A biography of Wat Tyler, described as a hero of the people (from the New York Times, October 28, 1852, with references to Hume and Froissart!)
1381. “The faint dawn of the arts and of good government in that age, had excited the minds of the populace, in different states of Europe, to wish for a better condition, and to murmur against those chains, which the laws, enacted by the haughty nobility and gentry, had so long imposed upon them. The commotions of the people in Flanders, the mutiny of the peasants in France, were the natural effects of this growing spirit of independence; and the report of these events, being brought into England, where personal slavery, as we learn from Froissard, was more general than in any other country in Europe, had prepared the minds of the multitude for an insurrection.” (Hume, History of England, Vol. 2, Ch. 17)
If we put what Froissart and Hume say together, I think we get an idea of why the people rebelled. Froissart speaks of how comfortable the people were becoming. Hume speaks of the "faint dawn of...good government in that age." These two things go hand in hand. When there is good government, that is, a government that protects person and property, then people prosper--even the most humble.
As I understand it, the relationship between lord and serf originally made some sense. The lord was able to protect the serf and the serf was in need of protection. There was originally no effective central government to protect person and property. The king was not yet sufficiently powerful to provide that protection. So the lord protected the serf and in exchange the serf provided certain services--such as planting, harvesting, etc. It was a roughly fair exchange.
But as government became more effective and more able to provide effective justice, the people turned more to the king for the kind of protection they used to get from their lords, the nobility. Once this happens, then the feudal system no longer makes and sense and loses all appearance of fairness. The serfs serve their lord and receive nothing in return. It is a system that the lords naturally want to maintain, but it is clearly unjust. So the peasants have good reason to rise up against it.
They simply want to be paid for their work and to rent their land from their lord--in other words, to participate in a fair exchange for what they give and for what they receive. The article from the NY Times noted above emphasizes the justice of the peasants' cause and regards Wat Tyler as a hero.
(It also looks forward in time--that is, from 1381--to Cade's rebellion, which if I remember correctly is dramatized by Shakespeare in Henry VI.)
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Thoughts on the Constitutional Convention
In his speech of June 25 (Madison's Notes), Pinkney describes the inhabitants of the US as a people that lack a noble class and a royal class, so all that remains is the common people. There is in his opinion then no need for a branch of government that corresponds to the nobility and the royalty (that is, a permanent senate and executive).
If this is so, then the dream of the peasants that Froissart describes is fulfilled in the US
If this is so, then the dream of the peasants that Froissart describes is fulfilled in the US
Monday, June 23, 2008
Was the Duke of Gloucester There?
Froissart: "All this season the earl of Buckingham [i.e. Thomas of Woodstock] was in Wales, for there he had fair heritages by reason of his wife, who was daughter to the earl of Northumberland and Hereford; but the voice was all through London how he was among these people. And some said certainly how they had seen him there among them; and all was because there was one Thomas in their company, a man of the county of Cambridge, that was very like the earl."
It is worth noting that there was a rumor that the Duke of Gloucester took part in this rebellion. Later on, Gloucester did seek to get the people on his side against the king and perhaps the king believed the rumor of Gloucester's part in the rebellion and later held it against him, among Gloucester's other offenses.
A side note: there is a theory that Chaucer's Nun's Priest's Tale is really about the murder of Gloucester--and that the name of the murderer was Nicholas Colfox. See here for a discussion of this theory.
It is worth noting that there was a rumor that the Duke of Gloucester took part in this rebellion. Later on, Gloucester did seek to get the people on his side against the king and perhaps the king believed the rumor of Gloucester's part in the rebellion and later held it against him, among Gloucester's other offenses.
A side note: there is a theory that Chaucer's Nun's Priest's Tale is really about the murder of Gloucester--and that the name of the murderer was Nicholas Colfox. See here for a discussion of this theory.
Froissart on the Peasant's Revolt
Book II, ch. 73.
