Growth of Factions and Political Instability (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes

Growth of Factions and Political Instability

Introduction: the emergence of rival factions

By the 1590s, Elizabeth I's court had become divided into two rival political factions. A faction was a political grouping of individuals who shared common interests, loyalties to particular leaders, and often worked together to secure appointments and influence. The emergence of these factions created significant political instability during the final years of Elizabeth's reign.

The two main factions were led by the Cecil family and the Earl of Essex. These groups competed for royal favour, government appointments, and control over the distribution of patronage. Patronage referred to the system whereby powerful individuals dispensed offices, titles, pensions, and other rewards to their followers and supporters. Control of patronage was crucial because it determined who held power and influence at court and in government.

The Cecil faction

The Cecil faction was led initially by William Cecil, Lord Burghley, who had served Elizabeth as her most trusted adviser since the beginning of her reign. Burghley held the important positions of Lord Treasurer and Master of the Court of Wards, and acted as secretary until 1596. When he died in 1598, his son Sir Robert Cecil took over leadership of the faction.

Robert Cecil had already been made a Privy Councillor in 1591 and was appointed secretary in 1596, giving him daily access to the queen and control over much of the government's administration. The Cecil faction included other important figures such as Charles, Lord Howard of Effingham (who became Earl of Nottingham in 1597 and served as Lord High Admiral), and various other courtiers and officials who owed their positions to Cecil patronage.

The Cecils' strength lay in their administrative expertise, their long record of loyal service to Elizabeth, and their control of key government offices. They represented a more cautious, bureaucratic approach to politics and preferred diplomatic solutions over military adventures.

The Essex faction

The Essex faction was led by Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, a young nobleman who had become Master of the Horse in 1588 and joined the Privy Council in 1593. Essex was a member of the traditional nobility who had gained Elizabeth's favour partly through his military exploits and partly through his personal charisma and charm.

Essex's supporters included other members of the nobility such as Roger Manners (Earl of Rutland), Robert Sidney, and Charles Blount (Lord Mountjoy). He also attracted the support of intellectuals like Anthony and Francis Bacon, as well as military men who had served under him on campaigns. Many of Essex's followers were younger nobles who favoured a more aggressive foreign policy and believed that military glory was the proper route to advancement.

Essex's faction tended to advocate military intervention abroad and resented what they saw as the Cecils' monopoly of government offices. However, Essex lacked the administrative skills and political judgement of the Cecils, and his impulsive temperament often worked against him.

Early cooperation and growing rivalry (1591-1595)

In the early 1590s, the relationship between the Cecils and Essex was not always hostile. There were occasions when they cooperated on matters of policy. For example, during 1591-92, both factions worked together to pressure Elizabeth to intervene militarily in France. They argued that Spanish Catholic forces in France posed an invasion threat to England and that military intervention was necessary to prevent Spain gaining more territory.

However, between 1593 and 1594, relations between the two factions began to deteriorate significantly. The rivalry became evident when both sides put forward competing candidates for important government positions. Two particular appointments caused tension: the secretaryship and the post of Attorney General.

In the case of the secretaryship, Elizabeth refused to make any appointment at all, leaving the position technically vacant. However, in practice, the Cecils were performing most of the work associated with the office, which gave them considerable influence over government business. This arrangement clearly favoured the Cecils and frustrated Essex's ambitions.

The dispute over the Attorney General's post proved more decisive. The Cecils successfully secured the appointment of their candidate, Sir Edward Coke, defeating Essex's nominee. This defeat undoubtedly caused Essex to resent the Cecils' growing influence and made him more determined to challenge their power.

Despite these setbacks, Essex was able to prove his value to Elizabeth in 1593 when the spy network he had been developing uncovered a plot against the queen's life. Dr Antonio Lopez, Elizabeth's personal physician, was discovered to be planning to murder her. Essex's role in exposing this conspiracy enhanced his standing with the queen and demonstrated that he could be useful to her in ways beyond military service.

Escalating tensions (1596-1597)

The rivalry between the factions became much more dangerous and intense from 1596 onwards. Several incidents during this period revealed both the depth of the political divisions at court and Essex's tendency to react violently when he felt slighted or outmanoeuvred.

