Patriarchy and Paternalism in Tudor England: The Earl of Arundel and the Peasants Revolt of1549Author(s): Lawrence StoneSource: Journal of British Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2 (May, 1974), pp. 19-23Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The North American Conference on BritishStudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/175085 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 15:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Cambridge University Press and The North American Conference on British Studies are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of British Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.61 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:39:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Patriarchy and Paternalism in Tudor England: The Earl of Arundel and The

Peasants Revolt of 1549 Most of the details about the life of Henry Fitzalan, fourteenth

Earl of Arundel, come from a biography written in 1580, which was the year of his death, by a close associate, probably his pri- vate chaplain, who had dearly been an eyewitness to most of the events described. The latter wrote the essay for the benefit of the Earl's two daughters and heiresses, "for the perpetual memory of a personage very honorable, and that ye who shall remain of his blood may the rather rejoice in so noble a progenitor."1 Since this was his purpose, there can be little doubt that the author has a tendency to stress the virtues and successes of his subject, and to gloss over his defects and omit his failures. What is recorded, however, carries the ring of truth, and the selectivity of the pre- sentation throws light on the values and actions which the author considered important and praiseworthy.

The Earl of Arundel was no ordinary nobleman. He was the representative of the most senior and one of the richest and most powerful aristocratic families in the country. He was a man who inherited vast estates and equally vast authority in his native Sus- sex, and who lived in a style appropriate to his position. Unlike the more modem-minded nobles, he does not seem to have been much affected by the educational reforms of the Renaissance. When on embassies abroad, he certainly confined himself to speak- ing English, and it seems possible that he lacked the skill to do anything else. He was educated, not at a school or university, but in the houshold of the King himself. Other noblemen of his generation and conservative stamp had attached themselves to Cardinal Wolsey's household for their upbringing, but he had scorned to be subordinated to a man "of a very low and base birth." At fifteen he therefore presented himself to King Henry VIII, and was taken into the royal household for his training. In 1536, at the age of 23, he was made governor of the strategically critical fortress and town of Calais. On his father's death in 1543,

Patriarchy and Paternalism in Tudor England: The Earl of Arundel and The

Peasants Revolt of 1549 Most of the details about the life of Henry Fitzalan, fourteenth

Earl of Arundel, come from a biography written in 1580, which was the year of his death, by a close associate, probably his pri- vate chaplain, who had dearly been an eyewitness to most of the events described. The latter wrote the essay for the benefit of the Earl's two daughters and heiresses, "for the perpetual memory of a personage very honorable, and that ye who shall remain of his blood may the rather rejoice in so noble a progenitor."1 Since this was his purpose, there can be little doubt that the author has a tendency to stress the virtues and successes of his subject, and to gloss over his defects and omit his failures. What is recorded, however, carries the ring of truth, and the selectivity of the pre- sentation throws light on the values and actions which the author considered important and praiseworthy.

The Earl of Arundel was no ordinary nobleman. He was the representative of the most senior and one of the richest and most powerful aristocratic families in the country. He was a man who inherited vast estates and equally vast authority in his native Sus- sex, and who lived in a style appropriate to his position. Unlike the more modem-minded nobles, he does not seem to have been much affected by the educational reforms of the Renaissance. When on embassies abroad, he certainly confined himself to speak- ing English, and it seems possible that he lacked the skill to do anything else. He was educated, not at a school or university, but in the houshold of the King himself. Other noblemen of his generation and conservative stamp had attached themselves to Cardinal Wolsey's household for their upbringing, but he had scorned to be subordinated to a man "of a very low and base birth." At fifteen he therefore presented himself to King Henry VIII, and was taken into the royal household for his training. In 1536, at the age of 23, he was made governor of the strategically critical fortress and town of Calais. On his father's death in 1543,

1. The original is BM, Royal MSS., 17. A. IX. It was printed by J. G. Nichols in Gentlemen's Magazine, CIII, part 2 (1833), 11-15, 1'18-24, 490-91, 209-15. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized. For the dating of the document, see M. A. Tierney, History and Antiquities of the Castle and Town of Arundel (London, 1834), I, 319, note b.

1. The original is BM, Royal MSS., 17. A. IX. It was printed by J. G. Nichols in Gentlemen's Magazine, CIII, part 2 (1833), 11-15, 1'18-24, 490-91, 209-15. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized. For the dating of the document, see M. A. Tierney, History and Antiquities of the Castle and Town of Arundel (London, 1834), I, 319, note b.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.61 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:39:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE JOURNAL OF BRITISH STUDIES THE JOURNAL OF BRITISH STUDIES

he resigned his office and returned to Arundel Castle to take up his family responsibilities, a homecoming he celebrated in such opulent medieval style and with such lavish hospitality that it was long remembered in the area as "the Great Christmas."

After this interlude, he returned to military affairs and court politics during the last hectic years of King Henry's life. At the coronation of Edward VI in 1547, he served as High Constable of England, while his son and heir served as Chief Butler of England. The biographer asserts that at this ceremony the father and son were attended by 450 gentlemen and yeomen all dressed in the Earl's livery. On another occasion a few years later, when Wyatt's Rebellion broke out in 1554, it is related that the Earl rallied to Queen Mary with sixty horse from his own stable, mounted by fully equipped horsemen, and eight hundred footmen, all raised by him and paid for from his own pocket. Even if the figures are exaggerated, as they probably are, these stories show that the Earl was one of the last representatives of the great mag- nates of the middle ages, who managed to preserve a life-style and a system of values of the fifteenth century in an area not so very far from London in the middle of the sixteenth century.

II 1549 was a traumatic year for England, for it witnessed the

most threatening and the most widespread series of popular re- volts in the nation's history. The most alarming feature of these revolts was the clear class-war overtones, the open hostility ex- pressed by the peasantry towards gentlemen and landlords. In- deed, it is arguable that it was fear of worse to come which drove the landed classes during the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries into placing strong legal curbs on depopulating enclosures, and into establishing the only tax-supported nation-wide poor relief system in the world.

The general causes of the revolts are well-known. They were a combination of economic insecurity caused by bad harvests, very rapid price inflation without compensating adjustments in wages, and unemployment caused partly by the enclosure of land for grazing and the eviction of the labor force, partly by violent oscillations in the export trade in cloth, and partly by the demo- bilization of troops; religious insecurity caused by the violent changes recently imposed from above on the traditional, magical, forms of worship conducted in the parish church; and -political insecurity caused by the absence of charismatic leadership during

he resigned his office and returned to Arundel Castle to take up his family responsibilities, a homecoming he celebrated in such opulent medieval style and with such lavish hospitality that it was long remembered in the area as "the Great Christmas."

After this interlude, he returned to military affairs and court politics during the last hectic years of King Henry's life. At the coronation of Edward VI in 1547, he served as High Constable of England, while his son and heir served as Chief Butler of England. The biographer asserts that at this ceremony the father and son were attended by 450 gentlemen and yeomen all dressed in the Earl's livery. On another occasion a few years later, when Wyatt's Rebellion broke out in 1554, it is related that the Earl rallied to Queen Mary with sixty horse from his own stable, mounted by fully equipped horsemen, and eight hundred footmen, all raised by him and paid for from his own pocket. Even if the figures are exaggerated, as they probably are, these stories show that the Earl was one of the last representatives of the great mag- nates of the middle ages, who managed to preserve a life-style and a system of values of the fifteenth century in an area not so very far from London in the middle of the sixteenth century.

II 1549 was a traumatic year for England, for it witnessed the

most threatening and the most widespread series of popular re- volts in the nation's history. The most alarming feature of these revolts was the clear class-war overtones, the open hostility ex- pressed by the peasantry towards gentlemen and landlords. In- deed, it is arguable that it was fear of worse to come which drove the landed classes during the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries into placing strong legal curbs on depopulating enclosures, and into establishing the only tax-supported nation-wide poor relief system in the world.

The general causes of the revolts are well-known. They were a combination of economic insecurity caused by bad harvests, very rapid price inflation without compensating adjustments in wages, and unemployment caused partly by the enclosure of land for grazing and the eviction of the labor force, partly by violent oscillations in the export trade in cloth, and partly by the demo- bilization of troops; religious insecurity caused by the violent changes recently imposed from above on the traditional, magical, forms of worship conducted in the parish church; and -political insecurity caused by the absence of charismatic leadership during

20 20

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.61 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:39:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PATRIARCHY AND PATERNALISM IN TUDOR ENGLAND PATRIARCHY AND PATERNALISM IN TUDOR ENGLAND

the minority of a sickly boy king, and mounting evidence of cor- ruption and profiteering among the ruling elite.

The rebellions of 1549 are usually treated as if they were no more than two isolated outbreaks in two widely separated coun- ties, Norfolk and Cornwall. In fact, however, it is becoming clear that these two counties were merely the ones in which the rebel- lions were allowed to take root. Armed camps of peasantry sprang up all over southern England, but were mostly broken up im- mediately by brute force exercised with swift and pitiless severity.2

During this great crisis of Tudor society, the Earl of Arundel performed his most characteristic, and perhaps historically most significant, service to his country. He was instructed by the Privy Council to return rapidly to Sussex, which was the heartland of his estates and influence, in order to suppress the disorders in that area. The Earl is said to have had sufficient armed force at his command to crush the rebels, drawn from his own household servants, clients and retainers. But it is significant that the gentry of the county could rally to his support with no more than their own household servants, since the tenantry were now unreliable. The Earl did not use this military force, but kept it discreetly in the background. Instead, he relied upon the traditional bonds of medieval society-the bonds of paternalism on the one side and of deference on the other-which in this unique case were still strong enough to withstand the disruptive effects of violent social and economic change and the rise of possessive market individualism.

The Earl sent a message to the peasants' encampment, ap- pealed to them to put their ttust in him, and summoned them along with the gentry of the shire to present themselves before him in the great hall of Arundel Castle, where open hospitality was offered to all comers both indoors and on temporary tables set up in the courtyard. Meanwhile the Earl sat day after day on the dais in the hall, listening to a stream of individual com- plaints, and issuing summary judgments, from which there was no appeal. Greedy gentlemen who had evicted tenants were ordered to reinstate them and destroy their enclosures; truculent peasants who persisted in grumbling and talking about armed rebellion were clapped in the stocks.

It was an extraordinary scene, but one which is strikingly reminiscent of the regal justice dispensed by St. Louis of France in the thirteenth century, seated under an oak tree and hearing the

the minority of a sickly boy king, and mounting evidence of cor- ruption and profiteering among the ruling elite.

The rebellions of 1549 are usually treated as if they were no more than two isolated outbreaks in two widely separated coun- ties, Norfolk and Cornwall. In fact, however, it is becoming clear that these two counties were merely the ones in which the rebel- lions were allowed to take root. Armed camps of peasantry sprang up all over southern England, but were mostly broken up im- mediately by brute force exercised with swift and pitiless severity.2

During this great crisis of Tudor society, the Earl of Arundel performed his most characteristic, and perhaps historically most significant, service to his country. He was instructed by the Privy Council to return rapidly to Sussex, which was the heartland of his estates and influence, in order to suppress the disorders in that area. The Earl is said to have had sufficient armed force at his command to crush the rebels, drawn from his own household servants, clients and retainers. But it is significant that the gentry of the county could rally to his support with no more than their own household servants, since the tenantry were now unreliable. The Earl did not use this military force, but kept it discreetly in the background. Instead, he relied upon the traditional bonds of medieval society-the bonds of paternalism on the one side and of deference on the other-which in this unique case were still strong enough to withstand the disruptive effects of violent social and economic change and the rise of possessive market individualism.

The Earl sent a message to the peasants' encampment, ap- pealed to them to put their ttust in him, and summoned them along with the gentry of the shire to present themselves before him in the great hall of Arundel Castle, where open hospitality was offered to all comers both indoors and on temporary tables set up in the courtyard. Meanwhile the Earl sat day after day on the dais in the hall, listening to a stream of individual com- plaints, and issuing summary judgments, from which there was no appeal. Greedy gentlemen who had evicted tenants were ordered to reinstate them and destroy their enclosures; truculent peasants who persisted in grumbling and talking about armed rebellion were clapped in the stocks.

It was an extraordinary scene, but one which is strikingly reminiscent of the regal justice dispensed by St. Louis of France in the thirteenth century, seated under an oak tree and hearing the

2. H.M.C., 12th Report, App. IV, p. 42. W. K. Jordan, Edward VI, The Young King (London, 1968), pp. 438-53.

2. H.M.C., 12th Report, App. IV, p. 42. W. K. Jordan, Edward VI, The Young King (London, 1968), pp. 438-53.

21 21

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.61 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:39:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE JOURNAL OF BRITISH STUDIES THE JOURNAL OF BRITISH STUDIES

complaints of his subjects. It is, however, totally alien both to the

impersonal bureaucratic state centralization of Thomas Cromwell, and to the procedural niceties of the common law. Both property rights and individual rights were subordinated to traditional con-

cepts of natural justice, as interpreted by a feudal chieftain whose decisions were apparently generally accepted by all classes of

society. It was a process so arbitrary and so personal, so wholly independent of the machinery and authority of the State, that it would have been both incomprehensible and shocking to the prop- erty-conscious, law-obsessed, partly bureaucratized society of late

seventeenth-century England and beyond. Neither the Earl's armed force nor his moral authority nor his judicial procedures owed any- thing to the central government in London.

This scene in the great hall of Arundel Castle in the sumemr of 1549 is the last recorded example of the persistent strength of feudalism, not as a legal or tenurial system, but as a cohesive psychological bond in a face-to-face society. One can argue that faint traces of paternalism and deference are still to be seen today, but for at least 350 years the predominant characteristics of English society have been the more impersonal relationships imposed by the three interacting forces of the market economy, the bureau- cratic nation-state, and the common law. The Earl of Arundel's actions in 1549 - and still more the way in which they were gen- erally accepted - are thus of symbolic significance; they mark the last major success of a dying culture.

APPENDIX

About the . . .year of this King's reign, there was a great rebellion throughout the most part of the Realm, made by the com- mons, which may appear to such as shall read the story of that time to have been marvelously dispersed of great force and

strength, most chiefly intended against the gentlemen of every shire, and principally for enclosures. To the suppressing whereof, noblemen were diversely sent into sundry shires, with great authority and power. This Earl was directed into Sussex (being the chiefest country under his authority) who did so wisely and with such stoutness put in order and redress all causes and dis- orders there appearing before him, as that, without the loss of any one man's life, he quieted and suppressed the whole country to the contentment of all sorts. And, albeit that this Lord was hon-

orably and strongly furnished with servants, armor, and horse of

complaints of his subjects. It is, however, totally alien both to the

impersonal bureaucratic state centralization of Thomas Cromwell, and to the procedural niceties of the common law. Both property rights and individual rights were subordinated to traditional con-

cepts of natural justice, as interpreted by a feudal chieftain whose decisions were apparently generally accepted by all classes of

society. It was a process so arbitrary and so personal, so wholly independent of the machinery and authority of the State, that it would have been both incomprehensible and shocking to the prop- erty-conscious, law-obsessed, partly bureaucratized society of late

seventeenth-century England and beyond. Neither the Earl's armed force nor his moral authority nor his judicial procedures owed any- thing to the central government in London.

This scene in the great hall of Arundel Castle in the sumemr of 1549 is the last recorded example of the persistent strength of feudalism, not as a legal or tenurial system, but as a cohesive psychological bond in a face-to-face society. One can argue that faint traces of paternalism and deference are still to be seen today, but for at least 350 years the predominant characteristics of English society have been the more impersonal relationships imposed by the three interacting forces of the market economy, the bureau- cratic nation-state, and the common law. The Earl of Arundel's actions in 1549 - and still more the way in which they were gen- erally accepted - are thus of symbolic significance; they mark the last major success of a dying culture.

APPENDIX

About the . . .year of this King's reign, there was a great rebellion throughout the most part of the Realm, made by the com- mons, which may appear to such as shall read the story of that time to have been marvelously dispersed of great force and

strength, most chiefly intended against the gentlemen of every shire, and principally for enclosures. To the suppressing whereof, noblemen were diversely sent into sundry shires, with great authority and power. This Earl was directed into Sussex (being the chiefest country under his authority) who did so wisely and with such stoutness put in order and redress all causes and dis- orders there appearing before him, as that, without the loss of any one man's life, he quieted and suppressed the whole country to the contentment of all sorts. And, albeit that this Lord was hon-

orably and strongly furnished with servants, armor, and horse of

22 22

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.61 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:39:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PATRIARCHY AND PATERNALISM IN TUDOR ENGLAND PATRIARCHY AND PATERNALISM IN TUDOR ENGLAND

his own, and accompanied with the gentlemen of the shire, who of themselves were of good value, (though in truth they were able to assist him but with a few besides their own household servants) yet he thought it not convenient to reform with the sword, though in all other shires of England where any rebellion was that course was taken. Neither did he show himself in arms against them at all, which, if he had not won his purpose by offering first reason unto them, it had been meet he should; and so he would have done. But this he did: he sent unto them where they were, in their camp, commanding them to withdraw to their houses, and that as many of them as had just occasion to complain of wrong, should resort unto him to the Castle of Arundel, where with indifferency they should be heard, and that he assured upon his honor. Whereupon the people, having no small experience of his honor, and bearing dutiful affection unto him, as to their ancient and chiefest lord of that country, did obey, not forslowing any time to appear in mul- titudes unto his castle, where every man was used as his case re-

quired. During which time, who had seen the abundance of victuals that were there spent, would have mused-yea, the great court was not void oftentimes of tables to supply the want of rooms within the hall. Their complaints being most against certain gentle- men, and chiefly for enclosures, where cause in truth was found, there the gentlemen were ordered to reform the same, who will-

ingly did according thereunto. Where again it was found that some of their ringleaders, as mutinying varlets, had animated the

people upon false suggestions, such did his lordship set by the heels in the marketplaces of Arundel and Chichester several mar- ket days, in open show of the country, for example to the residue. And where either man or woman was found to murmur thereat, such were also sent to take like part with the rest. Thus, what by justice and by natural usage, having authority and not naked of

power, he did appease the rash and mutinying minds, he satisfied all that need had, and saved the lives of his own countrymen, to the great honor of himself and happiness of the people of both sorts there, as well gentlemen as commons.3

LAWRENCE STONE

3. There is one independent piece of corroborative evidence that the Sussex peasantry were quieted without bloodshed. A contemporary witness described "a general plagule of rebelling: Kent, Essex and Sussex and all the parts near London have meekly confessed their folly and pray for the King's most gracious pardon." (H.M.C. 12th Report, App. IV, p. 42.)

his own, and accompanied with the gentlemen of the shire, who of themselves were of good value, (though in truth they were able to assist him but with a few besides their own household servants) yet he thought it not convenient to reform with the sword, though in all other shires of England where any rebellion was that course was taken. Neither did he show himself in arms against them at all, which, if he had not won his purpose by offering first reason unto them, it had been meet he should; and so he would have done. But this he did: he sent unto them where they were, in their camp, commanding them to withdraw to their houses, and that as many of them as had just occasion to complain of wrong, should resort unto him to the Castle of Arundel, where with indifferency they should be heard, and that he assured upon his honor. Whereupon the people, having no small experience of his honor, and bearing dutiful affection unto him, as to their ancient and chiefest lord of that country, did obey, not forslowing any time to appear in mul- titudes unto his castle, where every man was used as his case re-

quired. During which time, who had seen the abundance of victuals that were there spent, would have mused-yea, the great court was not void oftentimes of tables to supply the want of rooms within the hall. Their complaints being most against certain gentle- men, and chiefly for enclosures, where cause in truth was found, there the gentlemen were ordered to reform the same, who will-

ingly did according thereunto. Where again it was found that some of their ringleaders, as mutinying varlets, had animated the

people upon false suggestions, such did his lordship set by the heels in the marketplaces of Arundel and Chichester several mar- ket days, in open show of the country, for example to the residue. And where either man or woman was found to murmur thereat, such were also sent to take like part with the rest. Thus, what by justice and by natural usage, having authority and not naked of

power, he did appease the rash and mutinying minds, he satisfied all that need had, and saved the lives of his own countrymen, to the great honor of himself and happiness of the people of both sorts there, as well gentlemen as commons.3

LAWRENCE STONE

3. There is one independent piece of corroborative evidence that the Sussex peasantry were quieted without bloodshed. A contemporary witness described "a general plagule of rebelling: Kent, Essex and Sussex and all the parts near London have meekly confessed their folly and pray for the King's most gracious pardon." (H.M.C. 12th Report, App. IV, p. 42.)

23 23

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.61 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:39:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions