Conflict with Elizabeth\'s parliament PDF

Preview

Summary

Conflict with Elizabeth's parliament...

Description

Sir John Neale in 1951 wrote a famous book called Elizabeth and her Parliaments in which he proposed an argument that parliamentary discontent with monarchy began in Elizabeth’s reign and ended with the Civil War in 1640. He claimed that there was a hardcore of 40 MPs with Puritan sympathies (‘The Puritan Choir’ he called them) who actively tried to stoke up problems between Elizabeth and her parliaments because they resented what she had done to the Puritans.

Peter Wentworth MP (and Puritan) in 1576 demanded on the floor of the House of Commons that his free speech was being curtailed by pressure from Elizabeth. He was sent to the Tower.

In 1584 there was uproar in the House of Commons when the Archbishop of Canterbury (John Whitgift) attempted to suppress Puritans using a new law court (The Court of High

Commission), which forbade Puritans the right to remain silent if they were tried. Elizabeth dissolved parliament soon after.

In 1593 Parliament began to debate religious matters openly criticizing Elizabeth’s handling of Puritans. Elizabeth went to parliament in person to remind MPs of the boundaries of their free speech. They were not to criticize.

In 1601, parliament openly criticized the practice of issuing monopolies to ‘favourites’ of Elizabeth. Elizabeth was again forced to attend a session of parliament herself and appease the situation. She made a famous speech – called the ‘golden speech’ – in which she promised she would do something to stop ‘those responsible’ for this practice.

Elizabeth did not like parliament. But actually a lot of MPs did not like it either! The attendance figures show this clearly. The highest attendance at any session of parliament in Elizabeth’s reign after 1588 was 68%. By the end of sessions, attendance had often dwindled to 31%. Apathy rather than antipathy for the Queen was the problem.

There were 13 sessions of parliament during Elizabeth’s reign and she asked for money in all of these sessions. She was granted the money she asked for in 12 out of the 13 sessions.

The Queen did not get frustrated with parliament because it defied her or criticised her (which was very rare) but because they did not get on with the business she wanted them to get on with very quickly. Private members’ bills

created huge logjams and gummed up the process of passing more taxes for the Queen. She often issued instructions to ‘get on with it’.

In 1988, historian Christopher Haigh showed that some of the Puritan MPs that were reputedly stoking up criticism of Elizabeth were actually agents of the Privy Council. This shows that some in the Privy Council were using Parliament as a way of exerting pressure on the Queen. There are several examples of this; these MPs offered friendly reminders to the Queen to get married and secure her successor in 1561 and 1563; they advised more severe anti-Catholic Laws in 1581; they advised the execution of Mary in 1586. These Puritans were not traitors of the government but pawns of the Privy Council.

Elizabeth herself often manipulated parliament and charmed MPs with her endless propaganda, magnetic personality and great speeches. But when these failed, she could always block what parliament wanted to do using her VETO. She only used her veto on 70 occasions out of a total of 506 bills parliament passed. Only 10 of the 70 vetoed bills had anything to do with limiting royal power....