Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-s9k8s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T19:24:53.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problems and Significance of Administrative History in the Tudor Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

G. R. Elton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the past sixteen years “administrative history” seems to have come and gone as a term of distinction in the historical study of Tudor England. In the later 1940's there were a number of scholars newly aware of the vast wealth of government records in the English archives and enormously impressed by the achievements of the medievalists — of Tout and his school — who deplored the absence of comparable studies for the post-medieval period and, for a time, came to seek salvation in an ever more stringent and particular investigation of the processes of government. But that phase did not last long. Now it can be said by Joel Hurstfield, himself a notable contributor to that flowering of administrative history, that “we have passed beyond recall the stage when the machinery alone, however intimately understood, can answer the questions.” The study of social history is all the rage now, by which is meant the history of a given society in its various aspects and manifestations — or rather, whatever may in fact emerge from that awesome ambition. Fashions change, and nowadays they change pretty rapidly; but one need not regret that not-so-distant dawn or believe that the evening has yet come. Let it be made clear, however, what is meant, or should be meant, by administrative history. Certainly this involves the analysis and description of past administrative processes, the discovery of principles implicit or explicit in the conduct of government, and an understanding of the manner in which the theoretical mechanism operated in practice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , May 1965 , pp. 18 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1965

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.)

References

1. Hurstfield, Joel, Review of Elton, G. R. (ed.), The Tudor Constitution, E.H.R., LXXVII (1962), 730Google Scholar.

2. For example, Newton, A. P., “Tudor Reforms in the Royal Household,” Tudor Studies, ed. Seton-Watson, R. W. (London, 1924), pp. 231–56Google Scholar; Newton, A. P., “The King's Chamber under the Early Tudors,” E.H.R., XXXII (1917), 348–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pollard, A. F., “The Growth of the Court of Requests,” E.H.R., LVI (1941), 300–03CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Cf. Elton, G. R. (ed.), The Tudor Constitution (Cambridge, 1960), p. 170Google Scholar, note 1.

4. The acts in question are 4 Henry VII, c. 19 (1489), 7 Henry VIII, c. 1 (1515), 27 Henry VIII, c. 22 (1535), 5 Elizabeth I, c. 2 (1563). Two acts, abortive in their effect and rapidly repealed, experimented with special commissioners as enforcing agencies: 5 and 6 Edward VI, c. 5 (1551), and 2 and 3 Philip and Mary, c. 2 (1555). The new start was made in 1597, when all the previous acts were repealed; 35 Elizabeth 1, c. 1 innovated as to enforcement only by empowering justices of assize to hear pleas on the statute. How far the gentry, through social pressure or political influence, might succeed in preventing successful enforcement is of course quite another question; but I incline to think that this, too, has been exaggerated.

5. This is emerging from R. S. Schofield's work. See his unpublished dissertation, “Direct Lay Taxation under the Early Tudors” (Cambridge, 1962)Google Scholar.

6. Bayne, C. G. and Dunham, William H., Select Cases in the Council of Henry VII [Selden Society] (London, 1958)Google Scholar; Dunham, William H., “Henry VIII's Whole Council and Its Parts,” Huntington Library Quarterly, VII (1943), 7–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Notably Barnes, Thomas G., Somerset 1625-1640 (Oxford, 1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Churchill, I. J., Canterbury Administration (London, 1933)Google Scholar; Woodcock, B. L., Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts in the Diocese of Canterbury (Oxford, 1952)Google Scholar; Marchant, R. A., The Puritans and the Church Courts in the Diocese of York 1560-1640 (London, 1960)Google Scholar; Peters, Robert, Oculus Episcopi: Administration in the Archdeaconry of St. Albans (Manchester, 1963)Google Scholar. Mrs. Margaret Bowker of Girton College, Cambridge, is engaged in a study of the diocese of Lincoln in the sixteenth century.

9. A limited beginning has been made: Barnes, Thomas G. and Smith, A. Hassell, “Justices of the Peace from 1558 to 1668 — a Revised List of Sources,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXXII (1959), 221–42Google Scholar.