The Development of class and Gaskell’s Response to the Social Question.

The idea of class was a new phenomenon that began to develop in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It helped to delineated between the socio-economic groups within the newly industrialized European sphere and created a set of social customs, economic ideologies and political alignments associated within each of the classes. These were highly apparent in England as the leader of the Industrial Revolution. The stratification of economic class in nineteenth century shaped the major concerns of politics of the time in literature like Elizabeth Gaskell’s North and South and the character therein, served as an allegorical report on the “Social Question” and comments on society’s views on the different social classes.

My Thoughts always return to the Necessity of exer-cising Politicks in cultivating & protecting & extending our Manufactures as the principal Source for improving our Lands, multiplying our People & increasing & establishing our Commerce & Naval Force.[1]

The factors that contributed to this economic boom were the increase in population, better agriculture, the expansion of worldwide trade and banking, better transportation of goods and technological innovations. In the late eighteenth century new developments in the textile industry helped to increase the production of thread and finished cloth. This gave English merchants the advantage to undersell the textile markets in continental Europe, the Americas and India. As a result of these factors, the classes began to take their forms with the aristocracy who still had power through parliament, the rising middle class rapidly gaining wealth and the wage workers whose lifestyle had only minorly improved with the industrialization of England.

The rise of the industrial revolution was a key factor in the development of class. No longer did the gentry control mercantile and industrial enterprises because the shift in the economy from agricultural to manufacturing opened the doors for the growing middling or bourgeoisie class of English peoples with expendable wealth. The increase in population and the production of manufactured goods helped to standardize life that granted even the lowest class’s basic needs of clothing and food. The change from arduous handicraft like woodworking to streamlined mass production allowed for the middle class to use their wealth to enrich their lives with fancy knockoff furniture that populated the homes of the aristocracy. There were many factors that contributed to the success of the bourgeoisie namely their personal views of class drawn from the complex political and economic views of society.

The fractioning of English society constructed class on various levels; the first being traditional religious responsibility and social views. The faith of the aristocracy was of an orderly sort where the gentry had a Christian obligation to care for the welfare of the lower classes. They preferred to maintain parish poor relief and charity. The bourgeoisie drew heavily from the philosophies of Malthus and viewed the poor as having:

“…the tendency to a virtuous attachment is so strong that there is a constant effort towards an increase of population. This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower classes of the society to distress and to prevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition.”[2]

The bourgeoisie viewed the condition of the poor as a result of their immoral lifestyle. The two room hovels that the working class occupied were a result of the poor spending their earnings on gin and betting on bull baiting, cockfight, bare knuckle boxing and shin kicking. To the middle class, the wage workers are tied down with their filthy lifestyle of unrestrained sexuality and sin. While the working class did live in squalor, they had little choice in mobility as the only regular jobs were in urban areas in the crowded factory. The conditions of these factories were abhorrent to the aristocracy who viewed the management of the middle class as little more than wage slavery. Yet, there was little concern over their condition except when it was politically advantageous.

Another outlook that divided the classes were politics and access to lawmaking. The aristocracy was established as the caretakers of the British peoples. They represented the concerns and issues from their constituencies in the boroughs and counties which sought to maintain tradition. However, in 1780 there was little representation of the “Black Country ironmasters, West Riding woolen manufactures and Lancashire cotton magnates[3]” it  was only until the election of Sir Robert Peele in 1790 that the middle class interested became represented in the House of commons. Lacking direct representation in Parliament, the bourgeoisie began to lobby members of parliament with newspapers and pamphlets as well as manipulate the working class in large rallies and demonstrations against the gentry’s dominant voice in politics. The bourgeoisie began to place collective pressure on Parliament through organizations like Chambers of Manufacturers, trade committees, local and regional associations. Men like John Norris viewed the Chamber of Manufacturers as a “vital manifestation of the industrialists’ sophistication and political expertise: in its after math local groups, organized for industrial lobbying and became, in consequence, steadily more powerful and proficient[4]”

The industrialists’ lobbying of Parliament, gave some of these aristocrats an opportunity to grab the advantage of supporting the industrial upstarts. The Whig political party began to push for free trade and individual liberty and freedoms because between 1760 and 1800 the party, which had become increasingly corrupt and dependent upon political patronage, disintegrated into a number of smaller groups. The rising middle class wanted a piece of that power and began to put their support behind the Whigs and radicals in parliament. The bourgeoisie supported the reformation of the voting districts and changing the property requirements for voting Members into Parliament. The Tory party and the aristocracy feared this as an upheaval of the natural order and tradition of the English government. The Whig party therefore became the political supporter of the new financial and mercantile interests who would profit, in the early nineteenth century, from the wars against France; just as the Tories represented the old landed interests who, because they were taxed to support the same wars, opposed them.

Leaders like John Charles Spencer, Viscount Althorp and third Earl Spencer were motivated by the belief that reform was desirable and in accordance with Whig principles. They felt that the existing system was inadequate and they wanted to get rid of the rotten boroughs and corrupt practices. They genuinely were concerned about the disharmony between the distribution of seats and the wealth and population. They wanted to include the middle classes in the system of government. This allowed the system of economics that developed out the construction of class blurred the lines that separated the gentry from the middle class. Where once only the gentry were able to hold economic monopolies on goods and trade, good investments and savings allowed the middle class to break through and accommodate themselves in great country homes and urban apartments. Through the eighteenth century developments of the Bank of England and the stock market, the ideas of a “laissez faire” economy were allowed to mature under the careful eye of the English government. This was because the newly industrialized English economic machine was seen as a benefit to the economic growth of England in the world market. England was able to compete with China with their development of porcelain production; compete with India in cotton processing and weaving; and the discovery of pig iron with coal made them a major producer of cheaper iron.

Elizabeth Gaskell’s North and South represents the inter-class conflict in Milton, a town Gaskell based on newly industrialized Manchester, England. Gaskell represents each class accord to their role in society: disconnected and self-absorbed aristocracy, pragmatic middle class industrialists and downtrodden, sickly workers on the verge of rioting. The characters that Gaskell depicts serve as a response to the ever present “social question,” that is what to do about the working class’ demands and work environmental conditions. She creates a situation in Milton that is endemic of the time period, a labor strike which pits the managerial or bourgeoisie class against the cotton mill workers or proletariat class. The reaction to the situations and each character interpretation represents Gaskell’s view of England in the early nineteenth century.

            Gaskell creates an image of aristocracy concerned with idle matters. The protagonist Margaret Hale is caught in the middle of a class struggle she cannot truly comprehend because her in her own rural aristocratic life she has only known workers and servants to be loyal and content with their work because they seemingly are taken care of and self-sufficient. Her mother’s servant, Dixon, is devoted to  the  daughter of Sir John Beresford, Maria, despite her marrying for love to a poor vicar Richard Hale, Margaret’s father. Gaskell depicts Richard Hale as a man torn between his alignment to the Church of England and his own personal beliefs. While she never goes into detail about the issue directly, it is assuredly associated with his son, Frederick’s role in a mutiny at sea and the disgrace it has brought to their family. Margaret’s mother and her family are depicted as focusing on matters of advantageous marriages, the overbearing heat of Italy and the frivolous items of exotic Indian shawls and fancy gowns. They never really concern themselves with the world outside their upscale London home or country houses. It is from this view of the world that Margaret is tossed into the conflict between the growing middle class and the impoverished wage worker when she arrives in Milton.

            As Margaret Hale enters the newly industrialized town of Milton she notices the stark contrast from her country house in Helstone. The air is thick with smoke and its seems like there is a raincloud above the town but as Gaskell describes:

Here and there a great oblong many-windowed factory stood up, like a hen among her chickens, puffing out ‘unparliamentary’ smoke, and sufficiently accounting for the cloud which Margaret had taken to foretell rain[5]

This is the common depiction of mill towns of the period with their smokestacks pouring black smoke high from the parliamentary decreed height smokestacks. The air quality is terrible and gives the town an ominous feel. It is in this context that Gaskell introduces John Thornton, a highly idealized ambitious manager of the local mill and student of Richard Hale.  Thornton has worked his way up from a Merchant Shop and used his knowledge of the textile business to achieve his role as manager of the Marlborough Mills. He has reconstructed himself by refining his speech from the local colloquialism to standardize English which was the track that many of the middle class of this era were following to separate themselves from the working classes. In his home his mother Mrs. Thornton dominates the household and maintains her son’s wealth through her rabid support of his liberalism.

Thornton’s life exemplifies the middle class between the landowners and the working class because he adheres to the liberal idealism of self-reliance and free trade. Thornton’s view of the worker-manager relationship is very clear as he explains to Margaret Hale’s question over the concerns of the workers. Thornton see himself as the “the unquestioned and irresponsible master of my hands, during the hours that they labour for me. But those hours past, our relation ceases; and then comes in the same respect for their independence that I myself exact[6].”  He, like many of the managers and owners of factories, see nothing wrong in their apathy to the plight of the worker because they choose to live in squalor and drunkenness. Yet unlike the other managers, Thornton does attempt to understand the workers and when the rioters come to Marlborough Mills he does confront them. He also tries to understand Margaret’s views of the workers base on her relationship with the newly met Bessie and Nicholas Higgins but Thornton cannot help but disagree with her. He understands that if he raises the wages it will drive up the costs of finished cotton textiles and his buyers will choses other factories to deal with because both domestically and internationally there will always be cheaper means of production. Thornton does not see it as his “oppression” but only his means of self-preservation.

            Gaskell’s depicts two views of the working class, the malcontent John Boucher and the hard-working but downtrodden Nicholas Higgins. Gaskell uses the union metaphorically as a plowshare preparing the ground for daisies (i.e. the workers) to prosper but men “Such as Boucher - 'twould be settin' him up too much to liken him to a daisy; he's liker a weed lounging over the ground[7]” Boucher’s character is the type of worker that the middle class fears. He is a drunkard, a terrible loom worker and has eight children under the age of eight that he cannot feed.  Boucher complains about finding work to support his family yet what little earnings he makes he spends on alcohol. Boucher turns to violence and leads the rioters that marched on Thornton’s Marlborough Mills sabotaging the union’s diplomatic bargaining hopes. After the riot, Boucher goes into hiding and come out to beg for work at another textile mill in Milton, but is turned away because of his association with the union. In a last desperate moment, Boucher commits suicide in the stream that the textile mills used for dyeing cloth and is found with a heavily discolored and bloated face.       

Where Boucher is the worst kind of worker, Nicholas Higgins is Gaskell’s idea of the conflicted yet good worker. His speech in heavily accented and he lives in a hovel with his two daughters. When Margaret Hale visits his daughter, Bessie Gaskell uses their dialogue as a means of stating the condition of the worker at the time. This is seen as Bessie explains that even though her father is not like the other strikers who drink away their wages, Mr. Higgins drinks because he is at his wit’s end. Higgins makes the case that he cannot make ends meet and does not understand why if Milton’s mills are doing well why the workers are not reaping the benefits of it. Higgins relates his faith in the unions to Mr. Hale after Bessie’s death by stating after the masters’ fathers had abused and overworked the mill workers’ fathers that:

In those days of sore oppression th' Unions began; it were a necessity. It's a necessity now, according to me. It's a withstanding of injustice, past, present, or to come. It may be like war; along wi' it come crimes; but I think it were a greater crime to let it alone. Our only chance is binding men together in one common interest; and if some are cowards and some are fools, they mun come along and join the great march, whose only strength is in numbers.[8]

Higgins is not a rambunctious troublemaker like his fellow mill worker, Boucher but he none-the-less sympathetic to the strike. Instead of joining with the rioters, Higgins wants to better the worker through the union committees and negotiations with the mill managers and owners. Higgins agrees with the idea of the managerial class not interfering with his life outside the mill but he still wants something to assist in his outside of work life so he can be a better worker and to provide for his surviving daughter and Boucher’s children. Gaskell uses Higgins’ humility and idea of responsibility as the “natural” character that Thornton identifies with, because like Higgins, Thornton had assumed the responsibilities of his father’s mistakes. It was because of this similarity that hires Higgins for his mill.The socio-political and economic effect of class on English society helped to create the Victorian Age, where a lot of the values of both the aristocracy and middle class were blended to form the virtue of English traditions in the nineteenth century. The ideal of a “nuclear family” isolated from the historic multigenerational households, show the end result of the idea of self-reliance and personal liability proposed by the middle class in the early half of the century. The idea of a gentleman as a sober, industrious man of frugality was born from the union of Whiggish and bourgeoisie philosophies that stemmed from Malthus and Smith socio-economic theories. While these ideas helped to make a stronger middle class, it left the working class to find its own way in a world of uncertainty. The life of a factory worker like Higgins was harsh despite his dutiful loyalty to a hard day’s work.

            The Industrial Revolution made class a central issue in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Great Britain because of the burgeoning financial and political power of the middle class. The Whig party took advantage of this chance to manipulate the wants of the bourgeoisie into a viable platform to build the new Liberal party. This growing power shaped the social and political culture of England and paved the way for the reformation of the voting districts and rights as well as the severe changes in the Poor Relief. The idea of self-reliance and liberty proved to be the foundation of the class system of the Victorian Age. While these placed people into categories of behavior and stereotypes it helped to avoid the turmoil and social upheaval of the French Revolution by taking the leadership of the workers, the managerial class and granting them the privilege once reserved for the gentry.

---

[1] McCahill, Michael W. “Peers, Patronage, and the Industrial Revolution, 1760-1800” The Journal of British Studies Vol. 16, No. 1 (Autumn, 1976).  p.84

[2] Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population. Chapter II, p18 in Oxford World's Classics reprint

[3] McCahill, Michael W. “Peers, Patronage, and the Industrial Revolution, 1760-1800” The Journal of British Studies Vol. 16, No. 1 (Autumn, 1976).  p.85

[4] Norris, J. M. “Samuel Gabett and the Early Development of Industrial Lobbying in Great Britain,” Economic History Review. second series 10 (1958)  p.450

[5] Gaskell, Elizabeth. North and South. 1855. Reprint. Hollywood, FL: Simon & Brown, 2010. Print.  P.41

[6] Gaskell. North and South.  p.89

[7] Gaskell, North and South  p. 212

[8] Gaskell, North and South, p. 168

The Intrepid Matthew Henson

With Alberta Clippers and below freezing temperatures in Boston recently, our proximity to the North Pole is not far from our minds. However like this year's "January Thaw", one name in Arctic Exploration has been forgotten among the endeavors of the well known Robert Edwin Peary and Roald Amundsen: that of African American Adventurer Matthew Alexander Henson.

Born shortly after the Civil War in Nanjemoy, Maryland, Henson's life was sparked by tragedy. The premature death of his parents, his mother at two and his father at 11, left Henson in a loveless home headed by his father's abusive third wife. It was these traumatic events that served as a catalyst for Henson to

leave home. At the age of 12, he found work as a cabin boy on the Katie Hines a merchant ship in Baltimore. Captain Childs of Katie Hines saw great promise in Henson's abilities. After recording his age as 15 instead of the illegal 12, Captain Childs taught his new cabin boy various skills including sailing, mathematics, nautical skills, reading and writing. These skills gave Henson opportunities that many African Americans did not have previously.

After years of service on the Katie Hines and the death of Captain Childs in 1883, the 17 year old Henson worked odd jobs in New York, Philadelphia and Boston until finally he became employed as a stock boy in a Washington, D. C. hat shop. About this time, the then Lieutenant Robert Peary was preparing for his 1887 expedition to Nicaragua and was in need of a good crew. Upon meeting, Peary hired Henson as his valet. Peary, impressed with his abilities, promoted Henson to the transit crew. Following their work mapping the Nicaraguan Jungles, Henson would leave his job at the haberdashery and serve in the Naval stockyard of Philadelphia under Peary. This made Henson available to serve Peary in various capacities in his earlier Artic expeditions starting in 1890 through 1902 in which they covered over 9,000 miles of Arctic territory from Northern Greenland to Ellesmere Island in Canada. It was in their 1909 expedition where each man would gain recognition.

The 1909 expedition was to be Peary's last attempt at reaching the North Pole. He took no risk in his selections of crewmembers for the Roosevelt, the ship under Captain Bartlett. Peary chose Henson because of "his physical strength, long experience and ingenuity in difficult situations" Peary was later to say of Henson "I can't get along without him." Naturally, Henson was his choice for the physical demands of the last leg of the journey. Despite all of Peary's efforts, it was Henson who reached the pole forty-five minutes before and greeted his fellow explorer with a toothy grin "I think I'm the first man to sit on top of the world." This of course prompted the frustrated Peary to slam into the ground the American flag they carried.

Due to the racism and claims that Fred Cook had reached the pole the previous year, Henson's role in reaching the North Pole was questioned before the Congress. Peary's previous respect towards Henson was a stark contradiction to his testimony at the 1910-1911 Congressional hearing that challenged the expedition. The sharply racist criticism of House Representative Robert C. Macon of Arkansas argued that Peary's choice of Henson over the Canadian Captain Bartlett was controversial as Henson "had not, as a racial inheritance, the daring or initiative of Bartlett." Peary, however, did not want to share the discovery with another white man, especially a non-American like Armundsen (a Norwegian), or lose Bartlett, for his skill allowed the ship to navigate through the pack ice and was needed for the return voyage. Cook was found to be a fraud and Peary was rewarded by Congress and the Navy with a promotion.

In the end, Henson was not without his own rewards. He was presented with two honorary Masters degrees in Science, a postage stamp and accolades from President Eisenhower and the African American Community. In 2000, Henson was posthumously awarded the prestigious National Geographic Hubbard Medal for his polar exploration which he could not receive while alive because of his race. Ironically, Peary was awarded the medal nearly a hundred years before.

The Earl of Essex and The Political Climate of the 1590s Part V

Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone

             After hearing about the defeat in Ireland of the English under Henry Bagenal, Essex offered his service to the Queen who was at Whitehall. The Queen's demand for an apology and Essex's refusal to do so stalled the favor between them but over time, Essex found himself in her favor once more. It was after the death of Richard Bingham, that Elizabeth relented and allowed for Essex to regain his fame by subduing the Irish Rebels. Essex took on the challenge and chance at winning glory for the Queen and boasted in a letter to his fellow expeditionary John Harington that:                                                                   

  I have beaten Knollys and Mountjoy in the Council, and by God, I will beat Tyrone in the field; for nothing                 worthy of her Majesty's honour hath yet been achieved.^[1]

This was an highly important post for Essex and a chance to win a valuable position at court and redeem the role of the Devereux's in Ireland.

         The importance of the post to his family honor was due in part that Essex was the son of the ill-fated Protestant expeditionary leader in Ireland, Walter Devereux, the 1^st Earl of Essex  who fought a undulating struggle against the Irish rebel Brian MacPhelim, a member of the O'Neil Sept in Ulster. After years of failure and mishaps in Ireland, Essex’s father died at Dublin Castle of the less than glorious ailment of dysentery.  While there he dealt with the lack of resources and proper intelligence that seem to parallel Leicester's experience in the Netherlands and his son's endeavor into Ireland. The policy in Irish warfare had not changed much in the nearly thirty years between the 1st and 2nd earls of Essex expedition there. An O'Neil was leading a devastating rebellion, the troops were ill supplied and the lack of organization and exchange of information was prohibiting the cause. The lack of proper intelligence on the condition in Ireland was due the covetous protection the Burghley and now his son, Robert Cecil.

Essex was very much a man of honor and distinction in the military and political spheres in the Elizabethan age but his sense of duty base on honor, virtue and social hierarchy was archaic and did not fit the world of politics he was thrust into in the 1590s. He placed too much trust in low ranking men like the Cecils who only nominally shared his vision of honor and loyalty. Essex was also placed in a position under a female ruler which upset the natural order of masculine dominion of state and religious affairs. Elizabeth's reign did nothing to prove him wrong as she was vain, indecisive, parsimonious and timid in her foreign and domestic policies. Essex push for an Anglo-French alliance would have created a power bloc in Western Europe that would have stopped the Spanish advance in its tracks and formulated strong ties in the future European wars. His distrust of the Spanish was rightly supported and had he been able to secure a garrison in Cadiz, it would have consolidated government policy and focus it on the destruction of the Spanish Empire. This would have given England access to a great deal of wealth and would have prevented the breakdown of government that occurred when the Stuarts inherited the quagmire of Elizabethan and Cecilian policies. It was the manipulation and subversive behavior of the Cecils' Machiavellian political policies and beliefs  that controlled the reign of Elizabeth and pushed the noble ambitions of men like the earl of Essex into a position where the only way to preserve of the honor of England is to revolt.

