Finance caused issues between Charles and Parliament 1625 to 1629
- An issue from the beginning, Parliament did not grant tonnage and poundage for life as they had done for every ruler since 1485
- War with Spain which began in 1625 spanned the period and along with war with France in 1627 caused financial issues
- Charles turned this into conflict with Parliament with forced loans, £240,000 was collected and 76 including John Hampden and John Eliot
- This was then a key grievence in the Parliaments in 1628 and 1629 and key evidence which was used for accusations of tyranny
Finance did not cause issues between Charles and Parliament 1625 to 1629
- Evidence of concession throughout the period
- The Third Parliament of 1628 gave Charles 5 subsidies to fund the La Rochelle expeditions
- The First Parliament of 1625 granted £140,000 for his unsuccessful Cadiz Expedition
- This can also better be described as a conflict over constitutional issues, in this case Habeus Corpus for those who were imprisoned
Foreign policy was a cause of conflict between Charles and Parliament, 1625 to 1629
Responsible for starting of war
- Charles did nothing to stop the ignition of war with Spain in 1625
- Equally war with France broke out in 1527
Unsuccessful expeditions accused by Parliament
- he Cadiz Expedition 1626 lead to 7,000 men lost and The La Rochelle Expedition in 1628 leading to 5,000 of 8,000 men who were brought perishing
- Ultimately since 1624 1/3 of the 50,000 men enlisted had perished on expeditions like this
Foreign policy was not a cause of conflict between Charles and Parliament, 1625 to 1629
- Parliament was actually pro war with Spain, Charles was just satisfying a want which had been building up under James, he was seen as championing Anglicanism
- The fact that they agreed to fund both expeditions, especially La Rochelle after the failure of Cadiz with 5 subsidies
- Anger of their failure was more aimed at the Duke of Buckingham Charles’ foreign policy
Constitutional powers caused conflict between Charles and Parliament
- Underlying issues with Parliament is a struggle over constitutional powers
- The Tonnage and Poundage conflict can better be explained as a battle of constitutional rights
- The Five Knights Case 1627 arguing for the basic constitutional right of Habeas Corpus in the case of the 76 imprisoned for refusing to pay forced loans is another example
- The Petition of Rights in 1628 finding that the King could not trample on the rights of his people is a landmark case in constitutional history
- This was a period was highly political, men like Pym and Holles, pushing the boudaries of Parliamentary Privilege with a king with a disregard for it lead to conflict
Reasons for Charles’ issues with Parliament 1625/29 argument summary
- Financially and in foreign there was both conflict but also much cooperation
- Constitutional powers is the main cause, underlying all arguments and especially surfacing in this time of clashing ideas
Religion as a successes of Personal Rule
Short term success
- Charles achieved his aim of imposing Arminianism on the Church of England
- Laudian reforms such as railing off the Altar and making priests wear surplices increased religious conformity whilst the banning of Feoffees of impropriations attacked puritan attempts to loosen the church structure.
- These reforms increased his control over religion and the church
Religion was not a successes of Personal Rule
Long term failure
- Built up religious tensions, demonstrated in the case of Prynne, Bastwick and Burton 1637
- Imposition of the New Scottish Prayer book 1637 triggers the Covenanter Rebellion which significantly contributes to the breakdown in Personal Rule
Finance was a success of personal rule
Can certainly be seen as a success in a utilitarian perspective
- National debt was decreased from £2 million to £1 million.
- Achieved this through Distraint of Knighthood, fines against those not present at Charles’s coronation made £170,000 by the end of the 1630s
- Ship money making £190,000 between 1635-37
Finance was not a success of personal rule
His financial policies his evidence of tyranny
- Oliver Cromwell for example was one who fell foul of the Distraint of Knighthood tax demonstrating the closeness of these policies and the to be regicides
- Continuation of collection of tonnage and poundage despite not being granted it by Parliament for life was further evidence of Charles believing he was above the law
- The Ship Money 1637 case were John Hamden challenges the legality of the tax is further evidence of the great dissatisfaction
Thorough policy was a success of personal rule
Charles increased conformity throughout his kingdoms using thorough in Ireland and the North
- Wentworth imposed the Anglican Church in Ireland with the 39 articles of 1634 along with taxes which made Ireland self sufficient
- Meanwhile in the north Charles imposed the Book of Orders 1631 which demanded loyalty from the gentry
- The prerogative courts, the Court of the High Commission and of the Star Chamber, could be used across his kingdoms, tightening Charles’ grip on his kingdoms.
Thorough policy was not a success of personal rule
All these policies caused unrest
- Taxation, peace and conformity were only short term benefits
- Wentworth’s policies in Ireland, bullying the Irish nobility and amounting a private fortune through corruption turned the Irish against Caroline Rule, as evidenced by the Irish Rebellion of 1641.
Success of personal rule overall argument
- All the policies of personal rule yielded a short term success
- However in all areas this was unsustainable
- Personal rule was ultimately the reason the radicals in Parliament gained the power that was necessary to attack Charles, one of the key causes of the First Civil War
- Thus personal rule by no means can be seen as a success
Charles was responsible for the outbreak of the Civil War
Long term
- Ship money was the highly objected against problem as demonstrated by the Ship Money Trial of 1637 where John Hampden backed by Saye and Sele only being found for the king by 7 to 5 judges in a prerogative court who historically only ever found strongly with the king
Short term
- 5 members January 1642, Charles with 400 armed men entered the House of Commons and failed to arrest Pym, Holles, Hampden, Haselrig and Strode
Lead to a diplomatic disaster, leaving London never to return
- This alienated his support in Parliament, before the 5 members he had a slight minority of 148/159 as demonstrated by the Grand Remonstrance in November 1641 being only slimly passed, this is not enough to start a wa
Charles was not responsible for the outbreak of war
- Counter with Parliament’s aggressive policies to limit Royal prerogative, this however does not stand up, Charles’ alienation of his Parliamentary support with the 5 members is to blame
Parliament was responsible for the outbreak of war
- Out to punish Charles and strip away his ability to have a personal rule ever again
- Distinction must be made between the acts to strip the powers of Personal rule and acts which were war mongering
- The Militia Ordinances of March 1642 followed by the 19 propositions of June 1642 stripped Royal Prerogative to the extent that it was war mongering
Parliament was not responsible for the outbreak of war
- It was Charles’ responsibility to manage Parliament which he failed
- The alienation of his support in the Parliament lead the Parliament to fall under the control of men like Pym
The Three Kingdoms were responsible for the outbreak of the Civil War
- They established pressure on the Charles administration
- The Bishop’s Wars 1639-40 lead to the breakdown of Personal Rule which ultimately gave Parliament the power to challenge Charles. The financial burden being £300,000 for them to leave
- The Irish Rebellion killed 3,009-5,000 protestants dead yet it was widely believed that some 200,000 were killed. Without Parliaments backing Charles couldn’t deal with this, without dealing with it Charles looked weak
The Three Kingdoms were not responsible for the outbreak of the Civil War
- The outbreak of the Civil War was the result of the breakdown in relations between Charles and Parliament, the three kingdoms were secondary considerations
Overall judgement for the causes of the Civil War
- Charles was the most significant supplying both the long term grievances and the trigger causes for the war
- Both the three kingdoms and the Parliament must be seen as Caroline mismanagement
Resources and utility was the reason for Parliamentary victory in the Civil War
- Once the war had got going there was a stark imbalance of resources
- The Parliamentarians held London with its 400,000 population and financial districts, the arsenals in London and in Hull, the Navy and the majority of England’s large cities
- This provided a great fighting force, finances and weapons
- The Royalists on the other hand held only York as its largest city with 10,000 population, none of the main arsenals
- The utility of these resources was also greater
- High taxes, some 15-20%, selling off confiscated Royalist properties raised finances and taking loans from the city of London allowed Parliamentarian armies to be better paid, reducing mutinies and making it easier to recruit men, ultimately contributing to a greater fighting force
Resources and utility was not the reason for Parliamentary victory in the Civil War
- London must be seen as the greatest asset as with it comes a the great population and the finances from the city a monumental imbalance to the Royalist resources
- The reason that the city fell to Parliament in itself was a Royalist Blunder after Edge Hill in October 1642
The NMA was the reason for Parliamentary victory in the Civil War
- The NMA, founded months before the pivotal Battle of Naseby June 1645 was certainly a key factor of what triggered the Parliamentary victory
- At Naseby 1,000 Royalists were killed 4,500 captured with the loss of only 200 men of the NMA
- After Naseby the NMA was concerned in mopping up jobs, the Civil War was won at Naseby and Naseby was won by the NMA
The NMA was not the reason for Parliamentary victory in the Civil War
- The NMA dictated when the war was one however the winning of the war is the result of an imbalance of resources, this was due to Royalist blunders
