POLITICAL HISTORY 



To say that the rising was a religious one, as suggested by Lingard and 

 Professor Rogers, is hardly correct ; that wire-pullers took advantage of the ill- 

 feeling caused by the recent changes to enlist men disaffected from these 

 sources is highly probable, but the petition addressed by the rebels to the 

 king speaks for itself, and, moreover, Mary, afterwards queen, who was 

 writing from the spot and whose sympathies would have been wholly with a 

 religious rising, said, ' it was touching no part of religion.' Indirectly, of 

 course, the suppression of the monasteries and the way in which monastic 

 lands had fallen into the hands of people more anxious to make the utmost 

 penny out of them than promote the public interest, may have had something 

 to do with the movement.* 



The movement was, in fact, one by men who had real rights over the 

 waste lands held in common and who were injured by excessive enclosures. 

 That there was a real grievance is sufficiently shown by the fact that on 

 I June, 1548, a government proclamation against enclosures had been 

 issued, and also against negligence in letting houses fall to decay and unlaw- 

 fully converting arable land into pasture. This seems to have had a quieting 

 effisct for a time, but three parliamentary bills framed in the interests of the 

 commoners were lost. 



The rising began by the destruction of the ' fences ' with which one 

 John Green of Wilby had enclosed part of Attleborough Common. This 

 took place on 20 June, 1549, and was followed by an interval of quiet until 

 the beginning of July, though it appears that secret meetings were held 

 during this interval.^ A ' play ' held at Wymondham, in commemoration of 

 the translation of St. Thomas a Becket, was the pretext for another gathering 

 ■of the malcontents,' and the leaders held conferences with those assembled to 

 witness the processions and interludes, with the result that a crowd went to 

 one Hobartson's of Morley, about two miles off, and having thrown down 

 some fences returned to Wymondham.* Very soon afterwards some more 

 fences at Hethersett, the property of Serjeant Flowerdew, who appears to 

 have been very unpopular in the neighbourhood, were thrown down.^ It 

 happened that Flowerdew was at feud with the Ketts, who also had enclosed 

 lands, and, angry at his hedges being destroyed, he bribed the rebels to 

 destroy those belonging to Kett also.* When they came to Kett's property 

 the latter not only agreed to his own enclosures being levelled but joined 

 heartily in the proceedings, and then led the commons again to Flowerdew's 

 estate and ruined the rest of his hedges which had been previously 

 spared.^ 



It is very noticeable that, as in the former rebellion of Litester, the 

 leaders were men of some position and wealth, who had a stake in the 

 country, which it is not probable they would have risked except for good 



' Their petition was in the main moderate and reasonable. First and foremost they demanded that there 

 should be no more enclosures. Heavy feudal dues shifted from lord to tenant, the creation of new copyholds, 

 the increase of customary rents by arbitrary fines were other subjects of complaint. In the appeal for the 

 enfranchisement of all bondmen we see the growing consciousness of the value of individual liberty. The 

 multiplication of pigeon-houses and the ravages of the lord's rabbits were vital matters to the small holder. 

 And besides these purely social and economic troubles the commons complained of scandalous, inefficient, and 

 non-resident clergy, and protested against excessive tithes. Harl. MS. 304, fol. 75. 



' Russell, Kelt's Rebellion in Norf. 25. ' Nevylle, De Furoribus, Norf. Ketto Duce, 28. 



' Russell, op. cit. 25. 



* Ibid. 27. * Ibid. ' Nevylle, op. cit. 21. 



495 



