A GODLY ROGUE: THE CAREER OF SIR JOHN FORSTER, AN ELIZABETHAN BORDER WARDEN* MAUREEN

M.

MEIKLE

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

Grasping and unscrupulous in his prime, slack and inefficient in his later years - a professed Puritan, but not a man of pure morals - Sir John Forster is not the most attractive figure among the statesmen who surrounded the throne of Elizabeth.

Historiographical comment on Sir John Forster has rarely been favourable as this viewpoint from the Edwardian era clearly demonstrates.! Sir John's infamous reputation has rarely been questioned for his manifold faults cannot be denied. It is, however, his evident repulsiveness that justifies further investigation as he was undoubtedly the most powerful man in Northumberland by the end of the fifteen-sixties, having usurped the traditional role of the Percy earls of Northumberland. Like so many powerful men of the early modern period his ascendancy was neither achieved nor maintained without some degree of corruption. The focus of his power was the office of Warden of the English Middle March which he held for thirty-five years, but he had been accumulating other offices and much property in the county since the fifteen-forties and therefore had financial resources to bolster his political power. Forster also relied on an extremely wide kin group in the county to lend support as and when it was required, not unlike a twentieth-century mafia godfather. Sir John seems to have remained in office for all these years through having the right Court patrons, but it is arguable that as a canny Borderer he both knew and understood the peculiar conditions of the Border better than any other Elizabethan. In religious matters his Puritanism appears to have distinguished him from most of the Northumbrian gentry, but it did not isolate him from his Catholic kinsmen. One of the few points that can be used to defend Forster was that throughout his long life a more caring side to his otherwise unattractive nature could occasionally surface if a friend or kinsman needed help. Sir John's roots were in the north Northumbrian gentry family of Forster of Adderstone. They were solid Percy squires in the later middle * I wish to thank Bernard Capp, Tony Goodman and Alison Wall for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. 1 T. Hodgkin, The Wardens of the Northern Marches (The Creighton Memorial Lecture, University of London, 1907 (1908)), p. 28.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

127

ages but, along with other local gentry, they took advantage of the fickle sixth Earl of Northumberland's demise to emerge as independent landed men by the fifteen-thirties.2 At this stage the Forsters were not amongst the leaders of the county community, yet by the fifteen-fifties they held a commanding lead over most of the other greater gentry families of the county. The Forsters had enjoyed an unequalled rise in power and influence from 1537 to 1557 when the Percies were non-resident and without title. The absence of the Percies was, however, not the sole cause of upward mobility for many of the local gentry. The use of direct Crown patronage was bolstered by the dissolution of the monasteries whilst the Anglo-Scottish warfare of the fifteen-forties and fifteen-fifties gave gentry families such as the Carnabies of Halton, Collingwoods of Eslington, Delavals of Seaton Delaval, Herons of Chipchase, Radcliffes of Dilston and the Swinburnes of Capheaton further opportunities for advancement. Sir John Forster was in fact a younger son of the Adderstone family, which makes his ascendancy more remarkable in a county that was so remote from the centre of power in sixteenth-century England. The other upwardly mobile gentlemen were nearly all the heads of households or their immediate heirs. He was born around 1515 as the second son of Sir Thomas Forster of Adderstone and his wife Dorothy Ogle, daughter of the fourth Lord Ogle. His father died in 1526 and his mother remarried Sir Thomas Gray of Horton in 1529. This appears as a rather banal gentry genealogy, but the evidence that Sir John had three brothers and at least six sisters, along with six stepsisters and a stepbrother from his mother's remarriage explains why he was related to most of the greater landed families of Northumberland. 3 Forster also had an extensive ancestry for his great-grandfather had sired no fewer than nineteen sons. Few of these sons were legitimate, but this never seemed to have bothered the Forsters. By the middle of the sixteenth century there were seven other Forster gentry branches at Bamburgh (Sir John's designation), Brunton, Fleetham Lucker, Newham, Overgrass and Tughall in Northumberland. 4 The Forsters' penchant for having mistresses and illegitimate children 2 M. M. Meikle, 'Lairds and Gentlemen: A Study of the Landed Families of the Eastern Anglo-Scottish Borders, circa 1540-1603' (unpub. Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh Univ. 1989), pp. 135-39 (hereafter Meikle, thesis). 3 The re-marriage of Sir John's mother has been missed by previous genealogists. A History of Northumberland, ed. E. Bateson et al. (1893-1940), I, 228 (hereafter NCR); Meikle, thesis, pp. 598-99,641. 4 J. Raine, The History and Antiquities of North Durham (1852), pp. 308-9 (hereafter Raine, North Durham).

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

128

SIR JOHN FORSTER

was well known, but was unexceptional in sixteenth-century landed society. Nevertheless their legitimate kindred were probably of more use in the long term. In the later years of the sixteenth century Forster's broad kinship was marvelled at and was even officially investigated by a sceptical Lord Burghley.5 Sir John was genuinely related to hundreds of people within the third degree of consanguinity, so a remark that 'there is no gentleman of worth in Northumberland not near kin or allied to Sir John Forster' was not an exaggeration. 6 He was therefore the best-connected knight in the county and this undoubtedly enhanced his power in his later years. It is not surprising that Sir John's first opportunity for advancement came through the marriage of his elder brother, Thomas Forster, to Florence Wharton, sister of the first Lord Wharton.·Wharton was himself a rising star of the new order of society in the North of England.7 Wharton's new-found surpremacy over the traditional northern magnate families was a product of direct Crown patronage and it was, in turn, Wharton's patronage towards Sir John that first brought him to the Crown's attention. Forster's rise to fame

Forster's first move upward through kinship connections was obviously fortuitous, but he must have been a typically ambitious younger son of gentry stock who felt cheated out of an inheritance by· the laws of primogeniture. Sir John was literate, yet nothing is known about his education. It was probably more military in approach than the relatively new humanistic style of education for he later admitted that he was 'not acuaynted with any lerned and rare frazes'.8 In 1541, as plain John Forster, he purchased the lands and tithes of the cell of Nostell Priory at Bamburgh.9 This was only a small beginning as Forster would later dominate the former monastic houses at Alnwick, Hulne and Hexham as well. He may well have procured the grant with the help of Wharton and probably borrowed some money from him to facilitate the purchase, for 5 B(ritish) L(ibrary), Cotton MSS, Caligula C III, fols 118-20; C(alendar of) B(order) P(apers), II, no. 168. 6 CBP, II, no. 209. 7 M. E. James, Change and Continuity in the Tudor North. The Rise of Thomas, first Lord Wharton, Borthwick Papers, 27 (1965). 8 CBP, I, no. 180. 9 P(ublic) R(ecord) O(ffice), Exchequer, Augmentation Office, E310/211107 fol. 55; Chancery, Patent Rolls, C66/1238 m. 6-7; Special Collections, Minister's Accounts, SC6 Hen, VIII 4579 m. 8; Borthwick (Institute of Historical Research), CP G620.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

129

although payment was due in three stages it still cost him £6419s. 3d. In 1546, as John Forster Esquire, he acquired further monastic land at Bamburgh costing £353 6s. 8d.10 His social ascent would therefore seem to have gone in step with his property accumulation. He was also married for the first time in the fifteen-forties to Jane Radcliffe of Dilston, the widow of his cousin Robert, fifth Lord Ogle. Marrying a kinsman's widow was a good option for an aspiring younger son as she presumably had a good jointure and may well have supported the 1546 land purchase. Forster first participated in Anglo-Scottish warfare during the fifteenforties, a time retrospectively known as the 'rough wooing', because of Henry the eighth's intention to marry Mary, Queen of Scots to his son Edward. 11 Sir John may have been in his brother Thomas's company to begin with, though he was credited with burning Goldielands in Selkirkshire during January 1544 and in 1545 was the captain of the garrison at Fenton in Northumberland. 12 An erroneous French report stated that Mr Forster had been killed at the battle of Ancrum Moor on 27 February 1545, but neither John nor Thomas were slain though they may have been wounded.13 By May 1549 Forster was still captain of 100 light horse at Fenton but he was now 'Sir' John, having been knighted during the intervening period for his valiant service on the Borders. 14 He moved his garrison to Coldingham in Berwickshire shortly after this for the final confrontation between English and French forces and thereafter settled back into Northumbrian life. In November 1550 he was pricked as sheriff of Northumberland and thus seems to have been accepted into the top echelon of the gentry community. 15 He certainly treated the office of sheriff with the same slackness as his high-ranking predecessors and successors as he was later fined for not submitting his accounts on time along with other previous incumbents. 16

PRO, E318/l0/450. M. H. Merriman, 'The Struggle for the marriage, of Mary, Queen of Scots: English and French intervention in Scotland, 1543-50' (unpub. Ph.D. thesis, London Univ. 1975). 12 L(etters and) P(apers), Henry VIII, XIX (2), no. 33; XXI (1), no. 1279. 13 LP, XX (1), nos. 1046, 1106. 14 Sir John was first recorded as a knight in May 1548. C(alendar of) P(atent) R(olls), 1547-48, p. 416; H(istorical) M(anuscripts) C(ommission), Rutland, I, 37, 46. 15 CPR, 1553, p. 348. 16 Slow accounting was a permanent problem in Northumberland. PRO, Exchequer, King's Remembrancer, E 199/33/59; Court of Wards and Liveries, WARD 9/442; Statutes, 2 & 3 Edward VI, c. 34; A(cts of the) P(rivy) C(ouncil), XXVI, 426; C(alendar of) S(tate) P(apers) For(eign), 1562, no. 1393; 1563, no. 1273. 10

11

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

130

SIR JOHN FORSTER

Forster's service during the 'rough wooing' had been noted by Sir Ralph Sadler, amongst others, and his continuing loyalty in the crossBorder skirmishes of the fifteen-fifties brought the rewards of further offices and land grants. For instance he was granted a patent for the keepership of Bamburgh Castle by Edward the sixth and took up this appointment in 1555 upon the death of the existing captain, Sir John Horsley.17 Considering his landholding in the vicinity, this office must have been much prized by Sir John. He jealously guarded his acquisition by immediately falling into a confrontation over the tithes with his predecessor's constable, John Horsley of Outchester.18 Bamburgh, however, was not to be his power base for long as he purchased Alnwick Abbey in 1557 from Sir Ralph Sadler, who he now regarded as a close friend. Sadler had only acquired the monastery in 1550, but Sir John would own it for the rest of his life and proudly ended most of his subsequent correspondence 'from my house nigh Alnwick' .19Forster was reported for neglecting his post at Bamburgh in March 1558, but this may just have been a ruse to unseat him by the new Earl of Northumberland. 20 Thomas Percy, a brother of the deceased sixth Earl of Northumberland, had been restored to his family's lands and title by Mary Tudor on 1 May 1557. He was additionally granted the Wardenship of both the East and Middle Marches on 18 January 1558 as these offices had often been .. held by his ancestors. The new Earl may not, at first, have realized the extent to which the Forsters and their allies had usurped the traditional role of his family in Northumberland21 for he somewhat ironically praised Forster for his notable duties on the Border in a letter to the Earl of Shrewsbury dated November 1557.22 The Earl soon realized his mistake and planned his revenge, but there was much Anglo-Scottish tension at this time and Forster was heavily involved in the forays against the Scots. Forster had been acting as a deputy Warden of the Middle March since 155623 and his fifteen-forties bravado had clearly been remembered by the Privy Council, for in February 1558 they asked the Earls of Northumberland and Westmorland not to upset him by investigating a local APC, v, 133; CPR, 1572-75, p. 316. Borthwick, CP G620. 19 CPR, 1549-51, p. 270; HMC, Talbot, p. 22; The State Papers of Sir Ralph Sadler, ed. A. Clifford (Edinburgh, 1809), II, 18 (hereafter Sadler Papers). 20 C(alendar of) S(tate) P(apers) D(omestic) Add(enda), 1547-65, p. 471. 21 M. E. James first highlighted the Forsters' triumph over the Percies in Estate Accounts of the Earls of Northumberland, 1562-1637, Surtees Society, CLXIII (1948), xiv-xxiii. 22 HMC, Talbot, pp. 59-60, 78. 23 APC, v, 263. 17

