All
Outside the Royal Domain: What Else the English Crown Possessed Under the Early Stuarts
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References
Share
Metrics
Outside the Royal Domain: What Else the English Crown Possessed Under the Early Stuarts
Annotation
PII
S207987840001896-4-1
DOI
10.18254/S0001896-4-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Sergey Fyodorov 
Affiliation: Saint-Petersburg State University
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg
Anastasia Palamarchuk
Affiliation: Saint-Petersburg State University
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg
Edition
Volume 8 Issue 8 (62)
Abstract
The history of the “Great contract” — a program of financial and administrative reform that had been intensively discussed but never done is an indicative episode in formation of the unique British form of “Etat moderne”. Among other issues, this special regional variant was closely connected with the process of estrangement and subsequent centralization of domainial and prerogative finances of the Crown. It caused a gradual elimination of cameral administration and transformation of the royal service into exclusively civil institution. If under the Tudors both immediate revenue from the Royal lands and proceeds from the Crown’s prerogative rights were seen as an integral complex, then under the Stuarts, an attempt to systematize mechanisms of collection and distribution of non-domanial revenues caused their separation and consequent autonomy. Debates over “The Great Contract” demonstrated that the realm of non-domanial revenues might be a self-contained subject for public discussion or administrative manipulation but only while the legitimate rights of the English monarch were still untouched. It is referred to a gradual separation of the income earned within the Royal domain lands from “alienable” part of the royal revenue, i.e. exploitation of the Crown prerogative rights. The authors are trying to analyze two variants of the proposed financial reform. The first one was submitted by King James I himself; the next one by Robert Cecil, his secretary of State. The underlying reasons that led to the failure of the Great Contract are reconstructed. At the same time the very form of the Etat’s modern formation as well as mechanisms of its self-representation are perceived by the authors as even more important than the process on its own accord. During debates on “The Great Contract” the Parliament showed its commitment to traditionally medieval concept of “contract” (perceived as a free gift of the community of the realm to its supreme head).
Keywords
The Great contract, Etat moderne, royal finance, The Exchequer, Robert Cecil, James I Stuart, England
Received
14.07.2017
Publication date
14.09.2017
Number of characters
26628
Number of purchasers
24
Views
3571
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf 100 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should sign in

Full text is available to subscribers only
Subscribe right now
Only article
100 RUB / 1.0 SU
Whole issue
1000 RUB / 10.0 SU
All issues for 2017
5000 RUB / 50.0 SU

References



Additional sources and materials

    

  1. Palamarchuk A. A, Fedorov S. E. Antikvarnyj diskurs v rannestyuartovskoj Anglii. SPb., 2013.
    2. 

  2. Palamarchuk A. A. Identichnost' natsional'naya, identichnost' korporativnaya: anglijskie yuridicheskie korporatsii i polemika o kompozitarnoj monarkhii v rannestyuartovskoj Anglii // Ehtnosy i natsii v Zapadnoj Evrope v Srednie veka i rannee Novoe vremya / pod red. N. A. Khachaturyan. SPb., 2015. S. 179—199.
    3. 

  3. Palamarchuk A. A. Tsivil'noe pravo v rannestyuartovskoj Anglii: instituty i idei. SPb., 2015.
    4. 

  4. Palamarchuk A. A., Fedorov S. E. Rubezhi antikvarnogo soznaniya: istoriya i sovremennost' v rannestyuartovskoj Anglii // Tsep' vremen. Problemy istoricheskogo soznaniya / pod red. L. P. Repinoj. M., 2005. R. 151—197.
    5. 

  5. Fedorov S. E. “Domusregis” i “familiaregis” v rannee Novoe vremya // Korolevskij dvor v Anglii XV—XVII vv. / pod red. S. E. Fedorova. SPb., 2011. S. 27—47.
    6. 

  6. Fedorov S. E. Iushospitii pri provintsial'nykh dvorakh rannestyuartovskoj aristokratii // Srednie veka. Vyp. 60. M., 1997. S. 399—408.
    7. 

  7. Fedorov S. E. Styuartovskie pridvornye (nekotorye osobennosti samosoznaniya i povedeniya obschnosti) // Angliya XVII v.: sotsioprofessional'nye gruppy i obschestvo / pod red. S. E. Fedorova. SPb., 1997. S. 11—20.
    8. 

  8. Khachaturyan N. A. Problema ehtnosov i protonatsij v kontekste sotsial'no-ehkonomicheskoj i politicheskoj ehvolyutsii srednevekovogo obschestva v Zapadnoj Evrope // Ehtnosy i natsii v Zapadnoj Evrope v Srednie veka i rannee Novoe vremya / pod red. N. A. Khachaturyan. SPb., 2015. S. 20—37.
    9. 

  9. Khachaturyan N. A. Srednevekovyj korporativizm i protsessy samoorganizatsii v obschestve. Vzglyad istorika-medievista na problemu kollektivnogo sub'ekta // Vlast' i obschestvo v Zapadnoj Evrope v Srednie veka. M., 2008. S. 31—45.
    10. 

