Preview

history

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2663 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
history
Why did Charles I rule for 11 years without parliament, 1629 – 1640?

Charles had no intention of ruling for a definite, or an indefinite, period without Parliament. Charles declared he had been driven ‘unwillingly out of that course’, and he intended to recall Parliament ‘when such as have bred this interruption shall have received their punishment’. Apart from Parliament, all the normal institutions of government operated. Indeed, Charles lacked the financial, military and administrative capacity to have an effective tyranny. He wanted efficient and effective government. This policy is given the name of ‘thorough’. Charles intended to rule by benevolent prerogative power, but the absence of the contact point of Parliament and the apparent inaccessibility of the Privy Council and Court were threats to many areas of law, finance and religion.
To sustain a personal rule and to anticipate a cooperative Parliament at the end of it, Charles needed to avoid confrontation in the following areas:
Financing his rule without Parliament
Asserting his authority in matters of law, religion, choice of Councillors throughout the monarchy
By 1637, Charles I’s policies were being openly challenged. By 1640, the Personal Rule ended as a result of accumulated tensions in key areas.

How successfully did Charles finance his Rule without Parliament?
Finance was they key issue
Between 1630 and 1634, ministers such as Richard Weston at the Treasury and Francis Cottington at the Exchequer were able to increase the revenue without causing major excessive opposition, they used devices such as:
Impositions (worth about £200,000 a year)
Collecting tonnage and poundage without the consent of Parliament
Improving the efficiency of revenue collection
A loophole in the 1624 Monopolies Act, which had banned the granting of monopolies to individuals, saw them granted to companies instead – the most famous of theses was the so-called ‘Popish Soap Monopoly’ that was bringing

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    For the greater part of the 1630’s Englishmen paid their taxes, most likely grumbling whilst doing it, but they were paid. During his personal rule 1629-40, Charles I needed to raise revenue by using non-parliamentary means, i.e. in ways he would not need a parliament’s permission to collect. In order to do this, Charles changed certain policies to make them more financially gaining and brought back taxes that had not been used for numerous years, ranging from Ship Money to Credit to Monopolies.…

    • 2109 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The end of the interregnum government heralded Charles II's return to the throne. The period known as the restoration can be argued to have been 'successful' for Charles. However, a successful reign can be distinguished in many ways. At the time one of the most important issues for Charles was trying to create a stable financial and stable settlement after the long period without a Monarch, and to an extent, 'success', can be defined to whether a stable settlement was established. Charles' triumphant, Anglican, State Church was arguably successful as it formed a stable religious settlement, yet on the other hand, it was not what Charles initially wanted. In this way it could be argued that 'success' can be measured to what extent Charles got what he wanted, and how much control he had over his Parliament. A successful reign can also be measured by assessing how well liked Charles was by his people at the time of financial difficulty following the grievances of the Civil War.…

    • 1214 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Charles I did not go along with the parliament. He took a serious hit during his 22 years as king. He began to give into extra parliamentary resorts such as, new tariffs and duties and collection of discontinued taxes. This angered the parliament as taxes were being illegally collected for an already unfortunate war and one that involved France…

    • 637 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    James I was an absolutist ruler who emphasized the divine right of kings and sought to restrain Parliament under his will. Consequently, conflicts were inevitable as James I, and ensuing rulers, often found himself deficient of funds, and Parliament served as the gateway to the money. James I and his successor Charles I called Parliamentary meetings solely to ascertain the issue of funds. During this period, Parliament was rarely called upon and after these debates for money, Charles I and James I completely dissolved the Parliament. I did so because he agreed to admit the illegality of his taxes in turn for funding from Parliament. Afterwards, he abolished the Parliament to pursue his own endeavors. Furthermore, during Charles tenure, the English Civil War took place as a result from the lack of amity between Charles and Parliament. The Scottish invaded England, but Parliament refused to allow Charles to raise an army, because they feared he would abuse his powers and assail English citizens who opposed him. Charles I was eventually defeated and executed by Oliver Cromwell. Following the inadequacy of Cromwell, Charles II rose to power and was keyed the "merry monarch" for his easy-going nature. He imposed the Cabal system, a group of five individuals who handled the political issues of England; the term Cabal stems from the initials of each official member. This system acted as a type of Parliament in its methods of governing. During this period as a whole, it is evident that Parliament often conflicted with the ideals of the ruling monarch.…

    • 540 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    When King Charles I dismissed Parliament in 1629, he was set on the idea of a personal rule without any help from Parliament. This he could manage, as long as he avoided war. His aim was to sort out the country's finances, and with the help of Strafford and Laud, impose a 'Policy of Thorough'. This policy was the idea of a fair and paternalistic government with no corruption. However, within 11 years, Charles' personal rule had failed and England was drifting into war. There are mixed opinions on whether this failure was solely due to the actions of the King, or those of third parties, for example, Strafford or Laud.…

