Chapter XXVI: Part I: , 70, 1537. Examination of R. Leedes: "The rebels (1)

were half inclined to go home. But Ralph Green ... encouraged
them to go forward, saying, 'God's blood, sirs, what will ye now
do? Shall we go home and keep sheep? Nay, by God's body, yet had
I rather be hanged,'" and _ibid._: "The said Trotter says the
meaning of the plough borne in the banner was the encouraging of
the husbandman."

[556] _Ibid._, vol. xii., Part I., 687, 1537. Confession of
Barnarde Townleye, Clerk: "The beginners of the insurrection in
Cumberland were the 4 captains of Penrith; Faith, Poverty, Pity
and Charity, as the Vicar of Burgh proclaimed them at each
meeting.... Conjectures that the intent was to destroy the
gentlemen, that none should pay ingressums to his landlord, and
little or no rent or tithe"; also _ibid._, Examination of Sir
Robert Thompson, Vicar of Burgh: "On the Wednesday and Thursday
the 4 captains followed examinand in procession with their
swords drawn, and examinand said mass, which they called the
Captains' mass."

[557] Gairdner, _L. and P. Henry VIII._, vol. xii., Part I.,
687: "They of Kirkby Stephen plucked down the new intacks of
enclosures, and sent to other Parishes to do the like, which was
done at Burgh, 28th January." For the Doncaster programme see
below, p. 334. Aske said (_L. and P._, vol. xii., Part I., p.
901) that the new farmers of monastic estates "let and tavern
out the farms of the same houses to other farmers for lucre."

[558] These particulars are taken from Strype, _Ecclesiastical
Memorials_.

[559] Gay, _Trans. Royal Hist. Soc._, New Series, vol. xviii.,
which also gives an account of the Midland riot of 1607.

[560] MSS. in possession of Charles E. Bradshaw Bowles, Esq., of
Wirksworth, for a transcript of which I am indebted to Mr.
Kolthammer. See below, pp. 327?-329.

[561] _Hist. MSS. Com._, MSS. of Marquis of Salisbury, Part VI.,
pp. 49?-50.

This was perhaps the last serious agrarian rising which England has seen. But though henceforward the hatred of the new agrarian régime ran for the most part underground, it had been burned too deep into the minds of the people to be lightly forgotten, and more than once its smouldering embers flickered up in occasional riots. In the first flush of the army's victory over King and Parliament, when the shattering of authority seemed for a moment to make all things new, not only the political, but the economic, ideas of two centuries later burst for a moment, as in an early spring, into wonderful and premature life. The programme of the Levellers, who more than any other party could claim to express the aspirations of the unprivileged classes, included a demand not only for annual or biennial Parliaments, manhood suffrage, a redistribution of seats in proportion to population, and the abolition of the Veto of the House of Lords, but also "that you would have laid open all enclosures of fens and other commons, or have them enclosed only or chiefly for the benefit of the poor."[562] Theoretical communism, repudiated by some of the Levellers, found its expression in the agitation of the Diggers, those "true born sons and friends of England" who, under Everard and Winstanley, set themselves, in the spirit of an Owenite Community, to convert the waste land at Weybridge into the New Jerusalem.[563] For to many earnest souls the day of the Lord seems very near, and Israel must make ready against it, not with anguish of spirit only, but with spade labour upon the barren earth. The contrast between the prevalence of organised agrarian revolts in the middle of the sixteenth century, dragging on in small sporadic agitations for nearly one hundred years, with their comparative rarity two hundred years later, when similar causes were at work to produce them, marks the new grouping of social classes and economic forces which was going on apace in our period. The intelligence of toiling England, that for a century now has gone to build up a new civilisation in factory and mine, in trade union and co-operative store, still lay in the larger villages, its immemorial home. Discontent travelled across the enclosing counties as it does to-day in a Welsh mining valley, outcoursing oppression itself, like Elijah running before Ahab into Jezreel. "If three or four good fellows would ride in the night with every man a bell, and cry in every town that they pass, 'To Swaffham! To Swaffham!' by the morning there would be ten thousand assembled at the least; and then one bold fellow to stand forth and say, 'Sirs, now we be here assembled, you know how little favour the gentlemen bear us poor men.... Let us ... harness ourselves.'"[564] Good fellows and bold were not wanting. "From that time forward no man could keep his servant at plough; but every man that could bear a staff went forward."[565] Before the appearance of almost universal leasehold tenure, standing armies, and omnipotent aristocratic Parliaments, unrest among the rural population might cause the Government a not inexpensive campaign, in which the reluctant militia of yesterday were the enthusiastic rebels of to-day, and there was not therefore much disparity between the discipline and equipment of the forces engaged on either side. Both in the mainly agrarian revolts in Norfolk, and in the mainly religious revolts in Devonshire, the peasants fell, as they hoped they might, like men, and it was the arquebuses of the foreign mercenaries which really decided the struggle. Poor homeless hirelings, what could they know but to clamour for their pay, and shoot better men than themselves?

[562] The Humble Petition of thousands well affected persons
inhabiting the city of London, Westminster, the Borough of
Southwark, Hamlets, and places adjacent. In Bodleian Pamphlets,
_The Leveller's Petition_, c. 15, 3 Linc. See also Gooch,
_English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century_, pp.
139?-226.

[563] Camden Society, _Clarke Papers_, vol. ii. pp. 215?-217.
Winstanley's letter to Lord Fairfax and the Council of War
begins: "That whereas we have begun to dig upon the Commons for
livelihood, and have declared unto your excellency and the whole
world our reasons, which are four. First, from the righteous law
of creation that gives the earth freely to one as well as
another, without respect of persons"; also Gooch, _op. cit._ The
Owenite note may be more than a mere chance. Owen himself stated
("New View of Society"): "Any merit due for the discovery
calculated to effect more substantial and permanent benefit to
mankind than any ever yet contemplated by the human mind belongs
exclusively to John Bellers." Bellers published his _College of
Industry_ in 1696, and may easily have been acquainted with the
story of the Diggers' agitation.

[564] Russell, _Ket's Rebellion in Norfolk_, p. 8.

[565] Gairdner, _L. and P. Henry VIII._, vol. xii., Part I.,
201, Examination of John Halom of Calkehill, yeoman.

To understand the nature of a body at rest it is sometimes advisable to look at the same body when it is in motion. The agrarian disturbances of our period possess certain features which are of interest even to those who are concerned primarily not with social politics, but with economic organisation. In the first place, they mark the transition from the feudal revolts of the fifteenth century, based on the union of all classes in a locality against the central government, to those in which one class stands against another through the opposition of economic interests. In the Lincolnshire rebellion and in the Pilgrimage of Grace the old spirit predominated. In the North of England the new agrarian régime had not proceeded far enough to sap entirely the ancient bonds between landlord and tenant, and the plunder of the monastic estates had not yet set a commercial aristocracy in the seat of the old-fashioned Catholic landlords. The commons of Westmoreland, who declare that they will trust no gentlemen with their councils, nevertheless feel sufficient confidence in Lord Darcy to write to him for his advice as to how far they will be justified in insisting on reduced admission fines, and in pulling down "all the intakes yt be noysum for poor men."[566] Had the Catholic gentry generally been willing to sacrifice the rents got from pasture-farming, these movements might have found leaders who would have made them more formidable. As it was, even when hatred of the religious changes or of some particular piece of legislation, like the unpopular Statute of Uses, enrolled the gentry with the peasants, as in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire in 1536, the incompatibility of the allies was obvious, and the presence of the wealthier classes inspired distrust among the rank and file, who saw in them the authors of their economic evils, and who, though genuinely concerned at the painful destruction of the social institutions of the old religion, were fighting mainly for the maintenance of "old customs and tenant right," fair rents and security of tenure. In spite of the temporary union of all classes in 1536, the insurgents tended to break up into two camps corresponding roughly with the division between landlord and tenant. In Lincolnshire, though the commons were influenced by the gentry so far as to demand the repeal of the Act of Uses, "not knowing," as a witness said, "what that Act of Uses meant," they showed their distrust of the upper classes by refusing to allow them to discuss their future policy apart from the general body of insurgents, while the extremists clamoured that "they ought to kill some of the justices; also that if they hanged for this, they would not leave one gentleman alive in Lincolnshire."[567] At Richmond all lords and gentlemen were to swear on the mass-book to maintain the profit of Holy Church, to take nothing of their tenants but the usual rents, to put down Cromwell and not to go to London, on pain of death if they refused.[568] For courts have strange arts of seduction, and though London (thank Heaven) is not England now, it was still less England then. The rough rhymes that ran through the North contain the warning of all popular movements against the treachery of leaders, the sad eternal warning which buoys the sands where so many high endeavours have gone to wreck. "All commons stick ye together, rise with no great man till ye know his intent. Keep your harness in your hands, and ye shall obtain all your purpose in all this North land.... Claim ye old customs and tenant right, to take your farms by a God's penny, all gressums and heightenings to be laid down. Then may we serve our sovereign Lord King Henry VIII., God save his noble Grace.

We shall serve our lands' lords in every righteous cause
With horse and harness as custom will demand.
Lords spiritual and temporal have it in your mind
This world as it waveth, and to your tenants be kind.
Adieu, gentle commons, thus make I an end:
Writer of this letter, pray Jesu be his speed;
He shall be your captain, when that ye have need."[569]

[566] _Ibid._, vol. xi., 1080.

[567] Gairdner, _L. and P. Henry VIII._, vol. xi., 975.

[568] _Ibid._, vol. xii., Part I., 163.

[569] Gairdner, _L. and P. Henry VIII._, vol. xii., Part I.,
163. The Proclamation of the Commons; see also _ibid._, 138, the
manifesto which says, "Ye shall have captains just and true, and
not be stayed by the gentry in no wise."

The temporary solidarity which had drawn all classes into the Pilgrimage of Grace, though it flickered up for the last time in the feudal revolt of the northern earls in 1569, was absent altogether from the widespread agitation of 1549 to 1550. Except in Devonshire and Cornwall, the disturbances of those years were purely agrarian, a movement of tenants against landlords. The Eastern rebels were for leaving "as many gentlemen in Norfolk as there be white bulls";[570] the gentry responded by rallying to the Government; and both in that country and in Devonshire the military forces which put down the peasants were led by the two most notoriously unpopular landlords in England, who had built up their estates out of confiscated abbey lands, the Earl of Warwick and Sir William Herbert. In the reign of Henry VII. the problem before Governments had still been to prevent a great landlord from using his authority over his tenants to make war on his neighbours or on the State. Sixty years later it is to prevent tenants in several different counties from combining against landlords. The landed classes recognise the new spirit. They denounce the peasants as communists and agitators; and when they get a free hand, as in the years from 1549 to 1553, they insist on legislation which will make effective combination impossible.

