We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
1 Beer, B. L. and Nash, R. J., ‘Hugh Latimer and the lusty knave of Kent: the commonwealth movement of 1549’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, LII (1979), 175–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar I am grateful to Professor G. R. Elton for commenting upon an earlier version of this paper, and for the assistance of Dr P. R. Roberts.
2 Public Record Office, S. P. 10/8/56, printed in Russell, F. W., Kelt's Rebellion in Norfolk (London, 1859), pp. 202–3Google Scholar.
3 Printed in Beer, and Nash, , ‘Hugh Latimer’ pp. 176–7Google Scholar.
4 Clark, Peter, for example, accepted without question that the 15 Sept. letter referred to Hugh Latimer: English provincial society from the reformation to the revolution: religion, politics and society in Kent 1500–1640 (London, 1977), pp. 79, 423 n. 34Google Scholar. For allegations that Latimer was guilty in early 1549 of seditious preaching see: Sermons by Hugh Latimer, ed. Corrie, G. E. (Cambridge, 1844), pp. 134–5Google Scholar.
5 Documents subsidiary to the accounts of the treasurer of the Court of Augmentations, Public Record Office, E 101/6/35, fo. 27. These four councillors signed an unrelated letter of the same day to the mayor of Southampton: Letters of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, ed.Anderson, R. C. (Southampton, 1921), p. 72Google Scholar.
6 Beer, and Nash, , ‘Hugh Latimer’, p. 177Google Scholar.
7 The entry for the 7 Aug. warrant in the council records merely states: ‘Mr. Williams had warrant for iiij’ to Latymer': Acts of the privy council of England, 1542–1604, ed. Dasent, J. (London, 1890–1907), 11, 309Google Scholar. However, Dasent identified this man in the index as the John Latimer mentioned on 19 Aug. and the Latimer of 22 Sept.: ibid. pp. 316, 327, 585. This identification would appear to be conjectural, and the present writer has been unable to substantiate it. Several Latimer families existed in southern England in this period, including at least three individuals named John, but initial research has failed to link any of these to Kent: P.R.O., Prob. 11/34, fos. 140–1; Neve, John Le, Fasti ecclesie Anglicanae, 1300–1541(12 vols. London, 1962–1967), in, 97Google Scholar; Letters and papers, foreign and domestic, of the reign of Henry VIII, ed. Brodie, R. H. et al. (22 vols. London, 1920–1932), XIII ii, 838, xvIII, i, 623 (100), xix, i, 1035 (147), xx, i, 621 (12)Google Scholar; Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward VI, ed. Brodie, R. H. (6 vols. London, 1924–1929). iv, 349–8Google Scholar.
8 Bush, M. L., The government policy of Protector Somerset (London, 1975), pp. 87–91Google Scholar; Clark, , Provincial society, p. 79Google Scholar; The chronicle and political papers of King Edward VI, ed. Jordan, WilburK (London, 1966), p. 12Google Scholar; Murphy, T. R., ‘The maintenance of order in early Tudor Kent, 1509–1558’ (unpublished Northwestern University Ph.D. thesis, 1975), pp. 127–9Google Scholar.
9 Richardson, W. C., History of the Court of Augmentations, 1536–54 (Baton Rouge, 1961), pp. 221, 281Google Scholar; P.R.O., S.P. 10/18, fo. 71, E 314/19/3/1, E 314/22/10/14–15, E 351/16, E 351/126.
10 Zell, M. L., ‘Church and gentry in reformation Kent, 1533–1553’ (unpublished University of California, Los Angeles, Ph.D. thesis, 1974), pp. 275–6Google Scholar.
11 Pollard, A. F., England under Protector Somerset (London, 1900), pp. 267–8Google Scholar.
12 Richardson, , Augmentations, p. 231Google Scholar; P.R.O., E 101/63/17, E 101/163/3, fos. i6v, 33V, E 165/11, fo. 42, E 314/10/299, fos. 76V, 83V, E 351/200, E 351/533.
