Livery and Rebellion in Late Medieval England

By its very topic a conference focused on riots, rebellions and protest lends itself to papers that adopt a ‘bottom-up’ as opposed to a ‘top-down’ approach to their subject. When asking why people chose to rebel or riot against the state or some other source of authority, it seems natural to examine such events from the perspective of those on the ground who were rioting or rebelling. For scholars of more modern and, more importantly, highly literate societies, sources seem to be in abundance from letters, newspaper reports and oral histories to name just a few. Historians of the medieval period, in contrast, rarely have such luxury with their sources because the majority of the populations they study were illiterate. We know about events such as the Peasants Revolt in England in 1381 and Jacquerie in France in 1358 from accounts of chroniclers, the resultant indictments against those involved and, in many situations, their pardons. Rarely were the sources we have to work with written by those participating in the events. Historians are generally served better by those rebellions headed by members of the aristocracy, some of whom produced manifestos or, when successful, had chronicles written retrospectively praising their actions and usurpations. Yet, relatively little is known about the identities or motivations of those who followed them. Historians of civil strife such as the Wars of the Roses do not have muster rolls (lists of soldiers) from which to conduct extensive prosopographical analyses of those fighting in the same way historians of Anglo-French and Anglo-Scottish warfare have been about to. Nevertheless, there are plenty of sources that hint at various methods that nobles used to gain support when rebellions occurred. In this paper I want to discuss the one method of recruitment which I am most familiar with: the distribution of liveries and retaining fees by members of the nobility which was restricted by a series of parliamentary acts in England issued during the late medieval period. Historians of medieval society are interested in the nature of personal ties between different sections of society, which historians refer to as lordship which is one of the main prisms through which the operations of politics and society are generally examined. Those specifically interested in late medieval England, that is the late thirteenth until early sixteenth centuries, have been concerned with the waning of traditional feudal ties based on grants of land in reward for service which were replaced by short-term grants of retaining fees and the distribution of livery. While nineteenth century historians viewed such ties as a debasement of the traditional ‘feudal’ system, and hence dubbed the system ‘bastard feudalism’, historians from the mid-20th century have pointed to the system’s ability to be harnessed for the good operation of government and law enforcement. Bastard feudalism, i.e. the use of grants of liveries and retaining fees as rewards instead of grants of land, was how late medieval society operated because it was the means by which nobles recruited men for the various services they required. These services ranges from household, administrative and military; though such methods could be harnessed for more illicit methods, leading Michael Hicks to describe the system as ‘morally neutral’. Indeed, it is these more nefarious uses of livery in relation to rebellion that is the concern of this paper. Between 1388 and 1504 nineteen separate parliaments discussed and passed laws regarding the retaining practices of the nobility and gentry. These parliamentary debates produced a series of statutes that defined who could and could not be retained, and the forms of retaining that were acceptable. The acts of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century restricted the distribution of livery to members of lord’s family, his estate officials and his immediate household. Those who were not retained by a lord for life or only had a loose connection to him were not entitled to wear his livery. The law was refined during throughout the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. In 1468 the law was extended to include ‘any document, oath or promise’. The final act was passed in 1504 which introduced tougher penalties for those contravening the law but also permitted lords to retain more men if they obtained a royal license. The initial impetus for the law was to prevent lawlessness and came as a product of petitions from MPs in the House of Commons. Thus a petition from 1390 complained that those who worse the livery badges of great noblemen ‘inflicted great and unbearable oppressions and extortions on the common people.’ Such petitions repeated similar claims as well as emphasising the lack of enforcement of previous. By the middle of the fifteenth century, however, the impetus for later acts was from various kings as a response to lawlessness and rebellion. Neither retaining nor livery were ever fully abolished or outlawed. Instead, the distribution of livery was restricted because the unrestricted system had developed in a way that contemporaries found unacceptable. Importantly for historians, these laws have produced various records which can be studied. These include the records of parliament in the form of petitions from the House of Commons to the king requesting remedies for perceived problems; statutes and acts of parliament that state what was acceptable and unacceptable; indictments for those contravening these laws; as well as other miscellaneous sources. It should be recognised that the majority of indictments for illegal livery were concerned with perversions of justice and general acts of lawlessness that were not necessarily rebellious acts. Nevertheless, the various sources display both a perception and reality that livery could be used as a method