Elton’s interpretation of the roles of Somerset and Northumberland Essay

Geoffrey Elton presented a batch of summersault as an remaining-handed leader, who failed to fill the governmental vacuum the ascension of an infant cr give birthed head had created nonetheless, he was appalling minded and had visionary aims. On the other hand, Elton saw Northumber go by means of as ambitious and might greedy and, he did recognise that Northumberland had introduced welcome recovers to the finance and administration, which really marked an improvement upon summersaults rule. In this essay, I will argue that Eltons assessment of their m closures and proceedings was correct, although his judgement of their characters, although true to a indis frame upable goal, has been overdone. any(prenominal)rset exhibit very little concern for improver refine, as has been said by historians such as Elton, and his rule save exacerbated difficultys at the end of enthalpys reign. However, Northumberland showed more governmental great federal agency in tac kling the equally ruinous spotlight he faced and was non as ability hungry as Elton indicateed.There were significant problems at the end of atomic number 1s reign. His foreign constitution had led to a unretentive financial smear wars with France and Scotland, although a matter of national pride, rattling achieved very little and led to huge debts. Over 2 one thousand thousand had already been spent on the war with Scotland, however victory would im divorce far outweighed these huge financial repercussions. summerset, wherefore, inherited huge financial problems with huge debts and a de found specie in addition, the war with Scotland go on and hostilities with France were high. However, it would be a mistake to say that the maculation was at a percentage point of no ingathering, tosss political unfitness is show in his failure to deal with the situation inherited from Henry. Indeed, his actions worsened the financial post of the Cr profess and served only t o escalate discontent in his reign. almostrsets political inability is shown in his failure to discontinue the damaging Scottish war he didnt realise, as his victoror did, that the Scottish war was unsustainable. instead, summersaults decision to continue the war was the worst contingent start for his rule and fact mood of his inability, it lead to a poor economic situation byout his protectorate and also to his give itinerary of the more weighty issues facing his subjects.The Chantries Act (1547) that continued the dissolution of the monasteries in Henrys reign created inflation as a result, prices, especially grain, rose cursorily fuelling discontent among the poor. Had Somerset been more politically astute, he would have finish the Scottish war and beneathtaken financial iron out. Instead, he make little or no effort to resolve the economic problems and left Northumberland with a worse situation than he had inherited. In this respect, I agree with Elton, who said t hat Somerset was without any sign of administrative or political sense, 1 this was non, however, expressage to his economic indemnity.Somerset also inherited a nation divided up on religion. Henry, although he had split from papal authority, never made the luxuriant transition from Catholicism to Protestantism as Northumberland did later in the Edwardian period. Rather, the positive modifications, which followed the split from Rome, resulted in a confused nation. The ten articles of 1536 had callmed to establish England as Protestant however, the six articles 3 years later represented the return of some Catholic doctrine. As a result, there was a certain confusion and ambiguity as regards the state religion to some extent to do with the competition of the conservative and reform detailions of the court, but also the fact the Henry had never been totally converted to Protestantism. Nevertheless, since he followed a monarch who had implemented perhaps the largest u adeptthly reform in the history of the church, Somerset had to deal with a situation of apparitional insecurity.Arguably, the effects of ghostlike reform are harder to forecast than the effects of economic policy therefore, it is easier to condemn Somerset as inept on the grounding of his economic policies than it is on the can of his unearthly reforms. Somersets apparitional reforms moved towards Protestantism with the introduction of a peeled Prayer Book and the Act of Uniformity as salutary as the Chantries Act, which abolished the remnants of Catholicism. However, in an go about to appease both sides of the spectrum, a certain ambiguity still remained and Catholicism had not been categorically denied. However, the reforms were met only with discontent, for some it was too extreme and for others too moderate. The Treason Act, which ended restrictions on the watchword of phantasmal doctrine, served only to make matters worse and led to disorder.In monetary value of religious ref orm, the outcome would have been more stable had Somerset through nothing. We have seen that religious turmoil was the result of a lack of tenaciousness in the short Edwardian and Marian eras. This suggests that a period of constancy following the fast paced religious reform of the Henrician rule would have been salutary in Somersets protectorate. However, as we have noted, the outcome of religious reform would have been much(prenominal) harder to gauge at the time. turn Somersets religious policy is not the sign of an expert politician, it cannot be used to condemn him to the same extent as his economic record. His religious reform, therefore, supports Eltons go out that Somerset had talked much about liberty but had produced disorder. 2 His aim to appease the extremes can at least be seen as well meaning, while his actions were not those of an experienced politician furthermore, his opinion that appeasing the extremes was possible at this point is arguably naive.Somerset wa s poor at transaction with the growing feeling of discontent in England. non only was he more often than not responsible for the growth of discontent callable to his economic and religious policies, but more importantly, instead of dealing with the reservoir of discontent he attempt to dominance the disorder that resulted. The Vagrancy Act (1547) was a heavy-handed attempt to control the public, it meant that anyone out or work for 3 days would be branded with a V and sold into slavery for 2 years. He put out the message that dissent was not to be tolerated, though his action was strong it showed few signs of effective leadership. As his reign progressed it was clear that he showed no signs of dealing with the root of the issue, sooner to avoid rebellion. A reform programme was supposedly being put together by John Hales, who later turned out not to exist. unlessmore, having blamed the problems on envelopment, reforms to remedy the problem were merely piecemeal and demonst rated in determinativeness.Somerset was inept the paranoid measures preceding his fall such as bans on football and on the spreading of rumours simply confirm the venture that Somerset had no real understanding of the political situation. In a similar vein to his belief that he could appease the religious extremes, attempting to tranquilize a discontented populace with piecemeal anti-enclosure measures and a fake reform programme was equally naive. Somerset fell from grace because of his own inability to rule Eltons assessment was clearly correct Somerset was fateful as a leader. 3 However, Eltons view of Somerset as a humane meliorist with the best intentions exceeds the reasonable bounds of optimism. approximately throng, who have a most basic sense of human rights, would see the Vagrancy Act as simply morally corrupt. His poor management of the economy and heavy-handed measures of control hit those most in need the hardest. This demonstrates close to a total disregard f or the needs of the poor furthermore, anyone regarded as a humanitarian re actor, or at least a man with easily intentions, would be incapable of passing the Vagrancy Act. It has been conceded that some good will whitethorn have lay behind his religious reform, also anti-enclosure order whitethorn show faint concern for the poor. However, such depict is far outweighed by his record of controlling legislation. Somerset was not a humanitarian reformer Elton seems to have avoided the conclusion that a rudimentary presentation of the facts would suggest. Rather, the failure of anti-enclosure legislation is evidence of Somerset appeasing the elite as well attempting to calm down the poor, an end from which he could gain a lot more political capital. Indeed, far from accordring with Eltons thesis on this issue, I suggest that Somerset was motivated by a require to warrant his own survey of office staff.His continued use of proclamations as well as his neglect of the Privy Counc il demonstrates this motif. The Treason Act had done more than permit religious discussions it repealed a previous act, which said that royal proclamations had the same force as acts of Parliament. Consequently, Somerset was now able to issue proclamations without the consent of his council and he frequently availed himself of this opportunity. Indeed, on average Somerset issued 13 more proclamations per year that usual.Furthermore, his attempts to hold fast onto power by control rather than tackling the root issues point to a man who was motivated by a need to secure his own position. Elton did recognise his neglect of the council He alienated his fellow councillors whose feelings and ideas he persistently ignored. 4 However, Elton did not recognise the power seeking temperament of Somersets character. I would agree with Heard who presented Somerset, not as a man with noble aims as Elton suggests, but as an arrogant self-seeker. 5Therefore, It seems that Elton was correct in hi s judgement of Somerset as an inept leader as demonstrated in his economic and to some extent his religious policies as well as his abysmal handling of a situation of unrest, which he himself had created. However, Somerset was power seeking, not a man of noble aims his record of legislation was clearly not motivated by a concern for the poor. Elton said It is difficult to say who did more harm to the artless they were supposed to govern. 6 It can certainly be said that Somerset exacerbated the poor situation after Henrys reign, the economic situation worsened through continuation of the wars and the Chantries Act. Religious confusion was not go and arguably fuelled dissent and he left a country in unrest after the rebellions that led to his fall. Therefore, I agree with Eltons view that he was inept and cause harm to the country, although I disagree with Eltons view of Somersets aims.Northumberland, on the other hand, introduced welcome reforms. Elton argues as much, however I bel ieve Elton exaggerated his assessment of Northumberland as power hungry furthermore, Northumberlands effective reforms did not harm the country and it is raw to tar Northumberland and Somerset with the same brush. Northumberland inherited a worse situation than Somerset and demonstrated political astuteness in his action, which dealt with the root of the problem. In addition, his dealings with the Privy Council and use of proclamation were far removed from the power hungry tactics of Somerset. Though his religious policy was arguably acrid and his attempts to alter the conquestion seem power seeking, Elton exaggerated this element of Northumberlands character.Arguably, Northumberlands best move was to end the Scottish and French wars. Indeed, the way in which the deuce leaders dealt with the wars can be seen as primal in defining their rule and also how we interpret their ability. The treaty of Boulogue, although bad for England in the short-term, allowed the finances to improve and Northumberland to focus on the serious kindly unrest, Somersets mess that Northumberland was forced to deal with. The treaty is a clear indication of Northumberlands superior ability to Somerset thusly, this theme is shown throughout the governance. Far from harming the country, Northumberland had shown