Post by Mr Modica on Jul 21, 2013 9:34:09 GMT
Parliament
Elizabethan Parliaments have been the subject of much debate and analysis, with earlier historians seeing them as precursors to difficulties experienced by Stuart monarchs in the C17 and developments that led to the English Civil War. Neale argued that during Elizabeth’s reign the Commons became the senior partner in Parliament, and that it developed a habit of independence and political opposition to the crown. In Neale’s view there was a significant Protestant minority, the ‘Puritan Choir’, which played a significant role in creating a religious settlement that was more radical than Elizabeth intended. Such men were foremost in developing the privileges of Parliament according to Neale.
However Norman Jones has disproved the idea of the ‘Puritan Choir’ and has demonstrated that there was no organised puritan opposition. G.R. Elton has also re-interpreted the Parliamentary pressure on Elizabeth to marry or exclude MQS; no longer should this been seen as oppositional, but rather it represents members of the PC using their influence in Parliament to try to pressurise the Queen in to taking an action they saw as being in the interests of the crown and country.
Debate has also ensued on Parliamentary rights. Neale argued that the Commons began to see their traditional privileges as constitutional rights, e.g. freedom of speech and freedom from arrest. Individual instances such as Wentworth’s demand to continue the debate on the succession despite Elizabeth’s displeasure in 1566 were seen as crucial steps on the road to Parliamentary independence. Graves has argued that Wentworth et al were “loners without support”. Loades however, whilst accepting they were unrepresentative, does accept that such cases are illustrative of the seriousness with which many MP’s saw their role.
A further area of debate can be found in the relative importance of the Commons versus the Lords Neale saw the volume of legislation originating in the Commons as evidence for its importance. Graves however has suggested that in fact it depended where the great men of the PC sat as to which house was most important. Thus, for example, when William Cecil was created Lord Burghley in 1572 the focus switches to the Lords and, when he died in 1598 influence, and therefore the focus of attention, switched back to the Commons under his son Sir Robert Cecil.
However Morris has argued that given the links of patronage and clientage between the two houses, it would be unwise to think of the two Houses as being distinct institutions. Thus, for example, when matters became ‘too hot’ for members of the PC to openly speak about they would use their clients to raise the matters for them, for example Thomas Norton was active over the succession, marriage and religious reform between 1558 and 1581. Clientage was also probably behind the rise in the number of MP’s, from 400 in 1559, to 440 in 1572, to 460 in 1583, to 462 by 1603. New boroughs were given the right to return MP’s due to the influence of key Cllrs (e.g. Leicester, Huntingdon and Rutland) who were keen to see their patronage and client base expand. This is also matched by the boroughs increasingly returning men from outside of the borough itself.
Elton has also argued that in any case there is over concentration on the study of national affairs in Parliament, which were no more than “occasional intrusions” in the generally parochial work of Parliament. Loades has noted two developments which point to growing Commons power. In 1593 it gained a legal right to adjudicate in disputed elections. He also argues that the length and frequency of Parliaments led to the development of ‘Parliament men’ who were able to develop an expertise in the use of Parliamentary tactics and procedures. However Parliament met occasionally and for short periods of time, just 140 weeks out of a reign of 45 years! There were ten Parliaments with a total of 13 sessions. Most sessions were less than 10 weeks in duration. For the Queen they were ‘necessary evils.’ But they were called on “weighty and great occasions”.
The sessions were:
1559: The first Parliament met to grant a subsidy for the war against France; to re-break England from Rome and to re-establish a broadly Protestant church. This Parliament saw perhaps the greatest opposition to Elizabeth when in February 1559 the Lords refused to accept her bills on the Royal Supremacy, uniformity and the repeal of Marian heresy laws. It was only after considerable political and clerical muscle had been applied that Elizabeth got an agreement acceptable to her.
1563: The need for money for the war against Scotland in 1560 and the costs of the 1562 expedition to France
1566: Again for taxation as the costs supposedly met by the 1563 taxation had not been. There was some grumbling in the Commons over this.
1571: The suppression of the Northern Rebellion has been expensive and a subsidy was asked for this – apparently agreed with no dissenting voices – and legislation was required to deal with the Papal Bull of 1570 and “raging Romanist rebels.”
1572: This Parliament was called in the aftermath of the Ridolfi Plot to pass laws preserving the Queen’s safety. Elizabeth vetoed a bill against MQS.
1576: Although at peace Elizabeth was short of money, taxation was granted without any great difficulty.