---

^[1] Harington,  Nugae Antiquae 30

The Earl of Essex and The Political Climate of the 1590s Part IIII

Sir Walter Raleigh

       Essex pro-French policy was against the views of Elizabeth who "disliked and profoundly distrusted" Henry and Burghley who viewed the French as England's traditional foe.^[1] The Queen and Burghley's views were shared by the other councilors who agreed with Sir Thomas Wiles comment in 1593 that "if the king of Spayne were dead, wee are like enoughe to care little for France"^[2] When the Spanish were pushed from the Netherlands, the Queen's and Burghley's focus turned on the Irish insurrection and the allocation of resources from France  towards Ireland. This put Essex at odds with Elizabeth and the Cecils' policy and forced Essex to change the Queen's mind. Elizabeth's reaction was that Calais be returned to the English and she would support the French against the Spanish. This was a price that Henry would never pay and a fear spread that the French king would give "genuine substance to his nominal conversion to Catholicism."^[3] Essex greatest fear was that the break with the French would leave England vulnerable to the full extent of the Spain.

         With the growing fear of a second Spanish Armada and the raid of Cornwall  in 1595, supported Essex's case about the vulnerability of the English. Essex and the Cecils had agreed upon the importance of military action against Spain and both factions had put their support behind it. Essex saw it as an opportunity to use his battle prowess to win over the Queen's favor and eventual higher political aspirations. But before the expedition left England in 1596, there was in fighting and a feud between the soldiers like Essex and his associate, Sir Francis Vere, a veteran from the Netherlands campaigns and Lord High Admiral Charles Howard and Sir Walter Raleigh over a land based conquest or sea battle to plunder the Spanish cargo ships^[4] The English taking of Cadiz success was daunted by Howard and Raleigh, bitter about the burning of the merchant ships in the Bay of Cadiz, fought with Essex and Vere over garrisoning Cadiz and using it as a base of operations  because it went against the orders of the Queen.  Despite the in fighting, the City of Cadiz was razed by the English troops and the hostages taken back to England. The Cadiz expedition caused the Essex faction at court to worry, a worry that resonated into the French court. King Henry IV "viewed Essex's new venture with horror, fearing the diversion of resources abroad and the absence of Essex himself."^[5] Henry IV fear was that Burghley was secretly plotting to distract Essex from leading an English delegation and subsequently cutoff a Anglo-French league.^[6]

       Essex's had hoped that wartime strategy and success would have shown how the war with Spain should have fought. Had he been able to garrison Cadiz, the Queen would have to focus on Spain instead of shifting resources from France to Ireland.^[7] This would have decimated the Cecil faction at court by undermining their special interests in Ireland and "shoestring" war budgeting because Elizabeth focus would have to be on her Spanish acquisitions. However, the Cadiz expedition had only served to distract Essex from the Cecilian intrigue. Before Essex left England he had bade the Queen to hold off appointing a new secretary of state until his return, banking that his wartime defiance and success would have won him the position. When Elizabeth heard of the political strategy that Essex had plotted out for Cadiz, she appointed Robert Cecil, secretary of state. As well, it was promised that Cadiz would bring the Queen "great riches" from the Cadiz expedition and subsequent plundering of the Spanish ships. When she saw little treasure from the expedition, Burghley and Cecil blamed Essex and alleged that Essex allowed his men to keep the plunder for themselves.^[8]

         As well, the Islands Voyage, the second expedition against the Spanish this time to the Azores. The Privy Council had decided to proactive against the Spanish who were amassing another great armada and attack the Spanish coastal city of Ferrol in the province of Corunna in 1597.^[9] Essex, Raleigh and Howard were once again chosen to command the English forces. but a storm off the Bay of Biscay split them with Howard heading towards Corunna, Essex and Raleigh off to a safe port. After regrouping with the English fleet, Raleigh was again separated and headed for the Azore under the idea that he was chasing Spanish ships. Once again he and Essex regrouped, the earl ordered Raleigh to resupply and meet him at the island of Fayal. Raleigh obliged him and arrived at the island with Essex no where to be found. The English ships sat adrift until they were induced into landing by a cannonade of Spanish artillery. Raleigh led the charge ashore and was shot and wounded in the leg. Essex arrived late and furious at the fact that Raleigh had already began the assault.

             Essex  was dishonored by Raleigh and sought to have his rival court-marshaled for disobeying orders. Essex was a renown disciplinarian in his leadership and the constant separation and actions of Raleigh were undermining his command. Howard intervened and dissuaded Essex, resulting in his decision to on getting treasure by plundering the Azores instead of securing and defeating the Spanish fleet.^[10] The distraction was costly because a dying Philip II was indeed organizing another armada and it now sailed ahead of the English fleet and headed for England. Essex's fleet was saved by the fact that the Spanish armada was again defeated by sea storms. When he returned to England, Essex was accosted by the Queen for his failure in protecting the kingdom from the advancing Spanish flotilla. This sense of failure in his most ardent cause made Essex silently about the success in the Azores. As a result of Essex's failure to secure neither protection nor more wealth for the Crown,  the Queen under Burghley influence began to entertain a treaty with the Spanish.

