the roles of the house of commons and lords (parliament)

The distinct roles between House of Lords and House of Commons, and the shared roles of them both

Throughout Elizabeth’s reign the lords gained more power than the commons and was seen as the upper house consisting of nobility and important clergy e.g. archbishops, for example William Cecil was promoted here, which shows it was of importance. Alternatively the commons was composed of mps, who were common people mainly wealthy landowners or gentry (they usually initiated bills however later there would be issues over things like monopolies and free speech indicating conflict with Elizabeth). Overall parliaments role was to grant extraordinary revenue (taxes), however this should only be done for major expenses like funding for war or rebellion and passing laws e.g. approved bills however Elizabeth could use royal perogative to dismiss

Conflicts in parliament

Conflicts over religous some mps, particularly puritan, opposed Elizabeth’s middle way and compromises with catholisism. This can be seen in Strickland suspension in 1571 due to proposing changes to the prayer book. Additionally throughout her reign, parliament was concerned with marriage and succession (producing an heir), this was heightened in 1562 when she nearly died of smallpox but she named James the successor so it was fine anyway. However conflict over this also led to disputes over freedom of speech as queen elizabeth used royal perogative to forbid discussion over succession and marriage. Wentworth sent to tower in 1576 for arguing parliament should be free to discuss any issue it wished. Finally, there was also conflict over monopolies as although parliaments purpose was to grant the monarch taxes (extraordinary revenue), towards the end of her reign mps protested against the abuse of monopolies which caused high prices for consumers. This is evident in 1601 when MPs refused to grant taxes until some monopolies were revoked. However she arguably handled this effectively as used flattery and compromise to resolve the issue (delivered famous golden speech)

Evidence parliament was managed successfully

She used her royal perogative effectively e.g.forbid freedom of speech regarding marriage and succession shown by wentworth, could summon parliament at her will and set the agenda e.g. only met 13 times in her 45 year reign. Aswell she could veto legislation meaning regardless of the houses all bills had to be passed through her and this was used frequently throughout her reign- 60 bills. Her effective control can be seen through her handling of opposition e.g. 157 Strickland, 1576 wentworth. She also showed her political skill following the monopolies crisis in 1601 e.g. compromise and golden speech for flattery

Evidence she didn’t manage parliament successfully

The conflicts within parliament e.g. Strickland and religous, issues with marriage, freedom of speech and wentworth, and the monopolies crisis in 1601 showed there had been opposition in parliament against Elizabeth. Additionally fines needed to be introduced in 1571 for non-attendance showing MPs weren’t enthusiastic about the role, particularly since they didn’t like the cost ion living in London, this is reflected through the lower amount of summons of parliament (13) suggesting a lack of organisation and productivity

Elizabeths relationship and attitude

Her attitude was that of tight control, primarily seeing parliament as a necessary tool which was primarily used for taxes (extraordinary revenue), and passing laws. Therefore throughout her reign she had made efforts to limit its power and agenda through royal perogative (marriage, wentworth etc) and control over sessions as only summoned them 13 times in her 45 yr reign