1581: Again taxation was requested, because of the dangers from Catholicism at home and abroad. Laws were also required against the Jesuits who had started arriving in England in1580 – the result was the ‘Act to retain the Queen’s Majesty’s subjects in their due obedience’. This provided the basis for repression of Catholicism for the rest of the reign.
1584: Parliament was called in an atmosphere of great tension following the Throckmorton Plot and the assassination of William of Orange. An act prescribed the death penalty for anyone plotting against Elizabeth’s life (this was the legislation used to execute MQS). Taxation was also requested for defence of the country – needless to say it was easily granted.
1586: Parliament was called specifically to consider the matter of MQS. Warren has suggested that Elizabeth called it under pressure from the PC who wanted to present her with a united political front for MQS’s execution. It did result in the publishing of the death sentence, something Elizabeth had previously refused to do.
1589: Parliament met in the aftermath of the Spanish Armada. A double subsidy was asked for and granted.
1593: Taxation was given for the war in the Netherlands against Spain and for aid being given to Henri IV in his war against the Catholic League. After some wrangling between Commons and Lords a triple subsidy was granted. Legislation was also passed against recusancy.
1597: The war with Spain was still on-going and a triple subsidy was again granted. This Parliament also saw the first protest about ‘monopolies’ (the granting of rights of monopoly for certain goods to favoured Cllrs/nobles in return for large cash payments).
1601: The complaints against monopolies were still on going; however the costs of suppressing a rebellion in Ireland and the landing of a Spanish army in Kinsale saw Parliament grant a quadruple subsidy.
On only one occasion did the government call Parliament to consider a great matter of state (1586 and MQS) at all other times it was for taxation or legislation.
Controlling Parliament
It was thought at one time that the government used crude methods to ‘pack’ the Commons with its supporters. However the situation is more complex. In the later Parliaments between 20 and 25% of the MP’s can be identified as either Court officials or the gentlemen servants of the members of the PC. Members of the PC who were not members of the Lords would also expect to serve in Parliament. Thus Elizabeth could call on the support of a substantial section of the Commons with great ease. Other MP’s would be the gentry clients of important nobles, strengthening the crowns grip on the Commons. Elizabeth was not above interfering in the work of Parliaments. This could be on trivial matters, such as on Sheriff’s accounts in 1563, or on greater matters, such as in 1587 with Cope’s ‘Bill and Book’. Parliament did not always acquiesce to Elizabeth, but usually she got her way.
If she didn’t get her way Elizabeth could always veto bills, which she did to 66 or 67. The veto was not just applied to bills Elizabeth disliked, but also to bills which she hadn’t had time to consider thoroughly. Elizabeth could also imprison MP’s who were unduly awkward. MP’s enjoyed a tradition of free speech within Parliament, however in the Parliament of 1586-7 five MP’s were sent to the Tower for discussing Cope’s ‘Book and Bill’ outside Parliament, an offence not protected by privilege. In 1593 Elizabeth followed a similar course with Wentworth when he tried to introduce a bill on the succession, which again was discussed outside Parliament. In one case Elizabeth also forbade an MP from appearing in the Commons. In the 1559 Parliament, members of the Lords were also imprisoned during the debates on the religious settlement.
Elizabeth would also use flattery and favour as a means of developing a rapport with Parliament, for example in 1584 she adjourned Parliament in sufficient time to allow MP’s to be home for Xmas, or in the 1597 during the assent of the subsidy bill Elizabeth rose and bowed in thanks to Parliament for the taxation. Parliament, especially the Commons, was also managed by the PC, for example in 1593 Robert Cecil arranged for Parliament to sit longer so that a bill on sectaries could be passed. After the second reading bills were usually sent to a committee. These committees would usually have a large number of Cllrs on them, and on important business all members of the PC in the Commons would be on it. Members of the PC in the Commons also sat most closely to the Speaker, as such they were able to offer ‘advice’ on matters and influence the procedures of the House. The Speaker was in any case chosen by the government, although technically they were ‘elected’ by the Commons.
Smith has argued that in the later Parliaments the quality of members of the PC declined, with only Robert Cecil commanding any real degree of support or influence. As such it became harder to control the Commons, in terms of behaviour – on which there were complaints in 1593 and 1601. During the 1590’s he also argues that the committees started to take some of the initiative away from the PC on matters of general policy such as vagrancy, poverty and enclosures. In part they were able to do this because of the increasing financial demands the crown was making. In 1601 Elizabeth was only able to retain the royal prerogative on monopolies by accepting the substance of the Commons’ demands.
Elizabethan Parliaments have been the subject of much debate and analysis, with earlier historians seeing them as precursors to difficulties experienced by Stuart monarchs in the C17 and developments that led to the English Civil War. Neale argued that during Elizabeth’s reign the Commons became the senior partner in Parliament, and that it developed a habit of independence and political opposition to the crown. In Neale’s view there was a significant Protestant minority, the ‘Puritan Choir’, which played a significant role in creating a religious settlement that was more radical than Elizabeth intended. Such men were foremost in developing the privileges of Parliament according to Neale.
However Norman Jones has disproved the idea of the ‘Puritan Choir’ and has demonstrated that there was no organised puritan opposition. G.R. Elton has also re-interpreted the Parliamentary pressure on Elizabeth to marry or exclude MQS; no longer should this been seen as oppositional, but rather it represents members of the PC using their influence in Parliament to try to pressurise the Queen in to taking an action they saw as being in the interests of the crown and country.
Debate has also ensued on Parliamentary rights. Neale argued that the Commons began to see their traditional privileges as constitutional rights, e.g. freedom of speech and freedom from arrest. Individual instances such as Wentworth’s demand to continue the debate on the succession despite Elizabeth’s displeasure in 1566 were seen as crucial steps on the road to Parliamentary independence. Graves has argued that Wentworth et al were “loners without support”. Loades however, whilst accepting they were unrepresentative, does accept that such cases are illustrative of the seriousness with which many MP’s saw their role.
A further area of debate can be found in the relative importance of the Commons versus the Lords Neale saw the volume of legislation originating in the Commons as evidence for its importance. Graves however has suggested that in fact it depended where the great men of the PC sat as to which house was most important. Thus, for example, when William Cecil was created Lord Burghley in 1572 the focus switches to the Lords and, when he died in 1598 influence, and therefore the focus of attention, switched back to the Commons under his son Sir Robert Cecil.
However Morris has argued that given the links of patronage and clientage between the two houses, it would be unwise to think of the two Houses as being distinct institutions. Thus, for example, when matters became ‘too hot’ for members of the PC to openly speak about they would use their clients to raise the matters for them, for example Thomas Norton was active over the succession, marriage and religious reform between 1558 and 1581. Clientage was also probably behind the rise in the number of MP’s, from 400 in 1559, to 440 in 1572, to 460 in 1583, to 462 by 1603. New boroughs were given the right to return MP’s due to the influence of key Cllrs (e.g. Leicester, Huntingdon and Rutland) who were keen to see their patronage and client base expand. This is also matched by the boroughs increasingly returning men from outside of the borough itself.
Elton has also argued that in any case there is over concentration on the study of national affairs in Parliament, which were no more than “occasional intrusions” in the generally parochial work of Parliament. Loades has noted two developments which point to growing Commons power. In 1593 it gained a legal right to adjudicate in disputed elections. He also argues that the length and frequency of Parliaments led to the development of ‘Parliament men’ who were able to develop an expertise in the use of Parliamentary tactics and procedures. However Parliament met occasionally and for short periods of time, just 140 weeks out of a reign of 45 years! There were ten Parliaments with a total of 13 sessions. Most sessions were less than 10 weeks in duration. For the Queen they were ‘necessary evils.’ But they were called on “weighty and great occasions”.
The sessions were:
1559: The first Parliament met to grant a subsidy for the war against France; to re-break England from Rome and to re-establish a broadly Protestant church. This Parliament saw perhaps the greatest opposition to Elizabeth when in February 1559 the Lords refused to accept her bills on the Royal Supremacy, uniformity and the repeal of Marian heresy laws. It was only after considerable political and clerical muscle had been applied that Elizabeth got an agreement acceptable to her.
1563: The need for money for the war against Scotland in 1560 and the costs of the 1562 expedition to France
1566: Again for taxation as the costs supposedly met by the 1563 taxation had not been. There was some grumbling in the Commons over this.
1571: The suppression of the Northern Rebellion has been expensive and a subsidy was asked for this – apparently agreed with no dissenting voices – and legislation was required to deal with the Papal Bull of 1570 and “raging Romanist rebels.”
1572: This Parliament was called in the aftermath of the Ridolfi Plot to pass laws preserving the Queen’s safety. Elizabeth vetoed a bill against MQS.
1576: Although at peace Elizabeth was short of money, taxation was granted without any great difficulty.