realism and taken the first step towards recovery. Furthermore, re-evaluation of the coinage and prohibition of usury in 1552 helped to improve the economy. Northumberland, in contrast with Somerset, made some positive achievements his economic policies helped to reverse the terrible situation left by Somerset. Moreover, his governance seems to have shown a commitment to reform, which had a incumbent and lasting positive effect.The reformation of the revenue courts was indicative of this commitment to reform. In 1549, five ministries were responsible for collecting money and the situation was worsened by corruption in some courts. Although reform was not carried out under his rule, the recommendations of the Royal Commission were carried out in the Marian era. Therefore, the Boulogue treaty couple with other economic policies and a clear commitment to financial reform demonstrates that Northumberland was an able politician. Northumberlands economic policies were sound and he should be praised for commission a course out of the economic disaster created by Henry and worsened by Somerset. Indeed, it is arguable that Northumberland set the foundations for stable finances through into the Marian and Elizabethan eras.Elton notes that in Marys reign financial and administrative recovery owed nothing to the queen or her policy. 7 This adds metier to the occupation that Northumberland deserves particular credit for his economic policy. Certainly, Elton was unreasonable to ask which of the two did more harm to the country. In doing so Elton comes dangerously close to equation the achievements of the two however, Northumberland could not be accused of harmin g the country, particularly in reference work to the finances. However, on this issue, it seems that this quote should be taken with a pinch of salt, for, inside the same paragraph Elton praised Northumberlands economic policies. Ignoring that rather peculiar quote, I would concur with Eltons high acclaim of Northumberlands financial reforms, which Elton says provided the basis for sound finance in the reign of Elizabeth I. 8His religious policy resulted in a largely more favourable result than that of Somerset. Northumberlands policy was clear the Church of England was to become Protestant. The 1552 Prayer Books changed the services to come across Protestant doctrine and all glamour was removed in favour of simplicity. Somersets mistake had been to introduce half-hearted, indecisive reform that attempted to appease as many people as possible. By contrast, Northumberland was decisive arguably, this was a risky strategy as it may have incited Catholic rebellion. However, rebellion s were small and Northumberland was successful in crushing them.It is clear that his religious policy was, once again, a sign of his political ability. Northumberland had recognised that decisive action would create the stability required after the fast paced and confusing reform of his predecessors. His religious policy has been accused of being harsh though this may be the case, it was a successful policy. Furthermore, it is arguable that had Mary not usurped the Protestant reformation, Northumberlands religious policy would have enjoyed the same long-term success as his financial policies. Northumberlands successful consolidation of the reformation supports Eltons argument that he showed skill in public affairs 9.Further support for Eltons assessment of Northumberlands role comes from his handling of the well-disposed unrest. He deserves credit for his handling of the serious law and order problem during his rule. The aftermath of the 1549 rebellions and bad economic situation f ollowing Somersets fall coupled with three bad harvests and a collapse of the framework trade meant that Northumberland had serious social unrest and disaffection to deal with. Rather than attempting to control and crush the unrest like Somerset, Northumberland attempted to solve the root problems and therein Northumberlands greater understanding of the situation is demonstrated.Sheep tax was abolished, enclosure commissions were abandoned, an Act in 1552 protected arable farming and a new poor law meant that Northumberland had a more successful social policy. Furthermore, his success with financial recovery enhanced his efforts at calming dissent largely through reducing inflation. In this regard, though not a humanitarian reformer, Northumberland demonstrated a concern for social justice 10, which was clearly greater than that of Somerset. Again I would support the view of Elton that Northumberland showed political skill demonstrated here by his social policy, which solved the roo t problems rather than attempting to control the dissent.Therefore, Elton was correct in pointing out the very positive achievements of Northumberlands reign. He played an important role in halting the financial and religious problems, which were created by Henry and exacerbated by Somerset. This was not a point that Elton expressly put foregoing, however I think this was a significant part of Northumberlands role, which should be emphasised. I would also agree with Elton that his financial reforms were powerful far past his fall although I would venture to suggest that his religious reform also had an influence in the future, though to a lesser extent, in shaping Elizabeths policy 11.There may be an argument, however, to suggest that the assessment of Northumberlands role in the preceding paragraphs has gone(p) too far to presenting Northumberland as a political genius. It must not be forgotten that Northumberland always had the benefit of hindsight, having seen the failures of Somersets reign. His financial, religious and social policies can all be seen as informed by the failures of Somersets reign. Whether, for example, Northumberland would have followed the same decisive religious policy had he been the direct successor of Henry is an interesting question. Therefore we must conclude that Northumberland was an apt politician, though certainly not anywhere near a political genius as we must recognise that he was able to learn from Somersets reign.It is possible to argue on the exact political abilities of Northumberland and how much advantage hindsight afforded him however, the fact remains that his achievements were positive. While I may give more credit to Northumberland in some areas of his role, I would concur with Eltons view that Northumberland was an apt politician. Moreover, his view that Northumberlands rule marked an improvement on Somersets 12 is clearly correct and is supported by other historians, such as Alan Smith Northumberland was a muc h more realistic and effective swayer than the traditionally overpraised Somerset. 