He added that at Middleham Lord Conyers had rather hindered than helped them[159]. Lawson on the contrary said that Lord Conyers had done his best for them[160]. The tenth from the clergy fell due at Christmas. The thought of it had been weighing on Archbishop Lee’s mind for some time; he requested that Norfolk should be consulted about it at Doncaster[161]. About 31 December he received orders from the King that the tenth must be collected. As Lee felt sure that this would create disturbances he wrote on 5 January 1536–7 to consult Darcy[162], who advised him to lay the matter before Shrewsbury. Darcy warned Shrewsbury on 7 January that it would be very dangerous to levy the tenth north of Doncaster and begged him to make the King understand this[163]. Shrewsbury forwarded the letters to Henry on 9 January, with his own advice that the collection should be foreborne for the time[164], but he wrote to Lee on the same day that he dared not counsel him to delay, as he had had express commands to begin it, and if the King changed his mind he would soon be informed[165]. Henry’s reply was to have been a peremptory order to carry on the collection; but though there is an undated draft of it, the order was probably never sent, as before it could be despatched the situation had changed[166]. Other measures were taken which increased the irritation of the lower classes. Preachers were sent to the north to expound the King’s orthodoxy and to represent the enormity of rebellion to their congregations, and tracts on the same subjects were circulated[167]. The King’s reply to the first five articles[168] was printed and sent to the north. This step may have been due partly to the King’s natural partiality for his own writing, partly to a deliberate intention of exasperating the people. The reply was extremely provocative. Even at the present day the reader of it longs to argue with the King. The Council had seen how unsuitable it was for publication when it was first written, and with great difficulty had persuaded the King to withhold it. When it was at length issued, the effect was even more aggravating than it would originally have been, for the circumstances in which the reply had been drawn up had all changed, and the reply was no longer applicable to the situation. Both the beginning and the end of the reply referred to the earlier state of affairs. It was absurd to complain that the terms of the articles were “so general that hard they be to be answered,” when a detailed list of grievances had been drawn up and sent to the King, and it was very alarming to find the King still insisting that the ringleaders must be given up before he would think of a pardon, when a general pardon had just been proclaimed[169].