1589 and 1593 Parliaments (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
1589 and 1593 Parliaments
Introduction: Elizabeth I and parliament in the 1590s
By the late 1580s, the relationship between Elizabeth I and parliament had evolved significantly. Elizabeth remained determined to protect her prerogative rights – the powers she held as monarch – and viewed any parliamentary attempts to limit these powers with deep suspicion. At the same time, MPs increasingly felt that the crown was abusing certain prerogative powers and used their position to challenge what they saw as excessive royal demands.
Earlier in Elizabeth's reign, during the 1560s-1580s, parliament had focused primarily on three major issues: Elizabeth's refusal to marry, the question of who would succeed her, and religious matters. By 1589, however, these concerns had largely faded from parliamentary debate. In their place emerged new grievances, particularly complaints about the crown's misuse of purveyance and monopolies.
The Shift in Parliamentary Concerns
This transition from religious and dynastic issues to economic grievances reflects the changing political landscape of Elizabeth's later reign. While succession and religion remained sensitive topics (as the Wentworth affair would demonstrate), they were no longer the primary focus of parliamentary debate. Instead, MPs increasingly challenged what they perceived as the crown's exploitation of traditional rights for financial gain.
Understanding purveyance
Purveyance was a traditional royal right used to supply the royal household with food and provisions. Under this system, royal officials could purchase goods from local farmers and merchants at drastically reduced prices – typically between half and one-third of the actual market value. Local traders had no choice but to accept these terms as purveyance formed part of the royal prerogative.
However, this practice generated considerable resentment among those forced to sell their goods at such low prices. Farmers and merchants complained bitterly that purveyance undermined their livelihoods and caused them significant financial hardship.
How Purveyance Worked in Practice
Imagine a farmer who could normally sell a cow at market for £6. Under the purveyance system, royal officers could compel him to sell that same cow for £2-3 to supply the royal household. The farmer had no legal right to refuse, as this was part of the monarch's prerogative powers. With the system worth approximately £37,000 annually to Elizabeth, thousands of such transactions occurred each year, creating widespread grievance among traders and farmers.
Understanding monopolies
Monopolies became an increasingly contentious issue during the 1590s. As the costs of war escalated, Elizabeth found herself with less money available for patronage – the system of rewarding loyal courtiers and officials. Granting monopolies offered an attractive solution: Elizabeth could reward her favourites while also raising revenue, as courtiers would pay the crown for the privilege of holding a monopoly.
Some monopolies were relatively uncontroversial. These functioned rather like modern patents, protecting traders and merchants from competition. The monopolies that sparked complaints, however, were those granted purely for profit. Courtiers like Walter Raleigh held monopolies on various goods including tin, playing cards and tavern licences, which they exploited to generate substantial personal wealth.
Why Monopolies Caused Such Resentment
The system appeared corrupt to many observers. Because monopoly holders faced no competition, they could raise prices dramatically. At a time of social and economic hardship, these price increases proved particularly damaging, especially when they affected essential goods such as steel and salt. Steel prices doubled under the monopoly system, whilst salt became eleven times more expensive.
This resentment over monopolies, and the way Elizabeth and her chief minister Robert Cecil handled parliamentary complaints, created significant tension in the parliaments of 1597 and 1601.
The 1589 Parliament
The taxation dispute and purveyance grievances
When parliament met in 1589, Elizabeth's councillors were eager to secure parliamentary approval for taxation to fund the realm's defence. However, MPs refused to grant the money until the crown had listened to and addressed their grievances – a traditional parliamentary tactic for pressuring the monarch.
What particularly alarmed Elizabeth and her advisors in the House of Lords was that the Commons planned to introduce a parliamentary bill to restrict the abuse of purveyance by royal officers. A bill, if passed by both Houses and approved by the queen, would become an Act of Parliament with the force of law.
Key terms: parliamentary bills vs petitions
Understanding Parliamentary Bills vs Petitions
It is important to understand the difference between a parliamentary bill and a petition, as this distinction mattered greatly to Elizabeth:
Parliamentary Bill: Could be introduced in either the House of Lords or House of Commons. It would be debated in both Houses, and if both agreed and the queen gave her consent, it would become an Act of Parliament. Bills could be introduced by the government, but any MP could also introduce a 'private' bill.
Petition: A document addressed directly to the monarch expressing concern about a particular issue. Petitions could be presented within parliament to draw the monarch's attention to a complaint, but the monarch was under no obligation to act upon it. Using a petition was therefore a less confrontational approach than introducing a bill, as it did not threaten to change the law or restrict the royal prerogative.
Elizabeth's response and resolution
For Elizabeth, the Commons' plan to introduce a bill limiting purveyance represented a direct attack on the royal prerogative through parliamentary legislation. She ordered that the bill be abandoned immediately. The Commons complied with her command and agreed to grant the taxation that her councillors had requested.
In return for the Commons' cooperation, Elizabeth promised to implement reforms to the purveyance system. Crucially, she kept this promise and made the changes she had pledged. This compromise successfully defused the situation. Elizabeth's later parliaments did not raise complaints about purveyance again, demonstrating that her reform had been sufficiently effective to satisfy MPs' concerns.
The 1589 Compromise Process
- Commons' Position: MPs withheld taxation and planned a parliamentary bill to limit purveyance abuses
- Elizabeth's Response: Ordered the bill dropped, viewing it as an attack on her prerogative
- Commons' Concession: Abandoned the bill and granted the requested taxation
- Elizabeth's Concession: Promised reforms to the purveyance system
- Outcome: Elizabeth delivered the promised reforms; purveyance ceased to be a parliamentary grievance
This pattern of give-and-take demonstrated how Elizabeth could defend her prerogative while still addressing legitimate complaints.
The 1593 Parliament
Peter Wentworth and the succession question
The 1593 parliament witnessed further tensions between crown and Commons, though these were ultimately resolved. Before parliament had even assembled, an MP named Peter Wentworth, representing Northampton, attempted to organize other MPs to present a petition and bill in parliament. This petition would have asked Elizabeth to finally settle the question of who would succeed her to the throne.
Wentworth had a history of confrontation with the crown. He had previously been imprisoned for defending an MP's right to freedom of speech in parliament and for publishing a pamphlet about the succession. When the Privy Council learned of Wentworth's plans for the 1593 parliament, they acted swiftly. Wentworth and his supporters were arrested before they could present their petition.
The Fate of Peter Wentworth
Wentworth was sent to the Tower of London, where he remained imprisoned until his death four years later in 1597. Four other MPs who had been involved in Wentworth's scheme were placed under house arrest for the duration of the parliamentary session, then released.
This harsh treatment sent a clear message about the limits of parliamentary initiative on matters touching the royal prerogative. Elizabeth would not tolerate MPs attempting to force her hand on the succession question, even through petition.
The taxation dispute between Commons and Lords
A more significant dispute then emerged between Elizabeth's councillors, particularly William Cecil (Lord Burghley), and the House of Commons over taxation. The Commons had agreed to a bill authorizing two subsidies (a form of taxation) to be raised. However, in a meeting between representatives of the Commons and Lords, Cecil informed the MPs that two subsidies were insufficient. He told them they should reconsider and offer more money.
This intervention angered several MPs, who felt strongly that the Commons should have the exclusive right to initiate taxation bills. They argued that the Lords should not interfere in this process. MPs such as Francis Bacon and Henry Unton made a powerful case: because they represented the vast majority of people who would actually pay the taxes, it should be the Commons alone who decided whether taxation should be granted and how much should be levied.
Sir Henry Unton's Argument for Commons' Rights
Sir Henry Unton expressed this view forcefully in parliament:
In matters of subsidy and contribution we might not be governed or directed [by the Lords because] we are far more interested therein than they. They offer but a small portion for themselves, we both for ourselves and infinite thousands besides... we are stewards of many more purses than they.
In this statement, Unton argued that the Lords paid only a small portion of the tax themselves, whereas the Commons represented both themselves and 'infinite thousands' of others who would bear the burden of taxation. Therefore, MPs were 'stewards' (guardians) of far more people's money than the Lords.
Resolution and significance
Eventually, Elizabeth's councillors in the Lords succeeded in calming the situation. The Commons ultimately granted the increased subsidy that the Lords had requested. Although this incident was relatively minor in itself, it revealed two important developments:
First, it demonstrated the increased confidence of the Commons, particularly in asserting their own rights and privileges regarding taxation. MPs were becoming bolder in defending what they saw as their exclusive authority over financial matters.
Second, it showed that the Commons needed to be managed carefully by the crown and its advisors. Clumsy handling of parliamentary sensitivities could provoke confrontation even when MPs were generally willing to cooperate.
Despite the tensions, the 1593 parliament ultimately did what Elizabeth requested, though with some complaints and resistance along the way. Like the 1589 parliament, it demonstrated that compromise and careful management could resolve disputes between crown and parliament.
Key outcomes of the 1589 and 1593 parliaments
Both the 1589 and 1593 parliaments saw disagreements between the Commons, the queen and her councillors over the royal prerogative and parliamentary attempts to control or limit it. However, in both cases, the issues under discussion were largely resolved through negotiation and compromise.
In 1589, Elizabeth's willingness to promise reforms to purveyance, and her delivery on that promise, successfully addressed the Commons' grievances. The dropping of the purveyance bill in exchange for royal reform represented a pragmatic solution that protected Elizabeth's prerogative whilst acknowledging legitimate complaints.
In 1593, despite the Wentworth affair and the taxation dispute, parliament ultimately cooperated with the crown's demands. The harsh treatment of Wentworth demonstrated the limits of acceptable parliamentary initiative on sensitive matters like the succession. The taxation dispute, whilst revealing tensions, was resolved through negotiation.
Key Patterns in Elizabeth's Parliamentary Management
Both parliaments illustrated several important principles:
- Growing Commons confidence: MPs were becoming more assertive in defending their rights and privileges, particularly regarding taxation
- Willingness to compromise: Despite growing confidence, MPs remained willing to work with the crown when handled skillfully
- Elizabeth's dual approach: She combined firmness on matters of prerogative with flexibility and compromise on specific grievances
- Effective conflict resolution: Skillful management could transform potential confrontations into negotiated settlements
This approach proved effective in maintaining a workable relationship with parliament during this period.
Remember!
Key Takeaways: The 1589 and 1593 Parliaments
-
Context shift: By 1589, parliamentary concerns had moved from marriage, succession and religion to focus on purveyance and monopolies – two areas where MPs felt the crown was abusing its prerogative powers.
-
1589 resolution: The Commons used the traditional tactic of withholding taxation to force Elizabeth to address their purveyance grievances. Elizabeth ordered the proposed bill to limit purveyance to be dropped, but promised reforms which she delivered, successfully defusing tensions.
-
1593 Wentworth affair: Peter Wentworth's attempt to raise the succession question led to his arrest and imprisonment in the Tower until his death in 1597, demonstrating the strict limits Elizabeth placed on parliamentary discussion of certain topics.
-
1593 taxation dispute: A significant confrontation occurred when William Cecil told the Commons that their proposed two subsidies were insufficient. MPs like Francis Bacon and Henry Unton argued that the Commons alone should control taxation since they represented those who would pay. Though eventually resolved, this revealed the Commons' growing confidence in asserting their rights.
-
Overall significance: Both parliaments showed that whilst tensions existed between crown and Commons over prerogative powers and parliamentary privileges, skillful management and compromise could resolve disputes. Elizabeth combined firmness on defending her prerogative with flexibility in addressing specific grievances, maintaining a workable parliamentary relationship.