Central Government in Tudor England

ENGLAND 1558-1667: THEME B

The Governing of England

Key Issues: Government Overview Personal Monarchy Court, Patronage and Factions The Privy Council Parliament Local Government

This booklet will be supplemented by additional resources online. All activities and tasks will be accessible online

1

THE GOVERNING OF ENGLAND Government Overview – Central and Local Introduction Tasks of the Government  Law and order  Defend England  Look after the well-being of the people (though nothing like the modern idea of welfare state existed)  The government also had to raise enough money to carry out these tasks.

The Organic view of the state  The head (monarch) made the decisions and issued the orders that the other parts of the body obeyed.  Sometimes when the Queen believed that members of parliament were exceeding their role she would angrily ask whether it was right that 'the feet should dictate to the head'  Harmony among the different parts was essential for the health of the state.  Unity, social order and the need for obedience were stressed.  Anyone who seriously challenged the hierarchical order of this 'organic' state risked execution - just as a malignant tumour is cut from an otherwise healthy body.  It was risky for the head to not pay attention to the needs and desires of the rest of the body.  Elizabeth could not control England's 3 to 3.5 million people alone. She depended upon the co-operation of England's "governing class" of nobles and gentry who were the "nerves and muscles"  Government was a two-way process as shown in the diagram below.

CROWN Depended upon the Governing Class (the 'political nation of peers and gentry) to enforce its policies

GOVERNING CLASS <--------> Depended upon the Crown for social and economic advancement. Serving the Crown was the road to power and profit.

2

The structure of Society (A) GOVERNING CLASS: (i). The Landed Orders: • Peerage

• Upper Gentry • Lesser Gentry

Church equivalent: - Dukes - Marquess - Viscount - Earls - Barons - Knights - Esquires - Gentleman

Archbishop

Bishop

(ii). Non - landed Elites: • Merchants / Industrialists • Professions - lawyers - surgeons - apothecaries (chemists) - physicians - Army / Naval Officers

- Clergy ) ) doctors )

(B) GOVERNED CLASS: (The Common People) Rural: • yeomen - substantial farmer • husbandmen - smaller farmer

Urban: • urban masters - carpenter, cobbler, baker, weaver

• labouring folk - wage earner • mechanic folk - apprentice, servant • poor - disabled, old, young, beggars, rouges/vagabonds

• labouring folk - wage earner • mechanic folk - apprentice, servant • poor - disabled, old, young, beggars, rouges/vagabonds

Numbers 1695 Gregory King's analysis of structure of society (estimates) Peerage and families 6,400 Baronets, knights, esquires 50,600 Merchants, traders 64,000 Artisans 240,000 Labouring people 1,250,000 TOTAL 5,500,000

3

The Structure of the Government.

The basic system of government of England and Wales of Elizabethan times had changed little by the reign of Charles I. During the 1630s there were attempts to reform it and make it more efficient.

Central Government

CROWN Royal Courts Privy Council Counties and Boroughs (Local Government)

Councils of North and M arches (Regional Government)

(NOTE: Parliament (House of Lords and House of Commons) was an occasional instrument of central government) The Central government - based in London and ran the affairs of the realm as a whole The Local government - ran the affairs of smaller areas such as regions, counties and boroughs.

Justices of the Peace and the Assize Court were the main instruments for maintaining law and order. They enforced central decisions and passed information back to the centre.  Law was enforced through a medieval court system which had been added to by the introduction of the Star Chamber and Chancery.  The Royal Court was the centre of power, ritual and celebration. A place at court was seen as essential for success, since political advancement depended upon a system of patronage which was ultimately controlled by the monarch. Banishment from court, on the other hand, was a disastrous disgrace.  The monarch’s household was also an area of political influence.  Although the functions of the central institutions, the court and the royal household were separate and clearly defined, there was considerable overlap among the three. Many councillors were also courtiers. Some, like Robert Dudley through his position as Master of the Horse, were also members of the royal household. The success of the system depended upon Elizabeth's ability to maintain control over ambitious men, each backed by a group of supporters.  The monarch could not, however, be dictatorial. Even Henry VIII acknowledged the need to work with the existing system of government and under the constraints of the law.  Despite her powers, Elizabeth needed the co-operation of her nobles and gentry to ensure the success of her government. She didn't have a standing army to enable her to enforce her policies independently.

4

The Government of England was a ‘'LEAN MACHINE' According to Wallace MacCaffrey the politically active class of the later sixteenth century was numerically small. The number of men employed in both central and local government in England and Wales was about 2,500. This includes the unpaid local justices of the peace, who numbered 1,250 in 1558, 1,500 in 1587 and over 2,000 in the 1630s. Lord Burghley, in 1579, listed only 100 names of men suited for top positions.

'In sum, the Crown was able to dispose of about 1200 places worth a gentleman's having and as many again of humbler consequence.'

Why was there was no proper Civil Service?

1. Because the Crown could not afford one.

2. It could not afford tax assessors, so the governing class (fraudulently) assessed their own income.

3. It could not afford customs agents so farmed out customs operations to entrepreneurs who paid the Crown a fixed amount and then pocketed the extra (sometimes £100,000s).

4. Even if the Government had the money for a Civil Service, it is unlikely that the local gentry would hand over the power that went with their JPs positions to paid bureaucrats.

Consequences of this for ‘good government’ 5. Not having a proper civil service restricted the effectiveness of government. Many laws and policies were only spasmodically or vaguely applied. Policies that required money, from central or local government, had less chance of being applied.

6. Without a Civil Service the crown could not regularly adjust rents and customs charges for inflation, so its income lagged behind the inflation rates.

It was not all bad: 7. The "tax take" was still high – e.g. In 1635 the government collected £194 864 in Ship Money from all over England and Wales. The cash was ear marked to improve the navy and security of the kingdom in an emergency. 97% of what was asked for was paid over despite the lack of computers, regular mail deliveries and modern transport. Any present day tax department would have been delighted!

8. It happened because of the loyalty and efficiency of local officials such as sheriffs and constables (despite being unpaid!)

5

PERSONAL MONARCHY Characteristics: o o o o o o

Definition of personal monarchy Personality and character of monarchs Image they projected and Court as a reflection of their personality Their strengths and weaknesses Their success and failures Assessment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; historians views

1. PERSONAL MONARCHY Personal monarchy existed in England before and during the period 1558-1640. Its effectiveness depended above all on the personality of the king (or queen), who determined policy and chose the privy councillors, great ministers, officials and judges. He/she also had sole power to call and end parliaments, make war and peace, conduct foreign policy, negotiate alliances and trade treaties, and supervise day-to-day government of the kingdom. The king or queen was God's anointed, protector of the Church and 'defender of the faith', the source of all justice and the fount of favours. Little of importance could be done without the initiative, or at least approval, of the reigning monarch. The royal personality was the dynamic, which determined the style, quality and energy of government.

THE PERSONAL MONARCHS: PERSONALITY AND STYLE Because each monarch had a unique, individual personality, the style of kingship varied from reign to reign. Elizabeth had a sense of dignity and dramatic theatre. James represented a Scottish tradition of kingship, which was, in contrast to the English tradition, informal, relaxed and laid-back. Charles however, was a more private person, remote and aloof. Furthermore, Elizabeth and James had to overcome political liabilities, which were beyond their control. She was a woman trying to manage a male political elite. He was a foreigner, having to contend with the anti-Scottish prejudice of the English. Charles, as a male reared in England, with English priorities and outlook, had neither of these liabilities.

However, their style of kingship had one common characteristic. They were all political heirs of King Henry VIII (1509-47), who had created a magnificent Court as the setting for strong, self-confident monarchy. The Court was the glittering, ceremonious, formal and regal context in which Elizabeth, James and Charles in turn acted out their role as monarch. There they staged extravagant spectacles, received ambassadors, met the leading men in the kingdom, conducted affairs of State and projected an image of grandeur to a wider public. In other words, the Court accommodated both the political/governmental and the public/social setting in which the king or queen operated.

However, there the similarity ended, because the royal personality determined the nature of the Court in each reign. Elizabeth's Court was dignified, cultivated, orderly, with a calendar of lavish festivities. It was also accessible to nobles and gentry, as an important point of contact between crown and governing class. In contrast, the Jacobean Court declined in reputation and even earned notoriety. Headed by a self-indulgent, free-spending king, it was characterised by waste, vulgarity, scandal and excessive cost. James' son restored dignity to the Court. However, unlike Elizabeth, Charles was not accessible. He ordered nobles and gentry back to their duties in the countryside.

His Court was highly regulated and focused on the rituals and ceremonies of his daily life. Marked 6

by elegance and virtue, it became an exclusive club and ceased to be a point of contact with the governing class.

These differences were reflected in royal progresses, when the monarch went on tour with the Court during the summer. Progresses had a political purpose and value as another point of contact.

Elizabeth visited the country houses of her ministers, favourites, nobles and greater gentry. Like her father, she had a natural instinct for public relations, projecting herself not only to her governing class, but also the general populace. Although James often preferred extended hunting trips with intimates, he too spent much time on royal progresses. In contrast, when Charles travelled, he remained exclusive and private, staying at royal palaces or the residences of ministers and favourites. He did not make contact with the local gentry who, loyally and often conscientiously, governed the kingdom in his name. That caused much resentment.

The nature of power The monarch, aided by the Privy Council, wielded all executive power, and also had enormous legislative and judicial power The royal Prerogative To carry out the task of ruling the country, the monarch had overriding powers known as the royal prerogative (see the diagram below)

With such enormous powers, the reigning monarchâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s personality, ideas and wishes were very important. Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I and Charles II were all very different!

7

Personal Monarchy - the powers of a monarch In the 17th century the issue arose a number of times as to whether limits should be set on the royal prerogative to prevent it being misused. If so what should the limits be?

The monarch was expected to: (i) decide how the country was going to be run (ii) develop their own style of monarchy.

