The Role of Parliament Between 1509-1588 (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Role of Parliament Between 1509-1588
The power of parliament
Parliament was an ancient medieval institution that had developed significant powers by the Tudor period. Its two most important powers were the sole right to grant taxation and the sole right to pass laws (known as Acts of Parliament). When monarchs needed additional income beyond their regular revenue—usually to fund wars or respond to emergencies—they would summon parliament to request taxation.
However, the relationship between monarch and parliament was not one of equals. Monarchs retained crucial powers that ensured they remained dominant. They could veto any laws they disliked and could summon and dismiss parliament at will. This meant there were often long periods when parliament did not meet at all. Unlike modern parliament, it played no role in day-to-day government.
Despite these limitations, most monarchs chose to call parliament periodically because it served important functions beyond taxation. Parliament provided monarchs with an opportunity to gauge public opinion and communicate their policies to Members of Parliament (MPs), who would then relay this information back to their local communities. This made parliament a valuable tool for maintaining communication between the Crown and the country.
How parliament was organised
Parliament consisted of two distinct chambers, each with different membership and functions.
The House of Lords was the unelected chamber where hereditary peers (nobles who inherited their titles) and bishops (senior churchmen) sat. This chamber represented the traditional power structures of nobility and Church.
The House of Commons was filled with elected MPs, though the electoral system was very different from today. Each county of England elected two MPs, and some boroughs (towns) also had the right to send MPs to parliament. However, voting was heavily restricted. In counties, only men who owned property generating an income of at least 40 shillings (£2) per year could vote. This meant voting was limited to wealthy property owners.
Example: Noble Patronage in Action
In practice, many MPs were elected uncontested—there was simply no competition for the seat. Furthermore, members of the nobility frequently exercised patronage to ensure their clients or supporters were elected.
For example, the powerful dukes of Norfolk could influence the selection of MPs in up to eight boroughs. In 1584, the Earl of Leicester wrote to the town of Andover requesting that they "give me the nomination of one of your burgesses."
This meant that parliament tended to represent the interests of the landed gentry and nobility rather than ordinary people.
For a bill to become an Act of Parliament, it had to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords before receiving royal assent from the monarch. While parliament usually supported the monarch, it could not always be relied upon to do exactly what the monarch wanted. As the 16th century progressed, the Commons became increasingly confident and required more careful management by the Crown.
Henry VIII's parliaments before 1529
Under Henry VII, parliament met just seven times in a 24-year reign, establishing a pattern of infrequent parliamentary sessions. This trend continued in the early years of Henry VIII's reign.
Between 1509 and 1529, parliament met only four times: in 1510, 1512-14, 1515, and 1523. During this period, parliament's primary role was to grant taxation to fund the king's wars. When military campaigns were successful—particularly in 1513—it was relatively easy to persuade parliament to grant taxation for the defence of the realm.
However, by 1517 Henry's foreign policy had become both costly and ineffective. As the burden of taxation increased with little success to show for it, parliament became less willing to grant increasing amounts of money. MPs feared that excessive taxation would provoke rebellion among their constituents. As members of local society and landowners themselves, they were acutely aware of the grumbling and resistance to taxation in their communities.
In 1523, this resistance came to a head when Wolsey met stiff opposition from the Commons when trying to extract the taxation he wanted. By this point, £288,814 had been raised in taxation, not to mention 'loans' totalling £260,000. Given this enormous financial burden, it is not surprising that when Wolsey tried to persuade the MPs by addressing them personally, he was met with complete silence—a clear sign of their displeasure.
Early signs of anti-clericalism
Although it might be tempting to view later events with hindsight, the parliament of 1512-14 showed some early signs of anti-clerical feeling. In 1512, it passed an Act to limit benefit of clergy, suggesting some resentment towards Church privileges.
Key Definitions:
Anti-clericalism refers to criticism of the Church, often aimed at its apparent corruption and wealth. While not all anti-clericals supported Protestantism, this sentiment would later fuel demands for reform.
