Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
2 ibid.
how Elizabeths specific composition of the Council was key to that. Whereas her
father and siblings had had fairly large Privy Councils, numbering sometimes in the
30s, Elizabeth was concerned to keep her council to a minimum. In 1558 she reduced
it to 19 members, and by the 1590s the Council numbered only 11 members much
to the irritation of some of her vying courtiers. The result was an effective
administrative machine, that parsed royal will and ruled the kingdom with the help of
administrative manpower and ingenuity. To be clear, despite conflicts of interest
between the council and the Queen, it was still very much an instrument of royal
authority. Elizabeth certainly held some very strong beliefs, and had the education and
resources to directly enforce those beliefs, but her innovation was in choosing
individuals to think for her. I do not mean this in a patronising sense, but in a practical
sense. The day-to-day running of a kingdom required intense amounts of mental and
physical labour, beyond the capabilities of one individual yet one individual could still
hold principles, opinions, and aspirations. Elizabeth understood this and used the Privy
Council as a means to legislate in line with her thoughts, if not always, which was
beyond the singular capabilities of solo-administration or the cumbersome Plantagenet
use of the Privy Seal, Chancery, and Signet Seal.
The privy councils effect on the balance of royal authority was not just at the national
centre, but at the peripheries. Wall has argued that the instances of instability and
infighting of county administration was a result of factional forces having the means to
mutually contest each other.3 Whereas before the advent of the Privy Council, disputes
between the grand nobility over governance, J.Ps, of counties was confined largely to
the resources available among the nobility and gentry, opportunities for patronage
and influence now clearly reached the centre of power The Privy Council and Court
itself. In Nottinghamshire, for example, Lord Shrewsburys power was challenged by
local gentry led by Sir John Stanhope and successfully gained predominance in the
administration of the county. This was because Stanhope was a favourite of Elizabeth
and had connections to the court, whereas Shrewsbury had little mobilisation of the
powers of court influence. The example of Nottinghamshire was repeated in many
English counties, including Wiltshire and Yorkshire, where power contests were
determined by who could most effectively muster the backing of key individuals at the
court, even the Queen herself. Additionally, Cecil encouraged the creation of small
committees for J.P.s in the counties something which actually increased factional
infighting as it made power more competitive, rather than the intended effect of
efficiency savings. In this way, the strengthening of the central royal authority in the
form of a resurgent court and Council actually risked weakening the power of royal
authority in the counties with factional violence.
The second, but no less important, way of engaging with royal authority is in terms of
its perception. How far did Elizabeths reign see royal authority strengthened in the
hearts and minds of her subjects? Elizabeth embraced pageantry and theatrics, as a
means to strengthen the royal authority. Penry Williams describes how Elizabeth
actively embraced traditions such as the washing of the feet of the poor, in a
concerted effort to reinforce the image of monarchy. While Mary, her predecessor,
preferred to perform healing rituals in private, Elizabeth took to the public stage to
demonstrate her fulfilment of biblical models of monarchy. Moreover, Elizabeth had an
explicitly religious identity which was fermented during the Marian persecutions. The
hopes of evangelical and protestant faith in England were projected onto the young
Princess Elizabeth. While we can see Elizabeths reign as reflecting a personal
strengthening of the perception of sacral royal authority, something not applicable to
royal authority in general but only to this particular Queen. Undoubtedly, the strength
directly opposed to the interests of strengthening royal authority. Neale and his ilk
argued for the existence of a Protestant Puritan Opposition in parliament a group of
MPs who sought to counter government measures, and shaped the Elizabethan
religious settlement. The evidence for this, however, has been fairly well disowned by
recent scholars. That is not to say that the role of parliament was solely as an
enhancer of royal authority, and the Elizabethan parliament provided much of the
potential for the future encroachment of parliament on royal authority that would
characterise the Stuarts and be a feature of political normality after 1688.
Nevertheless, in an immediate sense, Elizabeths use of parliament was an asset to
royal authority. Graves argues that the management of the House of Commons was a
top priority of the Queen and her Privy Council, as the short length of Parliaments
and the fact that local administration was sent through Parliament meant that
Elizabeth needed managerial members of the house who could head committees,
debate, draft laws, and make speeches.5 Ultimately these men of business were in
constant collaboration with the Privy Council (and usually the Queen). Even when
these men of business fell foul of royal approval, they were still necessary to enacting
the royal will, and thereby adding greater strength to royal authority. Thomas Norton,
for example, was imprisoned in 1581-2 and 1583-4, but was nevertheless sent for by
Walsingham to draw up a draft justification of the governments treatment of
Catholics.6 Yet, the men of business (who did not constitute any formal grouping)
acted to the Councils interests first and foremost. In the 1563 Succession Crisis, it was
the likes of Digges and Norton who, to use one MPs blunt words put forward the stark
reality of axe or act. Their continual calls for the settlement of succession and
execution of Mary Queen of Scots applied pressure on the Queen, to the advantage of
the Privy Council. These men, many of whom were put into parliament by the
expansion of borough representation under Elizabeth, had a crucial place in
administration. Even if they were at odds with the Queen at certain times, their sheer
practical use in passing government business should not be underestimated without
them the dividends of parliament would have been far more clotted by verbose speech
and minor bills.
One of the ways in which historians have viewed the Elizabethan period is one in
which internal peace and stability was achieved by the rationalisation and
centralisation of finance and poor-relief, and that this is a reflection of how strong royal
authority was. It is certainly true that financial reform and centralisation was an aspect
of Elizabeths reign, enacted through subsidies obtained in parliament, and through
royal decrees issued through the Privy Council. Wrightson has argued that Elizabeths
reign saw the conception of the common-wealth as involving capitalist free enterprise
restricted by government legislation, fore example legislation that allowed for
enclosure but required, at the same time, the provision that an allowance of formerly
arable land had to be restored. 7 Additionally, a national poor law was implemented
(although in 1598 and 1601 it was legislated not be the government but by private
members of Parliament) which further drew in administration from the peripheries into
5 M.A.R. Graves The Management of the Elizabethan House of Commons
Parliamentary History (1983)
6 ibid,
the centre of royal authority. Under Mary, and part of Elizabeths reign, the various
financial institutions of the state were streamlined. The collecting and accounting for
revenue went from 10 different bodies in 1546 to only 3 in 1558.
At the same time, financial rationalisation did not always mean a strengthening of
royal authority. Under Elizabeth there was a farming out, a privatisation, of Crown
lands to improve efficiency and prevent further defaulting under the Exchequer. The
financial strengthening of royal authority can be seen in its role in the dispensation of
the poor laws to Elizabeths subjects, enacted in her name even if it was a
parliamentary measure. Some historians have attributed the measures taken by
Elizabethan government, such as the poor laws, as the explanation for the relative
peace and stability of Elizabethan England with the notable exception of the 1571
rebellion and for the steady economic growth of the later 16th century in England.
Yet while fiscal and financial reforms were important, the state still had limited power
to enrich itself. Collinson calculates that the state could theoretically have taxed to
raise 6 million, yet only raised 2% of that amount at its peak under Elizabeth.
Actually, although royal authority may have been strengthened in financial matters
that is of less interest to historians than we might imagine. Such a strengthening may
anachronistically be used to explain the developments of a proto-capitalist kernel to
England, but the still minimal force of this strengthened authority needs to be placed
alongside other factors.
Palliser has revised arguments which claim that late Tudor and early Stuart
England faced a crisis of overpopulation that led to dearth and economic stagnation by
saying that historians have taken the claims of contemporaries too much at face
value, and that a Malthusian explanation of positive checks on Tudor society does not
click with either the textual evidence or with revised population estimates. 8 Palliser
argues that population growth remained modest between 1540 and 1640 as a result of
prudential rather than positive checks. Wage inflation and an poorly supplied labour
market meant that there was the emergence of a form of popular consumerism, as
remarked on by foreign visitors. The increase in the tillage of land and enclosure came
as extra-governmental measures responsible for economic development. In contrast,
royal authority although somewhat strengthened in financial matters was limited
by Elizabeths wariness to disrupt the delicate balance of social order achieved over
the previous century. Royal authority sured up some of the economic and social
developments of the latter 16th century, yet only in part external, demographic, and
technological factors played a more signifiant role.
To conclude, Elizabethan royal authority was a balancing act. The extension of royal
authority into aspects of public life had to be carefully decided upon, and if necessary,
withdrawn. There was always compromise between royal authority and the interests of
others. Guys central argument is that the stability and strengthening of Elizabethan
royal authority came ironically from the wider and wider sharing of royal power. 9
Broadly speaking, I am in agreement although I think we have to place Elizabeth in
the wider contexts of what monarchy could be to truly appreciate the degree to
which Elizabeth strengthened royal authority. Under Elizabeth, practical concerns met
ideological ones in a way that is reflective of a desire for good governance and the
political maturity of the age. Ideologically, the Queen was Christs deputy iN England
and had a god-given right to rule. Practically speaking, this authority necessitated
8 D.M. Palliser, Tawneys Century: Brave New World or Malthusian Trap?, Economic
History Review, 35 (1982).
Bibliography
J. Guy, Tudor England (1988)
P. Williams The Later Tudors: England 15471603 (1995)
M.A.R. Graves The Management of the Elizabethan House of Commons Parliamentary
History (1983)
A. Wall Patterns of Politics in England, 15581625 HJ 31 (1988)
D.M. Palliser, Tawneys Century: Brave New World or Malthusian Trap?, Economic
History Review, 35 (1982).
K. Wrightson Earthly Necessities: Economic Lives in Early Modern Britain (2000),
Chapters 5-9.
P. Collinson The Monarchical Republic of Elizabeth I in his Elizabethan Studies (1994
J. Walter A Rising of the People? The Oxfordshire Rising of 1596 PP 60
(1973)