The 20th century was the great age of Tudor parliamentary history. This essay examines the contributions and profound changes to the field made by the leading historians of the era, especially Sir John Neale and Sir Geoffrey Elton. Taking as its starting point the whiggish ideas of Stubbs's Constitutional History of England, it traces the impact of A.F. Pollard, G.M. Trevelyan, and Sir Lewis Namier on the field. At its core, though, lie the often acrimonious differences of opinion between Neale and his pupil, Elton. For Neale the Elizabethan parliaments were characterised by an increasingly puritanical Commons eager to wrest control of debates on religion and the succession away from the queen. In so doing this created a constitutional clash that would eventually lead to civil war in the mid 17th century. This ‘orthodoxy’ was savagely critiqued by a revisionist ‘school’ led by Elton that dismantled the interpretation of Neale and replaced it with an institution that was not dominated by political conflict but by largely consensual politics. It was also a position that gave equal weight to the Lords and to the importance of the business of parliament – legislation. The revisionists were masters of critique and highly effective at demolishing Neale, but did little to replace his theories or to explain religio‐political conflict – in doing so it could be argued that they killed the subject. The essay ends by suggesting some new approaches to Tudor parliaments that could help revitalise the subject.

中文翻译：

---

立宪主义者，专制主义者，辉格党和修正主义者：20世纪的都铎国会历史

20世纪是帝舵（Tudor）议会历史的伟大时代。本文探讨了该时代的主要历史学家，特别是约翰·尼尔·尼尔爵士和杰弗里·埃尔顿爵士，对这一领域所做的贡献和深刻的变化。以斯塔布斯的《英国宪法史》的变思想为起点，它追溯了AF Pollard，GM Trevelyan和Lewis Namier爵士在该领域的影响。不过，其核心在于，尼尔和他的学生埃尔顿之间经常存在激烈的意见分歧。对于内尔来说，伊丽莎白女王议会的特点是越来越多的清教徒下议院，他们渴望夺取对宗教和继承权的辩论的控制权。这样做造成了宪法上的冲突，最终导致了17世纪中叶的内战。这种“正统”被埃尔顿（Elton）领导的修正主义“学校”猛烈批评，该学校取消了对尼尔（Neale）的解释，取而代之的是一个不受政治冲突支配但主要由协商一致的政治主导的制度。这个职位也同样重视上议院和议会事务的重要性-立法。修正主义者是批判大师，在拆除尼尔时非常有效，但是并没有取代他的理论或解释宗教与政治的冲突–这样做可以说是他们杀死了这个话题。文章最后提出了一些都铎王朝议会的新方法，这些方法可能有助于振兴该主题。