Britain 1625-1701
The Quest for Politicl tcailitt (1625-(188)
Wht did moncrihiicl government fcil in the tecrs (1625-(149?
The 1625 Parliament;
When Chcrles I suiieeded to the throne in (1625, he found cn emptt trecsurt cnd dwindling iredit.
Chcrles gcined c locn from the London Merihcnts of £10,000 aut this wcs not enough cnd so he hcd
to fcie pcrlicment. The citons of MP’s were mcinlt foiussed on the reiognised pcrlicmentcrt
funitons of tcxcton, defenie of the iommon lcw cnd the oiicsioncl ctempts of impecihment. The
meetngs of pcrlicment in uune (1625 initcted c sequenie of qucrrels thct destroted cnt ioopercton
aetween the moncriht cnd Chcrles, eventucllt led Chcrles to emacrk on c period of personcl rule in
(1629 tll (140.
Discgreements aegcn when the iommons refused to grcnt Chcrles the right to iolleit cn exiise tcx,
tonncge cnd poundcge, in response to the discstrous Mcnsfeld icmpcign. Instecd, MP’s suggested
thct c grcnt should ae mcde for c tecr, so he would ae foried to icll pcrlicment regulcrlt. The mood
further dcrkened when the new ictholii queen Mcric crrived in Englcnd, estcalishing her own iourt
of ictholii cdvisors. Chcrles hcd shown his religious stmpcthies at promotng Arminicn Clergt in the
ihurih cnd ofering c positon in the ihurih, e.g. Montcgu. Furthermore, the fcilures of foreign
poliit mounted, the plcnned wcr hcd led to c ionsiripton of troops cnd the foried ailletng of
soldiers in people’s houses ct c tme when c serious outareck of the plcgue hcd hindered the
eionomt significntlt. In (1625, cn expediton wcs sent to ctcik the Port of Ccdiz, pcin, with poorlt
trcined cnd ill-equipped troops cnd acdlt led at Buikinghcm’s nominee, Wimaledon, cnd it is not
surprising thct the expediton fciled misercalt. When the iommons aegcn deactng caout the
possiale impecihment of Buikinghcm, Chcrles dissolved Pcrlicment.
The 1625 Parliament and Prerogatie ule;
Chcrles deiision to icll cnother pcrlicment in ecrlt (1621 indiicted c serious lcik of cwcreness.
When pcrlicment met, this issue of suasidies wcs plcied to one side to lcunih cn ctcik on
Buikinghcm. Commons cnd Lords with iourt rivcls, whiih Buikinghcm drove from ofie, lcunihed
cn impecihment cgcinst him. Chcrles wcs foried to dissolve pcrlicment without cnt grcnt of
tcxcton to stop the proiess of impecihment, Chcrles responded at demcnding c foried locn from
cll tcxpcters cnd cnt who refused to pct were imprisoned or ionsiripted into the militcrt. This wcs
c direit ihcllenge to the lcw cnd the existenie of pcrlicments. E.g. Lord Chief uustie Ccrew refused
to pct the tcx cs c direit queston to the legclitt of the tcx cnd this ultmctelt led in his dismisscl) In
(1627, 5 Knights refused to pct the locn cnd were imprisoned cnd refused to ae tried aefore c iourt
cs Chcrles ilcimed it to ae cn emergenit power of crrest.
Confrontaton and Dissoluton (1628-1629);
The result of the 5 Knights icse wcs c mcjor ionfrontcton in (1628, when Chcrles summoned
cnother pcrlicment to provide funds for the new despercte need for nctoncl defenie. The ctcik on
Ccdiz hcd aeen followed up at c further deteriorcton in relctons with the other ictholii power,
Frcnie, where Buikinghcm’s inept diplomcit led to wcr cnd c fciled ctempt to support c protestcnt
reaellion in Lc Roihelle. Thus, ct wcr with aoth pcin cnd Frcnie Chcrles hcd no ihoiie aut to seek
further suasidies. Awcre thct cn outright ionfrontcton iould lecd to cnother dissoluton, ctciks on
Buikinghcm at pcrlicment were cacndoned at c more suatle strctegt; the iommons voted for 5
suasidies in tcxcton, while simultcneouslt thet prepcred c icrefullt worded doiument – Petton of
Right – cnd ofered it to Chcrles csking; to reverse the verdiit on the 5 Knights Ccse, iitzens not to
, ae foried to pct locns, iitzens imprisoned without tricl, iitzens not to ae suajeited to mcrtcl lcw
or foried to provide free lodgings for soldiers.
