1B

AQA A-LEVEL HISTORY (7042)

HIS1D Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy, 1603-1702

________________________________________________________________

SECTION ONE Monarchs and Parliaments, 1603-1629

Topic 1 The Political Nation and the social basis of power

Key Question B: What other groups formed the Political Nation and from where was their power derived?

The Political Nation – other groups

Of the approximately 4 million people living in England at the beginning of the 17th century, only around 0.05% of the adult male population were part of the Political Nation.

The monarch was the undisputed head of the Political Nation, and some of the most important functions of secular (i.e., non-religious) government was carried out by Parliament. Both within and outside Parliament lay a number of different groups that held significantly less power but were still counted as part of the Political Nation.

The Nobility: The greater nobility (Dukes, Earls and Barons, the latter of whom carried the title ‘Lord’) were often from aristocratic backgrounds, denoting the fact they descended from one of England’s most-wealthy and traditionally privileged families, sometimes with close connections to the royal family. Through their possession of vast swathes of land (and therefore military resources, i.e., the people that worked on the land and owed their livelihoods to the noble family in question), they expected to be given high-ranking positions at the Royal Court and possibly even a seat on the monarch’s Privy Council. The fact that their loyalty and / or ability might be lacking was rarely taken into consideration. Because of the close personal relationships with the Crown and the system of patronage, the nobility were generally the monarch’s staunchest supporters and they sat, along with the most powerful bishops, in the House of Lords, where they were collectively known as ‘peers of the realm’. At a more local level, the monarch had to rely upon the nobility for the smooth running of government in the boroughs and shires of the country. Nobles might themselves act as judges, JPs (Justices of the Peace), sheriffs or royal officials, but more often they would appoint trusted members of the gentry to perform these tasks on their behalf.

The Gentry: The word gentry was a shortened form of the term ‘country gentlemen’. Some of this class were knights (a hereditary position denoted by the title ‘Sir’) and many held land of their own. Though these would be smaller holdings than the great estates one might expect to be in the possession of a noble, the rents paid to them were often more than enough to ensure prosperity without them requiring any other form of income. This meant that the gentry were most likely to become MPs in the House of Commons, a position that did not carry a salary and depended largely on local reputation in an era when politicians were generally nominated rather than elected. More minor gentry were called yeomen – independent farmers who might still work on the land but had become wealthy enough to buy a small share of it for themselves. Yeomen, who earned around 40 shillings (£2) a year, would have qualified for the vote, and therefore become part of the Political Nation.

The Professional Classes: There was no such thing as a ‘middle-class’ of people in the 17th century, but this modern-day term helps us understand the other group of people who became a significant force within the Political Nation in the 17th century. Merchants, bankers, doctors, lawyers, city officials and artisans (master-craftsmen or particularly skilled labourers) came to exercise a growing degree of political power. This was in part a result of their talent and hard work, and in part due to the growth of cities like London and the explosion of trade and wealth-generating opportunities. As many of these professionals gained enough wealth to purchase land and become members of the gentry, they are sometimes referred to as ‘pseudo-gentry’.

The Clergy: Although in many respects the clergy (those employed by the Church) were distinct from politics, the most powerful members could have an important role to play in secular government. For example, the most eminent Bishops occupied seats in the House of Lords, and it was not unusual for the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to be invited onto the Privy Council. At a lower level, priests were highly valued members of communities and churchwardens assisted the nobility and gentry with some of the functions of local government, although they cannot be said to have been part of the Political Nation.

Therefore, the Political Nation was composed of an elite of wealth, status and power who were united by the fact they had an important stake in the country (as either substantial landowners, agents of government or people who needed the nation to function effectively to continue to lead a privileged life).

The social basis of the Political Nation’s power

The dominance of the Political Nation was generally accepted by those beneath them in the social hierarchy. This remained the case even at a time when the rapidly expanding population led to serious shortages in food and land, higher rates of unemployment and greater reliance on the state for poor relief. The early to mid-17th century was known as a ‘little ice age’, with constant low temperatures causing many harvest failures which forced people into famine and starvation. Yet there were still very few challenges to the social order. The concept of the Great Chain of Being maintained that it was for the benefit of everyone that people accepted the position in society into which been placed by God.

Another concept that further reinforced the Great Chain of Being was paternalism, the idea that it was the fatherly duty of those higher in society to look after the interests of the less fortunate, especially in times of hardship. While tensions between the different groups undoubtedly existed, and usually manifested in the form of local rioting, these were relatively minor disturbances, and the participants’ demands were usually for more effective of law and order, rather than calls for the overturning of the established social hierarchy.