Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T09:25:02.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Continuity and Discontinuity: Professor Neale and the Two Worlds of Elizabethan Government*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Lamar M. Hill
Get access

Extract

There is a story told among English historians about two enterprising and perceptive young scholars who, more than fifty years ago, determined that their common interest in sixteenth and seventeenth-century Parliaments could best be served by a fundamental division of labor. One of them, Professor Wallace Notestein, took as his province the early Stuart Parliaments while the other, Professor John Neale, took the Elizabethan Parliaments as his own. Elaborations of this story tell us that while Notestein had a goodly collection of diaries and journals to work with in his studies, Neale was less well served by the evidence; thus he was forced to cut accordingly his scholarly coat. This led to a parliamentary history which concentrated upon a limited range of important constitutional issues: the succession, the religious settlement, and the privileges of the House. Neale excluded from his study any account of the economic and social legislation of his period. On the other hand, Notestein, who had more material to work with, was able to produce a more encompassing history which took into account the economic and social legislation as well as the structure of English government in its many parts.

Neale has dominated the field by the sheer volume of his work, by the apparent comprehensiveness of his evidence, and by the elegance of his style. His interpretation of the Elizabethan period has come to be cited as authority, and it has colored the writings of many younger historians. For the novice scholar, however, Neale's histories are fraught with hidden difficulties. Neale provided no caveat to warn the reader of his limited range of topics. Because of the scope of his work and the clarity of his argument, the student is often left with the impression that the only issues which were significant were the constitutional issues, and that the only goal of politically ambitious Elizabethan Englishmen was a seat in Parliament.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , Winter 1977 , pp. 343 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This essay was read in a slightly different version at the American Historical Association session commemorating the work of the late Professor John Neale, Washington, D.C., December, 1976.

References

1 SirNeale, John, Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, 1559-1581 (1965), p. 11Google Scholar.

2 Elton, G. R., “Tudor Government: the Points of Contact, I: Parliament,” Trans. R. Hist. Soc., 5th Ser., 24(1974): 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Review by Read, Conyers, Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559-1581, in A.H.R., LIX, 3(1954): 610–11Google Scholar.

4 For this data see the appendices to Gleason, J. H., The Justices of the Peace in England, 1558-1640 (1969)Google Scholar.

5 MacCaffrey, W. T., Exeter, 1540-1640 (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), p. 204Google Scholar.

6 Smith, A. Hassell, County and Court, Govenment and Politics in Norfolk 1558-1603 (1974), pp. 335–36Google Scholar.

7 Ponko, V. Jr., “The Privy Council and the Spirit of Elizabethan Economic Management, 1558-1603,” Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., 58, 4(1968): 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Manning, Roger B., Religion and Society in Elizabethan Sussex (Leicester, 1969), p. 244Google Scholar.

9 James, M. E., “The Concept of Order and the Northern Rising, 1569”, P & P, 60 (1973): 76Google Scholar.

10 Atkinson, Tom, Elizabethan Winchester (1963), p. 250Google Scholar.

11 MacCaffrey, , Exeter, pp. 221–22Google Scholar.

12 Ibid, p. 203.

13 Smith, Hassell, County and Court, pp. 16 and 19Google Scholar.

14 Ibid, p. 101.

15 Ibid, p. 333.

16 Davies, Margaret, The Enforcement of English Apprenticeship, 1563-1642 (Cambridge, Mass., 1956), p. 252Google Scholar.

17 In Hirst's, Derek recent study, The Representative of the People? (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, he points to the willingness of the gentry prior to the Civil War to include, rather than exclude, the commons in the electoral body of the county. This suggests a perception of the organic unity of the county on the part of its leaders. This would be a corollary of the identification of one's own interests with those of the county at large.

18 Stone, L., The Causes of the English Revolution, 1529-1642 (New York, 1972), p. 95Google Scholar.

19 Hill, L. M., “The Admiralty Circuit of 1591: Some Comments on the Relations between Central Government and Local Interests,” The Historical Journal, XIV, I (1971): 3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 For example see MacCaffrey, , Exeter, pp. 244f.Google Scholar

21 Smith, Hassell, County and Court, pp. 358–59Google Scholar. These figures confirm Davies, , Apprenticeship, p. 220Google Scholar. “… the prevailing continuity of service in the commissions of the peace indicates that the most powerful penalty, actual dismissal from office, may have been comparatively rare. The mere threat of it was nearly as potent, since it endangered the sensitive spider-web of family influence.

22 Ibid., p. 230.

23 Dawson, J. P., A History of Lay Judges (Cambridge, Mass., 1960) pp. 279–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Ibid., p. 284.

25 MacCaffrey, W. T., “Place and Patronage in Elizabethan Politics,” in Bindoff, , Hurstfield, , Williams, , eds. Elizabethan Government and Society (1961), p. 98Google Scholar.

26 James, M. E., Change and Continuity in the Tudor North, Borthwick Papers, No. 27 (York, 1965), p. 7Google Scholar.

27 James, M. E., “The Concept of Order,” p. 76Google Scholar.

28 See n. 18 supra for Stone's capsule statement of this process.

29 Manning, , Sussex, p. 244Google Scholar.

30 See Williams, P., The Council in the Marches of Wales under Elizabeth I (Cardiff, 1958)Google Scholar and Ham, R.E., “The Career of Sir Herbert Croft (1564?-1629), A Study in Local Government and Society” PhD Dissertation, Univ. of California, Irvine, 1974), pp. 169–285Google Scholar.

31 Hurstfield, Joel, The Elizabethan Nation (1964), p. 38Google Scholar.

32 James, M. E., “Concept of Order,” p. 68–69Google Scholar.

33 The best discussion of this aristocractic behavior is the chapter entitled “Power” in Stone, L., The Crisis of the Aristocracy (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar.

34 MacCaffrey, W. T., “The Crown and the New Aristocracy, 1540-1660,” P & P, 30 (1965): 63Google Scholar.

35 Pocock, J.G.A., The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law (New York, 1967), chapters 2 and 3Google Scholar.

36 Manning, , Sussex, pp. 3 and 8Google Scholar.

37 Ibid, p. 13.

38 Ibid, pp. 280-81.

39 Ibid, p. 274.

40 Ibid, pp. 280-81.

41 Ibid, pp. 8-9.