        The very suggestion of a treaty with the Spanish enemy enraged Essex and caused him to write the elaborate and well published "letter" in defense of his actions and protest to the possible treaty. In the Apologie , Essex calls attention to his enemies "my fortune bred me Envie: and that Envie procured me strong & dangerous opposition"^[11] and that when he acted against Spain he did so because "no man , in my country, of my ranke, disposing himself that way."^[12] Essex was addressing his fellow courtiers and their inaction after the Armada. Essex was extremely critical of the roles of these “self-loving men” that “love ease, pleasure and profit”^[13] especially when they were dictating the highly suspicious push for a treaty with Spain. The push for the uneasy and hasty Spanish treaty with a deceptive enemy was the turning point in Essex’s career with in the court of Elizabeth. He states in his Apologie that : They say, England cannot  stand without peace, Peace cannot growe but by treatie, treatie canot be had but when the Enemy offers it; & now the Enemy offers to treat^[14] The reply which Essex gives to this is remarkably brazen. He replies to the accusation in his letter that he believes the treaty to be a Trojan horse and that is Spain really wanted peace they would make the proper accommodations for England and Protestant interests.  He defends the stance by exploring the motivation of Philip II’s push for peace:

Princes or States, when they enter into consideration of their owne affaires, may dispose them selves  to peace, for utilitiy, convenience or necessitie. For utility, if they can get advantage: for conveniency, if peace be fittest to conscrue then in the state they are: for necessity, when they have no longer means to make war.^[15]

It is apparent to Essex that the push for peace by the Privy Council had been motivated by some sinister ploy or intrigue orchestrated by the council's leaders. It is not purely speculation that Essex bases his case against the council because he himself had been victim to it.

          Essex protest of the Spanish treaty and criticism of the royal government placed him in a vicarious position: he was losing favor with his queen and the growing clandestine Cecil political strategies had him from her graces.  When the need for a new military commander Ireland was brought before the Queen and it was suggested that Essex's uncle, Sir William Knollys be appointed. This enraged Essex who felt threaten by the loss of an ally at court and insisted that Sir George Carew a member of the Cecil faction go instead. The Queen refused on account that it would disrupt Robert Cecil's office and Essex in a fit of temper turned his back on the Queen. This show of disrespect angered the Queen, who struck him aside the head  and hollered "Go to the devil!" At which, Essex grasped his sword hilt and replied angrily into Elizabeth's face  "This is an outrage, that I will not put up with. I would not have borne it from your father's hands!"^[16] Nottingham had grabbed hold of Essex and drew him back and Essex stormed out of the room. The Queen did not respond to the outrageous behavior and focused mainly on the ailing Burghley on his deathbed while Essex lingered in depression in the country. 

---

^[1] Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics p. 243

^[2] Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics p. 244

^[3] Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics  p. 245

^[4] Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics p. 364

^[5] Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics  p. 365

^[6] Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics  p. 365, 122ff

^[7] Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics p. 367

^[8] Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics  p 373

^[9] Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics pp.263-5

^[10] Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics  p. 266

^[11]  Essex,  An Apologie of the Earle of Essex, p. 7 (B1)

^[12]  Ibid

^[13]  Essex,  An Apologie of the Earle of Essex, p. 14 (C1)

^[14]  Essex, An Apologie of the Earle of Essex, p. 17 (C2)

^[15]  Essex, An Apologie of the Earle of Essex, p. 21 (C4)

^[16] Strachey ,  Elizabeth and Essex pp. 168-9

The Earl of Essex and The Political Climate of the 1590s Part III

Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury

    In addition to the inadequacies of a female ruler, the idea that men of lower rank were dominating over established nobility. The Cecilian faction are the epitome of this and as a result a constant thorn in the earl of Essex's side because they had the monopoly of the Queen's policy. They represented everything, Essex  has been turned against in his emulation of great and noble figures in his personal and greater history. In protest of the Cecilan domination of court, Essex scoffs "Judge you...whether it can be grief to a man descended as I am, to be trodden underfoot by such base upstarts"^[1] It was the cunning and corruption of the upstarts and their total disregard of tradition reminiscent of the disputes between Roman Patricians and the rising plebiscite power  and  the parallels with the downfall of the purity of the Roman state happening before his very eyes. This was the world that Essex existed in the late 1590s, a vain queen ruled over  by base and manipulative men who sought to defame the "defender of the English" state.

          When Essex accompanied his mentors, Leicester and Sidney to the Netherlands, he saw very little actual fight but he observed the planning, mismanagement and other worries of military leaders. He personally witnessed the way that the Queen and Burghley had levied war in the Netherlands by undermining the troops by denying them proper supply and pay.  Now, he was again confronted, albeit this time directly, with the reality of a parsimonious Queen, a court of men concerned with their own luxuries and an underfunded army. This was apparent in internalized corruption of the Privy Council that was rampant in the 1590s. The unstable political climate created court factions in the later reign of Queen Elizabeth I: on the one hand the Essex faction, Essex, the Bacon brothers and the Earl of Southampton, the “men of action” who disliked the miserly conduct of the war and the wasteful use of domestic wealth versus the Cecilan faction of Lord Burghley, Sir Robert Cecil, and Edward Coke, those whose self-interest and extravagance laid upon the Queen the riches and sumptuous lifestyle she demanded. The Cecil faction was a consummate impediment to Essex's aspiration to fill the role of the Queen's primary statesman. Lord Burghley and his son Sir Robert Cecil, were well acquainted with the youthful aristocratic and his potential role as a dominant area of influence at court.  They used this past relationship to draw his trust in them and use it to their greater goals and political advantages.

