Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2014
Sir Geoffrey Elton has breathed new life into the putrefying corpse of Elizabethan parliamentary history. In conjunction with others, notably Michael Graves, Norman Jones, and David Dean, he has succeeded in demolishing the standard interpretation of high politics, spirited opposition, and principled conflict perfected by Sir John Neale. Elton's analysis of the early Elizabethan Parliaments provides, for the first time, the detailed revisionist argument, one capable in many respects, moreover, of logical extension over the remainder of the reign and buttressed by a series of general overviews. For all the necessary emphasis on cooperation, bill procedure, and “business as usual,” Elton is well aware that politics intruded on legislative affairs, and at no time was this more obvious than during the troubled 1566 session. Neale had devoted forty-seven printed pages to his interpretation of constitutional crisis during these three months. Elton provides a far briefer, more taut, coverage but nonetheless the session figures very prominently in his portrayal of “great affairs.” It is not the intention of this article to dispute Elton's general interpretation of a political crisis orchestrated in good measure by privy councillors intent on exerting pressure on the queen to settle the succession issue. That portrayal is sensible and, in its broad outlines, generally supported by the known evidence. Nevertheless, in his desire to purge Neale's interpretations from the corpus of Elizabethan parliamentary history, Sir Geoffrey has, in a number of instances, permitted his arguments and beliefs to outrun his evidence. These occasions are important for the understanding of events and themes within Parliament.
1 Elton, G. R., The Parliament of England, 1559–1581 (Cambridge, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (hereafter cited as Parliament of England), “Tudor Government: The Points of Contact. I Parliament,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 24 (1974): 183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar (hereafter cited as “Tudor Government”), “Parliament in the Sixteenth Century: Functions and Fortunes,” Historical Journal 22 (1979): 255–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Parliament,” in The Reign of Elizabeth I, ed. Haigh, C. (London, 1984), pp. 79–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar (hereafter cited as “Parliament,” in Haigh, ed.).
2 Elton, , Parliament of England, pp. 162–63Google Scholar; Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559–1581 (London, 1953), pp. 136–39Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Elizabeth and Her Parliaments).
3 Elton, , Parliament of England, pp. 163–65, 365Google Scholar.
4 Ibid., p. 155, Elton, , “Parliament,” in Haigh, , ed., p. 93Google Scholar.
5 1 Elizabeth, c. 21, 5 Elizabeth, c. 31, 13 Elizabeth, c. 27, 18 Elizabeth, c. 23, 23 Elizabeth, c. 15, 27 Elizabeth, c. 29, 29 Elizabeth, c. 8 in The Statutes of the Realm (London, 1819), 4:384–96, 464–78, 568–81, 638–51, 684–98, 744–57, 778–92Google Scholar (hereafter cited as SR, 4). For a detailed explanation of the Tudor subsidy and its early development, see Schofield, R. S., “Parliamentary Lay Taxation, 1485–1547” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1963)Google Scholar.
6 Elton, , Parliament of England, p. 164Google Scholar. Cecil's notes are Public Record Office (PRO) State Papers (SP) 12/40, fol. 191v. The administration's control over Elizabethan committees for supply and its advance preparations are covered more extensively in my forthcoming study, “Parliament and Taxation, 1559–1601,” in The Parliaments of Elizabethan England, ed. Dean, D. M. and Jones, N. L. (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar.
7 PRO, SP 12/40, fol. 191v. Elton's summary (p. 164n) is inaccurate. He reports the first installment on goods was to be seven pence, when it was clearly “xij” pence, and the total for goods as twenty-seven pence in the pound, when it was specified as two shillings and eight pence. He notes that the first installment payable on goods by aliens was increased from twenty pence to two shillings. This, however, was not an adjustment arising out of the committee discussions. Aliens were always rated at double the domestic rates, and thus the total assessment on goods for aliens appears as five shillings and four pence. The original notation of twenty pence, instead of the correct two shillings, for the first installment, was presumably a simple mistake that was speedily corrected. For supporting evidence that the administration sought, from the outset, a subsidy of normal proportions, see the report of the French ambassador dated October 27, 1566, where he spoke of “un subside de quatre solz pour liure” in relation to the events in the Commons of October 17 (Disraeli, Isaac, Curiosities of Literature, 14th ed., 4 vols. [New York, 1881], 2:359)Google Scholar.
8 British Library (BL), Harleian MS 5176, fols. 89–92, printed from this source in Proceedings in the Parliaments of Elizabeth I, 1558–1581, ed. Hartley, T. E. (Leicester, 1981), pp. 80–86Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Proceedings in Parliaments).
9 Alsop, J. D., “The Theory and Practice of Tudor Taxation,” English Historical Review 97 (1982): 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Elton, , Parliament of England, p. 163Google Scholar; The Journals of the House of Commons (CJ), ed. Vardon, T. and May, T. E., 17 vols. (London, 1803), 1:74Google Scholar; Calendar of Letters and State Papers Relating to English Affairs, Preserved Principally in the Archives of Simancas. Elizabeth, 1558–1567 (CSP Spanish), ed. Hume, M. A. (London, 1892Google Scholar; reprint, Liechtenstein, 1971), p. 588. Note also Proceedings in Parliaments, pp. 141–43. It appears that at the time Parliament was summoned, the O'Neil rising was believed to require significant English expenditure (CSP Spanish, pp. 572, 574, 577, 580–81).
11 SR, 4:505, 638.
12 Elton, , Parliament of England, pp. 32, 155, 163Google Scholar.
13 Alsop, J. D., “Innovation in Tudor Taxation,” English Historical Review 99 (1984): 85Google Scholar.
14 CSP Spanish, p. 574.
15 Ibid., pp. 571, 580.
16 Ibid., pp. 575, 583.
17 Ibid., pp. 586, 598.
18 Disraeli (n. 7 above), 2:359–64; Williams, N., Thomas Howard, Fourth Duke of Norfolk (London, 1964), pp. 101–3Google Scholar.
19 Disraeli, 2:359–61; CJ, 1:74Google Scholar; CSP Spanish, p. 588. Elton incorrectly dates the events of this day to October 18 (Parliament of England, p. 163).
20 Disraeli, 2:361–62.
21 Hirst, Derek, The Representative of the People? (Cambridge, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 PRO, SP 12/40, fol. 190. In this I follow Elton in believing the marginal marks beside the twenty-one names denote attendance. The list did not identify the privy councillors individually, and thus their attendance, apart from Cecil himself, is unknown.
23 CJ, 1:75Google Scholar.
24 Elton, , Parliament of England, p. 163Google Scholar.
25 Ibid., pp. 157–58, “Parliament,” in Haigh, , ed., pp. 92–93Google Scholar.
26 Elton, , Parliament of England, pp. 163, 366–67Google Scholar.
27 Ibid., p. 163.
28 Proceedings in Parliaments (n. 8 above), pp. 143–44.
29 Elton, , Parliament of England, p. 163Google Scholar; Neale, , Elizabeth and Her Parliaments (n. 2 above), p. 139Google Scholar.
30 Elton, , “Tudor Government” (n. 1 above), pp. 190–91Google Scholar, and “Parliament,” in Haigh, , ed., pp. 92–93Google Scholar; Schofield (n. 5 above), pp. 11–14; Alsop, “Parliament and Taxation” (n. 6 above).
31 Apparently the only contemporaries known to have asserted this interdependence were De Silva and La Forêt (CSP Spanish, pp. 580, 589; Disraeli [n. 7 above], 2:361–62). As suggested above, the ambassadors regularly provided political explanations for every occurrence, development, or delay. One instance that can be subjected to external evaluation and thus rejected conclusively involves De Silva's dispatch of December 16 (CSP Spanish, p. 604). He reported that although Parliament had voted the supplies, it had not presented them to the queen because it was pressing her to approve of desired religious changes. In the next sentence De Silva stated that the Lords had not yet passed the subsidy and were delaying for this very reason. Once again, De Silva revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of parliamentary procedure: a tax measure could not be presented to the monarch until it had passed both houses; moreover, the presentation customarily took place during the closing ceremonies of the session. De Silva's first statement is nonsensical; the second is highly improbable. When the subsidy bill was presented in the House of Lords on December 17, it went through all three readings with great alacrity on two consecutive days without any delay whatsoever (Journals of the House of Lords [London, 1846], 1:660Google Scholar).
32 CJ, 1:74Google Scholar; Proceedings in Parliaments (n. 8 above), pp. 137, 143. See also Neale, J. E., “Parliament and the Succession Question in 1562/3 and 1566,” English Historical Review 36 (1921): 511Google Scholar (hereafter cited as “Parliament and the Succession”); CSP Spanish, p. 589.
33 Neale, , Elizabeth and Her Parliaments, pp. 160–61Google Scholar; Elton, , Parliament of England, p. 164Google Scholar.
34 In addition to Elton, other principal proponents of this interpretation include Graves, M. A. R., Elizabethan Parliaments, 1559–1601 (London, 1987)Google Scholar; Dean, D. M., “Bills and Acts, 1584–1601” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1984)Google Scholar.
35 Alsop, “Parliament and Taxation.”
36 Neale, , Elizabeth and Her Parliaments, p. 160Google Scholar.
37 Among numerous illustrations, see Proceedings in Parliaments (n. 8 above), pp. 37–38, 84–85, 110, 184, 465–66; SR, 4:384, 465, 568, 638, 818, 937, 992; BL, Lansdowne MS 43, fol. 190, MS 104, fol. 55, MS 115, fol. 43v.
38 SR, 4:505–19. The poll tax on aliens was set at six pence.
39 Proceedings in Parliaments, p. 166; Elton, , Parliament of England, p. 165Google Scholar.
40 Neale, , Elizabeth and Her Parliaments, pp. 160–64Google Scholar; Elton, , Parliament of England, pp. 164–65, 373Google Scholar; CJ, 1:78–79Google Scholar. Elton is apparently mistaken in believing that the concern arose over an earlier preamble drafted when three installments were requested. We do not now that such a preamble was ever created; Monson's point, in any case, related to the intended preamble of the final bill. Elton also (surprisingly) suggests that the unusual commitment of the subsidy bill to Thomas Seckford following second reading on November 27 was occasioned by the attempt to exploit the preamble for the succession issue. It is perhaps more likely that this commitment to—as he says—a technical legal advisor was necessary at this juncture to modify the existing bill for a subsidy in three installments into one for two installments. This involved a number of deletions that could not readily be undertaken on the floor of the House.
