1601 Parliament (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
1601 Parliament
Background to the crisis
By the time parliament was summoned in 1601, tensions over monopolies had been building for several years. In 1597, MPs had complained about monopolies—exclusive rights to manufacture or sell particular goods—but Elizabeth had promised to examine all monopoly licences and make reforms. However, she failed to keep this promise. Between 1597 and 1601, almost nothing was done. Most monopolies remained in place, and worse still, new ones were created. When Elizabeth was forced to call parliament in 1601 to request taxation, MPs' simmering resentment erupted into open anger.
Monopolies were exclusive rights granted by the Crown to individuals or companies to manufacture, trade, or sell specific goods. While they were meant to encourage trade and innovation, in practice they often led to higher prices and restricted access to everyday commodities, causing hardship for ordinary people.
This was Elizabeth's final parliament, and it would become dominated by the Commons' fierce attack on the monopoly system. The situation was far more explosive than in 1597 because MPs felt betrayed by Elizabeth's broken promises.
Composition of the 1601 parliament
The parliament of 1601 was unusual in its makeup, which helps explain why the monopolies issue became so heated:
- 253 barristers or gentry educated at the Inns of Court sat as MPs—the highest number of lawyers in any Tudor parliament
- These legal professionals were well-versed in parliamentary procedure and understood the technicalities of law-making
- Crucially, they had encountered the problems caused by monopolies in their work in the law courts, where people with complaints against monopolists were unable to get justice
- At least 157 MPs had also been present in the 1597 parliament, making them likely to be sympathetic to complaints about monopolies and aware that petitioning had achieved nothing
This concentration of legal expertise and institutional memory made the Commons more confident and capable of challenging the Crown.
The unprecedented number of legally-trained MPs in the 1601 parliament was crucial to understanding why this session became so confrontational. These lawyers:
- Understood parliamentary procedure and could exploit it effectively
- Had seen firsthand the injustices caused by monopolies in the courts
- Had the confidence and knowledge to challenge royal prerogative directly
The monopolies crisis unfolds
Robert Cecil's poor management
The Crown's chief minister, Robert Cecil, badly misjudged the mood of parliament. He made clear that the government only wanted parliament to grant subsidies (taxation), not to discuss other matters. He even told parliament that he wanted no "fantastic speeches or idle bills." This dismissive attitude was the opposite of what the angry MPs wanted to hear and only inflamed tensions further.
Robert Cecil's miscalculation shows how even experienced politicians could underestimate the strength of parliamentary feeling. His attempt to control the agenda backfired spectacularly, turning what might have been manageable discontent into a full-blown crisis.
Unprecedented public involvement
What happened next was shocking by Tudor standards. A crowd of people calling themselves "Commonwealth men"—individuals concerned with both the state as a whole and the common good of the people—burst into the parliament lobby and stairs. They begged MPs to take action against the abuses committed by monopolists. Cecil complained that "Parleamente matters are ordinarye talke in the streetes."
These scenes were completely unprecedented in any Tudor parliament. They demonstrated:
- The extent of popular anger about monopolies
- How the issue had spilled beyond parliamentary walls into public consciousness
- The real danger that the situation could deteriorate into riots
The Breakdown of Parliamentary Decorum
The intrusion of "Commonwealth men" into parliament was extraordinary for the Tudor period. This was not how politics normally worked—parliament was meant to be an elite institution, insulated from direct public pressure. The fact that ordinary people felt compelled to physically enter parliament to press their grievances showed:
- How deeply monopolies affected everyday life
- The failure of normal channels of complaint
- The genuine risk of public disorder if action wasn't taken
MPs' determination to act
Because petitioning Elizabeth in 1597 had made no difference, some MPs were now prepared to introduce a parliamentary bill to restrict the royal prerogative on monopolies. This was a much more aggressive approach than petitioning, as a bill could actually change the law and limit the monarch's rights. The Commons' anger reflected their frustration that the less confrontational approach had failed completely.
Elizabeth's clever response
Faced with this dangerous situation, Elizabeth responded with characteristic political skill. She managed to appear generous and gracious while actually conceding very little.
Her actions
25 November 1601: Elizabeth sent a message to the Commons through the Speaker of the House. She promised that some monopolies would be cancelled immediately, while others would be suspended pending investigation.
28 November 1601: She cancelled 12 monopolies that had been the subject of particular complaint in parliament. These included monopolies on salt, vinegar, and starch—everyday commodities that affected ordinary people.
