| The objects of this study are to reconsider the socio-economic "crisis" of the late Tudor and early Stuart peerage in England, insisted upon by the historiographical "Gentry Debate" in the twentieth century, as well as to examine the under-investigated rise of a jurisdiction of equity law within England's Exchequer between 1580 and 1625.;I conclude that while key social, economic, and political changes were occurring at the time, the evidence from contemporary legal records demonstrates that the term "crisis" overstates elites' experience of such changes. Although the evidence does not support the argument that peers were critically concerned for the prestige of their social category as a whole, clearly peers did consciously feel threatened in their ability to exercise specific, discrete rights inherent in their landownership. For peers, the equity jurisdiction at Exchequer functioned to formalize, legitimize, and preserve those customary rights.;The equity jurisdiction at Exchequer at this time was far more robust than previously appreciated. It effectively defined the universe of responses to interpersonal conflicts and social changes for all litigants, including commoners, peers, and even municipalities. Indeed, the Crown itself was often constrained in surprisingly and previously unrecognized ways by the legal institutions of the Exchequer and its bureaucratic processes.;Until now, historians have not appropriately acknowledged the degree and significance of bureaucratization within the Court of the Exchequer, or late Tudor England's central judiciary generally. The development of such powerful institutional apparatuses within the Tudor judiciary requires historians to rethink the timing and processes of modernization and state formation in early modern England. At the same time, although the development of the equity side the Exchequer, identified here, was critical it was not singular. Rather, by noting the growth in the power of one of England's central judicial institutions over this time period, I mean to highlight the fact that historical change generally and state formation particularly most frequently happen slowly over time, rather than in single, decisive moments. |
