royal Majesty straitly chargeth and commandeth that you and every of you shall from henceforth like true and faithful subjects use yourselves, in God’s peace and his, according to the duties of allegiance, and that you shall in no wise hereafter attempt to make or procure any such rebellion, intent, unlawful assemblies, riots, routs and conspirations, nor at the commandment nor by the authority of any person of what estate or degree or for what cause so ever it be, shall arise in any forcible manner and array, unless it be at the special commandment of the King’s Highness or his Lieutenant sufficiently authorised for the same. In witness whereof the King’s most royal Majesty hath caused this his proclamation to be made patent and sealed with his Great Seal at Richmond the IX day of December in the XXVIII year of his reign.”[133] Henry was so much accustomed to scolding his subjects and praising himself in his public documents that the pardon would appear, to those who were used to his ways, to be rather a moderate production, but it was very aggravating to the independent spirit of the northern men, and in addition to its irritating tone there were special points in it which must have been deliberately provocative. The King referred once more to the “false tales” as the causes of the insurrection, in spite of the Pilgrims’ repeated endeavours to set him right on that point. He insisted that he had “the chief charge of you under God, both of your souls and bodies,” although that was the main point at issue. Finally the proclamation was not an actual pardon, but merely the promise of a pardon when each individual Pilgrim had first made his submission to the King’s lieutenants, who had not yet even set out for the north, and had secondly sued out his private pardon in Chancery. It is difficult to know how far this phraseology is to be taken literally. The King cannot have expected all the inhabitants of the north to make a journey up to London for their private pardons. For the greater number the proclamation would have to be sufficient; but its wording was so vague as to throw a disagreeable doubt upon its validity. Consequently while the King thought the pardon far too liberal, the commons were by no means satisfied with it. Lancaster Herald did not dare to read the proclamation as it stood at Durham. He was reported to have read the pardon one way in the city of Durham and another way in the loyal town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. When this was known in Durham the citizens were so angry that they attacked the Herald on his return, and he had great difficulty in escaping from them[134].