She also authorised anyone with grievances against monopolists to prosecute them in the common law courts, giving people a legal remedy for the first time.
Elizabeth's Strategic Concessions
Notice how Elizabeth's response was carefully calibrated:
- She cancelled monopolies on everyday goods that affected the most people, maximizing political impact
- She allowed legal prosecution, which sounded like a major concession but in practice was difficult for ordinary people to pursue
- She maintained her overall prerogative right to grant monopolies, only giving up specific examples
- The timing—just three days between her initial message and the cancellations—prevented further escalation
The 'golden speech'
Elizabeth then met with a delegation of approximately 140 MPs. At this meeting, she delivered what became known as her "golden speech", a masterpiece of political manipulation. In this speech, she:
- Acknowledged there had been some "lapses of error"
- Expressed her love for her subjects and her desire to rule with their support
- Emphasised that she valued reigning "with your loves" above the glory of her crown
- Maintained that she had never been interested in royal authority for its own sake, but rather to defend the kingdom from "peril, dishonour, tyranny and oppression"
- Insisted that they had never had, and would never have, a monarch "that will love you better"
- Still upheld her prerogative rights even while making concessions
The speech was a triumph of political theatre. Elizabeth managed to portray herself as a caring, gracious monarch who listened to her people's concerns, while in reality she maintained her fundamental royal powers and gave away only what was necessary to calm the crisis.
The Power of Personal Touch
Elizabeth's decision to meet with 140 MPs personally was itself significant. In an age when the monarch was distant and elevated, this direct engagement was unusual and powerful. The 'golden speech' worked because it:
- Made MPs feel heard and valued
- Created an emotional connection between queen and subjects
- Deflected anger away from specific grievances toward general loyalty
- Left MPs feeling they had won a victory, even though Elizabeth retained most of her powers
Outcome and significance
Immediate results
Elizabeth's strategy was completely successful. Despite the unprecedented anger and public involvement, she achieved her original objective: parliament granted the taxation she had requested. The Commons' fury was neutralised through a combination of concrete concessions (the cancellation of specific monopolies) and symbolic gestures (the emotional appeal of the 'golden speech').
Historical significance
The 1601 parliament is significant for several reasons:
Demonstrated Commons' growing confidence: The willingness of MPs to consider challenging the royal prerogative directly showed that the Commons was becoming more assertive about its rights and privileges. The high number of legally-trained MPs gave them both the knowledge and confidence to pursue their complaints.
This growing parliamentary confidence would become increasingly important in the early Stuart period. While Elizabeth successfully managed it in 1601, her successors James I and Charles I would face even more assertive parliaments, ultimately leading to constitutional crisis.
Revealed Elizabeth's political mastery: Even in the final year of her reign, Elizabeth showed exceptional skill in managing political crises. She knew when to compromise and when to hold firm, and she understood the power of personal appeal and symbolic gestures.
Exposed tensions in the system: The parliament revealed real strains in the relationship between Crown and Commons, particularly over the royal prerogative. While Elizabeth successfully defused this particular crisis, the underlying tensions about monopolies and royal powers would resurface in later reigns.
Showed the limits of petitioning: The contrast between 1597 (when MPs petitioned) and 1601 (when they were prepared to legislate) demonstrated that MPs would only accept the less confrontational approach if it produced results. When promises were broken, they were willing to challenge the prerogative more directly.
Understanding the Long-Term Significance
While Elizabeth won the immediate battle in 1601, the parliament exposed fundamental problems that couldn't be solved by personal charisma alone:
- The tension between royal prerogative and parliamentary rights
- The financial pressures forcing monarchs to call parliaments they couldn't fully control
- The increasing sophistication and confidence of MPs
- The potential for public opinion to influence parliamentary debates
These issues would dominate the reigns of the Stuart monarchs and eventually contribute to the outbreak of civil war in 1642.
Key sources from the 1601 parliament
Robert Cecil's complaint about parliamentary disorder
Cecil, who had been an MP in six or seven parliaments, expressed shock at the chaos in the Commons: "I never did see the House is so great a confusion... This is more fit for a grammar school than a court of parliament." His comment about MPs being "cried and coughed down" when discussing "the liberty of the subject" shows how heated debates had become.
Cecil's shock at the "confusion" in parliament tells us two things: first, that the 1601 session was genuinely unusual in its disorder, and second, that even experienced politicians were unprepared for the strength of feeling about monopolies. His dismissive comparison to a "grammar school" also reveals his aristocratic contempt for the MPs' concerns—an attitude that only made the situation worse.
