that there had been a ‘generall plage of rebelling,’ but that Kent, Sussex and Essex, and all the parts near London have meekly confessed their folly and pray for the king’s most gracious pardon.⁶³  In May 1550, letters were directed by the Council to Mr. Culpeper, the sheriff, and others to assemble the gentlemen and prevent ‘a conspiracy wrought among the commons as well of that shire as of Sussex’ for an insurrection.⁶³  One Upcharde, of Bocking, was brought before the Council for having an unlawful assembly of more than 6o persons in his house in January 1551. The meeting seems to have been concerned with matters of religion, with which indeed most of the risings at this time were probably connected.⁶⁵  Though the accession of Queen Mary took place without disturbance in the county, the announcement of her Spanish betrothal led to an ‘unlawful scurrye.’⁶⁶  Sir Thomas Wyatt’s rebellion would have been more serious than it was, had not the precipitancy of his Devonshire confederates forced him to act before his preparations were complete, but even so, it was the most formidable of the insurrections that resulted from ‘the coming of the Spaniards into the realm.’ Wyatt made an armed demonstration at Maidstone⁶⁷  25 January 1554 but two days earlier Sir Robert Southwell, sheriff of Kent, had sent the Council depositions concerning words spoken by William Isley, son of Sir Harry Isley, inciting to rebellion.⁶⁸  Depositions of witnesses show that Sir Harry Isley and Sir Thomas Culpeper were responsible for the alarm being rung at Hadlow ⁶⁹ and Tonbridge⁷⁰  and probably many other places, and Sir Harry Isley’s name appears with those of Wyatt, Sir George Harper and Anthony Knevett in a proclamation declaring Lord Abergavenny, Sir Robert Southwell, and George Clark to be traitors to God, the crown and the commonwealth.⁷¹  This testifies to the activity of these gentlemen in dealing with the insurrection. By 28 January, the Duke of Norfolk was able to inform the Council that Sir George Harper had come over from the rebels,⁷²  and Lord Cobham and Sir John Fogg were at Gravesend with a force not exceeding 300 men. On being informed by Norfolk that he intended to march against Wyatt, who had fortified Rochester Bridge, Cobham warned him not to advance too far. It seems to have been the opinion of the local gentry that Norfolk’s proceedings were altogether too hasty.⁷³  The desertion of the Londoners under Brett to Wyatt’s camp at Rochester had been followed by that of a considerable number of Lord Abergavenny’s men. These desertions had hampered Norfolk, who with the aid of the Lord Warden attempted to fall on the rear of Wyatt’s forces and to cut him off on his march to Deptford.⁷⁴  Cobham was attacked by Wyatt on 30 January, and obliged to surrender Cowling Castle.⁷⁵  In spite of his previous exertions and his refusal to join Wyatt, Cobham fell under suspicion, and was imprisoned in the Tower. He was, however, pardoned at the intercession of Count D’Egmont.⁷⁶
   In a skirmish near Wrotham, 28 January, the rebels, who were led by Sir
   ⁶³ Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. XII, App. iv, p. 42.     ⁶⁴  Acts P.C. iii, 35.
   ⁶⁵  Ibid. iii, 117; iv, 168.
   ⁶⁶  So described by the Council, writing for the queen, February 1554. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. X, App. iv, 449. This letter declares that the examination of the prisoners shows that really ‘their smale meaning was to have destroyed our person.’
   ⁶⁷ His own home, Allington Castle, where he was born, was in the immediate neighbourhood.
   ⁶⁸  Cal. S.P. Dom. 1547-80, p. 56.       ⁶⁹ Ibid. 60.           ⁷⁰ Ibid. 6i.
   ⁷¹  Ibid.                                                  ⁷² Ibid.
   ⁷³  Cal. S.F. Dom. 1547-80, p. 58.       ⁷⁴  Ibid. 58, 59.     ⁷⁵  Ibid. 58.
   ⁷⁶  Ibid. 61.