‘The increasing borough representation in the Commons over the period was the most important way that the Tudor government gained the cooperation of the localities.’ How far do you agree?

Question 1

Borough representation: symbolic cooperation but limited substance

Answer 1

• number of MPs in Parliament rose from 296 in 1485 to 462 by 1603, mostly through borough incorporation
• gave the appearance of broader political participation and local representation
• BUT most MPs were selected by Crown or noble patrons, not local populations
• many boroughs had tiny electorates or were controlled by outside influence
• extent of involvement was elite-focused + often manipulated
• MPs had little role in local governance - they didn’t enforce policy or oversee administration
• effectiveness in maintaining order was minimal, as they weren’t involved in crisis management
• breadth of impact was national in appearance, but limited in practical influence
• increased visibility but didn’t secure local cooperation in a meaningful way
• helped involve elite families in politics, but wasn’t the most important tool of cooperation

Question 2

JPs: administrative force behind daily cooperation

Answer 2

• JPs were the key enforcers of policy in the localities throughout the period
• administered taxation, enforced religion, oversaw the economy and provided justice
• authority came from the Crown, but their local status gave them legitimacy
• met at quarter sessions, dealt with criminal cases, set wages, and distributed poor relief
• extent of involvement in local affairs was far greater than that of MPs
• consistently effective in maintaining stability and implementing policy
• during crises, such as the 1590s famine, they played a central role in avoiding unrest
• national presence made them a practical, scalable tool for royal governance
• unlike borough MPs, JPs worked year-round and were essential to the functioning of local government
• real drivers of cooperation between localities and the Crown.

Question 3

Patronage and officeholding: targeted, elite-driven cooperation

Answer 3

• Crown used patronage to secure the loyalty of influential local families
• offices such as JP, sheriff, MP and commissioner were used as rewards for service
• gave local elites an incentive to enforce royal policy in their regions
• extent of involvement was selective but strategically valuable
• proved effective in reducing noble rebellion and creating a reliable ruling class
• Crown’s reliance on local gentry ensured smoother cooperation on taxation and law enforcement
• many borough seats were filled through these patronage networks
• breadth of impact was limited to elite society, but helped bind local power to royal interests
• strategy worked best in tandem with systems like the JP network
• patronage helped deliver cooperation, but it was not as structurally powerful as JPs