Why did the relationship between parliament and Charles I break down,
1625-42?
Between Charles’ ascension to the throne in 1625 and the outbreak of Civil War in 1642,
much was done by both Charles and Parliament to sour relations. However, Charles’ varying
control of finances was crucial to the clashes which developed between him and Parliament,
and, later, in his inability to swiftly put down the Scottish forces. Relations between Charles
and Parliament can be said to have broken down at two points during the period: between
1629 and 1640, the personal rule may be considered a break down in the relationship, since
their formal relationship was exercised through the sitting of parliament. Since parliament
didn’t sit during this period, the causes of this period of personal rule must be examined.
Equally, the declaration of Civil War in August 1642 represents a break down in relations as
the King and parliament became military enemies. As the outbreak of personal rule was
primarily caused by parliament’s refusal to grant subsidies, without the King’s acceptance of
significant demands and the Civil War followed parliament’s unreasonable 19 Propositions,
the relationship between parliament and Charles I broke down due to poor royal control of
finances and the behaviour of parliament.
Charles I’s financial decisions created conflict with parliament, isolated parliament and then
allowed parliament to challenge him in Civil War. Firstly, the King created conflict with
parliament in the years 1625-29 through his demands for finances. In 1625, Charles I took a
loan of £60,000 from a group of City of London merchants. While this allowed him to
momentarily delay calling parliament for the first time, it angered them as he had shown a
blatant lack of desire to work with them. Immediately giving the impression that Charles did
not wish to collaboration with parliament undermined relations from the very beginning of
his reign. Having angered parliament from the outset, they became unwilling to grant
subsidies. This forced Charles, in order to maintain his expensive foreign policy, to demand a
forced loan on taxpayers. The imprisonment of Five Knights who refused to pay showed
parliament that the King was acting as a despot by raising taxation without consent and by
imprisoning the knights without due legal procedure. Hence, Charles’ poor early
management of finances led him into repeated conflict with parliament. Secondly, Charles
isolation of parliament between 1629 and 1640, the de facto break down of relations, was
made possible by Charles learning to control his finances. The Treaty of Madrid in 1630 cut
annual Crown expenditure from £500,000 in 1625-29 to £70,000 in the 1630s. This vast
reduction allowed Charles to support himself financially with Tonnage and Poundage, and
the reintroduction of old prerogatives, such as Ship Money. While Ship Money was
unpopular, and the cause of further conflict with parliament as MP John Hampden was
imprisoned for failing to pay, its annual £200,000 revenue from 1635 allowed Charles to
maintain his distance from parliament. Hence, Charles was able to break down relations
with parliament due to his control of finances, further angering parliament and making the
outbreak of civil war more likely. Finally, Charles’ need to raise funds to repel Scottish forces
in 1640 gave parliament the means to impose legislation which pushed the King towards
war. Had Charles been able to repel the Scots without calling parliament, they would have
remained inept as a political force. However, by asking parliament for money, Charles gave
them the power to grant subsidies upon certain conditions, passing the militia bill in
1625-42?
Between Charles’ ascension to the throne in 1625 and the outbreak of Civil War in 1642,
much was done by both Charles and Parliament to sour relations. However, Charles’ varying
control of finances was crucial to the clashes which developed between him and Parliament,
and, later, in his inability to swiftly put down the Scottish forces. Relations between Charles
and Parliament can be said to have broken down at two points during the period: between
1629 and 1640, the personal rule may be considered a break down in the relationship, since
their formal relationship was exercised through the sitting of parliament. Since parliament
didn’t sit during this period, the causes of this period of personal rule must be examined.
Equally, the declaration of Civil War in August 1642 represents a break down in relations as
the King and parliament became military enemies. As the outbreak of personal rule was
primarily caused by parliament’s refusal to grant subsidies, without the King’s acceptance of
significant demands and the Civil War followed parliament’s unreasonable 19 Propositions,
the relationship between parliament and Charles I broke down due to poor royal control of
finances and the behaviour of parliament.
Charles I’s financial decisions created conflict with parliament, isolated parliament and then
allowed parliament to challenge him in Civil War. Firstly, the King created conflict with
parliament in the years 1625-29 through his demands for finances. In 1625, Charles I took a
loan of £60,000 from a group of City of London merchants. While this allowed him to
momentarily delay calling parliament for the first time, it angered them as he had shown a
blatant lack of desire to work with them. Immediately giving the impression that Charles did
not wish to collaboration with parliament undermined relations from the very beginning of
his reign. Having angered parliament from the outset, they became unwilling to grant
subsidies. This forced Charles, in order to maintain his expensive foreign policy, to demand a
forced loan on taxpayers. The imprisonment of Five Knights who refused to pay showed
parliament that the King was acting as a despot by raising taxation without consent and by
imprisoning the knights without due legal procedure. Hence, Charles’ poor early
management of finances led him into repeated conflict with parliament. Secondly, Charles
isolation of parliament between 1629 and 1640, the de facto break down of relations, was
made possible by Charles learning to control his finances. The Treaty of Madrid in 1630 cut
annual Crown expenditure from £500,000 in 1625-29 to £70,000 in the 1630s. This vast
reduction allowed Charles to support himself financially with Tonnage and Poundage, and
the reintroduction of old prerogatives, such as Ship Money. While Ship Money was
unpopular, and the cause of further conflict with parliament as MP John Hampden was
imprisoned for failing to pay, its annual £200,000 revenue from 1635 allowed Charles to
maintain his distance from parliament. Hence, Charles was able to break down relations
with parliament due to his control of finances, further angering parliament and making the
outbreak of civil war more likely. Finally, Charles’ need to raise funds to repel Scottish forces
in 1640 gave parliament the means to impose legislation which pushed the King towards
war. Had Charles been able to repel the Scots without calling parliament, they would have
remained inept as a political force. However, by asking parliament for money, Charles gave
them the power to grant subsidies upon certain conditions, passing the militia bill in
