An analysis of committee membership in the Long Parliament from 1 April 1642 through 31 December 1642

Abstract

All certain and pertinent biographical information, as well as the future political affiliations in 1643, 1644 and 1648, of 469 members was codified for the use of a computer. Likewise, 783 committees, during the last nine months of 1642, were reduced to fifty-eight types, codified, and added to the computer program. Analysis of committee membership required a breakdown of that information to ascertain if there were any patterns revealed between a member’s background and committee appointments. Evidence of significant domination of one social or political group over another was also sought. The patterns that emerge reveal a definite relationship between economic and political involvement as well as the domination of certain political and social groups over others. The evidence supplied by those members who were appointed to committees indicates that they were commercially committed. The dominant commercial concern was investment in the Irish Adventurer scheme. Equally evident, of members appointed, is the concern for the future political shape of the Revolution. Similarly, those who were not active on committees were overwhelmingly uninterested in economic or future political matters. Therefore, from those two perspectives, one can affirm that there was a very positive connection between committee service, economic activity, and later political involvement. Social and political interests produced many disproportionate representations. The county gentry and merchant class had the largest disproportions. The county gentry had disproportionately high representation on thirty types; the merchants on eighteen. The greater gentry, with almost half the membership of the House, had disproportionately high representation on only nine types. Furthermore, the greater gentry had a lower percent of members who would be radical in 1644 and 1648 than any other class. By contrast, the lesser gentry had the highest percent of future solid radicals; the county gentry had a slightly less percentage. Furthermore, both the lesser and county gentry were dominated by a highly active core group of future radicals. Those two classes were the major source of future 1644 and 1648 radical majorities on eighty percent of the fifty-eight committee types.