Asses the main influences which determined the Elizabethan Church Settlement in 1559

The religious settlement was as delicate as it was difficult to get through her divided Parliament. Neale’s view of Elizabeth’s House of Commons being led by Puritan Marian exiles is arguable, as a ‘Puritan’ dominated Commons may mean that the reforms made would have to be radical to appease the extremists. If Elizabeth’s Settlement was in fact a compromise, then why were the ‘Puritans’ in the Commons happy to agree to a via-media approach to religion? Wagner states that the exiles were “demanding a more radically Protestant Church”, yet all of their bills had been “emasculated”  by the Catholic dominated House of Lords. The power of the Lords seemingly renders any extreme Puritan attempts futile. Furthermore, Neale’s view has been challenged by Williams, who claims that “Protestants were dominant in the Commons but the House was not led by returned exiles.” Haigh further affirms this by stating that the so called “Puritan Choir” was not an “organised pressure group able to dominate the Commons.” This becomes evident, as the settlement makes no radical, drastic changes. However, slight Protestant influence can be seen in Elizabeth’s 1559 Prayer Book, which states; “eat this in remembrance…drink this in remembrance.” The Protestant view of commemoration during transubstantiation contradicts the Catholic belief, showing that Elizabeth did plan to change some of the conservative traditions and rituals, but nothing major. Jones further argues that it was the House of Lords, in which the Catholics and conservatives sat, who posed the largest threat and influence towards Elizabeth’s Church Settlement. Catholics in the House of Commons did reject many of the moderate Protestant bills of March 1559, and though the Council had attempted to appease the Catholics through their amendments to “remove the restoration of Protestantism” they soon gave up their attempts. This highlighted a major problem for Elizabeth; as the power of the House of Lords to block any bill made it near to impossible for Elizabeth to have an outright Protestant reform in the first place. Thus, the Catholic Bishops would become a great hindrance to the Protestants and to Elizabeth. If Cross is correct in saying that there were only “a small band of exiles”, then there is no doubt that the Catholics in the House of Lords would find no trouble in preventing any Protestant led bill from passing through Parliament. It could therefore be argued that the power to block any bill in the House of Lords meant that the only practical alternative would be to appease the Catholics in the House of Lords as much as possible, by maintaining some Catholic customs and traditions, for purely political reasons. Even with more sympathising bills passing through the House of Lords, not all were pleased as many bills had only just passed through, showing that the Catholics were still not entirely content. Thus, it can be argued that Elizabeth’s Religious Settlement could not afford to be radical; rather, it had to be practical, by appeasing the Catholic Bishops in the House of Lords.

This is not to say, however, that the Elizabeth’s Religious Settlement of 1559 was entirely influenced by the Catholic Bishops in the House of Lords. Changes to the Prayer Book, along with the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity were able to pass through Parliament, with thanks to Elizabeth’s Privy Council; and namely, William Cecil. Cecil was known to be Elizabeth’s favourite minister, and he had contributed more towards the settlement than any other councillor had. Having served both Elizabeth’s father and half-brother, it can be seen where the influences of Edward’s 1552 Prayer Book and the Henrican policies may have come to place in Elizabeth’s settlement. Graves believes that “it was Councillors, not members of a Puritan opposition, who used Parliament to coerce the Queen to their point of view.” Yet, Jones’ complete dismissal of any Protestant opposition ignores the guidance Elizabeth received from her Protestant council. This would be to say that, for example, when Elizabeth and her council abolished Mass, Elizabeth herself chose not to refrain. It can thus be argued that Neale and Jones’s views, although having substantial merit, perhaps may be too polarised.

England’s position in Europe itself was something that had to be taken into consideration in the formation of the Settlement. Mary Tudor’s marriage to Phillip II meant that Elizabeth would have to think about the effects that a Protestant settlement would have on this diplomatic relationship. It is likely that Elizabeth did not want to antagonise the Spaniards, for fear of being excommunicated. Guy, however, argues that Elizabeth was able to discount the threat of losing complete Spanish support because England acted as their only secure sea-route to the Netherlands. Guy further suggests that it was due to this support from Spain that Elizabeth was not excommunicated until the late 1570s. All in all, considering England’s international position: placed between two Catholic enemies; France and Scotland (which also harboured Mary Queen of Scots, whom many Catholics believed to be the rightful heir to the English throne), and Spain and the Papal states, Elizabeth was still able to pass a moderate Protestant sympathising settlement. Perhaps this shows Elizabeth’s confidence that her religious settlement would not affect England’s position on the international scene; thus, this may also show that international relations did not play much of a role in influencing the 1559 Church Settlement. However, Neale does believe that the Settlement was forced to be more conservative by necessity of escaping war with France, but this is challenged by Haigh who claims that the peace negotiations not only had little impact on the religious settlement, but also strengthened Elizabeth’s position against the conservative House of Lords. Whilst the latter may be seen as an exaggeration, for the House of Lords still remained significantly strong even after 1559, Haigh’s view that the Elizabethan Settlement was not heavily influenced by international factors is very plausible.

Queen Elizabeth’s main aim in regards to religion was to unite her realm by appeasing as many people as she could. But with either conservative Catholics or irate Protestants standing in the way of complete unity, the settlement was forced to be a compromise. The preservations of Catholic customs in the churches kept the settlement practical, for the only way her settlement could come in to place is if it were accepted by the Catholic-dominated House of Lords. Yet the subtle nature of her settlement meant that the episcopacy, international powers and laymen would be as content as possible, for it was not an extreme settlement. If anything, Elizabeth’s desire to not “make windows into men’s souls” allowed for individual faith to flourish, therefore as long as her customs were followed then people could believe in whatever they wished.

 -The subsequent resignations of all but one of the Marian bishops- Elizabeth took little notice of the potential opposition within the clergy itself. (???)
-Fear of potential uprisings among the lay populace