The English Rebel

-->

 Title: The English Rebel

Author: David Horspool

Publisher: Penguin 2010 (First published 2009)

ISBN: 978-0-141-02547-6

Pages: 394

David Horspool is History Editor of The Times Literary Supplement. He is a noted columnist and published Why Alfred Burned the Cakes: A King and His eleven-hundred-year Afterlife. This book analyses the strains of revolution over a course of 900 years, right from Norman conquest in 1066 to the protests against Margaret Thatcher’s community charge in 1990. He asserts that rebelliousness is woven into the English social fabric and it expresses itself when several factors, including a sense of justice, equality, moral responsibility or outright personal motives are combined in the right proportion. As the political climate changed over the centuries, the constituents as well as targets of the rebellions also underwent radical (!) change. If it were the dukes, earls or barons who revolted when kingship exercised absolute power over the people, in a democratic setup, it is pressure groups or political parties which are rising up against the establishment.

The single greatest incident which shaped modern English history was the Norman conquest in 1066. William the Conqueror, who emerged victorious was continually harried by rebels like Edgar the Aetheling and Hereward the Wake. Even though they failed to overthrow him, they changed the way he approached the government of the country. Their guerilla tactics inspired both practical and poetic imitators, making the woodland English outlaw the symbol of national identity. And the oppression they fought against, part invention, part reality, would inspire later generations of rebellious followers (p.21). William’s successors were also not having a peaceful time at the throne. Stephen had to face the revolt of Geoffrey de Mandeville. John II assumed reign in 1154. He quarrelled with Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom he had elevated to the highest clerical position. However Becket resented the monarch’s intrusion into ecclesiastical affairs and decided to bring him to heel. The Archbishop was assassinated in 1170 by the King’s own men. The forceful protest from a religious figure was the first in English history. Richard, who followed John, was kidnapped while on a crusade to the holy lands. A large sum had to be arranged as the King’s ransom. The inequities in collecting the money prompted William fitz Osbert, a commoner, to rise in arms. He was captured and killed. The heroic deeds of this rebel, who originated from the poor classes might have been the source behind the myths generated regarding Robin Hood.

John, who followed Richard lost Normandy in 1205 to France. The parental land was denied to the Normans and they had to put their feet more firm in the country they conquered. The new king’s squeezing of the people for retaliatory campaigns caused the barons to rise against him. The parliament, which was the representative assembly of the landed class objected to the way the king was spending public money without consulting them. The show of force which ensued compelled John to concede the signing of Magna Carta in 1215 at Runnymede. One stipulation listed in the document having immense historical value was that “All these barons with their full complement of knights and with the commune of the whole of England must rise up against the king if by chance the king turns against his own charter” (p.65). Thus, rebellions were in fact legalised with this important proviso. Henry III, who followed John had a powerful rebel in Simon de Montfort whom he managed to kill by mutilation in 1265. The 14^th century saw rebellion turning to regicide. In 1327, Edward II faced the rebel Roger Mortimer who had earlier fled to France. His own queen Isabella and son, later Edward III sided with the rebels. The king was killed while in custody through one of the blood-curdling acts of cruelty.

Plague epidemic which devastated England and much of continental Europe by the middle of the 14^th century caused far reaching consequences. A large proportion of people - some claims as much as half – were killed in the pandemic. This caused a shortage of workers in urban centres and the wages shot up by the law of demand and supply. Agricultural labourers who had a very low pay traditionally caught the opportunity and began to migrate to places where the wages were higher. This caused mayhem in agriculture. Artisans also followed the path of the peasants. Monarchy appeared very harsh against the poor by bringing in the Statute of Labourers (1351) which froze the wages at a predetermined level and thus intending to take away the lure of peasants. French wars which raged during 1376-80 prompted the crown to impose poll tax to cover the war expenses. This draconian measure in which the rich and the poor alike were to pay the same amount of tax made the peasants to revolt which came to be known as the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Wat Tyler and John Ball assumed leadership of the rebellion. They killed the Archbishop of Canterbury and many lords and came to dictate terms to Richard II. During the negotiations, the Lord Mayor of London stabbed Tyler and the revolt fizzled out. Richard’s reign also ended in rebellion. Henry Bolingbroke, the duke of Lancaster returned from exile in France, deposed and killed Richard II in 1400.