13Elton was correct in his assessment of Northumberland as greedy, however he has exaggerated the claim that Northumberland was power hungry. It is clear that this desire for power was present in his character as revealed in the desperate attempt to alter the time at the end of his rule nevertheless, it did not prevail his governance as Somersets desire for power motivated much of his policy. It is undeniable that during his rule his power and wealth increased significantly. initially he gave himself the Earldom of Warwick and later became the Duke of Northumberland. He proceeded to make financial gains through land many of his followers took the liberty to do the same. Clearly, he exploited his position to satisfy his greed and many argued this was at the expense of the King. Therefore, I would not argue with Eltons view that Northumberland was greedy.His desperate attempt to alter the succession i s certainly a sign of a serious desire for power. He attempted in vain to abandon the previous succession acts of Henrys reign to bypass Mary and Elizabeth and install Lady Jane Grey, through whom Northumberland could retain a high level of power. It was a failure from the outset, he was unable to secure Marys arrest and upon the death of Edward the people of England opted unsurprisingly for the rightful heir.It was a dismal end to his governance and certainly evidence of a serious desire for power. However, as evidence of his desire for power, it should be viewed in the context of his whole governance. This was an act of desperation at the end of a rule in which his policies could not be seen as indicative of a thirst for power. Many of Somersets policies were methods of control to secure his position moreover, he had demonstrated his desire for power through continued use of proclamation and a neglect of his council. Northumberland, despite the end of his rule, displayed a far mor e restrained policy and attitude to government, which leads me to the conclusion that Elton has exaggerated his claims of Northumberland as power hungry.Northumberland restored the Privy Council to its proper position under his instruction and control. Although he did not limit his power to use proclamations, he was much more cautious with their use making sure they were always based on parliamentary statute furthermore, he made sure he consulted the council. This restrained attitude to government is evidence of him limiting his power and therefore is not demonstrative of desire for power. Of course, one could argue that he had learnt from Somersets mistakes and realised that the approach he took was the best way to suffer in his councils favour and thus maintain power. This argument leads to the diametrical conclusion that this attitude to government demonstrates his desire for power. However, the fallacy of the latter argument is that his attitude to government led to the reten tion of his position, not to power. His motivation for this kind with his council was to remain in his position the fact remains that through these means his power was limited and therefore it seems that it is more reasonable to accept the former argument. His policy and governance was not indicative of power hunger.Therefore, his desperate attempt to alter the succession coupled with his moderate policy and governance as discussed above lead to the conclusion that he did have a desire for power, but not to the extent that Elton suggested. It is worthy of note that the very nature of Somerset and Northumberlands rules implies a certain extent of power hunger. Their positions relied upon victorious advantage of the political vacuum opened up by the infant monarch. Therefore, I would agree with Elton that Northumberland was greedy, however to say that Northumberland was exceedingly ambitious of power 14 is an exaggeration and is not supported by his record in power. Lastly, it must be noted that though Northumberland may have displayed some unpleasant character traits, this does not infringe upon the success of his reform programmes.In brief conclusion, I agree with Eltons interpretation of the roles of Somerset and Northumberland to a certain extent. I agree with Elton that Somerset was incompetent and his role did indeed harm the country exacerbating the problems he inherited from Henry. However, Eltons view of Somerset as a humanitarian reformer is an error. Largely, I concur with Eltons view of Northumberland although I would give him more credit for dealing with serious problems he faced and leaving a lasting political influence. Furthermore, he was undoubtedly greedy, yet Elton has exaggerated his desire for power. If we ignore the characters of the two rulers, Eltons general view seems to be that Somerset was damaging whereas Northumberland brought forward marked improvements. In this general sense, I would agree with Eltons thesis.1 Elton, G.R. England under the Tudors. p. 2082 ibidem3 Ibid. p. 2104 Ibid. p. 2085 Heard, N. quoted from Webb, C. Was it the policies pursued by Henry VIII that caused the mid-Tudor crisis? 6 Elton, G.R. England under the Tudors. p. 2107 Elton, G.R. England under the Tudors. p. 2148 Ibid. p. 2099 Ibid. p. 21010 Smith, A.G.R. The Emergence of a Nation State. p. 7111 Anderson, A. and Imperato, T. An Introduction to Tudor England 1485-1603. p. 15412 Elton, G.R. England under the Tudors. p. 20913 Smith, A.G.R. The Emergence of a Nation State. p. 7314 Elton, G.R. England under the Tudors. p. 209