Consider the arguments for and against the claim that the puritans presented a real challenge in the Elizabethan House of Commons.

In Parliament the Puritans posed such a threat in the legislation that they attempted to pass through with there being two distinct areas. The Prayer Book/Common Prayer Book and reforms to the church. For example in both 1571 and 1572 parliamentary sessions, bills were introduced to reform the Prayer book, With Walter Strickland wanting to remove practises regarded as Catholic in 1571, and bill proposing the removal of some rites and ceremonies. Moreover in the 1572 session John Field and Thomas Wilcox introduced The Admonition of Parliament attacking the Church for its similarities to a Catholic style church. Revisionist historians have argued the case that since the Queen easily squashed both attempts and imprisoned Wilcox and Field, there cannot have been serious a threat to Elizabeth’s regarding legislation. However more traditionalist historians have countered this by reminding us that though the attempts failed we cannot ignore the fact they the issues were being brought up and discussed thus showing that perhaps a threat was growing, i.e. “The Sees of the Civil War” with Puritans challenging the crown. However if we are looking at the threat in Elizabeth’s House of Commons then it is most likely the revisionist who have the best argument. It is correct that the Puritans didn’t pose much of a threat concerning legislation as from 1571-1593 all Puritan attempts to push for Protestant legislation were easily put down. Although in 1587 Cope’s radical Bill and Book was listened to, perhaps showing some growing Puritan support. Though if we look at the context of foreign threat in 1585 war had developed with Spain and in 1586 the Babington plot implicating the Scottish Queen Mary, had been discovered. The only support Cope received was probably due to his anti-Catholic stance, not for his piece of legislation, which was a denied eventually. Therefore Puritan threat legislatively was fairly minor in Elizabeth’s House of Commons.

It would be reasonable to assess Elizabeth’s reactions to the Puritans as her actions may help show how much she believed them to be a threat, if at all. If we return to the legislation and look at the result of each piece we see that the majority failed because of the Queen herself or by governing bodies directed by the Queen such as the Privy Council. For example Strickland was forbidden from attending the Commons on his 1571 Bill. The Queen intervened additionally on the 1572 bill for further reforms The Queen imprisoned Wilcox and Field and in the same year Cope’s radical bill was denied a reading and in 1593 James Morrice was suspended from office and imprisoned. On this issue Traditionalists have claimed that there must have been some considerable threat for Elizabeth to block all these pieces of legislation or prevent them from being heard. However more recent historiography has claimed that it wasn’t Elizabeth responding to a threat that made her act this way but it was herself acting in the way she frequently did when she felt her power was being intruded on. As we have said earlier, if in fact the Puritan’s didn’t pose a legislative threat then the Revisionists must be correct. Although if we consider the idea that perhaps Elizabeth predicted a threat in the future for even more Protestant radicalism or perhaps a Catholic backlash then the traditionalists would be correct. It would be probably be an informed decision to take the their viewpoint, as looking at the Religious Settlement of 1559 Elizabeth was keen to take a Via Media route thus avoiding any opposition from Protestants or Catholics. When this was done she did not want to go any further with it so was incisive when stopping any further reforms from either sides radicals.