Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T10:58:05.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Violence and Social Conflict In Mid-Tudor Rebellions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Roger B. Manning
Roger B. Manning*
Affiliation:
Cleveland State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two of the most common manifestations of social tension in Tudor England were the enclosure riot and the seditious rumor. Both are essentially pre-political forms of social protest, but the first must be viewed as more primitive than the second. Enclosure riots, at least prior to the riots and rebellions of 1548-49, were not particularly directed against the governing elite, but rather were aimed at innovations which threatened the traditional agrarian routine within the manorial or village economy. Thus, enclosure riots, which were procured as frequently by gentry as by peasants and often were calculatingly combined with litigation, did not especially menace the social order. On the other hand, seditious rumors — particularly those that were threatening and anonymous — raised the possibility of social polarization and violent protest on a larger scale than that of the enclosure riot. Before the rebellions and riots of 1548-49, enclosure riots were almost invariably confined within a single village community or between two neighboring communities, but during those troubled years the wide-spread circulation of rumors threatening the gentry resulted in the destruction over a widely-scattered area of enclosing hedges which had stood unchallenged for generations.

The rumor as a vehicle of social protest could either express the collective fear that some supposedly hostile group such as the rural aristocracy had put together a conspiracy to harm the peasantry, or could, conversely, convey the desire of peasants and artisans for social levelling or even social inversion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , Spring 1977 , pp. 18 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A shorter version of this essay was read to the Ohio Academy of History in Columbus, Ohio on April 6, 1974. The author gratefully acknowledges the financial assistance provided by a National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Stipend, which permitted a research trip to England in 1973.

References

1. As a consequence of the threats to public order and social stability perceived by crown officials and local governors in Tudor England, the legal doctrine of sedition underwent considerable development during the sixteenth century. The crime of sedition during this period was viewed as encompassing much more than the more modern notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state. According to the legal concept that evolved in the court of Star Chamber during the second half of the sixteenth century, the crime of sedition comprised slanders or libels upon the reputations and/or actions, public or private, of public officials, magistrates, and prelates, which sought to divide and alienate “the presente governors” from “the sounde and well affected parte of the subjectes.” It was not necessary for seditious utterances or writings to be published, and if the facts alleged were true, that only made the offence worse, since a true slander was more likely to cause a breach of the peace than a false one. “An aduertisement touching seditious wrytings,” PRO, SP 12/235/81; The Case de Libellis famosis, Easter 3 Jac. I, The Fifth Part of the Reports of Sir Edward Coke (London, 1738), ff. 125–26Google Scholar.

2. Threats to communal grazing rights on common lands or to the right of shack (i.e., the rights of tenants to graze their animals on the stubble remaining after the harvest on arable lands) were particularly resented. Cf. my “Patterns of Violence in Early Tudor Enclosure Riots”, Albion, V (1974), 120–33Google Scholar.

3. Other examples of the species of rumor apprehending a conspiracy are briefly discussed in Lefebvre, Georges, The Great Fear of 1789, trans. White, Joan (New York, 1973), pp. xiii–xiv, 52–56Google Scholar.

4. “The Crime of Anonymity,” Albion's Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England, eds. Hay, Douglaset al., (New York, 1975), p. 255Google Scholar.

5. Hilton, R. H., Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and the English Rising of 1381 (London, 1973), p. 113Google Scholar; Fletcher, Anthony, Tudor Rebellions (London, 1968), p. 9Google Scholar.

6. Hilton, , Bond Men Made Free, pp. 220–21, 231–32Google Scholar.

7. Tawney, R. H., The Agrarian Problem of the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1967 reprint), pp. 340–41Google Scholar; Dickens, A. G., “Secular and Religious Motivation in the Pilgrimage of Grace,” Studies in Church History, IV (1967), 42–48, 64Google Scholar.

8. The literature on popular revolts after 1381 and before 1536 is sparse. Professor Hilton states that peasant resistance to the post-Black Death seigneurial reaction continued to be both strong and effective in the years after the 1381 revolt, although it failed to eliminate all of the vestiges of villein status and tenure. He is of the opinion that the seigneurial reaction became very pronounced in the sixteenth century and that the structure of English rural society remained very patriarchal for some time thereafter: Hilton, , Bond Men Made Free, pp. 11–12, 231–32Google Scholar; see also Everitt, Alan, “Farm Labourers,” The Agrarian History of England and Wales, IV:1500-1640, ed. Thirsk, Joan (Cambridge, 1967), p. 400Google Scholar. A more extreme opinion is expressed by Marc Bloc, who sees peasant movements and revolts as being endemic to the seigneurial regime: French Rural History: An Essay on its Basic Characteristics, trans. Sondheimer, Janet (Berkeley, 1966), pp. 169–70Google Scholar.

