How far do you agree with the claim that the Duke of Northumberland’s unscrupulous conduct as a ruler was necessary in order to solve the problems left by the Duke of Somerset? Give reasons and evidence.
How far do you agree with the claim that the Duke of Northumberland's unscrupulous conduct as a ruler was necessary in order to solve the problems left by the Duke of Somerset? Give reasons and evidence.
Historians have held differing views as to the roles of Somerset and Northumberland. Northumberland was traditionally portrayed as a ruthless ruler who was only out to get what he could for himself. However, a revisionist view of him has come about which portrays him as an efficient ruler who turned around England's government. This view would say that his unscrupulous conduct was entirely justified given the problems that the Duke of Somerset left England facing at the end of his rule.
For example, Somerset left England in a very precarious position financially. The treasury was bankrupt, and the country was embroiled in two costly wars. It was plain that England could not carry on fighting these wars and gain financial stability, but Somerset had continued the wars because he was afraid of hurting the country's reputation and national pride. Northumberland had no such qualms, however. One of the first things he did when he came into power was to end the wars with Scotland and France. He also made a deal with France so that they would get back Boulogne early, and for a smaller sum of money. Though this was potentially very embarrassing to England, Northumberland had decided that the country's financial well-being was more important than its reputation abroad.
Though the reputation of England abroad seems a trivial thing now, in the 16th Century it was of utmost importance. Leaders were often judged by how well they conducted their military campaigns, and the peace treaty with France and Scotland could have showed leaders of other countries that England was weak, and encouraged them to declare war. Although this did not happen, it was a risky ploy for Northumberland in a period where image was everything.
Other measures that Northumberland took to improve the financial system included recoining the currency. Although he did debase it once, this ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Though the reputation of England abroad seems a trivial thing now, in the 16th Century it was of utmost importance. Leaders were often judged by how well they conducted their military campaigns, and the peace treaty with France and Scotland could have showed leaders of other countries that England was weak, and encouraged them to declare war. Although this did not happen, it was a risky ploy for Northumberland in a period where image was everything.
Other measures that Northumberland took to improve the financial system included recoining the currency. Although he did debase it once, this was necessary in order to pay off debts that Somerset had left behind. He later returned the currency to its original silver content - this pleased all those who had been unhappy when he had continued Somerset's policy of debasing the coinage. Here, Northumberland shows again that he is willing to sacrifice things in the short term to achieve his long-term goals. This attitude is displayed again when he sells off even more Crown lands to pay off debts (Somerset had already sold off lands worth £800,000). Though he was criticised for doing this, he eventually proved his doubters wrong by bringing stability back to the economy.
Another area in which Northumberland displayed 'unscrupulous' conduct was in matters of religion. At the start of his rule, he needed to quickly establish power - Somerset had left the government ion a very weak position. Northumberland was able to gain more support by making agreements with some of the more radical figures in religion. Bishops Ridley and Hooper were able to greatly strengthen Northumberland's religious grip on the country, but at the cost of a definite swing towards Calvinism. This was dangerous for England in more ways than one. Firstly, it could cause rebellions, especially in the North where Protestantism was not very popular. Kett's Rebellion and the Prayer Book Rebellion during Somerset's rule had been brought about because of displeasure over religious reforms. Fortunately for Northumberland though, there were no rebellions about his religious reforms, which included a new and even more Protestant prayer book. This was possibly due to fear over the way Northumberland had dealt with Kett's rebellion earlier.
The second danger in adopting a more Calvinist outlook was that Northumberland risked displeasing Charles V, ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. Charles V was a staunch Catholic, and also the ruler of the most powerful country in Europe. He would be opposed to any country who was becoming more Protestant - and doubly so with England, because she had just adopted a neutral stance with France, who was almost constantly at war with the Empire. The question is whether Northumberland was justified in exposing England to these risks.
The need to establish control in England quickly was a great one for Northumberland. As I mentioned previously, Somerset had left the government in a weak position - it was out of favour with many leading nobles and clergymen. Northumberland would not have been able to rule effectively if he had been running a government that had no support from the people. From this viewpoint, it seems that Northumberland was entirely justified in taking these risks, as the potential gains far outweighed the disadvantages. Had his government not been able to carry out its decisions quickly, Northumberland would never have been able to turn England around as he did.
Other areas in which Northumberland made improvements to Somerset's policies are not so central to this essay - his actions could not be seen so much as unscrupulous. The key areas in which Northumberland displayed unscrupulous conduct were finance, religion and foreign policy, and I have argued that he was justified in taking these actions to correct the mistakes that the previous government had made. However, there is one other area in which Northumberland behaved out of line, and was possibly not justified in doing so - this is in matters of the succession.
Near to the end of Edward's reign, Northumberland realised that Edward was going to die childless and the Catholic Mary was going to come to the throne - this would be a devastating blow to him, as all the work he had put into making England a Protestant country would go to waste. He would also risk the wrath of Mary - she was known to be a very devout Catholic and would not necessarily let Northumberland live in peace. Northumberland took steps to try and ensure that he would remain in power when Edward died, by having his niece Lady Jane Grey become Monarch after Edward. This was very unscrupulous behaviour on the part of Northumberland - perverting the succession was akin to treason. Many would argue that this action was entirely unjustified, and Northumberland was acting in his own interests here rather than in the interests of the country.
However, a case can still be made in his defence. Northumberland believed, correctly, that he was an extremely adept ruler. If Mary was to come to the throne, there was no guarantee that she would be able to keep the country in order, and there was the possibility of Northumberland's work going to waste. There was an even greater danger that Mary would try to convert the country back to Catholicism - this could lead to riots, which would damage the financial and social stability of the country.
I can conclude then that Northumberland was justified in carrying on with his unscrupulous conduct, as he needed to correct the errors left by Somerset's government. Though he may have made losses in the short term, in the long term he was able to completely turn England around through his 'unscrupulous' methods. The only area in which he was not entirely justified was in trying to pervert the succession, but even then he had reasons which could be seen as legitimate.
