English 1640 by Christopher Hill, Responses

The Peasant's Revolt: A Reply and a Rejoinder


Source: The Labour Monthly, Volume 22, Number 12, December 1940, pp.651-655 (651-655 words)
Transcription: Ted Crawford
HTML Markup: Mark Harris

Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2010). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.


I. A Reply to P.F. by Douglas Garman

To anyone who has read Christopher Hill’s essay, The English Revolution: 1640, P.F.’s disparaging review of it in the October LABOUR MONTHLY must appear completely inadequate. The basis of his criticism is briefly this: (1) that Hill regards pre-Civil War society as being fundamentally feudal, and that therefore his interpretation of “the course of political events and of economic conditions and movements which led up to the Civil War” is mistaken; (2) that Hill thus contradicts the views of Marx and Engels who, according to P.F., asserted that the sixteenth century is a “definitely bourgeois, that is capitalist” society; and (3) that the Civil War was not, as Hill maintains, a revolutionary war led by the bourgeoisie, but “a war against the counter-revolution (fought) ... to keep the bourgeoisie in power.”

To deal first with Hill’s supposedly “fundamental characterisation” of the sixteenth century as feudal, P.F. deduces this from three isolated quotations: “the new economic facts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries [which] made the feudal and social system unworkable”; “the development of the capitalist mode of production within the structure of feudalism”; “…. [before 1640] the structure of society was still essentially feudal; so were its laws and its political institutions.”

Now no one could possibly gather from P.F.’s selection of these quotations (the second of which is, incidentally, an almost literal paraphrase of a sentence in The Communist Manifesto) that Hill had devoted 17 of his 72 pages to describing the very considerable development of capitalism in the sixteenth century. He speaks, for instance, of the gradual change that took place in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in the structure of feudal agriculture (p.20); of land tending to become a commodity (p.22); of “a moral as well as an economic revolution” due to the new capitalist exploitation of the land (pp.23, 24); and only then does he add “But they [the new capitalist landowners] did not have things all their own way before 1640. The structure of society was still essentially feudal so were its laws and its political institutions There were still countless legal restrictions on the full unhampered capitalist utilisation of landed property.” Moreover, having stressed the capitalist development of agriculture as the “dominant tendency” in the sixteenth century (p.29), Hill goes on (p.30) to show also how “An industrial revolution took place in the century before 1640.” This can hardly be read, one would have thought, as a “fundamental characterisation” of feudal society. But P.F. is determined to show that Hill “whenever he find an opportunity, underrates the capitalist elements and exaggerates the feudal remnants.” He therefore attacks Hill’s conception of the function of the Tudor monarchy, which, in an extremely illuminating passage (pp.38-44), he describes as being “to see that the inevitable acceptance of bourgeois demands did the smallest possible harm to the ruling class.” And it order to strengthen his attack, P.F. asks “since when are the demands of an oppressed class …. to be inevitably accepted?” - a question which appears to disregard the dialectics of change and which Disraeli, one feels, having in mind his extension of the franchise in 1867, could certainly have answered. But the point here however, is that the Tudor monarchy “inevitably accepted” the demands of the rising bourgeoisie precisely because only thus, by playing them of against the conflicting demands of the reactionary feudal landowners, were they able temporarily to maintain the power of the throne. In spite of the concessions the monarchy made in their own class interests, which for a period coincided with those of the bourgeoisie and progressive gentry, the political structure of the State still remained essentially feudal But as the economic strength of the bourgeoisie increased, as they became more conscious of their power as a class, they inevitably increased their demands to the point at which the process of quantitative social change threatened to become qualitative; i.e., threatened to transform the State into an instrument for achieving their own undivided interests.

