• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"Charles' failure to work with Parliament between 1629 and 1640 would make it impossible for them to work together after the Scottish war" Discuss.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Charles' failure to work with Parliament between 1629 and 1640 would make it impossible for them to work together after the Scottish war." Discuss. The eleven years of self-rule by Charles I that followed the dissolution of the 1628 - 1629 parliament was a perfectly legally and common practice for monarchs to do. Yet the changing politics of the nation led to immense disruption between Charles and his, so that when he was eventually forced to call parliament, it was very difficult to work together. In the years leading up to 1629, relations between king and parliament had worsened because of the loss of trust between the two. Parliament felt that Charles was abusing the law, through his many loopholes around taxation such as ship money and tonnage and poundage, and Charles felt uneasy with parliament after the death of Buckingham. Although the actual murderer has no connections with Parliament, it was clear that had Charles not prorogued it, Parliament would have impeached Buckingham, so he would still be dead anyway. ...read more.

Middle

When it was first introduced, the Spanish Armada was still fresh in people's minds, but as the years when on, they began to lose faith in it. The Forest laws also did not work as well as Charles hoped. Several people refused to pay it, as they had been living on the land all their life, and they were suddenly made to pay it now. Although all of this was technically legal, this still annoyed the former MPs, who often met and discussed things, even if their discussions could not lead to any change in the laws immediately. Another thing that would make an alliance between king and people impossible was the revival of certain aspects of what many called Catholicism, although in some eyes it was merely an attempt to move away from the extremes of Puritanism into a more revered and 'beauty of holiness' state of Protestantism. ...read more.

Conclusion

It was only due to Laud and the Earl of Stafford, two of his advisers, that Charles called Parliament in the first place. His quick decision to dissolve it so soon after proceedings began suggest that the debates were not going his way, and he responded in a childlike manner, the 'If we're not going to do it my way, we're not going to do it at all' attitude. However due to the ongoing cost of upholding two armies, he was again forced to called Parliament, and this time he knew he was backed into a corner, and so did Parliament. Charles had insufficient funds, and was so at their mercy. They also had certain demands that only he could give. Any work done together from 1640 onwards was for each side's personal gain. There could be no alliance between them without trust. And any trust that might have existed between Charles and his Parliament had been lost over the eleven years of self-rul. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Why did King Charles I Resort to Personal Rule in 1629?

    It was a very relevant concern in England. As one MP remarked in 1626, "We are the last Parliament in Europe that retains its ancient privileges". James I had believed in the Divine Right of Kings, but not actually put it into action.

  2. Why Did Charles Dissolve Parliament in 1629?

    By the end of 1627 over �260,000 had been raised and the crown was now out of danger from immediate bankruptcy but the political cost of the forced loans had been immense. The loan was seen as an attack on basic civil liberty and this view was seen even greater

  1. Why did Charles I decide to dissolve parliament in 1629?

    The evidential conclusion to this was the occurrence of the Five Knights case. This proved to be important, as the protesters tried to test the legality of their imprisonment, which would then test the legality of the forced loans would have to be tested in court.

  2. Why by 1629 had Charles I decided to rule without Parliament?

    With little money this left the crown vulnerable in it's foreign policy and also did not permit the country to be governed properly. The one person that annoyed Parliament more than any other was Charles' favourite, Buckingham to whom he gave large sums of money and lavished with expensive presents.

  1. The failure of Elizabethan Puritanism

    Something puritans were whole heartedly against. Puritans found the various traditional forms of worship offensive, and could not bring themselves to complying to the Church of England's and indeed Elizabeth's request for conformity. Such traditions like clerical vestments (particularly the surplice and the square cap), kneeling to receive the communion,

  2. Was Charles I Trying to Establish Royal Absolutism during his Personal Rule?

    Although other issues were important, the most important would be religion: this was the key to unification. Uniformity could only be achieved by silencing the dissenting voices, e.g. Puritans. The Act of Uniformity of 1559 was an attempt to unite the country religiously without resorting to extraordinary oppressive measures, but, by the 1620s, it was clear the system wasn't working.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work