As mentioned above, Elizabeth is no great fan of parliament. She cannot control the elections of MPs and so it is in parliament that she has to face her largest body of critics. Consequently she only summons parliament ten times in the course of her forty-five-year reign (most monarchs before her summoned one a year). However, although she cannot control who is elected, she can control almost everything else. She addresses MPs directly, with great effect. She stipulates what parliament may and may not discuss, and bans an MP from the House of Commons for introducing legislation that is not to her liking.28 She influences MPs individually by threatening to withhold appointments and patronage. She appoints the Speaker of the House of Commons, and through him controls the debates. And if she so wishes, she can simply dismiss parliament. Although in theory the queen runs the country in collaboration with the privy council and parliament, in reality it is governed in line with Elizabeth’s wishes.
THE NOBILITY
In the Middle Ages kings constantly had to watch out for great lords waiting in the wings. These could be the king’s own cousins; sometimes they even were his brothers or sons. Elizabeth does not have this problem. Her grandfather, Henry VII, had no brothers or cousins. He had just two daughters and one surviving son, Henry VIII, who in turn sired two daughters and one legitimate son, Edward VI. As the last surviving child of Henry VIII, Elizabeth is in the extremely fortunate position that she does not have to contend with powerful royal dukes. There is no obvious heir champing at the bit – and that is just how she wants things to remain.29 She consistently refuses to name a successor, even when parliament demands that she does so. In her first parliament she declares that she will die a virgin and, despite being tempted on more than one occasion to change her mind, she remains unmarried. She knows that, if she were to acknowledge her eldest aunt’s granddaughter, Mary, the Catholic queen of Scots, as her heir, she would only make herself a bigger target for Catholic assassins. When asked to declare her will on the succession, she responds: ‘Do you think I could love my own winding sheet?’ As for her other cousins, she has no qualms about locking up Lady Catherine Grey, as noted above.
Elizabeth has very few over-mighty lords to deal with too. After the Catholic duke of Norfolk is executed for treason in June 1572 (for his part in the Ridolfi Plot), there are no more dukes in England. Like her grandfather Henry VII, Elizabeth has a policy of not creating any new marquesses or viscounts, and she creates very few barons and even fewer earls. The reason is to limit the power of her subjects and thus strengthen the authority of her government. Even the bishops, who used to exercise political opposition to kings in the old days, are politically weak. They are no longer servants of the Roman Church, independent of the king of England, but serve the monarch in her role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Rather than challenging the queen, they find themselves having to preach ‘the doctrine of the godly prince’ – or, in this case, the godly princess.30 Elizabethan England is thus devoid of private armies, royal dukes and political bishops. Those considering revolt against Elizabeth have no one to turn to for leadership.
Elizabeth’s careful policy means that there is something of a scarcity of noblemen in England. After the execution of the duke of Norfolk, the highest rank in the peerage is that of marquess. Never a common title, there is just one in 1600 (the marquess of Winchester), plus a dowager marchioness (the widow of the last marquess of Northampton, William Parr, who dies in 1571). Third-highest in rank are the earls; there are eighteen of these in 1600.31 Next come the two viscounts, Lord Montagu and Lord Howard of Bindon.32 The lowest rank is the baronage: there are thirty-seven barons in all.33 In total, just fifty-seven peers are summoned to parliament at the start of the reign and fifty-five at the end (underage heirs are not summoned). Collectively they are all peers of the realm, but the equality suggested by that word ‘peers’ is misleading. Even within each class of title there is a hierarchy, the older titles taking precedence over the more recent ones. There are huge discrepancies of wealth too. Only two or three lords have an income of £10,000 per year; most have over £800, some as little as £300.34 Thomas Wilson estimates that the earls and the marquess have an average income of £5,000 per year and the barons and viscounts about £3,000.35 As you will see, the very idea of ‘equality’ is something that Elizabethans reckon only relates to men when they stand before God on Judgement Day. Here on Earth, there is no such thing.
Income does not equate to spending power – not when you are a peer of the realm and can borrow money. Take the example of the young Henry Percy, ninth earl of Northumberland. His father, the eighth earl, has a good income in 1582 (£4,595), but after he dies in 1585 a large part of the estate is apportioned to provide an income for his widow, the dowager countess, leaving young Henry with ‘just’ £3,363. The problem is that Henry proceeds to spend twice that. In his own words: ‘Hawks, hounds, horses, dice, cards, apparel, mistresses; all other riot of expense that follow them were so far afoot and in excess as I knew not where I was or what I did until, out of my means of £3,000 yearly, I had made shift in one year and a half to be £15,000 in debt.’36 Fortunately for Henry, one of the privileges of being a nobleman is that he cannot be imprisoned for debt, so he is at least clear of that worry. Other privileges include the right to be judged by his peers, paying very little tax and freedom from torture.37 Having said this, with Elizabeth on the throne, it is probably best not to rely upon these privileges too heavily. The queen is not like her tyrannical father, Henry VIII, who would get around a lord’s right to be judged by his peers by having the offending man summarily executed; however, not many courts will defy the queen’s wrath. Several peers of the realm spend years imprisoned in the Tower before they even come to trial.
THE GENTRY
Rich and privileged as the nobility are, it is the gentry who own and run England. They are the 500 or so knights with country estates, and approximately 15,000 other gentlemen with an income from land sufficient to guarantee they do not have to work for a living.38 In this group you have the greatest disparities of wealth – from knights as rich as Sir John Harington (later Lord Harington) and Sir Nicholas Bacon, with incomes of £4,000 or more per year, down to local gentlemen with a thousand acres let out to tenant farmers for not much more than £100. Thomas Wilson declares that to be a gentleman one should have £500 per year in the south of England and £300 in the north.39 In reality, incomes of more than £200 are rare among the northern gentry. Also, many men who describe themselves as gentlemen have much less than this. When John Webbe, ‘gentleman’ of Frittenden, Kent, dies in 1582 he leaves moveable goods to the value of just £65.40 John Love, ‘gentleman’ of Cranbrook, leaves his widow just £32 of moveable goods and about the same amount in debts in 1590; and Jerman Webbe, ‘gentleman’ of Pluckley, leaves just £27 of goods and £29 of debts in 1593.41 Half of all the local ‘gentlemen’ dying in Kent in Elizabeth’s reign leave goods worth less than £167.42 The relationship of wealth to status is thus complicated. Some people see them as completely separate issues: they think that having a coat of arms is the crucial factor denoting gentlemanly status, armigerous men being descended from knights and thus having the right to call themselves ‘esquire’. It is not surprising, therefore, that families in every county are claiming coats of arms, whether they truly are entitled to them or not. Heralds (officers of the College of Arms) make regular visitations of the counties to examine these claims. Talk about hierarchy: at a time when there is no national police force, there is a national organisation devoted to policing the right to bear a coat of arms.
You begin to get a sense of the extent of the gentry’s dominant position when you compare their total wealth with that of the nobility. All the earls, barons and other lords have a combined income of approximately £220,000 in 1600. The income of the gentry is at least ten times as much, if not twenty times. And wealth is not the limit of their influence. They control the rural population through governing them, employing them as servants, and directing the
majority who are their tenants. There are 1,400 Justices of the Peace (JPs), who sit as magistrates in each county, and all are drawn from the ranks of the gentry. In the absence of a standing army, the defence of the realm is overseen by the Deputy Lieutenants of each county, who have authority over the ‘trained bands’ or militia. Again, these men are drawn from the ranks of the gentry. In Sir Walter Raleigh’s words, ‘The gentry are the garrisons of good order throughout the realm.’ Small wonder, then, that Elizabeth takes such care over the lists of Justices of the Peace. She pores over them and pretends she is personally acquainted with every gentleman in the kingdom. Some courtiers snigger at this behind her back; but, in truth, she does know a great number of them because of her progresses through the country. Displease the queen and you can bet she will remember your name when it comes to scrutinising those lists.
The other area in which the gentry have a large say in running the country is in parliament. They exert influence in two ways. First, they take a major role in electing the seventy-four ‘knights of the shire’ who form approximately one-third of the House of Commons. Second, a large number of gentlemen are sent to parliament as representatives of boroughs, through the patronage of wealthy landowners. The duke of Norfolk, for instance, sends eighteen gentlemen to the House of Commons as representatives of boroughs where he is the major landowner.43 The gentry’s representation extends to urban areas too. You might have thought that the larger towns would want to be represented by merchants and traders, but often a community will choose a member of the gentry, on the basis that he will have more influence over his fellow MPs.
PROFESSIONS
There are three distinct professions or vocations in England: the law, the Church and medicine. All three have an extended period of training, and require considerable investment. All three are the subjects of university degrees and can generate a healthy income. Schoolmasters are not considered wholly ‘professional’ because they do not need a degree and they are not normally paid more than tradesmen. Similarly, although music can be studied at a university, it does not make men rich, so musicians are not considered ‘professional’ either. Even writing books is not generally considered a ‘professional’ activity. There are no publishers paying royalties, alas, so one needs to have an income in order to be able to write in the first place. Shakespeare is one of the very few writers who manages to elevate himself from a relatively humble level to the status of a gentleman. It is a salutary thought that, although he manages to acquire sufficient wealth to buy New Place in Stratford and a significant portion of the rectorial tithes of the parish, one of the heralds dismisses his newly acquired coat of arms as that of ‘Shakespeare the Player’.44
It is the Church and the law that offer the greatest opportunities to an ambitious man. If you rise through the ranks of the clergy to become archbishop of Canterbury, you will not only have a seat in the House of Lords, but an income of £2,682 per year. You won’t be poor if you become bishop of Winchester (£2,874) or Ely (£2,135).45 However, the other bishoprics are worth considerably less. The archbishop of York has £1,610 per year, the bishop of London £1,000, the bishop of Lichfield £560 and the bishop of Exeter £500. The bishop of Bristol has just £294 and the bishop of St Asaph, in Wales, £187. Senior clergy (e.g. precentors, chancellors, deans, canons, prebendaries and archdeacons) may earn £50–£450 per year, depending on their diocese; but the average rector or vicar administering to a single parish will be lucky to receive more than £30 per year.
