Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:47:11.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patterns of Politics in England, 1558–1625

Part of: Historiographical Reviews

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Alison Wall
Alison Wall
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Historiographical Review
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 1988 , pp. 947 - 963
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hall, H., Society in the Elizabethan age (London, 1888), p. 276Google Scholar. ‘Faction’ is in this essay taken to mean political alignments seeking ascendancy, as in Adams, S., ‘Faction, clientage, and party: English politics 1550–1603’, History Today (12 1982), pp. 33–9, esp. 34Google Scholar.

2 MSS of marquess of Bath, Longleat, Thynne papers, VI, fo. 255, (hereafter cited as T.P.). I wish to thank the marquess for permission to use the MSS at Longleat.

3 Hawarde, J., Les reportes del cases in camera stellata, 1593–1609, ed. Baildon, W. P. (priv. pr. 1894), pp. 368, 186–7Google Scholar.

4 Wall, A., ‘Faction in local politics 1580–1620’, Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine, 72/73 (1980), 119–33Google Scholar.

5 Hall, , Society in the Elizabethan age, pp. 250–1, 255–8, 276–92Google Scholar; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Salisbury Manuscripts (hereafter H.M.C. Salis.), IV, 447, 449, 600Google Scholar; XIV, 92; G.E.C., Complete Peerage (hereafter G.E.C.) sub. Henry Danvers, Earl of Danby; Bodleian Library MS Add. 307, fos. 45–6, 83–4; Wilts. Arch. Mag., VIII, 239–40; Aubrey, J., Brief lives (Oxford, 1898), I, 193–4Google Scholar; T.P., V, fos. 136–7; ibid. VII, fo. 1. I propose to discuss this question more fully elsewhere.

6 Tighe, W. J., ‘Courtiers and politics in Elizabethan Herefordshire: Sir James Croft, his friends and his foes’, forthcoming in Historical Journal, XXXII (1989)Google Scholar.

7 Hasler, P. W. (ed.), The house of commons, 1558–1603 (3 vols., London, 1981)Google Scholar(hereafter H. of C.), I, 180–3; D.N.B. sub Henry Brooke; McGurk, J. J., ‘The lieutenancy in Kent, c. 1580–1620’ (unpublished M.Phil, thesis, University of London, 1971)Google Scholar. My explanation differs from Clark's, P., in English provincial society from the Reformation to the Revolution (Hassocks, 1977)Google Scholar, which does not allow for the local origins and power bases of contenders.

8 Clark, , English provincial society, pp. 136–8, 855–60Google Scholar. However, it was not odd that a Cecil friend could preserve polite relations with Leicester – the two co-operated from 1570: Adams, S., ‘Eliza enthroned? The Court and its politics’ in Haigh, C. (ed.), The reign of Elizabeth I (London, 1984), pp. 63, 75Google Scholar.

9 Clark, , English provincial society, p. 264Google Scholar.

10 Norfolk material from Smith, A. Hassell, County and court: government and politics in Norfolk 1558–1603 (Oxford, 1974), esp. pp. 180–98Google Scholar, and ch. 14.

11 MacCulloch, D., Suffolk and the Tudors: politics and religion in an English county 1500–1600 (Oxford, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Ibid. pp. 95–100, 192–205.

13 Ibid. p. 100.

14 , S. J. & Watts, S., From border to middle shire: Northumberland 1586–1625 (Leicester, 1975)Google Scholar; Cross, C., The puritan earl: the life of Henry Hastings, third earl of Huntingdon (London, 1966), pp. 159–66, 223–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D.N.B. sub Henry Carey.

15 Holmes, C., Seventeenth century Lincolnshire (History of Lincolnshire, VII, Lincoln, 1980), pp. 79–104Google Scholar. Holmes, pp. 99–101, suggests such disputes disrupted good government, and the Wilts. and Northumberland evidence confirms this, but cf. Fletcher, A., Reform in the provinces: the government of Stuart England (London, 1986), p. 145Google Scholar.

16 H. of C., 1, 280–84; Forster, G. C. F., ‘Faction and county government in Stuart Yorkshire’, Northern History, XI (1976 for 1975)Google Scholar, esp. 72–3. Yorkshire in 1587 had suffered more dismissals of 1 J.P.s than any other county, reflecting political trouble as well as Burghley's clean-up policy: notables like Sir Edward Dymock, Fairfax, and Savile were dismissed, B. L. Lansd. MS 121/10, esp. fo. 70.

17 Cliffe, J. T., The Torkshire gentry from the Reformation to the Civil War (London, 1969), ch. 13Google Scholar.

18 Ibid. p. 282; Lockyer, R., Buckingham: the life and career of George Villiers, first duke of Buckingham (London, 1984), pp. 40–1, 332Google Scholar.

19 Silcock, R. H., ‘County government in Worcestershire, 1603–1660’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1974)Google Scholar.

