In addition to this Charles, due to the fact no laws could be passed, had to resort back to the old legislature with a privy council and a judiciary system. In addition to this Charles needed courts to be able to trial people without parliament and so was able to create prerogative courts as it was in his royal prerogative to do so. By using this system, Charles pushed his legal rights to the limit by finding various ways in order to raise revenue. For instance forest fines, distrait of knighthoods and monopolies. This pushed his legal rights due to the fact that they were old laws that were slightly manipulated to fit Charles. There was also a growing number of opposition as many felt his actions were illegal.
The Earl of Strafford also successfully managed to raise money in Ireland by a process called ‘Thorough’. This process meant that people were made accountable for their actions and was very successful in raising money. However it wasn’t enough money to completely support Charles and ‘thorough’ came under a lot of scrutiny, as it was the first time people’s jobs were being watched and it wasn’t appreciated.
Another way in which money was obtained was ship money. In theory ship money was supposed to be used to provide ships for the royal service in times of emergency. However under Charles’s personal rule it became a real issue and many inland counties had to pay this new tax. It became a permanent tax, not an emergency tax, and was not benefiting the ships but in fact Charles’s own revenue. This problem seemed to become more pivotal in 1637 in the Hampden’s Case where John Hampden refused to pay ship money. This case was significant as it was the first step in retaliating against personal rule as only 7 out 5 judges voted in favour for the king even though all the judges were Charles’s royal appointments. It could also be argued that it was significant because it was a trigger for many others to refuse paying ship money.
Religion was another issue during Charles’s personal rule as William Laud’s new religious policies were seen as being destructive to the simple church that Elizabeth created. William Laud’s aims for the church was to completely reform the church by raising the educational level of the clergy, enforcing the role of divine right, and reform the way the church was presented so that the ceremonies were more extravagant. This caused problems and contributed to the end of personal rule because Laud’s methods went completely against what Puritans wanted for the church. In addition to this the emphasis on divine right gave the impression that Laud’s only intention was to protect the king and that his interest wasn’t entirely on the same level as the public. The difference between Laud’s moral and the feeling of public opinion can be seen in the case of Burton, Prynne and Bastwick in 1637. This case is very significant in showing how adamant Laud was in making sure that the church power was shown rather than the fact that the Burton, Prynne and Bastwick were gentlemen who were treated as common criminal for libels against the archbishop. The case of Burton, Prynne and Bastick also caused a very hostile feeling toward laud’s as many gentry felt that even though they were high up in social status being treated poorly could happen to them as well.
However this wasn’t the end. Laud’s contribution to the reformation of the church in Scotland was a very important reason for putting an end to personal rule. In 1637 a version of the new English prayer book was introduced. The new prayer book proved to be a spark for tension in Scotland and many rioted in the middle of congregation due to how much they didn’t like the new Laudism approach to ceremonies. In 1638 the Scottish National Covenant was drawn up. This caused problems as it rejected the old canon, church laws, and the prayer book. Some people were so outraged with this new reform that many moved to Presbyterianism which meant believing in a strong form of Protestantism and it was evident from this point that it was going to cause a rebellion, which later formed the first bishop war.
The first bishop’s war was humiliating for Charles, as he spent around £200,000 on military operation while the commander of the army, Earl of Arunder, was unable to control the army efficiently this lead to Charles, after seeking advice from Earl Strafford, recalling the Short parliament. However the short parliament proved to be a great disappointment to Charles as he needed money and parliament refused to vote subsidies with settling the grievances first .In result of this Charles thought it was beneath him and decided to dissolve parliament after three weeks.
Finally the issues discussed in this essays has highlighted that the nature of personal rule period was very controversial and had to end as Charles could not rule England, Scotland and Ireland without sufficient amount of money and the support of Parliament as it first meant that because there wasn’t any parliament it caused a growing in opposition and a growth of puritan networks which is why in the short parliament was hostile to granting subsidies and due to the bishops war he didn’t have sufficient amount of money to train the troops efficiently and the fact that he was so adamant about royal prerogative and divine right that he even introduced William Laud hindered his personal rule even more because puritans didn’t like the fact that Charles was moving towards Arminianism put people in a hostile mood to start of with.
by
krystalxx217 (student)