Functions of a Personal Monarchy - i.e. the role of a monarch      

(i) Deciding policy declaring war, going to war and making peace settling issues, including religious doctrine, arising from previous reigns ensuring the day-to-day running of the government, appointing officials determining relations with other countries ensuring the succession of the dynasty promoting economic growth and trade

(ii) Enforcing policy  providing a framework of laws to protect people from crime and disorder  dealing with threats to internal security, such as rebellions  ensuring the courts work effectively (iii) Raising revenue  collecting money from the crown's ordinary sources of revenue, including rents from land, customs duties from imports, fines from legal ruling feudal dues traditionally paid to the monarch by the nobility (when land changed hands for example)  ensuring that extraordinary taxation, to meet the expenses of both going to war and defending the country against attack, was approved by Parliament and then collected

The Powers of a monarch (a) Divine Right In the 16th Century people were subjects of a monarch rather than citizens of a state. The Prince (a male or female ruler of a sovereign independent state) - was considered to be God's Lieutenant on Earth.

He / she had a Divine Right to rule. i.e. everyone believed and accepted that God had placed them on the throne to govern as HIS lieutenant on earth (this was indicated in the coronation when the king or queen was anointed with holy oil). Anyone who rebelled against this source of earthly authority sinned also against God and could expect harsh punishment.

The monarch's duty was to preserve the state and they were entitled to take such action as they saw fit to do so. The highest form of law was statutory. The king could issue proclamations which were intended to remedy defects in statutes but only the king-in-parliament (when the king used parliament to achieve his objectives) could pass statute law.

8

The theoretical powers of the king did not create much dispute but when it came to applying them there were often grey areas when crown and parliament could each make a reasonable case for their own viewpoint. In these circumstances conflicting theories developed to justify each position. The divine right of kings was the name given to the theory which promoted the king's power while those

Elizabeth I  Elizabeth emphasised a King 's authority was sanctioned by God himself. In 1567 she thundered atParliament, "I am your anointed queen. I will never be constrained[compelled] to do anything.”  Elizabeth applied the principle of Divine Right not only to herself, but also to foreign Princes. Thus she had little time for rebels, even those who were rebelling against her enemies.  Her right to be Queen was never questioned (except by a handful of Catholics).

"Not only was she God's lieutenant her governing class was also raised in the belief that the „Prince's' service was the highest from of occupation. Nobles and gentry were imbued with habits of obedience. Not only did they accept the Treason Act of 1532 (making it treasonable to plan or attempt the monarch's death, to make war against him, or to support his enemies) was both desirable and necessary, but during Elizabeth's reign they also attempted to create new defensive barriers around her, in the face of the Catholic menace and despite her reluctance to agree to penal laws against Mary Stuart and the English Catholics. Irritated and frustrated they might become, but the members of the two Houses of Parliament persevered in their attempts to protect their Queen, despite herself" [Mervyn]

James I James I placed heavy emphasis on Divine Right - that a sovereign was God's lieutenant on earth and accountable only to Him. This meant that representative institutions, such as parliament, existed only at the king's pleasure and that because the king alone possessed political power, he alone was the law maker. There was no safeguard against a tyrannical ruler, only the belief that God would punish him. This was not a new idea. In fact, it dates back to antiquity. Kings were commonly thought to have a form of spiritual, as well as temporal, power. This was demonstrated by the belief that a touch from the King could cure certain ailments. e.g. Scrofula Some historians have seen James ' insistence on Divine Right as a cause of conflict with Parliament. James did not, however, claim absolute right. In a speech to Parliament in 1610 he stated that his power is not unlimited, that a "paction" (pact) between King and people existed. If the King exceeds his divinely given powers he "degenerates into a tyrant".

Divine Right could bolster a monarchs authority. If someone questioned (challenged) his decisions then that person was indirectly challenging God.

Charles I Charles also believed in the divine right of kings. However he made his people think that he favoured absolutism. Absolute monarchs ruled without parliaments. They made all the laws and ruled as they wished. In modern terms they could be seen as dictators. Absolutism was gaining ground in seventeenth-century Europe: parliaments were being abolished by kings who wanted to centralise all power in their own hands. Charles saw all Parliament's 'privileges', or rights, as being subject to the approval of the sovereign, not as liberties that had existed independently of the sovereign's wishes. MPs began to fear that Parliament's existence was threatened. As one MP said in 1626, 'We are the last parliament in Europe that retains its ancient privileges.'

Introducing Arminianism, without having it ratified in law via Parliament (a precedent set by Henry VIII) meant Charles could be seen to be acting in a tyrannical way. Dismissing Parliament in 1629 and ruling on his own did not help.

who wished to limit royal actions put their faith in 'the ancient constitution'. The issue of sovereignty of who ultimately ruled became a matter of debate in the 17th century

9

The Royal Prerogative The monarch was the head of the political system: determining policy and controlling the distribution of offices (government posts) and gifts. Things the king/Queen could do acting on their own authority were known as the royal prerogative, while other matters required the consent of parliament or of the judges. Monarchs were the source of all justice and well being within the realm and its defender from outside threats.

The monarch had the right to:  decide policies and carry them out  Appoint advisers [councillors] and ministers, and bureaucrats (including judges) [civil  servants]  administer the realm  Create courts of law  Summon and prorogue (adjourn) or dissolve (dismiss) Parliaments  Command the armed forces (to defend the realm and protect the Church)  Declare war, make peace, sign alliances and commercial treaties  Mint money  Regulate trade  Make commercial agreements with other countries  Issue proclamations which had the force of law  Suspend statutes (laws passed by parliament)  Dispense with whole laws or parts of them in particular situations (e.g. grant a pardon)  to bestow titles and distribute favours (patronage)  and from the 1530s (during Henry VIII's reign) to govern the Church

Monarchs did however have limitations and legal restraints: The system of government that Elizabeth had inherited limited and controlled the monarch's authority: She could not legally order the arrest of subjects without giving a reason and she could not hold them in prison indefinitely without trial.

She could not execute critics, opponents, enemies, anyone, without due process of law i.e. trial.  Certain fundamental powers of government were NOT part of royal prerogative - in particular taxes could only be levied and new laws made (or old laws altered or annulled) with assent of Parliament (i.e. Lords, Commons, and King)  Individual prerogatives were defined and known, and limited under Common Law. There was often a considerable difference between the Crown's theoretical powers and what it 10

could actually do - or risk doing. There was no way in which the young Queen Elizabeth could act the tyrant, even if she wanted to.  There was one exception to the defined and limited nature of royal authority - an additional reserve of power (the 'residual' or 'emergency' prerogative) that allowed a monarch to take prompt action in an emergency, without normal limitations on his freedom of action (otherwise faced with invasion it could take six weeks to call a parliament to grant the money to raise an army! It was used to raise ship money from ports - a power the Tudors did not abuse, but Charles I did). Prerogative powers were great enough for the personality of the monarch to be a very important factor in the government of the state.  If the monarchy was to function effectively, it needed the support of the politicallyactive classes in the country. The effect a government policies would have on people therefore had to be taken into account.

Elizabeth had added difficulties: She was a woman in a man's world. She lacked the masculinity and frightening awesome presence of her father, King Henry VIII. Many men questioned, doubted, even denied a woman's ability to rule.

Elizabeth had to use persuasion to win over her people and persuade the many doubting males in order to get her way. In simple terms she combined her talents as an actress, her formidable personal will, and the charms and wiles of a woman in order to achieve her objectives. This was particularly effective when she was young. Remember that she was only 25 year old when she became queen in 1558.

[By Frood, J and Graves M.A.R. A Realm in transition, England in 1558 p23 (Elizabethan Promotions, 2001] • • •

Monarchs had to impose their solutions to the problems of the day through the existing framework of government institutions and the State was old-fashioned and inefficient.

The monarch could be and often was influenced by others in his/her actions, decisions and appointments.

Indeed a politically sensible, well-adjusted king or queen normally took advice on important matters and weighed it carefully before making a decision or formulating a policy.

Importance of Personal Monarchy • • •

• •

The monarch's personality and attitude to kingship determined the extent to which he or she made use of the powers of the Crown.

The monarch was the political power in the land in almost all senses of the term.

Elizabeth's reign had characteristics of its own, stemming from the character of the Queen. In an age of personal monarchy, all political life revolved around the sovereign and all policy decisions relied on Elizabeth's consent. Thus her views, whether on religion, foreign policy, or the treatment of rivals and opponents, mattered. She chose all her ministers, who in turn transmitted her wishes.

Either she made the decisions herself or she greatly influenced those who did.

Most of those who played an active part in the government of her kingdom consciously attempted to please her, while only the extremely foolhardy risked doing anything that would arouse her anger towards them.

11

SUMMARY: PERSONAL MONARCHY  Personal monarchy existed in England before and during the period 1558-1640.  Its effectiveness depended above all on the personality of the king (or queen), who determined policy and chose the privy councillors, great ministers, officials and judges.  He/she also had sole power to call and end parliaments, make war and peace, conduct foreign policy, negotiate alliances and trade treaties, and supervise day-to-day government of the kingdom.  The king or queen was God's anointed, protector of the Church and 'defender of the faith', the source of all justice and fount of favours (i.e. royal patronage in the form of offices, lands, titles, pensions, monopolies, etc.).  Little of importance could be done without the initiative, or at least approval, of the reigning monarch. The royal personality was the dynamic, which determined the style, quality and energy of government. [1996 Student Guide]

12

THE GOVERNING OF ENGLAND The Royal Court What was the court?

At its simplest the court was the monarch‟s home. Therefore, as the political system whereby England was governed was personal monarchy, the monarch‟s home also housed the national government. Furthermore, as Whitehall Palace was the ruler‟s principle residence where he/she stayed for much of the year between September and June, that was the physical seat and the centre of government.

However, the Court was not a palace. Wherever the king or Queen was, that was the Court and that was where political decisions were made. The monarchs of these times were mobile. They possessed a range of accommodation, much of it near the Thames.

During the summer months the monarchs also went on progress around the southern and midland counties of England, taking with them great retinues of courtiers, officials and servants.

