“How accurate is it to say Parliament became considerably more critical of royal government 1485–1603?”

intro

• Tudor Parliaments evolved from largely compliant bodies under Henry VII to more assertive institutions by Elizabeth’s reign.

• Evidence of criticism appears most clearly in Elizabethan debates over monopolies, free speech, and succession.

• However, monarchic control, limited representation, and political management restricted parliamentary criticism for much of the period.

• Overall judgement: Parliament became more critical, but “considerably” overstates the consistency and scale of this development.

Body Paragraph 1 — Growth of parliamentary criticism under Elizabeth (Support)

• Monopolies crisis (1597–1601): MPs attacked corruption; Elizabeth forced to concede.

• Commons increasingly vocal about economic grievances.

• Analytical point: By the 1590s, Parliament openly challenged royal policy.

Body Paragraph 2 — MPs asserting rights and free speech (Support)

• Peter Wentworth (1576, 1593) challenged royal prerogative on free speech + succession.

• Some MPs saw themselves as guardians of the realm.

• Neale’s “Puritan Choir” thesis: reformist MPs pushing for further religious change.

• Analytical point: Parliament developed a political identity independent of the Crown.

Body Paragraph 3 — Royal prerogative remained dominant (Challenge)

• Henry VII + Henry VIII used Parliament sparingly and strategically.

• Elizabeth censored debate; imprisoned Wentworth; banned discussion of succession + religion.

• Criticism was punished, not encouraged.

• Analytical point: Parliament’s ability to criticise was structurally limited.

Body Paragraph 4 — Criticism was late, inconsistent, and limited (Challenge)

• Most criticism occurred only in the final decade of Elizabeth’s reign.

• Parliament remained dominated by Crown‑loyal elites; franchise extremely narrow.

• Revisionist historians (Elton, Guy) argue cooperation outweighed conflict.

• Analytical point: Parliament became more critical, but not “considerably” across the whole period.

conclusion

• By 1603, Parliament had grown more confident, especially in challenging monopolies and defending free speech.

• Yet this assertiveness was late, limited, and often suppressed by royal prerogative.

• Across the whole period, criticism was sporadic rather than sustained, and cooperation remained the norm.

• Therefore, Parliament did become more critical, but not to the extent implied — the change was gradual and constrained.