"While these conferences were going forward, there happened in England great commotions among the lower ranks of the people, by which England was near ruined without resource. Never was a country in such jeopardy as was this at that period, and all through the too great comfort of the commonalty. Rebellion was stirred up, as it was formerly done in France by the Jacques Bons-hommes, who did much evil, and sore troubled the kingdom of France. It is marvellous from what a trifle this pestilence raged in England. In order that it may serve as an example to mankind, I will speak of all that was done, from the information I had at the time on the subject."
Apparently Froissart thinks that the reason why the common people rebelled is that they were enjoying "too great comfort" (or "ease and riches," as it is put in another translation). He sees no good foundation for the mischief that they caused.
"It is customary in England, as in several other countries, for the nobility to have great privileges over the commonalty, whom they keep in bondage; that is to say, they are bound by law and custom to plough the lands of gentleman, to harvest the grain, to carry it home to the barn, to thrash and winnow it: they are also bound to harvest the hay and carry it home. All these services they are obliged to perform for their lords, and many more in England than in other countries. The prelates and the gentlemen are thus served. In the counties of Kent, Essex, Sussex and Bedford, these services are more oppressive than in all the rest of the kingdom.
The evil-disposed in these districts began to rise, saying, they were too severely oppressed; that at the beginning of the world there were no slaves, and that no one ought to be treated as such, unless he had committed treason against his lord, as Lucifer had done against God: but they had done no such thing, for they were neither angels nor spirits, but men formed after the same likeness with their lords, who treated them as beasts. This they would not longer bear, but had determined to be free, and if they laboured or did any other works for their lords, they would be paid for it."
Note: a bondman or villein was "a member of a class of partially free persons under the feudal system, who were serfs with respect to their lord but had the rights and privileges of freemen with respect to others."
So these serfs were like slaves in relation to their lords, doing all of the planting and harvesting of the lord's crops, chopping the wood for their homes, etc.--all without pay.
"While these conferences were going forward, there happened in England great commotions among the lower ranks of the people, by which England was near ruined without resource. Never was a country in such jeopardy as was this at that period, and all through the too great comfort of the commonalty. Rebellion was stirred up, as it was formerly done in France by the Jacques Bons-hommes, who did much evil, and sore troubled the kingdom of France. It is marvellous from what a trifle this pestilence raged in England. In order that it may serve as an example to mankind, I will speak of all that was done, from the information I had at the time on the subject."
Apparently Froissart thinks that the reason why the common people rebelled is that they were enjoying "too great comfort" (or "ease and riches," as it is put in another translation). He sees no good foundation for the mischief that they caused.
"It is customary in England, as in several other countries, for the nobility to have great privileges over the commonalty, whom they keep in bondage; that is to say, they are bound by law and custom to plough the lands of gentleman, to harvest the grain, to carry it home to the barn, to thrash and winnow it: they are also bound to harvest the hay and carry it home. All these services they are obliged to perform for their lords, and many more in England than in other countries. The prelates and the gentlemen are thus served. In the counties of Kent, Essex, Sussex and Bedford, these services are more oppressive than in all the rest of the kingdom.
The evil-disposed in these districts began to rise, saying, they were too severely oppressed; that at the beginning of the world there were no slaves, and that no one ought to be treated as such, unless he had committed treason against his lord, as Lucifer had done against God: but they had done no such thing, for they were neither angels nor spirits, but men formed after the same likeness with their lords, who treated them as beasts. This they would not longer bear, but had determined to be free, and if they laboured or did any other works for their lords, they would be paid for it."
Note: a bondman or villein was "a member of a class of partially free persons under the feudal system, who were serfs with respect to their lord but had the rights and privileges of freemen with respect to others."
So these serfs were like slaves in relation to their lords, doing all of the planting and harvesting of the lord's crops, chopping the wood for their homes, etc.--all without pay.
Revolution in the Name of the People
Hume speaks of the common man's lack of liberty in his discussion of the Peasant's Revolt of 1381 and Froissart elobarates on this as well. If anyone had a reason to overthrow the government during the reign of Richard II, it was the people. But a revolution in the name of the people would have to wait until 1776.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Hume's Richard II--Dangerous Wars
"Edward had left his grandson involved in many dangerous wars." These were:
1. The kingdom of Castile was hostile toward England on account of the Duke of Lancaster's "pretensions to the crown" of Castile.
2. Scotland's alliance with France meant that any conflict with one would mean conflict with both.
3. The war with France continued, but was not prosecuted with much enthusiasm.
In 1378, Sir Hugh Calverly set fire to Boulogne and the duke of Lancaster conducted an army into Brittany.
In 1380, the Duke of Glocester "scrupled not, with his small army, to enter into the heart of France," but "this enterprize also proved in the issue unsuccessful, and made no impression upon the enemy."
The costs involved in these enterprizes, along with "the usual want of oeconomy attending a minority," put a strain on the treasury. As a result, Parliament instituted a new and unusual tax.
"This imposition prouced a mutiny, which was singular in its circumstances." The common people rose up in revolt.
1. The kingdom of Castile was hostile toward England on account of the Duke of Lancaster's "pretensions to the crown" of Castile.
2. Scotland's alliance with France meant that any conflict with one would mean conflict with both.
3. The war with France continued, but was not prosecuted with much enthusiasm.
In 1378, Sir Hugh Calverly set fire to Boulogne and the duke of Lancaster conducted an army into Brittany.
In 1380, the Duke of Glocester "scrupled not, with his small army, to enter into the heart of France," but "this enterprize also proved in the issue unsuccessful, and made no impression upon the enemy."
The costs involved in these enterprizes, along with "the usual want of oeconomy attending a minority," put a strain on the treasury. As a result, Parliament instituted a new and unusual tax.
"This imposition prouced a mutiny, which was singular in its circumstances." The common people rose up in revolt.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Hume's Richard II: Note on the Commons
In an a note in the appendix, Hume discusses two acts of the House of Commons, which he uses to illustrate the growing authority and spirit of liberty in the commons.
First, in the fifth year of Richard's reign (1382), the commons lodge complaints against:
1. The government about the king's person
2. The king's court
3. The excessive number of the king's servants
4. The abuses in the Chancery, King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer
5. "Grievous oppressions in the country, by the great multitudes of maintainers of quarrels who behaved themselves like kings in the country, so as there was very little law or right"
6. Other things, which they said were the cause of the late commotions under Wat Tyler.
The fifth complaint makes it sound as if the English countryside in Richard's time was a little like the wild west.
Hume sums this up as a description of "irregular government." By this, I suppose he means a government that does not promote justice by punishing wrongdoers and making things safe for the rest; but also a government that itself does not do what is right, and itself is a source of harm and injustice to the people.
In any case, Hume identifies this irregular government as the cause of three harms:
1. The licentiousness of the great--that is, the barons were lawless and harmed one another and the people.
2. The turbulency of the people. This is a favorite word of Hume's and it seems to mean an unwillingness to submit to proper authority and so to act lawlessly and badly; and even a willingness to overthrow the existing authorities, the existing order of things. (At the beginning of this chapter, the barons are described as having a turbulent spirit in a weak reign.)
3. The tyranny of princes--by this word, I suppose Hume is referring to Edward's sons (and other princes in previous reigns, because the statement is general).
Hume's summary of all this: "If subjects would enjoy liberty, and kings security, the laws must be executed."
I think this means that the commons and lords will only enjoy the protection and security provided by good government and will not be harmed by government if the laws are executed; and if the laws are not executed, then the lords and commons will be unhappy and will start wishing to get rid of the king; and so the king's position will not be secure. This is precisely what happens in Richard's reign.
The second example has to do with the decision of commons to suspend for a time certain revenues that had been granted to the king, just to make sure that the king would not claim them as his due.
Hume describes this action as revealing "an accuracy and a jealousy of liberty, which we should little expect in those rude times." By liberty, Hume here seems to mean a condition in which the life, liberty, and property of the subjects are not harmed by government and in this case, the king.
He also describes the times of Richard as "rude" and Hume will return to this thought several times in his discussion of Richard's reign. By rude, he seems to mean especially a condition in which there is an absence or just a small amount of liberty.
First, in the fifth year of Richard's reign (1382), the commons lodge complaints against:
1. The government about the king's person
2. The king's court
3. The excessive number of the king's servants
4. The abuses in the Chancery, King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer
5. "Grievous oppressions in the country, by the great multitudes of maintainers of quarrels who behaved themselves like kings in the country, so as there was very little law or right"
6. Other things, which they said were the cause of the late commotions under Wat Tyler.
The fifth complaint makes it sound as if the English countryside in Richard's time was a little like the wild west.
Hume sums this up as a description of "irregular government." By this, I suppose he means a government that does not promote justice by punishing wrongdoers and making things safe for the rest; but also a government that itself does not do what is right, and itself is a source of harm and injustice to the people.
In any case, Hume identifies this irregular government as the cause of three harms:
1. The licentiousness of the great--that is, the barons were lawless and harmed one another and the people.
2. The turbulency of the people. This is a favorite word of Hume's and it seems to mean an unwillingness to submit to proper authority and so to act lawlessly and badly; and even a willingness to overthrow the existing authorities, the existing order of things. (At the beginning of this chapter, the barons are described as having a turbulent spirit in a weak reign.)
3. The tyranny of princes--by this word, I suppose Hume is referring to Edward's sons (and other princes in previous reigns, because the statement is general).
Hume's summary of all this: "If subjects would enjoy liberty, and kings security, the laws must be executed."
I think this means that the commons and lords will only enjoy the protection and security provided by good government and will not be harmed by government if the laws are executed; and if the laws are not executed, then the lords and commons will be unhappy and will start wishing to get rid of the king; and so the king's position will not be secure. This is precisely what happens in Richard's reign.
The second example has to do with the decision of commons to suspend for a time certain revenues that had been granted to the king, just to make sure that the king would not claim them as his due.
Hume describes this action as revealing "an accuracy and a jealousy of liberty, which we should little expect in those rude times." By liberty, Hume here seems to mean a condition in which the life, liberty, and property of the subjects are not harmed by government and in this case, the king.
He also describes the times of Richard as "rude" and Hume will return to this thought several times in his discussion of Richard's reign. By rude, he seems to mean especially a condition in which there is an absence or just a small amount of liberty.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Freedom of Speech in Hume's Richard II
The commons choose Peter de la Mare as their first speaker. Hume describes de la Mare as being "the same person that had been imprisoned and detained in custody by the late king for his freedom of speech, in attacking the mistress and the ministers of that prince."
In another place, Hume speaks of freedom of speech as a way of keeping rulers within their proper bounds and it may be that de la Mare's criticisms were an example of this. It would be helpful to see what the criticisms were in this case and whether or not they were justified.
In any case, Hume understands this choice of de la Mare as revealing a "spirit of liberty" in the commons, which is presumably a good thing.
That it is a good thing is confirmed by how Hume concludes his discussion of the commons: "In the other parliaments called during the minority, the commons still discover a strong spirit of freedom and a sense of their own authority, which without breeding any disturbance, tended to secure their independence and that of the people."
This ability to correct abuses in government was a way of keeping the king's government from harming the people and also a way of gettting the king's government to protect the people.
In another place, Hume speaks of freedom of speech as a way of keeping rulers within their proper bounds and it may be that de la Mare's criticisms were an example of this. It would be helpful to see what the criticisms were in this case and whether or not they were justified.
In any case, Hume understands this choice of de la Mare as revealing a "spirit of liberty" in the commons, which is presumably a good thing.
That it is a good thing is confirmed by how Hume concludes his discussion of the commons: "In the other parliaments called during the minority, the commons still discover a strong spirit of freedom and a sense of their own authority, which without breeding any disturbance, tended to secure their independence and that of the people."
