Landownership, the Aristocracy and the Country Gentry

  • James M. Rosenheim
Part of the Problems in Focus Series book series (PFS)


In the three decades following the Restoration, a reshaping of landed society began that would be completed in the eighteenth century, when a truly national, metropolitan ruling order emerged in England. Despite the hopes some had in 1660 to restore landed society to its prewar state, the contours of landed life had been so altered by the Interregnum as to preclude that return. In broad terms, these disrupted patterns included significant geographical localism, engagement with traditional cultural activities, personal involvement in provincial administration and a virtual monopoly over political discourse. None of these features had disappeared by the time William III arrived on English shores, but none retained its prewar strength. Although the kingdom’s ‘natural rulers’ resumed dominant roles in the county society and government from which many had previously withdrawn or been excluded, they also began to rethink what was entailed in the life of a landowner and to alter the courses in which that life ran. Fearful memory of recent disorders, economic insecurity generated by a decline in rents, and uncertainty about the nature of politics in an era of rampant partisanship — these considerations shaped the new ethos of an élite gripped less by provincial affairs and more imbued with a sense of common bonds.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Of all the books published about landed life, relatively few specifically address the Restoration. The period provides the starting point for J. V. Beckett’s thematic survey of élite life, The Aristocracy in England 1660–1914 (Oxford, 1986) and for Sir John Habbakuk’s Marriage, Debt and the Estates System: English Landownership, 1650–1950 (Oxford, 1995), as well as the endpoint forGoogle Scholar
  2. F. Heal and C. Holmes, The Gentry in England and Wales, 1500–1700 (London, 1994). C. Clay lays out the challenges to and accomplishments of landlords between 1640 and 1750 in ‘Landlords and Estate Management’, inGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Thirsk (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales, V, pt II (Cambridge, 1985), chapter 14, and endorses the view of a general drift of property to larger owners after the 1650s. P. Roebuck follows in detail the economic history of four landed families through this period in Yorkshire Baronets 1640–1760: Families, Estates and Fortunes (Oxford, 1980). An indispensable account of estate-management practices and their non-economic consequences for landed society is D. R. Hainsworth’s superb study, Stewards, Lords and People: The Estate Steward and his World in Late Stuart England (Cambridge, 1992).Google Scholar
  4. S. K. Roberts’s examination of county governance in Devon, Recovery and Restoration in an English County: Devon Local Administration 1646–1670 (Exeter, 1985), reveals the transformation that the Civil War wrought on provincial power relations. In his examination of Hampshire, Central Government and the Localities: Hampshire 1649–1689 (Cambridge, 1987), A. M. Coleby shows the impact of centralization on provincial society, a theme implicit in A. Fletcher’s survey of local government, Reform in the Provinces: The Government of Stuart England (New Haven and London, 1986). The first half of J. M. Rosenheim, The Townshends of Raynham: Nobility in Transition in Restoration and Early Hanoverian England (Middletown, Connecticut, 1989) lays out the competing claims of centre and locality in one nobleman’s Restoration career. V. Stater describes the effective use of the lieutenancy as an instrument of central policy in Noble Government: The Stuart Lord Lieutenancy and the Transformation of English Politics (Athens, Georgia, 1994). Among a growing number of case studies of county interactions with central authorities, the more useful includeGoogle Scholar
  5. D. P. Carter, ‘The Lancashire Militia, 1660–1688’, Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 132 (1982), 155–81;Google Scholar
  6. P. J. Challinor, ‘Restoration and Exclusion in the County of Cheshire’, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 64, (1982), 360–85;Google Scholar
  7. N. Key, ‘Comprehension and the Breakdown of Consensus in Restoration Herefordshire’, in T. Harris, P. Seaward and M. Goldie (eds), The Politics of Religion in Restoration England (Oxford, 1990), pp. 191–215;Google Scholar
  8. P. J. Norrey, ‘The Restoration Regime in Action: The Relationship between Central and Local Government in Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire, 1660–1678’, HJ, 31 (1988) 789–812;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. H. S. Reinmuth, ‘A Mysterious Dispute Demystified: Sir George Fletcher vs. the Howards’, HJ, 27 (1984) 289–308;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. J. M. Rosenheim, ‘County Governance and Elite Withdrawal in Norfolk, 1660–1720’, in A. L. Beier, D. Cannadine and J. M. Rosenheim (eds), The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 95–125; andGoogle Scholar
  11. V. Stater, ‘Continuity and Change in English Provincial Politics: Robert Paston in Norfolk, 1676–1682’, Albion, 25 (1993) 194–216.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© J. M. Rosenheim 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • James M. Rosenheim

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations