When Northumberland cam to power the country was still on the verge of bankruptcy. The economy was in a poor state. The debts accumulated by Henry a few years previously had not been cleared under Somerset’s rule, and the country had suffered three years of poor harvests. As a result of this, grain prices soared. The Population, and inflation had both risen rapidly. This meant that the living standards of the masses continued to decline and the work was more difficult to find. In 1551, the country was confronted with a slump in the cloth trade, England’s main export; in particular, the Antwerp cloth market was causing widespread unemployment among textile workers in East Anglia and the West Country, which led to widespread unemployment.
Expenditure was higher than the Crown income, perhaps caused by the loss of rental income from Crown lands following their sale under the reign of Henry VIII. It could be argued, therefore, that it was foolish of Northumberland to continue selling Crown land. Although effective in the short term, the sale of these lands lead to a reduction in the crown’s annual income, potentially worsening the economic situation in future years. In keeping with Edward’s religious policy and Somerset’s economic policy, remaining church plate was confiscated and melted down into coins.
In 1551, Northumberland debased the coinage. Consequently, inflation rocketed, to the detriment of the economy. Unlike his predecessors, however, Northumberland realised that to solve these economic problems conclusively, it was necessary to increase the Crown income. He set up a Royal Commission to investigate this income, attempting to enhance the efficiency of revenue collection, and eliminating corruption in the realm’s five revenue courts. The commission reported astonishingly quickly, a tribute to the administrative efficiency involved. The huge benefits this policy brought, unfortunately, would not have an effect until Mary’s reign. However, Northumberland was remarkable in his approach and attitude towards solving economic problems, acting with great ability and foresight. Although initially making similar economic mistakes to those of his predecessors, it is clear that Northumberland has considerable ability in both forming economic policy and promoting practical efficiency.
In efforts to lower expenditure, monastic pensions had been stopped. This had a negative effect on Northumberland’s popularity both at the time and historically, as he is often viewed as less concerned about social justice than his predecessor. In reality, this is not the case, as he implemented far more effective social legislation than Somerset. The 1547 Vagrancy Act and the sheep tax of 1548 was repealed in 1550, two policies that had contributed to the rebellions of 1549. In the same year a new Treason Act was passed, which restored censorship and gave authorities more power to enforce law and order. Initially these measures helped to prevent the widespread popular discontent from turning into actual revolt. At the same time, the administration tried to improve the economic situation and relieve poverty and distress. The existing anti-enclosure legislation was rigorously enforced, and the unpopular enclosure commission was withdrawn. Acts protecting arable farming were passed and usury was made illegal. Prosecutions for depopulation increased during Northumberland’s rule, and under the Poor Law of 1552 collection were made from wealthy individuals and distributed amongst the poor of the parish. His realism, in contrast to the Duke of Somerset’s ignorant idealism, converted concern for social justice to practical effective social legislation. In this respect, the Duke of Northumberland was more competent in dealing with social injustice.
The issue of Religious policy was a major political problem for Somerset. He had to take some action over religious reform if he were not to lose the support of the Protestant activists. Such a loss of support might allow a catholic revival, which would endanger their hold on power. Yet if they went too far the reformers might provoke the Catholics into open rebellion. This was the reason Somerset’s religious policy had been a compromise. Somerset removed the heresy laws, which allowed people to discuss religion freely without fear of arrest, while the ending of censorship on printing and publishing enabled the circulation of books and pamphlets on religion. The removal of the restrictive laws encouraged widespread debate over religion. Public meetings frequently ended in disorder and riots, with attacks on churches to break statues of saints and other catholic images. At the same time, the repeal of the old laws left the county and urban authortities with much less power to deal with situations. Consequently, the government had helped to promote the very disorder that it was trying to avoid, it had undermined the confidence of the elite, who now felt themselves powerless to enforce order.
With increased involvement from Edward in government during Northumberland’s rule definitive religious reforms were introduced, far removed from the controversially vague First Prayer Book. In 1552, Thomas Cramner produced a new prayer book - this Second Prayer Book was clearly and unequivocally Protestant, removing the final catholic influences from the services and finally rebutting transubstantiation. It was confirmed with an Act of Uniformity, making it compulsory to attend a protestant service every week. Northumberland sufficiently confident in his military ability to not fear retribution from Charles V. There is no evidence that Northumberland held any strong religious beliefs, later revoking his apparent Protestantism in an attempt to avoid execution. Although the reforms pleased Protestants, the majority of the country was still essentially Catholic. However, this legislation was not met with rebellions akin to those of 1549, perhaps a reflection of Northumberland’s ability as a governor, or for more practical reasons of social lethargy following the turbulence and unrest of 1549. Isolated, Northumberland’s religious policy would have had little negative effect on his rule, but following Edward’s death, it provided further reason for dispute with the strongly Catholic Mary. It could be argued that these extreme reforms allowed by Northumberland contributed to his downfall. Religious policy, independently, supports the view of Northumberland as a more successful politician than Somerset, however, it relied heavily on the continuation of Edward’s reign.
Northumberland’s success came from his ability to use the Privy Council efficiently, restoring it to its rightful authority under his leadership as Lord President. This was good politics for it showed respect for colleagues. Efficiency came with the acceptance of Pagets advice on the routine of the council. A fixed pattern of business was initiated with a small working group at the heart of the larger council membership of 33. Northumberland did not use proclamations half as much as Somerset, recognition of his desire to work with others. This proves that his ability as an able politician and governor enabled him to be more successful at dealing with current issues at the time than Somerset.
Another political problem facing the country during the mid Tudor period was the standards of living and public order. Somerset introduced The Vagrancy Act and Public Order, the harshness of this legislation shows little concern for the poor and needy. The 1547 was a savage attack on vagrants looking for work, who were seen by the government as a cause of riots and sedition. The new laws were widely unpopular and the rising level of popular discontent forced the Privy council to take measures to appease public agitation. The government blamed all the problems on enclosure, Somerset issued proclamations against enclosures and commissioners were sent out to investigate abuses. The main effect of these measures was to increase unrest. It is reasonable to suggest that Somerset was more concerned with avoiding riot and rebellion, than with helping the poor at solving economic problems.
Somerset’s attempts to control the situation were ineffective because in 1549 the country drifted into what was potentially a major crisis. Somerset seemed unable, or unwilling to take decisive action to suppress well-supported popular uprisings. A major consequence of the rebellions was the fall of Somerset, whose colleagues quickly abandoned him as a man who had failed to prevent anarchy and revolution. Even before his arrest it was clear that Somerset was discredited and had lost control of the political situation. Many members of the Privy Council were offended by his aloofness and his arrogance in using his own household instead of the council to conduct business. He had undermined the confidence of the aristocracy and the gentry because of his inept handling of the popular uprising.
Northumberland was faced by equally pressing social problems. The debasement of the coinage in 1551 raised inflation still further. Grain prices rose rapidly; a situation worsened by below average harvests. In 1550, the country was still simmering after the recent popular uprisings and was further unsettled by the political power struggle among the privy councillors. Consequently, the administration had to act carefully and skilfully if further serious disorder was to be avoided. Here again the Northumberland administration showed a much more positive approach than that adopted by Somerset.
In conclusion, it is difficult to assess whether Northumberland was more successful in dealing with political problems than Somerset because Northumberland came to power in 1550 and not 1547 and was able to adopt different policies with the full knowledge of the problems and errors of Somerset’s policies. For example his ignorance of the importance of privy council his continuation of the war his unpopular laws and proclamations he passed undermined the confidence of the aristocracy and led to rebellions from the working class and his religious reforms that alienated even moderates in the conservative party. However, similarities can be drawn between Somerset and Northumberland it was said that both were ambitious, greedy and corrupt. Although their methods of government were very different, their policies and priorities were very similar