Benefit of clergy was a privilege that allowed churchmen charged with serious crimes to be tried in Church courts rather than secular courts. Because Church courts gave more lenient sentences than secular courts, clergymen could avoid the death penalty. This was widely seen as unfair.
This anti-clerical feeling re-emerged in the 1515 parliament, exacerbated by the Hunne affair.
The Hunne Affair: A Case Study in Anti-Clericalism
Richard Hunne was a London merchant whose infant son died in 1511. When he refused to pay the usual mortuary fee (burial payment) to the local parish priest, he was sued in the Church courts, which found against him. Hunne was then accused of heresy and sent to the Bishop of London's prison.
In December 1514, Hunne was found hanged in his cell. Although the Church claimed suicide, murder was rumoured. Despite his death, Hunne was still put on trial for heresy, found guilty, and his corpse was ceremonially burned.
This case caused considerable anger and resentment in London and fuelled anti-clericalism in parliament. Thomas Cromwell would later exploit this anti-clerical sentiment for political purposes.
From 'king and parliament' to 'king-in-parliament'
In 1529, the parliament that historians would later call the Reformation parliament was summoned. It is crucial to understand that when this parliament first met, no one knew they were participating in a parliament that would dramatically change the power of the monarchy and the religion of England.
The term 'Reformation parliament' was not even used until the 19th century. Participants at the time had no sense they were making history in the way later generations would view it.
The 1529-31 sessions
When parliament first met in 1529, Wolsey had fallen from power and the king was still searching for a way to achieve the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Furthermore, Cromwell had not yet risen to power. As in 1512-14, there was some anti-clerical sentiment, but only three out of 26 statutes passed in the first session (1529-31) dealt with religious matters.
Parliament met again for a second session in January 1531. By this time, Henry was threatening to use parliament as a method to pressure Pope Clement VII into granting the annulment. He told the pope that he planned to refer his divorce case to parliament. However, at this stage, this seems to have been more of an attempt to blackmail the pope than a genuine threat.
The 1532 session
The third session of parliament began in January 1532 and lasted until May. By this point, Cromwell had been appointed to the king's Council and was beginning to use his influence to enable Henry to divorce Catherine. Cromwell's strategy was to use parliament to pass laws that would reinforce the king's claim to supremacy over the Church and make the divorce a reality.
The Act in Conditional Restraint of Annates applied pressure on the Church by threatening to forbid newly appointed bishops from making customary payments to the pope. However, this was not a straightforward process. There was opposition in both the Commons and the Lords, which is why the Act was made 'conditional'—delayed for a year to see if the pope would cooperate.
Anti-clericalism in the Commons was also manipulated through the production of a petition known as the Commons' Supplication against the Ordinaries. This was a list of complaints against the Church to which Convocation (the Church's version of parliament) was forced to submit, further weakening Church authority.
The 1533-34 sessions
When parliament met again in February 1533, there was considerable urgency. Henry VIII had married Anne Boleyn, who was already pregnant, but any annulment from Catherine could still be challenged in Rome. Henry needed to ensure that his new baby—which he hoped would be his longed-for son—would be legitimate and that his marriage and the succession would be unchallengeable under English parliamentary law.
Cromwell drafted the Act in Restraint of Appeals, which would cut off any attempt by Catherine of Aragon to appeal her case in Rome. Cromwell took particular care in drafting this bill, referring specifically to the idea of England as an empire, independent from foreign intervention, and of which the king was in sole charge. This Act allowed Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to declare Henry's first marriage void under English law.
In 1534, parliament was used again to confirm and enhance the new Royal Supremacy and the break with Rome. Several crucial Acts were passed:
- The Act of Annates was made permanent, though opposition in the Lords forced changes so that payments were stopped completely rather than transferred to Henry
- The Act of Succession made Princess Mary illegitimate and confirmed Princess Elizabeth as the new heir; it included an oath that allowed Henry and Cromwell to monitor opposition to the new order
- The Act of Supremacy confirmed Henry's new position as supreme head of the Church
- The Treason Act widened the definition of treason so that it could be committed not only by deeds against the king or his family, but also by words
The use of parliament from 1536 to 1547
Once the break with Rome was completed, Henry and Cromwell continued to use parliament extensively throughout the 1530s. Parliament was used to dissolve the monasteries through two Acts—one in 1536 for smaller monasteries and another in 1539 for larger monasteries.
Parliament was also used to pass Acts that dictated religious belief. The Act of Ten Articles (1536) promoted a more 'reformed' (Protestant-leaning) version of faith, while the Act of Six Articles (1539) reflected Henry's reversion to more conservative (Catholic-leaning) doctrine. Meanwhile, the second and third Acts of Succession (1536 and 1544) rewrote the line of succession twice more, demonstrating parliament's role in determining even the most fundamental matters of state.
The consequences of the Reformation parliament
Although Henry was always careful to claim that parliament was only acknowledging his supremacy rather than granting it to him, the use of parliament in this way set a precedent that would have unforeseen consequences. Once parliament had been used to create the Royal Supremacy and break with Rome, subsequent monarchs were forced to return to it whenever they wanted to alter the religious and political settlement enforced in the 1530s.
The Concept of 'King-in-Parliament'
The events of the 1530s created the important notion of 'king-in-parliament'. This was the idea that the most powerful institution in the country was the king acting in conjunction with parliament rather than acting alone.
The 'king-in-parliament' had authority over the Church, but the king alone did not. Cromwell seems to have been behind this theory. The idea was that God had granted Henry the Royal Supremacy, but the people had given Henry VIII the authority to assume the supremacy through parliament.
The reigns of Mary and Elizabeth reinforced this concept. Mary had to repeal the supremacy through parliament, and Elizabeth reasserted it again through another Act of Parliament. Each time this happened, parliament gained more power, though it was never more powerful than the monarch.
These new powers also meant that monarchs were forced to call parliament more frequently. Before 1529, parliament had met just four times in 20 years. Between 1529 and 1536, there were sessions nearly every year. This represented a significant turning point in the frequency with which parliament met.
The increased frequency of parliamentary sessions had several important consequences. The Commons became increasingly confident as more frequent meetings gave them greater experience and expertise. Groups with particular agendas, such as the Puritans under Elizabeth, began to use parliament as a means of achieving their aims. More meetings also meant that local MPs became more confident in expressing their views and were less easily intimidated by the presence of their monarch. These developments meant that later Tudor monarchs, especially Elizabeth, had to develop new tactics for managing parliament effectively.
Parliament and freedom of speech
One privilege claimed by the Commons was freedom of speech within parliament. MPs feared that without a guarantee that they could speak freely during debates, they could face arrest and imprisonment for expressing unpopular views.
Before Elizabeth's reign, the privilege of parliamentary freedom of speech was usually respected by the government. However, this did not mean that parliament could choose its own subjects for debate. Usually, it had to wait for topics to be introduced by the Crown. This arrangement generally promoted harmony between Crown and parliament, but there were occasions when the Tudors faced opposition from their parliaments.
Parliamentary Resistance in 1532
Supporters of Catherine of Aragon attempted to stop the parliamentary process that would lead to the break with Rome. In 1532, opposition to the Annates bill was so strong that it forced Henry to come to parliament himself, using his presence to intimidate the Commons into supporting the legislation.
This shows that even with restricted freedom of speech, parliament could still resist royal policy when it felt strongly enough.
Parliament under Edward and Mary
Under Edward VI, parliament was used to continue and accelerate the Protestant reformation. Mary's parliaments of 1553-54 reversed the religious changes seen under Edward and Henry, returning England to Rome. Parliament was therefore crucial for implementing religious change in either direction.
Historian Sir John Neale once argued that Mary's parliaments saw growth in organised Protestant opposition led by independent MPs in the Commons. Mary's parliaments were certainly less easy to manage than those of her predecessors. For example, in 1555 there was serious opposition to two proposed bills.