18

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

131

bloodfeud in which his kinsmen were involved. Sir John was, in their opinion, 'a man of great servyce on the Borders' and 'he might be discharged or conceive his servyce to be defaced' by the enquiry. 24 Forster continued to be praised for his valour throughout 1558, but this did not stop the Earl from dismissing him as a deputy Warden.25 His younger brother, Rowland, also fell victim to the Earl's wrath as he was similarly dismissed from his captaincy of Wark-on- Tweed Castle.26 In fact few of the Forsters escaped the Earl's vengeance, yet it was only Sir John's sister, Lady Carnaby, who fought back by refusing to move out of Hexham Abbey to placate the Earl's brother-in-law and new keeper of Tynedale, Francis Slingsby. 27 Forster chose not to retaliate because he knew that the Earl's supposedly triumphal return to his northern heritage was really a sham, as he had totally failed to rally the support of his tenants in the barony of Alnwick. 28 Removing Sir John and his brother from office was a petty and stupid manoeuvre considering the contemporary Anglo-Scottish tension. The Forsters knew far more about Border warfare than the Earl, and their faction was far too strong to be erased by these dismissals. The death of the Queen in November 1558 took Northumberland's best source of patronage away from him, and in the end it was the Earl who had to hastily retreat from the Borders, not Sir John. The Forsters' allies attacked the Earl's ignorance of Border conditions by reporting to the new Queen that 'the estate of Northumberland so standeth at this presente that none can convenentlie occupie the office of the warden, but suche one as is naturallie planted in the countrie' .29 Sir John was careful not to be seen publicly annoying the Earl whilst he remained in the Borders, so he refused to assist Sir James Croft, a Border commissioner, in August 1559. Croft noted that Sir John was 'a very wise man, but because the EarlofNorthumberland is not his friend, he will not do anything for fear of his displeasure'. 30 However soon after this Forster 24 Forster was not directly involved with this feud, but many of his' kinsmen were. Lambeth Palace MSS, 3195, fol. 6; APC, VI, 270-71; Meikle, thesis, pp. 380-86; Meikle, 'Northumberland Divided: anatomy of a sixteenth-century bloodfeud', Archaeologia Aeliana, forthcoming. 25 APC, VI, 338, 396. 26 CSPD Add, 1547-65, p. 463. 27 NCR, IV, 247-49. 28 Meikle, thesis, pp. 138-41. 29 PRO, State Paper Office; State Papers Borders, SP 59/1 fol. 50. 30 CSP For, 1558-59, no. 1128; C(alendar of) S(tate) P(apers relating to) S(cotland), I, nO.514.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

132

SIR JOHN FORSTER

was acting as a deputy Warden in the Middle March under the direction of his ally Sir Ralph Sadler, who had been the Earl's deputy in spite of his evident loathing for the Percies.31 Sadler was firmly in the Forster camp and even had two horses called Grey Forster and Bay Forster. 32The Earl sensed that he had lost the battle and resigned from his offices before he could be dismissed in November 1559.33 Elizabeth appointed the Earl's uncle by marriage, Lord Grey de Wilton, to replace him in both the East and Middle Marches,34 but Forster remained as deputy Warden in the Middle March and probably was the real power there as Grey concentrated on the East March. Forster now courted new patronage from the Duke of Norfolk, who was the Queen's Lieutenant in the North during 1559-60. He helped Norfolk in his campaign against the Scots, but would have utilized Norfolk's links with his kinsmen, the Grays of Chillingham, as well.35 It was therefore not surprising that Forster was strongly recommended by the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Grey, Sir James Croft and Sadler, for the outright Wardenship of the Middle March. 36He was duly appointed in November 1560, but had been Warden in all but name before this.37 Forster was even recommended by the Scottish lairds of Cessford, Ferniehirst and Hunthill as they respected his leadership qualities. 38 Under Sadler's wardenship Forster had been paid 13s.4d. a day as deputy, which was far more than the usual allowance of £10 per annum and probably reflects the degree of responsibility held by him.39 Sir John noted that 'this country requires a very speedy reformation', no doubt owing to the Earl's negligence. The same observation would later be made about his own incumbency, but he seems to have been a conscientious officer at this time. He determined to help those who had helped him into office, so it is not coincidental that his brother-in-law, George Heron of Chipchase, was made keeper of Tynedale.40 Forster also felt obliged to warn Sadler about a pressing problem 'Sir, for your wyne,

31 32 33 34

CSP For, 1559-60, nos 218,302,303,349; Sadler Papers, 1,559,616; CSP For, 1559-60, no. 1272; Sadler Papers, I, 21. CSP For, 1559-60. nos 187, 274. CPR, 1558-60, p. 348.

II,

11.

PRO, Inquisitions Post Mortem, C142/141/31. CSP For, 1558-59, nos 1128, 1409; 1559-60, no. 933; Sadler Papers, I, 470-73. 37 CSP For, 1559-60, no. 722; 1560-61, no. 653; HMC, Salisbury, 1,199-200. 38 CSP For, 1559-60, no. 761. 39 CPR, 1558-60, p. 411; CSP For, 1559-60, no. 347; Sadler Papers, II, 11. 40 Henn was an anti-Percy ally as well as a kinsman by marriage. CSP For, 1559-60, no. 426; Sadler Papers, I, 590. 35

36

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

133

unles the wether mend, there is no carriges can passe, so that for want thereof you must be content to drenke beare' .41 With the Earl of Northumberland out of his way Forster's ascendancy. continued without impediment. A pay rise from 13s. 4d. a day to £300 per annum came with the official patent of office and he had additional allowances for two deputies and two warden serjeants. 42 Although much of this salary was needed for official duties it was still far more than the average Northumbrian gentleman earned in a year and it allowed him a higher standard of living than most of them as a consequence.43 Forster was able to officially augment his Warden's salary by seizing the goods of men accused of March treason and by levying fines in his warden court. Unofficially he could supplement his income by leasing Crown land around Border strongholds such as Harbottle. 44 It would be impossible to give an accurate estimate of Forster's annual income as his salary was frequently in arrears and the bulk of his income would have come from his lands.45 As a Warden of an English Border March Forster broke with tradition as no local gentleman had ever been appointed to this office before. His contemporary in the West March, Lord Scrope, was a native Borderer but he was a member of the nobility. Local gentry had been deputy Wardens before but they had probably assumed that the office of Warden was unobtainable, until Forster's appointment. Once Forster had the wardenship other offices quickly followed such as justice of the peace from 1562 until 1601, councillor of the North, custos rotulorum, Border commissioner and a variety of other commissions for the Exchequer, Chancery, the Crown or the Church.46 In fact, the only significant Sadler Papers, I, 590. CBP, II, no. 122; CPR, 1558-60, p. 411. 43 Meikle, thesis, pp. 252-54. 44 In 1594 Henry Leigh estimated that Forster's profits from the keepership of Redesdale were 500 marks p.a., but this was almost certainly an exaggeration as Leigh wanted more money for himself. HMC, Salisbury, v, 65-66. S. J. Watts, From Border to Middle Shire: Northumberland 1586-1625 (Leicester, 1975), p. 34, estimates that Forster's profits were £1,000 p.a., but this figure cannot be substantiated. For the laws of the Border see ~eges Marchiarum or Border Laws, ed. W. Nicholson (1747). 45 CSP For, 1561-62, no. 347; 1563, no. 996. 46 PRO, Patent Rolls, C66/1421 m.11; /1468 m.11, 26; /1549; Inquisitions Post Mortem, C 142/158/19; /186/47; /208/190; Exchequer, King's Remembrancer, E 163/14/8; E 178/1722; SP59/5 fol. 5; APC, VII, 284, 324; XXIII, 259; CBP, II, nos 194,1539; CPR, 1560-63, pp. 187, 441; 1563-66, pp.124, 254; 1575-78, p.387; C(alendar of) S(tate) P(apers) D(omestic), 1547-80, p.229; CSPD Add, 1566-79, pp.529-30, 541; 1580-1625, p.342; CSP For, 1560-61, no. 906; 1561-62, no. 83; 1563, nos 1103, 1104; CSP Scot, II, nos 20, 21, 31, 41,86, 328; IX, no. 436. 41

42

134

SIR JOHN FORSTER

position to elude Forster was that of member of parliament for Northumberland, but like the majority of local gentry he may well have been uninterested in parliamentary affairs. His thirty-five years as Warden of the Middle March were not exceptional by Elizabethan standards. Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon, was Warden of the East March from 1568 to 1596 and Lord Scrope held the West March wardenship from 1563 to 1592.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

Family and religion

Sir John's duties were not confined to the Borders as he was sent into Scotland with various English ambassadors in 1564, 1565, 1569, 1571, 1572 and 1591. 47 In 1564 Forster took his troublesome brother Rowland with him, in spite of the embarrassment he had previously caused him. Rowland's dismissal from Wark in 1558 may well have been unfounded as he was pardoned in 1559 and later received a lease of the tithes of Carham as a reward for Border service.48 However, he later caused friction between his mother and stepfather and was cited for many misdemeanours at Wark.49 The list included absenteeism, unofficial raiding into Scotland, winking at forgers, beating up his own soldiers and letting Wark Castle be 'used more like a farm than a house of strength'. 50 These allegations were bad enough, but Rowland had also let a traditional 'Lord of May' game between the men of Wark and nearby Cornhill get totally out of hand in 1562. He had allowed the game to commence before the watch had been dismissed, but his men managed to capture the 'lord' of Cornhill and kept him in the castle overnight. Next morning the Cornhill team entered Wark through a breach in the wall to reclaim their lord. Unfortunately, the horsemen of neighbouring Learmouth mistook them for marauding Scots and a fracas ensued. Rowland denied all knowledge of the incident, but as captain of the Wark garrison he had to take the blame and was subsequently warded for showing the Scots how easy it was to invade the castle.51 Sir John had to appeal to the Earl of Rutland for Rowland's release upon bond to appear before the Council in the North, and he seems to have been successful, as Rowland was pardoned and sent back to Wark.52 When Rowland died of the plague in 1570, Sir John must have been relieved as well as saddened. 53 CSP Scot, XIII (2), no. 890. PRO, E310/21/109, fols 1, 3; 121/111, fols 24, 26; CSPD Add, 1547-65, p. 463; CPR, 1558-60, p. 745. 49 CSP For, 1562, no. 289. 50 CSPD Add, 1566-79, p. 182; HMC, Rutland, I, 80-81. 51 CSP For, 1562, nos. 250,275; HMC, Rutland, I, 80-81. 52 PRO, SP59/6, fols 87-88. 53 CSP For, 1569-71, no. 1230. 47 48