9. Hill, Christopher, “The Many-Headed Monster in Late Tudor and Early Stuart Political Thinking,” From the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation, ed. Carter, C. H. (New York, 1965), pp. 296–324Google Scholar; Jones, W. R. D., The Mid-Tudor Crisis, 1539-1563 (New York, 1973), p. 120–21Google Scholar.

10. Tawney, , The Agrarian Problem of the Sixteenth Century, pp. 340–44Google Scholar; Ramsey, Peter, Tudor Economic Problems (London, 1968), pp. 36–37Google Scholar.

11. Slavin, A. J., The Precarious Balance: English Government and Society (New York, 1973), p. 3Google Scholar; Hasbach, W., A History of the English Agricultural Labourer (New York, 1966 reprint), pp. 17–18, 38–42Google Scholar; A New Historical Geography of England, ed. Darby, H. C. (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 201–05Google Scholar; Du Boulay, F. R. H., The Lordship of Canterbury: An Essay on Medieval Society (New York, 1966), pp. 218–19Google Scholar; Hilton, , Bond Men Made Free, pp. 169–70Google Scholar.

12. Thirsk, Joan, Tudor Enclosures (Historical Association, general series, No. 44), pp. 4–10Google Scholar; The Agrarian History of England and Wales, ed. Thirsk, , pp. 200–05Google Scholar; Kerridge, Eric, The Agricultural Revolution (London, 1967), pp. 15, 39–40Google Scholar.

13. Jones, , Mid-Tudor Crisis, p. 115Google Scholar.

14. Elton, G. R., Policy and Police (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 23, 44–45Google Scholar.

15. Hasbach, , English Agricultural Labourer, p. 25Google Scholar.

16. See, for example, PRO, Proceedings of the Court of Star Chamber, STAC 1/2/75, 2/18/163, 2/33/26; Select Cases before the Court of Star Chamber, ed. Leadam, I. S. [Selden Society, XXV], (1911), II, 6 ff.Google Scholar; Lehmberg, S. E., “Star Chamber: 1485-1509,” Huntington Library Quarterly, XXIV (May, 1961), 199–200Google Scholar.

17. Hilton, , Bond Men Made Free, pp. 151–52Google Scholar; The Victoria History of the County of Buckingham, (hereafter, VCH … ), II, p. 65Google Scholar.

18. Harding, Alan, A Social History of English Law (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1966), p. 72Google Scholar.

19. George Rudé argues that insofar as the pre-industrial crowd employed violence against persons, it was due to the corrupt example of the governing classes: Paris and London in the Eighteenth Century: Studies in Popular Protest (New York, 1972 reprint), pp. 26–28Google Scholar. For discussions of other aspects of the use of violence by Tudor peers and gentry, see Smith, R. B., Land and Politics in the England of Henry VIII: The West Riding of Yorkshire, 1539-46 (Oxford, 1970), pp. 144–51Google Scholar; Stone, Lawrence, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641 (New York, 1967), pp. 107–13Google Scholar; James, M. E., A Tudor Magnate and the Tudor State: Henry, Fifth Earl of Northumberland (York: Borthwick Papers, No. 31, 1966), pp. 10–11Google Scholar; Proceedings of the Court of Star Chamber in the Reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII, ed. Bradford, G. [Somerset Record Society, XXVII], (1911), 21–22Google Scholar; Lehmberg, , “Star Chamber: 1485-1509”, 189–214Google Scholar; Haigh, Christopher, Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 51–53Google Scholar; Ravensdale, J. R., “Landbeach in 1549: Ket's Rebellion in Miniature,” East Anglian Studies, ed. Munby, L. M. (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 94–116Google Scholar.

20. Abstracts of Star Chamber Proceedings relating to the County of Sussex: Henry VII to Philip and Mary, ed. Mundy, P. D. [Sussex Record Soc., XVI] (1913), 3–4Google Scholar; PRO, STAC 3/4/5; D.N.B., sub Thomas Fiennes, 9th Baron Dacre; Phelps, W., The History and Antiquities of Somersetshire (London, 1836), I, 178 ffGoogle Scholar; Strype, John, Ecclesiastical Memorials (Oxford, 1822), III, 367Google Scholar.

21. PRO, STAC 2/2, ff. 206-09.

22. “Staffordshire Suits in the Court of Star Chamber, temp. Henry VII and Henry VIII”, ed. Boyd, W. K., William Salt Archaeological Society, N.S., XI (1907), 86–88Google Scholar; Lancashire and Cheshire Cases in the Court of Star Chamber, ed. Stewart-Browne, R. [Lancashire and Cheshire Record Society, LXXI] (1916), 83–84Google Scholar; PRO, STAC 2/10, f. 153, 3/7/73; SirSomerville, Robert, History of the Duchy of Lancaster, vol. I: 1265-1603 (London, 1953), 278–79Google Scholar; PRO, Duchy of Lancaster Commission and Order Book, DL 42/95, f. 140; PRO, Duchy of Lancaster Chancery Rolls, DL 37/62, m. 25.

23. James, , A Tudor Magnate and the Tudor State, pp. 10–11Google Scholar.

24. Sussex Star Chamber Proceedings, pp. 12-17.

25. Cf. my “Patterns of Violence in Early Tudor Enclosure Riots”, Albion, V (1974), 120–33Google Scholar.

26. PRO, STAC 2/19/106.

27. Ibid., STAC 2/15, ff. 95-96.

28. James, M. E. in “Obedience and Dissent in Henrician England: The Lincolnshire Rebellion, 1536”, Past and Present, No. 48 (Aug., 1970), pp. 3–78Google Scholar (esp. pp. 38-48), conclusively proves that this rebellion was not just a rising of churlish inhabitants of the fens and points out that the intrusion of alien and predatory courtiers in Lincolnshire tended to lead to the peers changing their patterns of marriage and patronage to the detriment of the native Lincolnshire gentry. Many of these disappointed gentlemen, plus their tenants and chaplains, later turned up among the rebels of 1536. The Brandon-Willoughby feud had not died down by 1536, despite royal mediation, and the Willoughbies played a prominent part in the Rebellion, while Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, was the man who put down the rebellion in Lincolnshire. “Thus from one point of view the rebellion was an extension of the quarrel of the Willoughbies and their friends with the intrusive Brandons.” Ibid., p. 35.

29. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, (hereafter, L. & P., Hen. VIII), 1509-47, ed. Gairdner, James (London, 1862–1910), XI, 975Google Scholar.

30. Ibid., XII, 336; James, M. E., Change and Continuity in the Tudor North: The Rise of Thomas First Lord Wharton (York: Borthwick Papers, No. 27, 1965), pp. 24–25Google Scholar; Dodds, M. H. & Dodds, R., The Pilgrimage of Grace, 1336-37 and the Exeter Conspiracy, 1538 (London, 1971 reprint), I, 192Google Scholar.

31. Gay, E. F., “The Midland Revolt and the Inquisition of Depopulation of 1607,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, N. S., XVIII (1904), 196–97Google Scholar; James, , Change and Continuity, pp. 24–25Google Scholar; Dickens, , “Secular and Religious Motivation in the Pilgrimage of Grace,” pp. 44–48Google Scholar; see my “Patterns of Violence in Early Tudor Enclosure Riots,” Albion, VGoogle Scholar.

32. See also Rudé, , Paris and London in the Eighteenth Century, pp. 31–32Google Scholar.

33. Russell, F. W., Kelt's Rebellion in Norfolk (London, 1859), pp. 4–9Google Scholar.

34. Depositions taken before the Mayor and Aldermen of Norwich, 1549-67, ed. Rye, Walter [Norfolk and Norwich Archaeological Society] (1905), pp. 18, 27–28Google Scholar.

35. According to P. A. Sorokin, the transformation of speech reactions is the first phase of revolution: The Sociology of Revolution (New York, 1967 reprint), pp. 41 ff.Google Scholar

36. Rose-Troup, Frances, The Western Rebellion of 1549 (London, 1913), pp. 124–29, 131–36, 427–29Google Scholar; Bindoff, S. T., Ket's Rebellion (Historical Association, G. 12, 1949), pp. 11–12Google Scholar.

37. Somerset to Sir Philip Hobby, Aug. 24, 1549, printed in Burnet, Gilbert, The History of the Reformation of the Church of England, ed. Pocock, N. (Oxford, 1865), V, 250–51Google Scholar.