Key Terms Court Progress Patronage Privy Council Bedchamber Favourite Suitor

Functions of the Court The court was the seat of Government, the political arena where members of governing class sought fame and fortune in the shape of royal patronage and the granting of rewards, the body of people who attended to the monarch and looked after her needs and wishes (ranged from great nobles and servants) granting of and lastly the magnificent setting in which the monarch lived and entertained  The court was the centre of government, linking central and local government.  An instrument of propaganda - project an image of monarch as powerful, wealthy and Godly prince. Hence the spectacle and splendour of the Court was not just to satisfy the ego of the monarch. It should induce awe and obedience of the subjects and respect of foreigners.  It housed the Queen's councillors and her chief ministers who lived there in order to be in constant touch with her. Thus decisions vital for the nation were made there.  It was the nations great political arena where men competed for royal favour.  It was a point of contact of the Monarch with her governing class. (see below)  It allowed the monarch to call leading subjects to counsel her, to arbitrate in their quarrels and to employ and reward their services and those of their dependants. Most Privy Councillors were also court or household officers.  The court could also travel, something called going on „progress‟ which was really a public relations exercise, it also provided Elizabeth chances to show her „common touch‟  The court had an international dimension. It was a place where foreign ambassadors could meet the monarch and people of power and where the image of power itself could be cultivated to impress.

13

Organisation of the Court The Court divided into an 'Upstairs' and 'Downstairs': 'Downstairs' i. The 'servicing' departments supplying the Court with the necessities of life e.g. the bakery, alehouse, and scalding house (for cleaning utensils). ii. Others serviced the public entertainments of the monarch e.g. the stables, kennels, revels (tents, theatrical props and scenery), and chapel royal.

'Upstairs'

i.

The public Court with halls and chambers set aside for the public aspect of the ruler's life. For example o Elizabeth received the Polish ambassador in front of an impressive gathering of courtiers and lectured him in Latin for some offence committed by Poland; or o James I entertained Christian IV of Denmark in a 25 day festival of often drunken banquets and other diversions; or o when Charles I and his family, with an orchestra in attendance, breakfasted daily in full open court. ii. The monarch's private apartments â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the very heart of court, to which they could retire into privacy, entertain a chosen few, or consult with those closest to them. When a man wore the crown his private suite was serviced by other males â&#x20AC;&#x201C; they were the people closest to the king. e.g. the groom of the stool attended the king throughout the day, waiting on him at table, and attending him when he rose in the morning and went to bed at night. In brief he was the monarch's chief body-servant and constant companion. The groom dressed the king in his undershirt and emptying the royal close-stool [= chamber pot]. He inevitably became an intimate companion. He talked confidentially, socialised, gave advice, and received favours; and he also performed a range of financial and administrative duties.

Sir Thomas Erskine during James I's reign slept on a mattress at the foot of the royal bed.

The Privy (private) Court

Royal Bedchamber

(i) (ii) (iii)

Privy Chamber

The Public Court

Presence Chamber

Guard Chamber

Hall

the guard chamber which, as its name suggests, housed the guards whose duty it was to protect the monarch the presence chamber contained the throne and was where the King/Queen held State banquets and received ambassadors, other important visitors and guests. Here they also conducted business with his privy council. the privy chamber served both as the royal bedchamber and private quarters to which he could retreat during the day. It was staffed by gentlemen of the privy chamber and managed by the groom of the stool.

14

The need for privacy Monarchs needed companionship and privacy as a refuge from the pressure of their public lives.

They were normally surrounded by legions of flattering courtiers offering advice, politicians attempting to influence and suitors seeking favours.

Each of our monarchs found different ways to escape from this clamour for attention, the need to be constantly on display, and the formal ceremonies or public entertainments which occupied so much of their time:  Elizabeth took most of her meals alone, served by her maids-in-waiting in her private suite.

And on most days she found time to shut herself away and devote herself to translation and the study of foreign languages.  James I, who disliked crowds, frequently escaped from the throngs at Whitehall Palace to go hunting.  Charles I's solution was different again. He imposed restricted access to his court. This had the design of reducing numbers of courtiers and suitors, but it also had, to some extent, the effect of sealing him off from the political world outside.

15

The Court of Elizabeth I Elizabethâ&#x20AC;&#x;s accession in 1558 changed the organisation of the private royal apartments. The office of groom was suppressed and female attendants replaced the gentlemen of the privy chamber. However, these ladies of the bedchamber served only the queen's personal needs. They did not become involved in administrative or financial activities. These were handed over to William Cecil, who became the queen's private secretary as well as holding the governmental office of secretary of State. So the man, whom above all she trusted, had the freest access to her. Male favourites had no open admittance or guaranteed place in the queen' s private apartments.

Life at Court 16

Elizabeth's leading courtiers: William Cecil (Lord Burghley) (1520 - 1598) - from gentry family, Cambridge University, lawyer, a Privy Councillor in Edward's reign appointed by Elizabeth to oversee her estates, Elizabeth's Secretary of State (1558), Lord Treasurer (1572) Sir Christopher Hatton (1540 - 1591)- son of gentleman, failed at Oxford, MP, became one of Elizabeth's favourites and rose to power quickly (Gentleman of Privy Chamber, Captain of Queen's Bodyguard, Vice Chamberlain of Household and Privy Councillor 1557, Lord Chancellor 1587 (despite no legal training)); rewarded with lands, offices, and the monopoly of the wine trade, knighted and invested with Order of the Garter.

Sir Walter Raleigh (1552 - )- from a gentry family, educated locally, given command of first ship 1578, fought in France as volunteer in Protestant army, commanded a company in Ireland; 'dashing and flamboyant' nature got him noticed 1581 and became a close favourite (resented by Hatton) - knighted, made Captain of Queen's Bodyguard, granted estates in England and Ireland plus monopoly of playing cards; Vice Admiral and Queen invested in his privateering raids against Spain; sent to tower in 1593 for getting one of Elizabeth's maids of honours pregnant, reinstated but days as trusted courtier over.

Robert Dudley (Earl of Leicester) - fifth son of the late Duke of Northumberland. Released from imprisonment in the Tower in 1555 for his part in his father's conspiracy to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne in 1553. Fought against the French 1557. Appointed master of the Horse by Elizabeth 1558 - early rumours of romantic attachment to Elizabeth despite marriage to Amy Robsart. Wife found dead in mysterious circumstances 1560 - rumours grew that he and Elizabeth would marry. Given large estates and export licences followed by seat on Privy Council 1562. Made Earl of Leicester 1564. Secretly married Countess of Essex 1567. Appointed Lieutenant-General of the army in the Netherlands 1585. Died 1588.

Robert Deveraux (2nd Earl of Essex) (1567 - 1601) - inherited title at age 10, privileged childhood, vain, extravagant; became favourite 1587, Master of Horse and given monopoly over sweet wines; temporarily fell from favour after marrying Walsingham's daughter in 1591; Privy Councillor 1593, defeated Spanish Navy at Cadiz 1597, given command of army in Ireland but disobeyed orders by attacking Munster, appointing his own favourites and making a truce with the Earl of Tyrone; then returned to London and burst into Queen's bedchamber and placed under house arrest and dismissed from all his offices, led an uprising against Elizabeth, executed 1601.

Sir Francis Walsingham (1532-1590) - Cambridge, lawyer; MP, Secretary of State with special responsibility for foreign affairs 1575; bluntness and fervant Protestant so friction with Elizabeth but she respected him; Chancellor of the Order of the Garter and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Robert Cecil (1563-1612) - younger son of Burghley; studied at Cambridge, Inns of Court, and Sorbonne (Paris); MP, use by Elizabeth as her unofficial government spokesman in the Commons; carried out man of Walsingham's duties after his death but Essex disliked him so did not get early promotion; Privy Council 1591, Secretary of State after organising Cadiz expedition despite being challenged to duel by Essex; Master of the Court of Wards; arranged succession of James VI of Scotland on Elizabeth's death.

17

Elizabeth used the Court to "effectively to woo a male governing class and wed it to her service" (Graves, "Queen Elizabeth I") Graves explains in order to do so, she adopted a variety of techniques: 1. Her Court was designed to be attractive to the 'political world' of Europe and, especially, to the political nation (= governing class) of England. It was there that men sought fortune and favour. Patronage, promotion, office, power: nobles, gentlemen, aspiring lawyers: so many were lured to Court by such tempting bait.

2. Visual propaganda - elaborate Court rituals and images of royal power, wealth, virtue and religious devotion of the queen - encouraged loyalty to her and enhanced her reputation.

3. Elizabeth also made it an educated and cultivated Court: i. The Elizabethan Court was obsessed with, and passionate about, education and learning. And Elizabeth was the role model. ii. Diplomats, foreign visitors, and members of the governing class were impressed by the quality of music of the team of teachers, performers and composers employed

by Elizabeth but also by her own composing of music, dancing, and playing on the lute and virginals.

"She was always the actress, playing to a captive audience. As a German visitor, Paul Hentzner, wrote in 1598 "Wherever she turned her face, as she was going along, everybody fell down on their knees." (ibid) 4.

The Court appealed to the self-indulgent. Accommodation, stabling, food and drink were available to nobles and prominent gentry.

Each year the population of Elizabeth's Court consumed in excess of half a million gallons of beer, 3,300 chickens, over 21,000 sheep and lambs, and more than four million eggs. Elizabeth occasionally launched economy campaigns, but none of her efforts had more than minimal success. After all, she was up against an entrenched system of royal extravagance and generosity, which was exploited by nobles and gentlemen. (ibid) 5.

The Court was also the avenue to royal patronage.

A suitor (i.e. anyone who wanted royal favours) had to go where the monarch was - in other words, in her/his home = the Court. Furthermore, when the suitor got there he had to penetrate the Privy Court, where the monarch sometimes retreated from the public glare. Penetration was no easy matter. He had to get past: (1) The yeomen of the guard in the Guard Chamber.

(2) The gentlemen-pensioners, knights and esquires 'of the body' in the Presence Chamber.

(3) The gentlemen and gentlemen-ushers (or, in the case of a queen, the ladies and gentlewomen) of the Privy Chamber.

Only if he managed to reach the Bedchamber might he make contact with the monarch and humbly petition for favours, such as an office, a lease of land, permission to travel abroad, an economic advantage such as a licence to export prohibited items (e.g. grain etc.) - in other words patronage.

[A Realm in transition, England in 1558 p24 18

By Frood, J and Graves M.A.R. (Elizabethan Promotions, 2001)] 6.

Each summer (except in the dangerous years, 1580-89) the queen and her Court went on progress, visiting and staying in cities, towns and the homes of both great and lesser nobles and country gentry. This not only enabled her to escape from the capital in the plague season and to be lodged, entertained and fêted at others' expense. It also served as a point of contact in two significant ways:  It enabled her to make contact with members of the county élites, who were honoured by the royal visit - and it brought prestige to those at whose residences she stayed.  Her calculated public performances won for her great popularity among the public at large.

