole peasant communities, both freeholders and tenants at will; and present at the levelling of the enclosures were not only the menfolk but also large numbers of women and children.81 81. For poor men, see LP. IX. 150, 192, 196. For absence of gentlemen and men of substance, see SP1193, f. 241 (L.P. VIII. 992). For freeholders and tenants at will, see L.P. IX. 949, 995. For women and children, see L.P. VIII. 992.
The Airton enclosure case went before Star Chamber, as a result of an action brought by John Lambert against his tenants, and was then referred for arbitration to Cumberland and Tempest, aided by two gentlemen lawyers from elsewhere in Yorkshire. Moved by Lambert, Cromwell intervened in December with a letter of advice to Cumberland.8282. Lancashire County Record Office, DDMa Box 27. The other two were William Babthorpe and Thomas Chalon: For Cromwell's intervention, see SPl/99, f. 132 (L.P. IX. 949).
Completely overlooking the intercommoning problem, they decided in favour of further enclosure, proposing its extension to three quarters of the manor's waste. The award, however, was not wholly beneficial to Lambert. In fact, only one quarter of the waste was granted to him for enclosure, whereas one half was placed at the disposal of the freeholders and tenants of Airton. The inhabitants of Airton accepted the award but friction remained; so much so that, when Lambert proceeded to act upon the award and to enclose his quarter, another riot broke out in April 1537 and his enclosures were attacked yet again. Moreover, that enclosing the waste was an emotive issue for a large part of Craven was indicated by the support the Airton inhabitants received, not only from their fellow parishioners of Kirkby Malhamdale but also from the parishes of Burnsall and Linton and the Percy Fee parishes of Settle and Langcliffe.8383. Morkhill, Kirkby Malhamdale, p. 145.
The enclosure affair of 1535 must have generated considerable hostility in Craven towards Thomas Cromwell as well as towards the earl. Cromwell's heavy-handed treatment of the rioters, especially in allowing men to be placed in custody for months "at the king's pleasure" and under threat of being brought before the council, and the blatant prejudice he had shown in setting up a commission to deal with the matter which outrageously included Lambert as a member; in employing Cumberland to make a final settlement (although compromised as a party in a related dispute); and in his own personal intervention to favour Lambert: all this fuelled a hostility to the house of Clifford among the people of Craven which, along with other grudges, found potent expression in the pilgrimage of grace and the postpardon revolt, leading to either the offer of rebel support or the refusal to stand by their lord.8484. For Cromwell's direction of the treatment of the rioters, see Add. MSS 12, 097, f. 1 (L.P. VIII. 893); L.P. VIII. 946, 992, 995. Both Tempest and Cumberland told Cromwell that the treatment was too harsh given the nature of the crime. See L.P. VII. 1315 (1535, not 1534); L.P. VIII. 992; L.P. IX. 150. For Lambert's involvement in the proceedings taken, see I0/534/77 and L.P. VIII. 992.
A second dispute divided the earl from his Skipton Fee subjects in the mid-1530s. It again concerned the lordship of Winterburn. Although its history reached back to about 1530 and onwards into he 155os, the dominant issues of the dispute came to a head between 1535 and 1540.85 85. See T.A. Beck, Annales Furnesienses (London, 1844), appendix IX; P.R.O. DLl/36/P1. Traditionally, the Cliffords had acted as steward of the lordship.8686. See Hoyle, Early Tudor Craven, p. 19 for the stewardship held in 1522; for stewardship held m 1535, see Valor Ecclesiasticus., V, p. 270.
However, the manor, in practice, had been directly held by the monks of Furness Abbey, its finances administered for them by the Procter family. In return, the Procters had received three leases of land in the manor - at Cowpercote, Winterburn Hall and Friar Head as well as the offices of bailey, receiver and keeper of woods, plus the lease of two mills with the monopoly to grind all the farm corn grown in the lordship.87 87. L.P. VI. 632. By the 1550s the Procters were claiming to have had the farm for 200 years but it was in fact granted to them in August 1534. For the 200 year claim, see Beck, op. cit., p. xciii. For the 1534 grant, see P.R.O E321/20/22. For the Procters' role in running the lordship, see Yorkshire Star Chamber Proceedings, IV, pp. 136-8. Thomas Procter as Thomas Porte was recognised as bailiff of Winterburn by the Valor Ecclesiasticus. See V.E., V, p. 270.
From 1531 the earl became more intrusive in the lordship's affairs, especially after acquiring its lease. When this lease was dismissed by the monks as fraudulent, Cumberland sought its confirmation, eventually getting his way in 1537, principally through the favour of Thomas Cromwell, although in the process his claim was rejected both by the ecclesiastical visitors of 1536 and in the following year by the king's commissioners for the north.88 88. P.R.O. Stac2/32135; Beck, op. cit., appendix IX; P.R.O. E315191, f. 65. For Cromwell's favour, see CLB, f. 31; L.P. XII(2). 279; E321/20/22 (answer).
In the meantime, the monks had sought to resist Cumberland by strengthening the Procters' position in the lordship, granting them leases on terms of sixty instead of twenty-one years and awarding them, in August 1534, on a lease of sixty-one years, exactly what Cumberland claimed to hold, the fee-farm of Winterburn manor. Cumberland counteracted, initially in his official capacity of manorial steward. Thus, in March 1534 he expelled John Procter from his farm in Winterburn although the lease had fifty-nine years to run. In addition, he confiscated his cattle and household goods and imprisoned him for two months in Skipton Castle, allegedly "contrary to the king's laws".89 89. Stac2/30/6 (Yorkshire Star Chamber Proceedings, IV, p. 52); Yorkshire Star Chamber Proceedings, IV, 136-8; DL1/27/ P20; E321/20/22.
Then in 1537 he deprived Gabriel Procter of his offices and milling rights, ejected him from his farm at Friar Head and took away his fee-farm of the whole manor. In the late 1530s Cumberland pursued an impounding policy in Winterburn: taking Thomas Halton's cattle when he refused to pay double the rent upon the expiry of his lease. The same was done to Thomas Procter of Cowpercote for refusing to pay his rent to Cumberland as fee-farmer of Winterburn.9090. Yorkshire Star Chamber Proceedings, IV, pp. 136-8; E321/20/22. The Procters struck back, not only by denying him recognition of his right to the fee-farm through refusing to pay him rent, but also by making several complaints in the courts of equity: in 1534 in Star Chamber, and in 1539/40 in Star Chamber, Requests and Augmentations 9191. Yorkshire Star Chamber Proceedings, IV, pp. 52, 136-8; P.R.O. Reg2/10/232; E321/13151; E321120122. Of these five bills, the middle three are substantially the same. Cumberland's answer to the bill exhibited in Augmentations mentions "one Thomas Cromwell, knight, late earl of Essex", dating it as after June, 1540. This means that, apart from the first one, the bills brought against him by Procter belong to 1539, possibly early 1540.