The Mediator: a Link between National and Provincial Society in Seventeenth-Century England

The Mediator: a Link between National and Provincial Society in Seventeenth-Century England1 Anthropologists have long been aware of the role of the 'mediator' who acts as a tink in preindustrial societies between the 'great society' of the capital and the local communities of the provinces. They have been variously defined: by Sydel F. Silverman as 'an individual or a group that acts as a link between local and national social systems'; by Eric Wolf as 'cultural brokers . . . . who mediate between community oriented groups . . . and nation-oriented groups which operate through national institutions'; by Robert Redfield as 'links' or 'hinges' between 'the local life of a peasant community and the state', 'who represent the city to the town and the town to the city'.2 However defined the mediator's activities vary in detail according to the societies in which they function. Most commonly, however, they transmit intelligence from the community to their contacts in metropotitan society and from that society to the local community. They seek the fruits of patronage on behalf of individuals and advantages for their local communities by exploiting their influence with men of power in the 'great society'. Their activities tend to promote harmony and social order by relieving local pressures, local grievances, whilst assisting national policies to operate more effectively at the local level. Here I wish to employ this anthropological concept by using it as a 'lens' through which to examine the role of a single occupational group: the estate stewards of the nobility and gentry w h o functioned as mediators within the structure of English provincial society during the seventeenth century. The evidence for this is stronger for the period following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, for, while their mediator activities can be observed earlier, estate records are less rich and voluminous for the earlier period.3 Moreover, after the Restoration stewards were more numerous and their responsibilities heavier and more diverse because substantial landowners spent more time in 1 Earlier versions of this study were delivered to the New Zealand Association for Early Modern Studies, Auckland Unvcrsity and at Latrobe and Adelaide Universities in 1986. I am grateful for invaluable comment and criticism to Colm Davis, Michael Graves, Donna Merwick, Judith Richards, John Cashmere, Cherry Walker and several departmental colleagues, particularly Robert Dare. 2 Sydel F. Silverman, Patronage and Community-Nation Relationships in Central Italy. Ethnology 4. 2, April 1965, 172-189; Eric R. Wolf Aspects of Group Relations in a Complex Society: Mexico, American Anthropologist 38. 6, December 1956, 1075; R. Redfield, The Little Community and Peasant Society and Culture, Chicago, 1960, 27-8. 3 This evidence lies chiefly in the letters exchanged by masters and stewards, several thousand of which I have read whilst preparing a monograph on the role of the steward in seventeenth-century society. 90 DR. Hainsworth London than they had before the Civil War.4 Other possible links may appear to qualify as mediators, for example, squires and local lawyers. The latter, however, tended to spend the term in London and while their regular London visits might be thought to qualify them as mediators, in fact their long absences rather undermine their claim than sustain it. The squires might appear to have a better claim if they were by inclination or necessity "backwoodsmen', and thereby always present on their estates, but a squire of limited resources heavily involved in running his estate would not have the leisure or the inclination for the activities characteristic of the role, and might lack the metropolitan connections and influence which were an essential qualification for it. Occasionally he might be able to use the influence of metropolitan kinsmen on behalf of his family , and even intervene in London on behalf of local issues, but few squires could match the influence which could be mobilized by the estate steward of a substantial landlord. The stewards were in regular contact with their Londonbased employers and with other members of metropolitan society who served their lords in a variety of ways.5 It may be objected that the steward was inappropriate for the role because he was the salaried employee of one 'side'. H o w could he appear...