The English Gentry

The term 'gentry' although originally used to mean nobility, "came to be used of the lesser nobility," (pg. 2) in England around 1540. Once identical, eventually these terms became complementary, in the sense that their definitions began to fill in parts of what the other lacked. Although the members of the class had a great range in the wealth, at its core they "consisted of the landed proprietors, above the yeomanry, and below the peerage," (pg.4). The gentry were characterized as being high-class commoners. They were not nobility, so they lacked hereditary titles, but they did not work the land themselves like the yeomanry, instead they hired tenant farmers. The gentry of Tudor-Stuart England were divided into three groups: knights, gentlemen and the younger brothers and relatives of titles nobility. In contrast to the rest of Europe where all relatives and children of Nobles were considered nobility, in England, only the eldest son gained the family title. Therefore the rest of the family became part of the gentry. The knights of Tudor-Stuart England also differed from knights of other European countries, as they were not considered aristocrats, but rather commoners, which is why they fall into the gentry category as well. Finally, the lowest levels of the gentry were the gentlemen, who consisted of professionals, doctors, lawyers, bankers and royal officials who purchased or acquired manorial estates.

Peter Coss, in his book entitled 'The Origins of the English Gentry' claims that the formation of this group is very simply in nature, in fact, he says that "the gentry were all those who are accepted as, or who lay claim to being, gentle," i (pg.3). After sumptuary legislation in 1364, Coss says that both esquires and knights were considered gentle but that "gentility was by no means confined to the knights,"i (pg. 3). Gentility also dealt with men who wore uniforms or were involved with household services. In fact, as time progressed more and more individuals began to refer to themselves as 'gentle men' which is perhaps part of the reason why the line between the yeomanry, the gentry and the peerage became so blurred.

The rise of the gentry can be most easily seen when we compare change in the landholdings of this group from 1436 to 1690. Over this period the gentry acquired an additional 20% of the estates in Tudor-Stuart England, holding almost half of the countries land (45%). This increase can be attributed to a variety of factors including, the ruin of famous families, the decline of position of the yeomanry and the drastic loss of revenue and authority by the monarchy and the Church,ii (pg.5). However, the change in landownership of the gentry can be easily explained if we look at the actions of King Henry VIII. In 1536, he confiscated almost all of the church's land. The main reason behind his actions was that he could now sell these estates in order to raise money to finance his continental wars. The group most financially able to do so, the gentry, as well as some by the yeomanry of course purchased these lands. In fact by 1640, just prior to the Civil War these two groups had accumulated an astonishing 90% of the Church's confiscated land. In addition, during this period the gentry also began to accumulate estates held by nobility. The main reason for this can be attributed to the drastic increases in inflation 'The Price Revolution.' As rent fees were fixed, many lords became impoverished when prices soared and their costs began to rise, so the best way to deal with their current lack of income was to live off of their capital and sell their land. The Crown, as mentioned earlier engaged in a similar practice, however, when that was not enough it began to arbitrarily raise taxes which was partly responsible for the Civil War of the 1640s.ii

During the Price Revolution, the gentry benefited from inflation to a greater extent than any other group at the time. Firstly, they did not have any military, court or other feudal obligations. Secondly, many of them being of middle class (bourgeois) origin, were very profit oriented. Finally, they had much smaller estates to manage, and were therefore better able to devote time and energy to making smarter decision regarding the operation of their properties. All of these factors combined to create a setting in Europe where a much greater percentage of the land was controlled by individuals who were much more 'capitalistic' and market-oriented in nature.ii

The enclosure system created by the gentry can be very easily compared to the French seigneurial system, which was created by Cardinal Richelieu in 1627. In this French structure, the land was arranged into long strips called seigneuries. Each piece of land belonged to the lord or 'seigneur,' whereby they would further

divide

the land by tenants. This parallels the deviding up and privitization of previously common land as was done in Tudor-Stuart England. The gentry of England managed their land in a similar fashion, by 'enclosing' it then hiring workers to farm the fields. This privitization of land can be seen as the building blocks towards the creation of a capitalist society and was necessary in order to develop England's agricultural system. In the old arrangement that included the use of a common land, farmers could be tempted to 'overfarm' causes the nutrients in the land to become depleted. This theory is comparable to the problem that governments face today with the overuse of public goods. For example, if a chemical company is able to freely pollute the water next to its plant then it will do so as much as is profitable for itself, not taking into consideration the fisherman who are losing business because all the fish are dying. If however, sanctions are imposed on the levels of pollution can can be discharged into the water, then the system will become efficient because the 'good' (water) is no longer common to everyone, it has in a sense been privitized allowing for greater overall profits for the two groups combine. When the gentry began to enclose their estates, this effectively created a system whereby landowners were given more control over their profitability and therefore created a breed of better managers.

Richard Henry Tawney, in his article on 'The Rise of the Gentry,' using the so-called superior managerial skills of the gentry class as his explanation as to why this group experienced such tremendous gains during the 100 year period from 1540-1640. He claimed that it was "agricultural capitalists...to whom the future belonged,"(pg.17).ii His argument was that the gentry, owning less land and being more business minded allowed them to better focus