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

How far was Parliament more responsible than Charles for the breakdown of their relationship in the period 1640-1642?

Extracts from this document...


How far was Parliament more responsible than Charles for the breakdown of their relationship in the period 1640-1642? After ruling without Parliament since 1629, Charles was finally forced to call Parliament in April 1640 when his conflict with Scotland culminating in the Bishop's Wars left him in severe financial difficulty. However, this 'Short Parliament' lasted less than a month as Charles refused to listen to the grievances of MPs angered by Personal Rule. This meant that the Parliament was dissolved without any subsidies being voted for war with Scotland and after the Second Bishop's War in August 1640, Charles called another parliament in November 1640, with no option but to listen to their grievances in return for war subsidies. The MPs of the 'Long Parliament' opening at Westminster on November 3rd 1640 were united in their determination to change recent governing policies of Charles I's Personal Rule. Their stance became known as the 'anti-court consensus', and they had every hope of achieving their aims - the preservation of the old constitution from the King and his advisors, who had temporarily suspended it - through discussion and persuasion. At first the parliament was productive, their ambitious programme of legislative reform co-ordinated by John Pym, a member of the House of Commons, who avoided potentially divisive issues to unite Parliament against the King and his advisors. ...read more.


The English Parliament was left thinking that it would be possible to control Charles in a similar way, whereas before they had only suggested choosing the King's ministers. By the time Parliament began its Second Session in October 1641, the splits between MPs were far more obvious. Now the constitutional abuses of Personal Rule had been addressed, some MPs wanted to introduce further revolutionary reforms - with Pym's 'Grand Remonstrance' - while others - 'Constitutional Royalists' - believed that the King had to be trusted again for the constitution to succeed. With his support growing, Charles was placed in a stronger position, and had he consistently followed the advice of the 'Constitutional Royalists', he could have presented himself as a symbol of order and stability and a trustworthy monarch, which would undoubtedly have undermined Pym and his followers. However, Charles did not follow this path and it has been suggested that this is one factor which contributed to the further breakdown of his relationship with Parliament. "Charles I was ill suited to cope with his plight...while it would be foolish to conclude that the Civil War occurred simply because Charles was King, it would be equally foolish to underestimate the part played by his personality."1 His position was further damaged towards the end ...read more.


He responded with the Commissions of Array in June, his own call to arms which was based on a very ancient legal device and was not widely accepted, most of the gentry supporting the Militia Ordinance 'for the defence of King and Parliament' Pym felt himself to be in a strong permission and effectively started the civil war with an uncompromising list of demands to Charles, the 'Nineteen Propositions', which would have served to make the king a constitutional monarch. They were a list of demands which Charles found unacceptable and the king declared war on Parliament on 22nd August 1642. Within two years the relationship between Parliament and Charles had deteriorated to such an extent that England was at war. Parliament can be seen as wholly responsible for the deterioration because of its insistence in pushing controversial, revolutionary reforms through Parliament. However, I do not believe it can be held entirely responsible as several of Charles' actions worsened his relations with Parliament, for example his indecisive behaviour. Therefore I would say that responsibility for the breakdown of Crown-Parliament relations between 1640-2 must be apportioned more or less equally between the two factions. 1 Derek Hirst, 'Authority and Conflict: England 1603-58.' 2 Lawrence Stone, 'The Causes of the English Revolution.' 3 Sir Harbottle Grimston, during the period. Sarah Ritchie ...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. To what extent was Charles 1st responsible for causing the civil war in 1642?

    When Charles began his Personal Rule, which began in 1629 and ended in 1640. In this time, Charles used Ship tax, a tax that was used to improve the navy in times of war. However, slowly Charles began to increase Ship tax, and bring it inland, making him very unpopular which his people and Parliament.

  2. Why was there a breakdown in relationship between king and parliament in 1629?

    The most notorious of these advisors was probably Buckingham who was disliked between the entire British kingdom and nowhere more so than in parliament. Buckingham was James favourite advisor and so was in turn Charles closest advisor as he was a friend of Charles as well.

  1. Was Charles I responsible for his execution?

    It became even more so when he then imposed the ship tax onto all towns and villages, even if they were inland. He argued that all of the country benefited from the Navy's protection so they should pay taxes to help in its upkeep.

  2. Arabi israli conflict

    Curfews and road blocks were put into place stopping ambulances reaching the sick and wounded. By September 1988 over 345 Palestinians had been killed and many of them were under the age of 16. This mage the conflict grow, causing angrier people and unnecessary actions being used.

  1. The roles and leadership of Charles Stuart and John Pym in the English Civil ...

    Pym played a major role leading up until his death in 1643. His role as leader of the Moderate group amongst the parliamentarians was important in keeping the war and peace groups together. His idea of introducing weekly taxes in London created a strong financial system for the parliamentarians which

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

    It is also doubtful whether Charles, a poor communicator, could persuade more to join him, particularly as he could not afford to give them financial incentives. As already discussed, Charles was trying to create uniformity in England. This was a good aim for many reasons, including the immediate danger of Catholic Europe, which under unification (at least compared to England)

  1. Spanish 5th period History.

    Spanish military power was unrivaled, its diplomacy feared, and its literature celebrated. From the golden age came the famous works of Cervantes and Lope de Vega. By the end of this century, however, Spain had mismanaged its wealth and through a series of costly wars and failed economic policies, it was a nation in decline.

  2. Why was there so much hostility towards Charles by 1640?

    For instance, the King appointed all judges. This meant that during high profile political cases, Charles could expect favourable result. The king also made good use of the Prerogative Courts. For instance Charles used the Court of Star Chamber to remove cases from common law courts, and instead have them heard in secret.

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