Value of the royal progress  It was an annual public relations exercise keeping the queen in touch with great families, county élites, important urban centres and a public whose natural loyalty she skilfully played on.  Also bonds with the governing class were strengthened - not just by contact, but also by rewards: fourteen gentry and the mayor of Norwich were knighted during the progress of 1578. limits  On the other hand, there was a geographical limit: none of her annual progresses reached Dorset, Devon and Cornwall in the west, Wales, the northern midlands, or the north of England.

Example: The progress of 1578 •

Elizabeth, her courtiers and the great convoy of carts carrying provisions, the wardrobe, decorations, furnishings and other trappings of the Court moved towards Suffolk in early August. The county gentry who had received little warning of her approach rushed to prepare: silks and velvets were purchased, regardless of cost, and quickly transformed into robes, suits and coats. Two hundred young gentlemen, attired in white velvet, and three hundred 'graver' and older gentlemen in black velvet coats, escorted by 1500 horsemen, received the queen into the county of Suffolk. (ibid)

•

Some of the local gentry such as Sir William Drury provided 'a costly and delicate dinner' for the Court at great expense.

•

On another occasion (10 August ) Edward Rookwood, a catholic gentleman, provided food as well as lodging overnight. At her departure Elizabeth "gave to Rookwood ordinary thanks for his bad house, and her fair hand to kiss." He was then arrested and imprisoned for 'obstinate papistry'.

•

The Norfolk gentry trying to match those of Suffolk greeted Elizabeth with 2,500 horsemen, 600 of whom were (reportedly) gentlemen, and 'beautified' Norwich: Streets were repaired; the market cross was painted; the pillory and cage for criminals were hidden away; St John's churchyard wall was pulled down to widen the main street; and the town's 'muckhill' was removed. 'Thus did they prepare for the magnificent entertainment of the queen'. (Churchyard) From Saturday 16 August to the following Friday Norwich, the county capital of 19

Norfolk, poured out its welcomes, acclamations, devotion and money in a succession of orations, pageants, songs and dance, never-ending verse recitals in her praise, and theatrical pieces in which actors, representing Chastity, Modesty, Cupid, Jupiter, Apollo, Diana, Neptune, mythical Protestant heroines, and so many others, lavished extravagant complements. Diana was typical: " Who ever found on earth a constant friend, That may compare with this my Virgin Queen?

Whoever found a body and a mind So free from stain, so perfect to be seen."

Elizabeth was, as always, on stage, playing to an audience: when she told the mayor and audience of assembled citizens that she came, not for gifts "but for the hearts and true allegiance of our subjects, which are our greatest riches of a kingdom ... so do you assure yourselves [to find] in us a loving and gracious Sovereign."

When she left Norwich she knighted the mayor, swore that she would never forget the city, shook her riding-crop and declared "'Farewell Norwich', with the water standing in her eyes".

(Graves)

20

Key Terms

THE GOVERNING OF ENGLAND Robert Dudley

Patronage, Factions and Favourites Patronage

Patronage Factions Patron Client Suitors Contact men Monopolies Favourite Minister

How did the System of Patronage work?

The process by which rewards were distributed is known as the patronage system, it was a system that reflected the hierarchical nature of society The network of patronage replaced the old feudal lord - vassal (tenant) links and mirrored the hierarchical nature of English society.

The monarch was the fount of all patronage, but those who could channel royal patronage became important and influential. Patronage occurs when a powerful or wealthy person (the patron) gives position, title, land or monopoly to less powerful or wealthy person (who becomes his client). This is known as the patronclient system.  Suitors were men who sought royal favours  Contact men - evolved as a 4th tier (G.R. Smith), between the patrons and clients. They were personal servants of the patrons, acting as intermediaries, advancing petitions from suitors in return for gratuities. e.g. Michael Hickes - 1st Burghley, then Sir Robert Cecil/s patronage secretary.

Patrons included the monarch, Privy Council members and important landowners. Clients could be anyone else. The Principle Secretary had a patronage secretary to help him allocate patronage.

Prominent men such as Duke of Norfolk, and the Earls of Bedford, Essex, and Leicester were patrons – each headed his own „social connection‟ of clients, kin, friends and servants. (Graves). At Court these connections often organized themselves into political „factions‟ to obtain royal patronge and influence royal policy.

Great men at Court strove to gain the ear of the monarch through political argument, intellectual brilliance and the patronage of writers, actors, musicians, theologians and academics who might impress the monarch and/or other great men; some gained favour through athletic feats (e.g. Sir John Packington by a long swim in the Thames); some gained favour through the beauty of their wives).

James I's propensity to befriend handsome young men was used to advantage by the backers of Robert Carr (Somerset) and George Villiers (Buckingham).

21

The Court provided the ultimate opportunity for social climbing at two levels: favour from the monarch created social acceptability and those favoured might gain peerages or knighthood's Patronage was of mutual benefit for patron and client. It offered the patron loyalty and deference of all his clients. They might follow him around the country, provide a court, and together constitute his 'faction'. The larger a patrons court, the more prestigious. Patronage offered a client all the obvious benefits of what was being given. Eventually a successful client might be able to become a patron himself. Many gentry members were clients of those above them and patrons of those below!

Parliament and the Court were the best places for a prospective client to attract the attention of a patron.

Elizabeth had inherited this system whereby the Court “was a market place. It was highly competitive, venal (concerned with profit and reward) and potentially corrupt. The first concern was not how well they could serve crown and community. It was, rather, how much they could make out of office, especially by charging fees to the public for their services… It did serve one useful political purpose. It encouraged royal officials, who were hopeful of royal favours, to carry out their tasks conscientiously.

Natural loyalty to the Queen as God‟s anointed, was reinforced by the prospect of receiving honours, material benefits or political advancement at her hand.” (Graves and Frood, p58) Early in 1566 the Duke of Norfolk was escorted into the capital by three hundred horsemen decorated with yellow laces (his personal colour). It gave his rival the Earl of Leicester a marvellous opportunity to outshine him: The 2 of April the earl of Leicester came to London, being accompanied with lords, knights, the pensioners and a great number of gentlemen and others with the queen's footmen and his own also, all in their rich coats and to the number of 700 ... [T]he Queen's majesty ... entered a coach covered with blue and so rode to ... meet with the said earl of Leicester... She came out of her coach in the highway, and she embraced the earl and kissed him thrice and they rode together to Greenwich (Gairdner, p13) If you could not get close to the Royal Court yourself, your best bet was to get close to someone who was. So clients attached themselves to great men (patrons) nearer the source of patronage (the Monarch). The most important patrons were those men who, like Burghley or Leicester, enjoyed Queen Elizabeth's favour.

Lesser men sought to meet powerful patrons: as the Court was the centre of English public life, they were more likely to meet them there than elsewhere; this 'second tier' of courtiers aimed at gaining favours from the great men with direct access to the monarch and they supported those men's interests in return; they sought positions in local and regional government and lower-level: positions in central government, and the great men might nominate them as MPs, gain them paid positions in the public service, commissions in the armed service or appointments to well paid legal positions; more social climbing. they, in turn, would be cultivated by lower-level people, possibly from outside Court some individuals succeeded, others failed.

What rewards could courtiers get? 

State could not afford to pay servants salaries, so it supplemented them in ways of fees and royal favours

Financial 

Salaried positions: The most common way to secure additional income was by being appointed to a position where a salary was paid. Over 1000 of these. Most positions had duties. Common for post holder to delegate duties and pay a fraction.

22



Gifts of crown land or leases at a low rent which could be turned into a handsome profit (e.g.

The Earl of Essex leased Uttoxer Moor for 23 pound a year and sublet it for 167 pound a year.



Pensions and grants. Direct cash grants were usually only for special favourites. The Earl of Leicester got a 1000 pounds a year. Another grant allowed the import amount of specific commodity without paying normal customs duties. Grants could then be sold to merchants who produced goods.

Grants of wardship. Master of the Court of wards was a very profitable position. In theory the Court of Wards existed to sell the guardianship of under-age tenants-in chief. In fact it was the nerve centre of a complex system of money deals. Traditionally monarchs sold wardships for a fraction of their worth.





Late 1570’s onwards granting of patents, or sole right to manufacture or sell product.

Monopolists made money by charging normal importers, manufacturers or retailers a fee to be allowed to carry on trade. Rake off past to consumer, very unpopular.



Monopolies: The Queen could grant or sell sole rights to make or trade in a particular item. This delegation of crown rights applied not only to new inventions but also to everyday items such as wine and playing cards. The valuable patent on imported sweet wine was given to successive favourites, first the Earl of Leicester and later the Earl of Essex. Monopolies, as they raised prices were unpopular and caused problems later on.

Non Financial England was a very hierarchical society where most people believed who you were was more important than what you had. Many people were more interested in improving their status than in acquiring additional possessions. 

Titles could be given: Baron)

Peers or Lords (Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount and Archbishops and Bishops Knights

Compared with many of her predecessors Elizabeth was very sparing in her award of titles. She created only 18 peers in 44 years and awarded an average of 14 knighthoods per year.  

For the non noble landowner of standing in his county community the accolade that was the surest sign of his prominence was to be appointed a Justice of the Peace (JP). Such appointments were made by the Queen on annual basis A less important sign of social standing was to be chosen as the member of parliament for a borough

Corruption was a characteristic of Early Modern Courts and Elizabeth's was no exception.

The temptation to engage in corrupt practice was increased by Elizabeth's strict control of patronage and her relative meanness with honours (i.e. noble titles, knighthoods, membership of the Order of the Garter etc). War with Spain (1585-1604) made matters much worse: a military administration and armies (all managed by men) handled much larger volumes of money than in peacetime: 1. Sir Thomas Shirley, war treasurer for the army in the Netherlands, pocketed £3,000 a year when his salary was £200.

23

2. Sir George Carey, war treasurer for Ireland, embezzJed an estimated £150,000 in seven years.

3. On a smaller scale many were like the three ordnance officers accused in 1586 of pocketing £1,950, £2,700 and £2,400.

FAVOURITES AND MINISTERS Councillors, ministers, favourites, ambitious political careerists and patronage hunters regularly frequented the Royal Court, competing for royal favours.

A monarch would appoint some nobles and gentlemen as ministers of State as well as key posts in the monarch‟s court. In 1558 Elizabeth chose officers her household, for their efficiency, but also because she liked and trusted them and because the new queen had reason to be grateful to these men. For example

William Cecil

-

William lord Howard of Effingham was made her lord chamberlain (head officer of the royal household) - had defended her during a crisis in 1554, during the reign of her sister Mary I Sir Edward Rogers had defended Protestantism during Mary's reign, he was appointed controller (overseer of the household accounts).

Sir Thomas Parry had been the treasurer of Princess Elizabeth's household from 1548 until she became queen ten years later. He had remained loyal and devoted to her during the difficult years of Mary's reign.

None of them, however, was a royal favourite. The monarch might have a special trust and a personal liking for some ministers. Elizabeth's developed a great fondness for her chief adviser and lord treasurer, William Cecil Lord Burghley. During his last illness she even sat by his bedside and fed him.

But his importance to Elizabeth was not as a social companion but as political adviser and manager of the State's finances.

A minister was chosen to serve the king or queen in the government of his/her kingdom. If the monarch who chose him was politically astute, he/she did so because the appointee was talented (or at least competent) and had a record of honesty and loyalty.

A favourite was not usually a minister i.e. he was not someone chosen for his ability and integrity to occupy a prominent position in royal government. A favourite was a social companion who was singled out for social and personal (and possibly sexual) reasons. Favourites, unlike ministers, were essentially courtiers favoured by the monarch for such simple non-political reasons as their charm, good looks and social graces.

By the time Elizabeth became queen in 1558 she already had her own favourite, Robert Dudley. They were of the same age. They had the shared experience of imprisonment in the grim Tower of London in 1554. They had a mutual passion for horses, riding and hunting. Furthermore, Robert - brown-eyed, with dark reddish-brown hair and nicknamed 'the Gypsy' - was handsome and an outstanding horseman. Rumours circulated about the nature of the relationship between the married young favourite and the unmarried virgin(?) queen.

Her later favourites included Sir Christopher Hatton, Sir Walter Raleigh and Robert Devereux, earl of Essex. James I's social and sociable companions were also male, especially Robert Carr, a Scot, and the English George Villiers.

24

Key to effective government was the monarch's ability to maintain a distinction between those serving in government (politicians like Francis Walsingham, the Cecils and Thomas Wentworth) and favourites (such as Elizabeth's Robert Dudley or the early Stuarts' George Villiers). An astute monarch chose a man to be minister because he was able and loyal. In contrast, a favourite was a personal, social (and possibly sexual) royal companion, favoured for simple, non-political qualities, such as charm, good looks and social graces.

Factions Since patronage was limited, factions formed around powerful patrons who had ready access to the monarch. A patron thus built up his own little 'court' of clients (faction) who were his agents, informers and supporters. In return the patron tried to get a share of available titles, benefits and positions for his clients. The patrons obtained as much patronage as possible for their clients.

Each group sought the ear of the sovereign, patronage and the fruits of office. Prominent men, such as Leicester, Burghley, the earl of Salisbury and the duke of Buckingham, who were able to secure royal favours, attracted clients.

Sometimes one faction was able to dominate patronage. Rival factions would then work to topple the favoured faction. Factions which were denied power sometimes went so far as to use Parliament as an arena in which to pursue their ambitions.Factions competed at Court, and sometimes in Parliament and in the Privy Council. There rarely an issues or principle. Sometimes there was personal animosity, but usually just rivalry for further influence over the monarch (from whom all patronage initially flowed) Factions were not of great importance under Elizabeth until the last years of her reign. When factions did arise, Elizabeth was careful to keep a balance between them on her Privy Council.

James failed to do this with his Council and thus weakened and divided the whole system of government.

Elizabeth I, - Management of patronage, factions and favourites Elizabeth and her Council were well aware of how the system worked and always tried to make sure it worked to the advantage of the Crown. Elizabeth was careful in her grants and distributed patronage through a large number of patrons so no one man could monopolise royal patronage and confine it to his faction. She was very skilful - ruling by factions and parties that she both made, upheld, and weakened as her own judgement advised. i.e. she balanced the pressures, demands and expectations of competing factions, without giving undue favour to any particular one. Historians confirm her effective use of patronage as a means of achieving political stability - spreading her favours among a wide a circle as possible.

For most of her reign Elizabeth, in the interests of harmony and unity, took care to spread available patronage to as much of the political nation as possible, never allowing it to be monopolised by any one person or faction. She knew there was always the possibility of disappointed noblemen resorting to rebellion.

25

Good government meant a favourite would not control policy; whereas a minister would be ideally a faithful able servant who performed his duties well - managing affairs for the Queen, but not necessarily liked (e.g. Sir Francis Walsingham).

The secret of Elizabeth's success for most of her reign - was that she would not allow any one minister or favourite to monopolise her favour, her trust, access to her person, or influence on her policies.

In her prime, imposed strict limits on a favourite's influence. On one occasion the earl of Leicester threatened one of her servants, Bowyer, with the loss of his office. It was Bowyer's responsibility to decide who should be allowed to enter the queen's privy chamber from the presence chamber and he would not admit one of Leicester's gentleman-friends, because 'he was neither well known, nor a sworn servant of the The Earl of Essex queen'. The gentleman complained to Leicester, who went to complain angrily to the queen. But Bowyer reached her first and, on his knees, explained what had happened.

This story was later told by an early seventeenth century courtier, Robert Naunton, who recounted Elizabeth's words to Leicester: God's death, my lord, I have wished you well, but my favour is not so locked up for you that others shall not [share it], for I have many servants unto whom I have and will, at my pleasure, bequeath my favour . . . and if you think to rule here, I will take a course to see you forthcoming [i.e. thrown out]. I will have here but one mistress, and no master.

However, William Cecil became the political key. Elizabeth appointed him not only secretary of State, but also her personal secretary. This meant that: (1) (2) (3)

He managed her personal expenses from the privy purse.

He had direct access to her.

He secured her signature on documents which required it.

Problems in the 1590s For much of her reign Elizabeth skilfully separated the role of favourites from the governmental role of ministers. Even when she appointed them to be privy councillors (e.g. Leicester and Sir Christopher Hatton) their advice was not more influential than that of Burghley, Walsingham, and the other professional administrators.

Political management was especially difficult in the 1590s: (i)

(ii)

A generation of old experienced politicians died off. They were replaced by relatively new men who were caught up in the Cecils-Essex rivalry. This new generation was more willing to resort to deceitful and corrupt practices, in the struggle for offices and other royal favours.

The costs of war required economies in other areas, especially rewards and favours. Reduced patronage was therefore the result also of economic necessity and not just of the queen' s personal parsimony.

The 1590s marked a significant decline in her managerial skills: (i) (ii)

She was cautions, indeed mean, in her grant of honours. The number of nobles and knights actually declined during her reign. Intensifying competition for what patronage there was.

During the late 1580s and the 1590s she granted many monopolies, which gave favoured courtiers and other prominent men the sole right to manufacture or sell particular commodities or to license others to do so. Monopolies deprived others of their livelihood and also pushed up 26

prices. Rumbling and widespread discontent exploded in the parliament of 1601. M.P.s from across the kingdom voiced complaints and protests. Elizabeth moved quickly to cancel the most harmful grants, and allow other monopolies to be challenged in the law courts.

In her old age, however, Elizabeth displayed less skill in separating the roles of favourite and minister.

The earl of Essex was the special object of her favours and indulgence. She granted him estates and the very lucrative right to collect and keep the customs duties on imported sweet wines; she funded his naval expeditions; and in 1599 she squandered money needlessly on his futile and ill-fated Irish governorship. He attempted to change the rules of the game: • •

•

•

•

Essex was never satisfied. He demanded a monopoly: in Elizabeth's confidence, in the distribution of her patronage, in offices for his faction and, in effect, in policy-making.

In his struggle for power with the Cecils, he forced courtiers to take sides, when he declared that 'He who is not with me is against me.' This created a serious split at the centre of the political system and a threat to political stability.

Essex would not display the reverence which dutiful subjects owed the queen. When she angered him, he put his hand threateningly on his swordhandle, as if to draw it. And he told her that her 'conditions (= policies) were as crooked as her carcass'. Such conduct by anyone else would probably have resulted in dismissal from all offices and even imprisonment. But Elizabeth was over-indulgent to him.

At the same time, however, she remained a political realist. So she promoted the Cecils' clients and Robert Cecil himself, rather than the wayward earl's followers to vacant offices. Essex's mounting frustration and his loss of royal favour and patronage, after his disastrous Irish expedition (1599), led him into treason and on to trial and execution. With his death a monopoly of power by one faction, which he had sought and which Elizabeth had always avoided, became a political reality - in the hands of Robert Cecil and his following.

When she died the Cecilian faction managed both patronage and policy - but the problem was concealed by Cecils moderation and readiness to consult others.

27

Key Terms

THE GOVERNING OF ENGLAND

Administrate Adjudicate

The Privy Council In the words of Thomas Norton, one of Lord Burghley's clients, the privy council was ' the wheels which hold the chariot of England upright'. (Graves)

Overview The need of a monarch for counsel, advice and information led to monarchs surrounding themselves with men in touch with the everyday problems of government. Usually these trusted men came from the governing class and were originally called King's Council. It transformed into the Privy Council between 1536 and 1540. In Henry VIII's reign this had been concentrated into a smaller, permanent Privy Council with its own clerk and records

The Privy Council was the centre of administration  It included key officials and chosen advisers The Privy Council controlled local government through the choice of Lords Lieutenant in the counties and Justices of the Peace in each locality. Individual privy councillors staffed the prerogative courts of Star Chamber and Chancery, and the regional Councils of the North and the Welsh Marches.  The Privy Council represented the peak of the governing class hierarchy. With the Queen this was the hub of England's government. It met regularly and was in constant contact with the Queen, even accompanying her on her progresses.  They were hired and occasionally fired by the monarch. Appointment of councillors was the prerogative of the monarch. They were their servants to carry out the royal will.