           During the Rouen expedition, Essex kept correspondence with the younger Cecil in order to keep in the good graces of the Lord Treasurer on behalf of his sister's father-in-law and Privy Council member, Sir John Perrot. Essex had petitioned Burghley to defend the former Lord Deputy of Ireland Perrot who was being tried for treason on trumped up charges. Burghley ignored his requests because he had created the case against Perrot so he could replace him with a relative, William FitzWilliams who was more in line with the Cecil faction's  activities in  both Ireland and England. This was exemplar of the push for a "regnum Cecilianum"^[2] the singular rule of the English state by Cecilian power and authority. While the ageing Lord Burghley control of Elizabethan policy was losing the battle of time, Burghley's supporters held keys spots in government posts. His influence on the Privy Council, Courtiers and the Queen. assisted the elder statesman in securing that his views and decisions were achieved. Burghley's influence upon Essex had created a sense of trust in the earl's former guardian that would soon be broken by the Cecilian intrgue.

            Upon his return from France, Essex expecting some form of reward or reimbursement was shunned by the Queen. When he asked for some forgiveness, on the loans he had taken for the French expedition, the Queen told him to take his business to Sir Robert Cecil, a junior member of the Privy Council. Essex was furious because the war had cost him not only in money but also the loss of his younger brother, Walter Devereux. This was only the first of his misgivings at the hands of Cecil cunning.

          When he ascended into the Privy Council, Essex's policies and choice of state offices were continually undermined by Burghley and his son. Essex was aiming to be a reputable and able statesmen creating his own domestic and continental intelligence networks. Essex's connections, spies and information sometimes worked in unison with Burghley's own elaborate one system but more often they where in competition.  The competition between the powerful statesmen was not overtly apparent but it existed in the chase to deliver continental intelligence to the Queen first. As well, Essex's methodology in politics was often forceful and abrasive because he did not have the experience or finesse in the workings of deception factionalized politics. Essex as adept as he was at warfare he was not ready for the "daungerouslie poisoned with the secrett stinges of smilinge enemies"^[3] found at court.  When he sought to place Francis Bacon as attorney-general, Burghley first gave support  but then shifted his support behind the more experienced and pro-Cecilian, Edward Coke. Burghley wanted to fill the English government with men that were aligned to his surreptitious form of government. This sort of cunning and activity was at odds with Essex ideological outlook.

      Essex's political goals rested heavily in his Protestant upbringing and was seen in his push to ally with the Dutch and Henry IV of France. He sought the alliance as means to facilitate a crusade against the growing "tyranny" of the Spanish. Essex saw the Spanish as "an insollent, cruell and usurping Nation that disturbed the common peace , aspired to the conquest of my Countrie, and a general enemy to the liberty of Christendom"^[4] The stability of the Netherlands since the 1590, Essex focused his attention to Henry IV and the French. Essex had strong ties to the Huguenots through his childhood friend, Count Montgomery and the relationship with Henry IV from the Rouen campaign. These ties pushed for Essex to dedicate himself to being Henry's "greatest & onlye freind...in England"^[5] because he admired the French king's resolve and virile conduct which was so unlike Elizabeth's indecisiveness.

---

^[1]  James, Society, politics, and culture: studies in early modern England  p. 423

^[2] Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics  p. 392

^[3] Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics  p. 359

^[4] Essex, An Apologie of the Earle of Essex, p. 5-6 (A4)

^[5] Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics p. 243

The Earl of Essex and The Political Climate of the 1590s Part II

Queen Elizabeth I

    Essex conduct at war is chivalric in nature because the execution or action was not solely based on his victories. Essex's "glory and honour is not given by success or political achievement but by courage and intrepid conduct and behaviour."^[1]His honorable conduct in the Spanish War and at court are purposed with the preservation of the English, as Essex narrates and defends his this steadfastness to the Queen  and the English state in both his accomplishments and failures in An Apologie of the Earle of Essex, against Those Which Iealovsly, and Maliciovsly, Tax Him to Be the Hinderer of the Peace and Qviet of His Covntry.  In his early experiences under Leicester in the proxy war against Spain in the Netherlands, Essex  recalls fondly that "the State of England not onely dispose it selfe to great actions, but ingaged in them."^[2] He saw the valor of these battles as influencing his fate and directing him on the course of martial prestige. Essex views to the English cause as influencing his fate and directing him on the course of martial prestige.