13 Clark, Provincial society, p. 80Google Scholar.
14 Ibid., pp. 50, 61, 81, 83, 105, 419, 424.
15 Russell, , Kett's Rebellion, p. 203Google Scholar. For Cheyne see Clark, Provincial society, passim.
16 P.R.O., E 165/129, fos. 39V, 43V; British Library Add. MS 37668, fo. iov.
17 Bush, , Government policy, pp. 89–97Google Scholar.
18 P.R.O., E 101/76/35, fos. 6–8. This is a detailed account of the journeys undertaken in Kent by Roger Hawes, appointed by Cheyne and Wotton to attend upon the Kentish commissioners during the rebellion. It describes 55 journeys undertaken between 9 and 11 April and between 18 June and 25 Aug., covering a total of 720 miles. The other individuals mentioned in this document are: Sir John Baker, Sir George Blagge, Sir William Finch, Sir James Hales, (Edward ?) Isaac, Sir Thomas Moyle, Sir John Norton, Sir Reynold Scott, (Sir William ?) Sidney, Sir Robert Southwell, Sir Thomas Wyatt. The commissioners were also in communication with the mayor of Rochester and the king's ships in the Medway. For other isolated information see: P.R.O., E 101/76/35, fo. 111; Murphy, , ‘Maintenance of order’, p. 129Google Scholar; Clark, , Provincial society, p. 79Google Scholar. It will be noted that the participation of these gentry transcended the political groupings outlined in Clark, Provincial society, chs. 11 and in. Nor does this evidence, at least for the period after the risings were under way, provide any evidence of an alleged eclipse of the conservative faction in Kent under the protectorate and a consequential disintegration of local administration leading to social unrest: ibid. pp. 69–81 and passim.
19 Stone, L., ‘Patriarchy and paternalism in Tudor England: the earl of Arundel and the peasants revolt of 1549’, Journal of British Studies, XIII (1974), 19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 Jordan, W. K., Edward VI: the young king (London, 1968), pp. 353, 446Google Scholar; Wotton, Hales, Harper and Norton to Somerset, 18 July 1548, Historical Manuscripts Commission, Calendar of the manuscripts of the marquess of Salisbury, 1 (London, 1883), 54Google Scholar; A.P.C. n, 299, 303, 308.
21 Russell, , Kett's Rebellion, p. 202Google Scholar.
22 This distrust does not necessarily offer support for the traditional liberal interpretation of Somerset's social policy. It might reflect nothing more than disagreement over strategy in subduing the popular discontent, generated in part by different perspectives on the policy (for Somerset's position see Bush, , Government policy, pp. 84–99)Google Scholar It is notable that Aucher and Cheyne chose to continue to press for action through Somerset and his personal followers.
23 Bush, , Government policy, pp. 96 and n. 95, 98Google Scholar; Hoak, D. E., The King's council in the reign of Edward VI (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 181–3Google Scholar.
24 On this subject note Manning, R. B., ‘Violence and social conflict in mid-Tudor rebellions’, Journal of British Studies, xvi (1977), 37Google Scholar and passim.
25 Bush, , Government policy, pp.97–8Google Scholar.
26 Elton, G. R., ‘Reform and the “Commonwealth-Men” of Edward VI's reign’ in The English commonwealth 1547–1640, ed. Clark, P., Smith, A. G. R. and Tyacke, N. (Leicester, 1979), pp. 23–4Google Scholar.
27 This removes existing doubts that the ‘commonwealth’ slogan was actually employed by the lower orders, and also tends to suggest a closer unity with contemporary social ideas, disseminating in part from the Protector's clique, than has hitherto been allowed in Clark, , Provincial society, pp. 79–81Google Scholar. The ‘commonwealth party’ is demolished in Elton, ‘Reform’, pp. 23–38.
28 P.R.O., S.P. 10/8/56.
29 Bush, , Government polity, pp. 88, 98Google Scholar.
30 The acts and monuments of John Foxe (8 vols. London, 1843–1849), vi, 291Google Scholar.
