A HISTORY OF DURHAM 



bishopric nominated to take part in the conference at York between the earl 

 of Norfolk and the baronage and commonalty of the northern counties.^^^ 



Accepting the pardon of Pomfret at the beginning of December the 

 bishopric forces appear to have dispersed, and Sir Francis Bi god's attempt to 

 stir them up to take part in the attack on Scarborough Castle met with but a 

 meagre response.'** 



Still a strong undercurrent of suspicion prevailed, and in January the 

 Lancaster Herald was ' ungoodly handled ' at Durham and did not escape with- 

 out danger,"^ whilst Sir Ralph Sadler was set on at Darlington and rescued 

 with difficulty."^ He, however, reported the bishopric quiet on the whole. 

 At the beginning of March the duke of Norfolk, despite the fact that the 

 bishopric had been omitted from his commission, tried and executed a batch of 

 prisoners."'" 



The period which intervened between the rising of 1536 and the 1569 

 rebellion is marked by the duke of Northumberland's bold but unsuccessful ' 

 attempt to possess himself of the Palatinate powers during the brief reign of 

 Edward VI.""" 



Northumberland's first step was to get rid of Tunstall. Accordingly 

 about July, 1550, he was charged by one Ninian Menville with having con- 

 sented to a conspiracy in the north for raising a rebellion. For some time 

 the charge languished for want of proof, but a so-called incriminating letter 

 being found among the duke of Somerset's papers at the end of 1551 Tunstall 

 was removed to the Tower. In March, 1552, a Bill for his deprivation was, 

 despite Cranmer's opposition, passed by the House of Lords, but fell through 

 in the Commons. The attempt to attaint Tunstall in Parliament having 

 failed, a commission was issued in September, 1552, to the Lord Chief 

 Justice and some others to try him. Being refused both counsel and time to 

 prepare his defence, Tunstall was on 1 1 October deprived of his bishopric. 

 Meanwhile Northumberland had written on 7 April, 1552, to Cecil, desiring 

 the grant of the Palatine jurisdiction of Durham,"^ and at the beginning 

 of 1553 obtained an Act of Parliament"'* dissolving the bishopric. On 

 21 May he was appointed steward of the revenues of the bishopric, but 

 the death of Edward VI on 6 July put an end to his designs. Upon the 

 accession of Mary Tunstall was promptly released, and in April, 1554, an 

 Act was passed for ' the repeal of two several Acts made in the seventh year 



'" L. and P. Hen. VIII, xi, 1 1 55. The others were Lord Lumley, Sir Thomas Tempest, Sir Thomas 

 Hilton, Sir William Eure, Mr. Franklyn, with twelve gentlemen. 



"* Ibrd. xii (l), 148. The men of Durham had taken their oath to the earl of Westmorland to 

 rise at no man's command except the king's. 



'*Mbid. xii (i), 50, 201. 



'** Ibid, xii (l), 259. On 5 Feb. Tempest writes to Norfolk that the country is out of order 

 owing to the absence of the bishop and the earl of Westmorland. 



'*'" Ibid, xii, 615, 478. The prisoners did not include any person of importance, and among them 

 were two cooks at the abbey. The only man of note who suffered (at Tyburn) was George Lumley, 

 only son of John, sixth Baron Lumley. He and his father took part in the October rising, but the latter 

 returned home after the pardon of Pomfret, whilst his son joined in Hallom's rebellion {Did. Nat. Biog. 

 sub nom. ' Lumley '). The only estate of importance forfeited by this rebellion was the manor of Thorpe Bul- 

 mer, belonging to Sir John Bulmer of Wyton in the county of York (Dur. Cursitor Rec. Dep. Keeper's 

 Rep.xYiv, 334). The bishop granted this estate to his nephew with the assent of the king, and thus 

 avoided raising the difficult question of his right to such forfeitures. 



'«>> See 'Eccl. Hist.' p. 33. 



"' S.P. Dom. Edw. VI, vol. xiv, No. 18. 



•5'^ Stat. 7 Edw. VI, No. i. 



164 