This ability to correct abuses in government was a way of keeping the king's government from harming the people and also a way of gettting the king's government to protect the people.
Hume's Richard II: The Council
(By the way, I checked and saw today that Richard was born in 1366 and became king in 1377, at the age of 11, as Hume notes.)
The original 9 members of the council appointed by the Lords consisted of:
1. The Bishop of London
2. The Bishop of Carlisle
3. The Bishop of Salisbury
4. The Earl of March
5. The Earl of Stafford
6. Sir Richard de Stafford
7. Sir Henry le Scrope
8. Sir John Devereux
9. Sir Hugh Segrave
These men received authority to serve for a year. This system continued for a number of years. According to Hume, however, the three brothers--Gaunt, York, and Glocester, were the real rulers and especially Gaunt, "who was in reality the regent."
The original 9 members of the council appointed by the Lords consisted of:
1. The Bishop of London
2. The Bishop of Carlisle
3. The Bishop of Salisbury
4. The Earl of March
5. The Earl of Stafford
6. Sir Richard de Stafford
7. Sir Henry le Scrope
8. Sir John Devereux
9. Sir Hugh Segrave
These men received authority to serve for a year. This system continued for a number of years. According to Hume, however, the three brothers--Gaunt, York, and Glocester, were the real rulers and especially Gaunt, "who was in reality the regent."
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Hume's Richard II: House of Commons
Hume continues:
Edward had failed to arrange a form of government to act during Richard's minority, so it was necessary for Parliament to come up with a plan.
The house of commons took the lead and asked the lords to appoint a council to rule until Richard was ready. The lords appointed a council of 11, as requested, to serve for a year.
Hume notes that the commons had started to become more powerful throughout the reign of Edward III and this continued during the minority of Richard II.
This house was becoming so active that it became necessary for the first time for them to choose a speaker. They chose Peter de la Mare, who had been imprisoned during the reign of Edward III for speaking badly of Edward's mistress and ministers.
This choice indicated that they intended to continue speaking out against abuses--it "discovered a spirit of liberty in the commons," as Hume puts it. They realized, however, that they were not yet powerful enough to be involved in selecting a council and this is why they were content to ask the lords to do so.
They also asked the lords to choose some good men to watch over the king and make sure that he grew up in a virtuous way. The lords declined to this.
The commons made two requests of the king.
First, they asked that the king would stop the lords from "forming illegal confederacies, and supporting each other, as well as men of inferior rank, in the violations of law and justice." This request received a "general and obliging answer."
Then, they proposed that they, along with the lords, would have the power to appoint the ministers of the king during his minority. This request was denied, but Hume says that it served their purpose simply to "advance their pretensions...of interposing in these more important matters of state."
Edward had failed to arrange a form of government to act during Richard's minority, so it was necessary for Parliament to come up with a plan.
The house of commons took the lead and asked the lords to appoint a council to rule until Richard was ready. The lords appointed a council of 11, as requested, to serve for a year.
Hume notes that the commons had started to become more powerful throughout the reign of Edward III and this continued during the minority of Richard II.
This house was becoming so active that it became necessary for the first time for them to choose a speaker. They chose Peter de la Mare, who had been imprisoned during the reign of Edward III for speaking badly of Edward's mistress and ministers.
This choice indicated that they intended to continue speaking out against abuses--it "discovered a spirit of liberty in the commons," as Hume puts it. They realized, however, that they were not yet powerful enough to be involved in selecting a council and this is why they were content to ask the lords to do so.
They also asked the lords to choose some good men to watch over the king and make sure that he grew up in a virtuous way. The lords declined to this.
The commons made two requests of the king.
First, they asked that the king would stop the lords from "forming illegal confederacies, and supporting each other, as well as men of inferior rank, in the violations of law and justice." This request received a "general and obliging answer."
Then, they proposed that they, along with the lords, would have the power to appoint the ministers of the king during his minority. This request was denied, but Hume says that it served their purpose simply to "advance their pretensions...of interposing in these more important matters of state."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
