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

How far was foreign policy the main cause of conflict between Crown and Parliament between 1618 and 1629?

Extracts from this document...


How far was foreign policy the main cause of conflict between Crown and Parliament between 1618 and 1629? The outbreak of the 30 years war in 1618 intensified the continuing conflicts between Crown and Parliament from 1618-29. The underlying troubles of finance and a fear of popery and arbitury government became greater during this period and led to a breakdown in relations between Crown and Parliament by 1629. These underlying issues formed a structural weakness within the kingdom?s ship of state which, added to by the contributory conflicts caused by Buckingham, was unable to cope when all were brought into greater significance by the outbreak of war and the pressure of foreign policy. The war in Europe, while creating conflicts of wider and older issues, forced clashes between Crown and Parliament over foreign policy. James wished to act as a mediator, centring policies on the creation of peace. Through dynastic marriages, James sought to show a commitment to moderation and restore Frederick V?s Palatinate lands using diplomacy. Parliament on the other hand wanted a declaration of war and to support Protestantism within Europe. Unsatisfied with James? handling of foreign policy, the commons issued the Commons protestation in December 1621 demanding the abandonment of the Spanish match, a protestant marriage and the use of force to save the Palatinate. This brought forward issues of prerogative and led to James? angered dismissal of parliament. ...read more.


The debt was nearing £1 million and James struggled to extract subsidies from Parliament who were insisting on but unwilling to fund intervention in the Palatinate. James’ extravagance and reliance on favourites had escalated and he was seen by parliament as ‘leaky cistern’ when it came to the management of funds. When James called Parliament in 1621 he was consequently granted only two subsidies, about £160,000, far short of what was necessary. Parliament used the granting of supply as opportunities to raise domestic grievances such as monopolies. On his succession, James had announced his attention to grant no more monopolies but by 1621 had granted over 100 as a way of aiding his struggling financial position. Monopolies were a major grievance and a total of 16 weeks were spent in discussion. An act on monopolies passed in 1624 aimed to deal with this conflict. Charles’ 1st parliament began with discontent over the loss of subsidies due to the failure of the Mansfield expedition. Granted only two subsidies, about £140,000, Charles broke with precedent and demanded more. He was also angered by the granting of tonnage and poundage for only one year and Parliament’s reluctance to finance a war which they supported. Further conflicts were caused by ship money and the king’s use of forced loans, first called in 1625 and again in the next few years. An amount equivalent to 5 subsidies was extracted but at a heavy political cost. ...read more.


Buckingham held many key positions of power; his rise to Duke of Buckingham in 1623 gave him the highest aristocratic rank outside of the royal family. Buckingham was seen to manipulate the king, appointing his own men to positions of responsibility and taking an active part in policy and decision making. His control of patronage angered many hoping many to gain favour with the king and was thus the source of much factional in-fighting within the court. As Lord Admiral, Buckingham became a very contentious figure as he was blamed for the series of failed expeditions of Cadiz and La Rochelle. In 1626, Parliament attempted to impeach Buckingham on the grounds of high treason. With it likely that parliament would win, Charles dismissed parliament to prevent it. The scenes of public rejoicing at Buckingham?s assassination in August 1628 demonstrated the immense hatred nearly all but the king felt towards him. Instead of using Buckingham?s death as an opportunity to renew relations with parliament, Charles blamed them for his death. Foreign policy heightened the causes of conflict between crown and parliament already existing when war broke out in 1618. The pressures of the conflict brought into question England?s commitment to protecting Protestantism across Europe and, for James, his commitment to peace. Issues of prerogative arose along with the added burden war placed on an already heavily indebted and inefficient financial system. Buckingham became an object of hatred arising from the anger and discontent already existing between crown and parliament from 1618 to the breakdown of relations in 1629. ...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 was there a breakdown in relationship between king and parliament in 1629?

    unpopular as it was felt that he held too much power and was continually abusing it to get his own way. The first agenda that was met when parliament re-met the next time was Buckingham and what to do with him.

  2. How far were James I's problems inherited, how far of his own making?

    list of his problems, however, despite the relatively dismal circumstance he was left by Elizabeth it cannot be seen as the crushing millstone around the new king's neck. Indeed if one takes into account the fact that the �300,000 that Parliament had recently voted Elizabeth had not yet been received

  1. Why Did Charles Dissolve Parliament in 1629?

    Charles was also very opinionated. He believed very strongly in the divine right of monarchs and that parliament was just there to grant him subsidies when he needed them. He also believed that actions spoke louder than words and that he didn't need to explain himself to a chamber full of 'commoners'.

  2. "An exercise in Dynastic Consolidation" - How far is this an accurate description of ...

    In 1497 Warbeck was captured and peace made with Scotland. Warbeck was significant to Henry as he involved other rulers in England's dynastic problems. This complicated Henry's foreign policy; especially over the treaty with Spain as the Catholic kings did not want their daughter to marry into an insecure crown.

  1. Henry VIII'S Foreign Policy.

    What this meant was that Wolsey's diplomatic opportunities were severely constrained by a choice between Charles V and Francis I. Of course, in some ways the election of Charles of Habsburg strengthened England's bargaining position as it created a situation where both rivals wanted England as an ally (and this

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

    The Arminian High Church promoted the divine right of the King, supported the forced loan and used Gods messenger as a defensive device. The King in this instance went with what he wanted, but what was not necessarily best for the country.

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

    Sir John Eliot went on to make charges of 'popery' at court and spoke of "the enemy within" referring to Buckingham and his countless blunders. He attacked Buckingham outright, suggesting that he should be dismissed and charged with breaching the fundamental laws of England and wasting the king's estate.

  2. Arabi israli conflict

    But this created the problem of Palestinian Refugees. Many wars broke out due to this conflict over land. Since Israel's existence it fought in many wars to keep the land, the first began in 1948 this was called the invasion of Israel. This occurred because Arab states felt Israel had no right to exist, but Israel refused to hand back the land which they had occupied in fighting.

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