Photo credit: www.smithsonianmag.com
In the autumn of 1566, England’s Parliament convened at the Palace of Westminster, under tense conditions. Members of the House of Commons pressed Queen Elizabeth I to determine her successor. The subject was critically important, as many feared that her death without a clear heir could plunge the realm into chaos.
After learning of Parliament’s discussions on succession, Elizabeth summoned the members of both Houses to the court. During the gathering, she declared, “At this present, it is not convenient, nor never shall be without some peril unto you and certain danger unto me,” indicating her refusal to settle the issue.
Upon reconvening, the Commons expressed frustration with Elizabeth’s stance and proceeded to draft a legislation regarding the succession. The Queen swiftly countered their action with a command to cease discussions on the topic, as it was traditionally recognized as a royal prerogative.
The pressure to produce a legitimate heir was a critical concern for monarchs during this era. Elizabeth was acutely aware of her lineage, being the daughter of Henry VIII, who had famously sought a divorce due to the lack of a male heir from his first marriage. Elizabeth’s ascension to the throne came only after the deaths of her half-siblings, Mary I and Edward VI, who had also left no heirs. Known as the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth remained unmarried throughout her reign, eschewing both childbearing and the designation of a successor. She once remarked to a Scottish diplomat, “Princes cannot like their own children. Think you that I could love my own winding-sheet?” reinforcing her belief that any heir would potentially threaten her sovereignty.
On November 11, 1566, member of Parliament Paul Wentworth expressed his concerns before the Commons. As a staunch Protestant, he was apprehensive about an unresolved succession potentially leading to the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, becoming the next monarch. In the perspective of Catholic Europe, Elizabeth was viewed as illegitimate due to her father’s controversial marriage to Anne Boleyn, while Mary, as the granddaughter of Henry VIII’s sister Margaret, was considered the rightful heir.
Wentworth’s speech was a pivot point; he challenged whether the Queen’s orders suppressing discussions about the succession undermined the Commons’ freedom of speech. This bold inquiry ignited lengthy and contentious debates that revealed the ongoing struggle over the lengths of royal authority versus parliamentary privilege.
In the Tudor era, the concept of free speech was primarily regarded as a privilege reserved for members of Parliament rather than a universal right. This understanding was established during Henry VIII’s reign when Thomas More, then the Speaker of the House, first advocated for parliamentary freedom in 1523. By Elizabeth’s time, the notion that the Commons could speak freely was accepted as a vital component of their legislative role, albeit with certain restrictions.
Discussions about free speech remained a focal point for the next two weeks until Elizabeth eventually lifted her ban on discussing the succession. Although Wentworth’s efforts did not lead to an immediate resolution, they represented one of the earliest challenges to parliamentary prerogatives and laid groundwork for future debates on free speech.
In 1572, Paul Wentworth, alongside his brother Peter Wentworth, who represented Tregony, confronted these issues again during a tumultuous session dominated by the Ridolfi Plot that sought to elevate Mary, Queen of Scots, over Elizabeth. Calls for Mary’s execution echoed through the halls of Parliament, yet Elizabeth stalled any decisive action, opting instead to prorogue the session.
In subsequent years, Peter wrestled with the intricate relationship between succession and free speech. During the 1576 session, he voiced his concerns about the monarch’s encroachments on their legislative liberties, lamenting that stifling free expression would reduce Parliament to a mere façade.
His poignant address proclaimed, “Sweet is the name of liberty, but the thing itself a value beyond all inestimable treasure,” defending the principle that a functioning Parliament must safeguard its right to free speech. Peter’s outspoken challenge to the crown earned him isolation and subsequent questioning by a Privy Council committee, yet he remained steadfast in his beliefs.
Ultimately, a growing concern for the rights of Parliament led Peter to raise further questions about their privileges in the years that followed, even during the fraught political atmosphere surrounding Mary, Queen of Scots, and the plot against Elizabeth’s life.
Despite multiple imprisonments, Peter’s advocacy for free speech remained undeterred. In 1586, alongside discussions about the Babington Plot, he sought to address important questions about parliamentary rights once again. The tension between the Parliament and the Crown over sensitive issues such as succession and free speech continued to simmer.
Upon his final return to Parliament in 1593, Peter introduced a petition regarding succession, which prompted Elizabeth’s ire. Once more, he faced imprisonment in the Tower. He died there in November 1596, marking the end of his relentless pursuit for parliamentary rights.
Elizabeth I passed away in March 1603, with the speculation surrounding her successor persisting. It was rumored that she indicated her support for James VI of Scotland in her final moments, although historical accounts of her alleged proclamation remain ambiguous.
The rigorous battles pursued by the Wentworth brothers established pivotal moments in the dialogue surrounding free speech and the authority of Parliament. Scholars have debated their actions’ implications for centuries, with some asserting that their efforts marked a precursor to the eventual conflicts between Parliament and the monarchy that erupted into the English Civil Wars. While their perspective was not universally shared among their peers, the enduring discussions sparked by their challenges exemplified a burgeoning advocacy for the rights of the Commons within the framework of governance.
Source
www.smithsonianmag.com