Opposition to the First Fruits and Tenths Bill (1555)
The first bill proposed that payments to the Church known as 'First Fruits and Tenths', which had been seized by Henry VIII, should be returned to the Church. This bill caused such opposition in the Commons that it was only passed by the queen's supporters keeping the House sitting until 3 p.m.—unusually late for parliamentary business.
By this time, the bill's opponents seem to have given up and gone to lunch.
The Defeat of the Exiles Bill (1555)
The second bill, known as the 'Exiles bill', proposed that the lands and property of Englishmen who had gone into exile and refused to return could be seized. This bill was defeated in a very unusual incident in which Sir Anthony Kingston, MP for Gloucestershire, locked the doors of the House and forced the Speaker to put the bill to a vote before its supporters could arrive.
Neale used these incidents to argue for organised Protestant opposition, which would become more apparent in Elizabeth's reign. However, historian Jennifer Loach has shown that both incidents were actually the result of fears surrounding property rights rather than religion. This would have particularly concerned the representatives of the land-owning elites in parliament.
If the Crown gave up its income from the First Fruits and Tenths, then the level of taxation might have to be raised—something that was never popular with landowners. Similarly, although many of those who had gone abroad in Mary's reign had Protestant leanings and wanted to avoid persecution, the Commons was more concerned about protecting property rights in general. MPs worried that anyone who simply happened to go abroad might face confiscation of their property through no fault of their own. This shows that parliament's opposition was often motivated by practical concerns about property and taxation rather than purely religious or ideological reasons.
The growing confidence of parliament under Elizabeth I, 1558-88
Like Mary and Edward, Elizabeth was forced by precedent to use her parliament to reverse the changes undertaken by Mary and to restore the Royal Supremacy. In 1559, however, she faced some difficulties in achieving this, mainly because of religiously conservative peers and bishops in the House of Lords. This opposition may have led to more of a compromise in the religious settlement than Elizabeth had originally intended.
However, the main problems that Elizabeth encountered from her parliaments resulted from an increasingly confident Commons. Parliament met six times during Elizabeth's reign up to 1588: in 1559, 1563-67, 1571, 1572-81 (only called in 1572, 1576, 1581), 1584-85, and 1586-87. This represented a significant increase in frequency compared to earlier Tudor monarchs.
The Puritan choir
Historian Sir John Neale argued for the existence of a 'Puritan choir' in Elizabeth's parliament. This 'choir', Neale claimed, consisted of a small group of religiously radical Protestants who had returned from exile under Mary and were determined to use parliament to create a more extreme religious settlement than Elizabeth wanted.
Understanding Puritans
Puritans were described by historian Patrick Collinson as "the hotter sort of Protestant." The term 'puritan' was originally used as an insult. Puritans saw the reformation as incomplete and wanted further reform. They tended to emphasise the importance of preaching and the Bible, believing that the Elizabethan religious settlement had not gone far enough in removing Catholic practices.
This interpretation suggests that Elizabeth faced organised opposition from MPs who wanted to push religious reform further than she was willing to go. This would explain some of the difficulties she faced in managing her parliaments and why she needed to develop careful tactics to control parliamentary debates, particularly on religious matters.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Parliament's core powers remained constant throughout the period: the sole right to grant taxation and pass laws, but monarchs retained the right to veto laws and summon/dismiss parliament at will.
-
The Reformation parliament (1529-36) marked a crucial turning point, transforming parliament from an occasional institution into a more regular feature of government and establishing the concept of 'king-in-parliament' as the highest authority.
-
Frequency of parliamentary sessions increased dramatically after 1529. Before 1529, parliament met just four times in 20 years; between 1529 and 1536, there were sessions nearly every year, making MPs more experienced and confident.
-
Parliament became essential for religious change. Once Henry VIII used parliament to break with Rome, all subsequent monarchs (Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth) had to use parliament to implement or reverse religious changes, increasing parliament's power and importance.
-
The Commons grew increasingly confident throughout the period, particularly under Elizabeth. MPs became more willing to express their views, resist royal pressure, and pursue their own agendas (such as Puritan reform), requiring monarchs to develop more sophisticated management tactics.