The introduction of this essay needs to clearly define the settlement as both the acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, and including the 39 Articles of Faith. A good answer should then include some historiography - i.e. what other Historians have argued. In this case, Hill argues that the settlement was moderate to appease both sides. Context should be given on the precarious situation in Europe, with religious conflict sweeping the continent. The intro should signpost the essay structure as follows: the settlement prevented wide scale uprising, and so can be judged as at least partially successful. However, the continued presence of Catholics and plots against the monarch, as well as existence of Puritans shows that the settlement was not entirely successful at creating uniform faith. Having laid out the argument, the body of the essay should follow the path of exploring three groups in society. Firstly, the student should explore how the settlement was received among the ordinary population, drawing on both Haigh and Anna Whitelock's arguments. It can be argued the settlement was successful among ordinary people as there were no widespread religious inspired revolts, unlike under HVIII (drawing comparisons across the Tudor period). This was partially due to ambiguous doctrinal changes which did not greatly affect everyday life, among other factors. Then the student should consider the other side of the argument, and demonstrate that the settlement was unsuccessful among the catholic elite, evidenced by the Northern Rebellion in 1569. Continued plots from Catholic nobles throughout the period threatened Elizabeth's reign. The student should then argue that resistance occurred among the Puritans, who thought that the settlement had not gone far enough towards Protestantism. To conclude, it can be argued that among the extremes, the settlement was unsuccessful as there was continued resistance throughout the period. Despite this, it was largely accepted among the ordinary population.