[570] Russell, _Ket's Rebellion in Norfolk_, Introduction, p. 8.
The advice of John Walker of Griston.

In the second place, the way in which the agrarian agitations were conducted is interesting as showing both the comparative prosperity and independence of the English peasantry, even at a time when the fortunes of many of them were declining, and the general conceptions of social expediency held by what was regarded as the most representative part of the English nation. It would be a mistake to think of the rebels who joined these revolts as mere unorganised malcontents, with nothing to lose. There is no resemblance at all, either in personnel or methods, between the agrarian disturbances of our period and the riots of starving agricultural labourers who burned ricks under Captain Swing in the early nineteenth century. The peasants who formed the backbone of the movements were often well-to-do men, who were fighting to keep their land with the dreadful tenacity of small proprietors. They had arms and were accustomed to their use. They had sufficient money to raise common funds. They included among their number sanguine and pertinacious litigants who, so far from being disposed to throw up their case at the hint of the landlord's displeasure, were quite capable of making his life one long lawsuit. The readiness of a class to make effective the protection given it by the law in the face of the opposition of powerful individuals, quenched, alas! too often by ignorance, and timidity, and generations of dull oppression, is a very good test of its spirit and of the practical freedom which it enjoys. In the sixteenth century, though we certainly see many gross cases of intimidation, we also see tenants appealing to the law courts and to the Government over the heads of lords of manors. Such appeals are a proof of the helplessness of the victims which has been commented on above. But they are also a proof of the persistence and cohesion of some among them. For while in the absence of oppression they would not have been necessary, in the absence of a determination to resist oppression they could not have been made. To enclose was in parts of the country to stir up a hornet's nest. There was not much obsequiousness about the villagers of Thingden,[571] who from 1494 to 1538 pursued their landlord through almost every Court in the Kingdom. The leaders of the popular agitation were often the more prosperous among the middle-classes. Sanders, the general in the interminable struggle over the common lands of the city of Coventry which began in 1460, was a member of the important craft of Dyers, and had occupied the high civic office of Chamberlain.[572] At Louth[573] the initiative among the commons was taken by a tailor and a weaver. Ket[574] himself was a considerable landed proprietor as well as a tanner.

[571] Selden Society, _Select Cases in the Court of Star
Chamber_, and Leadam, _E. H. R._, vol. viii. pp. 684?-696.

[572] _Coventry Leet Book_, edited by M.D. Harris, vol. ii. 510
and _passim_.

[573] Gairdner, _L. and P. Henry VIII._, vol. xii., Part I.,
380, The Examination of the Monk late of Louth Park: "Plummer
and one James, a tailor, were the most quick and chiefest rulers
of the company.... Melton, whom they named 'Captain Cobbles,'
was the most chief and busy man among these commoners.... John
Tailor, of Louth, webster, brought out of the house a great
brand of fire, and the commons carried the books into the
market-place."

[574] _Hist. MSS. Com._, Cd. 2319, p. 75, Copy of Letters Patent
(28 May, 4 Ed. VI.) granting to Thomas Audeley ... all that
manor called Gunvyles Manor in Norfolk, parcel of the
possessions of the said ... Robert Ket, in consideration "boni,
veri, fidelis, et magnanimi servitii in conflictu versus
innaturales subditos nostros proditores ac nobis rebelles in
Com. nostro Norf.... quorum ... quidam Bobertus Kett existit
capitanus et conductor."

The peasants' agitations took the form both of more or less organised risings and of sporadic rioting, which aimed at ends varying from place to place according to the grievances inspired by the varying conditions of different districts. Everywhere there were the throwing down of enclosures and the driving of sheep.[575] In Yorkshire the enclosures which were pulled down seem to have been mainly intakes from the waste, and in Norfolk and the Midlands enclosures of arable land which had been converted to pasture. In Warwickshire the Earl of Warwick's park was demolished, while in Wiltshire, where Sir William Herbert had acquired the lands of Wilton Abbey, and enclosed a whole village in his new park at Washerne, the peasants rose and tore down the palings.[576] In the North generally the bitterest outcry seems to have arisen over the excessive fines and "gressums" charged for the admission of copyholders. In Cumberland[577] there was a general strike against the payment of rents, and almost everywhere there were complaints of the diminution in the area available for pasturing the beasts of commoners through the enclosing by landlords of manorial wastes.

[575] Sheep-driving in the sixteenth century was like
cattle-driving in Ireland to-day; see Gairdner, _L. and P. Henry
VIII._, vol. xii., Part I., 201: "When they first went to York,
they drove one Coppyndale's sheep because he fled away, and sold
them again to his deputy for £10," and the behaviour of the
Norfolk rebels in 1549.

[576] Gairdner, _L. and P._, xi., II., 186, and _Rutland MSS._,
p. 36, quoted by Leadam: "There is a great number of the commons
up about Salisbury in Wiltshire, and they have plucked down Sir
William Herbert's Park that is about his new house ... they say
they will not have their common grounds to be enclosed and taken
from them."

[577] Gairdner, _L. and P._, xii., I., 362: "Your rents and
others cannot yet be collected."

Though it involves abandoning the order of events, let us illustrate by a single example[578] the shape assumed by agrarian rioting, which has not yet become a rebellion. In the summer of 1569, when Cecil and Elizabeth were waiting anxiously for news from those northern counties which "know no other prince but a Percy," there was much running and riding, much sending for warrants and plentiful delay in their execution, in the wild country between Chinley and Bakewell, whose centre is the Peak, and whose principal gorge now carries the most beautiful piece of railway line in England. The Derbyshire peasantry seem to have been ill to deal with. A few years later some of those in Glossopdale succeeded in setting the Earl of Shrewsbury at defiance, and, when evicted from their farms, induced the Council to intervene to insist on their reinstatement.[579] Just now those of them who lived in the neighbourhood of Chinley were in a ferment over the enclosure of some common land. The story is a curious one, and shows both the kind of conditions under which agrarian discontent developed, and the way in which it was associated in the mind of the Government with fears of political disturbance. The Duchy of Lancaster, to whom the land near Chinley belonged, had let a parcel of herbage called Mayston Field to one Lawrence Wynter, his lease to begin as soon as that of the existing tenant had expired. In that age of land speculation land changed hands rapidly. On the same day as Wynter obtained the lease he sold it to a certain Richard Celey. Celey transferred it to Godfrey Bradshaw, and Godfrey Bradshaw got rid of it to his brother Anthony. The trouble began when the land came into the hands of Godfrey Bradshaw. He started to hedge and ditch it, which of course involved the exclusion of the other inhabitants from the rights of pasture which they had hitherto enjoyed. Accordingly the villagers, led by twelve of their number, of whom four belonged to one family, removed the ditch, tore down the enclosure, which consisted of "XLIII hundredth quicksetts willowes and willowe stackes ... and did utterlye destroy and cutt the sayd stacks and quick setts in pieces," proceeding at the same time, with the object of protecting their own grazing land against encroachments, themselves to divide up the land into smaller enclosures to be held by each man in severalty. Godfrey Bradshaw then obtained warrants for the preservation of the peace against the ringleaders, and at the same time induced the lessor, who was Sir Ralph Sadler, the Chancellor of the Duchy, to address a letter to them directing them not to interfere with any houses, hedges, or ditches, which might in future be constructed round the land. They received his communication, but massed in force with arms on Chinley Hill, pulled down what still remained of Bradshaw's hedges, and then proceeded to organise the nucleus of a very pretty agitation. They gave part of the herbage, which was nominally in the occupation of the unfortunate lessee, to one William Beard, on condition that, after the manner of his betters in the good old days before the Tudors, he should "maynteyn them geynst the Queenes Majestie," his support taking the form of an agreement that he "should from tyme to tyme send them Ydill ryotouse p'sons to assyste them in these yll doinges." They then raised a fund, presumably by a levy on the inhabitants, called a meeting in the forest of High Peak, and set off about the tenth of June to Bakewell for a further conference, arranging in the meantime that some one should burn Godfrey Bradshaw's house, and that while his enclosures, if re-erected, should be pulled down, the other inhabitants should make haste to divide up the disputed land into twenty-one separate parcels. When the Bradshaws, having got their warrants, tried with the aid of the village constable to execute them, their opponents ("the land was grabbed from him, and he did what any decent man would do"[580]) threatened them with murder, and, on one of the party being actually arrested, came very near to carrying their threat out. "The said p'tyes ... did ryotouslye assemble themselves together in great companies at the town of Hayfield with unlawfull weapons, that is to saye, with bowes, pytchefforkes, clobbes, staves, swords, and daggers drawen, and ryotouslye dyd then and there assaulte and p'sue the sayd Godfrey and Edward Bradshawe, and in ryotouse manner dyd reskewe and take from them the body of the sayd Richard Shower, being attached; the Queenes Officer, George Yeavely of Bawdon, then being p'sent commanding the peace to be kepte." Having chased the enemy for some distance, they camped on the contested territory, and kept a watchful eye and a firm hand for any sign of the reappearance of the detested hedges. More serious still in the eyes of the Government (and this, one suspects, was their undoing), the leaders of this village revolution went so far as to entangle themselves in high politics. At their examination they are asked, "Whether dyd Reynold Kirke about May day last paste, and dyvers tymes since and before, or any other tyme, confederate, consulte, practise, or otherwise confer and talk with one Mr. Bircles of the countye of Chester ... touching or concerning prophesis by noblemen, or otherwise, and what books of prophesie have you or the said Bircles seen or heard, and what is the effect thereof, and how often have you or he perused, used, or conferred of the same, or about such purposes, and with whom?" We do not know how they answered this question. It may be that the anger of these Derbyshire peasants at their vanishing commons was indeed a fraction to be set among weightier assets by schemers in high places, and that the sinister Mr. Bircles had really talked with them of matters more serious than the pulling down of hedges and the baiting of enclosers, of things forbidden to the vulgar, of the scattering of upstart officials, of the restoration of a Catholic monarchy, of Mary, who in the previous year had made her irrevocable plunge across the Border. It may be merely that all in authority had that autumn an unusually bad attack of nerves. In 1569 the North was full of prophets, both noble and other.

[578] I take this story from a transcript kindly supplied me by
Mr. Kolthammer of MSS. in the possession of Charles E. Bradshaw
Bowles of Wirksworth.

[579] Lodge, _Illustrations_, ii. p. 218.

[580] Synge, _The Playboy of the Western World_.