38. Strype, , Ecclesiastical Memorials, II (ii), 348 ff.Google Scholar; PRO, SP 10/8/11, 24; Jordan, W.K., Edward VI, the Young King: The Protectorship of the Duke of Somerset (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), pp. 410, 426–27Google Scholar; The Agrarian History of England and Wales, ed. Thirsk, , IV, pp. 222–24Google Scholar.

39. BM, Lansdowne MS 238, ff. 231-35, Sept. 1, 1549.

40. HMC, Calendar of Salisbury MSS, I, 54Google Scholar; ibid., 9th Report (Appendix, Pt. i: Corporation of Canterbury Records), 154.

41. Ibid., 13th Report (Appendix, Pt. iv: Hereford Corporation MSS), 317.

42. Depositions taken before the Mayor and Aldermen of Norwich, ed. Rye, , pp. 53–54Google Scholar.

43. PRO, STAC, 3/1/85.

44. Rudé, , Paris and London in the Eighteenth Century, pp. 12–13Google Scholar.

45. Elton, , Policy and Police, pp. 46–82Google Scholar; Holinshed's Chronicles (London, 1808), III, 979Google Scholar; Strype, , Ecclesiastical Memorials, II(i), 275–76Google Scholar.

46. Cf. Lefebvre, The Great Fear of 1789, passim.

47. L. & P., Hen. VIII, XI, 975Google Scholar. For similar rumors concerning the Duke of Norfolk in 1537 and the Earl of Warwick in 1549, see BM, Cotton MSS, Caligula B. II, ff. 361-63v; Holinshed's Chronicles, III, 981–82Google Scholar.

48. Strype, , Ecclesiastical Memorials, II(i), 275–76Google Scholar; BM, Harley MS 2, f. 60.

49. Holinshed's Chronicles, III, 942Google Scholar.

50. Depositions taken bejore the Mayor and Aldermen of Norwich, ed. Rye, , pp. 53–54Google Scholar.

51. Holinshed's Chronicles, III, 979Google Scholar.

52. It is quite possible that Ket's followers included former soldiers who had accompanied the Duke of Norfolk to the North in 1536-37 and remembered how the king had broken his word to Robert Aske and the Pilgrims. See Hammond, R. J., “The Social and Economic Circumstances of Ket's Rebellion,” (Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, 1934) p. 102.Google Scholar

53. The Pilgrimage of Grace, I, 76–77Google Scholar.

54. This grumbling may have originated in the Statute of 27 Hen. VIII, c. 22, which restricted flocks to no more than 2000 sheep, and was revived by the famous tax on sheep contained in the Subsidy Act of 1549 (2 and 3 Edw. VI, c. 36), which had just the opposite effect of that intended by Hales and the Commonwealth Men. They had pressed for the sheep tax to restore balance to an agrarian economy upset by overmuch grazing. See Jordan, , Edward VI, I, 424–35Google Scholar and Holinshed's Chronicles, III, 924Google Scholar.

55. L. & P., Hen. VIII, XIII(i), 440, 475Google Scholar, XI, 841; VCH Suffolk, II, 178–80Google Scholar. Early Tudor exactions were particularly heavy and provoked frequent resistance and rebellion between 1489 and 1525. Fletcher, , Tudor Rebellions, pp. 17–20Google Scholar.

56. Elton, , Policy and Police, p. 68Google Scholar.

57. Dodds, , Pilgrimage of Grace, I, 76–77Google Scholar.

58. Ibid.; Rose-Troup, , The Western Rebellion, pp. 70–71Google Scholar; Elton, , Policy and Police, pp. 46–47, 70Google Scholar.

59. L. & P., Hen. VIII, XXI(i), 1027(3)Google Scholar.

60. Rose-Troup, , The Western Rebellion, pp. 63 ff.Google Scholar

61. Troubles Connected with the Prayer Book of 1549, ed. Pocock, Nicholas [Camden Soc., N.S., XXXVII] (1884), 73Google Scholar.

62. Ibid., xviii.

63. PRO, STAC 3/1/76; Hammond, , “The Social and Economic Circumstances of Ket's Rebellion,” 6Google Scholar.

64. Bindoff, , Ket's Rebellion, p. 19Google Scholar.

65. Proclamation Ordering Punishment of Enclosure Rioters, 23 May 1549, 3 Edw. VI, in Tudor Royal Proclamations, vol. I: The Early Tudors (1485-1553), eds. Hughes, P. L. and Larkin, J. F. (New Haven, 1964), 461–62Google Scholar (No. 333).