          Essex views his involvement in the defense of the King of Portugal, as an obligation to end the oppression of Philip II and "to free both mine Country and our confederates, from the feare or danger of his attempts"^[3] He further defends his unsanctioned actions against the Spanish as a necessity because there was no time to consult over a retaliation. Essex's devotion to the English State and its earthly monarch are determined and accomplished by his Protestantism, his renown military leadership, his virtuous and steadfast honor. His chivalric honor is seen in the political arena as well, as he describes the sacrifices he had made in order to maintain his honor: He states in the Apologie:

The reputation of a most faithfull subject and zealous Patriot (which, with hazard of my life and decay of my estate, I have sought to purchase) must not suffer this ougly and odius aspersion, that my actions have caused, maintained, or increased the warres or had ever any such scope or intent^[4]

While he is blamed for the continued wars with Spain and abroad, he confesses that his actions were in accordance to his ideology of being a "Patriot" not a warmonger. It is  in this dedication to England and that Essex soundly fortifies himself in the self-appointed  role as defender of the Elizabethan state.

          Essex combined his chivalric ideals with the translations of Roman historians, mainly drawing upon Tacitian histories "Agricola" and "The Ende of Nero" to create a staunch faith in the ability of a noble in his political climate The application of Roman civic ideology and classical ethics is clear early in Essex days at Trinity college. Essex relied on the histories of Rome because they offered “rules and patternes of pollecy are aswell learned out of olde Greeke and Romayne storyes, as out of of states which are at thys daye.^[5]” These words will resonates throughout Essex career as he will draw heavily on the works of Tacitus and the Greek philosophical masters to justify his social rank and defense of the justice and virtue of the English state. In the “A.B. To the Reader” of Henry Savile’s translation of Tacitus' The Ende of Nero and Beginning of Galba Fower Bookes of the Histories of Cornelius Tacitus, the prologue note to the reader is assumed to be written by Essex and emphases the importance of history as an exemplar of the Human justice and error. He used the examples of three leaders after the tyranny of Nero who scramble for power. Essex describes Galba as a victim of manipulation,  Otho as an irrational reactionary man and praises Vespasian as a well-balanced leader whom employs that "in civil tumults  an advised  patience, and opportunitie well taken are the onelie weapons of advantage"^[6] The earl of Essex concludes that:

under them thou muest see calamities that follow civill warres, when lawes lye sleepe, and all things judged by the sworde. If thou mislike their waires  be thankfull for thine owne peace; if thou doest abhorre their tyrannies, love and revrence thine owne wise, just and excellent Prince.^[7]

Essex compares the events of Tacitian Roman history to his own politcal climate and  assigns the masks of  Galba,  Otho and others to the players in Elizabeth's court. 

            When he is confronted with the chastisement of his actions in the Spanish Wars by his "base-born" enemies at court, he defends "that the greatnesse of her Majesties favor must grow out of the greatnesse of her servants merits: & I saw no way of merit lye so open to me as by service in her wars"^[8]  The Queen's recent conduct under the influence of the Privy Council is an example of  “a good prince governened by evill ministers is as dangerous as if hee were evill himselfe" and her Privy Council members indeterminate policies to exemplar of a "rash man ...which rises at an instant, and falles in a moment."^[9]  The interpretations of Roman civic duty and virtue is found in Essex's An Apologie of the Earle of Essex, against Those Which Iealovsly, and Maliciovsly, Tax Him to Be the Hinderer of the Peace and Qviet of His Covntry when he states that Rome's noblewomen supplied "the common treasure and  to maintaine the warres, spoyl themselves of their Jewels and ornaments" and  then assails the Elizabethan English state as being "so base a state , as that the people therein will not bestow some part of their superfluous expences to keepe themselves from conquest and slavery"^[10] cites a hope that "there is yet left some seede of that auncient Vertue,"^[11] which will waken the noble sense of altruistic loyalty  and civic honor to end the factionalized disputes within court of intrigue and avarice.

        Essex's ideology was a common foundation for early Tudor law and order because the system was dependent upon the "majority of governing class who controlled the principle order-keeping forces available" and "a system of social controls and moral sanctions"^[12] However, there were two major points of contention in the Elizabethan reign that undermined the system of aristocratic, chivalric and civic value and virtue: the innate nature of the Queen's gender and the ennobling of men with little achievement outside of their own stellar arrival at court. Essex himself could not fault the Queen herself for inaction in politics because he understood that the personality traits require to do so were not acquainted with the fairer sex. The Queen inactivity in politics and especially in  regards to the Spanish War were naturally inclined to timidity, her avoidance of open war; avarice, her reluctance to spend money on the war; and inconsistency, as seen in the constant shift of allegiance from one faction to another , or her indecisiveness with regards to religion. These were the opposite of the courtly virtues plugged in the chivalric tradition.

---

^[1]  James, Society, politics, and culture: studies in early modern England  p. 316

^[2]  Essex, An Apologie of the Earle of Essex, p. 5 (A4)

^[3]  Essex, An Apologie of the Earle of Essex, p. 6 (B1)

^[4] Essex, An Apologie of the Earle of Essex, p. 2 (A3)

^[5]  Hammer, The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics p.306-7

^[6]  Ibid.

^[7]  Savile, The Ende of Nero...:A.B. To the Reader p. 4

^[8]  Essex, An Apologie of the Earle of Essex, p. 7 (B1)

^[9]  Savile, The Ende of Nero ...:A.B. To the Reader p. 3

^[10]  Essex, An Apologie of the Earle of Essex, p. 32 (E4)

^[11]  Essex, An Apologie of the Earle of Essex, p. 38 (F1)

^[12]  James, Society, politics, and culture: studies in early modern England p. 318