in History the Future
|
|
|
|||||
|
1381 - Revolting Peasants |
|||||
|
Other material in the History section: History: The Medieval History section: Introduction The Modern History section: |
The late fourteenth century is very much like the late twentieth: a period of change and flux; the disintegration of an established order and the search for new verities. It was the start of the change from medieval to modern society. A change which derives in large part from the impact of the Black Death which, by its decimation of the workforce, caused the sort of disruption to society that massive technological change is causing to ours. The English Peasants' Revolt of 1381 is one of the first symptoms of this dislocation and change. Yet contemporary commentators and later historians have tried to find simplistic explanations for a very complex series of events and have often resorted to conspiracy theories to explain it away. Such explanations take a few, obscure, references to a secret "Great Society", existing in the shadows of medieval society, and leap to wild surmises about arcane plots. A recent example of this approach centres on the alleged involvement of the (by then) defunct Knights Templars in the "planning" of the Revolt, wreaking revenge on those they blamed for the demise of their order. But the events of 1381 tell us a lot more about the way the workers of the fourteenth century reacted in the wake of the Black Death. And the attempts to reduce the complex series of incidents into some simple, but misleading, conspiracy theories tell us even more about the way some historians try to shoehorn events to fit their pet ideas. The events of 1381 reflect for us a reaction to a too rapidly changing society where the authorities are trying to maintain the status quo. And the theorising around those events gives us an insight into parallel modern attempts to provide simple explanations (and simple solutions) to complex problems. The uprisings were a series of inter-related incidents arising from a background of increasing tensions between the working classes and the ruling classes and were triggered by a poll-tax which had its harshest incidence at the lowest levels of the society. These tensions had been building for some time. In social terms, the basic structure of the feudal system was beginning to change as a result of the massive dislocations caused by a succession of plagues from 1348 to 1370. The ruling classes' reaction to those dislocations reversed some of the changes to the detriment of the working classes. In politics, failure in foreign wars and the administrative incompetence of the government added to the tensions. In religion, there was an increasing spread of unorthodox views, unsettling in a society where religious homogeneity had been assumed. And, economically, an increasing financial burden was being placed on the lower classes. While the uprising was widely distributed among the lower classes and covered most of the south east and some areas elsewhere, the isolated nature of many of the events in 1381 meant that the causes in one area were not necessarily related to the causes in another. In some urban centres dominated by clerical overlords, such as Bury St Edmonds and St Albans, the uprisings were in part inspired by townsmen aiming to secure some autonomy, whereas, in Durham, also subject to clerical control, there was no such uprising. In London, local politics among the Council may have played some part in the activities while the strictures of serfdom could not have been as important in Kent, where manorial ties and services were far less than they were in Essex, for example. Yet, for all these differences, there was a general discontent with their rulers among the common people. This discontent was expressed in the demands from the main body of the rebels, those who participated in the events in and around London in June 1381. The first expression of those demands was at Maidstone in early June and had four elements: allegiance to the king and the commons; to have no king named John; to accept no tax but the traditional levy of one-fifteen of the movable wealth; and to be ready to act when called upon. By the time the rebels met with the king at Mile End, the aims had become: the handing over of 'traitors'; the end of serfdom; the right to hire out at fair wages; and the right to rent land at a cheap rate. At Smithfield, the demands again included the end of villeinage but also added the abolition of outlawry; the repeal of all laws except the "law of Winchester"; the equality of all men under the king; and the confiscation and division of church land and abolition of all leading church positions but one. From these demands we can see the background to the events of 1381 and the matters that gave rise to the rebellion. The original impetus for the revolt, and the centre of the original demands, is the burden of taxation but, as the events unfold, the other grievances of the peasants and the townsmen are given expression in the demands. The development of these demands also demonstrates that the rebellion was spontaneous rather than planned. Had there been some "Great Society" masterminding the operation, as the rulers suspected in the wake of the events, and as the more populist writers on the event suggest, one would have expected to see a more consistent manifesto. My favourite expression of the Revolt-as-conspiracy, containing its own antithesis, comes from Rebel Before his Time, where the author, The Rev. Bird, says, without seeing the contradiction, that "... the Revolt spread ... spontaneously and rapidly ... This could only have happened as a result of careful planning". Let's look at the social context of the background. The population of England reached a peak early in the fourteenth century; so too had the area of land under cultivation. The manorial system of agriculture was in use: the agricultural workers were largely tied to a manor and paid their lord labour services in return for tenure of their own land. However, in the first fifty years of the century, many lords were beginning to commute these services into money rents, so that the lord rented out his land, rather than worked it through his villeins. These developments were arrested, and to some extent reversed, by the effects of the Black Death, a combination of bubonic, pneumonic and septicaemic plagues which killed up to one-third of the English people in 1348-49. The labour shortage that developed as a result of this pestilence was the most obvious of the economic effects. |
||||
|
This labour shortage led to an immediate rise in the worth of labour, a rise which the government tried to arrest by first an ordinance in 1349 and then by the Statute of Labourers in 1351. This statute set maximum pay rates (set at 1346-7 rates), reasserted the claims on service of manorial lords (or guild masters) and mandated the return to manors of runaway serfs. For about twenty-five years the Statute effectively achieved its object: the protection of the interests of employers of labour, particularly the lords of the manor. These laws had the effect of moderating large increases in wages but, as matters worsened, they were seen by those reliant on wages as a restraint on their ability to take advantage of the changing circumstances. Two subsequent plagues, in 1361-2 and in 1369, led to a further deterioration. The cumulative effects of the three plagues led to an imbalance in the economy: a drop in the price of basic foods was not matched by a similar drop in wages, squeezing the profit margins of the manorial lords, encouraging further attempts to repress wages through the law. Some lords sought to make up for rising wages by reversing commutations and reimposing labour services and by exploiting other legal advantages through restricting peasant mobility. These actions increased tensions in the countryside, leading to many manorial strikes. Also threats were made against those charged with enforcing the laws. During the 1381 uprisings, the latter were among the major targets. Froissart, in his Chronicles, notes that, as the rebels moved from Canterbury to Rochester, they were "gutting the houses of lawyers and judges of the King's and Archbishop's courts". As the mob entered London he says that they were "ransacking and destroying the houses of abbots, lawyers and court officials". By 1377, the effect of this dissatisfaction was great enough for a petition to be presented by the commons in Parliament noting that in many areas "villeins ... are refusing the customs and services due to their lords" and "claim that they are quit and utterly discharged of all manner of serfdom". Such claims were reflected in the demand for the end of serfdom made during the uprisings. The actions of the rebels in consistently burning manorial court records demonstrates this. The contemporary observers note such demands made of the king at Mile End and Smithfield. For example, the Anonimalle Chronicle of St Mary's York reports that "they required that for the future no man should be in serfdom ..." and the monk of Westminster says that Wat Tyler "opened with the king a discussion about the emancipation of the serfs". |
|
||||
|
Against this background of concern with the economic and social effects of the plagues, England was having political problems as well. The 1370s was a decade without a natural leader: the old king, Edward III, was in his dotage, his son, the Black Prince, was increasingly ill and the heir presumptive was still a child. This leadership vacuum was reflected in the failure of the government's foreign policy. A series of military humiliations in France was followed later in the decade by threats against, and raids on, the English coast. That the rebels were conscious of this is shown by the Anonimalle Chronicle which reports that the commons of Kent decreed:
After a long period of military victories and battles fought well away from their populations centres, the English were unprepared for the miseries of war. The efforts of the governors to deal with their political crises did not satisfy the demands of their people. The failure of the war effort was matched by a similar mismanagement and weakness in other aspects of government. This was perceived in the increasing tax burden placed on the people in the 1370s and by the crises in government. The events of 1376 and 1377, when leaders of the administration were impeached for corruption but subsequently allowed to survive and prosper, demonstrated the ineptitude of the government. And these events were noted: among the victims of the Peasants' Revolt was Richard Lyons, one of those charged but not punished. The targets of the commons in London in June 1381 demonstrate that they were aware of the mismanagement of the administration and knew who to blame for it. First, there was John of Gaunt. In addition to his perceived failure as a soldier and a diplomat, he had played a leading role in the events of 1376-7, thwarting the commons' impeachments. He was also suspected of intriguing for the throne. This is why the Maidstone declaration included the demand for no king named John and why Gaunt's name was at the top of the list of "traitors" whom the king was asked to surrender. Also blamed were those who administered the government and supervised the collection of the taxes, especially the Chancellor, Simon Sudbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Sir Robert Hales, the Treasurer and head of the Hospitallers. Property belonging to these men and their associates were particular targets of the rebels and Sudbury and Hales were beheaded by the mob. The proponents of the theory that the remnants of the Templars were behind the Revolt cite the destruction of Hospitaller property as one of their major arguments. Their thesis being that, as the Hospitallers were a major beneficiary of the dissolution of the Templars, their property was a target for that reason. However, it is quite clear that the mobs were aiming their vituperation at the Treasurer, not the Hospitaller, because of his administration of the tax system, not his leadership of the Knights of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem. Sir Richard Waldegrave, the Speaker in the Parliament in 1381, reinforced the view that the rebels reacted against the maladministration of the realm, not some perceived grievance of the Templars, long since disbanded. His speech to the Parliament cited the extravagance of the court, the weakness of the ministers, the burden of taxation and the mess made in national defence as reasons for the uprisings. Early in the 1370s the government had started levying heavier taxes, greater than the usual "fifteenths and tenths". Then in 1377, to raise still more money, it imposed the first poll tax, at a rate of 4d a person over 14. A second, more graduated poll tax, was levied in 1379 and a third, at a rate three times higher than in 1377 and without a graduated scale, was imposed in 1380. The monk of Westminster, generally unsympathetic to the rebels, described the taxation as "rapacious". The effect of these measures was to shift the onus of taxation onto the poorer sections of the populations, further raising the ill-will of the commons towards their governors. |
|||||
|
The tensions within the Church, which arose from its confrontation with different ideas from among the clergy, had its effect in the community generally. The most renowned of the English medieval heretics, John Wyclif, was pressing his criticisms of the Church in the period leading up to the uprising. However, it would appear that his message had not spread far outside the Church by the time of the uprising and the issues raised by his followers were to have greater impact later. In any case, any suggestion of Wyclif's culpability arises from his followers' involvement in later rebellions and attempts by authorities to retroactively blame them far as many crimes as possible. Of more immediate impact were the teachings of the lower clergy who linked a strongly Christian message to arguments against the magnates or in favour of freedom for the poor. Many of these priests felt some sympathy with the plight of the workers. The chronicles record, in particular, the teachings of John Ball around the couplet:
|
|
||||
|
The preacher argued for equality based on his assertion that, as mankind is descended from the one couple, whom he exemplified as workers, no person could claim to be the lord of another. The impact of these sermons can be seen in the prominence given to them by contemporaries such as Froissart and the monk of Westminster. The lower clergy were prominent in the leadership of the uprising. However, compared to the other elements creating the tensions, the religious causes don't rate highly. The government's attempt to impose the regressive poll tax of 1380 came at a time when the elements outlined above made the poorer classes less likely to accept such an additional burden. The result was massive evasion among the commons, leading to the investigation and punishment of evaders and the levying of the second part of the tax more speedily than had been planned. It was these actions of the government in the early part of 1381 which triggered the uprising. The chronicler, Henry Knighton of Leicester, describes the events as arising from the actions of one man in the Essex village of Fobbing who gained the support of the men of his village.
Such companies gathering in various areas of south-east England, electing leaders, and banding together for common objectives were the basis of the uprisings of 1381. Many of the bands came to London where, with the poor of the city, they held sway for three exhilarating (and destructive) days. Others carried out their programs in their own counties or, like the commons of St Albans or Bury St Edmonds, in urban areas. |
|||||
|
Other material in the Medieval History section: |
The tensions in the economic, political, social and religious spheres had built to the stage where all that was needed was some incident to inspire a sense of popular revulsion. It was the imposition of the 1380 poll tax and the attempts to enforce it on an unwilling people that was that spark. The risings in various parts of England arose from the imposition of the tax but expressed the anger that had built up through all the frustrations of the fourteenth century. |
||||
|
Introduction | Biography | Raves/Essays index | History | Movies | ANZAPA |
|||||||
|
Published by
All material © Copyright Jack R Herman.
Last updated: 10 January 2002 |
|||||||