of recruitment for rebellious activity. Due to time constraints this paper will only cherry-pick examples illustrative of broader points as opposed to any comprehensive trawl of a particular set of records. Rhetoric The link between livery and rebellion is most evident in the petitions and letters produced by those wanting the livery laws to be enforced. A petition presented at the 1406 parliament was unusual because of its specific emphasis on ecclesiastical livery. The petition began by reminding the king that under the 1399 act no archbishops, abbots, priors or any other church men ‘or temporal person’ were to grant livery to anyone except their household servants, estate official or lawyers, yet certain lords were distributing livery to around 300 followers. The revolt lead by the archbishop of York, Richard le Scrope against Henry IV the previous year clearly influenced the precise wording of this petition in order to link the problem of livery and violence to direct threats to Henry IV’s kingship. The archbishop had placed himself at the head of revolt against Henry IV. His exact motives are uncertain though excessive taxation demands were one of them. The main focus of the petition, like all from this period, was on lawlessness not rebellion, yet implicitly raising the issue of rebellion was a useful rhetorical devise for the petitioners. Mark Ormrod has highlighted that medieval petitions were ‘artful constructs designed to get something done’ rather than just ‘the outpouring of real-life, hard-luck stories’. This is not to argue that such petitions were purely fictitious or that they had no basis in reality: for a petition to have a chance of catching the king’s ear it needed to be credible. It was therefore credible that Scrope had given livery to those following him into opposition against Henry. Towards the end of the fifteenth century English kings came to view the unrestricted distribution of livery as a threat to their sovereignty because it was a method of recruitment for rebellions. This is evident in several letters from Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII to various urban authorities. To give one example, Edward IV wrote to Coventry in 1472 ordering that no-one was to retain or be retained against the statutes. The reason given by Edward was ‘for the pacificacion, defence, and suretee of the same our land and subgittes, both inwards & outwards’. Coventry was a staunch Lancastrian town during the 1450s and town supported the earl of Warwick and the duke of Clarence during the second phase of the Wars of the Roses (1469-71). Thereafter, Coventry had to pay 400 marks to Edward IV to restore its liberties. Henry VII approved an act of parliament in 1487 ensuring that no one was to retain the king’s men and also sent letters to his lordships ordering that none of his tenants were to be retained by anyone else. One letter in particular sent to the mayor and brethren of Carlisle, on 15 February 1498, demonstrates a clear concern that retaining in the city would be the method of recruitment for a rebellion which could coincide with a potential Scottish invasion. Carlisle’s importance in terms of national security was stated in the preamble when Henry stated that the city was ‘oon of the chief keyes and fortsessies to the defense of this our Realm’. Consequently, no one living in the city was to ‘hensfurthe [be] reteyned with any man be he spiritual or temporall lord or other by lyveree baggnen clothing cognoissance or any other wise’. Furthermore, nobody was to ride out of the city to become involved in local disorder, but were instead ‘to be abiding and attending at all seasons bothe of warre and of peax in the same oure citie for the defens and suretie therof’. To ensure compliance the Bishop of Carlisle was required to take sworn oaths from the mayor and brethren that they would not illegally retain. The letter needs to be viewed in the broader contexts of Anglo-Scottish relations and challenged to Henry VII. Similar letters, now lost, were surely sent to other northern towns and cities such as Berwick, Durham and York. For Henry, the north was an area inhabited by many supporters of the former king, Richard III, and prone to rebellion. Henry had recently quelled rebellions in both the South-West and, more significantly, in Yorkshire. His problems were exacerbated by Scottish opportunism in English domestic strife in the second half of the fifteenth century. During the Wars of the Roses, Scotland maintained a consistent policy of providing support to the main opposition to the English government, the most recent example of which was the support James IV had given Perkin Warbeck. In 1497 Henry issued two proclamations, mainly to northern counties, ordering the mustering of forces to repel a Scottish invasion. Carlisle became a closed town as the north was placed under martial law at this time. Concerns about rebellious nobles retaining large numbers of men with the potential of allying themselves with an invading Scottish army thus became interlinked. The twin threat of a northern rebellion and a Scottish invasion led Henry to write to Carlisle about illegal retaining. In total there are sixteen known letters from kings to various urban authorities between 1449 and 1522. All of them note the possible divisions within the kingdom that livery could cause. This was also during the period of the various dynastic upheavals of the Wars of the Roses which led French chroniclers to lambast the English for their regicidal tendencies. What these sources indicate is that whereas in the early fifteenth century it was the Commons who were concerned about unstrained retaining in relation to lawlessness and used the spectre of rebellion as a means of getting laws passed; by the late fifteenth century kings were concerned that the unrestricted distribution of livery was a means of rebellious lord recruiting supporters with haste. Indictments The use of livery as a means of garnering support for a rebellious faction can be seen in the indictment against the Herefordshire knight Walter Devereux in 1452 for distributing illegal livery in the city of Hereford. The offence occurred two months before members of the Yorkist faction in Herefordshire made a pact of mutual assistance and then demonstrated in favour of the duke of York on 3 March. Devereux was a member of the duke of York’s affinity and his indictment is evidence of a broader campaign to build support for the duke before his demonstration in Dartford against Henry VI’s government. Devereux was again indicted for two further offences in 1457 committed, again in the city of Hereford, on 10 May 1455 and 1 April 1456. Around the same time his son, also Walter Devereux, and son-in-law, William Herbert, knight, were alleged to have distributed livery illegally in Hereford. Elsewhere, ‘Devereux’s henchman in Leominster’, Hugh Shirley, distributed illegal livery to 16 men at Leominster on 2 March 1456. Importantly, all of the offences occurred in major urban centres. Unfortunately the records do not state where in Hereford or Leominster the livery was distributed – i.e. in a public place such as the market or a tavern, or at a private residence – but, if large numbers of men were being given livery by the known supporters of the duke of York, then it is likely that such activities were known about. Indeed, such an act may have encouraged others to join to Yorkist protest. In total 98 men were given livery illegally at this time but the indictments only those given livery illegally not those who were entitled to wear the livery of Devereux, Herbert or Shirley. This is one of the clearest examples of livery being one of many methods of recruitment for rebellious activities by members of the English aristocracy. Symbolism In addition to being a method of recruitment, livery was important in rebellions for its symbolic potential as rallying point and for the fostering of a collective group identity. The importance of signs and symbols in the process of riot and rebellion has long been recognised. Livery was the insignia of a lord that his retainers and his wider affinity wore his livery to identify themselves as his servants. In times of rebellion certain liveries were generally associated with specific lords, or even deposed kings. This was particularly the case during the reign of Henry IV who had deposed his cousin Richard II in 1399. Richard was subsequently starved to death after a failed coup against Henry in early 1400 and buried at Kings Langley. Nevertheless, in 1403-4 rumour circulated that Richard II was still alive and was preparing to return to England to reclaim his throne. Embroiled in the supposed conspiracy was Maud de Vere, countess of Oxford, who was alleged to have distributed Richard II’s livery badge as a means of garnering support. Although nothing came of this particular conspiracy, the fact that livery badges were used as a means of garnering support for a particular faction further attests to the symbolic importance of livery in creating the collective consciousness necessary for acts of violence such as rebellion. This was again evident in the Percy Rebellion in 1403 against Henry IV. In February 1404, Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland appeared before parliament to plea for mercy for the various crimes he had committed. Included in this plea for mercy was a confession that he had not kept many of the king’s laws and statutes ‘especially by gathering power and giving liveries. The previous July, Northumberland had been conspicuous by his absence at the Battle of Shrewsbury, where a rebel army led by his son, Henry Percy and his brother the earl of Worcester had been defeated by Henry IV’s forces. The young Percy was killed during the fighting and Worcester beheaded soon after. One chronicler noted that the rebels at Worcester wore the livery of Richard II, which was why the distribution of illegal livery was one of the accusations against Northumberland in parliament. The Percy family initially supported Henry’s usurpation in 1399 but rebelled after they became disillusioned with Henry IV’s government. Across England more broadly, Simon Walker noted that rumours of Richard II’s survival ‘was part of the common language of politics, adding damaging questions about the legitimacy and mandate of the new sovereign’. It was not a love of Richard that led people to rebel but Henry IV’s actions as king. Richard II’s livery was used during Henry IV’s reign as a symbol of defiance against the new king. Conclusion This paper has been about the use of livery as a means of garnering support for particular factions in times of civil unrest. The widespread distribution of livery at these times utilised normally legitimate methods of recruitment for service for rebellious and lawless purposes. In addition to being a normal method of creating social ties, livery also possessed a symbolic significance as a rallying point for a particular cause. The use of Richard II’s livery in particular demonstrates how the meaning of such liveries could change over time: from being associated with an unpopular king; to being a symbol of defiance against his successor. It should also be noted that the focus here has been on England. Work on early fifteenth-century France has shown livery badges were used in the civil war between the Burgundian and Armangac factions. In the Burgundian Low Countries at this time there were similar ordinances passed by John the Fearless and Philip the Bold. Yet, further comparative work is necessary to properly understand the similarities and differences in both situations. What is certain is that livery was one of several means by which men were recruited for rebellions in late medieval England. PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 10