It was not always the case, however, that agrarian discontent ended in casual rioting of this kind. Of mere destructive violence there is, indeed, in all the social disturbances of the period, singularly little. There was a good deal in the routine of rural life, with its common administration of land and dependence on a collectively binding custom, to teach habits of discipline and co-operation. It must be remembered that those who took the initiative in breaking the law were not the peasants who pulled down enclosures, but the landlords who made them in defiance of repeated statutes forbidding them. On the whole the organised character of the action taken is more conspicuous than the individual excesses, and if one is to look for a modern analogy to the mixture of deliberation and violence which it shows, it must be sought in an Irish fair rent campaign rather than in the bread riots of a despairing urban proletariat. When the agitation was confined to individual manors it occasionally took the form of agrarian trade unionism. Tenants collectively decline to serve as jurors in the court of the manor till their demands are granted.[581] They raise a common purse.[582] They refuse to pay more than a certain rent. When more than one manor is implicated different localities display a rough cohesion. Whole communities seem to have joined the movement in 1536 and 1540 with a certain formality. In Lincolnshire and Yorkshire townships were brought out on the ringing of the town bell with the cohesion of a well-organised trade union; Beverley[583] sent messages to the Lincolnshire rebels under its common seal; and the part which was played by the village officers in the movements of the peasantry is proved by the Proclamation[584] which the Council issued in 1549, when disorders were at their height, forbidding constables, bailiffs, and head-boroughs to call meetings except for the purposes required by the law. Hales,[585] as he rode through the South and Midlands in 1548, was struck by the patience with which people waited for the Government to take action, and attributed the disturbances of the ensuing year to the despair caused by the victory of the local landlords over the Commission, and to the rejection by Parliament of the Bills which he had introduced. Even Ket's campaign in Norfolk, which ended in a sanguinary battle, during the greater part of it was carried on with an orderliness from which the Government which suppressed it might profitably have taken a lesson. Nothing could have been more unlike the popular idea of a _jacquerie_. The peasants enjoyed the enormous joke of making the gentry look foolish a great deal more than cutting their throats, as during the four weeks in which they were "playing" they might have done without any difficulty.

"Mr. Pratt, your sheep are very fat,
And we thank _you_ for that;
We have left you the skins to pay your wife's pins,
And you must thank _us_ for that."[586]

[581] Selden Society, _Select Cases in the Court of Requests_
(Leadam). Customary tenants of Bradford _v._ Francis: "The said
stuard called ... the ... tenants of the manor to be sworn to
enquire as they ought to doo, the which to do ... the said
tenants ... obstinately and sturdily then and there refused, and
said that unless the said defendent ... wold grante them
forthwith and immediatelye that they should have and enjoy the
commodity of the said three matters ... that they, nor any of
them, wolde be sworn at that Court, but wolde depart."

[582] Leadam, _E. H. R._, pp. 684-696. The tenants at Thingden,
in their proceedings against Mulsho, "calle commen Councelles
... and make a commen purse among them, promising all of them to
take parte with other, saying that xx. of them would spend xx.
score pounds ayenet the said John Mulsho." The tenants of
Abbot's Ripton "procured one common purse to be ordeyned
together one common stock to thentent obstinately to defend
their perverse and ffrowned appetitez." As to Rents, see _L. and
P. Henry VIII._, xii., I., 154: "In many counties little or no
ferms will they pay" (Darcy to Shrewsbury).

[583] Gairdner, _L. and P. Henry VIII._, xii., I., 392.

[584] Proclamation of July 22, 1549. Strype, _Ecclesiastical
Memorials_, who remarks that these village officers, "in the
places where these risings were, had been the very ringleaders
and procurers by their example and exhortation."

[585] _Commonweal of this Realm of England_ (Lamond), Appendix
to Introduction, lviii.: "In dyvers places wher we were, and
wher the people had just cause of Gryef, and have complayned a
great many yeares without remedy, there have they byn very
quiet, shewed themselves most humble and obedient subiectes
taryenge the Kynges Maiesties Reformation."

[586] _Original Papers of the Norfolk and Norwich Archæological
Society_, 1905, p. 2.

These lines, pinned on the carcasses of an enclosing landlord's flocks and herds, are a fair specimen of their humour. Men may well be merry together, when they have seen hovering over the fields of an English county, though but in a fleeting glimpse, the New Jerusalem where the humble are exalted and the mighty put down; and there is no inconsistency between such mundane gaiety and the long pent up passion which on the lips of a nameless labourer burst into the cry, "As sheepe or lambs are a prey to the wolfe or lion, so are the poor men to the rich men."[587] There was much lecturing (the matter is easily imagined) at the Oak of Reformation, and not on one side only, for the peasants were tolerant compared with their betters, and a future archbishop was allowed to address the insurgents on the evils of their ways; much laying down of hedges and enclosures; much slaughtering of that beast of iniquity, the man-devouring sheep. There was none of the massacring of unarmed men which both Henry VIII. and Elizabeth ordered without compunction when they thought the times required it, very little of the "making the public good a pretext for private revenge," against which the insurgents were warned by Parker. Though for months after the final tragedy the badges of the justly-hated Warwick "were not so fast set up but that they were as fast pulled down" from the city walls, the rebels even in the heat of their early triumphs claimed only to be executing the Protector's Proclamations, and, while indignantly repudiating the name of traitors, showed a complete readiness to negotiate peaceably with the Government. The whole movement was less a rising against the State than a practical illustration of the peasants' ideals, a mixture of May-day demonstration and successful strike embodied in one gigantic festival of rural good fellowship. Its bloody termination was, as far as can be judged, the result of two errors of judgment, one, a pardonable one, on the part of Ket, the other, unpardonable, on the part of a nameless member of the other party.[588] When all was over, and each man reflected after his kind on the great days of Mousehold Heath, what the camp followers, who attach themselves to every popular movement, remembered was that for about a month they had filled their bellies at other people's expense. "'Twas a merry world when we were yonder, eating of mutton." But there were some who, as they saw Ket swinging on the gallows before the City gates, were seized with the tumult of pity and hoarse indignation which serves Englishmen, who are not good at revolutions, in place of the revolutionary spirit. "O Kette," one countryman was heard to say to another, "God have mercy upon thy soul; and I trust in God that the King's Majesty and his Councell shall be enformed once between this and Midsummer evening, that of their own gentleness thou shalt be taken down and buried, not hanged up for winter store; and set a quietness in the realm, and that the ragged staff shall be taken down of their own gentleness from the gentlemen's gates in this City, and to have no more King's arms but one within the City, under Christ."[589] The Council, in its gentleness, thought otherwise. Ket still creaked in his chains, and in the meantime other gallows were rising for other rebels in Somerset, and Devon, and Cornwall.

[587] _Original Papers of the Norfolk and Norwich Archæological
Society_, 1905, p. 22.

[588] Ket refused the pardon offered on July 31st on the ground
that the insurgents had committed no offence requiring to be
pardoned, and fighting followed. On August 23rd a pardon was
again offered. While it was being read by a herald, a boy
standing by insulted him "with words as unseemly as his gesture
was filthy" (Holinshed), and was shot by one of the herald's
retinue. Ket tried to pacify the anger of his followers at what
they took to be treachery, but without effect.

[589] _Original Papers of the Norfolk and Norwich Archæological
Society_, 1905, p. 20.

What were the aims which at intervals between 1530 and 1560 set half the counties of England in a blaze? Let us look at the peasants' programme more closely. It will help us to see the agrarian problem from the inside. Reduced to its elements their complaint is a very simple one, very ancient and yet very modern. It is that what, in effect, whatever lawyers may say, has been their property, is being taken from them. To be told that social disorders take place because an envious proletariat aims at seizing the property of the rich would seem to them a very strange perversion of the truth. They want only to have what they have always had. They are conservatives, not radicals or levellers, and to them it seems that all the trouble arises because the rich have been stealing the property of the poor. Here is part of a colloquy[590] between Jack of the North beyond the Style, Robin and Harry Clowte, Tom of Trumpington, Peter Potter, Pyrce Plowman, and divers other worthies. As will be seen from the verses, they are birds of night--

"JACK. Now for that Slaunder's sake,
Companye by night I take,
And, with all that I may make,
Cast hedge and ditch in the lake,
Fyxed with many a stake
Though it was never so faste
Yet asondre it is wraste.

* * * * *

HARRY CLOWTE. Gud conscience should them move
Ther neighbours quietly to love,
And thus not for to wrynche
The commons styl for to pinch,
To take into their hande
That be other mennes land.

JACK. Thus do I, Jack of the Style,
Now subscrybe upon a tyle.
This I do and will do with all my myght,
For sclaundering me yet do I but right,
For common to common again I restore
Wherever it hath been yet common before.
If agayne they enclose it never so faste
Agayne asondre it shall be wraste.
They may be ware by that is paste
To make it agayne is but waste."

[590] Printed by Cooper, _Annals of Cambridge_, vol. ii. p. 40.

To take into your hand what is other men's land, that is the grievance. To restore common to common again, that is the obvious remedy, a remedy which is not seriously opposed to the agrarian policy of most sixteenth century statesmen. But the more far-seeing of the peasants realise what their followers do not, that these troubles which are going on in so many different parts of England cannot be dealt with by isolated bodies of villagers, however good their cause may be. They require the intervention of the Government. How the Government is to intervene they lay down in two documents which are perhaps the only two popular programmes of agrarian reform ever published in England since 1381. The first, contained in two of the articles[591] drawn up at Doncaster in 1536, is short enough:--

"That the lands in Westmoreland, Cumberland, Kendall, Dent, Sedbergh, Furness, and the abbey lands in Mashamshire, Kyrkbyshire, Notherdale, may be by tenant right, and the lord to have, at every change, 2 years' rent for gressum, according to the grant now made by the lords to the commons there. This to be done by Act of Parliament.

"The Statutes for Enclosures and Intacks to be put in execution, and all enclosures and Intacks since the fourth year of Henry VII. to be pulled down, except mountains, forests, and Parks" (a noticeable exception which shows the composite character of the movement. In the South of England the peasant did not spare parks).

[591] Gairdner, _L. and P. of Henry VIII._, xi. 1246.

The articles[592] signed by Ket, Aldryche, and Cod in 1549 are a much more elaborate affair. Here are the most noteworthy of them:--

"We pray your grace that where it is enacted for enclosing, that it be not hurtful to such as have enclosed saffren grounds, for they be greatly chargeable to them, and that from henceforth no man shall enclose any more.[593]

"We certify your grace that whereas the lords of the mannors hath been charged with certe fre rent, the same lords hath sought means to charge the freeholders to pay the same rent, contrary to right.

"We pray your grace that no lord of no manor shall comon uppon the commons.

"We pray that priests from henceforth shall purchase no lande neither free nor bondy, and the lands that they have in possession may be letten to temporal men, as they were in the first year of the reign of King Henry VII.[594]

"We pray that reed ground and meadow ground may be at such price as they were in the first year of King Henry VII.