How was this accomplished? In a classic passage in the Anti-Dühring (p.186), Engels supplies the answer: “Simply through a change in the ‘economic order,’ which sooner of later, voluntarily or as the outcome of struggle, was followed by a change in the political conditions. The struggle of the bourgeoisie against the feudal nobility is the struggle of the town against the country, of industry against landed property, of money economy against natural economy; and the decisive weapon of the burghers in this struggle was their economic power, constantly increasing.... During the whole of this struggle political force was on the side of the nobility, except for a period when the Crown used the burghers against the nobility, in order that the two ‘estates’ might keep each other in check, but from the moment when the burghers, still politically powerless, began to grow dangerous owing to their increasing economic power, the Crown resumed its alliance with the nobility, and by so doing called forth the bourgeois revolution, first in England and then in France.”

It is unnecessary here to pursue this point, though in fairness to Hill it should be pointed out that P.F.’s further accusation that Hill “forgets” there existed a large agricultural proletariat, is rebutted by reference to pp.28-30 of Hill’s essay. Nor is it necessary, perhaps, in view of this long quotation from Engels, to devote much space to P.F.’s assertion that Hill’s interpretation contradicts that of Marx and Engels. Nevertheless it is important to show that, in attempting to justify this assertion, P.F. misrepresents a statement of Marx. The passage he quotes runs: “We cannot deny that bourgeois society has been for a second time living through its sixteenth century, a sixteenth century which I hope will sound its death knell as surely as the first brought it into life.” To which P.F. adds the gloss: “Marx, for example, says quite clearly that he regards British society not only immediately before the Civil War but already in the sixteenth century, as definitely bourgeois, that is capitalist”; and again, “Marx is right: the sixteenth century is a bourgeois society (my italics, D.M.G.). Marx says nothing of the kind: it is P.F. who mistakes the egg for the chicken.

Moreover, he entirely omits to mention that this passage occurs in a letter to Engels written in 1858 (Selected Correspondence, p.117), in which Marx is discussing the development of bourgeois society, not in Britain, but on a world scale - as a result of “the revolution (which) has begun” in Russia. And contrasting the situation in the rest of the world with that on the continent of Europe, he goes on to say that in the former, where bourgeois society has now experienced its sixteenth century “the movement of bourgeois society is still in the ascendant.” Thus, though the revolution had begun in Russia by 1858, and was to be accelerated by the liberation of the serfs in 1861, the rising power of the bourgeoisie was not to find expression in revolution until 1905 and 1917. Only then was society in Russia to become “definitely bourgeois, that is, capitalist.” This quotation from Marx, therefore, far from proving that Hill contradicts him, simply shows that P. F. misunderstands him. Marx, and Hill following him, is concerned to show historical development as a process, brought about by conflicting social forces; whereas P.F. can only discern a succession of neatly labelled social orders.

But the reason for P.F.’s interpretation can only be understood when we come to the penultimate paragraph of his review for here, in the modest compass of a dozen lines, he puts forward a new conception of revolution. “Under Charles 1,” he says, “there was a counter-revolutionary movement.... The Civil War of 1642 began as a war against the counter-revolution.” By implication, the revolution, therefore, had already taken place. And one can only ask, When? Certainly, as Hill is careful to explain, the industrial revolution had begun in the sixteenth century (and indeed was to continue through the next three hundred years), but, to quote Marx’s expressive words, “the fruits of this would themselves have been forfeited if men had tried to retain the forms under whose shelter these fruits had ripened. Hence came the two thunderclaps - the revolutions of 1640 and 1688. All the old economic forms, the social relations corresponding to them, the political conditions which were the official expression of the old civil society, were destroyed in England.” (Selected Correspondence, p.8.) It is, surely, to this “official expression of the old civil society” that Hill refers when he speaks of the structure of society as being, in spite of the high tempo of capitalist development in the two preceding centuries, still feudal up till 1640.

P.F. denies this, and he does so apparently in order to introduce the theory that the English Revolution had already taken place in the sixteenth century - a theory which, if pursued to its conclusion, would seem to lead to reformism. The capitalist state, however much to-day it may be ageing, is a lion that was certainly not whelped in peace; and if in 1940 we are to use the revolutionary lessons of 1640, we must be clear on this point. This is the significance of Stalin’s answer to H.G. Wells when he said: “The Communists base themselves on rich historical experience which teaches that obsolete classes do not voluntarily abandon the stage of history. Recall the history of England in the seventeenth century. Did not many say that the old social system had decayed? But did it not, nevertheless, require a Cromwell to crush it by force?”

II. A Rejoinder by P.F.

I am glad that the answer of Mr. Garman to my review of Christopher Hill’s book The English Revolution 1640 gives an opportunity to discuss in more detail some of the issues involved.

The first problem of importance is the appreciation of the character of society in England at the end of the 16th century. Mr. Hill says that the structure of society was “essentially feudal”, that “England in 1640 was still economically[1] a feudal state”, and that “the ‘independent’ gentry - Oliver Cromwell’s class - had been the spearhead of the revolution because they wanted to abolish the monopoly of social and political privileges attached to feudal (Mr. Hill’s italics) landholding”. Mr. Garman, in defending Hill’s book, adds that I did not mention that Mr. Hill devotes many pages to a description of “the very considerable development of capitalism in the 16th century”.

Since three-fourths of my review dealt with the problem of the appreciation of English society as a whole and not with the description of the development of the individual elements, I shall first deal with the question: was English society in the 16th century “essentially feudal” or essentially bourgeois?

Let us take the various strata and layers of society. The chief industry of the country was agriculture. Feudal agriculture is characterised by the fact that the oppressors are lords of the manor and the oppressed are serfs. All the evidence which I have read (including the appreciation of the development by Marx in The Capital:) points to the fact that the feudal methods of agriculture had been abandoned to a large extent by the end of the 16th century.

Strongholds of feudalism still remained, but agriculture had become essentially capitalist. Progress was at first slow but accelerated toward the end of the 15th century and during the 16th century. For instance, the dispossessed section of the agricultural population, the agricultural proletariat, assumed considerable proportions.

The 16th century also witnessed the development of manufacture to such an extent that Marx dates the manufacturing age from the middle of the 16th century. While the medieval guilds remained for quite a time to come, the capitalist forms of production of industrial goods dominated the industrial life of the nation. The City accumulated money not chiefly through usury but through the use of money as capital in agricultural, manufacturing and mercantile undertakings. That is, the dominant note of the economic life of the nation was bourgeois-capitalist (with “bourgeois” is included the capitalist aristocracy of the land).

As to the ideological development to need say little. The mention of names such as Shakespeare and Bacon and a reminder of the development of chamber music must suffice here.

As to the political development, the problem is considerably more complex. I cannot agree with Mr. Hill that the “feudal landholding class had a monopoly of social and political privileges”. Feudal power was finally broken by absolutism. On the other hand, it would be an exaggeration to say that the bourgeoisie was already established as the ruling class. In my opinion the bourgeoisie (represented through Parliament and filling the King’s Council) became under the Tudors the prime-moving factor in the political life of the nation. The king, or absolute monarchy, was, under the Tudors, the form of State power corresponding to this stage of development of the bourgeoisie: it rested for its main support on the bourgeoisie and carried out its policy actively in the interests of the bourgeoisie. The large powers of the king were supported by the bourgeoisie because he shared the interests of the bourgeoisie in the suppression of feudalism. He was the product of bourgeois development, as Marx wrote - though not the helpless instrument of the bourgeoisie.

With national economy predominantly capitalist, with national ideology predominantly bourgeois, and with the bourgeoisie as the prime-moving force in things political, I am convinced that English society in the 16th century must be described as essentially bourgeois, although feudal strongholds remained, especially in the North and in parts of the West. This distinguishes English society before the Great Rebellion in the 16th century from French society in the 18th century before the Revolution, for the latter was essentially feudal although bourgeois capitalism was developing steadily.

I cannot quite understand why Mr. Garman has the feeling that I misquoted Marx when I referred to Marx’ statement that bourgeois society is living for the second time through its 16th century. Does Mr. Garman deny that Marx refers to England when he speaks of the 16th century? To which other country could Marx refer if he speaks of bourgeois society in the 16th century? And as to the 19th century, Mr. Garman is wrong when he thinks that Marx calls society in Russia (in 1858) bourgeois. He speaks of the bourgeoisie on a world scale beginning to invade (but not yet having conquered!) ever new countries, Russia, China, Japan, etc. (The dominant element of the world bourgeoisie at that time also was England with her industrial and colonial monopoly.)

I have the feeling that I do not “mistake the egg for the chicken” as Mr. Garman says, but that he forgets that conception and birth are not identical.

The second point raised by Mr. Garman is that I misrepresented Mr. Hill’s study by not pointing out that he dealt extensively with the development of capitalist elements within the framework of a feudal society. I want to answer this first by pointing out that this argument has, of course, nothing to do with the previous issue raised. For the previous issue deals with a summary characterisation of society, and whether Mr. Hill deals extensively or little with the development of capitalism, he is wrong in characterising English society in the 16th century as essentially feudal, if' I am right in my estimate.

Secondly, I not only mention the fact that Mr. Hill deals with the development of capitalism, but also criticise his presentation (even though in a few words only, just as I deal only briefly with every other problem raised in the review, with the exception of the first problem dealt with in this rejoinder). And I must still maintain my criticism that Mr. Hill “underrates the capitalist elements and exaggerates the importance of feudal remnants”. I should like, however, to limit this criticism by saying that it refers chiefly to those parts of his study where he summarises his preceding descriptions.

The third issue is the estimate of the changes in English society under Charles I (changes which could already be observed under James, and perhaps even in the last years of Elizabeth). I called Charles’ government counter-revolutionary - not a very happy expression, and one that should certainly be corrected. It should be replaced by reactionary. Absolute monarchy was a product of bourgeois development in England at a time when this form of government and its institutions were a valuable safeguard against feudalism. With the progress of capitalism, absolute monarchy became a hindrance.

When the king and the bourgeoisie began to realise that the system of government which up to then had worked rather satisfactorily would have to be changed somehow, the king looked for allies. The king was, as we have said, not simply a helpless instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie but had a certain independent power corresponding to the stage or transition between the classes. In order to keep this power and to extend it the king turned for support to the feudal remnants and to the reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie. With the help of these groups he tried to reign against the majority of the bourgeoisie, especially the industrial and merchant bourgeoisie.

Out of this conflict developed the Great Rebellion, the Civil War. The Great Rebellion, therefore, is, in my opinion, not the war of liberation of a suppressed bourgeoisie against feudalism - as was the Revolution of 1789. It represents rather a new and very important step forward in the progress of bourgeois society, a fight for the abolition of absolute monarchy, against the remnants of feudalism, against the reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie, against every element which might retard the vigorous development of bourgeois capitalist society.

When Mr. Hill summarises the result of the English. Revolution: “A social order that was essentially feudal was destroyed by violence, a new and capitalist social order created in its place” - I would say instead: bourgeois capitalist society made a very great step forward and was victorious in a bloody struggle against all those elements who wanted to retard, or stop, or even revert, its progress.

 

Mr. Garman objects to this interpretation as reformist, and asks where and when did the midwife force come into action if society in the 16th century already was bourgeois. It seems to me that Mr. Garman does not see the wood for trees, or rather the maternity home for the midwife. Beginning with the War of the Roses - the mass-suicide of the feudalism which the bourgeoisie utilised to implant its roots firmly - proceeding by way of peasant revolts, the confiscation of the Church lands, the Pilgrimage of Grace, the rising of the northern earls, bourgeois society came into being. This is not reformist, but an interpretation which corresponds to that of Engels who in contrasting the development in England and France says: “The feudal fetters were smashed, gradually in England, at one blow in France”.

 

As to the quotation from Stalin I fully agree with it, of course. Of course, the old system had decayed and a new one had overgrown it - but nevertheless, as Stalin points out, it required a Cromwell to crush it. The lesson to be drawn from this is: even if a system is decayed, it by no means is already dead and harmless. Stalin would have advised the revolutionary leaders of 1640: Beware of, the feudal elements in bourgeois society! and he would have given this advice, not in 1640, but considerably earlier.

[1] My italics in answer to Garman’s implied contention that Hill characterises only the political structure of England in 1640 as “essentially feudal”.