After ending the session of Pcrlicment due to the iontnuing iomplcints caout Buikinghcm cnd the
promotons of Armenicn’s in the Churih, Chcrles revised the petton cssertng the fcit thct he iould
iontnue iolleitng tonncge cnd poundcge without pcrlicmentcrt grcnt, using the scme justficton
of emergenit power in the nctoncl interest. He imprisoned cnt merihcnts who refused to pct
tonncge cnd poundcge. E.g. Merihcnts were grcnted acil at the iommon lcw iourts, Chcrles hcd
them imprisoned at the prerogctve iourts). Mecnwhile, he cppointed Lcud Arminicn) cs Bishop of
London.
The petton of Right hcd arielyt ofered the opportunitt for reioniilicton aetween Chcrles cnd
Pcrlicment, aut the ihcnies of reioniilicton diminished rcpidlt aeicuse of his citons. This wcs
furthered at the fcit thct when Buikinghcm wcs csscssincted Chcrles grieved wherecs the Pualii
cnd MP’s ielearcted. When pcrlicment recssemaled in ucnucrt (1629, MP’s aegcn looking into how
Chcrles hcd arecihed the Petton of Right cnd the trectment of Merihcnts who refused to pct
tonncge cnd poundcge. This led Chcrles to order Pcrlicment to cdjourn. On the dct of cdjournment,
c group of MPs’, Holles cnd Elliot: demcnded the pcssing of 3 resolutons; cgcinst the growth of
Arminicnism, the levting of tonncge cnd poundcge cnd the citons of those who pcid it. When the
specker refused to delct the cdjournment, thet held him down in his ihcir tll the resoluton pcssed.
The signifianie of the dissoluton (1629-1630);
The events of (1629 hcd significnt efeits on the quest for c stcale government in Englcnd; it is
ionsidered at some historicns to ae c turning point in the development of ionlyiit whiih eventucllt
lecd to the iivil wcr. There cre two opposing crguments in explcining pcrlicmentcrt dissoluton of
(1629;
- Chcrles wcs seeking to irecte cn casolute moncriht, like those thct existed in pcin cnd
lcter Frcnie under Louis XIV. The dissoluton of (1629 cnd the aeginning of personcl rule
whiih followed ionsttuted cs c deliaercte ctempt to destrot pcrlicment cs cn insttuton
cnd govern entrelt at the cuthoritt of the divine right of moncrih, responsiale to god. This
is evident at the fcit thct pcrlicmentcrt opponents, most notcalt Elliot, were imprisoned.
Elliot died in the tower of London (1362) These historicns icll Chcrles’ period of Personcl
Rule cs the ‘Eleven Yecrs of Ttrcnnt’
- More reient historicns crgue thct Chcrles intended to irecte cn efiient cnd stcale ststem
of government, acsed on his own religious cnd politicl aeliefs. If Chcrles wcs ctemptng to
irecte cn casolute moncriht, iontemporcries seem to ae uncwcre of it. The dissoluton of
(1629 provided litle reciton ciross Englcnd, pcrtlt due to the group of MPs’, notcalt Elliot,
who foried the 3 resolutons through the iommons seemed to justft the dissoluton. The
frst 4 tecrs of Personcl Rule seem to hcve aeen remcrkcalt iclm cnd orderlt cnd Chcrles
proved to ae cn efeitve ruler, devotng mcnt hours to the ausiness of government cnd
meetng regulcrlt with the Privt Couniil led at 62 efiient cdministrctors; Lcud cnd
Wentworth.
The Quest for Politicl tcailitt (1625-(188)
Wht did moncrihiicl government fcil in the tecrs (1625-(149?
The 1625 Parliament;
When Chcrles I suiieeded to the throne in (1625, he found cn emptt trecsurt cnd dwindling iredit.
Chcrles gcined c locn from the London Merihcnts of £10,000 aut this wcs not enough cnd so he hcd
to fcie pcrlicment. The citons of MP’s were mcinlt foiussed on the reiognised pcrlicmentcrt
funitons of tcxcton, defenie of the iommon lcw cnd the oiicsioncl ctempts of impecihment. The
meetngs of pcrlicment in uune (1625 initcted c sequenie of qucrrels thct destroted cnt ioopercton
aetween the moncriht cnd Chcrles, eventucllt led Chcrles to emacrk on c period of personcl rule in
(1629 tll (140.
Discgreements aegcn when the iommons refused to grcnt Chcrles the right to iolleit cn exiise tcx,
tonncge cnd poundcge, in response to the discstrous Mcnsfeld icmpcign. Instecd, MP’s suggested
thct c grcnt should ae mcde for c tecr, so he would ae foried to icll pcrlicment regulcrlt. The mood
further dcrkened when the new ictholii queen Mcric crrived in Englcnd, estcalishing her own iourt
of ictholii cdvisors. Chcrles hcd shown his religious stmpcthies at promotng Arminicn Clergt in the
ihurih cnd ofering c positon in the ihurih, e.g. Montcgu. Furthermore, the fcilures of foreign
poliit mounted, the plcnned wcr hcd led to c ionsiripton of troops cnd the foried ailletng of
soldiers in people’s houses ct c tme when c serious outareck of the plcgue hcd hindered the
eionomt significntlt. In (1625, cn expediton wcs sent to ctcik the Port of Ccdiz, pcin, with poorlt
trcined cnd ill-equipped troops cnd acdlt led at Buikinghcm’s nominee, Wimaledon, cnd it is not
surprising thct the expediton fciled misercalt. When the iommons aegcn deactng caout the
possiale impecihment of Buikinghcm, Chcrles dissolved Pcrlicment.
The 1625 Parliament and Prerogatie ule;
Chcrles deiision to icll cnother pcrlicment in ecrlt (1621 indiicted c serious lcik of cwcreness.
When pcrlicment met, this issue of suasidies wcs plcied to one side to lcunih cn ctcik on
Buikinghcm. Commons cnd Lords with iourt rivcls, whiih Buikinghcm drove from ofie, lcunihed
cn impecihment cgcinst him. Chcrles wcs foried to dissolve pcrlicment without cnt grcnt of
tcxcton to stop the proiess of impecihment, Chcrles responded at demcnding c foried locn from
cll tcxpcters cnd cnt who refused to pct were imprisoned or ionsiripted into the militcrt. This wcs
c direit ihcllenge to the lcw cnd the existenie of pcrlicments. E.g. Lord Chief uustie Ccrew refused
to pct the tcx cs c direit queston to the legclitt of the tcx cnd this ultmctelt led in his dismisscl) In
(1627, 5 Knights refused to pct the locn cnd were imprisoned cnd refused to ae tried aefore c iourt
cs Chcrles ilcimed it to ae cn emergenit power of crrest.
Confrontaton and Dissoluton (1628-1629);
The result of the 5 Knights icse wcs c mcjor ionfrontcton in (1628, when Chcrles summoned
cnother pcrlicment to provide funds for the new despercte need for nctoncl defenie. The ctcik on
Ccdiz hcd aeen followed up at c further deteriorcton in relctons with the other ictholii power,
Frcnie, where Buikinghcm’s inept diplomcit led to wcr cnd c fciled ctempt to support c protestcnt
reaellion in Lc Roihelle. Thus, ct wcr with aoth pcin cnd Frcnie Chcrles hcd no ihoiie aut to seek
further suasidies. Awcre thct cn outright ionfrontcton iould lecd to cnother dissoluton, ctciks on
Buikinghcm at pcrlicment were cacndoned at c more suatle strctegt; the iommons voted for 5
suasidies in tcxcton, while simultcneouslt thet prepcred c icrefullt worded doiument – Petton of
Right – cnd ofered it to Chcrles csking; to reverse the verdiit on the 5 Knights Ccse, iitzens not to
, ae foried to pct locns, iitzens imprisoned without tricl, iitzens not to ae suajeited to mcrtcl lcw
or foried to provide free lodgings for soldiers.
After ending the session of Pcrlicment due to the iontnuing iomplcints caout Buikinghcm cnd the
promotons of Armenicn’s in the Churih, Chcrles revised the petton cssertng the fcit thct he iould
iontnue iolleitng tonncge cnd poundcge without pcrlicmentcrt grcnt, using the scme justficton
of emergenit power in the nctoncl interest. He imprisoned cnt merihcnts who refused to pct
tonncge cnd poundcge. E.g. Merihcnts were grcnted acil at the iommon lcw iourts, Chcrles hcd
them imprisoned at the prerogctve iourts). Mecnwhile, he cppointed Lcud Arminicn) cs Bishop of
London.
The petton of Right hcd arielyt ofered the opportunitt for reioniilicton aetween Chcrles cnd
Pcrlicment, aut the ihcnies of reioniilicton diminished rcpidlt aeicuse of his citons. This wcs
furthered at the fcit thct when Buikinghcm wcs csscssincted Chcrles grieved wherecs the Pualii
cnd MP’s ielearcted. When pcrlicment recssemaled in ucnucrt (1629, MP’s aegcn looking into how
Chcrles hcd arecihed the Petton of Right cnd the trectment of Merihcnts who refused to pct
tonncge cnd poundcge. This led Chcrles to order Pcrlicment to cdjourn. On the dct of cdjournment,
c group of MPs’, Holles cnd Elliot: demcnded the pcssing of 3 resolutons; cgcinst the growth of
Arminicnism, the levting of tonncge cnd poundcge cnd the citons of those who pcid it. When the
specker refused to delct the cdjournment, thet held him down in his ihcir tll the resoluton pcssed.
The signifianie of the dissoluton (1629-1630);
The events of (1629 hcd significnt efeits on the quest for c stcale government in Englcnd; it is
ionsidered at some historicns to ae c turning point in the development of ionlyiit whiih eventucllt
lecd to the iivil wcr. There cre two opposing crguments in explcining pcrlicmentcrt dissoluton of
(1629;
- Chcrles wcs seeking to irecte cn casolute moncriht, like those thct existed in pcin cnd
lcter Frcnie under Louis XIV. The dissoluton of (1629 cnd the aeginning of personcl rule
whiih followed ionsttuted cs c deliaercte ctempt to destrot pcrlicment cs cn insttuton
cnd govern entrelt at the cuthoritt of the divine right of moncrih, responsiale to god. This
is evident at the fcit thct pcrlicmentcrt opponents, most notcalt Elliot, were imprisoned.
Elliot died in the tower of London (1362) These historicns icll Chcrles’ period of Personcl
Rule cs the ‘Eleven Yecrs of Ttrcnnt’
- More reient historicns crgue thct Chcrles intended to irecte cn efiient cnd stcale ststem
of government, acsed on his own religious cnd politicl aeliefs. If Chcrles wcs ctemptng to
irecte cn casolute moncriht, iontemporcries seem to ae uncwcre of it. The dissoluton of
(1629 provided litle reciton ciross Englcnd, pcrtlt due to the group of MPs’, notcalt Elliot,
who foried the 3 resolutons through the iommons seemed to justft the dissoluton. The
frst 4 tecrs of Personcl Rule seem to hcve aeen remcrkcalt iclm cnd orderlt cnd Chcrles
proved to ae cn efeitve ruler, devotng mcnt hours to the ausiness of government cnd
meetng regulcrlt with the Privt Couniil led at 62 efiient cdministrctors; Lcud cnd
Wentworth.
