'A religious settlement of her own choosing'. How far is this an accurate view of the settlement of the Church of England under Elizabeth I?

The 1559 Act of Uniformity was a strange thing, born of compromise - it fused into the 1549 Act of Uniformity and the Book of Common Prayer from 1552. Some changes had to be made to the Book of Common Prayer to accommodate conservative members of the Queen's Council and parliament - ambiguities were left in which could have implied a belief in transubstantiation, if the reader wished them to. The reference to 'the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities' was removed.

Apart from the important Book of Common Prayer which defined Anglican beliefs, the other aspect of the Uniformity was enforcing outward conformity in the Church. This was important above all to Elizabeth, rather than any fundamental tenants of doctrine. So attendance of Church was enforced on the Sabbath and on Holy Days, with a fine payable to the poor relief funds if the law wasn't observed. Speaking out against the Book of Common Prayer or writing against it carried the punishment of a heavy fine or even imprisonment.

One of the things which was to enrage extreme Protestants but give them hope in the years to come was a line which stated that priestly vestments should be as they were in the second year of Edward VI's reign, until the Queen decrees otherwise. This was an expression of her control over adiaphora, this was the concept of Edmund Grindal who encouraged parishioners to save themselves from punishment by accepting the monarch's role, as it would not affect doctrine and if they simply waited for a proper Catholic to come to the throne, they would still go to Heaven. Erasmians, who were hot on the idea of total religious freedom, saw this as an unwelcome intrusion by the state into Church affairs. No one expected Elizabeth to enforce these rules, but the Vestiarian Controversy showed her doing so, albeit in a roundabout way.

The Lords passed the Uniformity bill only 21 to 18, and Elizabeth had imprisoned two Bishops because she suspected they would have voted against the bill. One was also mysteriously absent, and between them these three could have forced a draw in the Lords. The Commons had passed it easily.

Elizabeth had introduced these Acts but was the final settlement planned by the Crown or forced upon it by political pressures? The near-contemporary account of William Camden described the settlement as the successful outcome of royal policy formed before Parliament assembled and set out in a document known as 'The Device for the Alteration of Religion'. Dr N.L. Jones also shares this view and has argued that the settlement which emerged in 1559 was essentially what Elizabeth wanted and evidence for it can be found in the document. The 'Device' answered certain questions about the best method to reintroduce the supremacy and alter religion. Written in response to a request from the government, it also makes it clear that a prayer book would be the vehicle for the new uniformity and because it did not distinguish between the books of 1549 and 1552 it is reasonable to assume that the later (the one last in force before Catholic restoration) was that which was to be reviewed by the committee of divines it called for.

Staying with Jones's theory, it seems it was the resistance of the Marian bishops and a group of conservative peers in the Upper House which caused the decisive trouble for the government. They removed the provisions for Protestant uniformity and reduced the effectiveness of the supremacy proposals. This theory sees the religious settlement as a triumph for Elizabeth and the House of Commons who supported her; the difficulties were from the House of Lords which nearly destroyed the royal plans. However, it is still hard to convince us that Elizabeth found the settlement altogether agreeable: her disagreement with the Protestant bishops over her desire to retain the crucifix in the Royal Chapel is a clear indication of this.

There is an opposing view to Jones's which must be analysed in order to ascertain Elizabeth's true motives. Sir John Neale proposed a theory that has long held the field. This thesis believed that Puritans within the House of Commons forced Elizabeth I to sway her reforms more towards them than she would have liked but also that she wanted a liturgy based on the first rather than the second Edwardian Prayer Book; that in her first Parliament her intention was to only introduce a supremacy bill, leaving doctrinal changes until a later date; and that this plan was disrupted by Protestant-pressure groups inside and outside of the Commons who forced her into a settlement that was more advanced that she desired. The compromise that the settlement was meant to be was one more between Elizabeth and the reformers rather than the Queen and the Catholics. In addition to this, the Puritans and the returned Protestants exiles saw Elizabeth's reforms in the Religious Settlement as only the beginning to her reforms, expecting them to become more radical. The exiles had been near to Geneva and were consequently affected by the Calvinist ideas that were so appalling to Elizabeth.

It is certainly true that others played a vital role in the creation of the settlement. The dominant group in the commons pressed for an unequivocal Protestantism and the Marian bishops and conservatives peers obstructed proposals for change. It seems fair to say that from the moment that Elizabeth adjourned Parliament on 24th March she was committed to a Protestant solution simply because she needed Commons support against the Lords. Elizabeth's privy councillors are also important and the most influential among them were Protestants: men like Sir William Cecil who ,although not much is known of their manoeuvres, it is impossible to think that they failed to use their Protestant influence in support of the cause and that this manipulation may have been the most important in deciding Elizabeth's actions.

It is, however, easy to criticize this view and therefore support the idea that the religious settlement was indeed Elizabeth's own choosing. Firstly, once the settlement was established Elizabeth rejected any further desire to reform which suggests she was perfectly happy with the settlement she had instigated. Secondly, if Dr Jones is right and there was indeed no radical Protestant opposition to the crown in 1559 than Neale's picture of such an opposition during the 1560s, that which he sees deriving from the events of 1559, must be questioned. Lastly, Neale's view exaggerates the role of the Protestants whilst at the same time underestimating the great resistance and influence from the Lord's which nearly foiled Elizabeth's plans in passing the Act of Uniformity.

The Queen could not instigate her policies without plenty of difficulty and it may be true that she was required to rethink some of her original intentions. However, the real confrontation was between Crown and Lords, and between Lords and Commons, not between Crown and Commons. It is therefore accurate to suggest that the religious settlement was indeed of her own choosing as she played the lead role in its consultation, compromise and adjustment. The input and opinion of substantial groups in Court, Council, Parliament and Clergy in achieving a lasting outcome was indeed just that.