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

135

Forster's first decade as Warden witnessed a change in his patrons away from the now absent Sadler, Norfolk and Wharton towards the second Earl of Bedford, who was the Warden of the East March from 1563 to 1567. This proved to be a religiously stimulating alliance as Forster seems to have moved towards Puritanism at this time. Forster knew in the fifteen-sixties that an adherence to Protestantism would enhance his career, though most of his kinsmen remained Catholic. Bedford was a known Puritan and he must have nurtured Sir John's genuine interest in ultra- Protestantism. Their amity was mutually beneficial as Bedford needed the support of Forster's kinsmen and allies to administer the East March.54 Forster's greatest coup came from this relationship as he married his daughter, Juliana, to the Earl's third son Sir Francis Russell in July 1571. Russell remained in the Borders, serving under Sir John, until his untimely death in,1585. By a quirk of fate Russell's son (and Forster's grandson) became the third Earl of Bedford, as the second Earl and Sir Francis died within hours of one another and Russell's two elder brothers had predeceased him. 55 Forster, in his later years, was exceptionally proud of being the Earl's grandfather. The first indication that Forster had taken on some zeal for religion was in November 1559, when he asked God to keep Sir Ralph Sadler 'in his most blessed keppinge'. 56 At the age of forty-four, Forster could hardly be said to be at an impressionable age for religious fervour, but his religious conviction seems to have been genuine. In 1564 he had to declare the religion and aptitude of men thought suitable to serve on the county's commission of the peace. His kinsmen were naturally well suited as Forster deliberately overlooked their Catholicism, but his hatred for a Percy ally, Sir Ralph Ellerker, led him to be listed as 'verie papist and all to gether unlerned'. 57 Forster maintained his Puritan contatts throughout his life and even managed to impress some very distinguished exiled Scottish presbyterian ministers in 1585, when they stayed with him at Alnwick.58 During dinner Forster apparently59 began bathe to glorifie God in recompting what he had wrought already, and to prophesie concerning the stay of foull wather and of the pestilence whowsone all CSP For, 1564-65, nos 572,955, 1161, 1195; 1566-68, nos 15,16,575, 727, 1274. G. E. Cokayne, The Complete Peerage, II (1910-59), 76-77. 56 Sadler Papers, I, 589-90. 57 Hatfield House (Marquess of Salisbury), MSS, CP 235/68. 58 G. Donaldson, 'Scottish Presbyterian Exiles in England, 1584-88', Records of the Scottish Church History Society, XIV (1960-62),67-80. 59 The Autobiography and Diary of Mr James Melvill, 1556-1601, Wodrow Society, I (1842),227. 54

55

136

SIR JOHN FORSTER

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

the ministers of God war brought ham againe, as indeid it was marked and found within a monethe, that we war estonished to heir the mouthe of a wardlie civill man sa opened to speak out the wounderfull warkes and prases of God, wrought for us

Sir John's will of 1601leaves little doubt of his godly zeal as he asked 'God to call me out of this perplexed state of lyffe unto the Mount Sian to the citie of the living God, the celestial Jerusalem, to the Assemblie and Congregation of the first borne'. 60 Forster's religious zeal did not apparently extend to public works, for although he was the lay rector of the parish churches of Alnmouth, Lesbury, Longhoughton, Lucker, Shilbottle and Warkworth he singularly failed in his obligation to repair their chancels.61 Forster was not alone in this oversight as many of the local gentry conveniently forgot to repair their church choirs as well, but Forster was by comparison the worst offender. 62 Forster may have appeared as a godly man in public, but he was more of a Don Juan in private. His personal life was anything but godly or moral, though it was not untypical of his ancestors, nor of his fellow Puritan, the first Earl of Leicester. The respectability of his first marriage faded as he took different mistresses whilst his wife was still alive. 63 It is difficult to determine exactly how many illegitimate children Forster had, but three sons and two daughters can be traced.64 The best known of these children was Nicholas, who was treated as his son and heir by the entire gentry community although his mother was Janet Buickes. His baptism in 1553, at Lucker Chapel, had been an elaborate affair with illustrious greater gentry godparents present. Nicholas held offices under his father such as deputy Warden of the Middle March and frequently accompanied him on his official duties. He was knighted in 1603, but was latterly called Sir John's 'Bastard sonne' when the church courts at Durham refused to legitimize him in 1596. His father had always been reluctant to use this harsh phraseology. Contrary to law Nicholas had been allowed to take his father's name, rather than his mother's, which 60 Department of Paleography and Diplomatic, University of Durham, D(urham) P(robate) R(ecords) W(ills), 1602. Sir John's inventory is now missing, but can be seen in NCH, I, 158-59. His descendants were noted as being gross libertines in matters of religion. Miscellanea, ed. C. Talbot, Catholic Record Society, LIII (1960), 152. 61 R. Phillimore, The Ecclesiastical Law (1873), 11,1777. 62 D(urham) D(iocesan) R(ecords), Visitation Books, II, 4, fols 27,33,86,87,90,105; II, 5, fols 11, 13, 14. 63 Jane Radcliffe was still living in 1559, but she died in the fifteen-sixties. CSP For, 1559-60, no. 426. 64 PRO, Court of Common Pleas, Feet of Fines, CP 25/2/192, MICH/34 & 35 Eliz.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

137

surely indicated the affection bestowed upon him by his father. Sadly, the fact that his parents had never married crippled his right to a full inheritance and left him merely as a co-heir to his father's estates, but this was more than most illegitimate children could expect in early modern England.65 It was therefore fortunate that Nicholas married an heiress. Mary Sheppard was luckier than Nicholas for although she was born out of wedlock in the fifteen-eighties, Sir John did marry her mother in 1597.66 This meant that by 1599 when she married Henry Stapleton of Wighill in Yorkshire she was Mary Forster by right. Forster's second wife and erstwhile mistress, Isabel Sheppard, was more persuasive than poor Mistress Quickly in Shakespeare's Henry IV part two for she managed to get her Sir John to the altar. Nevertheless she must have been patient as Sir John was fronting mortgages through her in 1589 and bought lands for her from 1592 to 1594, yet he did not marry her until 1597.67 Forster's decision finally to marry a mistress paid an immediate dividend as Isabel was credited with saving his life in October 1597. When some Scottish reivers came to settle an old score with Forster at Bamburgh 'by good happ being espyed coming up the staires, his lady gott the chamber doore put to and bolted' .68 Queen Elizabeth's Middle-March Warden This incident occurred towards the end of Forster's life when he had been forcibly retired from his greatest source of power, namely the Wardenship of the Middle March. His fall from grace precipitated retaliation from various criminal elements in Border society. This had not been a problem back in the fifteen-sixties when he was new to the post. There is little evidence to suggest that Forster was not a dutiful Warden during this decade. He even managed to subdue his hatred for the Percies and their allies to commend their Border service. Forster dispensed better justice than the Earl of Bedford, which seems to vindicate the earlier opinion that a Warden should ideally be a native Borderer. He gladly rode against known thieves, outlaws and fugitives in Scotland as well,69 but his enemies were never far away, and he was accused of 65 DDR, Consistory Court Act Books, III, 5 (unfoliated, 9 July 1596); DPRW, 1602, 1614 (1); N(orthumberland) R(ecord) O(ffice), Blackett-Ord (Whitfield) MSS, 324W/3/1. 66 Calendar of the Laing Charters, ed. J. Anderson (Edinburgh 1899), no. 1194 (hereafter

Laing Charters). 67 PRO, CP25/2/192, MICH/34 & 35 Eliz. MICH/35 & 36 Eliz. MICH/36 & 37 Eliz. TRIN/37 Eliz; Laing Charters, no. 1194. 68 PRO, CP25/2/192, TRIN/39 Eliz; CBP, II, no. 815. 69 CSP For, 1566-68, nos 1715,1771.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

138

SIR JOHN FORSTER

negligence in 1568 by the Percy supporters.70 The Borders were somewhat out of order at the time, yet Forster was not ashamed to admit this when he was at Court.71 Those who criticized Sir John often had absolutely no idea of how tricky the Border could be. Lord Hunsdon, for example, accused Forster of not gaining full redress from the Scottish Middle March when he was new to his post in the East March. However, Hunsdon quickly put his arrogance aside when he realized the true situation and was glad to have Forster's assistance. 72 Sir John was blamed for being both over-zealous and negligent at the same time, so he could not possibly hope to satisfy all his critics. He had executed six reivers in 1567 with no recriminations, yet in 1568 the execution of a thief that Forster had found guilty of March treason was somehow unacceptable.73 Forster could have done without all this sniping at his Border service, for one of his servants was cruelly murdered in November 1568 'for no quarrel but for his true service to the Queen'. 74 Occasionally Forster's duties were pleasurable such as his escorting of Mary, Queen of Scots to view the Berwick-upon-Tweed fortifications in 1566.75 Sir John was deputizing for the absent Lord Hunsdon, but there are conflicting accounts of what actually happened. John Knox recounts how Mary and her retinue were met at the bound road by Forster and 'fourscore horses bravely arrayed to do her honour' . 76 He then escorted her to Halidon Hill, this being the best local vantage point from which to witness the entire ordnance of the garrison being fired especially for Mary. Forster then accompanied the Queen back to the Scottish town of Eyemouth.77 These seem credible accounts, yet Sir James Melville remembered Sir John's horse rearing up in front of the Queen78 to take the Quenis horse be the nek with his teeth, but his forder feet hurt hir Maiesties thy very cruell. Incontinent the warden leichted aff his horse, and sat Ibid., 1566-68, nos 2496,2497,2560; CSP Scot, II, no. 821. CSP For, 1566-68, nos 1879, 1938,2151. 72 Ibid., no. 2458. 73 Ibid., nos 917, 1776, 1897,2307,2498,2521. 74 HMC, Salisbury, I, 373. 75 Ibid., v, 192. 76 John Knox's History of the Reformation in Scotland, ed. W. C. Dickinson (Edinburgh 1949), II, 191-92. 77 R. Keith, The History of the Affairs of Church and State in Scotland, Spottiswoode Society (1845), II, 469-70. A similar volley was fired in 1588 and 1603 for James VI. CSP Scot, IX, no. 455; T. Middleton, A True Narration of the Entertainment of his Royall Maiestie, from the time of his departure from Edenbrough (1603). 78 J. Melville of Halhill, Memoirs of his own life, 1549-93, Bannantyne Club, XVIII (1827), 173. 70

71

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

139

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

down upon his knees, craving pardone at hir grace for then all England bure hir Maiestie gret reverence. Hir maiestie maid him to ryse and said that sche was not hurt.