66. “Staffordshire Suits in the Court of Star Chamber, temp. Hen. VII and Hen. VIII,” ed. Boyd, W. K., William Salt Archaeological Society, N.S. X(i) (1907), 115–19Google Scholar. Some were persuaded to participate by the threat that their cattle would be maimed if they refused. For a discussion of the attempts by the crowd in sixteenth-century France to legitimate their actions in grain riots and religious riots, see Davis, N. Z., “The Rites of Violence: Religious Riot in Sixteenth-Century France,” Past and Present, No. 59 (May, 1973), 61Google Scholar.

67. Stow, John, Annales, or a General Chronicle of England (London, 1631), p. 574Google Scholar.

68. L. & P., Hen. VIII, XI, 1155(2.ii)Google Scholar.

69. HMC, 12th Report, Appendix, Pt. iv: John Paston to Earl of Rutland, May 25, 1549, Rutland MSS, I, 36. During the Midland Revolt of 1607, although crowds of up to 5000 people assembled together, Stow tells us that “these riotous persons bent all their strength to leavell [level] and lay open enclosures, without exercising any manner of theft, or violence upon any mans person, goods or cattell, and wheresoever they came, they were generally relieved by the neere inhabitants, who sent them not onely many Carts laden with victuall, but also good store of Spades and Shovelles, for speedy performance of their … enterprise, who untill then some of them were faine to use Bills, Pykes, and such like tooles” (Annales, p. 890).

70. PRO, STAC 2/15, ff. 9-10.

71. Holinshed's Chronicles, III, 965–69, 981–82Google Scholar.

72. Ibid., III, 965.

73. Ibid., III, 968, PRO, STAC 3/2/6.

74. Carew, Richard, The Survey of Cornwall, ed. Halliday, F. E. (New York, 1969 reprint), p. 181Google Scholar.

75. PRO, STAC 3/1/85.

76. Ibid., STAC 3/1/102.

77. “[Staffordshire] Star Chamber Proceedings. Henry VIII and Edward VI,” ed. Boyd, W. K., William Salt Archaeological Society (1912), 177–78Google Scholar.

78. PRO, STAC 3/7/53.

79. The royal forces lost between 1000 and 1100 in suppressing the rebellions of 1549 (Jordan, , Edward VI, 476, 492–93Google Scholar).

80. Which may help explain why Henry VIII considered the commonalty of Lincolnshire to be “The most brute and beastly of the whole realm.” (L. & P., Hen. VIII, XI, 780 (2)Google Scholar).

81. The ten instances are: 1) Nicholas, a servant of Lord Borough, beaten to death by a mob of about 1000 persons near Caistor, Lincolnshire in 1536; 2) Dr. Raynes, chancellor to the Bishop of Lincoln, beaten to death by a large mob near Horncastle in 1536; 3) Thomas Wolsey, formerly a servant of Cardinal Wolsey, hanged as a spy on the same occasion near Horncastle; 4) William Body, archdeacon of Cornwall, killed by a mob at Helston, Cornwall while conducting a visitation in 1548; 5) William Hellyons, gentleman, torn to pieces by the crowd at Sampford Courtenay in 1549; 6) a man, said to be a Protestant inhabitant of Tavistock, who was hanged as a spy by the Devonshire rebels while they were investing Exeter; 7) and 8) Matthew White, a chantry commissioner, and his brother-in-law (possibly minor gentry living near Semer, Yorkshire); 9) Savage, a merchant of York, and 10) Berrie, a servant of Sir Walter Mildmay, all murdered during the Yorkshire Rising of 1549. See Dodds, , Pilgrimage of Grace, I, 101–02Google Scholar; Rose-Troup, , The Western Rebellion, pp. 131–32Google Scholar; Rowse, A.L., Tudor Cornwall (London, 1941), p. 270Google Scholar; Holinshed's Chronicles, III, 985–87Google Scholar; Dickens, A. G., “Some Popular Reactions to the Edwardian Reformation in Yorkshire,” Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, XXXIV (1939), 158Google Scholar.

82. In addition, 700 rebels are said to have died in the assault on Carlisle, although this estimate is probably high (Dodds, , Pilgrimage of Grace, II, 226Google Scholar).