The Duke of Lancaster and his successors reigned in the beginning of the 15^th century. By the middle of the century, the kingship was in the person of Henry VI. The Duke of York rebelled against him. The series of battles are known as the Wars of the Roses, taking cue from the coats of arms of the respective duchies. The Duke of York usurped the throne and assumed monarchy as Richard III. The war was finally ended when Henry Tudor defeated Richard III in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 which established the Tudor dynasty, under the title of Henry VII. The two great monarchs of the Tudor family, Henry VIII and Elizabeth also had to face rebellion. By Elizabeth’s time, far more of the population had a stake in that government, which was run by professionals like William Cecil and Walshingham on less personal lines. An aristocratic rising, particularly one which concentrated its support so narrowly, had little chance of success (p.233). The nervous non-committal responses the rebels received to their entreaties are evidence of a cowed people, not a contented one: time and again, those who were asked to join said that they would if everybody else did, clearly too nervous to take the first step (p.234).

Gun Powder Plot (1605) against James I was the first example of an act of religious terrorism in history. Repressed catholics amassed huge quantities of gun powder in the cellars of Westminster to blast the parliament and king when the parliament was in session. The plot surfaced when the letter from one of the plotters asking Lord Monteagle to stay away from the building was leaked out. Guy Fawkes was discovered and Robert Catesby executed along with their supporters.

Charles I who followed James sidelined parliament which was becoming increasingly more assertive. Matters came to a head when the parliamentarians submitted a Petition of Rights (1628) in which they referred the king to his predecessors’ promises to restrain arbitrary government. Charles was in no mood for changing his style of rule. The parliament put forward the Grand Remonstrance (1641) to the king and he took his time in replying to it; but when he did, more than three weeks later, it was an unusually placatory message, concentrating on the ‘purity and glory’ of the church, and the king’s role in maintaining it against all attacks, whether ‘popish’ or the works of other ‘schismatics and separatists’ (p.257). The King tried to arrest five MPs including Pym, Hampden, Denzel Holles, William Strode and Sir Arthur Haselrig. The forewarned MPs stayed away and Charles and his courtiers who forciby entered parliament against the shouts of ‘privilege of parliament’ had to return empty handed. Civil war ensued from this stubborn attitude and the king’s party lost. Charles himself surrendered to the Scots who handed him over to the English for 200,000 sterlings. Even in captivity, the king tried to drive a wedge between the parliament and its successful army. Tired of the machinations of the monarch, the parliament, under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell tried and executed the king. The monarchy itself was abolished in 1648, though it was restored in 1660 under Charles II.

James II, who followed Charles, was a catholic and was much hated for his bigoted ways. England would stand nothing against its protestant church. Rebels, known as the Immortal Seven invited William of Orange (in Netherlands) to come and assume kingship. William obliged in 1689 and James withdrew without fighting. This cool transfer of power is known in history as the Glorious Revolution, though there are historians who argue that there was neither glory nor revolution in it.

In the 18^th century, parliament began to assert more rights and the monarch had to take a back seat. Monarchy was gradually paving the way for oligarchical tendencies from parliament. Its proceedings were not even allowed to be reported. John Wilkes championed the causes of liberty in the middle of the century. Modern era began with the French revolution and the points of contention began more and more to resemble the modern demands of an educated society. Better conditions for industrial workers including miners, universal franchise including women were some of the demands which were raised. The book concludes with the agitation (1990) against Thatcher’s community charges which were projected to be a form of poll tax, the name itself being an object of scorn.

The book brings out two popular slogans rebels assumed. Peaceably if we may, Forcibly if we must (to express that the protestors were determined to have what they wanted) and Not a penny off the pay, not a second on the day (the war cry of the coal miners when wage cuts and increased work hours were proposed) are two memorable slogans.

The book is noted for the wit and humour exuding from virtually every paragraph. The language is impeccable though it sometimes hinders the average reader from enjoying the wit it contains. The contents are well researched and the author’s scholarship is beyond question. Activities ranging over one millennium is represented and analysed in masterful detail. True to his credentials, the author’s assertions are well balanced and thoroughly justifiable.

Every book will have some disadvantages also to be pointed out. This work assumes a moderate to high prior understanding of English history as it absolutely refuses to describe the background in detail. Many events like the Reformation of Henry VIII, constitutional dilemmas associated with Charles I’s encounter with parliament and others are not explained in detail. Only a reader thoroughly at home with the history will be able to find the reading smooth. The author also exhibits a characteristic of jumping the gun, by which he narrates the after effects of a particular rebellion first and then only comes the circumstances which prompted it. Several technical terms like scutage and villeinage are mentioned but not described. This made the flow rather difficult.

The book is highly recommended.

Rating: 3 Star