An MP's passionate attack on monopolies
The lawyer and MP Hayward Townshend recorded the speech of Mr Martin, MP for Barnstaple in Devon. Martin spoke powerfully about the impact of monopolies on ordinary people: "I speak for a town that grieves and pines and for a country that groaneth under the burthen of monstrous and unconscionable substitutes to the monopolitans of starch, tin, fish, cloth, oil, vinegar, salt and I know not what: nay, what not?" He called the monopolists "bloodsuckers of the commonwealth," showing the strength of feeling against them.
Analyzing Martin's Speech: Rhetorical Techniques
Martin's speech is a powerful example of parliamentary rhetoric. Notice how he:
Step 1: Establishes his authority "I speak for a town... and for a country" - He's not speaking for himself but representing his constituents
Step 2: Uses emotive language "grieves and pines" and "groaneth under the burthen" - Creates a vivid picture of suffering
Step 3: Lists specific grievances "starch, tin, fish, cloth, oil, vinegar, salt" - Concrete examples show the breadth of the problem
Step 4: Employs powerful metaphors "bloodsuckers of the commonwealth" - Dehumanizes monopolists and suggests they're draining the nation's lifeblood
This combination of techniques made his speech memorable and effective.
Elizabeth's 'golden speech'
In her address to the Commons delegation, Elizabeth struck an emotional tone: "Though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my Crown, that I have reigned with your loves." She insisted she had never been attracted to royal authority for its own sake, and concluded with a personal touch, asking that MPs "bring them all to kiss my hand" before they returned to their counties. This combination of humility, affection, and majesty was designed to win over her critics—and it worked.
Exam focus: analysing the 1601 parliament
When writing about the 1601 parliament in an exam, consider:
For questions about challenges to royal authority:
- The 1601 parliament shows both challenge and successful royal management
- Note how MPs moved from petition (1597) to threatened legislation (1601)
- Consider why Elizabeth's response was effective despite her broken promises
When discussing challenges to royal authority, avoid presenting the 1601 parliament as either a complete victory for MPs or a crushing defeat. The reality was more nuanced: MPs did challenge the prerogative, but Elizabeth successfully contained that challenge while maintaining her fundamental powers.
For questions about Elizabeth's political skill:
- Use the 'golden speech' as evidence of her understanding of political theatre
- Explain how she balanced concession with maintaining prerogative
- Compare her handling of 1601 to earlier parliamentary conflicts
For questions about Crown-Commons relations:
- Highlight the unprecedented nature of the crisis (public involvement, legal expertise of MPs)
- Explain why the monopolies issue was so significant
- Consider whether this represents a genuine crisis or successful royal management
Common Pitfalls to Avoid:
- Don't exaggerate the crisis—Elizabeth did ultimately get what she wanted (taxation granted)
- Don't ignore the role of Robert Cecil's mismanagement—his dismissive attitude turned discontent into crisis
- Don't overlook the importance of the 1597 context—the broken promises from 1597 were crucial to understanding 1601's anger
- Don't present MPs as modern-style democrats—they still accepted royal prerogative in principle; they were angry about specific abuses, not the monarchical system itself
- Don't forget to mention specific evidence—use the 'golden speech,' Cecil's complaints, Martin's rhetoric, and the number of lawyer-MPs to support your arguments
Key Points to Remember:
- The 1601 parliament was Elizabeth's last and was dominated by fierce anger over monopolies—exclusive rights to manufacture or sell goods
- Elizabeth had promised reform in 1597 but done almost nothing, leading to explosive resentment when parliament was called again in 1601
- The parliament contained 253 lawyers—the highest number in any Tudor parliament—who understood the legal problems caused by monopolies
- "Commonwealth men" burst into parliament to beg MPs to act, showing unprecedented public anger and the risk of riots
- Elizabeth responded cleverly: on 28 November 1601, she cancelled 12 monopolies (including salt, vinegar, and starch) and delivered her famous "golden speech" to 140 MPs
- The 'golden speech' was a masterpiece of political manipulation—Elizabeth appeared gracious and humble while actually conceding very little and maintaining her prerogative rights
- Despite the crisis, Elizabeth achieved her aim: parliament granted the taxation she had requested, showing her continuing political skill even at the end of her reign
- The parliament exposed underlying tensions between Crown and Commons that would resurface and intensify under the Stuart monarchs