ELIZABETH AND HER PARLIAMENTS

YOU NEED TO KNOW:

1 – The various historical interpretations about Elizabeth and her Parliaments. In particular you MUST know what Neale thinks and have some counter-arguments from historians such as Elton and Graves.

2 – Areas of “conflict” between Elizabeth and her Parliaments. Was there a Puritan Choir? Did councillors use parliament?

3 – How Elizabeth set out to control her Parliaments

4 – How important / influential Parliament was under Elizabeth and whether it became more or less important during her reign

5 – Whether Elizabeth successfully controlled Parliament

THE BACKGROUND

1. HOW WAS PARLIAMENT ORGANISED?
• TWO CHAMBERS – COMMONS AND LORDS
• COMMONS CONSISTED OF 462 MPs
• ALL MPs ENJOYED PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES, SUCH AS FREEDOM FROM ARREST
• LORDS CONSISTED OF THE LORDS SPIRITUAL (BISHOPS) AND THE LORDS TEMPORAL (NOBLES)
• MEMBERSHIP OF LORDS WAS FOR LIFE
• IN LORDS THERE WERE 26 BISHOPS AND BETWEEN 55 AND 72 NOBLES
• THE LORDS WAS TRADITIONALLY SOCIALLY AND POLITICALLY SUPERIOR
• FOR A BILL TO BECOME LAW, IT REQUIRED THE CONSENT OF BOTH CHAMBERS AND THE QUEEN. A BILL WAS READ THREE TIMES ON BOTH CHAMBERS. FIRST READING: TO INFORM MEMBERS OF CONTENT; SECOND READING : TO STIMULATE DEBATE: THIRD READING (AFTER BEING AMENDED BY A COMMITTEE) : TO CHECK THE FINAL WORDING.

2. THE ROLE OF PARLIAMENT UNDER ELIZABETH’S PREDECESSORS
• Henry VII had usurped the throne and so needed legitimacy. He therefore summoned parliament frequently at the start of his reign to give him legitimacy. Henry needed parliament’s support to establish his right to be king and to raise money to finance his wars and to crush rebellions. Once he was established, parliament met less frequently : only twice in his last 12 years.
• Henry VIII also initially relied on parliament to approve the raising of money to finance war, but after they began arguing, he summoned it less after 1515. In the 1530s he began summoning it again to give legitimacy to his religious reforms. In the last years of his reign, the cost of foreign wars meant he had to call parliament for finance.
• Under Edward VI, Somerset and Northumberland both used parliament to help establish Protestantism, but they both preferred to side step parliament and rely on royal declarations. There was some opposition in the Commons to Somerset’s economic policies and Northumberland ensured that parliament was not assembled when Somerset was tried.
• Mary used parliament to restore Catholicism. Parliament showed hostility to the marriage and drew up a marriage treaty. Parliament also showed reluctance to grant taxes to help Spain in her war with France.

3. THE ROLE OF PARLIAMENT UNDER ELIZABETH I
• Parliament was summoned only 13 times during Elizabeth’s 46 year reign
• Elizabeth used her personality to control parliament : she used words carefully to charm, admonish, bully or simply make it clear that she was their Queen. She was also prepared to use her powers of arrest and veto when necessary.
• Attendance at sessions was never good and procedures to fine absentees were introduced.
• Only 10% of MPs spoke in debates and on average only 47% voted.
• Parliament was asked for taxation in 11 of the 13 sessions. The demand was justified by resorting to claims of national security and religion.
• Elizabeth’s aim was for short parliaments ready to grant money, but business often delayed as MPs raised constituency and local matters.
• Parliament was under the control of Elizabeth’s councillors, who nominated MPs, planned business and managed proceedings. Often councillors used parliament to promote own agendas or to put pressure on Queen.

1 – THE VARIOUS HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS

Neale’s interpretation

Remember that Neale’s view was the accepted orthodoxy until the 1980s when Elton and Graves began to effectively challenge it.

What are the key points of Neale’s thesis?

• The power of the Commons grew over Elizabeth’s reign
• There were several major conflicts between Elizabeth and her parliaments, which were to spill over into the Stuart period and lead to the Civil war.
• The Commons grew in importance and self-confidence in Elizabeth’s reign and adopted a more sophisticated management system and came to eclipse the power and influence of the Lords.
• There was an orchestrated parliamentary opposition group – the Puritan Choir – who set out to provoke confrontation over issues such as parliamentary privileges, eg freedom of speech. This group played an important role in making Elizabeth’s religious settlement more radical than she had intended and they continued to challenge or question the Queen over issues such as Mary Stuart and the privileges of parliament.
• The quality of M.P.s grew as more and more educated men entered the Commons
• Neale’s view was accepted for so long as it seemed to explain the origins of the Civil war.

Elton’s interpretation

Elton is one of the leading experts on the Tudors, but his major works focused on Henry VIII’s reign. He championed the idea of a Tudor Revolution in Government under Henry VIII, ably carried out by Thomas Cromwell. In the 1980s he began researching the legislative role of parliament and his research led him to question Neale’s interpretation. Revisionists like Elton came to believe that Parliament was keen to work in harmony with the government. The revisionists have challenged several of Neale’s arguments. They point out that the increase in power of the Commons came in the 1530s as part of Cromwell’s reforms, yet it was still subservient to the will of the monarch, who could dismiss it at any time. The procedure for controlling the Commons was well established before Elizabeth became Queen. The Privy Council traditionally formulated policy, steered government bills through parliament and limited time-consuming speeches. Elizabeth may well have been more determined to control Parliament’s freedom of speech than her father, but then she was faced with issues that were never raised under him, such as her marriage. Nor should it be seen that parliament supported those who championed its rights : indeed it was parliament which ordered the arrest of Wentworth in 1576. A great number of laws were passed during Elizabeth’s reign and only twice did she encounter any opposition when asking for subsidies. The idea of a stronger, determined parliament does not seem to have been the case.

What are the key points of Elton’s thesis?

• Elton points out that most of parliament’s time was not taken up with plots and confrontations, but dealing with routine matters, such as voting subsidies and settling local grievances.
• Elton does agree that some sessions were stormy and saw open opposition, but Neale has overplayed their importance as even these sessions closed harmoniously, having passed the necessary legislation.
• Elton sees pressure as emanating from loyal members of the Council. Having failed to exert pressure on Elizabeth in the Council, they sought to use parliament to act as another source of pressure on the Queen. Cecil clearly used parliament to pressurise the Queen. When the risk of offending the Queen became too great, Cecil, and other councillors, made use of their people in parliament.
• Elton also point out how few resources Parliament actually had to oppose the government. Elton states : “In this reign neither Lords nor Commons constituted any sort of threat to the crown. We have heard so much about the rising power of the Lower House ... that it comes as something of a surprise to discover how little power the Commons especially possessed”. It remained the case that Parliament only sat when the Queen wanted or needed it to do so, and it was only in session for 140 weeks in a reign of over 45 years. Once the Commons was elected and in session, the government exercised considerable control over the agenda and the conduct of debate. The Speaker, for instance, was invariably a crown nominee.

Views from other revisionists

• Norman Jones challenged Neale’s interpretation of an organised Puritan choir. Research actually showed that some of them were members of the government, were controlled by leading councillors or were actually even Catholics.
• Whereas Neale believed that there was considerable tension between the Crown and parliament over parliamentary privileges, historians today play down such tension. Neale had argued that Paul Wentworth’s demand to be allowed to continue the debate on the succession, despite the Queen’s displeasure (1566), or the protests of his brother Peter at royal management of the House (1576) were crucial steps in the development of parliamentary privilege. Michael Graves, on the other hand, claims that such incidents were relatively insignificant, appearing as “tactless outbursts [by] loners without support”. David Loades, however, accepts that the Wentworths were unrepresentative of opinion in the Commons, yet feels that they provided “a genuine expression of the seriousness with which the members [of the Commons] were beginning to take their role in the formation of policy”.
• Neale also saw the arrest of MPs during Elizabeth’s reign as a clear attempt by the Crown to silence parliament and an attack on the traditional privilege of MPs to be safeguarded against arrest. Yet in the case of freedom from arrest, the Commons broadly accepted the Crown’s priorities. Stricklnad’s case (1571) and Fitzherbert’s case (1593) confirmed that the immunity of an MP did not apply when the case was brought against him by the Crown.
• Neale also argued that under Elizabeth the Lords was eclipsed by the Commons. Neale claimed that an examination of the proportion of legislation initiated in the Commons indicated that the Commons had become the focus of the parliamentary process. Michael Graves dismisses this and claims that the focus shifted from one chamber to another according to the location of the great ministers. Thus when Cecil sat in the Commons that was the focus of attention, but when he went to the Lords in 1572, the focus shifted with him, until it shifted back after his decline and death, when his son, Robert, exerted influence in the Commons. Morris also points out that “It also seems unwise to consider the two Houses too distinctly as separate entities. Such was the degree of patronage exercised by some of the greatest territorial magnates, men such as Bedford, Leicester and Shrewsbury, that a significant number of MPs in the Commons would have been their clients, therefore pursuing similar political and legislative agendas.

So what is the evidence?

Neale’s interpretation is based on a number of events. However today historians such as Elton and Neale challenge his interpretation of these events:

ISSUE ONE : 1559 – The Bill to restore royal supremacy over the Church of England.

Neale – Parliament initially refused to pass the Bill. Neale’s claims that there was opposition in the Commons from Puritans who wanted a more Calvinist Church.

Revisionists – Jones argues that there is no evidence for a cohesive Puritan opposition group in the Commons. Instead the opposition came from Catholics in the Lords.

ISSUE TWO : 1563 and 1566-1567 – Elizabeth summoned Parliament to raise money to deal with France and Scotland. The Commons used the opportunity to ask Elizabeth to marry.

Neale – Opposition to Elizabeth was organised by the Puritan Choir, with well-developed strategies. The group was led by Peter Wentworth. The Queen’s response to such pressure caused Wentworth to demand freedom of speech for the Commons.

Revisionists – The pressure on the Queen came from the Privy Council rather than Parliament. The Council was concerned after Elizabeth’s recent illness and wanted her to marry and name a successor. The petition asking Elizabeth to marry was drafted by members of her Privy Council, most of whom were also members of Parliament. In 1566 it was Cecil who organised a joint delegation to the Queen.

ISSUE THREE : 1571 – Parliament was summoned following the Northern Rebellion and Elizabeth’s excommunication.

Neale – The Puritan Choir had gained new effective leaders, like Thomas Cartwright and John Field. They orchestrated a campaign to purify the Church of all Catholic elements. This led them into direct conflict with the government. The campaign centred on a document called the Admonition to Parliament.

 Revisionists – The anti-Catholic pressure came from the Council, which feared for Elizabeth’s safety, following the Ridolfi Plot. It was the Council that was demanding Mary Stuart’s execution and demanding that she be excluded from the succession.

ISSUE FOUR : 1576 – The Queen’s request for money at a time of peace

Neale – Wentworth demanded freedom of speech for the Commons with no subject being excluded. He emerged as the champion of parliamentary liberties and started a campaign that led to the Civil War.

Revisionists – Graves dismisses Wentworth as “foolhardy, impetuous and politically inept”. Graves claims Wentworth was no hero at the time. He was merely a nuisance and even the Commons had enough of him and sent him to the Tower.

ISSUE FIVE : 1585 – Parliament was called to ensure Elizabeth’s safety following the assassination of William of Orange and the discovery of a Catholic plot, involving Mary Stuart.

Neale – Parliament tried to hijack the session by turning it into an opportunity to start the Bill and Book campaign to replace the Anglican prayer book and organisation with Calvinist ones. The Puritans were now a well-organised group and were carefully planning their parliamentary strategies. They received wide support in parliament with their demands for freedom of speech and they caused problems for the government.

Revisionists – Neale’s views are based on supposition. There was a campaign to impose a more Calvinist settlement but it was led by a mere handful of men, who, in Grave’s words, “lacked general parliamentary sympathy or support, and were easily smothered by government action”. The idea of widespread parliamentary support is dispelled by the fact that parliament itself refused to hear Turner’s bill to change the Prayer Book and system of Church government. Parliament showed its loyalty to the Queen by passing an Act for the Queen’s safety, an Act against Jesuits and by voting for a subsidy to maintain the country’s naval defences.

ISSUE SIX : 1587 – The pressure to execute Mary Stuart

Neale – Again the Puritans sought to use parliament to promote their own agenda. There was a growing threat from Presbyterianism and there were attempts to end the Queen’s position as Head of the Church.

Revisionists – Any opposition came from the Council with the Privy Councillors in the Commons taking the lead.

ISSUE SEVEN : 1598 and 1601 – Parliament was called for money against Spain, but parliament raised own concerns

Neale – Clear evidence of organised rebellion in Commons against Queen’s misuse of royal prerogative. Opposition to Queen’s misuse of areas such as monopolies. Row over the heavy financial burdens led parliament to demand the right to initiate any votes for money. Parliament showed its opposition by initially voting far less than was asked.

Revisionists – There was clearly discontent at the end of Elizabeth’s reign. However, Graves talks of a “spontaneous response to a common grievance, voiced by the governing class through its representatives”, rather than any organised resistance or rebellion.

2 – HOW ELIZABETH SOUGHT TO DEAL WITH CHALLENGES TO HER AUTHORITY FROM PARLIAMENT

Although the Revisionist interpretation may question the presence of any organised Puritan opposition group, there can be no doubt that Elizabeth did encounter heated debate from Parliament over several issues. Whether Parliament was the driving force, or merely used by members of the Privy Council as another lever of pressure, the Queen still had to confront these issues and devise a strategy for dealing with them. How did Elizabeth, therefore, deal with parliament when it touched on her matters.

AREA 1 – RELIGION

In 1559 Parliament initially refused to pass Elizabeth’s bill. Whether we accept that it was due to the Puritan Choir (as maintained by Neale) or opposition from Catholics in the Lords (revisionists), Elizabeth was taken aback by such opposition. She decided to take firm action to establish her authority early on in her reign. When the Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln got involved in public disputes with Protestants, she had them arrested. When all but one Bishop refused to accept her religious settlement, she replaced them in 1559. She effectively cut the feet from under the Lords opposition by removing that opposition from the Lords. To ensure that the Lords did not challenge her again, Elizabeth was careful to control its composition. Elizabeth created much fewer hereditary peers than her predecessors. By 1603 the number of hereditary peers had fallen to 55. As a result, the Lords became increasingly smaller and more firmly under Elizabeth’s control. It was, however, the Commons from where Neale believes that the opposition began.

There are isolated instances of people using the Commons to question or challenge the Queen’s policies. In the Parliament of 1586-87 Anthony Cope re-introduced an earlier Bill (Turner’s Bill) intended to abolish Church courts, the episcopacy and the Queen’s position as Head of the Church. The Commons agreed to listen to Cope’s Bill, suggesting some sympathy with his views, but Elizabeth intervened to prevent it from proceeding. Cope, Wentworth and three others were arrested on Elizabeth’s orders for discussing the Bill outside Parliament.

AREA 2 – THE SUCCESSION

In both the 1563 and the 1567 sessions of Parliament, there were demands that Elizabeth marry in order to secure the dynasty and protect the Protestant religion. Much of the pressure actually came from the Queen’s own Privy Council. Guy shows how men like Cecil sought to use the Privy Council to pressurise the Queen. Elizabeth, however, regarded marriage as the personal concern of the Queen and made her position quite clear : “I am your anointed Queen, I will never be by violence constrained to do anything”. Elizabeth forbade Parliament to discuss the matter further, and gave a promise that she would marry. However there was no definite date or suitor mentioned. In 1571 when Parliament, and her Council, pressurised her to exclude Mary Stuart from the English throne, Elizabeth promised to consider this and then prorogued Parliament to prevent any further discussions on the matter. Peter Wentworth was sent to the Tower for his offensive remarks against the Queen when he insisted on discussing the succession. Yet it was the Commons and not the Queen who ordered this.

AREA 3 – MARY STUART

In 1571 Parliament, and her Council, pushed for the execution of Mary Stuart after the Northern Rebellion. Elizabeth refused to bow to Parliament and refused to execute Mary. She did, however, promise to consider excluding Mary from the succession (thereby evading the issue). To stop further discussion, she then prorogued parkliament. In the Parliament of 1584-85 again there were demands for action against Mary following the discovery of a Catholic plot. Elizabeth was determined to resist such pressure for fear it would set a dangerous precedent. She even went to pains to safeguard the rights of Mary’s son, James, even if his mother were implicated in a plot against Elizabeth.

Burghley and Walsingham also attempted to use Parliament in 1584-85 against Mary Stuart, by drafting the Bond of Association, which they tried to make law. The Association committed itself to protect Elizabeth  by pledging that, in the event of Elizabeth’s life being threatened, Mary Stuart was to be executed. Elizabeth stopped the attempt by Burghley to make the Bond of Association law.

In 1586-87 the pressure intensified for the execution of Mary. Elizabeth refused to bow to the pressure from parliament and would not commit herself. It was not until Walsingham revealed the ‘Stafford Plot’ that Elizabeth signed the death warrant

AREA FOUR : PARLIAMENT’S LIBERTIES AND CROWN PREROGATIVES

Elizabeth continued to impose her limited version of freedom of speech on the Commons, ensuring that it could only discuss matters of which she approved. Issues such as marriage, religion, foreign policy, etc, came under her sphere of prerogative and were not to be discussed. Yet there were several instances of individuals or groups, like her Council, seeking to put pressure on her through parliament on such issues. In the 1566-67 parliament Elizabeth forbade further discussion on the subject of her marriage and the succession. In the 1576 parliament Wentworth’s demand for free speech may have been reckless, but he was not alone in his belief that these matters were of public importance and that Parliament was the best forum for discussion. Yet it was the Commons, not the Queen, who sent him to the Tower for offensive remarks made against the Queen.

In the parliaments of 1597-98 and 1601, the Queen faced discontent over areas such as use of monopolies. At first Elizabeth ignored the complaints, but in 1601 she had to act in the face of public unrest. She promised to cancel some monopolies, suspend others, and to thoroughly investigate the situation. She had managed to preserve her prerogative and subsidies by conceding to Parliament’s demands.

3.                  HOW SUCCESSFULLY DID ELIZABETH CONTROL PARLIAMENT?

·        Elizabeth tried to control parliament through a variety of measures:

(a)   She attempted to isolate extremists through promises of moderate reform or by promising to consider their requests, eg promising to exclude Mary Stuart from succession, promising to consider marriage, promising to look into monopolies.

(b)   She attempted to arrange business beforehand, especially at the committee stage, so that it would all be settled before wider parliamentary discussion

(c)   She would often make strong speeches to representatives from the Commons. She would use variety of tactics – bullying or charm.

(d)   She would intervene directly to preserve the royal prerogative, eg vetoing discussion of certain issues, or proroguing parliament.

(e)   She would influence the choice of speaker

(f)     She would imprison awkward members

(g)   She used her power to summon, prorogue and dissolve parliament

(h)   She managed parliament’s time

(i)     She used her councillors to influence the choice of MPs

(j)     She would have her councillors present in parliament to control it.

     ·  It would be wrong to see Elizabeth as a beleaguered monarch, desperately trying to maintain royal power in the face of a united or determined opposition.

·   The Crown clearly remained in control, mainly because the Commons had little real power, whereas the Crown exerted considerable power, such as the power to arrest MPs and to dissolve parliament.

• Yet there was clearly some unrest over certain issues, but these were just as likely to be local matters as national ones.
• Opposition to Elizabeth only became serious when it was clearly engineered by her councillors and when they managed to unite the Commons and the Lords in an attempt to influence policy. Yet, even here, the powers and strategies Elizabeth used ensured that such alliances seldom achieved their objectives; most MPs showed a marked reluctance to become involved.
• Yet it is clear that in her latter years Elizabeth found it increasingly difficult to control parliament and had to make concessions.

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO MAIN ELIZABETH MENU