TUDOR HISTORY

Tudor History

Tudor History

Introduction

With the publication of The Tudor Revolution in Government, Elton sought to recast the history of early Tudor England, shifting the debate on the development of government from discussion of the Tudors' despotism towards an appreciation of the strengths and virtues of their central administration. In particular, he argued that the 1530s were marked by a revolution in government - the transformation of a medieval ad hoc administration, dominated by the king's household, into a modern bureaucratic system. The architect of this revolution was Thomas Cromwell, “a modern English statesman”, Cromwell was the creator of the Tudor Privy Council, the instigator of a reorganization of the work of the royal secretaries, and an innovator in financial administration long dominated first by the exchequer and then by the Chamber. New structures were developed (such as the Court of Augmentations, to handle monastic land revenue), and personnel and departments of the royal household were excluded from the royal government. The subsequent influence of The Tudor Revolution in Government reflected both the boldness of Elton's thesis and the impressive archival scholarship upon which it was based.

One of the first significant challenges to the “revolution” thesis came with the publication of a pair of related articles by Harriss and William. Harriss, a medievalist, criticize Elton for assuming that Lancastrian and Yorkist government had always been household government. Harriss argues instead that the period from 1450 until 1530 (the age of household government) was the exception to an earlier bureaucratic tradition (exemplified by the medieval exchequer). The decline of household government identified by Elton during the 1530s was nothing more than a return to normal medieval practice. Harriss also casts doubt upon Elton's portrayal of Cromwell as a modern, accredited minister, since in practice, he preserved considerable personal control over administration (Gunn, pp. 230-239).

This is a crucial weakness in the thesis, which Williams pursues further. Rejecting Elton's claim that a bureaucratic system was created, he instead stresses the extent to which Cromwell's administration and his accomplishments were personal. The minister regularly relied upon his own private staff (responsible to him alone), and he maintained close personal control over financial affairs. Finally, Williams questions the significance of the revolution by noting that many of the reforms did not survive Cromwell's fall in 1540 (Williams, pp. 51-62).

Williams expanded and elaborated upon these criticisms of the revolution thesis, asserting that the machinery of central government remained relatively weak throughout the century, and its success was contingent upon the active cooperation of local elites. The true strength of Henrician government lay not in a precocious central bureaucracy crafted by the directorial genius Thomas Cromwell, but rather in the networks and personal loyalties which bound the crown to the local officials who enforced the king's writs in die shires. William's analysis of Tudor government stresses relationships rather than structures and successfully expands the discussion beyond the confines of central administration to encompass a broader understanding of the functions and challenges of Tudor government (Williams, ...