ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Peasants' War of 1525. The causes were much the same, though the loss of life in England was less terrible. As for the manumissions extorted by the peasants in 1381, they were withdrawn

the next year.
SOURCE.-Chroniques.

Froissart (1337-1410?).
London, 1804. Vol. ii., p. 459.

Trans. T. Johnes.

The populace of England rebel against the nobility.

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 this was 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,1 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.

It is customary in England, as well 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 gentlemen, 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 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.

1 Referring to the peasants' rising or Jacquerie of 1358. Jacques Bonhomme was the slang word for a peasant.

A crazy priest in the county of Kent, called John Ball, who, for his absurd preaching, had been thrice confined in the prison of the archbishop of Canterbury, was greatly instrumental in inflaming them with those ideas. He was accustomed every Sunday after mass, as the people were coming out of the church, to preach to them in the market-place and assemble a crowd around him; to whom he would say,-"My good friends, things cannot go on well in England, nor ever will until everything shall be in common; when there shall neither be vassal nor lord, and all distinctions levelled; when the lords shall be no more masters than ourselves. How ill have they used us? and for what reason do they thus hold us in bondage? Are we not all descended from the same parents, Adam and Eve? and what can they show, or what reasons give, why they should be more the masters than ourselves? except, perhaps, in making us labour and work for them to spend. They are clothed in velvets and rich stuffs, ornamented with ermine and other furs, while we are forced to wear poor cloth. They have wines, spices and fine bread, when we have only rye and the refuse of the straw; and, if we drink, it must be water. They have handsome seats and manors, when we must brave the wind and rain in our labours in the field; but it is from our labour they have wherewith to support their pomp. We are called slaves; and, if we do not perform our services, we are beaten, and we have not any sovereign to whom we can complain, or who wishes to hear us and do us justice. Let us go to the king, who is young, and remonstrate with him on our servitude, telling him we must have it otherwise or that we shall find a remedy for it ourselves. If we wait on him in a body, all those who come under the appellation of slaves, or are held in bondage, will follow us in the hopes of being free. When the king shall see us, we shall obtain a favourable answer, or we must then seek ourselves to amend our condition."

With such words as these did John Ball harangue the people, at his village every Sunday after mass, for which he was much beloved by them. Some who wished no good declared it was very true, and murmuring to each other as they were going to the fields on the road from one village to another, or at their different houses said, "John Ball preaches such and such things, and he speaks truth".

The archbishop of Canterbury, on being informed of this, had John Ball arrested, and imprisoned for two or three

1 Simon of Sudbury, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1375-81.

months by way of punishment; but it would have been better if he had been confined during his life, or been put to death, than to have been suffered thus to act. The archbishop set him at liberty, for he could not for conscience sake have put him to death. The moment John Ball was out of prison, he returned to his former errors.

Numbers in the city of London having heard of his preaching, being envious of the rich men and nobility, began to say among themselves, that the kingdom was too badly governed, and the nobility had seized on all the gold and silver coin. These wicked Londoners, therefore, began to assemble and to rebel they sent to tell those in the adjoining counties, they might come boldly to London, and bring their companions with them, for they would find the town open to them, and the commonalty in the same way of thinking; that they would press the king so much, there should no longer be a slave in England.

These promises stirred up those in the counties of Kent, Essex, Sussex and Bedford, and the adjoining country, so that they marched towards London; and, when they arrived near, they were upwards of 60,000. They had a leader called Wat Tyler, and with him were Jack Straw and John Ball: these three were their commanders, but the principal was Wat Tyler. This Wat had been a tiler of houses, a bad man, and a great enemy to the nobility. When these wicked people first began. to rise, all London, except their friends, were very much frightened. The mayor and rich citizens assembled in council, on hearing they were coming to London, and debated whether they should shut the gates and refuse to admit them; but, having well considered, they determined not to do so, as they should run a risk of having the suburbs burnt.

The gates were therefore thrown open, when they entered in troops of one or two hundred, by twenties or thirties, according to the populousness of the towns they came from; and as they came into London they lodged themselves. But it is a truth, that full two-thirds of these people knew not what they wanted, nor what they sought for: they followed one another like sheep, or like to the shepherds of old, who said they were going to conquer the holy land, and afterwards accomplished nothing. In such manner did these poor fellows and vassals come to London from distances of a hundred and sixty leagues, but the greater part from those counties I have mentioned, and on their arrival they demanded to see the king

The gentlemen of the country, the knights and squires, began to be alarmed when they saw the people thus rise; and, if they were frightened, they had sufficient reason, for less causes create fear. They began to collect together as well as they could.

In order that gentlemen and others may take example, and correct wicked rebels, I will most amply detail how this business was conducted.

43. A SCENE IN PARLIAMENT (1399).

The stormy scenes which were often witnessed in fourteenth and fifteenth century parliaments, contrast sharply with the decorum of modern sessions. The feeble reign of Richard II. allowed every element of turbulence to gather force, and left legacies of hatred. A clamour for vengeance upon Gloucester's murderers was raised in the first parliament of Henry IV., where amid a storm of threats, charges, counter-charges and challenges the enraged barons cast aside discussion and thought only of their swords. An incident like this occurring on the threshold of the fifteenth century is a prophecy of the Lancastrian and Yorkist wars, in which feudal lawlessness gained its vent and met its destruction.

SOURCE.-Annales Henrici IV. Rolls Series, p. 309. Trans. C. W. Colby.

He

A knight's son named Hall was then brought in, bound hand and foot, and questioned about the Duke of Gloucester's death. He answered that he had, indeed, been present at the murder with many other associates, but it was against his own will, for he had known nothing of the matter beforehand. had been called out of bed and taken to the Duke of Norfolk, by whom he was ordered to go along with others to kill Gloucester. And when he had refused to do so the Duke struck him a great blow on the head, and swore that he should be hanged on the morrow unless he obeyed: "Because," said the Duke of Norfolk, "I have a definite command from the king and from the Duke of Albermarle that he shall be killed"; and so he went with the rest to the spot where the murder was to take place.

The Duke of Albermarle when he heard these words, rose and asked the king that he might justify himself, because Hall's evidence stated that he had given his consent to the Duke's death. And after he had justified himself in a very roundabout fashion, Lord Fitz-Walter, taking the floor, said to him : "You indicted him for treason, and accused him and made him hateful to the king, and were thus the cause of his death; and this, with the king's leave, I will prove by combat ". The Duke of Surrey who desired to help his colleague, the Duke of Albermarle and to show his innocence, said to Lord Fitz-Walter: "You are interfering and talking altogether too much. Why do you lay the charge of indictment at our door when we had no means of eluding it? For kept under the king's rod, and placed by many means within his power, how could we amid the constant dangers of our position dare to gainsay any sort of command which he might give? And were not you and all the lords there, and did you not consent to his death warrant?" To this Lord Fitz-Walter rejoined: "You lie, for I was not present in that parliament, and never consented to that judgment; as the lords who are here will, I am sure, witness". Then nearly all of them vouched that he had not been in the said parliament. Which when he heard the Duke of Surrey sat down in shame, and Lord Fitz-Walter again said to the Duke of Albermarle: "You, Albermarle, were the cause of Gloucester's death, and compassed it; to prove which by combat, lo! my hood";1 and he threw down his hood. Then the Duke of Albermarle, no whit slower, threw down his hood; which when they saw, Lord Morley, Lord William Beauchamp and the Earl of Warwick himself, with almost all the earls and barons who were against the Duke of Albermarle in this matter, threw down their hoods. Then such a tumult arose among the commons and such a din among the challengers, that the king thought the said duke would perish before his eyes. He therefore rose and restrained the Lords, praying, warning and ordering them not to break the law, but to do everything after due form and deliberation: otherwise their sins would overwhelm them for being parties to such an act of guilt. Moved by this speech the Lords stopped rioting. They took their seats again and gave judgment that the aforesaid Hall should be drawn, hanged, beheaded and quartered.

A covering for the head, thrown down in challenge,

« 前へ次へ »