Elizabeth and Her Parliaments (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Elizabeth and Her Parliaments
Parliament's evolving role under the Tudors
By 1558, Parliament had become firmly embedded within England's political system, though its position differed considerably from what existed under Henry VII. During Henry VIII's reign in the 1530s, Parliament gained enhanced scope and importance as the king required legislative backing to break with Rome. Under Edward VI and Mary, Parliament continued to be used for religious changes, including the Act of Uniformity in 1549, and was involved in legislating social and economic reforms.
Parliament's primary function remained supporting royal policy. The monarch summoned and dismissed Parliament according to royal needs. Parliament possessed little power to initiate policies independently. Instead, it advised the monarch, voted extra taxation during emergencies, and transformed royal policies into law.
The historiographical debate on Crown-Parliament relations
How harmonious were relations?
During Elizabeth's long reign, members of the House of Commons occasionally clashed with the Queen's wishes. Historians have conducted extensive research on these disagreements, attempting to trace the origins of conflicts between Crown and Parliament that developed under the Stuarts, leading to civil wars in the 1640s and the execution of Charles I.
The Whig interpretation
Historians such as Professor J.E. Neale, writing in the 1940s and 1950s, portrayed the British Parliamentary system as a shining model for emerging democracies worldwide. This so-called "Whig view" of history assumed that history was concerned with progress. It viewed English history through this lens, making it easy to look back and identify seeds of seventeenth-century constitutional conflicts in disputes from the previous century.
The revisionist challenge
More recently, historians have challenged these arguments, preferring to stress co-operation rather than conflict in the Crown's dealings with Parliament. This perspective, advanced by Professor Geoffrey Elton in the 1960s and 1970s, and supported by historians such as M.A.R. Graves, presents a different picture.
According to the revisionist view, opposition in Parliament was infrequent and disunited, never posing a serious challenge to Elizabeth's authority. Moreover, considerable agreement existed on most issues between the elite who sat in Parliament and those who directed policy at court. Where disagreements arose, they did not signify a crisis within the ruling elite but were usually a working out of policy on issues of religion and foreign matters that resolved rather than created conflict.
Elizabeth's approach to governance
Unlike Charles I in the 1630s, Elizabeth never intended to rule without Parliament. Her approach demonstrated pragmatism rather than absolutism.
Evidence suggesting growing tensions
Professor Neale found substantial evidence suggesting that Parliament's growing legislative importance encouraged factionalism among MPs. The Commons had become a forum for decision making comparable to the Privy Council and royal court.
Religious matters as a source of friction
This proved particularly the case in religious matters. Parliament's competence to enact changes to both the structure and doctrines of the Church had become established during Henry VIII's reign and continued under Edward VI and Mary. Some MPs attempted to use Parliament to reform the Anglican Church, created in 1559, along more radical, Puritan lines.
To achieve this, they used Commons time to debate the Church's condition, extending their previously weak privileges of free speech. Parliament's influence was also increased by the Crown's financial problems. Elizabeth tried to control spending and increase traditional revenue sources, but was forced to rely heavily on parliamentary subsidies during the years of war against Spain. This gave Parliament financial leverage over the Crown but also provoked angry exchanges regarding the demands that the government made at a time of inflation and economic hardship.
Specific incidents demonstrating tension
Educational and social changes
By Elizabeth's reign's end, over half of MPs had received a university education or were trained lawyers. This helped create a more self-confident Parliament able to argue more strongly against the Crown.
Historical Incident: The Succession Question (1566)
MPs angered Elizabeth by discussing the succession question, challenging the traditional royal prerogative to control matters of royal succession. This incident highlighted the growing confidence of Parliament to debate matters that the Crown considered outside their remit.
The "Puritan Choir" (1563-66)
A Puritan party emerged: the historian Sir John Neale described the "Puritan Choir" as a group of at least 40 MPs who appeared to be organised to press for more religious reforms to move the Church of England further away from Catholicism.
Peter Wentworth's imprisonment (1576)
Peter Wentworth was imprisoned in the Tower for demanding greater freedom of speech.
Norfolk election case (1586)
The House of Commons asserted its right to settle a dispute over the election result, even though this was traditionally the Lord Chancellor's responsibility.
Archbishop Whitgift's reforms (1584)
Puritan members of the Commons reacted with fury to Archbishop Whitgift's attack on godly preachers who wanted reforms to "purify" the Church of England.
The Religious Reform Bill Crisis (1593)
MPs discussed a bill to reform the Church, using their claim to free speech. Elizabeth ordered Lord Keeper Puckering to read out a statement setting out the extent to which she was prepared to allow free speech. Whilst she recognised that MPs should not be prevented from discussing legislation, the Queen insisted that the discussion did not extend to matters other than legislation which interested them.
This incident demonstrates Elizabeth's firm stance on limiting parliamentary free speech when it challenged royal prerogative.
Monopolies dispute (1601)
Parliament clashed with the Queen on the issue of monopolies. MPs successfully refused to grant her additional taxes for the war against Spain unless she agreed to withdraw many of the licences that had been issued.
Evidence suggesting co-operation and limited conflict
Recently, historians have challenged the notion of frequent conflicts, preferring to stress co-operation. The revisionist interpretation presents compelling evidence that Crown-Parliament relations were far more harmonious than Neale suggested.
Specific evidence supporting the revisionist view
Limited parliamentary sessions
Only thirteen Parliaments were summoned during Elizabeth's reign, each sitting for short periods. The average was ten weeks per session. For much of the time, Elizabeth ruled through the Privy Council and its machinery of government without needing parliamentary legislation.
Royal veto usage
Whilst Elizabeth used her powers to stop the progress of some Parliamentary bills through her veto, this was not usually a last attempt to block something unwelcome to the Queen. Usually the bill had defects and her ministers realised it needed to be redrafted. Many of these bills appeared in later sessions of Parliament and were passed without comment. Sometimes a bill was vetoed because it was realised that it would have unintended consequences.
Only a few were vetoed because they were unwelcome to Elizabeth, such as those concerning Puritan reforms or a requirement for action against Mary Queen of Scots.
Training ground for councillors
The Commons was an important training ground for future Privy Councillors, a place where political fortunes could be made by catching the Queen's attention.
Norfolk election resolution
The Commons did not press its demands to settle the disputed Norfolk election of 1586 and conceded the right of the Lord Chancellor in this matter.
Resistance to marriage and succession pressure
Elizabeth resisted all attempts by Parliament (and the Privy Council) to force her to marry or name a successor.
Limited Puritan influence
The "Puritan Choir" was a less united and powerful group than Neale suggested. Religious opposition to the Elizabethan Settlement was not sustained throughout the reign but flared up in response to particular events (as in 1584). It also failed to bring about any changes.
This finding significantly challenges the Whig interpretation of growing parliamentary opposition.
Freedom of speech limitations accepted
Although individual MPs like Wentworth railed against the limitation on their freedom of speech, there was no general support to win this right given Elizabeth's absolute opposition to it.
Financial compliance
Elizabeth summoned most of her Parliaments to obtain money. On nearly every occasion, she received the grant that she asked for.
Routine legislative work
Much of the Commons' work involved legislating on uncontentious issues, such as land disputes and town charters. This mundane work performed the important function of creating an outlet for local matters to be resolved quickly and without violence.
House of Lords' importance
The House of Lords was at least as important in the sixteenth century as the House of Commons. For example, at least one-third of MPs were, in effect, nominated by a lord, with no actual election. Some of the Queen's chief ministers, such as William Cecil (Lord Burghley), had seats in the Lords, not the Commons. Government influence in the Commons was achieved through the presence of "lesser" ministers such as Sir Christopher Hatton.
Main issues discussed in Elizabeth's Parliaments
Parliamentary business varied from session to session, according to current circumstances at home and abroad. Most bills introduced dealt with local issues brought by individual MPs.
| Date | Issue discussed in Parliament |
|---|---|
| 1559 | Religious settlement |
| 1563 and 1566-67 | Marriage and succession |
| Voting money for foreign policy | |
| First calls for further religious reform from Puritans | |
| 1571 | Religion, following Papal Excommunication in 1570 |
| Mary Queen of Scots (in prison since 1568 in England) | |
| 1572, 1576, 1581 | Mary Queen of Scots and Catholic threats |
| Wentworth and free speech | |
| 1584-85 | Jesuit priests, Puritans |
| Foreign threat from Spain | |
| 1586-87 | Mary Queen of Scots |
| Puritans | |
| Freedom of speech | |
| 1589 | Financial requests for continuing war against Spain |
| Puritanism | |
| 1593 | Religion |
| Finance | |
| 1597-98 | Economic and social problems |
| Finance; monopolies | |
| 1601 | Finance for foreign policy, including Ireland |
| Monopolies |
The topics listed represent those that were potentially contentious. Finance and religious issues feature prominently and are examined in detail below and in subsequent discussions.
The problem of royal finances
The scale of Elizabeth's financial difficulties
Elizabeth ruled during a time of inflationary pressure on the economy. The prices of basic commodities rose, as did those of goods that the government consumed, such as iron for shipbuilding or provisions for the army. To remain solvent or to stand any chance of pursuing an active foreign policy, the Crown had to increase its revenue.
Mary Tudor had already begun examining how to achieve this, and Elizabeth largely continued and developed this work. Between 1558 and 1603, royal income increased by approximately 50 per cent, just enough to keep pace with price inflation, but not enough to afford prolonged war against Spain after 1585.
Methods of raising revenue
Revenues were raised by exploiting traditional sources of income rather than through innovation:
The Book of Rates
The new Book of Rates introduced at the end of Mary's reign increased income from customs duties on exports. The recovery of the cloth industry after the crash of the 1550s also helped to generate taxes.
Religious income
As head of the Church, Elizabeth claimed income from a variety of religious sources, such as the "first fruits" tax on all new ecclesiastical office-holders.
Parliamentary subsidies
Parliament was approached to grant additional subsidies to finance foreign policy.
Sale of Crown lands
Crown lands, some appropriated from the Church in the 1530s, were sold off to raise $800,000.
Monopolies
Monopoly rights to produce or import particular products were sold to merchants.
Controlling expenditure
Elizabeth also attempted to control expenditure. Part of her cautious approach to foreign policy, especially her reluctance to direct military action in support of French or Dutch Protestant rebels, stemmed from her recognition that she lacked the money to sustain a war against Spain. Like Henry VII, Elizabeth tried to conserve her finances by using diplomacy rather than open combat.
Other methods of saving money included underpaying officials and delaying the appointment of bishops when positions became vacant (so that the Crown could collect Church taxes).
Contemporary perspectives on financial management
Source: Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Walter Mildmay (1576)
In a speech addressing the House of Commons in 1576, Mildmay explained Elizabeth's financial problems:
But lest peradventure that some members [of the House of Commons] may judge that the financial contribution granted by us five years ago might suffice for many years without any new; I dare assure you for the acquaintance I have with her Majesty's affairs, that the same hath not been sufficient to answer [cover] the extraordinary charges [expenditures] since then, not even half, and her Majesty hath supplied the rest out of her own revenues not sparing herself to serve the necessity of the realm...
Historical assessment of financial policies
At first sight, these policies appear to have been successful. Although Elizabeth left the Crown in debt, she had enough money to defend England against the vastly superior military strength of Spain when war broke out in the last two decades of her reign. Some historians, however, have been more critical of these policies and have pointed out that Elizabeth's failure to transform radically what was essentially her father's financial system left the Crown underfunded.
They also challenge the idea that growth in income was a success, arguing that Burghley, the Lord Treasurer for much of the reign, was inefficient at extracting the maximum value from the Crown's assets. Looking beyond Elizabeth's reign, modern historians also note that financial weakness was a principal reason why the Crown was forced to rely on Parliament in the seventeenth century.
Since this created tension in the relationship between Crown and Parliament and ultimately contributed to the civil wars of Charles I's reign, it is tempting to view Elizabeth's caution as one of the long-term causes of this conflict.
Historian A.G.R. Smith's assessment
Smith, in The Emergence of a Nation State: the Commonwealth of England, 1529-1660 (Longman, 1984), suggests that Elizabeth's financial policies were inadequate:
...left Burghley's successors in the office of Lord Treasurer in charge of an old fashioned financial machine which brought the government a much smaller proportion of national resources than it might reasonably have enjoyed. Even more important, perhaps, it accustomed the landed and trading classes to a situation in which they paid a very small part of their income in taxation. When they were called on to give more under the early Stuarts their reluctance and resentments caused major difficulties for the crown.
Smith argues that by failing to modernise the financial system, Elizabeth's government left the Crown structurally weak. This weakness contributed to constitutional tensions in the following century.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Parliament's role evolved substantially from Henry VII to Elizabeth, gaining increased importance through its involvement in religious and economic legislation, though it remained primarily an instrument to support royal policy rather than initiate it.
-
The historiographical debate between Neale's "conflict" interpretation and Elton/Graves' "co-operation" thesis demonstrates that evidence exists for both perspectives, with the balance suggesting limited, sporadic tensions rather than sustained confrontation.
-
Financial pressures proved a persistent source of friction between Crown and Parliament, with Elizabeth's reliance on parliamentary subsidies for war funding giving Parliament leverage, though she usually received the grants she requested.
-
Religious issues, particularly Puritan demands for further reform of the Elizabethan Settlement, generated the most contentious parliamentary debates, though the so-called "Puritan Choir" was less organised and effective than once believed.
-
Elizabeth's financial policies succeeded in defending England against Spain but failed to modernise the revenue system adequately, leaving structural weaknesses that contributed to Crown-Parliament tensions under the early Stuarts.