Preview

The English Civil Wars: Conflict Between Charles I And Parliament

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
803 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The English Civil Wars: Conflict Between Charles I And Parliament
According to History.com, The English Civil Wars began from conflict between Charles I and Parliament. The first war lasted from 1642 to 1645, the second lasted from 1648 to 1649, civil wars put the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament, and the third lasted from 1649 to 1651. They saw fighting between supporters of King Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament. The third war ended with the Parliamentary victory at the Battle of Worcester on September 3, 1651.
Charles I wanted to unite the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland into one single kingdom, but many English parliaments were suspicious of this move. They didn’t want the new kingdom Charles I wanted to start, to destroy old English
…show more content…
He started raising revenue in England. Without Parliamentary consent, this was illegal. Many people knew this, so they refused to pay any of the taxes he came up with. The end of Charles’ independent government came when he attempted to apply his religious policies in Scotland. The Church of Scotland, although Episcopalian in structure, had long enjoyed its own independent traditions. Charles, however, wanted one uniform church throughout Britain and introduced a new, High Anglican version of the English Book of Common Prayer into Scotland in the summer of 1637. This met with a violent reaction. A riot broke out in Edinburgh, and in February 1638 the Scots' objections to royal policy were formulated in the National Covenant. (New World Encyclopedia). Wars broke out and Charles was eventually forced to agree not only not to interfere with religion in Scotland, but to pay the Scottish war expenses as …show more content…
If he didn’t pay, they’d take the money by pillaging and burning the cities in Northern England. With all this going on, Charles decided to regain a Parliament. According to NewWorldEncyclopedia.com, All this put Charles in a desperate financial position. As King of Scotland, he was required to find money to pay the Scottish army in England, and as king of England, to find money to pay and equip an English army to defend England. His means of raising revenue without Parliament were critically short of being able to achieve this. It was against this backdrop and according to advice from the Magnum Concilium (the House of Lords, but without the British House of Commons, so not a Parliament), that Charles finally bowed to pressure and summoned Parliament for November.
The new Parliament was worse than the first. A law was passed which stated that a new Parliament should convene at least once every three years, without the king's summons if necessary. Other laws passed by the Parliament made it illegal for the king to impose taxes without Parliamentary consent, and later, gave Parliament control over the king's ministers. Finally, the Parliament passed a law forbidding the king to dissolve it without its consent, even if the three years were up. This Parliament has been known as the "Long Parliament.” (Encyclopedia

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In terms of finance, it can be argued that the situation was not successful. The Government managing it could not provide a stable financial settlement. Largely the King did not have much in the way of money, and Charles' excessive spending on pleasurable activities, at the beginning of his reign only exacerbated the disastrous financial situation. Initially, although Charles agreed to give up feudal dues that were revived by his father, he was granted an annual income of £1.2 million by Parliament. However, this arrangement had two drawbacks. Firstly, the financial settlement that Charles was given, was simply not adequate to his needs. Secondly, the hearth tax that was imposed to raise the money was highly unpopular to the people. It is hard to say a reign is 'successful' if the Monarch is unpopular, especially as the country at that time, was still suffering from the financial situation left behind by the…

    • 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

    parliament was the legislative body for the entire British Empire. But due to the great…

    • 351 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    One of the first things that Charles did once he had removed Parliament from the equation was to end the wars with Spain and France. This would stop him spending unnecessary money, and it would mean that he would not need Parliament to aid him in gaining any more, though he swiftly realised that he needed to find some new sources of income on his own. He went about discovering these using financial antiquarianism i.e. he looked back in history for ways to make money through taxes without creating new Acts of Parliament. One of the most famous of these was 1634 Ship Money. Ship Money was an ancient tax payable by those in coastal communities for their defence. Originally, it was only imposed on these coastal areas, though in 1636, Charles extended it to the whole country, with payment on an annual basis. Ship Money was a big earner – Charles achieved 90% of what he needed through each annual tax. However, opposition to these taxes was growing, and in 1637, and man by the name of John Hampden refused to pay. Hampden was taken to court and ultimately put into jail. This example of rebellion caused the opposition to strengthen even more, with the whole country being aware that it was Charles who imposed these rules. Another…