Whether Forster did commit this awful faux pas remains questionable as no one else remembered the incident and if it did happen it was quickly forgotten. Forster was to be remembered for other events. At the end of the fifteen-sixties Forster enjoyed his finest hour on the Borders with the crushing of the Rebellion of the Northern Earls. 79 The rewards for his loyalty to the Crown during the revolt were immense, but profit was not his foremost concern.· Forster was unquestionably loyal to Elizabeth throughout his Wardenship, but he must have relished the chance to score against his old rival, the Earl of Northumberland. In December 1569 Lord Hunsdon's famous, though erroneous, quip that 'throughout Northumberland they know no other prince but a Percy' was really a desperate plea for more military aid at the height of the rebellion.80 It would have been more accurate to report that the county knew no prince but Sir John Forster. The Earl of Sussex, who was sent north to take reprisals against the rebels hiding in Scotland, noted that Sir John was 'possessing all in Northumberland'. 81 On 13 November 1569 the Council in the North asked Forster to levy a force, as they knew trouble was pending.82 Forster pleaded for extra resources saying 'I have served long in this office, but never knew the country in such peril of disorder'. He set a proclamation on the gates of Alnwick and Warkworth castles on 18 November ordering the Earl of Northumberland's men to disperse and refrain from any assembly there. The castles surrendered with surprising ease, but the Earl's men showed their contempt for Sir John by refusing to muster at Morpeth with the other gentlemen of Northumberland. 83 The situation remained tense as the Earls entered the county on 17 December and made for Hexham.84 Forster could not stop them reaching Hexham, but when they tried to 79 For a more detailed account of this rebellion see M. E. James, 'The Concept of Order and the Northern Rising' , Past and Present, 60, 49-83; D. Marcombe, 'A Rude and Heady People: the local community and the rebellion of the northern earls', The Last Principality, ed. D. Marcombe (Nottingham 1987), pp.118-51; S. E. Taylor, 'The Crown and the North of England, 1559-70: a study of the rebellion of the Northern earls, 1569-70, and its causes' (unpub. Ph.D. thesis, Manchester Univ. 1981). 80 CSP For, 1569-71, no. 568. 81 CSPD Add, 1566-79, p. 325. 82 CSPD Add, 1566-79, p. 104. 83 Ibid., pp. 118-19, 125-26. 84 Ibid., p. 154.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

140

SIR JOHN FORSTER

move north towards Alnwick the rebels 'were so impeached with hot pricking and skirmishing by his company that they retired back to Hexham' .8S The Earls then fled into Scotland closely followed by Forster and 800 of his horsemen. The Earl of Sussex was suitably impressed by Forster's heroics, as was his old friend Sir Ralph Sadler. Sadler must surely now have felt vindication for backing Forster against the Percies in the fifteen-fifties. The days of overmighty magnates were clearly over, yet without Forster's intervention the rebels could have held out for longer. Forster did not sit back from events after the Earl's flight, as he keenly awaited news of them from his informants in Scotland.86 He also kept a close watch on the English West March as the rebellion would rekindle there on 18 February 1570.87 This time Forster did not spearhead the Crown's retribution, though he did work alongside his warden colleague Lord Hunsdon and was reported as having 'acted very valiantly'. They had been heavily outnumbered, but had won because of their superior military skills. 88 The Queen officially thanked Forster for crushing both risings, but he received far more than a royal letter . His financial gains were envied by Sussex, who moaned that 'neither I nor mine have received a groat'. 89 During the rebellion Forster had been given over £1,000 for necessary officers, horsemen and even a trumpeter. 90 There was probably no real profit in this for Sir John, however the inevitable forfeiture of his long-standing enemy, the Earl of Northumberland, greatly enhanced his wealth. Forster appointed his son Nicholas as the new constable of Alnwick Castle91 and proceeded to strip the building to furnish his own house at nearby Alnwick Abbey. The earl had removed his best stuff when he left the place in 1559, which was fortunate as Sir John would no doubt have helped himself to it as well.92 The items. taken by Forster as spoils of war were meticulously inventoried by a Percy servant. They included 600 pairs of hewn stone, 160 joists, 180 panels, copper pans, Ibid., Ibid., 87 Ibid., 88 Ibid.,

pp. 156-60. pp. 104, 164-66, 186, 190. pp. 219, 230, 236, 237, 241-42. p. 246; CSP Scot, III, 110. 134. 89 CSPD Add, 1566-79, p. 325. 90 Sadler Papers, II, 166. 91 PRO, E 164/37 fol. 11l. 92 CSP For, 1559-60, no. 722; G. R. Batho, 'The Percies and Alnwick Castle, 1557-1632', Archaelogia Aeliana, 4th ser. xxxv (1957), 48-63 (hereafter Batho, Arch. Ael. 4th ser. xxxv). 85

86

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

141

wainscot and two cupboards subsequently given to Sir Francis Russell as a wedding present. The stolen joists made a portal for the abbey's gallery and some beds. The panels were used for decoration and to make doors for Sir John's slaughter house. Some of the appropriated wainscot was made into a garret, but the ultimate insult to the Earl was to use two laundry doors to build a dog kennel. Forster also helped himself to lead, glass, iron and some pipes from Hulne Priory, which was leased to a Percy follower. 93Forster was not content with just pillaging the Earl's property. He took the Warkworth and Morpeth properties of another rebel, Thomas Bates of Morpeth, whilst he was confined in the Tower of London. Bates had been a steward to the Earl, and Forster must have assumed that his forfeiture was imminent. However, the hapless Bates was pardoned, and he found Forster most reluctant to return his property. 94 The seventh, eighth and ninth Earls of Northumberland all had longrunning disputes with Sir John over leases, timber, stone quarries, cattle and property boundaries. George Clarkson, one of the Earl's keepers of Hulne Park conducted a survey of the barony of Alnwick in 1567 and never lost an opportunity to spice the report with attacks on Forster's ascendancy.95 The tension between the Earl's men and Forster's servants actually led to a riot on 5 November 1574.96 Sir John had been an aggressive landowner in the vicinity of Alnwick from his first acquisition, probably because of his hatred for the Percies. On that occasion in 1557 Sir Robert Ellerker and Forster argued over a mill,97 but in 1570 the situation was far more serious. The ferocity of Sir John's plundering was noted by his friends as well as his enemies. Lord Hunsdon wrote that 'he takes rule of all. It is a pity to see how Alnwick castle and Warkworth are spoiled by him and his'. Hunsdon also reckoned that98 it was a happy rebellion to him, for besides that he is the better by 5001.a year, it was worth in spoils 3,0001or 4,0001to him. I in no way envy his greatnes, and have

93 Syon MSS (Duke of Northumberland), NII/6/1, m and p; CSPD Add, 1566-79, pp.393-94. 94 PRO, Court of Requests, Proceedings, REQ2/178/25. 95 Alnwick MSS (Duke of Northumberland), AI/l/a to q. 96 Ibid., AI/lIf, DI/l/fol. 20; PRO, Court of Star Chamber, Elizabeth, STAC5 N6/21; APC, XIII, 216-17; Meikle, thesis, p. 719. 97 Syon MSS, NII/6/1; HMC, Talbot, p. 22. In 1595 there was a similar dispute between Forster and the Percies concerning a mill at Alnwick. James, Northumberland Estate Accounts, p. 3, xliii. 98 CSPD Add, 1566-79, pp. 393-94.

142

SIR JOHN FORSTER

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

no cause of displeasure towards him, but that I see that no man, howsoever oppressed, dares complain.

It would be impossible to tell if Hunsdon's figures are accurate, but an investigation of Sir John's property accumulation reveals much. In the fifteen-sixties he had begun to consolidate his property with the acquisition of Spindelston manor, the Bamburgh coal pits, various parcels of previously concealed land in Alnwick and the tithes of Alnwick and Hexham.99 The entry fines for these properties were low and the terms of the leases were lengthy as Elizabeth recogni~ed Forster's loyal service and hoped that he would keep the same tenants in the lands. He also procured a third of the wardship of the vast Gray of Chillingham estates, during the minority of his stepnephew Thomas Gray. 100After the Northern Rebellion Forster amassed more concealed lands at Hexham, Alnwick and Corbridgel01 and some of the lands of forfeited rebels such as Stifford (the Earl of Westmorland), Lesbury, Lucker and Rulne Priory (the Earl of Northumberland) and parts of Hexham and Bywell (John Swinburne of Capheaton).102 He added to this a third of Eglingham rectory, then Middleton Hall which he purchased from Vincent Rutherford for £180 and through a lapsed mortgage he acquired the Allendale tithes and Bamburgh Friary. 103This was not enough to satisfy Sir John's insatiable appetite for Northumbrian property as he also began to purchase Hexham Abbey from the three daughters and co-heirs of the deceased Sir Reginald Carnaby as well. Happily these ladies were his nieces, being the daughters of his widowed sister Dorothy. 104In the fifteen-eighties Sir John continued to enlarge his estates by adding two-thirds of the manor of Belford, Spindelston manor, 240 acres in Easington, grazing in the Cheviots and yet more monastic leases. lOSThe manor of Elwick and the Beadnell fisheries followed in the fifteen-

99 Alnwick MSS, AI/1/a; PRO, E310121/111 fol. 6; /21/112 fols 11, 12, 25, 40; /21/113 fol. 40; E 164/37; CPR, 1560-63, pp. 481-82; 1566-69, pp. 250-52, 293,398. 100 PRO, Court of Wards and Liveries, WARD 9/641 fols 8, II. 101 PRO, E318/43/2346. 102 PRO, C66/1244 ffi. 20-21; /1413 ffi. 36-38; E310/21/111 fol. 8; E367/978. 103 DPRW, 1572 (Widdrington of the Friars); NRO, Delaval MSS, Waterford Charters, no. 94; PRO, CP25/2/192, HIL/10 Eliz; MICH/16 & 17 Eliz; E310/21/107, fol. 42; NCH, IV, 83. 104 CPR, 1572-75, pp. 288, 389; NCH, IV, 56-57; x, 408. 105 PRO, C66/1329 ffi. 24: CP25/2/192, HIL/24 Eliz. MICH/26 &27 Eliz; Laing Charters, no. 1194.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

143

nineties, 106 but he mostly renewed leases in this decade107 and fought off challenges to his various tithes and his fishings on the river Tweed. 108 Sir John's greed was probably no worse than that of many other successful Elizabethans, but in a poor county like Northumberland he did appear to be monopolizing mos~ of the available wealth. His greatest victory was probably not financial, however, as it was Forster's duty to escort his one-time adversary, the seventh Earl of Northumberland, to his execution at York in July 1572. Lord Hunsdon had refused this job and recommended Forster in his place, perhaps as he could not bear to witness the execution of a fellow nobleman. Sir John had no such reservations. 109 Forster's anti-Percy stance did not weaken at this point as he turned instead on the Earl's brother, Sir Henry Percy, the keeper of Tynemouth Castle.110 Forster wanted the keepership for his son-in-law Sir Francis Russell so he lost no time in reporting slackness during Sir Henry's tenure of the office. This was akin to retribution for the reports that Forster had not kept Bamburgh properly in 1558.111 As Forster was still very much in favour Sir Francis was successful, but he was also a deputy Warden in the Middle March by this time.112 Forster's feud against the Percies was not ended when Sir Henry was ordered to remain in the south of England. They merely shifted their battles to the law courts. The Court of Common Pleas found in favour of Percy in 1576 and ordered Forster to pay him £16 6s. but this did not allow for the strength of Forster's kin. The current sheriff of Northumberland was Sir Thomas Gray of Chillingham, Forster's stepnephew. Much to Percy's chagrin, the sheriff answered that he could not levy the award as Sir John did not have sufficient goods, which of course was nonsense considering that Forster was known to be 'a rich Borderer'. Percy then went to the Court of Star Chamber and probably spent far more than £16 6s. in legal fees just to score points against the roguish Sir John. Sir John continued his battle against the Percies until the fifteen-nineties. 113 PRO, CP25/2/192, MICH/36 &37 Eliz; SC6 Eliz. I/1694. PRO, C66/1389 m. 22-24; /1413 m. 36-38; E310/211109. 108 APC, XXIX, 24; CSPD Add, 1580-1625, p. 368. 109 CSPD Add, 1566-79, pp. 417, 424. 110 Sir Henry Percy was fined 5,000 marks and ordered to live in the south of England. His son, the 9th Earl, never visited the North. APC, VIII, 51; CSPD Add, 1566-79, pp. 369, 374, 394; Batho, Arch. Ael. 4th ser. XXXV, 48-63. 111 CSDP Add, 1547-65, p. 471. 112 Ibid., 1580-1625, p.143. 113 PRO, STAC 5 N6/21; CSP For, 1575-77, no. 309. There were more court battles between Forster and the Earls in 1583 and 1591. James, Northumberland Estate Accounts, pp. 78,115. 106 107

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

144

SIR JOHN FORSTER

As far as Border administration was concerned the fifteen-seventies were dominated by an incident known as the Redeswire Fray of July 1575. It was an eventful summer for Forster as one of his servants killed a man in his house, apparently in self-defence, but was quickly pardoned probably through Forster's influence. 114Forster was also entrusted with the temporary governorship of the Berwick garrison during one of Hunsdon's many absences, 115but his reputation for good government on the Borders was tarnished by Redeswire. Sir John had seriously miscalculated Scottish reaction to what should have been routine negotiations at a Border Wardens' meeting; usually called a day of truce. His brother-inlaw and long-standing keeper of Tynedale and Redesdale, Sir George Heron of Chipchase, was killed. Sir Francis Russell was wounded and Forster was himself taken prisoner by the Scots. The Earl of Huntingdon, in his role as Lord President of the Council in the North, came to the Borders both to investigate and mediate. He blamed the disaster on the arrogance of both Forster and his opposite number that day, Sir John Carmichael of that Ilk, the keeper of Liddesdale.116 Forster naturally denied this and alleged that the trouble had started when a Scottish arrow had landed too close to his son-in-law, Sir William Fenwick of Wallington. 117As Forster would have had numerous kinsmen around him at day of truce, the odds that a rogue arrow would stray too close to one of them were extremely high indeed. It was probably more closely connected to Sir John's inflated ego, as a Scottish witness asserted that he and Carmichael could not agree the handover of a pledge and it eventually turned into a slandering session. Forster 'in a contemptous manner bad Carmichael match himself with his equalls, and not with him who was above him both in birth and quality' .118Carmichael may only have been the keeper of Liddesdale and not the Warden of the Scottish Middle March, but he was none the less a knight of equivalent rank to Sir John and had the distinction of being the eldest son of his family.l19 Forster clearly felt that holding a wardenship from Elizabeth gave him great PRO, C66/2577 m. 18; CPR, 1572-75, p. 426. Berwick R(ecord) O(ffice), ClIl fol. 83; APC, VIII, 400; IX, 6. 116 CSPFor,1575-77,nos216,218,220,222-23,234,239,245,275,279,309,332,333,432. 117 HMC, Salisbury, II, 101-03. 118 D. Home of Godscroft, The History of the House and Race of Douglas and Angus (1657), pp. 339-40 (hereafter Home, Douglas). 119 Scottish knighthoods were personal honours bestowed by the Crown on special occasions, such as royal baptisms or marriages. In England the eldest son of a tenant-inchief was entitled to a knighthood. Forster, as a younger son, had to earn his knighthood on the field of battle. Both Forster and Carmichael were therefore honorary knights. 114

115

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

145

superiority, for he had a similar argument about status with the Earl of Bothwell who was keeper of Liddesdale in 1591.120

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

I confesse I arne inferiour to your lordship, but in respect of the autorytie I bear from her Maiestie, being her highnes officer, I thincke my selfe a man sufficient to meatt your lordship or any erIe in Scotland.

The Scots later admitted that they had charged the English at Redeswire in 'the heat of the conflict' , but they asserted that the English had shot the first arrows. Blame can probably be apportioned to both sides, but the Scottish government sent falcons to English courtiers by way of apology, to which the response was that they had been given 'live hawkes for dead herons' .121 The great feud with Collingwood The Earl of Huntingdon's dislike of Forster probably originates from the time of the Redeswire incident. As Lord President he actually had no jurisdiction over the Border Marches, so he adopted Sir Cuthbert Collingwood of Eslington as a means of highlighting Forster's deficiencies. Huntingdon had to be very careful for by 1580 Sir John was still the supreme agent of the Crown amongst the Northumbrian gentry and as such he commanded great respect. Great power, however, can disguise corruption, and there was no denying that the Middle March was in sharp decline in the fifteen-eighties. The reasons for this cannot all be blamed on Sir John, but he was not as competent as he once had been and his conceit did not help. He stupidly tried to blame the Earl of Northumberland for all the problems in the Middle March as the gentry were supposedly forced 'to repaire to Londone every terme'. This may have been partially true, but then he tried the excuse that the muster books from the last gathering in 1558 had been destroyed in the late rebellion. 122 The decay of border defences had been ongoing since the fifteenthirties, but the truth only became apparent in the fifteen-eighties. Henry the eighth had made the mistake of paying the local gentry for tbe Border service that they were supposed to give freely in return for tax exemptions,123 so by the fifteen-sixties soldiers from the Berwick garrison were having to strengthen Border strongpoints like Harbottle Castle whilst the native gentry were conspicuous by their absence. 124The 1580 muster rolls 120 121 122 123 124

no. 702. Douglas, p. 340. I, nos 50, 118. Meikle, thesis, pp. 182-84. APC, VII, 210-11. CBP, Home, CBP,

I,

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

146

SIR JOHN FORSTER

of the county showed very serious decay with various causes such as poverty, engrossment, heavy entry fines, damage by English rebels and Scottish outlaws after the rebellion, leasing land to Scots and selling much-needed horses in Scotland.125 As Warden Forster should have prevented the latter three causes, so it was not surprising that his enemies took full advantage of his negligence. Sir Cuthbert Collingwood was Forster's main antagonist. He had been a staunch Percy ally and their constable at Alnwick before the Northern Rebellion. Cuthbert showed himself to be a true politique by surrendering Alnwick Castle to Forster and then convincing the Earl of Sussex that he was loyal to the Crown. He was knighted for his services along with the more genuinely loyal Sir Francis Russell, but Hunsdon remained rightly sceptical of Collingwood and asserted that underneath he was still 'Northumberland's man' .126 Collingwood did return to being the constable at Alnwick for the eighth Earl from 1580 to 1585, so Hunsdon was right. However, the ninth Earl dismissed him for being ignorant of estate affairs. Collingwood was very bitter about this and moaned that the Earl 'so little esteemed my 30 years' service', but he also sneeringly retorted that 'he shall know that I am able to live in my country without him' .127 Perhaps this was a reference to his new patronage from Huntingdon, 128 but Collingwood was sneaky enough to look for Scottish patronage as well. He had secretly corresponded with the Earl of Angus and even sent him gifts of hawks and venison, contrary to all Border law.l29 Nevertheless, it was Collingwood's alliance with Huntingdon that proved to be the most damaging for Sir John. A steady stream of reports about his negligence and biased justice flowed from them or their agents throughout the fifteen-eighties and fifteen-nineties. Forster felt that he had to defend himself to his new ally at Court, Sir Francis Walsingham.130 I am accompted a necligent officer, an oppressor, a man enclyned to private gayne and lucre, a destroyer and not a maynteyner of the Borders, a bearer with Scottes and their actions, and a maynteyner of them ageynst my native countrith men, contray to myne othe and a legeance - God forbid that anyone of them could be proved ageynst me.

PRO, SP59/20 fois 92-110,117-37,196-97; APC, XII, 339; CBP, I, no. 50. CSPD Add, 1566-79, pp. 114, 173; CSP For, 1569-71, no. 1137. 127 CSPD Add, 1580-1625, pp. 168-69; Batho, Arch. Ael. 4th ser. XXXV, 56-57. 128 CSPD Add, 1566-79, p. 426. 129 W. Fraser, The Douglas Book (Edinburgh, 1885), IV, 201-02, 207-08, 211-12, 224. 130 CBP, I, nos 180, 181. Exactly how Forster became a client of Waisingham is unclear. 125

126

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

147

The official survey of the Marches in 1584 revealed the true situation and the Collingwoods proved to be just as bad as the other gentry when it came to dilapidated landholdings. They were listed as having demanded excessive entry fines, but so was Forster's kinsman Sir Thomas Gray and Forster was accused of enhancing his own rents. Christopher Selby of Biddlestone had to engross lands as 'they were not sufficient to maynteyne so many' and much pasture had been turned to tillage. Land near the Border had been officially abandoned because of Scottish raiding, though it may well have been illegally occupied or leased to Scots by the gentry. 131 A list of Middle March grievances sent to Thomas Randolph, the English ambassador to Scotland, in April 1586 was a blatant piece of propaganda by Collingwood against Forster. It was grossly unfair to state that there was 'not one penny redressed since Sir John Forster bore office' .132 Forster did occasionally have trouble gaining redress from the Scots, but it was usually because of Scottish obstruction, not English incompetence.133 Another accusation that the 'towns and villages that have been most spoiled' lay within six miles of Forster's house at Alnwick was a good ploy. Many of these places just happened to belong to the widespread Collingwood family and their allies. They were not the worst affected gentry in the area, and even Forster himself lost cattle and oxen to Scottish reivers in May 1584.134 Nine of the complaints on the list were made by the same two men, Thomas and William Collingwood of Great Ryle, so there can be no doubt that Collingwood was trying very hard to unseat Forster from the wardenship. When Collingwood heard that Nicholas Forster and William Fenwick of Wallington were in London, he feared that they would put the contrary viewpoint and thus despatched a list of Middle March disorders via his son-in-law Henry Anderson of Newcastle.t35 As if this was not enough, Collingwood then decided to take Border matters into his own hands so he directly challenged some Scottish thieves to combat in June 1586.136 It was a very foolish manoeuvre as it gave great offence to the governments of both Scotland and England, who stopped the combat. Collingwood's stubbornness nearly 131 PRO, SP 15/28/80, fols 232-46; /28/95 fols 299-333; CSPD Add, 1580-1625, pp. 127-28, 358-60; Meikle, thesis, pp. 226-31, 440-42. 132 CBP, I, no. 421; CSP Scot, VIII, nos 351, 653. 133 CBP, I, nos 470,472,473,493; CSPD, 1581-90, p. 208. 134 CBP, I, nos 229,258,455. 135 CSPD Add, 1580-1625, pp. 168-69. 136 CSP Scot, VIII, nos 351,452,459-61,490,512; HMC, Salisbury, III, 149; Meikle, thesis, p.721.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

148

SIR JOHN FORSTER

cost him all his credibility as a replacement for Forster. Forster knew better than to challenge notorious Scots and he thus managed to keep a modicum of peace in the Borders. Forster continued to do many of his wardenship duties, sometimes in conjunction with the other English Wardens, Hunsdon and Scrope,137 but there was now ~nough disquiet about the state of the Middle March for the Privy Council to order Huntingdon to investigate. Huntingdon revelled in this undertaking and promptly laid thirteen charges against Forster .138A few of the charges were clearly contrived, such as 'that his own cattle doe lye quietly, and others are robbed and spoyled, being in the same places. That the Elwoodes (Elliots) and knowen theves of Tividaille have free and open accesse unto him'. The Elliots were capable of stealing from anyone, including Forster, so he rightly denied this charge, and he correctly asserted that a Scot could visit him at anytime to discuss warden business.139 The only charges in which he admitted complicity were the release of known murderers, in order to save the lives of English prisoners held in Scotland, and not holding every day of truce within his March as many previous Wardens had not adhered to this rule either. Courtier politics were never very far away from Borders affairs as Walsingham endorsed Sir John's answers against Huntingdon and Forster sent him a gift of gyr-falcons by way of thanks. 140 Huntingdon was evidently unsatisfied by Forster's defence, so he kept up the campaign against him. In January 1587 Forster was accused of illegally transporting corn into Scotland, which he promptly denied though he admitted that he had once exchanged oats for wine at the Berwick market.141 The Borders, however, remained unsettled as the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots threatened to lead to Scottish reprisals.142 Even Walsingham forsook his fellow Puritan client upon receipt of an unfavourable spy report. Forster replied somewhat indignantly reminding his patron that he had lost two brothers-in-law and a son-in-law to Border violence. He asked to be able to present his case to the Queen in person as he felt that he had been 'verie hardlie rewarded for my trewe and dewtiful service', but he was not allowed to leave his

137 138 139 140 141 142

CBP,

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

nos 278,305. nos 451,453,454,455. nos 299, 455. no. 445. no. 475. nos 470,472,473,476,485,491,493. I,