1581: Again taxation was requested, because of the dangers from Catholicism at home and abroad. Laws were also required against the Jesuits who had started arriving in England in1580 – the result was the ‘Act to retain the Queen’s Majesty’s subjects in their due obedience’. This provided the basis for repression of Catholicism for the rest of the reign.
1584: Parliament was called in an atmosphere of great tension following the Throckmorton Plot and the assassination of William of Orange. An act prescribed the death penalty for anyone plotting against Elizabeth’s life (this was the legislation used to execute MQS). Taxation was also requested for defence of the country – needless to say it was easily granted.
1586: Parliament was called specifically to consider the matter of MQS. Warren has suggested that Elizabeth called it under pressure from the PC who wanted to present her with a united political front for MQS’s execution. It did result in the publishing of the death sentence, something Elizabeth had previously refused to do.
1589: Parliament met in the aftermath of the Spanish Armada. A double subsidy was asked for and granted.
1593: Taxation was given for the war in the Netherlands against Spain and for aid being given to Henri IV in his war against the Catholic League. After some wrangling between Commons and Lords a triple subsidy was granted. Legislation was also passed against recusancy.
1597: The war with Spain was still on-going and a triple subsidy was again granted. This Parliament also saw the first protest about ‘monopolies’ (the granting of rights of monopoly for certain goods to favoured Cllrs/nobles in return for large cash payments).
1601: The complaints against monopolies were still on going; however the costs of suppressing a rebellion in Ireland and the landing of a Spanish army in Kinsale saw Parliament grant a quadruple subsidy.
On only one occasion did the government call Parliament to consider a great matter of state (1586 and MQS) at all other times it was for taxation or legislation.
Controlling Parliament
It was thought at one time that the government used crude methods to ‘pack’ the Commons with its supporters. However the situation is more complex. In the later Parliaments between 20 and 25% of the MP’s can be identified as either Court officials or the gentlemen servants of the members of the PC. Members of the PC who were not members of the Lords would also expect to serve in Parliament. Thus Elizabeth could call on the support of a substantial section of the Commons with great ease. Other MP’s would be the gentry clients of important nobles, strengthening the crowns grip on the Commons. Elizabeth was not above interfering in the work of Parliaments. This could be on trivial matters, such as on Sheriff’s accounts in 1563, or on greater matters, such as in 1587 with Cope’s ‘Bill and Book’. Parliament did not always acquiesce to Elizabeth, but usually she got her way.
If she didn’t get her way Elizabeth could always veto bills, which she did to 66 or 67. The veto was not just applied to bills Elizabeth disliked, but also to bills which she hadn’t had time to consider thoroughly. Elizabeth could also imprison MP’s who were unduly awkward. MP’s enjoyed a tradition of free speech within Parliament, however in the Parliament of 1586-7 five MP’s were sent to the Tower for discussing Cope’s ‘Book and Bill’ outside Parliament, an offence not protected by privilege. In 1593 Elizabeth followed a similar course with Wentworth when he tried to introduce a bill on the succession, which again was discussed outside Parliament. In one case Elizabeth also forbade an MP from appearing in the Commons. In the 1559 Parliament, members of the Lords were also imprisoned during the debates on the religious settlement.
Elizabeth would also use flattery and favour as a means of developing a rapport with Parliament, for example in 1584 she adjourned Parliament in sufficient time to allow MP’s to be home for Xmas, or in the 1597 during the assent of the subsidy bill Elizabeth rose and bowed in thanks to Parliament for the taxation. Parliament, especially the Commons, was also managed by the PC, for example in 1593 Robert Cecil arranged for Parliament to sit longer so that a bill on sectaries could be passed. After the second reading bills were usually sent to a committee. These committees would usually have a large number of Cllrs on them, and on important business all members of the PC in the Commons would be on it. Members of the PC in the Commons also sat most closely to the Speaker, as such they were able to offer ‘advice’ on matters and influence the procedures of the House. The Speaker was in any case chosen by the government, although technically they were ‘elected’ by the Commons.
Smith has argued that in the later Parliaments the quality of members of the PC declined, with only Robert Cecil commanding any real degree of support or influence. As such it became harder to control the Commons, in terms of behaviour – on which there were complaints in 1593 and 1601. During the 1590’s he also argues that the committees started to take some of the initiative away from the PC on matters of general policy such as vagrancy, poverty and enclosures. In part they were able to do this because of the increasing financial demands the crown was making. In 1601 Elizabeth was only able to retain the royal prerogative on monopolies by accepting the substance of the Commons’ demands.