20 H. of C, I, 278–80; Willis-Bund, J. W., ‘Political history’, Victoria County History (hereafter V.C.H.), Worcestershire, II, 212–17Google Scholar.

21 Williams, P., ‘The crown and the counties’ in Haigh, (ed.) Reign of Elizabeth, p. 141Google Scholar.

22 Fritze, R. H., ‘The role of family and religion in the local politics of early Elizabethan England: the case of Hampshire in the 1560's’, Historical Journal, XXV, 2 (1982), 267–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Dias, J. R., ‘Politics and administration in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, 1590–1040’ (unpublished D.Phil, thesis, University of Oxford, 1973)Google Scholar; Clark, , English provincial society, p. 264Google Scholar. Disputes were not as deadly as in Wiltshire or Northumberland, where gentry were killed as a result.

24 MacCaffrey, W. T., ‘Talbot and Stanhope: an episode in Elizabethan polities’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research (hereafter B.I.H.R.), XXXIII (1960), 73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Stanhope was Treasurer of the Chamber: Loades, D., The Tudor Court (London, 1986), p. 204Google Scholar.

26 Williams, P., ‘County government’, Glamorgan County History, IV (Cardiff, 1974), 143–201, esp. p. 186Google Scholar.

27 Wiltshire had 34 seats, an exceptional number – Wilton, and sometimes Downton and Old Sarum returned Pembroke nominees but the remaining boroughs did not: Rowe, V. A., ‘The influence of the earls of Pembroke on parliamentary elections 1625–41’, English Historical Review, LX (1935)Google Scholar; Bindoff, S. T., ‘Parliamentary history’, V.C.H. Wilts, V, 117–19Google Scholar; H. of C, 1, 266–7, 272, 277; Gruenfelder, J. K., Influence in early Stuart elections (Columbus, 1981), esp. pp. 124–30, 241Google Scholar; Brennan, M., ‘William 3rd earl of Pembroke and the M.P.s for Wilton’, Wilts. Arch. Mag., LXXVIII (1984)Google Scholar.

28 H.M.C. Salis., XI, 340, 361; T.P., IV, fo. 266; Wall, , ‘Faction in local polities’, pp. 127–8Google Scholar; Acts of the privy council 1597–8, p. 91; Briley, J. R., ‘A biography of William Herbert, third earl of Pembroke’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham, 1961), passimGoogle Scholar. The 3rd earl was nearly always at London, or royal palaces. The second and third earls did not dominate Wiltshire as sometimes asserted, e.g. in Hurstfield, J., ‘County government c. 1530–1660’, V.C.H. Wilts., V, 81Google Scholar.

29 Calnan, J., ‘County society and local government in the county of Hertford c. 1580–c. 1630’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 1978), esp. pp. 5, 34, 55, 165Google Scholar.

30 H. M. C. Salts., X, 182–3; see also Hawarde, , Reportes, pp. 159–60, 186–7, 368Google Scholar.

31 Cross, , Puritan earl, esp. pp. 115–29, 159–65Google Scholar; Sainty, J. C., Lieutenants of counties, 1585–1642, B.I.H.R., special supplement no. 8 (1970), p. 26Google Scholar; H. of C., 1, 192.

32 Dias, ‘Politics and admin.’, esp. ch. 5.

33 James, M. E., Family, lineage, and civil society: a study of society, politics and mentality in the Durham region, 1500–1640 (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar.

34 Evidence for the following two paras, is drawn from: Coward, B., The Stanleys, lords Stanley and earls of Derby 1385–1672, (Chetham Soc., 30, 3rd ser., 1983)Google Scholar; Higgins, G. P., ‘The government of early Stuart Cheshire’, Northern Hist., XII (1976), 32–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Higgins, G. P., ‘County government and society in Cheshire, c. 1590–1640’ (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Liverpool, 1973), esp. pp. 29–30Google Scholar; Manning, R. B., ‘The making of a protestant aristocracy: the ecclesiastical commissioners of the diocese of Chester, 1550–98, B.I.H.R., XLIX (1976), 60–79Google Scholar.

35 Coward, , The Stanleys, pp. 118–20Google Scholar.

36 Higgins's view that Stanley influence mattered little in Cheshire politics seems disproved by Coward's and Manning's evidence: there was certainly no resistance to the earls' authority.

37 Coward, The Stanleys; Manning, ‘Making of a protestant aristocracy’; Quintrell, B. W., ‘Government in perspective: Lancashire and the privy council, 1570–1640’, Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire & Cheshire, CXXXI (1982), 35–62Google Scholar; Haigh, C., Reformation and resistance in Tudor Lancashire (Cambridge, 1975)Google Scholar; Wilkinson, D. J., ‘The justices of the peace and their work in Lancashire, 1603–42’ (unpublished M.Liu, thesis, University of Oxford, 1982)Google Scholar.

38 Mousley, J. E., ‘Sussex county gentry in the reign of Elizabeth’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1956), esp. pp. 230–8Google Scholar; Manning, R. B., Religion and society in Elizabethan Sussex (Leicester, 1969)Google Scholar, esp. ch. II.