Functions of the Privy Council Similar to those of a modern Cabinet except:  The office of Prime Minister did not then exist. Councillors were responsible directly to the Queen and, though they might influence royal policies, final decisions were always hers to make.  Unlike modern cabinets of one political party with members of similar political beliefs at times the Privy Council could be deeply divided over issues.  Councillors dealt with concerns of government ranging from the fairly trivial to matters of high policy. They monitored a constant flow of information from local officials in England and ambassadors in Europe and dispatched instructions to them under the Privy Seal.

The main functions of the Privy Council were: (i)

Administrate – to run the realm, dealing with everything from foreign affairs, finance, law and order, religion, social controls, economic regulation.  They supervised all aspects of local government - giving the orders for local government officials to carry out.

28

 Like modern cabinet Ministers, Councillors headed departments of state dealing with foreign affairs, finance, law and order, social and economic controls and (in those days) religion.  Their business ranged from matters of great national importance like signing a peace treaty with Spain, to the trivial like investigating the claim that a gentleman had given his niece venereal disease.  examples: finance, military organisation, moral standards, heresy (religion), recusancy, poverty and vagabondage, public disorder and crime (law enforcement and justice, and social order), trade, bread prices and food shortages, regulating wages (economic regulation) and the use of guns and armour, organising a national lottery, sending letters of reprimand to lazy or inefficient local officials, ordering J.P.s to hunt down Jesuit priests or supervise the training sessions of county militias.

Four of the most important departments of state were: (a) Secretaryship (the Signet Office). The Secretary of State (originally the King's Secretary) was a very important office. In close contact with the monarch the secretary advised on matters such as finance and foreign policy. Used for the king's personal letters to favourites and close advisors. (b) Chancery which drafted royal grants, treaties and appointments authenticating them with the Great Seal. (c) Exchequer which handled royal income and expenditure and kept records of what was owed to the Crown. Received payments, paid bills, audited accounts, chased up debtors and corrupt officials. (the name may have come from the chequered cloth on the accounting table or the chequers used in calculations). (d) Privy seal drew up and sent instructions to local government officers. Made official by the Privy (Council) Seal.) .

Business was usually conducted by about a dozen councillors, and sometimes by as few as five.

This "inner council" was dominated by the key ministers who headed the main departments of state. (ii)

Adjudicate - It was not a law court (although its members were judges in the Star Chamber - a separate institution). It received petitions of complaint and passed them on to relevant courts; they referred cases to men of substance (nobles and gentlemen) for resolution; and acted as arbitrators in disputes - not giving a verdict but referring cases onto other courts (but could order men to prison). In other words the Council was like a "clearing house" - directing cases to requisite courts. The Privy Council supervised the Crown's courts

(iii)

the main function was to advise the Queen about policy (and hope she heeded this advice).

(iv)

The Privy Council was also an important point of contact between the Queen and her governing class.

Powers of the Privy Council  Formidable but although they could influence royal policies the final decision was Elizabeth's.

There was no legal obligation, moral, or constitutional to listen, and she frequently did not heed their advice. For example over the execution of Mary Queen of Scots 1572 or naming a 29

successor 1563. As Elizabeth grew older and more experienced, confident and obstinate, she listened less.  They were not impotent - they forced Elizabeth to act against the French in Scotland 1559 and pressured her into war with Spain 1585 and finally Mary's execution.

The Privy Council reflected the monarch’s effectiveness as a ruler •

The effectiveness of administration (i.e. the success of Elizabeth's government) and the extent of royal control depended entirely on: -

how this structure was used how much attention the King and his councillors gave to it and how determinedly they used their powers to obtain local co-operation the calibre of her senior advisers her ability to listen to all their views and select the most appropriate or reject them all

To be able to do this, while maintaining loyalty and ultimate authority was - and still is - a true test of political leadership.

The first task and the first test of the new monarch was the choice of council. How effective this new body was depended on the monarch. It could be a finely tuned instrument of power or a hotbed of faction. Under Mary it had too often been the latter.

[W. MacCaffrey, Elizabeth 1, 1993, p. 38, Mervyn] •

Elizabeth took a direct interest in administration of her realm but did not make the mistake of trying to rule on her own. She had a talent for choosing able and efficient Privy Councillors men of ability and energy to assist her.

Membership – how big should the Privy Council be?

•

•

In 1553, Mary Tudor appointed a very large council – as many as forty members. Some historians think this hampered the decision making process. Others argue that she relied on an inner council and her household servants and, although councillors often held different views, these differences did not hamper decision-making or the execution of policy. The work of William Paget in developing the efficiency of the Privy Council during Mary's reign meant that the institution passed on to Elizabeth was in good shape; it also highlighted the importance of selecting able ministers.

Elizabeth kept the Council small - never had more than 20 and often as few as 9 to 12. When appointing her council she told them: "For counsel and advice I shall accept you of my nobility and such others of you the rest as in consultation I shall think meet and shortly appoint; to the which also I will join to their aid and for ease of their burden others meet to my service. And they which I shall not appoint let them not think the same for any disability in them but for that I consider a multitude doth make rather discord and confusion than good counsel".

Efficiency and effectiveness of the Privy Council changed during Elizabeth's reign.

30

 In the 1560s it was finding its feet transforming to a closely knit administrative board under Cecil and his lieutenants Knolly and Mildmay.  During 1568-72 it threw of challenges of old (Arundel and Norfolk) and new (Leicester) peers.  1572-80s represented a golden age, administering almost every aspect of the nations affairs.  1589-98 the old hands died off (Leicester, Walsingham, Knollys, Mildmay, Burghley) - their successors were not as able.  In the 1590s, struggling to cope with war, bad harvests, social discontent and war weariness the Council and Court was split by faction rivalry between Cecil and Essex. Because it was unable to deal with problems of inflation, depression, food shortages and war it influence declined.

31

Key Terms

THE GOVERNING OF ENGLAND The Role of Parliament

Bicameral Subsidy Fifteenth and Tenth Private Bill Personal Bill Beneficial Bill Adjourn Prorogue Dissolve Absenteeism Veto

The king distributes his authority and power in the fashion of five things: in the making of laws and ordinances; in the making of battle and peace with foreign nations; in providing of money for the maintenance of himself and defence against his enemies; in choosing and election of the chief officers and magistrates; and fitfully, in the administration of justice. The first and third are done by the prince [king] in parliament. The second and fourth by the prince [king] himself. The fifth is by the great assize [law courts].

(From De Republica Anglorum by Sir Thomas Smith ( 1583)). (Wilkinson) ACTIVITY: 1.

What is the role of (i) the monarch (ii) parliament according to the document?

Background Parliament grew from the medieval concept of government by consent. It reflected the feudal hierarchy of Crown, nobles and Commons. As well as approving royal requests for tax, meetings of parliament expressed a sense of unity and consensus in the land. Originally the Curia Regis (King's Court) had traveled with him and, in time, developed executive, legislative and judicial functions. Sometime it was expanded into the Great Council of nobles and bishops. As England grew, Kings realised that the shires and growing towns represented taxable revenue, so spokesmen from these communities began to meet at the same time as the Council. A bicameral system of Lords and Commons evolved.

The English parliament developed in a different way from European equivalents.  In France for example representatives from the three estates - nobles, church and the rest (usually only a few townsmen) - met separately and at different times. There were few links and often much antagonism between them.  In England parliament was an instrument designed by Kings to assist with government and met when the monarch requested it. Henry VII called parliaments to consolidate the Tudor dynasty after the divisive Wars of the Roses, then used them less and less. Henry VIII needed parliaments to raise subsidies to pay for his wars and then to establish his authority as Supreme Head of the English Church. Elizabeth views of parliament are not known. Perhaps she considered it a necessary evil.

ACTIVITY: As you read through this material, discuss how present day parliament differs to that of Early Modern England.

Parliament was an 'occasional instrument'  

'Parliament' was when the queen met with her judges and bishops, the nobles and many gentry, lawyers, merchants and other burgesses - in other words the governing class or political nation'.

Parliament was an important but irregular part of Elizabethan government. It was an "occasional instrument" called into being by Crown, it remained in session only as long as she wanted it.

32

ď&#x201A;ˇ

ď&#x201A;ˇ ď&#x201A;ˇ

Elizabethan Parliaments were so different to their modern namesakes that historian Conrad Russell suggests it might be more accurate to speak of particular 'Parliaments' (1559, 1563, 1572 etc.) rather than 'Parliament' suggesting a permanent institution. (G R Elton disagrees claiming that though parliament was sporadic and often of short duration it should nevertheless be regarded as an institution).

Parliamentary sessions were short: between 1536 and 1547 they averaged 62 days (about 9 weeks). In Edward VI's reign they averaged 68 days (just under 10 weeks). Under Mary I they averaged just 45 days (6/7 weeks).

Elizabeth's parliaments were to be more infrequent (one every three-and-a-half years) and still short, averaging only 66/67 days.

Functions of Parliament (i)

Financial. The House of Commons voted taxes in the form of subsidies (20% tax on land and 12% on property in Henry VIII reign), and fifteenths and tenths (levied on the counties) to provide the crown with extraordinary revenue when this was needed.

(ii)

Legislative. Parliament passed statues binding on the whole kingdom (subject to the monarch's approval), as well as Acts affecting certain communities and individuals. There were three types of bills that could be passed: -

(iii)

Private = for a special local regulation Personal = for an individual Beneficial = for a particular group of people

Judicial. Parliament could act as a high court. In cases of impeachment individuals (usually government ministers and servants) could be charged with a specific offence by the House of Commons and tried by the House of Lords.

(iv)

A point of contact between the representatives of England's far flung communities and the monarch's central government in London.

Parliament was a chance for the monarch and Privy Councillors to sound out the governing class, discover its grievances and discuss how best to remedy current problems in the kingdom. Sometimes irritated members voiced their complaints or criticisms in Parliament, and occasionally criticism could be heated, as in the monopolies debates of 1597 and 1601. However, Parliament was usually an exercise in communication and co-operation for mutual benefit, with the Crown receiving a feedback of local information from its members, and in return lending weight of its support to remedial legislation. Even criticism and heated debate were useful. They were both safety valves, 'letting of steam', and they were forms of communication. They plainly told the government of discontent which required attention and resolution. [Graves and Silcock p339]

Lawmaking procedure A bill could originate in either House but passed through three readings in each House before, subject to the Queen's approval, it became law as an Act of Parliament.

-

1st reading - read aloud to inform members of the bill's content. (There were no printed copies at this stage).

2nd Reading - a committee or discussion stage that made amendments to the bill. The chairman of the committee reported these back to the House.

3rd Reading - a thorough examination of the bill making sure there were no loopholes.

33

(This procedure was then repeated in the other House).

The bill was then put to the vote - "Ayes" and "Noes" in Commons. (Sometimes a division was called for in which 'ayes' and 'noes' were counted individually by a teller) - "content" or "not content" in Lords. Even after it had passed both Houses a bill could still be vetoed by the Queen.

Structure: The Trinity Elizabethan parliament had three parts, Crown, Lords and Commons.

The Crown The Crown was part of Parliament. Until the 1640s, Parliament had no power nor even existence without the Crown.

The monarch could: â&#x20AC;˘

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

Summon, adjourn (order a temporary break in a parliamentary session), prorogue or dissolve Parliament when they wished (Prorogue meant to put in recess, sometimes for years, but the same Parliament was recalled next time. When Parliament was dissolved, new elections had to be held before a new Parliament met.)

Veto any parliamentary bill. (Elizabeth vetoed over 60 bills in her reign.)

Dispense with or suspend any statute or Act of Parliament. (Dispense with = the law (or part of a law) did not apply in particular cases. Suspend = the law did not apply at all until the Queen reinstated it.)

Thus the Crown had dual roles: (i)

The King/Queen Alone (Rex solus) The Royal Prerogative, enabled the monarch to govern alone making laws by royal proclamation and collect non- parliamentary taxes

(ii)

The King/Queen-in-Parliament. If the monarch wanted something to have the indisputable force of law it could be passed by both Houses of Parliament. Statutory (parliamentary) law was considered the highest form of law. Elizabeth in effect added the strength of Parliament to her own.

But the Crown's powers were enhanced with Parliament:: Parliament extended royal power. Laws made and taxes voted while the King was acting in concert with the ruling class of the nation were stronger and more widely accepted than those made or imposed by the King himself. "Parliament was a fulfilment to majesty, not a threat to it." (K Sharpe) Parliament and Crown were supposed to work in harmony to achieve 'good government' (i.e.

How was Parliament part of the two way process linking crown and governing class?)

Ideally parliaments benefited both the crown and the political elite.

34

Central Government • It was the duty of the monarch to note the grievances of his/her subjects. Where possible these should be remedied with appropriate laws.

<= Parliament <=

=> Parliament =>

Local Government • It was the duty of the subject to provide money (taxes) and goods if the monarch needed these to keep the kingdom secure, and to pass laws to help run the country.

• It was the duty of MPs in the House of Commons as representatives of the localities to make the grievances of their communities known as well as give advice on 'great and urgent affairs'.

Parliament was an essential part of this harmony. Many Lords had regional bases and many memberof the House of Commons held important positions in local government (such as JP or Deputy Lieutenant) and so were in a good position to know the grievances of their communities. Parliament was the "mirror" of the nation, part of whose role was to make the King aware of local grievances and co-operate with him in redressing these. As Francis Bacon noted in 1610 "Take away Parliaments and the wounds of the realm would bleed inwards."

The House of Lords (Monarch could attend) (i) Lords Spiritual (i.e. bishops and archbishops - royal appointments).

Since Elizabeth kept some of the 26 bishoprics vacant, often for long periods, Lords Spiritual never made up more than one-third of the House of Lords in her reign. (ii) Lords Temporal The number of peers in Lords ranged between 57 and 62. Elizabeth created few peers and while some inherited through the female line, others died out or were in some cases deprived of their peerages or even executed. Many of the nobles were courtiers, kinsmen of the monarch and/or members of the royal government. When Elizabeth appointed her privy council (of advisers) at the beginning of her reign, it included nine nobles. As the entire nobility then totalled only 57, almost one-sixth sat on her council!

Powers: Elizabeth in parliament – The House of Lords is seated while the House of Commons, led by the speaker, stand at the bar

Older than the Commons the Lords had long-established procedures. Sitting in strict 35

-

order of rank they carefully scrutinised bills. Judges and other legal advisers, sitting on wool sacks, drafted and revised bills but took no part in the Lord's debates. Because it was the smaller chamber it was easier to conduct and organise business, and scrutinise bills more closely.

The Lords on its own was relatively unimportant - assent of all three of the trinity was needed for a Bill to become an Act, but this meant the Lords consent was needed.

The Lords was in many ways the superior House and its members included politicians in the modern sense, i.e. men for whom politics was a normal and regular sphere of activity, by virtue of birth, wealth and positions at Court. It could force the House of Commons to increase the grants (subsidies) e.g. 1593.

The House of Commons (Monarch could not attend) -

400 MPs were elected to the House of Commons in 1559. Elizabeth created 32 new boroughs so there were 464 MPs in her last Parliament in 1601 Each English county and borough returned two MPs (Welsh counties one each and London four).

The House of Commons included ten of her privy councillors, over 100 men in various central government positions and 200 men in local offices (especially 178 JPs). So a majority of members were already in the queen's service in one form or another. (This does not mean that parliament was a docile assembly. Members were forever on the watch for official corruption, injustice, heavy-handed royal conduct and interference in local rights and privileges. [ibid.])

Members of Parliament Were not professional politicians, they were often local gentry or lawyers, sometimes officeholders, and frequently associated with a member of the House of Lords through loyalty or interest.

MPs had dual responsibility to: 1.

Crown and Central Government - Voting supply (of revenue), advising the Crown, helping to make laws which would be binding on the nation.

2.

Their Localities - Getting grievances redressed and beneficial laws. He was responsible to his county (and often, his patron) Privileges of MPs -

Freedom from arrest – originally given to ensure attendance. It was given legal precedent by the Ferrers Case 1543 when Parliament released one of its own members from jail.

Power to arrest – this was vague. Commons had arrested a man for showing disrespect to the Crown (but such a man would have been at risk anyway) Freedom of speech – was no clear. Henry VIII had allowed them to discuss whatever he wanted them to discuss – this was shaky grounds to base a right on.

Discussion Question: How could Freedom of Speech cause a problem for a monarch?

Parties and opposition – were MPs a problem for the monarch?

-

Elected members were not Conservative, Labour or Liberal-Democrat (as in modern England). Nor were they National or Labour (as in New Zealand). Parliamentary membership was not divided then, as it is now, into Government and Opposition.

36

-

There were no political parties and no official opposition. M.Ps could be divided by faction but the origins of this were usually outside parliament.

In any case factions were shifting allegiances not divisions on party lines. MPs sometimes spoke against Royal policies but as individuals or small groups. They were not organised oppositions to the Crown.

Problems might arise if a large number of MPs disagreed with a particular policy but this was rare.

Consistent opposition to the monarch's government would have been outrageously disloyal and totally unacceptable. When a parliamentary election was held, members were chosen to assist royal government and also to protect and advance local interests.

The House of Commons faced 3 problems (i)

Absenteeism - the worst offenders were lawyers (because they could make more profits if they did not attend), this deprived Commons of experts needed in drafting and revising Bills.

A large and growing membership meant they had many of inexperience novices in need of guidance and direction.

The House of Lords as peers (the social elite) could exert pressure on the Commons on their followers (clients). (sometimes Peers could secure a relatives or clients selection as an MP etc.)

(ii) (iii)

Fruitful parliaments depended, to a large extent, on effective royal management of them.

Elections How democratic was Early Modern England?

-

-

-

-

The vote for members of the House of Commons was limited to (male) freeholders whose land was worth 40 shillings or more a year. This excluded those who only rented, even if they were well off. Though the number of 40s. freeholders increased with inflation, most Englishmen and all English women (save of course Elizabeth) had no say in elections.

Towns decided for themselves how they would elect their Members of Parliament. There was a great variety of systems. In some towns almost all the men had the right to vote. In others vote could be restricted to the owners of certain plots of land. If one person owned all those plots he could choose the MP by himself.

This was the 'political nation'. Peers and bishops were appointed by the Crown to the House of Lords. The majority of the population had no say in parliament or government.

It is difficult to assess numbers of voters, since the borough franchise varied widely, but Derek Hirst has suggested that the effects of growing wealth and inflation might have extended the electorate to include about one-third of adult males. If this is accurate, then it can be argued that seventeenth-century parliaments were probably fairly representative of public opinion, given the personal nature of family and employment networks. (Wilkinson) However, they tended to be the richer people, and even then not all of them were given the chance to vote as there were not enough candidates to have an election (see above).

MPs were often clients of important noblemen usually approved by the Crown before the election. Voting them in was little more than a formality.

Sheriffs were given lists of candidates approved by Queen and Council and the limited number of voters usually complied by voting for these approved candidates. They also arranged if there were two MPs needed then there were only two candidates. This meant that in many places there was no election and people did not get a chance to vote.

37

-

Voting was done in public. The voter went up on to a platform, called out his own name and then called out the names of his chosen candidates. Voters could easily be intimidated because everyone knew how they had voted.

Key Terms

THE GOVERNING OF ENGLAND

Sheriff Justice of the Peace Lord Lieutenant Assizes Quarter Session

Local Government The machinery of central government was limited, and relied on the co-operation of the nobility and gentry in local government.

Problems: • • •

Queen and Council made policy, but depended upon local government officials to translate this policy into action throughout the Kingdom.

Elizabeth's government was basically poor and could not afford a nation-wide civil service, police force or regular army.

There were no means of rapid communication and roads were very poor. The instructions from the centre were communicated to the localities either by letter or through the Assize (Circuit Court) Judges who visited most local areas twice a year.

Thus administration, law enforcement and even raising an army when one was needed depended upon the peers and gentry of the counties.

Extra Info on the Justice of the Peace Duties • •

•

•

•

Their administrative duties included: collecting taxes, forced loans and ship money; serving on standing commissions (e.g. highway maintenance, bridges); the building of jails and administering poor relief (through "houses of correction") They supervised, and sometimes appointed, a range of local officials - constables, bailiffs and overseers of the poor, drawn from the 'middling sort' of yeomen, craftsmen and farmers - who put the law into effect at village and parish level.