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

149

post at this time.143 In fact, he was to be questioned further by Huntingdon at Newcastle on 25 March 1587. Sir John naturally denied the charges and very little was actually proven against him. Huntingdon, mindful of Collingwood's desperation for the wardenship, changed tactics and 'in the ende dyd use muche perswasions with me to geve up my office of wardenrye, in respect of my age'. Forster had never given his age any consideration, for although he was seventy he was fit and hoped 'in God I arne as able to discharge that office as others are' .144 Collingwood grew increasingly impatient and again reminded the government of Forster's over-familiarity with the Scots,145 but Sir John equally kept up his duties by haranguing the Scottish administration about raids into his March from Liddesdale and by trying to stop cross-Border bloodfeuds.146 Unfortunately for Sir John, the Queen believed Collingwood's version of events and he was dismissed from the office in August 1587.147 He was replaced, not by Collingwood, but by Lord Hunsdon who now took on both East and Middle Marches and undertook to look into Forster's supposed negligence.148 Walsingham made sure that Collingwood was compensated with the keepership of Redesdale and Harbottle Castle. 149 Hunsdon felt burdened by the responsibility of both wardenries, but he was particularly irritated by the constant slandering of Forster. He reported back to Lord Burghley that most of the charges against Sir John were unjustified for 'thys platt hathe byn longe a layynge, hatchte by Sir Cuthbert Collyngwood hys mortall ennymy and nurrysht and sett on by my lorde of Huntingdon' .150Before a gathering of all the Northumbrian gentry and the official investigators sent from York, Forster openly swore that all charges against him were untrue and no one countermanded his reply. Either they were too scared to speak up against Forster or the accusations were ungrounded. Collingwood certainly suspected collusion and asked to be allowed to find witnesses to testify against Forster, but Hunsdon disallowed this as the •charges made by Collingwood were private matters unrelated to the official investigation. Hunsdon concluded that Forster should be reinstated as 'there is no man so perfitt and 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., CBP, APC, CBP, CBP,

nos 475,493,494. no. SOL nos 515,522. nos 517,525,529,530,531,532; II, no. 228 (date should read 1586, not 1595). I, nos 534,535; HMC, Laing, I, 59. xv, 221; CBP, I, nos 541,546,548. I, no. 537; CSPD Add, 1580-1625, p. 205. I, no. 552.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

150

SIR JOHN FORSTER

having so many great matters to doe in so great a wardenry and having to deale with so many pervers and mallicious people' .151 Hunsdon then turned his wrath on Collingwood, accusing him of being disloyal to the Church and the Crown as well as failing to defend the Borders before being made captain of Harbottle, which he was unfit to hold.l52 It is difficult to ascertain if Hunsdon was being impartial as he disliked Collingwood's patron, the Earl of Huntingdon, but Collingwood was evidently unsuited to Border office as he caused another major Anglo-. Scottish incident and failed to reside at Harbottle. 153 Much to Hunsdon's relief, Forster was allowed back into office by August 1588. He was 'the fittest man' for the job, but he had not been idle during his enforced sabbatical as he had assisted the Border commission in early 1588 and may have travelled to London to clear his name. With Forster non-resident in the county there was reported 'discension and disagrement among the gentilmen' , so Forster could at least be credited with keeping the county community under some degree of control \vhilst he was Warden.154 In spite of being branded a liar, Collingwood continued his crusade against Forster, but he had to wait until the mid fifteen-nineties to see Forster defeated and was unmoved by a marriage between his son Thomas and Anne Gray of Chillingham, Forster's stepniece.155 Sir John's dealings with the Scots may not have been entirely honourable, nor within the remit of his office, but an open dialogue with them did not necessarily imply underhand dealing. Forster knew· the Borders better than most people, and he thus realized that an open dialogue with Scottish reivers was better than outright confrontation in the Collingwood style. Supposed leagues or private bonds between Forster and the Elliots may well have been made to keep the peace or maintain reasonable government in a much-troubled region.156 However, the strength of propaganda against Forster was such that even the Spanish ambassador, Bernardino de Mendoza, commented upon his failure to retaliate against the Scots, though he also gave Forster the accolade of being 'a great heretic' .157 Forster would have liked this phrase, but as an experienced Borderer he knew the danger of retaliating too strongly Ibid., nos 554, 556; HMC, Salisbury, III, 290-91. CBP, I, nos 556, 557. 153 Ibid., nos 571,563,627; CSPD Add, 1580-1625, p. 268. 154 PRO, SP 59/25 fols 47-48. 155 CBP, I, no. 646; CSPD Add, 1580-1625, p. 268. 156 CSPD Add, 1580-1625, pp. 168-69. 157 Calendar of State Papers, Spanish, 1587-1603, no. 154. 151 152

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

151

against the Scots. He did, admittedly, have friends in the Scottish Borders from early in his career. In these friendships the Anglo-Scottish divide evaporated into a mutual co-operation between landed men that no outsider could hope to comprehend. For example James Ormiston of that Ilk wrote to Forster and his brothers in 1559 to ask if an English raid was due to pass near his lands, for if it was then he would like some advance warning from them to enable him to put away his goods.1sS In the fifteen-seventies Forster had Sir Thomas Ker of Ferniehirst as a longterm house-guest, in spite of the fact that he had helped with the demolition of Ferniehirst Castle in the aftermath of the Northern Rebellion.1s9 Forster lent him money to go to France, 160 but their friendship turned sour in 1585 after it was known that Ferniehirst had been party to the death of Sir Francis Russell. 161 Russell, unlike his father-in-law, was not a friend of Ferniehirst and actually referred to him as 'more than half lunatic' in May 1585, two months before his murder. 162 The events surrounding Russell's death on 27 July 1585 are still shrouded in mystery. Sir John's initial report said that Russell was 'slaine in the myddest of his owne men' during a day of truce, after which he and Ferniehirst 'stoode together and made a quietnes' and then 'parted quietly owte of the feeld'. However, the next day Forster was a signatory to a statement that cited foul play and described chaos after the death. It is just possible that Forster was in shock at the loss of his much loved son-in-law, but Forster was a seasoned Borderer who had already witnessed the murder of several of his relations. Walsingham was determined to make Ferniehirst the scapegoat, as he was then allied to an anti-English faction in Scotland. Forster seems therefore to have opted to be politique to please him, proving that Collingwood was not the only liar in the Borders. 163 During the fifteen-nineties the Borders became particularly unmanageable, making all the English Wardens' duties arduous. Forster may have been a little disheartened by the conditions and by the continuing

CSP For, 1559-60, no. 216; Meikle, thesis, pp. 443-53. APC, VIII, 158,265; CBP, I, no. 145; CSP For, 1572-74, nos 791,868,1223,1564; CSP Scot, III, nos 177,270; IV, nos 567,595,762 & appx nos 64,65. 160 Scottish Record Office, Gifts and Deposits, GD40/6/1/1-4; Register of Deeds, RD 1/20/ 1/1; CBP, I, no. 678. The money was not recovered during Ferniehirst's lifetime. Forster tried to recover it from his widow. 161 CSP Scot, VIII, no. 65. 162 CSPD Add, 1580-1625, p. 143. 163 CBP, I, nos 330,331,332,337,338,341. 158 159

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

152

SIR JOHN FORSTER

vendetta being waged against him by Collingwood and Huntingdon. 164 It was ironic that Collingwood's son-in-law, Henry Anderson, took pity on the old man and asked Huntingdon 'to write a letter of thanks unto Sir John Forster for his late service in Northumberland, it would, in his opinion, greatly encourage the old man' .165 Forster admitted that keeping the peace 'is as harde to doe, as ever yt was sence I was her Majesties officer' .166 He also continued to lose livestock to the thieves, contrary to those who asserted that his animals were immune to theft.167 Forster, anticipating trouble, asked for an official commission to look into Border decay as previous commissions had achieved very little by way of improvement.168 However the border troubles were not continuous throughout this decade as there were a few quiet intervals such as the summer of 1592, when the Borderers were 'at their usual places of sommereings' . 169 Cross-Border negotiations were made unnecessarily complicated for Forster through James VI's policy of having two Wardens in the Scottish Middle March during 1593 and 1594, but Forster remained an active officer .170 He did not complain of any ill health until January 1594 and this may only have been a ploy to avoid going to Durham where the Bishop, Tobie Matthew, had been ordered to investigate the decline of the Middle March. Forster visited Matthew briefly, but he would have to return there for a much longer period in 1596.171 In the summer of 1595 the Borders were in a very bad state with 'the Scots busyer than for many years' .172 Forster was now seen as the culprit for all the ills of the Border and was bluntly warned to stop the outrages or 'her majesty must of very necessity make choice of some other to have that place which you of so long time have held' .173 This was, of course, an impossible demand to meet and Forster, as the government's scapegoat, was duly dismissed from the wardenship. News of Forster's fall travelled fast for Ralph, third Lord Eure, amongst others began to lobby support for their own candidacy. Eure XXIV, 53-54. HMC, Salisbury, IV, 209. 166 CBP, I, no. 658. 167 Ibid., nos 668,678; CSPD Add, 1580-1625, p. 366. 168 CBP, I, no. 786. 169 Ibid., no. 750. 170 Ibid., nos 808,901,958,972. 171 Ibid., nos 931,939. 172 Ibid., II, no. 86. 173 Ibid., nos 97,111.

164

165

APC,

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

153

arrogantly assured the government that he could put things to right in the Middle March, as the job may have looked simple from a distance.174 This was not the first time that ambitious Elizabethans had sought Forster's job, as news of illnesses in 1566 and 1581 had sent courtiers scurrying. 175In 1574 Forster's captaincy of Bamburgh was awarded to Sir George Carey, to take effect upon Forster's decease. Carey had the good sense to abandon the grant in 1582 as Forster's longevity seemed assured.176 Carey's youngest brother, Sir Robert, had first sought the wardenship in 1594 by erroneously reporting that Sir John 'if not dead, is so far past that it is reported he cannot live'. Sir Robert Carey was the son of Lord Hunsdon, but this did not stop him from further assaulting his father's warden colleague with suggestions that 'he cared not what wrong he did to others' and always gave preference to 'his own friends'. When this tactic failed Carey asked to be made Sir John's assistant and hinted that Forster would want to retire in favour of him.!77 This is barely credible as Forster would have surely turned to his own kinsmen for help and not to a young upstart like Carey. It was Carey who exaggerated Sir John's age, claiming that he was ninety-four, when he was only just an octogenarian. By Elizabethan standards this was a great age, but Forster never considered it an obstacle until his last year in office. Carey then decided to slander Forster's kinsmen and ultimately maligned Nicholas Forster as 'wan that is so given over to drunknes, that if he cannot get company, he will sit in a chayre in his chamber and drinke him selfe drunke before he reise' .178 Carey's impetuousness lost him the office, on this occasion, for Lord Eure was granted the post on 7 October 1595. Government opinion had now swung around as a warden that was 'naturallie planted' in the Borders was no longer acceptable. Forster regarded himself as being out of office as soon as news of Eure's patent reached Northumberland. He would later refer to this manoeuvre as 'the mutinie of the chaunge of wardens' and was very bitter about losing office after so long.!79 The Privy Council had to remind Forster to say in post until Eure arrived, for the Scots and some English outlaws were taking full advantage of the situation by reiving without restraint. 180Eure added insult to the injury 174 175 176 177 178 179 180

Ibid., nos 119, 129, 131; HMC, De L'isle and Dudley, II, 171. CSP For, 1566-68, no. 442; HMC, Hastings, II, 17-18. CPR, 1572-75, p. 316; 1580-82, no. 1505. CSPD Add, 1580-1625, pp. 365-66, 370; HMC, Salisbury, III, 290-91. CBP, II, no. 129. . Ibid., nos 131, 133, 159. APC, xxv, 45-46; CBP, II, no. 154; HMC, Salisbury, v, 430-31.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

154

SIR JOHN FORSTER

he had caused Forster by demanding a lease of his much prized abbey of Hexham. Sir John naturally refused to do this and even made excuses to the Queen about the abbey's unsuitability. 181 He did eventually have to rescind and give the abbey to Eure, but his reservations proved to have some foundation when a careless servent of Eure's blew up 'a great parte of the abbey'. Forster's reaction is unrecorded, but William Camden had noted that he did have a 'faire dwelling house' there before the accident. 182 By October 1595 Forster was admitting that he had to be carried around in a horse litter, but he still managed to hold two days of truce. 183 He now faced what was to be the final commission of enquiry into his affairs. An august panel had been appointed on the same day that Eure received his patent.184 They travelled to Alnwick on 17 November to question Forster about the Middle March, in much the same manner as the 1587 interrogations.18s Forster referred most of their questions to the rolls of the warden courts and the days of truce, along with the lists of bills lodged by both countries at their meetings. Forster was ordered to hand these over to Eure when he arrived, but in January 1596 they had still not been delivered.186 As none of these rolls survive Forster cannot be judged fairly. The commissioners reported that Sir John's task had been almost impossible and that as a result 'March justice is clean out of joint' . They also criticized the fact that the Scottish wardens were 'Borderers bred', not realizing that Forster and Scrope were also native Borderers.18? As usual Huntingdon was unsatisfied by the commissioners and promptly tabled fifteen more questions about Border decay under Forster, some of which dated back to the fifteen-sixties. Huntingdon came north to Newcastle to interview the gentry on the matter and the Collingwoods naturally insisted that 155 Englishmen had been murdered in defence of their goods, that blackmail was rife, and that there had been extensive losses in the March since 1593.188 Forster truthfully reported that the great bill of Tynedale, that had resulted from a raid there in 1593,

181 182

CBP, CBP,

II, II,

nos 133,138, 139, 140; HMC, Salisbury, v, 415. nos 145, 159,569; HMC, Salisbury, v, 430-31;.W. Camden, Britannia (1610),

pp.807-08. 184

CBP, CBP,

185

Ibid.,

183

186 187 188

CBP,

Ibid., Ibid.,

no. 139; HMC, Salisbury, v, 415, 430-31. nos 151, 163. nos 163,171; HMC, Salisbury, v, 458-60. II, nos 133, 194. no. 171. no. 173; HMC, Salisbury, v, 476-77.

II,

II,

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

155

had been more than half satisfied by June 1594.189 His defence was soon shattered, however, by the muster held by Eure within days of his arrival in the Middle March. 190 Eure had come north determined to prove how incompetent Forster had been and he pompously thought that he could put the Middle March right with more money and the assistance of 'Yorkshire or inland gentlemen', who would not be intimidated by the ScotS.191 Eure's muster was somewhat hastily called on 24 November 1595, but as the harvest had been poor the footmen were excused. Of the horsemen summoned only 243 turned up. Forster insisted that there were far more than this, but through poor communication and bad weather they had failed to turn up. He had counted 920 serviceable horse in 1593, but in 1580 there had been 1134.192 The muster books that Sir John had conveniently lost in the Northern Rebellion would have shown that there had been 1830 light horsemen and 2988 footmen in the county in 1558. The situation did not look good for Sir John when another muster in April 1596 recorded only 102 horsemen and 71 footmen in the Middle March.193 Forster's overall position on Border decay seemed indefensible. When Sir John Ferne confronted him on 22 December 1595 he apparently 'did winde like an eele' .194 Forster's use of conciliation, rather than confrontation, was evidently no longer respected but worse was to follow. When the Earl of Huntingdon suddenly died on 14 December 1595 at Newcastle, Forster was blamed. The Queen referred to Huntingdon's grief at the poor state of the Middle March 'and death in consequence' .195 This was probably not the cause of death as Huntingdon had known about the bad conditions in the Borders since the fifteen-eighties. What this did signify was how seriously out of favour Forster had become. On 8 January 1596 Elizabeth ordered Forster to go to Durham 'and attend there till her further pleasure is known' .196 Sir John was crestfallen as he had never regarded himself as being disloyal to the Crown. He was incredulous as to the severity of the situation and sent Nicholas to Durham in his place, pleading

CSP Scot, XI, no. 145. CBP, II no. 173. 191 Ibid., no. 131. 192 APC, XXV, 430-31; CBP, II, nos 168, 169, 170,211,233. 193 CBP, I, no. 50; II, nos 255,256; CSP For, 1558-59, no. 365. 194 CBP, II, no. 184. 195 Ibid., no. 197. 196 Ibid., nos 197,233. 189

190

6

156

SIR JOHN FORSTER

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

that without the present danger of my life I am no wayes able to travel to you nor have been able to get out of my house this twelvemonth save that I rode up to Alnwick castle at the summer sessions, intending to effect the proceeding which your lordship knows about against the recusants.

The Bishop was publicly unswayed by Forster's excuses, though he was privately prepared to wait until the spring for his arrival. He knew that Sir John was shirking and could 'eate, drinke, sleep, talk and walke reasonably well for a man of your years' .197 Neither was he impressed by Forster's appeal to godliness against recusancy, for he had knowledge of Sir John making private journeys between his houses in Northumberland. Nicholas must have returned with the Bishop's command to attend, for on 30 January Forster duly arrived at Durham accompanied by the sheriff of Northumberland (his son-in-law William Fenwick), Nicholas and twenty-four 'proper serving men'. Tobie Matthew, who was still Bishop of Durham at the time, described the scene.198 He came in a litter, and, as I understand, was divers times on the way much troubled both in his head and stomach, but I found him indifferent well as after so 19n9, so foul, and so cold a journey a man of so many years could be, the constitution of his body good enough save for the palsy somewhat enfeebling him, and some impediment in or about his legs, so as he walketh not but aided with one or two, his wit as ready and memory as good and discourse as sound as I ever knew it these twelve years.

Sir John was placed under house arrest and 'was something appalled thereat'. He reiterated his loyalty to the Queen whom he 'would not offend for all the world' and promised to make his friends and servants obey the new Warden. Matthew questioned Forster at length, but he took pity on him and chose to protect Sir John from further disparagement by not recording his findings, 'for that they are no part of my charge I hold it needless to set it down' .199 Eure was not so sympathetic, as he could not comprehend what the loss of the wardenship meant to Sir John. He allied himself to the Collingwood faction and became rather obsessive in his attempts to gather complaints against Forster. He stated that Sir John had 'ruined the country' and compiled a long list of all the Northumbrian gentlemen who

197

198 199

Ibid., no. 206; HMC, Salisbury, HMC, Salisbury, VI, 38-39. Ibid.

VI,

21-22.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

157

were kinsmen to Sir John. 200 Eure would have been better occupied if he had turned his attention to the immediate problem of incessant raiding in the Middle March. The Scots were apparently 'clearing out the country', but Forster found his revenge against Eure in a most unexpected way. Collingwood had, not surprisingly, been made a deputy Warden under Eure yet he deserted him in February 1596. Sir John gloated that 'such as ever sought my disgrace had now purchased their own', for Collingwood's recusancy had become public knowledge, and Huntingdon was no longer around to shield his client. Collingwood ironically fled to County Durham, where Forster had been confined.201 A further irony was the fact that a Catholic and a Puritan earl had combined forces in their mutual determination to oust Forster. Sir John had never used religion as a vehicle to attack Collingwood, for in doing so he would have put many of his own kinsmen at risk of discovery. The commissioners who questioned Forster in 1595 noted that 'false and disloyall religion hath taken deipe roote' in the area, though Huntingdon had not actually requested this information, perhaps to protect Collingwood. 202 Forster's protectionism towards his Catholic kin did not stop him searching for hidden seminary priests in the Middle March from 1577 to 1595. He would no doubt have enjoyed the task and it was one of the few areas where he worked well with his fellow Puritan, the Earl of Huntingdon, but he was not totally unbiased for in 1593 he searched Collingwood's house of Eslington, but purposely omitted to inspect the house of his kinsman, Ralph Gray, at Chillingham. 203 Collingwood died on 29 December 1596, so the feud between him and Sir John was finally over. Forster's powerful kinship and alliances had always been the stronger, as Eure found out to his cost. In an attempt to woo assistance from Forster's faction, Eure asked the Queen204 not to impose the blame of these decaies on Sir John Forster the oulde knight, but vouchsafe gratiouslie to reward his former deutifull service to your heighnes, with gratious pardon of his defectes or negligence, whose ould age shall with joye creep to his lange home and lengthen what maie be his decrepett age with comforthe

BL, Cotton MSS, Caligula C III, fols 112-14,118-20; PRO, SP59/31 fols 35-37; CBP, no. 209. 201 CBP, II, nos 137,171,209,211,217,292; HMC, Salisbury, VI, 21-22. 202 CBP, II, no. 171. 203 APC, x, 79-80; XXII, 482; CBP, I, nos, 126,328; CSPD Add, 1580--1625,pp. 177, 342, 344,367. 204 CBP, II, nos 219,466. 200

II,

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

158

SIR JOHN FORSTER

Eure even sent a copy of this hypocritical letter to Forster, but he felt that it had the right effect, as he later referred to Elizabeth's 'gracious remission of Sir John Forster' .205Forster's kin were not enamoured of Eure and by November 1596 he was begging to be relieved of the wardenship because of 'the oulde factione of Sir John Forster' .206Eure was not allowed to relinquish his post for another year and, much to his chagrin, he was officially investigated for incompetence before leaving the Middle March. 207Eure's previous assertions that he could sort out the Borders were in tatters. He admitted making private pacts with the Scots, but his pride must have been really shattered by the admission that the eighty horsemen he had brought from Yorkshire were inferior to the native horsemen, who knew the terrain better and proved far more nimble.208 There was no question of Forster being re-appointed, though he must have delighted in the downfall of the pompous Eure. Sir Robert Carey was given the post instead. As the son of Hunsdon, Forster held him in. better regard than Eure and even leased him Alnwick Abbey without quibble, unlike the Hexham episode with Eure. Sir John probably never knew about Carey's youthful indiscretion when he had accused him of incompetence and called Nicholas a drunk. Carey also forgot this in his own old age when he remembered Forster with great respect in his memoirs. 209 The final years Forster kept in touch with Border affairs during his enforced exile by helping the Border commissioners,210 but he disliked Durham and tried to gain permission to return home on many occasions. He poetically begged 'that I might lyve and end mine old daies having one foote alredie in the grave in my house in Bambroughshire, which wolde bringe no lytle comforthe to mine olde age'. He was allowed to move to Newcastle in May 1596, but was still there complaining about the outbreak of plague in May 1597 and probably did not return to Bamburgh until October 1597.211 His confinement must have given him plenty of time for reflection. He had tried to hold on to the keepership of Harbottle for Nicholas Ibid., nos 232,235. Ibid., nos 432,441. 207 Ibid., nos 680,681. 208 Ibid., nos 321,647,652. 209 Ibid., no. 129; CSPD Add, 1580-1625, pp. 365-66; The Memoirs of Robert Carey, ed. F. H. Mares (Oxford, 1972), pp. 45-47, 55. 210 CBP, II, 455, 492, 1003; HMC, Salisbury, VI, 220. 211 CBP, II, nos 233,266, 480? 492; HMC, Salisbury, VI, 171,220; VII, 202. 205