39 Manning, Religion and society, deals extensively with Curteys an d his bitter contests. See also Barnard, E. A. W., ‘Lewis Bayly, bishop of Bangor (d. 1613), and Thomas Bayly (d. 1657) his son’, Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, 1928–29 (1930), 112–21Google Scholarfor Bayly's quarrels with J.P.s 1616–1630.

40 Leicester complained that Hunsdon and Buckhurst ‘were of the tribe of Dan and were noli me tangere’, Naunton, R., Fragmenta Regalia (London, 1641), p. 7Google Scholar. Mousley, , ‘Sussex county gentry’, pp. 239–63Google Scholar; H. of C., 1, 255–62; Adams, , ‘Eliza Enthroned’, pp. 61, 63, 68, 70Google Scholar; D.M.B. sub Thomas Sackville; G.E.C. sub Anthony Browne, viscount Montagu.

41 H. of C., 1, 255; Mousley, , ‘Sussex county gentry’, pp. 263–8Google Scholar.

42 Mousley, pp. 243–9.

43 D.N.B. sub Howard, Thomas (1585–1646)Google Scholar.

44 Fletcher, A., A county community in peace and war: Sussex, 1600–1660 (London, 1975), ch. 12Google Scholar.

45 Evidence for these paras, from Sainty, Lieutenants of counties, p. 20; H. of C., 1, 158, for privy council control; Quintrell, B. W., ‘The government of the county of Essex, 1603–1642’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1965)Google Scholar, who emphasizes harmony and achievement in Essex. Hunt, W., The Puritan moment: the coming of revolution in an English county (London, 1983)Google Scholar, chs. 7 & 8, stresses the local popularity of the Rich-Barrington group. Perhaps caution is needed, however: the ejection of 40 J.P.s over a few years (Quintrell, pp. 42–3) may indicate greater political instability than Quintrell and Hunt suggest, B. L. Lansd. MS 53/84.

46 Lockyer, , Buckingham, p. 261Google Scholar.

47 B. L. Harl. MS 6996/54; 6997/69, fo. 135; P.R.O. Index 4208, p. 16.

48 Clark, , English provincial society, p. 260Google Scholar; H.M.C. Salis., VI, 246, see also p. 311.

49 Holmes, C., Seventeenth century Lincolnshire, pp. 102–3Google Scholar; Peck, L. L., Northampton: patronage ana policy at the Court of James I (London, 1982)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 3.

50 Hirst, D., ‘Court, country, and politics before 1629’ in , K.Sharpe, Faction and parliament: essays on early Stuart history (Oxford, 1978), pp. 118–19Google Scholar.

51 Clark, , English provincial society, pp. 114, 145–6Google Scholar; Fletcher, , Reform in the provinces, pp. 100–5Google Scholar; Leppard, M. J., ‘Quarter sessions in Elizabethan Sussex’, Sussex Archeological Collections, CXVIII (1980), 388–9Google Scholar.

52 H.M.C. Salts., X, 182–3; Hawarde, , Reportes, pp. 106, 159–60, 186–7, 368Google Scholar; Calnan, County society… Hertford'; Smith, Hassell, County and court, pp. 83–6Google Scholar. Bateson, M., ‘A collection of original letters from the bishops to the privy council, 1564, in Camden Miscellany, IX (Camden Soc., n.s. LIII, 1895)Google Scholar. B. L. Lansd. M S 53 & Lansd. MS 121/10 demonstrate government concern about the number and suitability of justices in 1587. Some hundreds ha d too many J.P.s, others too few ‘which breedeth many tymes a faction in the one, and Tyrannie in the other’, Lansd. 53/85.

53 Mousley, , ‘Sussex county gentry’, pp. 250–3Google Scholar.

54 B. L. Lansd. MS 121/10, fos. 66–7; Smith, Hassell, County and court, p. 84Google Scholar.

55 B.L. microfilm of Salisbury MS 278; Kent Record Office U. 350.03; P.R.O. 066/1421, 439, 440.

56 Hawarde, , Reportes, p. 20Google Scholar.

57 Smith, Hassell, County and court, p. 85Google Scholar; Clark, , English provincial society, p. 261Google Scholar(Clark identifies at least 4 Essex supporters and suggests that the other 22 probably reflect some factional pressures); MacCulloch, Suffolk, Appendices I & III; for Wilts: P.R.O. C66/1435, 1468; SP 13 Case F no. 11; E372/440, 441; B. L. Harl, M S 6997/69, fo. 135 (Nov. 1595); P.R.O. Index 4208, p. 16 (23 Dec. 1595), p. 100 (5th July 1598).

58 Hawarde, , Reportes, p. 368Google Scholar.

59 C.S.P.D. 1603–10, p. 368; Diary of Walter Tonge, Esquire, 1604–28, Camden Soc. (1847), p. 50Google Scholar.