    • 1052 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Charles’s led the country without calling parliament for 11 years from 1629 – 1640. He initiated personal rule for many reasons. Firstly his close relationship with Buckingham alienated Parliament and caused resentment by Parliament. Secondly Charles had very strong believed in divine right and therefore saw no need for Parliament. Furthermore Charles religious policy’s led many to believe of a Catholic Conspiracy, which further distanced the King from Parliament. Lastly the King wasn’t getting substantial financial help from Parliament and decided that he would try and raise the finance without him.…

    • 1197 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    His childhood left a mark on Charles's behaviour as king. Like James he was a believer in the divine right of kings. Unlike James, he was absolutist and tried to put it into practice. Given his belief in divine right, he saw all parliaments privileges as being subject to the approval of the monarch, not as liberties that had existed without the judgement of the monarch. Also unlike James He saw all criticism and anyone who questioned him as disloyal. An example of these in combination is when Charles I dissolved parliament because he was being criticized by Parliament as he felt he didn't need them as long as he could avoid war. This began the 11 year period known as the Personal Rule where he ran the country through royal prerogative instead of in cooperation with parliament.…

    • 611 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    One of the biggest factors of Charles’s personal rule which reveals his intentions is his control of…

    • 757 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Both Charles I and James I tried to rule without parliament’s consent, but parliament’s control at the time was so great that neither Charles nor James were able to successfully decrease its role in English government. In the Bill of Rights, it is declared by parliament that certain actions are illegal without consent of parliament. For example, “The king’s supposed power of suspending laws without the consent of parliament is illegal” (James Madison). The English were not ready to give all the power of government to a single person because they had been under the combined rule of both the king and the assembly for such an extended time. Parliament, where members could be elected and changed as necessary, as opposed to an absolute monarch with no restraints, was supported by land-owning nobles and merchants. In 1642, differences between parliament and Charles I sparked England's civil war, which was partially caused by the refusal of parliament to give up their power in government and partly by royal stubbornness to share control of the country. This was the chief turning point for absolutism in England. Beginning with Charles II, monarchs realized the amount of power Parliament had and knew that instead of working against one another, they had to work with each other. Since parliament was so centralized and so stalwartly entrenched into the…

    • 949 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    toward the Bank of the United giving too much power to the unconstitutional and creating…

    • 701 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    parliament frq

    • 642 Words
    • 3 Pages

    James I's belief in "divine right" of kings, which meant God had chosen him to be ruler, led him not to rely on Parliament. Rather than depend on Parliament, James I and his successor, Charles I looked for other ways to acquire funds such as illegally levying taxes. Parliament was rarely called on during this period. In response to Charles illegal taxation, Parliament passed the Petition of Right which stated that, to pass any law the ruler must consent to Parliament. In order to continue ruling without Parliament, Charles used Ship Money to collect taxes as revenue. He might have been able to rule indefinitely without Parliament if not for his religious policies which provoked war with Scotland and forced Charles to call Parliament into session. This session, known as the Long Parliament was determined to limit the power of the king. It resolved that Parliament would meet at least every three years. Parliament later split with Charles I and declared war on him. Both James I and Charles I fought to suppress Parliament during their reigns and claimed absolute power due to the "divine right" of kings.…

    • 642 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Charles reign was infamous because of his inability to work with the Parliament and the consequences in thereof. Charles having a sympathetic stance on Catholicism, and perhaps a secret convert himself, passed laws favoring English Catholic subjects such as The Declaration of Indulgences. This act attempted to provide religious liberty to Roman Catholics by suspending previously established Penal Laws. A protestant parliament responded furiously, passing The Test Act of…

    • 471 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Charles’s abuse of his prerogative powers , proroguing parliament seven times and dissolving parliament three times suggests that Charles was unable to work with parliament which meant his position was weakend after exclusion . For example he could no longer legislate, relied on cooperation of the Tory Anglicans and it worsened fears of absolutism. Furthermore, these fears were emphasised with Danby and his pensions and the test bill in 1675. Parliamentary fears of absolutism limited Charles powers as the passed the Second test act and the Habeas Corpus amendment act. Historians such as Zoosk, argue that there were underground movements after the exclusion crisis and the fact that the issue of exclusion is repeated during James II’s rule suggests that Hutton is correct in saying there were still unresolved tensions. Lastly, exclusion worsened fears of absolutism as without a parliament, it meant Charles II relied on Louis XIV for money and alongside Montagu’s revelations, it created fears especially in the atmosphere of fears of universal…

    • 1227 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Why Did the Civil War Begin?

    • 2630 Words
    • 11 Pages

    On 22 August 1642, King Charles I raised his battle standard and declared a civil war against his enemies in Parliament.…

    • 2630 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The events and sentiments that ran through 17th century England were perhaps as paradoxical as Charles the 1st’s head being sewn back to his body after his execution. This era saw a polarization of thought, action and outcome in regards to several events, people and institutions. The height of this polarization existed between the monarchy and the parliament, as questions arose in regards to the extent of power the king could wield, and the extent of power Parliament was willing to allow the king to wield. The two ends of the power spectrum were absolute monarchy , which gave the king unlimited powers, or “royal prerogatives” according to the Stuarts due to their “divine right” to exercise it, and the other a constitutional monarchy , where…

    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays