First published 1985 by Longman Group Limited
Second impression 1986
Published 2013 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Copyright 1985, Taylor & Francis.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
ISBN 13: 978-0-582-49190-8 (pbk)
BRITISH LIBRARY CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION DATA
Graves, Michael A. R.
The Tudor parliaments : Crown, Lords and Commons 1485-1603. (Studies in modern history)
1. Great Britain Parliament History 2. Great Britain History Tudors, 14851603
I. Title II. Series
328.4209 JN525
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION DATA
Graves, Michael A. R.
The Tudor parliaments.
(Studies in modern history)
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Great Britain. Parliament History. 2, Great Britain Politics and government 14851603. I. Title. II. Series: Studies in modern history (Longman (Firm))
JN521.G73 1986 328.4209 8427858
ISBN 0582491908 (pbk.)
Set in 10/11 pt VIP Times
THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE TUDOR PARLIAMENTS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Revisionism has become an accepted and familiar term in both Tudor and early Stuart historiography. As far as Parliament is concerned it represents a reaction against the politically-orientated, Commons-weighted history of Parliament, which has held the field for most of this century (and which, in the following pages, is styled the orthodoxy as a convenient shorthand description). It rests upon two premisses: that Parliament was both bicameral and a trinity (king, Lords and Commons); and that its functions, procedures and business, not politics, should be our prime concern after all, politicking was no more than the art of achieving a desired end and the end-product of Parliament, its business, was legislation. The essence of the revisionist approach can be summarised thus:
(1) King, Lords and Commons were co-equal partners in the legislative process and the assent of all of them was necessary to make statute. However, this requires some qualification. The Crown presented measures for Parliaments consideration and, in most sessions, it requested financial aid. Thereafter its formal role was confined to the assent or veto of those Bills which had passed the two houses (though, as we shall see, in practice the Crown continuously used privy councillors to supervise the progress of Bills and it frequently intervened to check or smooth their passage). The Lords and Commons hammered out the final form of Bills which were to be presented to the monarch at the end of the session and they enjoyed an equal right to reject, amend or assent to Bills before them. However, their roles in relation to any particular Bill differed, depending on which house was the initiator (or proprietor) of it (see the Commons, which made it a formidable power within the parliamentary trinity.
(2) Parliaments were a conjunction, a coming together of Crown and governing class. In so far as their existence both their summons and dissolution (or prorogation) was determined by the monarch, they were meetings of a royal institution. They were called to equip the monarch with the new laws and additional revenue also enacted in statutory form which would enable him to govern effectively. When a Parliament had performed those functions satisfactorily, its life was terminated. In practice, however, it satisfied more needs than this. Parliament was an occasion for the Crown to state its intentions, declare its policies and test public opinion, and for the governing class to express its views, present its grievances and raise matters of general concern. It was also a platform on which ambitious men could attract royal favour and, above all, it was a means of satisfying the legislative needs of the governing lite.1 Most parliamentary Bills were introduced not by the government but by lords spiritual and temporal, knights and burgesses who were promoting their own interests or those of kin, friends, neighbours or of the communities which they represented. Therefore in terms of law-making the prime function of Parliaments the success of any session must be measured by the quality and volume of the laws which it passed, in other words by its productivity: did it give the Crown what it needed and, in some measure, satisfy the legislative aspirations of members of the governing class?
(3) Parliaments were co-operative ventures. In any assembly of aggressive, self-confident governors, who were accustomed to giving orders and to being obeyed, there were bound to be clashes of personality, opinion and interest. It would be unrealistic to expect any Tudor monarch, his episcopate and peerage, and a sizeable representative sample of the gentry and urban oligarchies, to work together in perfect harmony throughout a parliamentary session. Yet the fact remains that, for most of the time, they were in general agreement on fundamentals. Hot-heads, brabblers and praters, men of extreme views or profound conviction, the bold and the tactless were always to be found: those who spoke out in 1523 against heavy taxation consumed in futile wars and the acquisition of ungracious dogholes in France; Sir George Throckmorton criticising the annulment of Henry VIIIs first marriage in the early 1530s; Peter and Paul Wentworth inveighing against the queens abuse of parliamentary privilege in the 1560s and 1570s. While these are all examples of dissension in the Commons, it is worth recalling too Henry VIIIs concern about the potential opposition in the Lords during the Reformation Parliament (152936), the imprisonment of Bishop Gardiner by successive aristocratic regimes in Edward VIs reign (partly because he represented a serious parliamentary threat), the opposition of catholic bishops and peers to ).