    • 1052 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    One of the main reasons why Charles and Parliament failed to reach a settlement was due to religion, especially with the division between the Political Presbyterians and Political Independents. The differences between the two were that Political Presbyterians favoured a negotiated peace with Charles and did not approve of the New Model Army, and were also drawn more closely to the Presbyterian Scots whereas the Political Independents were in favour of a more considerable measure of religious toleration and disliked the authoritarianism of Scottish Presbyterianism. This division throughout Parliament meant that they had failed to reach a settlement negotiating peace terms that was to be decided upon them. In July 1646, the Political Presbyterians had presented Charles with the Newcastle Propositions as their plan for settlement which consisted of severe terms such as Charles was to accept Presbyterianism for three years in England, Parliament was to have control of the militia for 20 years, and the Triennial Act was not to be abolished and to have regular parliaments. Charles rejected these terms of the Newcastle Propositions and instead offered counter-proposals suggesting that the…

    • 1416 Words
    • 6 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
  • Good Essays

    Chapter 4 Apush Outline

    • 1826 Words
    • 8 Pages

    • 1684=Charles II made Mass. a royal colony & revoked its charter (foundation of the Puritan city upon a hill)…

    • 1826 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good 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

    Charles’ decision to impose a prayer book on Scotland in 1637 proved to be an ill-advised move. It was due in part to Charles’ obsession with creating a unified Kingdom based on his strongly held Laudian religious ideas. Without understanding the Scottish plight he brashly introduced the prayer book, triggering a Scottish backlash against not only against religious reforms but Charles’ foreign rule. Rallying behind their National Covenant, the Scottish manoeuvred Charles into a position through the First and Second Bishops Wars where he was forced to call Parliament. This…

    • 1970 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Nineteen Propositions

    • 186 Words
    • 1 Page

    King Charles On January 4 1642 arrested five members of the commons John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, William Strode, Sir Arthur Hesilrige, and one Lord named Mandeville. So in March Parliament passed the Militia Ordinance which you did not have to get say from the King so Parliament could select whoever they wanted to be Lord and deputy. The King power started to become limited. Parliament sent out a letter called Nineteen Propositions to the king which was a list of things that Parliament wanted to have control fully or as equally as the king and King Charles denied it. So both the Parliament and King got ready for war. Around the middle of 1642 people started flocking towards the king some of the people who opposed him started to join…

    • 186 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Charles I began to move towards “popery” through his backing of William Laud, the archbishop of Canterbury, in imposing ornate ceremonies into the Church of England (The Making of the West 515). The harsh treatment of his opposition, Puritan critics, was not received well. After refusing to “call Parliament into session” until 1640, the divide between Puritans, who controlled Parliament and Charles I grew (The Making of the West 514). The Puritans feared the reinstatement of Catholicism.…

    • 160 Words
    • 1 Page
    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
  • Powerful Essays

    These eleven years, Charles believed he had the divine right to rule, which was a right, he believed, given to him by God. During these years he had to find a way to raise funds that did not involve Parliament. Therefore, he created his own changes and new taxes. Charles created taxes on goods so those who had monopolies, must pay him a tax before they, the monopolist, could make their own profits. Charles made a tax by selling rights to monopolies. This tax that Charles made said that individual could buy the rights to a monopoly of a product. Therefore, only one company could sell a certain product, which also meant that the prices for the products would increase. Soap was an example of such a monopoly made by the Company of Soapmakers, a joint stock company run by the Catholics. Due to being run by the Catholics, this brought additional unrest in England. Charles also implemented ship-money during these eleven years. He required everyone in the country, not just those on the coast of England, to pay him this money. When Charles forced this on everyone, he further alienated his people, even those that had previously been supportive of the…

    • 1645 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful 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