The Cadiz expedition (1596)

In 1596, Essex was sent on a military expedition to Cadiz in Spain. The expedition was largely successful in military terms, as English forces captured and sacked the Spanish port. However, Essex failed to maximise the gains from the campaign, and his absence from court proved costly in political terms.

While Essex was away fighting in Spain, the Cecils strengthened their grip on the Privy Council and government. Most significantly, Robert Cecil was finally appointed to the long-vacant position of secretary. This appointment was crucial because it gave Cecil formal control over government correspondence and daily access to the queen.

When Essex returned from Cadiz, he quarrelled with the queen over how the profits from the campaign should be divided. Not surprisingly, Essex came off worst in this dispute. He blamed Robert Cecil for his difficulties, as Cecil had been asked to make an inventory of the Spanish goods captured during the raid. This episode increased Essex's resentment of the Cecils and convinced him that they were deliberately working to undermine him.

Disputes over appointments (1597)

More tensions emerged in 1597 when the old Lord Cobham died, and the valuable offices he had held became available for redistribution. These included the influential posts of Lord Chamberlain and the lord lieutenancy of Kent. Such positions were important not just for the income they provided but also for the patronage opportunities they offered.

Essex lobbied the queen energetically on behalf of his follower Robert Sidney, expecting that his support would secure Sidney the appointment. However, Elizabeth passed Sidney over and instead awarded the positions to Cobham's son and heir. This decision was a significant blow to Essex's prestige and reduced his ability to reward his own followers with valuable offices.

Howard's promotion and Essex's rage

Later in 1597, Essex planned another military campaign against Spain, but this expedition proved unsuccessful and led to Elizabeth's displeasure. To make matters worse for Essex, the queen promoted Charles Lord Howard (a Cecil supporter) to the rank of Earl of Nottingham.

This promotion had serious implications beyond simply rewarding Howard for his service. According to the rules of precedence (the formal system that determined the ranking and status of nobles at court), Howard's new title meant that he now outranked Essex in formal court ceremonies and public occasions.

For Essex, who was intensely proud of his status as a member of the traditional nobility, this demotion in precedence was intolerable. He reacted with characteristic violence, challenging the Earl of Nottingham to a duel. When this proved impractical, Essex withdrew from court in a rage, refusing to perform his duties or attend on the queen.

Although Elizabeth eventually soothed Essex's wounded pride by creating him Earl Marshal (a prestigious ceremonial position), the incident revealed several worrying aspects of the political situation:

• The intense personal rivalry between the factions
• Essex's inability to control his temper
• His tendency to react violently when he felt his honour had been insulted
• The growing tensions at court resulting from factional competition

The Irish crisis and Essex's appointment (1598-1599)

The rebellion that had broken out in Ireland in 1595 created additional tensions both at court and between Elizabeth and Essex. The situation in Ireland deteriorated significantly by 1598, requiring the appointment of a new Lord Deputy to command English forces there.

The argument of 1598

In 1598, Elizabeth suggested that William Knollys, one of Essex's supporters, should be appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland. However, Essex rejected this suggestion and instead recommended George Carew, a supporter of the Cecils. Essex's motivation was probably to remove a Cecil supporter from court, where he might strengthen the rival faction's influence with the queen.

The death of William Cecil

The political situation deteriorated further in 1598 when William Cecil, Lord Burghley, died. Burghley had served Elizabeth for her entire reign and had often acted as a moderating influence on both factions. His death removed an experienced elder statesman who might have counselled restraint on both sides.

With Burghley gone, Robert Cecil moved quickly to consolidate his control over government. He ensured that key appointments went to himself, his relatives, and his supporters. Cecil himself became Master of the Court of Wards, a valuable office that controlled the wardship and marriages of noble minors (and therefore significant sources of patronage and income). His brother Thomas Cecil became president of the Council of the North, giving the family control over government in northern England.