During the sixteenth century parliaments heaped 'stacks of statutes' on their backs: to oversee the poor laws (providing relief for the poor), collecting local taxes using subordinate officials, supervise the licensing of alehouses and mustering of the county militia (= defence, by 'pressing' men into service), regulating trade (e.g. ensuring that the export of wheat did not run down the food stores available in an emergency), regulate wages and so on.

They were involved in the religious settlement: maintaining coastal watches in order to detect landings by Jesuits, hunting and examining Catholics and missionary priests, and presenting recusants for trial.

Against the 'Puritans' they had to suppress 'prophesyings'.

They sat as judges in the county law courts and carried out law-enforcement duties (e.g. 'reading the riot act', arresting and overseeing the punishment of vagabonds etc.). Four times a year they would hold a court - Quarterly Sessions - in the major towns of the district. Here they dealt with minor offences such as trespassing, poaching, vagrancy and having bastard children! Punishments usually consisted of fines,

38

whippings and imprisonment. Many offences were dealt with by the royal Circuit Court Judges named in the Commission of the Peace. They visited the county twice a year.)

Why did these virtually unpaid country gentlemen undertake this onerous work?

1. A sense of social responsibility.

2. Firm loyalty and attachment to the crown.

3. J.P.s were only a small proportion of the local governing class of gentry so appointment was valued as a mark of royal favour or recognition of a man's special worth. Men sought appointment, despite the burdensome nature of the office. Likewise, to be struck off the roll of J.P.s for dishonesty or neglect of duty was a serious blow to one's rank and standing in the county. The Tudors exploited and magnified the status of the office, in order to operate a loyal local judiciary and administration at a very modest cost.

Problems • • • • • •

As the Tudors kept saddling JPs with extra duties these powers increased. But because of there many administrative duties as well as enforcing some 300 laws they were overworked.

The quality and effectiveness varied a lot.

They were amateurs.

They were unpaid so could be corrupted.

They were overburdened so could be lax.

They could be disloyal because they were subject to local interests, e.g. a Catholic JP might ignore statutes and conciliar orders that would punish fellow Catholics.

How effectively did the monarchs use and control local government?

• •

•

•

•

Local government has traditionally been seen as one of the success of Tudor policy. Henry VII inherited a sound structure from the Yorkists which then developed.

Recent interpretations of local government have shown that - as with central government - it was dominated by a group of powerful and ambitious men whom Elizabeth had to keep on her side by using a variety of strategies. The picture of a loyal gentry class eagerly enforcing an ever-increasing number government statutes in return for the social prestige of the office has been revised. Powerful men, with their networks of clients and tenants, compete/ political power both at court and in localities and, in doing so, tended to serve the royal interest unless or until it clashed with their own. Powerful nobles or 'over-mighty subjects', whom historians once thought the policies of Henry VII had reduced, were still very much in existence in 1558, and exercising considerable influence, particularly, counties far from London.

Elizabeth needed to retain the goodwill of such powerful magnates, but she also tried to keep a close eye on them by summoning them regularly to court. Often, however, in the absence of such noblemen at court, faction at local level increased as the gentry competed for position and status. Personal local interests took precedence over royal interest, as shown by events in Norfolk after 1572. There was no guarantee that a law, once passed by Parliament, would be enforced throughout the country.

The border regions of Wales and the North in particular, had proved so difficult to govern that regional councils were set by Henry VIII. Despite all these limitations, however, the crown did succeed. It was able to enforce legislation, develop the office of Lord Lieutenant, expand duties of the JP and establish the parish as an administrative unit.

The nobles, faced with rising inflation, came to see the financial benefits office-holding as a necessary way of supplementing their incomes, while the more financially robust gentry class gained from officeholding a social standing that birth had not given them. For most of the reign, therefore, the system of local government worked well enough because it represented the interests of the politically-active classes. As elsewhere, however, it began to break down in the 1590s when central government continued to press for taxation to finance war, against the background of real social and economic distress. The decline of authority at the centre was mirrored at local level when during the 1590s, the political conflict between Robert Cecil and the Earl of Essex was played out in the country at large as each tried to build up support through the distribution of local offices to his own followers. Yet, the breakdown of the system in the Queen's declining years need not detract from its success for much of the reign.

39

•

A study of the effectiveness of local government requires an examination of instances of unrest and reactions to it. Most of these occurred in the 1590s were motivated by economic grievances.

 One important reason why Elizabeth's government was in the main successful according to A. G. R. Smith (The Government of Elizabethan England, 1967, p. 99) was that: 'the majority of the governing classes throughout the country were in broad agreement with most of the Queen's policies during l reign‟.

[Mervyn p84, 92] •

The key office holders in the localities - Lords Lieutenant, Justices of the Peace and sheriffs - were appointed by the crown and the Privy Council, so they needed to be loyal and efficient if they were to keep their jobs. However if there was widespread opposition to royal policies in the counties there was not a lot the central government could do. So the smooth running of government throughout the country depended on co-operation and goodwill. The historian G M Aylmer summed up the central local government relationship.

"In the localities the will of central government depended for its execution on the voluntary co-operation of a hierarchy of part time, unpaid officials …Without their co-operation the central government was helpless: witness the failure in 1639-40 to collect Ship Money or to raise an efficient army against the Scots."

Regional Government The only regions Elizabeth could control effectively were within a few days journey from Westminister the South East and Midlands. These areas were constantly visited by the Court in its progresses.

• • •

•

• •

•

Regions remote from London and beyond the normal royal circuit posed a security problem. In an age of much sparser population and slow, difficult transport it was feared England could be invaded through these remoter areas.

Until Elizabeth's time Scotland was a traditional enemy and ally of another traditional enemy, France.

There was always the possibility of a combined Scottish-French attack through the north of England.

Wales was another problem. Henry VII had founded the Tudor dynasty by invading England through Wales and defeating Richard III. Wales was incorporated into the English system of counties. It was represented in Parliament in Henry VIII's reign but was still a remote and lawless region.

Elizabeth inherited two regional councils that administered these areas. They were crucial to the crowns ability to fulfil good government - especially as royal authority was weak there. They were needed because of the lack of money to be able to afford a paid civil service, so in the past they had to rely on local nobility.

Presided over by great noblemen they supervised local officials, maintained law and order and controlled the militias but were still answerable to Queen and Privy Council.

The two councils were: (i) The Council of the North headquarters, York) administered England north of the Humber River. (ii) The Council of the Welsh Marches (headquarters, Ludlow) administered Wales and its Marcher border) lands.

These Councils had originally been responsible for the estates and interests of the Duke of York (the monarch's second son) and Prince of Wales (the monarch's eldest son) but by Tudor times had evolved into instruments of government.

Powers • •

The councils had wide powers to administer daily affairs. The Council of the North had powers parallel to the competence and authority of almost all common law and prerogative courts at Westminister. In Wales, the same applied but it was specifically empowered to use torture.

They were a vital link in the chain of command - a middle-man's role, enforcing Privy Council decrees and instructions and passing back information. The great advantage therefore was that they were supervised from the centre but they were 'on the spot' so able to get a feel for public opinion in that

40

• •

• •

•

region. As the members learned from local conditions they were better equipped than the Privy Council to administer societies very different to those in South East England. For example in Wales many Welsh spoke no English.

The Councils assumed a primarily judicial role by the 17th century. Its work in the hands of professional courtiers and lawyers. The magnates took on an ornamental role.

Its judicial powers were civil and criminal Common Law cases as well as wide Star Chamber jurisdiction.

It was a very active court , e.g. The Council of the Marches heard approximately 1200 cases per annum in reign of Charles I. But with some 20 cases to hear a day it was probably too much for consistent justice to be done. In civil suits its role was useful, but in criminal it was criticised. Most of the cases it heard were: (i) involving sexual offences - adultery, fornification and incest (usual on chargers of informers) (ii) fines for violence - riots, affray, riotous assembly, and forcible entry (iii) contempt of court (iv) fraud and forgery Attempts were made to stop abuse of powers by county officials, e.g. as part of Star Chamber jurisdiction it fined a JP £100 for wrongly putting a tailor in the stocks and having him whipped.

The Presidents powers were less derived from royal offices than their own socio-economic position as traditional overlords, warrior leaders, patrons, landlords, and patriarchal heads of a conservative community. The crown was in a favourable position over local nobles in the North as traditional power bases eroded. Loyalties snapped as the Crown raised local gentry to noble titles, seduced old clients and retainers from noble to royal service and transferred royal offices to its new supporters. The process was aided by inflation, executions for treason, economic mismanagement of Northern nobles. But they were not a broken force.

The real work was carried out by lawyers and bureaucrats.

Problems •

Though the risk of invasion was less after peace with Scotland, the north remained a problem. Often the region was lawless. Here old noble families were influential. The Percies, Cliffords, and Nevilles (the Earls of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmorland) and Barons Dacre - served the crown in their own fashion: feuds, raiding the Scots, subverting justice when it suited, often aggressive, independent, even disloyal or treasonous to the crown. They were a permanent potential threat to Tudors and good governance, but Elizabeth depended on them for manpower etc. in those regions. Usually it was in their interests to serve the Crown but there was an underlying resentment of central government from London and the rise of 'new men' (e.g. Cecil) to power sometimes to the point of rebellion as you will see later.

•

The Council was criticised for its excessive willingness to convict (as judges salaries came from proceeds of the fines) and to much scope in use of common informers. Partly because of these abuses the Council became increasingly unpopular and attempts were made to curtail its powers and remove the English shires from its jurisdiction of the ouncil of the Marches on the basis it was parasitic and represented a measure of centralisation which they resented. In the Long Parliament of 1640 these 4 shires were exempted from its power and its criminal jurisdiction was taken away.

• Under the Presidency of Wentworth the Council of the North aroused a lot of resentment as it curtailed local autonomy and because it was being used to enforce unpopular and unparliamentary taxes of Personal Rule. Wentworth also used his position for factional squabbles - its authority only being preserved by heavy penalties on several leading Yorkshire landowners.

• It was attacked by lawyers as a competitor to Common Law Courts in the late 1630s, but it was not dissolved by the Long Parliament, it fell into disuse during the Civil War and was never revived.

(Graves and, p198-199)

41