206

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

159

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

as it was worth fifty marks per annum,212 but Eure cleared out all his

kinsmen from office. 213 Forster then tried to legitimize Nicholas, perhaps after conference with Tobie Matthew. Sir John wanted some recognition for him and did not want him to share in his disgrace.214 Forster's inherent loss of status was reflected in the increasing number of thefts from his lands by both Scottish and English raiders. 215 He must also have suffered a dramatic decline in his income, irregular as it had been. In 1590 Forster had withheld Crown rental to the equivalent of his warden salary in sheer frustration at the slowness of payment from the south. He had also complained to Walsingham in 1583 that his salary was insufficient to maintain his house and the thirty mounted men who attended him. 216 On the other hand, Forster could be financially shrewd by not paying his own rents to the Crown. He let the rent of his concealed lands accumulate from 1573 until 1590 when £480 was due, he then let them amount to £300 before the next payment. 217 He had not paid Luke Ogle of Eglingham any rent for ten years in 1596, yet in 1598 he had to chase £150 owed to him by a kinsman through the Berwick courts. His prestige must have been at an all time low if his kinsmen would not pay him.218 Sir John was also forced to mortgage some of his lands and tithes in the later fifteen-nineties to make up for the loss of warden income. Nonetheless, his pride was suc!).that he tapped three Yorkshire gentlemen for a loan rather than ask any of the Northumbrian gentry to help him out.219 When Sir John lost office he was ,probably not able to oblige his kinsmen and friends as much as he used to with mortgages, leases and jobs. For all his faults Forster does appear to have had a caring side to his character. When his elder brother needed £600 in 1588 he gave him a mortgage, although he really did not have this amount of money handy and had to hurriedly arrange a mortgage himself from a semi-anonymous lender. 220 This occurred when Sir John was temporarily out of office, so CBP, II, nos 159, 187. Ibid., no. 249. 214 DDR, Consistory Court Act Books, III 5 (9 July 1596). 215 NRO, Vetera Indictamenta, QS1I1 fol. 8; PRO, SP59/32 fols 4-11; 133 fols 135-42; 140 fols 161-70; CBP, II, nos 233,295,326,492,521,659. 216 CBP, I, no. 180; CSPD Add, 1580-1625, p.311; CSP For, 1563, no. 996; HMC, Salisbury, VI, 23-24. 217 PRO, SC 6/Eliz 111672-1699; SC6/Jas I/763. 218 Berwick R.O. C3/2 fol.1; DPRW, 1596 (2), Luke Ogle of Eglingham. 219 PRO, CP25/2/192, TRIN/39 Eliz; E 134/3, EAST 13. James 1. 220 Ibid., CP25/2/192 HIL/30 Eliz, TRIN/30 Eliz. 212

213

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

160

SIR JOHN FORSTER

he may have experienced the same cash-flow problems then as he did in the later fifteen-nineties. He must have often favoured kinsmen with leases, but only a few examples of Forster's noblesse oblige have survived. For example he leased Brunton to Richard Forster of Tughall and Hulne Priory to his steward, John Salkeld.221 The best offices in Sir John's gift were given to his closest relatives, but he also gave lesser offices to more remote kinsmen like Richard Forster, who was his under officer at Bamburgh.222 It is doubtful that Forster was avuncular to all of his kin. He would not have looked kindly upon the two young Forsters who stole 100 horses from the Scottish East March and then put them amongst his own horses near Alnwick. This could have jeopardized Sir John's good relations with the lairds of Berwickshire. 223 His brother, Rowland, was probably more troublesome, yet when he died Forster and his elder brother took care of Rowland's daughter Elizabeth.224 Forster was often asked to be the supervisor of another gentleman's wi1l225 owing to his importance in the county community, but he also served some of his brothers, for instance Reginald in 1565 and Thomas in 1589.226 Sir John was actually Thomas's executor and the guardian of Matthew Forster, the heir of Adderstone and Forster's great-nephew. Being a guardian to Matthew perhaps compensated Forster for the absence of his grandson, Edward, third Earl of Bedford. After the tragic death of Sir Francis Russell, Forster had fought to keep his grandson in the Borders. His wardship was too lucrative to be granted to Forster, so when it was given to the Earls of Leicester and Warwick he was pleased because they were fellow Puritans. The young Earl was Sir John's 'only joy and comfort that I have next under God', which was rather demeaning to poor Nicholas. Perhaps the fact that the Earl was an orphan compounded Forster's reluctance to see him go south, for his daughter, Juliana, had predeceased both her husband and son. The Earl had been born on 20 December 1572 at "Alnwick, where his father was buried in late September 1585. Russell had died in July so Forster may have delayed the funeral in an attempt to stop the Earl going to York, Berwick R.O. C3/2; NRO, Blackett-Ord (Whitfield) MSS, 324W/3/1. CSP For, 1562, no. 288. 223 CSP Scot, XI, no. 259. 224 DPRW, 1589 (1), Thomas Forster of Adderstone. 225 DPRW, 1560-69, Robert Lawson of Rock, 1583, Robert Clavering of Callaly, 1595, Thomas Gray of Chillingham; PRO, C 142/141/31, Ralph Gray of Chillingham. 226 DPRW, 1560-69, Reginald Forster of Capheaton, 1589 (1), Thomas Forster of Adderstone. 221 222

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

161

where the Queen had demanded Sir John deliver him to his rival, Huntingdon. Forster rarely pleaded with anyone, yet he did so now to keep his grandson in his household. 227 As the young earl is sickly and weak and not able to travel without danger of his life, pray allow him to remain with me until the spring, and I will do my best to see him brought up in learning, and keep a schoolmaster for that only purpose, one whom his father made choice during his life.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

In October Forster blamed the weather for the delay, but by December

1585 the Earl had left, and Forster was asking the Queen to 'be gracious unto him, the rather because he is an orphan and his father was slain in your service'. He ended 'I trust you will be a mother unto him'. 228 Forster kept in touch with his grandson and gave him a lease of the parsonage of Alnwick in 1596, probably as a belated wedding present. 229 Forster was not ungenerous to his kinsmen, but he was especially delighted to help a long-lost relative he discovered in 1590. The relation was a second cousin, Mr Thomas Forster, who lived in London. Thomas's grandfather, Roger Forster, had run away from Adderstone at the age of seventeen to avoid a bloodfeud. The Forsters did not know what had become of him, so Sir John was overjoyed to hear from his branch of the family and volunteered some family history about their mutual greatgreat-grandfather and his nineteen sons.230 Forster promised if ther be anything in this country wherin I may stand you in steed, I pray you charge me therewithall, and thee shall find me willing to accomplish the same and that I may committ you to the tuition of the almighty . .

This sense of obligation continued until Forster's death, as Nicholas was instructed to take funeral blacks to Thomas and his family in London. They only cost his estate £2 5s. but the blacks for the Earl of Bedford were far more elaborate as they were charged at £40. Sir John died at Spindelstone, near Bamburgh, on 13 January 1602. His funeral was held at Bamburgh in accordance with his former status in the county. 231 The funeral expenses totalled £454 lIs. 7d. which was exceedingly lavish by Northumbrian standards. The funeral of Sir John Selby of CBP, I, nos 355,379; CSPD Add, 1580-1625, pp. 152-53; Cokayne, Complete Peerage, 76-78. 228 CBP, I, no. 398; CSPD Add, 1580-1625, pp.160-61. 229 PRO, E310/21/l09 fol. 53; CSPD, 1595-97, p.176. The Earl married Lucy Harington of Exton on 12 December 1594 and received a dowry of £10,000. Cokayne, Complete Peerage, II, 77-78. 230 Raine, North Durham, pp. 308-09. 231 DPRW, 1602, Sir John; CBP, II, no. 1438; NCH, I, 158-59. 227

II,

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

162

SIR JOHN FORSTER

Twizel, a former gentleman porter of Berwick, had cost a mere £163 9s. 6d. in 1595.232 According to the accounts, the feast was sumptuous with three hogsheads of wine and beer brewed specially for the occasion. Amongst the foodstuffs were ten turkeys costing £2 5s. They were still a novel type of poultry, having only been recently introduced to the county. Thirty-four of the more commonplace capons were charged at £1 14s. For the actual service Mr Moreton, the Archdeacon of Durham, was summoned at a cost of £5, which was rather cheaper than the herald whose expenditure for organizing the funeral totalled over £57. Forster's coat of armour had to be hung, but this was only 17s. whereas the blacks given out at the funeral cost £158 and lastly the poor had to be content with only £9, which was not much more than Dame Isabel Gray of Chillingham had left to the poor in 1582.233 Surprisingly there was no elaborate funerary monument erected to Sir John's memory in Bamburgh parish church. Maybe no one wanted to remember the old rogue, or perhaps his debts were too great. His inventory amounted to £1020 5s. 8d. of goods, though his lands would have amounted to considerably more than this. His widow Isabel and son Nicholas were the executors. They divided the estate between the various co-heirs, his grandsons the Earl of Bedford and John Fenwick of Wallington, Nicholas his bastard son and Mary Stapleton, his legitimized daughter. Isabel was left the lands and goods of Spindelstone, which she soon sold to Arthur Gray of Chillingham.234 Nicholas must have been disappointed not to inherit the greater part of the estate, but he left an elaborate inventory worth £824 2s. when he died in 1609. He never achieved his father's greatness, but he lived quietly as a member of the greater gentry at the former canon's house of Bamburgh and was buried beside his father in the choir of Bamburgh church. 235 Sir John's rise to power was due as much to longevity and good fortune, as to military skill, genuine ambition and patronage. Neither his greed, nor his arrogance, were exceptional in Elizabethan England, but the decline of the Middle March's defences was partly due to his conceit. His loyalty to the Crown was unquestionable, yet it is credible that some of his sheep could graze very close to the frontier, whilst other men's were 'by Scottishe men taken awaye before the morninge'. 236 Forster was, in spite 232 233 234 235

236

DPRW, 1595, John Selby of Twizel. DPRW, 1582, Isabel Gray of Chillingham. PRO, Admiralty, ADM 75/95. DPRW, 1614 (1), Nicholas Forster of Bamburgh. PRO, STAC5 F2/34; F15/11; CBP, II, no. 763.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) University of Leeds

MAUREEN

M. MEIKLE

163

of his failings, the best Elizabethan Border Warden as he knew better than any other how to handle the changing conditions in the area. His retribution against the Scots in the fifteen-forties and fifteen-fifties mellowed into considered negotiation in his later years as Warden. Most of the Border laws were impossible to enforce by the late sixteenth century, so Forster probably did cut corners to gain overall results. His methods were those of a canny Borderer, unlike the disastrously pompous Lord Eure, because he knew that negotiation with the Scots was normally better than outright confrontation across the frontier. The profits he reaped as Warden during the prolonged absence of magnatial power in the region were substantial in this generally impoverished area of England, but he was no greedier than any other ascendant Elizabethan. The county of Northumberland truly knew no prince but Forster during the height of his warden powers, yet he left no legacy in the region as the whole Border administration was about to end. It was a pity that Sir John did not live long enough to witness the eclipse that the Union of the Crowns signified in 1603. The ending of an international frontier would have delighted Sir John considering his friendship with many Scottish lairds throughout his thirty-five years in the office of warden, but it was also the end of an era in the North that Forster may have lamented. Historically, Forster remains a dichotomous character who carried his vendettas to extremes, yet could show great leadership and compassion. He is best summed up by two anonymous lines in the Border ballad tradition.237 'Sir John was gentil, meik and douse but he was hail and het as fyre'. 238 University of Warwick

237 C. Sharp, Memorials o/the Rebellion (1840), p. 25. A full length ballad about Sir John has not survived. 238 Douse (Scots) sweet, pleasant and lovable.