Parliament Existed Entirely to Serve the Queen's Will. to What Extent Do You Agree?

Parliament Existed Entirely to Serve the Queen's Will. To What Extent do you agree?

Parliament existed not because it was a whim of the Queen to have a body of people called a parliament, but because it was a historic institution which had for many years been an integral part of governing the reign. Therefore it is ridiculous to say that it Ð''existed' at all only because this one monarch in a line of many decided it would serve her will. Indeed it would have been inconceivable to Elizabeth at this time to govern without it and it was, according to historians, seen to Elizabeth as a Ð''necessary evil'. If, however, we are to take the question to mean that the parliaments of Elizabeth's reign were only called to serve the needs of the Queen's situation at the time, then there is certainly some evidence that suggests that this maybe the case.

Neale's interpretation is that Parliament was becoming a strong body of opposition to the Queen. He cites issues such as the marriage question, to which there was a strong and organised pressure group providing opposition to the Queen on such issues. There opposition was particularly prominent in the parliament of 1563 and of 1566-67. Wentworth also at this time provided a condemning verdict on the way Elizabeth put a stop to such discussion and emphasized the importance of free speech in the Commons. If this interpretation of events are to believed, then it would appear that parliament was not something that existed to serve the Queen's will only, but something that regularly fought against and provided opposition to the Queen, particularly when Ð''taboo' issues, such as the marriage, were under discussion.

However, it can not be taken away the fact that Elizabeth was able to call and dissolve Parliament as and when she wished. In this respect, it is hard to see how it cannot have sat at times the Queen needed it for her will. If we look at the statistics of the reign, 12 out of 13 Parliaments were called to grant the Queen a subsidy when she was in financial need. Indeed, if we look at revisionist interpretation of the facts, championed by Elton, we can see that Neale's view, which presents a Parliament opposed to the Queen's will, we get quite a different picture. We get the image of a Parliament that is subservient to the Queen and really there to carry out administration tasks. Revisionists are keen to emphasize that the Ð''majority of Parliaments time was spent on routine administration', which included voting subsidies, the debating and publishing of public bills, and the sorting out of private bills. There were times of confrontation over some of the more controversial issues, but these were secondary to the other functions of the Parliament as a administrative body. We get the impression from this interpretation that this body was called largely to serve the Queen, completing the Ð''menial' tasks of government and providing extraordinary revenue at times of need.

Furthermore, Elizabeth attempted to control the agenda of the commons. This suggests that she wanted it only for purposes that served her will. She said to the parliament of 1566 on the subject of succession: "How strange it is that foot should direct the head on such a weighty issue". She clearly does not intend parliament to discuss this issue which implies it she only allows it to carry out functions that are her Ð''will'. She is apparently keeping discussions to points that only suit her purposes. Whilst Neale would argue she failed to do so, citing the Puritan Choir as a body who regularly discussed topics that were Ð''off limit', and the Wentworths, Elton would present the more credible alternative that these were very much isolated incidents. Those such as Wentworth were not strong opposition, in the words of revisionist Graves, they were little more than a Ð''nuisance', in fact even the Puritan Choir is discredited by Elton, pointing out they are nothing more than a group of people in a pamphlet Neale misread. With no serious opposition apparent,