Essex's Irish campaign

Despite his recent argument with the queen, Essex was appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland in 1599. This appointment may have seemed like a sign of royal favour, but it was actually a poisoned chalice. The Irish campaign was extremely difficult, expensive, and dangerous. Success was unlikely, and failure would be blamed on the Lord Deputy.

Essex left England for Ireland in March 1599. During his absence, Robert Cecil systematically ensured that all remaining important government posts were distributed to his own supporters. The Cecil faction's grip on power became almost complete, demonstrating once again the importance of being present at court to maintain political influence.

Meanwhile, Essex's campaign in Ireland proved unsuccessful. While Essex's own strategic and tactical mistakes contributed to this failure, the situation was made significantly worse by the lack of adequate support from Elizabeth's government. Whether this lack of support was deliberate sabotage by the Cecils or simply the result of England's limited resources is debatable, but it certainly contributed to Essex's difficulties.

The unauthorised return

In September 1599, Essex made a catastrophic decision. He left Ireland and returned to England without Elizabeth's permission, explicitly disobeying her direct orders to remain at his post. His return was dramatic and ill-advised: he burst into the queen's privy chamber early in the morning, where he found Elizabeth only just awake and not properly dressed to receive visitors. This invasion of the queen's private apartments was a serious breach of court protocol.

Elizabeth's reaction was swift and severe. She insisted that Essex face a full meeting of the Privy Council to explain his actions and account for his conduct of the Irish campaign. The situation was made more threatening by the fact that London was filled with Essex's followers, including soldiers who had returned with him from Ireland. This concentration of armed men loyal to Essex raised fears of a possible coup.

To neutralise the threat, Elizabeth decided to place Essex under house arrest. He remained confined to his residence from September 1599 until June 1600, isolated from the court and unable to influence political events.

Essex's trial and downfall (1600-1601)

The trial of June 1600

In June 1600, Essex was finally brought to trial before a special court. The charges against him were largely manufactured and orchestrated by Robert Cecil, who saw an opportunity to destroy his rival permanently. The original accusations were extremely serious: Cecil initially accused Essex of treason, and was even prepared to claim that Essex had conspired with Spain and the pope to seize the English crown for himself.

However, these most serious charges could not be proved. Instead, Essex was found guilty of misconduct in his handling of the Irish campaign. While this was a lesser charge than treason, it was still serious enough to have severe consequences. Essex was suspended from all his offices, losing both his formal positions and the income and patronage that went with them.

Loss of the monopoly on sweet wines

The final financial blow came in September 1600, when Elizabeth refused to renew Essex's monopoly on sweet wines. A monopoly was an exclusive right granted by the Crown to control the import, sale, and distribution of particular goods. Essex's monopoly on sweet wines had been extremely valuable, providing him with substantial income. Without it, Essex rapidly fell into serious debt.

This financial pressure was significant because in Elizabethan politics, maintaining a faction required money. A faction leader needed resources to reward his followers with pensions, gifts, and hospitality. Without money, Essex could no longer maintain his political network effectively.

The radicalisation of Essex's faction

By the end of 1600, Essex's political position had deteriorated dramatically. He had lost most of his more moderate and sensible supporters. Men like Francis Bacon and William Knollys, who had previously advised Essex, now distanced themselves from him as his behaviour became increasingly erratic and dangerous.

Essex found himself surrounded by a smaller group of more extreme followers. These included men who, like Essex himself, had personal grudges against the Cecils or Elizabeth. The Earl of Southampton was one such supporter who felt he had been badly treated by the regime. Many of Essex's remaining followers were military men who had accompanied him on various campaigns and who shared his belief that military service should be better rewarded.

The Essex Revolt (February 1601)

Planning the revolt

By February 1601, Essex and his supporters were planning to use armed force to capture the court and the queen. Their plan was to surround the royal residences with an armed force of their followers and then compel Elizabeth to dismiss the Cecils and appoint Essex's supporters to key government positions.

Essex was prepared to use dangerous historical precedents to justify his actions. He arranged for the Lord Chamberlain's company of actors to perform Shakespeare's play Richard II. This play told the story of how a king (Richard II) who was surrounded by evil favourites giving him bad advice was deposed by his cousin Bolingbroke, who then became King Henry IV.

Discovery and revolt

However, the queen and the Privy Council were alerted to Essex's plans before he could act. Elizabeth demanded that Essex come to court immediately to explain himself. Essex realised that if he obeyed this summons, he would likely be arrested and tried for treason. He felt that armed revolt was now his only option.

When four councillors arrived at Essex House with the queen's message, Essex took them hostage. He then set out with approximately 140 armed followers and marched towards the City of London. Essex hoped to gain the support of the city's trained bands (militia) and to receive popular support from London's citizens.

This plan proved disastrously wrong. The trained bands did not rally to Essex's cause, and the expected popular support failed to materialise. Londoners stayed in their homes rather than joining the rebellion. When Essex realised that his revolt had failed, he returned to Essex House, which was then besieged by the queen's forces. With no hope of success, Essex was forced to surrender.

Trial and execution

Essex was tried for treason, found guilty, and executed. The charges against him were now undeniable: he had taken up arms against the Crown, held royal councillors hostage, and attempted to raise a rebellion. Unlike his previous trial, there could be no lesser sentence this time.

With Essex's death, his faction completely disintegrated. Robert Cecil's faction remained dominant not only for the rest of Elizabeth's reign but also into the reign of her successor, James I. Cecil successfully managed the transition to the new monarch, ensuring his own continued political survival and influence.

The succession issue and faction

Elizabeth's refusal to name a successor

Elizabeth's childlessness created a significant problem for her councillors throughout her reign, but especially in her final years. She consistently refused to name her successor, perhaps fearing that doing so would make her appear weak or would create an alternative focus of loyalty for ambitious courtiers.

There were rumours that Elizabeth nominated James VI of Scotland on her deathbed, but whether she actually did so remains uncertain. Whatever she may have indicated in her final hours, the reality was that the decision about who would succeed her lay with the Privy Council. The councillors would have to manage the succession and ensure a peaceful transfer of power.

Candidates for the throne

There were several possible candidates for the English throne, including:

• James VI of Scotland
• Arbella Stuart
• Edward Seymour
• The Infanta Isabella of Spain

James VI's claim

James VI of Scotland was in many ways the most obvious candidate. He was descended from Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII's elder sister, who had married James IV of Scotland. This made James the senior claimant by blood. He was also Protestant, male, and an experienced ruler who already governed Scotland.

However, there were significant barriers to James's inheritance of the English throne. Under the 1544 Act of Succession, Henry VIII had been given the power to name his heirs in his will. Henry had named his three children (Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth) as his successors, then Frances Grey and Eleanor Clifford (the daughters of his younger sister Mary Tudor) and their children, and finally the vague phrase "rightful heirs."

Significantly, Henry's will had demoted the claim of the Stuart heirs of his elder sister Margaret. This deliberate exclusion created a potential legal problem for James VI, who was Margaret's descendant. In addition, James's mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, had been executed for treason against Elizabeth in 1587. Some argued that the child of a traitor could not inherit the throne. Finally, James was a Scottish foreigner, which made some English people uncomfortable about accepting him as their king.

Despite these obstacles, James had important advantages. He was Protestant, which meant that English Protestants saw him as the best candidate to protect their religious interests and prevent England returning to Catholicism. Furthermore, James's supporters argued that Henry VIII's will was not legally valid because it had been stamped with the dry stamp (a mechanical device for reproducing the king's signature) rather than being signed by Henry in person.

Other candidates

The other candidates for the throne had claims based on their descent from Henry VIII, but they received much less support from the English political establishment.

Arbella Stuart, like James VI, was descended from Margaret Tudor. She had been brought up in England, which gave her an advantage over her cousin James in terms of familiarity with English customs and politics. However, the Cecils favoured James, and Arbella was passed over. One possible reason for her exclusion was that she had Catholic sympathies, which would have made her unacceptable to the Protestant establishment that dominated English politics by 1603.

The other candidates (Edward Seymour and the Infanta Isabella) received even less serious consideration and posed no real challenge to James's succession.