To what extent was there a Struggle for Power between Elizabeth I and her Parliaments?

Authors Avatar

Samantha Donoghue 13B

To what extent was there a Struggle for Power between Elizabeth I and her Parliaments?

“For Elizabeth, parliamentarians were little boys-sometimes unruly, usually a nuisance, and always a waste of an intelligent woman’s time.” 

Elizabeth did not like her Parliaments, illustrated in the quotation.  She saw matters of religion and foreign affairs as falling within her prerogative as God’s representative on earth and therefore not to be discussed in Parliament, except by invitation.  This view however is relatively new.  The old Orthodox view is that Elizabeth looked upon her Parliaments as a forum where she could maintain contact with her loyal subjects.  It is unclear from where this view originated.  It may have been from evidence contained in Elizabeth’s speeches to Parliament where she appeared to look upon them fondly:

        “I do assure you there is no prince that loves his subjects better, or whose love can countervail our love.”

The writings of others, such as Sir John Neale during the 1930s to the 1950s provided a stark contrast, establishing a new orthodoxy which characterised Elizabeth and working against them throughout her reign, making a great deal of the times when they acted in a way foreshadowing the events that led to the civil war.  He also highlighted the “struggle for power between Monarch and Commons.”  The Neale interpretation subsequently collapsed with the more recent writings of historians such as Elton.  The revisionist’s case revolves around the view that the Neale interpretation encourages people to exaggerate the extent to which Elizabeth disliked, and worked against Parliament.  Whilst the evidence does clearly show her lack of enthusiasm (during her 44 year reign there were only 10 Parliaments called with a total of 13 sessions.) Elizabeth viewed Parliament as an unfortunate necessity, with the emphasis on the word ‘necessity.’  However much of a necessity Parliament was to Elizabeth, many members believed the Queen was reserving too many decisions for herself but were reluctantly prepared to respect her wishes.  When they didn’t, sparks were likely to fly.

An example of when sparks did fly was over the issue of marriage, and particularly the succession.  Parliamentary pressure in 1559, 1563, 1566 and 1576 was strong, however so were Elizabeth’s methods of control. The Queen delivered many speeches to the commons saying that she would marry but never did.  In 1563, 1566 and 1576 she told Parliament that, although for herself she would prefer to remain the ‘Virgin Queen’ but for the sake of her subjects she would marry and produce a successor.  Later attempts made by Parliament to secure the succession were connected with the desire to secure the exclusion of Mary Queen of Scots.  The Privy Council took the lead here, applying pressure on the Queen through the Commons and the Lords.  Bishops produced theoretical arguments and a committee of lawyers produced legal reasons.  As a result of this, two bills were produced, one a petition for Mary’s attainder for treason, the other excluding her from the succession. Neale, however does not acknowledge the Privy Council’s role in the matter, saying that the Commons took the lead and that the Lords, in fulfilment of their promise to the Commons had drafted their own bill. This view has been seen by the Revisionists as focusing too much on merely the role of the commons here.  It has now been proven that Parliament was working under the Privy Council.  This shows that parliamentary pressure was largely only effective when orchestrated and supported by other forces such as the Privy Council.  This issue resulted in the execution of Mary.  However the extent to which the issue shows a struggle for power between the Queen and Parliament is debatable.  JE Neale has emphasised the role of the ‘Puritan Choir’ in the issue, pressuring Elizabeth to take a strongly Protestant successor and pushing for the execution of Mary who was a Catholic.  This view however collapsed when it was discovered that Neale’s ‘Puritan Choir’ theory was based on the misinterpretation of evidence.  It has now been widely accepted that the struggle for power here (if there even was one) lied between the Queen and the Council, with the Council using the Commons as an area for extended pressure.

Join now!

Another area of conflict was that over the church.  The extent to which this has showed a struggle for power has been greatly over emphasised by Orthodox historians.  Neale has emphasised:

        “The desire of Puritans to modify the church settlement of 1559 and the Queen’s determination to resist such changes.”

This pressure on Elizabeth pushed her to forbid the discussion of some of the reform bills, claiming that they infringed on her Perogative, she also vetoed another.  Neale saw this as the work of the ‘Puritan Choir’, a group of Puritan MPs that he credited with working together in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay