It has become a commonplace to portray Mary’s reign as one of weakness and poor government. In a scathing and comprehensive indictment of her regime, Geoffrey Elton not only dismissed her religious policy as divisive and unpopular, and her central government as hamstrung by a factious and unwieldy council, but also argued that by 1558 she had alienated the nobility and gentry to such an extent that her council was having serious difficulty in implementing the simplest decisions and executing the most basic governmental functions. On the contrary, the deliberately old-fashioned approach of the Marian regime was combined with a real commitment to firm government, subordinated of course to the paramount aim of rebuilding the old faith. The regime was fully aware of the importance of controlling the religion of the elite in the battle to define popular religion. Hence the incessant talk in government papers of ‘good Catholic men’ and ‘honest Catholic men’, and the pervasive desire to ensure that government was in the hands of these good, honest Catholics. The writs for Mary’s parliaments used to call upon the shires and boroughs to return ‘good Catholic men’ to the House of Commons. In January 1556, the Privy Council wrote to the burgesses of Coventry, enclosing a shortlist of suitable candidates for the post of mayor, and advising them to elect one of those ‘Catholic and honest persons’. There was certainly divisiveness here. It was one of the first times in English history that the question ‘is he one of us?’ became a political test. But only a minority was to be positively excluded, so the test did not disable government. More to the point, the Privy Council’s concern with the personnel of government at the local level shows real political grip.
World History