Those who profess the law can do better. When Sir Nicholas Bacon dies he leaves £4,450 of cash and silver, plus an income from land of about £4,000 per year. Sir Edward Coke is reputed to have an income of between £12,000 and £14,000, making him one of the richest men of the century; and Sir John Popham is not far behind with £10,000 per year.46 Obviously not many lawyers earn in the thousands, but most make a decent living, in the region of £100 per year.
Medicine is the least rewarded of the three professions, both financially and in social distinction. Elizabeth does not bestow a knighthood on any of her physicians or surgeons.47 Most wealthy Elizabethans do not pay their medical practitioners anywhere near as much as their lawyers. It is perhaps not surprising. Faced with a legal issue, an Elizabethan lawyer will serve you just as well as his modern counterpart. You would be unwise to place that much confidence in an Elizabethan physician.
MERCHANTS, TRADERS AND TOWNSMEN
Civic society too is hierarchical: another great spectrum of wealth, social status and authority. At one extreme you have the richest London merchants, some of whom have capital worth £50,000 at the start of the reign and twice that much at the end.48 These men tend to have significant political roles, becoming an alderman (the chief representative of one of the twenty-six London wards), lord mayor or the master of a livery company. They have considerable influence; several wealthy London merchants are knighted. It is commonly said that most aldermen have goods to the value of £20,000.49 At the other end of the social scale there are merchants who are destitute, and shopkeepers and artificers who struggle to earn £8 per year.
In most large towns about half the population have no goods or assets of any significant value. The larger provincial towns and cities in particular are dominated by a few merchant families who own virtually all the wealth. In Exeter, for instance, 2 per cent of the population own 40 per cent of the taxable property, and just 7 per cent own two-thirds of it.50 On top of this, life expectancy is shorter, people marry later, have fewer children and a greater proportion of their children die young. Why then do the other 93 per cent not simply leave? One answer to this is obvious: where else would they go? These people rely heavily on their fellow townsmen to defend their reputations and to protect each other physically. Many have responsibilities to their friends and kin in the city. Leaving your home town is not something you do without considerable preparation or being in a state of desperation.
There are other reasons why people choose to live in urban areas. When a rich merchant becomes pre-eminent, he looks to move out to a country estate and to set himself up as a country gentleman; therefore no English merchant family dominates a large town for long.51 New families and individuals rise up, competing to take the place of those that have left. Hugh Clopton and William Shakespeare are both good examples of men who move to London, make their fortunes and return to their place of birth. You will find much the same in cities such as Exeter and Coventry: the mayors and aldermen are often sons of country yeomen who have come to make their fortune. Don’t think the urban rich are all born rich. The wealthy 7 per cent is not a static cohort in any city or town.
For the less well-off a city or town offers a certain reliability of income. Take Exeter, for example, which has a population of about 8,000. About 30 per cent of these are dependants under the age of fifteen, which leaves a population of adults and working youths of 5,600. About 880 of these are servants. Another 2,000 are women – 480 widows, 80 independent single women and 1,440 dependent wives.52 That leaves about 2,720 independent adult males. In theory, a man needs to become a freeman of the city in order to run a business. To do this, he has to be the son of a freeman, serve an apprenticeship or pay a hefty fine of £1–£5 (depending on his circumstances). How many of those 2,720 men qualify? If you examine the rolls held in Exeter’s Guildhall you will see that 1,192 individuals are admitted to the freedom of the city over the period Michaelmas (29 September) 1558 to Michaelmas 1603.53 Given that most men gain their freedom in their early to mid-twenties, they can expect to be freemen for about another thirty-five years. Thus, in any year, about 930 of those 2,720 men are freemen of the city. In addition, there are the professionals: clergy, lawyers and medical men – and the schoolmasters whose authority to practise is normally based on a university degree or a licence granted by the bishop. These people might not own a significant portion of the wealth of the city, but they all have a considerable stake in its good management. The freemen themselves take a part in this, through
electing the twenty-four aldermen who run the city. The huge inequalities of wealth thus distort our image of the satisfaction of the citizens at the time. A barber or a butcher in Elizabethan Exeter is not necessarily preoccupied by the discrepancies of wealth around him – no more than his modern equivalent is today – if he is earning enough to keep his family clothed and fed.
54
What about those men who are not freemen or professionals? Some are still young, with few financial responsibilities. They may be apprentices or journeymen working to save enough money to pay the fines to become freemen. Only about 10 per cent of all those becoming freemen of Exeter do so simply through the easy route of succession from their father. The remainder earn their positions. Others are employees, labourers and unskilled workers. Some are described by their contemporaries as ‘poor’, owning nothing except the clothes they stand up in. A number of those are truly destitute or are itinerant beggars looking for food (we will meet them later). Nevertheless, in a town they do at least have a chance of finding employment or a meal. Merchants are not the only ones who look at a city as a place of opportunity.
The Time Traveller's Guide to Elizabethan England Page 7
