There appear to have been a few instances of clergy withholding the cup from the laity in the early church to prevent the carrying home of the elements in a superstitious way. By the fifth century Decrees of Popes (Leo the Great, Gelasius) made the withholding of the cup heretical. But towards the close of the eleventh century the practice re-emerged in the Western Church.
It was condemned by the Council of Clermont in 1095, and again by Pope Paschal II in 1118. But the practice spread during the next two centuries and was defended by ecclesiastical writers. The change was made gradually. Aquinas, who died in 1274, only speaks of it as the custom of many churches. Evidence of the survival of primitive practice is found as late as the middle of the fourteenth century. When the Council of Constance met in 1415 it was widely hoped that the abuse would be checked. Unhappily communion in one kind was formally adopted as the official practice of the Church. The Council claimed for the Church the power of ordering that the sacrament should be given to the laity in one kind only.
E. J. Bicknell, A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 3rd ed. rev. by H. J. Carpenter (London: Longman, 1955), 408-409.
Note that the relevant decision was made before the meeting was considered "a duly convened ecumenical council." See here for the promulgations of the Council of Constance. A comment in An Explanation of the Thirty-Nine Articles by A. P. Forbes (1817-1875) suggests that resistance to the withdrawal of the cup was strong in England: "In England, the Cup could not be withdrawn without the introduction of an unconsecrated drink, which was given ostensibly to assist in the deglutition of the Blessed Sacrament under the form of Bread, but probably to pacify the people for the loss of the Divine Chalice." (594)
The restoration of the cup to the laity was a key concern of the Reformers. While they disagreed on the way in which Christ should be understood to be present in the Eucharist, they were "united in demanding that there should be no celebration of the Eucharist which did not include the communion of the people and not just of the priest alone, and that this reception should be of both bread and cup and not just of bread alone" (R. C. D. Jasper and Paul F. Bradshaw, A Companion to the Alternative Service Book [London: SPCK, 1986], 162).
In England the very first act of parliament following the death of Henry VIII was concerned with restoring the primitive practice of Communion in both kinds (never abandoned in the East). The fact that this Sacrament Act of 1547 includes the phrase "excepte necessitie otherwise require" has played a significant role in recent discussion of the practice but I know of no evidence of it playing any role within the Church of England subsequent to the publication of the Book of Common Prayer (1549; cf. 1662), which envisages no circumstances in which the Sacrament might be offered in one kind only. The Thirty-Nine Articles (finalised 1571) include one stating that "it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written" (Art. XX) and one (Art. XXX) which unambiguously resolved the question whether Holy Communion had to be offered in both kinds:
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both parts of the Lord's sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.
There seems to be no evidence of bishops or clergy within the Church of England denying the Cup to the laity in subsequent centuries, including during the great plague years, until the Swine Flue epidemic in 2009. This had perhaps been facilitated by the notes in the liturgy for ministry to the sick in Common Worship which lacked the Book of Common Prayer's emphasis on the desirability of a congregation of communicants surrounding the sick and for the first time envisages
Communion should normally be received in both kinds separately, but where necessary may be received in one kind, whether of bread or, where the communicant cannot receive solid food, wine.
It should be noted, however, that the permission to receive in one kind is a rather different matter from withholding the cup from communicants who are able and willing to receive, and that the subsequent note echoes the Book of Common Prayer's explanation on the possibility of eating the Body of Christ and drinking his Blood without receiving either element:
Believers who cannot physically receive the sacrament are to be assured that they are partakers by faith of the body and blood of Christ and of the benefits he conveys to us by them.
Cf. the rubric in the Book of Common Prayer
if he do truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross for him, and shed his Blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore; he doth eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth.
