Elizabethan Parliaments

I have just finished reading Michael A R Graves, Elizabethan Parliaments 1559 - 1601 (a Seminar Studies book). This was actually a very interesting little book and not at all dry as I had anticipated. the most interesting aspect of this was the exploration of the historiography of Elizabethan parliaments.

There are two main themes. The first is that during Elizabeth's reign parliament grew in confidence and stature, especially the Commons while the Lords declined in relative terms. This is shown in the political opposition Elizabeth and her council faced particularly in regard to religion. This opposition was in itself nothing new for a monarch but was novel during Elizabeth's reign because it was more organised and indeed because there was an element of pre-parliament planning about it. This growth of strength and confidence in the Commons is seen as part of a linear process which was to lead to armed conflict in the English Civil War less than 40 years after Elizabeth's death. This is the traditional view of Elizabethan parliaments and is one which for the most part Elton seems to espouse in his book "England under the Tudors".

The second theme is that of the so-called Revisionists. They have looked at the workings of Elizabeth's parliaments from a process and institutional standpoint , rather than from a political one as the traditional view did. In short, this turns much of the traditional view on its head. The House of Lords is seen as retaining its strength and position as the primary legislative house and in part this is because it contain more experienced legislators and because the patronage system (see below) remained in effect so that many members of the House of Commons owed their positions in Commons and society to the patronage of the Lords. The revisionist view argues that both houses frequently worked together and both were managed by Elizabeth's council to perform their primary function - the raising of taxes and the enactment of vital legislation. Occasionally the council used them as a subtle means of applying pressure to the Queen to make decisions, for example on settling the succession and on dealing with Mary Queen of Scots. The view argues that Parliament was always loyal even if it did not always agree with the Queen or the council. Tensions, debates and arguments will always exist in such forums, everyone wants to achieve the same goal but not everyone can agree on how to get there - just like modern business and politics today.

While both themes have their merits and demerits, the revisionist theme appears to provide a much more balanced view even if it does tend to disregard political arguments during the period. Certainly the revisionist theme has advanced our understanding of the development of Parliament during the Elizabethan period even if it is unlikely to have uncovered the entire truth.

Patronage is the system whereby people of a lower social standing look to their social superiors for advancement through the procurement of lucrative offices and titles. In the middle ages this was a key aspect of feudalism and was often based around military might and support. By Elizabeth's reign it had become more peaceful being based more on politics and government.

Next I need to move onto Dr Ruth Lee's recommended texts, the two books on Elizabeth I by John Warren. I hope to get hold of these early next week.