An open reply in regard to the Separatists connection to Gainsborough Old Hall
and the unfair tarnishing of the reputation of William Hickman
by Sue Allan.
I was deeply dismayed to read the following article which appeared in the 2010 Summer edition of The Friends of the Old Hall Association’s
magazine. I was deeply dismayed by its contents as much as I was to learn that the article was written by the FOHA’s Chairman –
Paul Howitt- Cowan- and that he has subsequently and flatly refused to allow me write an article for any future edition of the magazine
refuting that which he wrote. My illusion that we lived in democratic times has been truly shattered by Mr Howitt-Cowan’s actions and so
hence I am forced to post my response here instead onto the world-wide web.
Here follows the article in full as written by said Mr Howitt-Cowan and thereafter appears my full response. I apologise for any spelling errors etc
in the article which is exactly as taken from the published newsletter. I can only assume that it was written in a rush.
‘ William Hickman, The Pilgrims & The Old Hall ’ time for a fresh perspective based
on the premise of historical evidence & historical integrity - shattering illusions
For many years, it has been categorically said & written, that William Hickman, the early Pilgrims & the Old Hall converged, but is that historically
accurate or is it based on circumstantial evidence, which has over the years become unquestioned tradition, when in reality it may be ‘myth’ & not
‘factually’ true. Indeed, there was a vibrant Separatist group here in Gainsborough long before Nottinghamshire but it may not have centred on the
Old Hall.
There is no primary documentary evidence to date, which confirms that Hickman, the Pilgrims & the Old Hall were ever linked as suggested in past
& current literature.Such a position challenges the very marketing & promotion of the Old Hall with its Pilgrim Father Exhibition in the Old Hall & a
one of the key centres of the early Pilgrims before Plymouth within the ‘quadrilateral.’ As a recent historian has written in his excellent & scholarly
book,
“Without documentary evidence, historians have often said [ written] that Smyth & the Separtists worshipped at Gainsborough Old Hall’.
‘Making Haste from Babylon ‘ by Nick Bunker, Bodley Head, 2010
It raises two points, first about perspicacity as a historian & secondly about historical integrity.You have to be sure of your ground & therefore be able
to back it up & if there is not the supporting evidence to preface statements accordingly.At this present time, we cannot be certain & I am open to the
fact that one day documentary evidence may surface to present fresh perspectives.
There is no doubt, that the Separatist group led by Rev John Smyth existed in Gainsborough.Indeed, when the local vicar was poorly & unable to take
the Sunday service, the parishioners leaned on Smyth to preach, which got him into serious trouble with the Bishop of Lincoln, who had rescinded his
licence to function as a clerk in holy orders. Leading churchmen in the Town, including Hickman, wrote to the bishop to account for those
circumstances but that does not confirm that Hickman was a supporter of the Puritans or that they once worshipped in the Old Hall.
Sir William Hickman is a controversial lord of the manor, who far from being a protector of the Separists he may have been a persecutor & not their
leading light as once thought.In August 1607, John Noble a wealthy draper in the Town, with connections in London, had his hat removed by Hickman
in church, a gesture resisted by Puritans. Noble was a founding father of the grammar school & parish constable.He, with Sir Richard Williamson, &
an attorney called Edward Aston fought a protracted legal battle with Hickman, who imposed exorbitant rents on market traders & had tried to close
Noble’s business down! Hickman had reported John Noble for non-conformity, which is not an act of a sympathiser! The identity of Noble, Aston &
Williamson is more revealing, in that they were members of the Puritan network in the locality which was led by the Rev John Smyth.Hickman is
portrayed as a protector of the early pilgrims in Gainsborough, but if Hickman was not, who then was?That person may well have been Sir Richard
Williamson, son of a local draper, born in Gainsborough c1560. He went to Gray’s Inn, London to be a lawyer, where there was great sympathy for the
puritan cause.Under James I, he was knighted & became a member of the Council of the North based in York. He was a man of political clout & i
nfluence, far in excess of Hickman.Sir Richard’s nephew was Gervase Nevyle of Grove, near Retford, who was formerly of Gray’s Inn, a Puritan
sympathiser who challenged the validity of the Church of England High Commission to bring legal proceedings against them not for religious reasons
but on civil grounds. The Church stood its ground because such a challenge attacked the royal perogative.The battle grounds were being drawn.
The flight of the Pilgrims in 1608 from Stallingborough Flats >:
FOHA
Volume 1, Issue 1
We know more about this event after reading the depositions which have laid dormat for 400 years & have escaped the attention of historians until
now. Reading Bradfords’ account & the depositions reveals a more exciting event than the stark account written by William Bradford.
May 9 Monday The Francis, a barge plying the east coast with sea coal for London was hired for human cargo & its master, Henry Spencer collected
from Gainsborough 10 women, 3 children & 2 men. By the time they reached Stallingborough it had picked up something like 80/100 separitists with
their household stuff.
May 10 Tuesday, at Caistor a group of menfolk had walked from Gainsborough 35 miles in a straight line heading for Stallingborough.which was
reached on Wednesday May 11.One of those on the perambulation was the servant to Thomas Helwys, Edward Arnfield.
May 12 Thursday, The Francis had reached its rendevous to meet a Dutch hoy, that is a vessel with a single mast.Sixteen men in a rowing boat
boarded this hoy & set sail as the local magistrates were in pursuit, leaving the occupants of The Francis to the authorities.Henry Spencer & his
crewman, Robert Barnby were only too happy to spill ‘the beans’.
May 13 Friday, The arrest of women & children was relayed down to London to seek instructions of how to deal with them.Interrogation revealed that
the flight to Holland was planned not by the Hickmans as suggested in some literature, but by Thomas Helwys. Bradford did not tell us that whereas
John Robinson does.
He had hired The Francis to take its human cargo & goods to his cousin Sir Gervase Helwys, Sherriff of Lincolnshire, who sympathaised with the
separatist cause. Gervase erected in 1599, a family monument in Saundby church. He appointed Rev Richard Clifton to Babworth Church, another
separatist stronghold.
The arrest of what were technically ‘Brownists’ was an embarrassment because from 1593, Brownists could be banished or exiled under the law.
Why were the authorities ‘on the ball’, was it inside information or something else.The quiet areas of the coast line was on red alert for people exporting
grain after a bad harvest at home to stop expolitation & such trade had been outlawed.Furthermore, there was suspicion of Catholic insurgency after
problems in Ireland.The separatists were eventually released to see their way clear to sail to Holland possibly because Robert Cecil, the King’s chief
adviser did not want its ringleaders to come to court & challenge the High Commission ie the right of the church to hold civil courts, impose tithes,
grant licences, prove probate, hold property simply because the Church was the arm of the State which helped enforce Protestant Uniformity. To
challenge that, might lead to questioning the place of the Crown itself. The Catholic threat was a far greater worry at that moment in time!
The 1608 flight brings almost closure to the Gainsborough Separtist group which like a meteor lilluminated the Puritan sky in Lincolnshire.
However, 12 years later their search for the New Jerusalem led them to cross ‘the Pond’.It was to be a commercial undertaking when the Mayflower
bravely set off from Plymouth.Behind that commercial contract was the Virginia Company founded in 1606. Interestingly, that company had a
Gainsborough connection, the Somerscales, who are a shadowy lot. Robert Somerscales senior had been co-founder of the local Grammar school
with John Noble Somerscale junior was involved in tobbaco, well connected & infleuential.This son will have known all the major players in the
Separatist movement in Gainsborough & ideally placed to support them in 1620 .
The events reveal that, the Separatist group in Gainsborough was local grown & protected & cultivated by their own, not by the new upstart, Sir
William Hickman. Documentary evidence to date, reveals that Sir William Hickman or Rose Hickman played any role in these events whatsoever,
they had the connections & background to have been a major players but possibly chose not to do so. It also suggests that the story is not as
simplistic as the lord of the manor aiding & abetting the Separatists. Hickman was not the paternal landlord as his forebears became, he was a
‘threadbare fellow’, who, with those with eyes to see, could see through him for what he was, a cold, calculating, grasping, bully, who managed to
alienate the Town & its religious interests. The Separatists therefore may have never met or worshipped in Gainsborough Old Hall. And Rose
Hickman may have been scandalised by the Separatists in the light of her experience against Mary Tudor’s Catholicism which Elizabeth I reversed,
securing Protestant England.These are indeed shattered Illusions of a tradition which carries no documentrary evidence whatsoever.
In order to make an answer to the above I do not propose to go through the entire article section by section to discuss Nick Bunker’s narrative
as well as the views of Mr Howitt-Cowan.
My own personal response with regard to the general argument put that there is no documentary evidence to link the Separatists to Gains-
borough Old hall would be to quote the first rule of forensic investigation into a crime scene – absence of evidence does not mean evidence of
absence. Neither Nick Bunker or Paul Howitt-Cowan are forensic scientists- or recognised scholars of this era in history. Nick Bunker
has had a long and successful career in journalism and in his book he does seem to question the past research of recognised scholars subject.
I will however add that I have sent the article to the renowned scholar Dr Jeremy Dupertuis Bangs. For those not acquainted with Dr Bangs
work he is a past curator of the Plimoth Plantation museum complex in Plymouth, Massachusetts, present curator of the American Pilgrim
Museum in Leiden in the Netherlands, authority on and author of numerous books and articles on the Mayflower Pilgrims – having recently
written the definitive work on the story of the history of the Pilgrim Fathers -‘Pilgrims and Strangers, Travellers and Sojourners’
published by General Society of Mayflower Descendants. It might prove useful for Mr Howitt-Cowan to read page 25 and the footnote with
a source cited in Stephen Wright’s Early English Baptists.
Dr Bangs thoroughly backs up the probability of a link to Gainsborough Old Hall , The Hickmans and the Separatists, and to that end I
believe is producing his own article in light of the above. So, out of respect for him, I shall not presume to pre-empt his response.
Instead I would like to concentrate my efforts here on rebuffing once again this repeated attack upon the good character of William Hickman,
as put forward in current Friend’s of the Old Hall Association publications and this article, and to prove to readers once and for all that the
balance of these long held accusations and opinions should be immediately reassessed and redressed accordingly.
Paul Howitt-Cowan ( heavily quoting Nick Bunker from his book) says that:
‘The 1608 flight brings almost closure to the Gainsborough Separtist group which like a meteor lilluminated the Puritan sky in Lincolnshire.
However, 12 years later their search for the New Jerusalem led them to cross ‘the Pond’.It was to be a commercial undertaking when the
Mayflower bravely set off from Plymouth.Behind that commercial contract was the Virginia Company founded in 1606. Interestingly, that
company had a Gainsborough connection, the Somerscales, who are a shadowy lot. Robert Somerscales senior had been co-founder of the
local Grammar school with John Noble Somerscale junior was involved in tobbaco, well connected & infleuential.This son will have known
all the major players in the Separatist movement in Gainsborough & ideally placed to support them in 1620 .
I have no comment to make upon whether the Somerscales were involved in the 1620 voyage of the ‘Mayflower’ or not as suggested. This is
twelve years after the events of 1607/08 , long after John Smyth, Richard Clyfton and a number of the original ‘players’ in this story are dead
and an entirely different chapter in the Mayflower story.
However, having said that I would like to point out that Messers Bunker and Howitt-Cowan cannot have their cake and eat it when they state
boldly that ‘, the Separatist group in Gainsborough was local grown & protected & cultivated by their own, not by the new upstart, Sir William
Hickman. Documentary evidence to date, reveals that Sir William Hickman or Rose Hickman played any role in these events whatsoever, they
had the connections & background to have been a major players but possibly chose not to do so.’ I think that he meant to say that ‘documentary
evidence to date does not reveal that….. and in answer to this I would respectfully like to point out that there are letters in the archives written to
the Bishop of Lincoln in support of John Smyth. One dated March 24th 1605 is signed by amongst others both Gervase Helwys and Robert
Somerscales- but also by William Hickman and his brother-in-law Francis Willoughby- which must surely prove their part in this ‘support
network’ if it indeed existed.? Could this be a shot in the proverbial foot for Howitt-Cowan and Bunker, I wonder? And as for the Somerscales
being a shadowy lot, then so must have been Noble, Aston and Williamson in relation to the crucial part Howitt-Cowan supposes they played
in the Separatist story. They must have thoroughly covered their tracks for I have yet to find them blazing a trail through any major scholarly
work on the subject that I have been able to find to date.
Howitt-Cowan goes on to say that ‘It also suggests that the story is not as simplistic as the lord of the manor aiding & abetting the Separatists.
Hickman was not the paternal landlord as his forebears became, he was a ‘threadbare fellow’, who, with those with eyes to see, could see
through him for what he was, a cold, calculating, grasping, bully, who managed to alienate the Town & its religious interests.
When I first read this article I immediately approached Mr Howitt-Cowan to ask if I might be allowed in the interests of balance to answer
these attacks upon William Hickman. I was denied on the following grounds that unless I could provide new research, he was reluctant to allow
me to do so. He also said that he thought that my writings, talks etc sufficiently stated my viewpoint and that ‘what you have produced so far is a
recycling of previous material which cannot be confirmed by documents’. He also said that ‘there is sufficient evidence to support the fact that
William Hickman was a ‘threadbare fellow, his successors were not.’ Mr Howitt-Cowan also told me that what interested him was ‘new ground
which fundamentally challenges traditionally held ideas alas that cannot be supported with documentary evidence to date.’
I found this stance somewhat difficult to understand, as in fact I had produced a lot of new and supporting evidence to show the close connection
between the Hickman family and the more radical strand of Calvinist Puritanism as practised by the Separatists during my research for my
novel ‘Tudor Rose’- much of which is mentioned in the author notes at the end of that book- a book of which I had given the manuscript of to
Mr Howitt-Cowan to read and comment upon before its publication. Therefore I can only assume that he did not read the research – or else he
has chosen to deliberately ignore it. In the case of Nick Bunker, perhaps if he had been given the opportunity to look at the sources that I shall
quote or had the opportunity to discuss the Lock-Hickman family as a whole with me, then he may well have written about the Hickmans a little
differently.
So, leaving aside the ‘threadbare fellow’ comment until later, let me go through this last paragraph section by section. ‘Hickman was not the
paternal landlord as his forebears became, he was a ‘threadbare fellow’, who, with those with eyes to see, could see through him for what he was,
a cold, calculating, grasping, bully, who managed to alienate the Town & its religious interests…’
It is true that the established order in Gainsborough at that time did not take kindly to the incoming William Hickman– not in the least bit
surprising as the members of this order were mostly related to the outgoing Burgh family. At this point it might prove prudent to look a little
closer at the Burgh link to Gainsborough to give a clearer idea of the social dynamics of the town.
It was during Lord William Burgh’s lifetime that Gainsborough Old Hall was abandoned as the family’s main home and furniture etc moved
to Starborough Castle instead. The by now largely non resident Burghs even chose the Collegiate Church instead for their burials. In 1584 Lord
William was buried there, as would his widow be in 1621.
Lord William’s successor was Lord Thomas Burgh, soldier and ambassador, Governor of Brill and Lieutenant of Ireland under Queen Elizabeth I.
He served the Queen loyally and funded many of these enterprises himself which by rights should have been underwritten by Elizabeth herself.
During his long absence, his wife Lady Francis ( still living at Starborough) tried valiantly to stave of the ruination of the family fortune.
Letters still survive written by Lady Francis to the Queen begging for her husband’s release from duties and return home. The Queen very
unkindly refused. As a result, by 1596, Lord Thomas became so indebted that he had to sell of much of his estates – including the Manor of
Gainsborough.
William Hickman is known to have paid £5200 for Gainsborough Old Hall and the surrounding manorial estate. When one considers that £20
at that time was worth the equivalent of £9,000 in today’s money, one gets a true understanding of the Hickman’s extreme wealth. And far from
being an ‘upstart’ or ‘nouveaux riche’ as other current accounts of the family state, the Hickman family had been extremely rich for a number of
generations and were direct descendants of the Lords of Bloxham.
After having paid such a vast sum of money for the run down estate, William naturally looked towards putting it under proper management.
However it seems that there was a local core that may have prospered under the previous mis-management and therefore not willing for these
changes to be made as this recently released document from Robert Cecil’s papers shows.
‘William Hickman to —
[1598.]He purchased the manor of Gainsborough, Lincoln, with toll corn of the market there. Murder of his servant, Martin Furser, by three
of Sir George St. Poole's men. In consequence of his prosecuting the offendors, he has been oppressed by St. Poole, Sir William Wray his brother,
and Nicholas Girlington and others, who seek to defeat him of the said toll. Describes their proceedings. Prays his addressee to call the above
named before him to answer their misdemeanors, and also to take order for the commitment of the murderers.—Undated.
1 p. (2133.)
From: 'Cecil Papers: Miscellaneous 1598', Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House, Volume 14: Addenda (1923), pp. 85-102.’
This document is extremely interesting because it actually gives the names of some very prominent local nobles and apparently opponents of
William Hickman. Even more telling when one looks into the genealogy of these men to find that they are all related to each other either by
blood or marriage and to members of the Burgh family.
During this period of absence by first William and then Thomas Burgh, and their subsequent period of management of the state from afar,
it would not be hard to see how an established cartel amongst some or all of these local nobles, perhaps even headed up by relatives of the
Burghs might have become established to keep out outside competition from the town so that they could keep prices within Gainsborough
artificially high at the expense of the poor. It is a simple and well known principle that the effects of a free market- where a cartel is broken
by allowing in competition and a good supply of goods – is that prices then fall to their natural level. William Hickman knew this full well.
He also knew from London prices that the poor in Gainsborough were suffering at the hands of these local men who had actively blocked
any outside traders from coming in. So it appears that William Hickman broke this stranglehold by allowing in outsiders and increasing the
number of markets each year held at the Mart Yard (across from the Hall) which is another of the complaints strongly made against him.
If this is indeed so then it is not surprising that there is no written record of the poor thanking their lord of the manor for his benevolence.
The poor are seldom the writers of history.
William Hickman also did what was done in London (and which is incidentally imposed by most local authorities today) – he clamped down
on the practise of shop keepers of encroaching across the roadway with their stalls thus impeding both people and traffic. There are other
records of similar disputes between the local gentry and William Hickman too numerous to mention here and yet in which Hickman’s actions
can be just as easily justified- and lawful.
This brings me on to comments made regarding John Noble. It is clear that there was personal antagonism between John Noble, Edward
Aston and Sir Richard Williamson and William Hickman- and so this incident may be coloured by this and therefore is open to other
interpretation. Also this concept of a ‘Puritan network’ in the area is not proven.
Besides which, if such a thing had existed then the Hickmans are every bit as likely to have been a part of that. Also the mention of Williamson’s
position and that of his nephew proves nothing more than they challenged the Church of England High Commission – on a subject not to do
with theology but more to do with legal privileges.
William Hickman is often accused in current accounts of his character as having somehow twisted the law to his advantage simply because
on coming to Gainsborough he had now suddenly found himself not only as Lord of the Manor but also Justice of the Peace too and so
abused this position. In fact I would like to set the record straight in that William Hickman was a Justice of the Peace in Middlesex, London
long before coming to Gainsborough and that he was a much respected one too. In fact there are numerous surviving court records of cases
heard by Hickman. For example:
29 May, 38 Elizabeth.—Recognizance, taken before William Hickman J.P., of Richard Slater of Bishoppe Hattfield co. Hertford yoman,
in the sum of ten pounds; For the said Richard's appearance at the next Session of the Peace to be held in Middlesex, to give evidence against
Silvester Caulton gentleman. G. D. R., 2 July, 38 Eliz.
From: 'Middlesex Sessions Rolls: 1596', Middlesex county records: Volume 1: 1550-1603 (1886), pp. 230-235.
It would be surprising indeed if Sir William was not well versed in the law, considering that two of his brothers were Doctors of the Law.
And as for Sir Richard Williamson being ‘a man of political clout and influence, far in excess of William Hickman’- as Howitt–Cowan puts it
- then why do such high-ranking people at court speak up for William Hickman so readily? Could it be that immediate members of William
Hickman’s family had been influential at the Tudor court for more than sixty years? William’s own father, Anthony, had been a favourite of both
Henry VIII, Edward and Queen Elizabeth while two of William’s brothers, Walter and Henry were Members of Parliament early in King James’
reign while yet another brother, Eleazer, was very well-known and favoured at the court of both Queen Elizabeth and King James.
In fact there is further supporting evidence within the State Calendar of papers relating to Lord Robert Cecil which serve to support the
opposite picture to that painted by Mr Howitt-Cowan’s article – this time of William Hickman clearly being the victim of these gentlemen
of Gainsborough as his oppressors.
July 8th 1598 William Kyllygrew to Sir Robert Cecil:
On behalf of Mr. Hickman, in a cause depending before the Council, prosecuted by the malice of Mr. Topliff and other gentlemen of
Lincolnshire, who, to stop Hickman's proceedings in the prosecuting of justice against some persons that killed a servant of his, follow
this cause among other hard measures. Hickman is both honest and very beneficial to the poor inhabitants of Gainsborough,
where he lives.—Hanworth, 8 July, 1598
This correspondence throws further light upon the dynamics of Gainsborough society at the time of William Hickman’s arrival with the
mention of ‘Mr Topliff’. This is Mr. Richard Topliff – or more often known as ‘Topcliffe’ - a man who would have been the senior family
member amongst the other aforementioned fine gentlemen of Lincolnshire and a man who is well documented for his reputation for being
a bully of the blackest of nature.
Topcliffe was the eldest son of Robert Topcliffe of Somersby, Lincolnshire, and his wife, Margaret, had been the daughter of Thomas, third
Baron Burgh of Gainsborough. Topcliffe entered the service of Queen Elizabeth’s secretary, William Cecil in the 1570s, and had worked for
Sir Francis Walsingham and the Privy Council. However, he always regarded his own authority as deriving directly from the Queen.
Topcliffe was the queens principle ‘examiner’ -a fanatical persecutor of Catholics and the Catholic Church, and was involved in the interrogation
and torture of many priests and laity, and had deservedly gained a reputation as a sadistic torturer who frequently played mind games with
prisoners under interrogation.( William Richardson, ‘Topcliffe, Richard (1531–1604)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford
University Press, Sept 2004;) He claimed that his own instruments and methods were better than the official ones, and was authorized to
create a torture chamber in his home in London. He also involved himself directly in the execution of sentences of death upon Catholic
recusants, which involved hanging, drawing and quartering.
Topcliffe's victims included the Jesuits Robert Southwell, John Gerard, and Henry Garnet. Topcliffe features numerous times in Fr. Gerard's
autobiography of his days as a hunted priest in Elizabethan England. In it he's described as, "old and hoary and a veteran in evil". He raped
one of his prisoners, Anne Bellamy, until she helped him arrest the Jesuit priest Robert Southwell. When Bellamy became pregnant by him
in 1592, she was forced to marry his servant to cover up the scandal. ( Hutchinson, Robert, Elizabeth's Spymaster: Francis Walsingham
and the Secret War that Saved England (2006) pp.76-78 ISBN 9-78029-7846130)
Topcliffe was involved in a legal wrangle with his assistant Thomas Fitzherbert. Fitzherbert had betrayed his own father and uncle by
accusing them of treason, agreeing to split their forfeited estates with Topcliffe if they were condemned. There was a dispute over whether
one of them had died of natural causes, or as a result of the torture inflicted by Topcliffe, and Fitzherbert refused to pay. Topcliffe won the
case and gained the estates, but a few years later the estates were returned to the Fitzherbert family by Queen Elizabeth I, and Topcliffe was
presented with estates in Derbyshire.
My I please ask, is this the type of gentleman and his cronies to be relied upon to give a good character reference? And is it coincidence that
most of the aggravation aimed at William Hickman dies down at about the same time as Robert Topcliffe is confined to bed and dies?
( Topcliffe died in November or December 1604 at the age of about 72)
Now back to the ‘threadbare –fellow’ comment laid against William Hickman – which was a contemporary remark. Why should some one
say that? To show how poor Hickman was? Obviously not because I have already demonstrated how wealthy he was. Then why make it?
It was shorthand that would have been immediately understood at the time- that William himself was a staunch Puritan and a godly pious
man. So pious in fact that he would not have believed in wearing his best clothes everyday as an outward shows of wealth, as borne out by
a myriad of family wills which show that this Locke/Hickman family believed that any wealth they had acquired was for doing God’s work
(and indeed Lady Rose puts forward this very sentiment in her own account of her life with Anthony (British Library Manuscript ADD43827A)
and not for such frippery. For example, countless Hickman/Locke wills of William’s extended family bear out this fact by asking grieving
relatives not to buy mourning clothes (for outward show) but instead to spend that money on the poor- indeed the poor are always deeply
considered by this family and provision made for them – as they believed good Christians should. Hence the charge that William Hickman
was a threadbare fellow whilst still being extremely rich.
The reason behind why William Hickman might have left London for Lincolnshire might also shed some light. William was a Mercer
but trade had been particularly bad during the years of war with Spain. In the wake of the Act Against Puritans 1593 positions at court,
for which there are records to show William had applied for and should have easily obtained through his brother’s existing positions at court,
had suddenly became denied to known Puritans – which
Hickman was known to be. Perhaps William and his mother Lady Rose were also beginning to feel persecuted and unable to express their
religion in London themselves which may have well contributed to their decision to move up to Lincolnshire – where they had similar
thinking friends and acquaintances already. As Lady Rose Hickman in her youth had witnessed first hand religious persecution on the part
of the then monarch, perhaps the family feared a repeat of that and so found the opportunity of having control over a sea-going port such as
Gainsborough attractive. Considering that only in 1604, King James had said of such religious dissenters that he would ‘make them conform,
or harry them out of the land or worse... .’ perhaps these fears were grounded?
Also the image of a man who on his own portrait (believed to have been painted as part of a set in 1596) chooses to include the words’
God be with me’ does not sit comfortably beside the other images conjured up by quotes mentioned by Howitt-Cowan which were made
against him during his lifetime and by his enemies.
Finally Mr Howitt-Cowan closes his article making the following statement regarding William Hickman and the Separatist connection:-
‘The Separatists therefore may have never met or worshipped in Gainsborough Old Hall. And Rose Hickman may have been scandalised
by the Separatists in the light of her experience against Mary Tudor’s Catholicism which Elizabeth I reversed, securing Protestant England.
These are indeed shattered Illusions of a tradition which carries no documentrary evidence whatsoever.’
Paul Howitt-Cowan has so obviously not researched the Hickman-Locke family or he would not have made such a daft remark. This last
paragraph shows a truly appalling lack of understanding of both William and Lady Rose Hickman’s true religious position and that of Puritans
in general. This is why we have such ‘dissidents’ at this time - for the very reason that Puritans strongly objected to Queen Elizabeth’s
settlement of the Church of England.
Lady Rose and her husband Anthony Hickman had been particularly close friends of John Knox since the reign of King Edward. Knox is known
to have been particularly close to Lady Rose’s sister in law, Anne Vaughn Lock, who escaped to Geneva to be with him during his exile from
Marian England.
On Anne’s return to England, Knox writes letters to her in which he sends his salutations to his friends, Rose and Anthony Hickman by name.
A letter exists from John Knox addressed jointly to Rose and her sister-in-law Anne (D Laing- The Works of John Knox (6vols 1846-64 - v4
p237-9,p239-241,v1 p12-15, p21-27, p77-79, p83-85, p100-101, p103-104, p107-109,p129-131,p140-141.)
The Hickmans are in fact commended five times in letters of John Knox to Anne. In one he even warns all of them to have nothing
to do with Queen Elizabeth’s bastard church! England may have been returned to Protestantism of a sort but it was most certainly not the
type of hard fought Protestantism that had begun to come into existence under her half-brother King Edward and for which Rose and her
extended family had fought so long and hard for.
Queen Elizabeth so loathes Knox’s theological stance that she would not even allow him to set foot upon the soil of her new English kingdom
on his return home from exile in Geneva to Scotland. So how can Howitt-Cowan imagine Lady Rose being scandalised by Separatists
who shared very similar theological views as Knox? Lady Rose Hickman then takes Knox’s lead by naming her next son after Knox’s own son,
Eleazar – meaning ‘with God’s help’- as does her brother Michael Locke– as a sign of their solidarity with Knox.
A letter also exists from John Foxe to the Hickmans following their return from exile in Antwerp, whilst yet a further letter exists mentioning
the sharing of texts (BL Harley MS 146 fo.134r, 416 fo.101r).
Lady Rose Hickman also stresses the longevity of her family's inclusion in 'the true faith- i.e. Continental-style Protestantism- by writing about
how her own mother was converted to it in the reign of the then still Catholic Henry VII- and how her father smuggled in Bibles in
English- which Rose explains were then considered 'heretical'.
More telling is the fact that when Lady Rose Hickman and her husband found themselves in a time of religious persecution they established
a secret conventicle at their house made up of Godly individuals and she states '... we and they did table together in a chamber, keeping the doores
close shut for fear of the promotours, as we read in the gospel the disciples of Christ did in feare of the Jews...' The threat of persecution meant that
they had to hide their community- in short -Lady Rose already had a track record of hiding a secret congregation in her own home - so why
does it seem so implausible to both Nick Bunker and Paul Howitt-Cowan that she and her son William should not have done
so at Gainsborough Old Hall also?
Rose's husband Anthony used their vast wealth to help hunted Protestant escape Queen Mary. She writes that her husband and her brother
( his trading partner) did not 'trust in uncertain riches but in the living Lord who giveth abundantly all things to be enjoyed. For they were not
unmindful to use and imploy their substance to the glory of God and his church...' In pursuing the glory of God, Rose believed that resulted
in the wealth that they then used to finance and shelter godly preachers in the Marian era. Considering that Lady Rose was revered by her own
children and many following generations of her family for her religious example- does it not seem odd to suggest that her son William Hickman
would have broken that mould whilst his mother was still very much alive and living at the Old Hall?
As well as other remembrances of the Hickman's various deliverances by God's hand, Lady Rose chose to write in depth about her son William
Hickman's deliverances as a child- perhaps she wrote this hoping to demonstrate how God had chosen him too to be a member of his church?
William Hickman’s children, as well as John Smyth’s daughters, Clara and Sara, and son, Robert appear as being baptized in Gainsborough
according to the parish church records. It is also clear that Smyth’s status was that of Preacher or Lecturer. The word ‘lecturer’ often referred
to un-ordained ministers usually put forward by parishioners and supported by them financially.
The appointed vicar of that parish church at that time from 1602 until 1608, Jerome Phillips, must surely have known about John Smyth’s
strong theological views and yet why did he not report him? It is because this minister was a Puritan by nature himself, and therefore able to
perform a covert ‘purified’ baptism if needed.( It is known that many Puritan clergy chose to outwardly conform themselves after the 1604
Hampton Court Conference and the introduction of the 141 new cannon laws in order to remain within the established church in the hope
of reforming it from within). More telling was the fact that Jerome Phillips was also Lady Rose Hickman’s grandson by her late
daughter Mary. Phillips may have conceivably deliberately absented himself from the church at Gainsborough on occasion allowing Smyth
to fill the breech and to preach. However, had Phillips been seen to openly allow Smyth to preach in his church at Gainsborough, then he too
would have been cited and punished- hence particular mention is made of Phillips unavoidable absence from Gainsborough in the very same
letter as already mentioned to the Bishop of Lincoln excusing Smyth from preaching at that church out of necessity.
Dr Jeremy Bangs has written to me on my above research commenting that ‘I do not know why your information ( the connection with
John Knox, for example) is not sufficient proof ( for Mr Howitt-Cowan ) to prove the Hickman family’s support for Calvinism/ Puritanism
at Gainsborough. It would be enough for any legitimate professional historian’.
Then there is Lady Rose Hickman’s fourth son, Anthony, who was at Peterhouse with both Robert Troublechurch Brown and Pilgrim Father
William Brewster. After Browne’s removal from Cambridge, Hickman was swiftly transferred to Corpus Christi where he was repeatedly
persecuted for having ‘avoided’ taking holy orders in order to take up his Fellowship. He was at very least a Puritan (who actually did take
holy orders at that time) – but is very likely instead to have been a Separatist himself. I give an in depth account of this in both my novel
‘Tudor Rose’ and its author notes. (Full copies of correspondence relating to this are held in the Portland Papers).
In conclusion, I sincerely regret having to post this response onto the internet in order to reply to what, after all, is an article written by
the Chairman of the FOHA whom I serve alongside as a member of the committee. But with his refusal to allow me to do so in the
Association’s own magazine, I feel it my duty to bring the matter to the wider organisations and the people of Gainsborough’s attention in the
only way I can.
I also cannot understand why Mr Howitt-Cowan did not come to me first before dashing off this article as I am widely recognised as being
quite well versed in the subject and indeed in the past- very recent past I might add- any enquiry relating to the Pilgrim Fathers received by
Paul Howitt-Cowan has always been immediately passed to me for my attention.
Whatever the reason was for my exclusion when this article was put together ( and for my not even being told about its existence until the
Summer Newsletter was actually sent out) when good faithful dead are slandered in this way I feel that someone somewhere has to make a
stand on their behalf. After all, in this the 400th Anniversary year of Lady Rose Hickman setting down an account of some of her family’s
life stories- and as a London incomer myself just as she and William were – I feel quite justified in taking on the task to clear their names
and regain their tarnished reputation.
I would implore anyone who can to go and read through Lady Rose Hickman’s hand written account and dare them not be moved by the
deep declarations of her Christian faith and of this family. Then I defy them to go to the state archives and read contemporary documents
relating to this family, as I have, and not then realise what a mean –minded smear campaign had been launched at these people at the time
they moved to Gainsborough and how wicked it is that other mean-minded people today seem to want to continue it for their own ends. I note
that Mr Howitt-Cowan is keen to point out that the ‘bad name’ of William Hickman is not then passed down to his son and heir Willoughby.
Could this possibly have anything to do with not wanting to offend the distant descendant of that line and current President of the FOHA whilst
not caring at all that this article is a slap in the face for anyone, like me, who spends hundreds of hours a year promoting the Separatist link to
both the Hickmans and the Old Hall for the good of the town and its tourism.
In short, instead of shunning William Hickman as a ne’re do well upstart, the townsfolk of Gainsborough should instead proudly reclaim him
and take him to their heart.
In light of this article I am still astounded that Paul Howitt-Cowan
persists in declaring that
I have provided no historical evidence to counter his claims. Instead he points out that I 'deal in fiction'
whilst he 'deals in fact'.
After reading the above response he informs me that 'I have read your article, it fails to reveal a direct
documentary link. Once you do so, you can write full steam.'
It is not unusual in historical interpretation to have to go with what the existing evidence and common
sense points to as the likeliest scenario in the absence of absolute documentary proof (as is being
unreasonably demanded by Mr Howitt-Cowan at this juncture.
Why, one might ask, could it be that a definitive document stating 'us Separatists woz here at Gains-
borough Old Hall' is so difficult to locate and indeed might never be found? Could it be to do with the
fact that to have allowed a Separatist congregation to meet at the Old Hall was highly illegal and
almost tantamount to treason?
I therefore leave it to readers to judge whether Mr Howitt- Cowan is in fact right to be questioning this
link at all as what can only assume is a prelude to removing all mention of it from the promotion of the Old
Hall to visiting tourists. And to also ask this -who appointed Paul Howitt-Cowan the custodian of Gainsborough
history anyway and endowed him with the power to decree what is and what is not the most likely truth?
Not only that, but to also ask him where is his documentary proof to say that there is no connection
because the existing evidence, despite his arguments, overwhelmingly points to the Hickmans supporting
exactly this type of band of dissenters and therefore putting the Old Hall at their disposal.
And then to ask why now? Why now to question the Hickman/Separatist/Old Hall association? What has
Mr Howitt-Cowan to gain by trying to discredit this link and in the process damaging potential tourism at
precisely the time that Gainsborough desperately needs it?That is what I would like to know...