  10. A Collection of Ordinances and Regulations for the Royal Household. London, 1790.
    11. 

  11. A Collection of Treatises of Robert Cecil / ed. by P. Croft. Camden Society. 4th ser. Vol. 34.
    12. 

  12. Ashton R. Deficit Finance in the Reign of James I // Economic History Review. Vol. X. № 1. 1957. P. 15—29.
    13. 

  13. Aslop J. The Theory and Practice of Tudor Taxation // English Historical Review. Vol. 97. № 382. 1982. P. 1—30.
    14. 

  14. Bryson W. H. The Equity Side of the Exchequer. Its Jurisdiction, Administration, Procedures and Records. Cambridge, 1975.
    15. 

  15. Cervone T. Sworn Bonds in Tudor England: Oath, Vows and Covenants in Civil Life and Literature. Jefferson; London, 2011.
    16. 

  16. Coke E. The Fourth Part of the Reports of Sir Edward Coke. London, 1727.
    17. 

  17. Cramsie J. Kingship and Crown Finance Under James VI and I. Royal Historical Society Publications. 2002. P. 89—117.
    18. 

  18. Croft P. Parliament, Purveyance, and the City of London, 1589—1608 // Parliamentary History. Vol. 4. 1985. P. 9—34.
    19. 

  19. Decock W. Theologians and the Contract Law: The Moral Transformation of the Jus Commune (ca. 1500-1650). Leiden, 2013.
    20. 

  20. Eppley D. Defending Royal Supremacy and Discerning God’s Will in Tudor England. Burlington, 2007. P. 61—143.
    21. 

  21. Gierke O. F. The Development of Political Theory / transl. by B. Freyd. New York, 1939.
    22. 

  22. Haivry O. John Selden and the Western Political Tradition. Cambridge, 2017.
    23. 

  23. Hanson D. W. From Kingdom to Commonwealth: the Development of Civic Consciousness in English Political Thought. Cambridge, 1970.
    24. 

  24. Höpfl H., Thompson M. P. The History of Contract as a Motif in Political Thought // American Historical Review, 1979. Vol. 84. P. 919—944.
    25. 

  25. Ibbetson D. Sixteenth Century Contract law: Slade’s Case in Context // Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 1984. Vol. 4. № 3. P. 295—317.
    26. 

  26. Knafla L. A. Law and Politics in Jacobean England. The Tracts of Lord Chancellor Ellesmere. Cambridge, 1977.
    27. 

  27. Les Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata / ed. by W. P. Baildon. London, 1894.
    28. 

  28. Lindquist E. The Bills Against Purveyors // Parliamentary History. Vol. 6. 1985. P. 35—43.
    29. 

  29. Lindquist E. The King, the People and the House of Commons: the Problem of Early Jacobean Purveyance // Historical Journal. Vol. 31. 1988. P. 549—570.
    30. 

  30. McGlynn M. The Royal Prerogative and the Learning in the Inns of Court. Cambridge, 1996.
    31. 

  31. Parliamentary Debates in 1610 / ed. by S. Gardiner. Camden Society. London, 1862.
    32. 

  32. Proceedings in Parliament, 1610 / ed. by E. Foster. In 2 vols. New Haven, 1966. Vol. 2.
    33. 

  33. Report on the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Downshire Preserved at Easthampsted Park Berks. In 4 vols. London, 1924—1940. Vol. 2.
    34. 

  34. Ridley Th. A View of the Civile and Ecclesiastical Law. London, 1607.
    35. 

  35. Riley P. How Coherent is the Social Contract Tradition? // Journal of the History of Ideas. 1973. № 4. P. 543—562.
    36. 

  36. Royal Historical Manuscript Commission. Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Hon. the Marquises of Salisbury, Preserved at Hatfield House, Hertfordshire. In 18 vols. London, 1883—1940.
    37. 

  37. Sacks D. H. The Promise and the Contract in Early Modern England: Slade’s Case in Perspective // Rhetoric and Law in Early Modern Europe / ed. by V. A. Kahn, L. Hutson. New Heaven, 2001. P. 28—54.
    38. 

  38. Seddon P. Household Reforms in Reign of James I // Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research. Vol. 53. 1980. P. 44—54.
    39. 

  39. Smith D. C. Edward Coke and the Reformation of the Laws. Religion, Politics and Jurisprudence, 1578—1616. Cambridge, 2014.
    40. 

  40. Solnon J.-F. La Cour de France. Paris, 1987.
    41. 

  41. Starkey D. The Age of Household, c. 1350—1550 // The Later Middle Ages / ed. by S. Medcalf. London, 1981. P. 225—290.
    42. 

  42. The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, c. 350—1450 / ed. by J. H. Burns. Cambridge, 1988.
    43. 

  43. Woodworth A. Purveyance for the Royal Household in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth // Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Newser. Vol. XXXV. PartI. 1945. P. 39—52.
    44.