Faith by Statute: Parliament and the Settlement of Religion 1559

Abstract

In the past few decades Tudor-Stuart history has become a good deal more difficult to teach as revisionist interpretations have questioned many of our traditional ways of viewing the period. One of the characteristics of the old orthodoxy was the use of convenient labels and categories which undergraduates could easily master, such as Puritanism or a Civil War brought on by religious, constitutional or even class conflict. J.E. Neale's interpretation of Elizabeth's reign is a prime example of this approach. According to Neale, Elizabeth's parliaments were marked by an ongoing conflict. It began in the first parliament which produced a religious settlement that was a compromise between a conservative Queen and a Puritan House of Commons. Although Elizabeth wanted a more conservative settlement beginning with only a Supremacy Act in her first parliament and followed later by an Act of Uniformity reinstating the first Edwardian prayer book, she was forced to compromise with the Puritan faction in the Commons and accept a slightly modified version of the more radical 1552 prayer book. This began a conflict between the Queen and her Puritan subjects which made up most of the subject matter of Neale's two volumes on Elizabeth's parliaments. Although not universally accepted, Neale's interpretation has long provided the standard textbook explanation, and, since it posited a conflict between two easily identifiable parties over clearly defined issues it was readily understood and communicated. However, it, too, is now being called into question. The existence of a Puritan party has, of course, been seriously debated for some time, and it is not surprising that Neale's explanation of the Settlement, which was probably the weakest part of his thesis, is now also under attack. Norman Jones' study is the second major book on the Settlement in less than two years,' and both works are agreed in their rejection of Neale's point of view. Clearly Neale's interpretation depends on establishing the existence of an influential Puritan faction iri Elizabeth's first parliament, and Jones has convincingly shown that this party simply did not exist. The conservative faction in the Commons was almost as large as the radical Protestant group, and the returning Marian Exiles, whose supposed influence was critical to Neale's argument, were a tiny minority. Furthermore, Elizabeth could hardly have used a loyal House of Lords against a rebellious Commons to restore a more conservative settlement, as Neale maintains, because the major opposition to the Settlment came from the Lords. According to Jones the changes made in the government's original proposal for the Settlement were introduced to appease conservative opinion in the Lords rather than radical Protestant voices in the Commons. Elizabeth initially planned both a Supremacy Act and an Act of Uniformity reestablishing the 1552 prayer book. Although loyally supported by the Commons, she met substantial opposition in the Lords and the Settlement was enacted by the slimmest of margins only after she had imprisoned some of the most vocal opposition among the Catholic prelates and discouraged others from attending. Changes in the Settlement, such as the inclusion of the words of institution from the first Edwardian prayer book, were made as a concession to those Lords who were willing to accept the Supremacy but had qualms about major alterations in Catholic worship. Although this brief summary obviously cannot do justice to the thorough research and carefully constructed arguments which characterize the study, it should be clear that the weakest link in Jones' interpretation is his assumption that Elizabeth originally wanted a restoration of the 1552 prayer book. This can, of course, only be maintained if we discount her own statments about her preferences in religion as propaganda designed for foreign consumption. Although this may well be true and Jones has marshalled a great deal of circumstantial evidence in support of his position, it does not