41 CSP Spanish, p. 600; PRO, SP 12/41, fols. 82–97; Neale, , “Parliament and the Succession” (n. 32 above), p. 517Google Scholar; The State Papers and Letters of Sir Ralph Sadler, ed. Clifford, A., 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1809), 2:553–55Google Scholar.
42 Elton, , Parliament of England, pp. 364–74Google Scholar.
43 PRO, SP 46/166, fols. 3–11v, printed in Proceedings in Parliaments, pp. 129–39.
44 Proceedings in Parliaments, pp. 119—20.
45 CJ, 1:76Google Scholar.
46 Elton, , Parliament of England, pp. 370–72Google Scholar; PRO, SP 46/166, fols. 1–1 v, printed in Proceedings in Parliaments, p. 140.
47 William Lambarde's Notes on the Procedures and Privileges of the House of Commons (1584), ed. Ward, P. L. (London, 1977), pp. 65–66Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Lambarde's Notes).
48 Elton, , Parliament of England, p. 371nGoogle Scholar.
49 Ibid., p. 370n; Warnicke, R. M., William Lambarde: Elizabethan Antiquary 1536–1601 (London, 1973), pp. 17–22Google Scholar.
50 Proceedings in Parliaments, pp. 130, 132; Archeion or, a Discourse upon the High Courts of Justice in England, by William Lambarde, ed. Mcllwain, C. H. and Ward, P. L. (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), p. 126 (hereafter cited as Archeion)Google Scholar.
51 Descriptive List of the State Papers Supplementary (SP 46): Private Papers, Series I, 1535–1705 (List and Index Society, 1968), 33:238Google Scholar.
52 PRO, SP 46/166, fol. 9v. Dr. Hartley's transcription (Proceedings in Parliaments [n. 8 above], p. 137) leaves out a fairly significant “and” after the word “tenths.”
53 Lambarde's Notes, p. 65.
54 Elton, , Parliament of England, p. 371Google Scholar.
55 SR, 4:505–19; BL, Landsdowne MS 43, fol. 167.
56 Elton, , Parliament of England, p. 371Google Scholar.
57 The patronage for the borough was apparently divided between the duchy and the council in the North (Hasler, P. W., The House of Commons, 1558–1603, 3 vols. [London, 1981], 1:284–85, 2:430Google Scholar). Even in the contested elections of the later Elizabethan period, the chancellor of the duchy influenced results in less than half the seats where the duchy had influence (Gruenfelder, J. K., Influence in Early Stuart Elections, 1604–1640 [Columbus, Ohio, 1981], pp. 43–44)Google Scholar.
58 Proceedings in Parliaments, p. 140; Elton, , Parliament of England, p. 372Google Scholar.
59 Alsop, J. D. and Stevens, W. M., “William Lambarde and the Elizabethan Polity,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 8 (1987): 233–65Google Scholar.
60 Warnicke (n. 49 above), p. 19.
61 Proctor, John, The Historie of Wyates Rebellion (London, January 1555/1556)Google Scholar, BL press mark C.55a, 27. This comment by Warnicke also ignores entirely the vexed question of the extent to which Wyatt's Rebellion stemmed from religious or secular motivation.
62 Alsop and Stevens, pp. 237–38.
63 Hasler, 3:470; The Records of the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn. The Black Books, I, 1422–1586, ed. Walker, J. D. (London, 1897), pp. 339, 364, 456Google Scholar.
64 Warnicke, p. 21.
65 See Lambarde's Notes (Ward's introduction), pp. 31, 35; Alsop and Stevens, pp. 242–44, 258–59.
66 Lambarde's Notes, pp. 30–46.
67 Alsop and Stevens, pp. 233–65.
68 Proceedings in Parliaments (n. 8 above), p. 131; CJ, 1:74Google Scholar; Neale, , Elizabeth and Her Parliaments (n. 2 above), pp. 91–92, 137Google Scholar.
69 Elton, , Parliament of England, p. 371Google Scholar;CJ, 1:75, 78Google Scholar. Elton's claim that De Silva reported it was Cecil who restated the stalled money bill (p. 371) is without any support in the source cited (CSP Spanish, p. 588).
70 Elton, , Parliament of England, pp. 163, 366Google Scholar;Proceedings in Parliaments, pp. 129–39.
71 Levine, Mortimer, The Early Elizabethan Succession Question, 1558–1568 (Stanford, Calif., 1966), pp. 172–73Google Scholar; Hasler, 3:60–62; MacCaffrey, Wallace, The Shaping of the Elizabethan Regime (Princeton, N.J., 1968), p. 211Google Scholar.
72 Neale, , “Parliament and the Succession,” p. 497Google Scholar.