* * * * *

"We pray that the payments of castleward rent, and blanch ferm and office lands, which hath been accustomed to be gathered of the tenements, whereas we suppose the lords ought to pay the same to their bailiffs for their rents gathering, and not the tenants.[595]

"We pray that no man under the degree of a knight or esquire keep a dove house, except it hath been of an old ancient custom.

"We pray that all freeholders and copyholders may take the profits of all commons, and there to common, and the lords not to common nor to take profits of the same.

"We pray that no feudatory within your shires shall be a councellor to any man in his office making, whereby the King may be truly served, so that a man being of good conscience may be yearly chosen to the same office by the commons of the same shire.

* * * * *

"We pray that copyhold land that is unreasonably rented may go as it did in the first year of King Henry VII., and that at the death of a tenant or of [at] a sale the same lands to be charged with an easy fine, as a capon or a reasonable [sum] of money for a remembrance.

* * * * *

"We pray that all bondmen may be made free, for God made all free with his precious bloodshedding.

"We pray that rivers may be free and common to all men for fishing and passage.

* * * * *

"We pray that the poor mariners or Fishermen may have the whole profits of their fishings, as porpoises, grampuses, whales, or any great fish, so it be not prejudicial to your Grace.

* * * * *

"We pray that it be not lawful to the lords of any manor to purchase land freely, or [and] to let them out again by copy of court roll to their great advancement and to the undoing of your poor subjects.

* * * * *

"We pray that no man under the degree of ... shall keep any conies upon any of their freehold or copyhold, unless he pale them in, so that it shall not be to the common nuisance.

* * * * *

"We pray that your Grace give license and authority by your gracious commission under your Great Seal to such commissioners as your poor commons hath chosen, or to as many of them as your Majesty and your Council shall appoint and think meet, for to redress and reform all such good laws, statutes, proclamations, and all other your proceedings, which hath been hidden by your justices of your peace, shreves, escheators, and other your officers, from your poor commons, since the first year of the reign of your noble grandfather, King Henry VII.

* * * * *

"We pray that no lord, knight, esquire, nor gentleman, do graze nor feed any bullocks or sheep, if he may spend forty pounds a year by his lands, but only for the provision of his house."

[592] Russell, _Ket's Rebellion in Norfolk_, p. 48.

[593] Some doubt has been expressed as to the interpretation of
these words. They should probably be read in the light of what
was said above (Part I. chap. iv.) as to enclosures made by the
tenants themselves. The rebels point out that a considerable
number of people have spent capital on hedging and ditching
their lands for the better cultivation of saffron, and therefore
ask that, while other enclosures may be pulled down, a special
exception may be made in favour of this particular kind of
enclosure.

[594] Contrast the feeling in Protestant Norfolk with that of
Cornwall and Devon in 1549, and of the North in 1536.

[595] The grammar is bad, but the sense is clear enough. Lords
must stop shifting on to tenants burdens which lords ought to
bear.

The programme of the peasants is partly political. The Northerners insist that Parliament and the Crown must interfere, and the Norfolk leaders ask for a permanent commission to do the work which the county justices, who are interested in enclosing, have wilfully neglected. But it is mainly economic. The State is to do no more than restore the old usages, and the end of all is to be a sort of idealised manorial customary enforced by a strong central Government throughout the length of the land, free use of common lands, reduced rents of meadow and marsh, reasonable fines for copyholds, free fisheries, and the abolition of the lingering disability of personal villeinage. The most striking thing about these demands is their conservatism. Almost exactly a hundred years later agrarian reform will be demanded as part of a new heaven and a new earth. Agrarian agitation will be carried on in terms of theories as to the social contract, of theories as to the origin of private property. Its leaders will be appealing to Anglo-Saxon history to prove to the indifferent ears of a Government which has saved them "from Charles, our Norman oppressor," that "England cannot be a free commonwealth, unless the poore commoners have a use and benefit of the land."[596] They will appeal also to a more awful sanction than that of history. "At this very day," cries Winstanley,[597] "poor people are forced to work for 4d. a day and corn is dear, and the tithing-priest stops their mouths and tells them that 'inward satisfaction of mind' was meant by the declaration 'the poor shall inherit the earth.' I tell you, the scripture is to be really and materially fulfilled.... You jeer at the name of Leveller. I tell you Jesus Christ is the head leveller." Such communistic doctrines are always the ultimate fruit of the breakdown of practical co-operation and brotherliness among men. To human nature, as to other kinds of nature, a vacuum is abhorrent.

[596] Camden Society, _Clarke Papers_, vol. ii. p. 217. Letter
addressed by the Diggers, December 8, 1649: "To my lord generall
and his Councell of War." The allusion to the usurping Normans
occurs also (_ibid._, p. 215) in another letter in a statement
of the reasons of the agitation: "Secondly by vertue of yours
and our victory over the king, whereby the enslaved people of
England have recovered themselves from under the Norman
Conquest; though wee do not yet enjoy the benefit of our
victories, nor cannot soe long as the use of the Common land is
held from the younger brethren by the Lords of Mannours that yet
sit in the Norman chair and uphold that tyranny as if the kingly
power were in force still."

[597] Winstanley: "The curse and blessing that is in mankind,"
quoted Gooch, _English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth
Century_.

But as yet the soil has not been ploughed by a century of political and religious controversy, and there is little sign of these high arguments in the social disturbances of our period. The earliest levellers[598] get their name because they raze not social inequalities but quickset hedges and park palings. What communism there is in the movement is not that of the saints or the theorists, but the spontaneous doctrineless communism of the open field village, where men set out their fields, and plough, and reap, laugh in the fine and curse in the wet, with natural fellowship. The middle-class terror of the appearance in England of the political theories of the German Peasants' War, though it was forcibly expressed by Sir William Paget[599] in remonstrating with Somerset's policy in 1549, and though John Hales thought it worth while to repudiate it, is not justified by any recorded utterances or programmes which have come to us. There are, indeed, many verbal similarities between the articles of Ket and those put out by the German peasants at Memmingen in 1525, which suggest that some refugee from Germany had carried them with him to the most Protestant county in England. Both, for example, demand a reduction in rents, the abolition of villeinage, and free fisheries. But the contrasts are much more striking, and are due not only to the fact that the onerous villein services which survived in Germany had become almost nominal in England, but to the difference in the spirit of their conception, which leads one to appeal to the New Testament and the other to the customs of the first years of Henry VII. There is, in fact, the same broad difference between the peasant movements in England and Germany as there is between the English and German Reformation. In Germany the ecclesiastical changes spring from a widespread popular discontent, and are swept forward on a wave of radical enthusiasm, which carries the peasants (German Social Democrats are metaphysicians to this day) into the revolutionary mysticism of Münzer. In England changes in Church government are forced upon the people by the State, and outside the South and East of England are regarded with abhorrence. It is not until the later rise of Puritanism that either religious or economic radicalism becomes a popular force. In the middle of the sixteenth century the English peasants accepted the established system of society with its hierarchy of authorities and division of class functions, and they had a most pathetic confidence in the Crown. What they wanted, in the first place, was fair conditions of land tenure, the restoration of the customary relationships which had protected them against the screw of commercial competition. When they went further, they looked for an exercise of Royal Power to reduce to order the petty tyranny of local magnates, and to carry out the intentions of a Government which they were inclined to think meant them well, "to redress and reform all such good laws, statutes, proclamations, and all other your proceedings which hath been bidden by your justices of your Peace ... from your poor commons." Such movements are a proof of blood and sinew and of a high and gallant spirit. They are the outcome of a society where the normal relations are healthy, where men are attached to the established order, where they possess the security and control over the management of their own lives which is given by property, and, possessing this, possess the reality of freedom even though they stand outside the political state. Happy the nation whose people has not forgotten how to rebel.

[598] A reference to the Levellers occurs in connection with the
Midland Revolt of 1607, Lodge, _Illustrations_, iii. 320: "You
cannot but have hearde what courses have been taken in
Leicestershire and Warwickshire by the two Lord Lieutenants
there, and by the gentlemen ... and lastlie howe Sir Anth.
Mildmay and Sir Edward Montacute repaired to Newton ... where
one thousand of these fellowes who term themselves levellers
were busily digging, but weare furnished with many half-pikes,
pyked staves, long bills, and bowes and arrows and stones ...
there were slaine some 40 or 50 of them and a verie great number
hurt" (January 11, 1607, the Earl of Shrewsbury to Sir John
Manners, Sir Francis Leake, and Sir John Harper). The name
Diggers seems to have cropped up about the same time, v. _Wit
and Wisdom_, edited by Halliwell for New Shakespeare Society,
pp. 140-141, for a petition from "the Diggers of Warwickshire to
all other diggers," and signed "poore Delvers and Day Labourers
for ye good of ye commonwealth till death" (quoted by Gay,
_Trans. Royal Hist. Soc._, New Series, vol. xviii.)

[599] See below, pp. 367-368.

The social disturbances caused by enclosure, with its accompaniments of rack-renting and evictions, were one cause which compelled the Governments of our period to give attention to the subject. Though no direct concessions were made to them, their lessons were not altogether wasted, because it is plain that they impressed on the minds of statesmen the idea that to prevent disorder it was necessary for the State to interfere in favour of tenants. Rural discontent, which might have been insignificant in an age of greater political stability, derived a factitious importance from the circumstances of the sixteenth century, when it might be exploited by a rebellious minority, which, for all that most men knew, might really be a majority of the nation, by Yorkist Plotters under Henry VII., religious enthusiasts under Henry VIII., restorers of a Catholic monarchy, supported by a Spanish invasion or a Franco-Scottish alliance, under Elizabeth. Governments so uncertain of their popularity as these had a strong reason for protecting the class which would be the backbone of a revolt. One way in which they could secure themselves against the discontent of the disaffected nobility was to encourage the yeomanry, who might act as a counterpoise. The way in which self-preservation and a popular agrarian policy went hand in hand is illustrated by Burleigh's cynical advice to Elizabeth to make a practice of supporting tenants in any quarrel which might arise between them and Catholic landlords.[600]

[600] _Somers' Tracts_, vol. i., pp. 164-168: "For their
tenantries, this conceit I have thought upon ... that your
Majesty, in every shire, should give instruction to some that
are indeed trusty and religious gentlemen, that, whereas your
Majesty is given to understand that divers popish landlords do
hardly use some of your people and subjects, ... you do
constitute and appoint them to deal both with entreaty and
authority, that such tenants, paying as others do, be not thrust
out of their living, nor otherwise molested. This would greatly
bind the commons' hearts unto you, on whom indeed consisteth the
power and strength of your realm, and it will make them less, or
nothing at all, depend upon their landlords."