83. Jordan, , Edward VI, I, 466–69Google Scholar; Fletcher, , Tudor Rebellions, pp. 55–66Google Scholar.

84. Jordan, , Edward VI, I, 486–93Google Scholar.

85. Tudor Royal Proclamations, eds. Hughes, and Larkin, , I, No. 334Google Scholar.

86. Ibid., No. 341. Sir Anthony Kingston, Russell's provost-marshal in Cornwall, proceeded with a ruthlessness that became legendary in the town of Bodmin (which had an association with rebellion dating back to the Cornish Rising of 1497). In advance of his coming to Bodmin, Kingston sent word to the mayor that he desired to dine with him. Much flattered, the mayor was waiting to welcome Kingston; just as he was about to lead Kingston into dinner, the latter requested the mayor to have a gallows erected since he was obliged to execute some rebels. When they had dined, Kingston asked to view the gallows. “Think you be strong enough?” enquired the provost-marshal. Being assured that they were, the provost-marshal said to the mayor: “Well, then, get you even up to them, for they are provided for you.” Brushing the mayor's protest aside, Kingston said: “Sir, there is no remedy. You have been a busy rebel, and therefore this is appointed for your reward.” Troubles … of 1549, ed. Pocock, , p. xxviiGoogle Scholar; Carew, , Survey of Cornwall, p. 196Google Scholar.

87. Tudor Royal Proclamations, eds. Hughes, and Larkin, , I, No. 342 (July 22, 1549.)Google Scholar Apparently, it was not even necessary for the rumor to be seditious. Just before his execution, the bailiff of Romford, Essex, protested that he was being hanged for repeating an innocent rumor. Beer, Barrett L., “London and the Rebellions of 1548-49”, J.B.S., XII (Nov., 1972), 29Google Scholar.

88. Tudor Royal Proclamations, eds. Hughes, and Larkin, , IGoogle Scholar, No. 333.

89. PRO, SP 10/9/46.

90. “[Staffordshire] Star Chamber Proceedings. Henry VIII and Edward VI”, pp. 176-77, See also PRO, SP 10/8/9 for reference to the use of the threat of forfeiting their holdings if tenants refused to help their landlords suppress popular disturbances.

91. PRO, SP 10/8/66, 8/32, 8/9; England under the Reigns of Edward VI and Mary, ed. Tytler, P. F. (London, 1839), I, 185–89Google Scholar; A Collection of State Papers Relating to Affairs in the Reigns of King Henry VIII, King Edward VI, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, From the year 1542 to 1570, ed. Haynes, Samuel (London, 1740), pp. 114–15Google Scholar; Acts of the Privy Council of England, ed. Dasent, J. R. (London, 1890–1907), III, 35Google Scholar.

92. Quoted in Hill, Christopher, The Century of Revolution (New York, 1966), p. 28Google Scholar.

93. Stone, Lawrence, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641 pp. 107ff.Google Scholar; SirNeale, John, The Elizabethan House of Commons (London, 1949), pp. 124–25Google Scholar.

94. MacCaffrey, Wallace, Exeter, 1540-1640: The Growth of an English County Town (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), pp. 90ff.Google Scholar; Hill, Christopher, Reformation to Industrial Revolution: The Making of Modern English Society (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1969), p. 26Google Scholar.

95. Hay, Douglas, “Poaching and the Game Laws on Cannock Chase,” Albion's Fatal Tree, p. 209Google Scholar; Thompson, E. P., Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act (New York, 1975)Google Scholar, passim.

96. Under the conditions prevailing in sixteenth-century England, probably only a millenarian ideology would have been sufficient to produce a genuine, popularly-based revolutionary movement. See Hobsbawm, E. J., Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries (New York, 1959), pp. 6–7Google Scholar.

97. “The Crime of Anonymity,” Albion's Fatal Tree, p. 307Google Scholar.

98. Bush, M. L., The Government Policy of Protector Somerset (Montreal, 1975), p. 86Google Scholar. At the same time the government was unprepared to act against the rebels immediately because of the expedition that it was preparing against the Scots.

99. Stone, Lawrence, “Patriarchy and Paternalism in Tudor England: The Earl of Arundel and the Peasants Revolt of 1549,” J.B.S., XIII (May, 1974), pp. 19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100. Hill, Christopher, The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution (New York, 1972), pp. 16 ff.Google Scholar