How far do the sources support the argument that from 1529-1640 the powers and privileges of parliament increased steadily at the expense of royal power.

 There is also evidence in the sources that challenges the theory there was a steady increase in parliaments power.  Parliaments power varied greatly with each monarch.  Queen Elizabeth liked to keep parliament under control.  She granted them freedom of speech but with great limitations and they were not to “frame a form of religion or a state of government” according to source 3.  “Liberty with due limitation” is what its referred to.  According to source 6 Charles I was able to raise money himself using subsidies as a form of collectable tax.  A Petition of Right was passed in return for 5 subsidies but as he no longer needed parliament he dissolved it and did not call upon it again for 11 years.  During this time parliaments power couldn’t have increased steadily as they had no say in the running of the country.  Source 4 states that during Henry VII reign “the catalyst of the dramatic change in the authority of parliaments during the 1530’s was the so-called “divorce Question” showing there was not necessarily a steady change and power increased and decreased with different monarchs.

The sources do suggest that the power parliament gained was at the expense of royal power.  Source 2 refers to parliament as the “most high and absolute power” in contrast to source 1, which has the monarch holding “full power and authority.”  It is also evident from this source that everyone should be present in parliament “from the Prince to the lowest person in England.”  Edward, Earl of Clarendon, believes parliaments power is increasing over the monarchs when they resented Charles new subsides and held a Petition of Right, referring back to “ancient and due liberties”.  In the light of the sources as a whole the Petition justifies the evidence that parliaments power was at the expense of royal power.

However the monarch did remain supreme and the sources give evidence to show that parliaments power did not undermine the monarchs or increase at the expense of royal power.  The Act of Supremacy, from the Statutes of the Realm, gives the monarch greater power by enacting him Head of the Church of England.  He could have issued proclamations without parliament but Henry wanted the status of Statute law because he knew changes could be implemented more smoothly if he had parliaments support.  This promotion strengthened the monarch’s position in the short term.  In source 2 Smith talks of parliament holding full executive power.  England was not a republic so Smith must have been referring to king-in-Parliament and not parliament alone as he says “the presence of both parties.”  Monarchy still remained elite and many monarchs like Charles believed “I owe an account of my actions to no one but God”.  From source 4 we can see that the statutes from the reformation gave Henry “power unequalled by any other English monarch” but also “property to the crown” thus proving the point that the monarchy gained from the actions of parliament.

The sources do show parliaments powers and privileges changing.  They gained valuable access to a number of areas that beforehand they had no authority in.  Parliament began to assert a willingness to challenge the crown.  Even thought parliaments role is changing this does not mean there power is increasing.  During this period the monarch’s authority did not diminish.  Changes in parliament enhanced the monarch’s position and considerable advances were made on their behalf, like becoming Supreme Head of Church of England. The monarchy shows supreme authority by ignoring or dismissing parliament and still deciding on issues like finance and foreign affairs.  The powers of King-in-Parliament did increase, creating a need for co-operation.  Conflicts did arise and parliamentary power depended on a stalemate.  In conclusion England was not a republic and the “king our sovereign lord” still held “full power and authority”.