How historians have approached the topic.
Whig historians claim that although Elizabeth’s rein saw the first steps towards the Civil War they see that the struggle between Crown and Commons began after 1603. It was to be expected that the main area of research was focused on Elizabeth’s dealings with parliament to find the origins of the break down and the “seeds of the Civil War” which they believed to occur in the Tudor period.
Neale.
Neale in the 1950’s claimed that the breakdown was a result of a group within the House of Commons. His interpretation was immediately accepted as the new orthodoxy. For about a generation it was widely accepted that this view was to be the last word on the matter. However the Whig view was being slowly eroded up until about the 1070’s when it was regarded as being “old-fashioned”. Now historians were thinking that aspects of history should be studied with the context of their own times rather than being used to provide explanations. Historians interested in the causes of the Civil War wondered whether long-term causes were as important as had been traditionally thought. Thus they agreed that there was no need to look back any further than 1637.
In the 1980’s historians such as Jones, Graves and Elton made claims that Neale had misunderstood the evidence on which his work was focused, his evidence was unreliable and conclusions were dubious and invalid. Now Elton has filled most of the spaces left open but there is still a lot of work to be done.
The Neale Interpretation.
Neale identifies the “Puritan Choir”. He describes this a group of MPs who made attempts to force Elizabeth to make policies that its members liked and to raise the status of the House of Commons. To make this view he cam across a pamphlet that named 43 MPs of 1566 and from this he was able to identify on numerous occasions of when these men opposed the Queen’s wishes, raised the profile of the House of Commons and made attempts to change laws. The Choir was responsible for forcing Elizabeth to create a more Protestant religious settlement that she really wanted. Also for creating problems with the marriage and succession problems in 1563 and 1566 and the problems with Mary Queen of Scots in 1572.
Neale highlights parts where it seemed that the MPs foreshadowed events leading up to the Civil War (1566: the commons refusing to give money until she satisfied their grievances, not successful immediately but worked in 1640). Also, Neale highlights the actions of the Wentworth brothers, Peter and Paul, in parliament between 1576 and 1593, for example making speeches that attacked Elizabeth, however Peter (the most active in this) was sent to the Tower twice remaining there on the second time until he eventually died there.
The Correction to Neale.
In the 1980’s it became well known that Neale’s idea of a Puritan Choir was not correct and so his interpretation fell apart. The most notable of the corrections was that some of the members of the choir were also members of the Privy Council and that though it’s members may have influenced some MPs it was not to force Elizabeth for Protestant reform or to alter the balance between Crown and Parliament. It seems that what was happening in the Commons was nothing different to what was happening between Elizabeth and her counsellors and that Parliament was simply being used as another method to get Elizabeth to do what they wanted. For example Burghley hoped that is parliament joined in on the persuasions for something to be done then Elizabeth would comply with the desires of her ministers.
It is Elton who has made the biggest efforts to explaining the significance of the “Puritan Chorus” pamphlet of 1566. He has approved that it was not a list of MPs who shared Puritan sympathies. For example about 12 of the MPs was Privy Counsellors and some had a Catholic education. However it is still unclear as to what the pamphlet actually was although it seems very likely that it was a list of MPs appointed to consult with the representatives of the House of Lords. But no evidence has been found that allows us to criticise the committee or the publication.
Neale’s work though should not be discredited; his work has brought up some correct findings. For example there was sometimes discontent between Elizabeth’s actions and the MPs, for example the marriage problems of the 1560’s and 1570’s. Also he was correct in saying that a large number of MPs did work to try and get the Church of England to become more Protestant. There is the danger of saying that since some of his work has been wrong he is a poor historian however this is unfair and absurd. Most of his work is still being used today though it is 60 years old. He simply allowed himself to fall into the trap of selecting evidence that supported his claims and rejecting evidence that didn’t.
Many present day historians would claim that Whig historians have fallen into this trap by looking back into history for explanations of event that occur later on. Therefore those that write on the topic now have been careful to study the theme within its own time and contest (Elton for example). Thus Elton has found that the House of Lords was much greater than Neale had thought and that the attempts made by the House of Commons were simply “knee-jerk” that they had been forced to face by the inferiority of their positions.
