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

To what extent did foreign policy sour relations between the monarch and Parliament between 1603-1629?

Extracts from this document...


To what extent did foreign policy sour relations between the monarch and Parliament between 1603-1629? The period 1603-1629 is perhaps better divided into two distinct sections - 1603-1625 (reign of James I) and 1625-1629 (reign of Charles I) - since these two monarchs had fairly different approaches to foreign policy, which in turn determined how Parliament responded to them. James I brought a peaceable approach to foreign policy, hoping to establish a reputation for himself as a mediator within Europe. One of his first actions as monarch was to negotiate peace with Spain in the Treaty of London in 1604. This was unpopular with Parliament for several reasons, the main one being that as Protestants many members of parliament were opposed to peace with Catholic Spain for religious reasons. However, with regards parliament, peace did have the benefit of saving a great deal of money which would have had to be raised by Parliament, and relations between parliament and James remained fairly constant over the next few years. James' next major action with regards foreign policy was to support a Protestant successor to the Duke of Cleves-Julich in 1609, even to the extent of committing several thousand troops to the cause. ...read more.


This angered James enough to lead him to reply that "none [in the House of Commons] shall presume to meddle with anything concerning our government or deep matters of State", referring, in the main, to Parliament's rights (or not) to discuss foreign policy. This led to the Commons producing a 'Protestation', which claimed the right of Parliament to free speech, regardless of royal prerogative. James then dissolved Parliament and arrested several prominent MPs. Certainly, this rift had arisen mainly due to James' foreign policy (although there still were other contributing factors, namely finance but also other domestic policies). However, it was not permanent as James called a final Parliament in 1624, in which he seemed to accept that he would have to go to war with Spain, especially since both his son Charles and his favourite, Buckingham, were now joining Parliament in asking for war, due to the breakdown of marriage negotiations. Parliament voted subsidies - although they were insufficient for James to wage a land war - and left satisfied with the situation, although no war was waged in the remainder of James' lifetime (he died ten months after dissolving Parliament). So, when James died in 1625, it seemed that towards the end of his reign his foreign policies had been responsible for souring relations with Parliament, although it is worth noting that the resolutions of the final Parliament (if not fulfilled) ...read more.


policy, mainly because of the money needed to fund the wars, for which Charles resorted to more and more desperate measures - for example the forced loan, which led to greater discussion of the monarch's financial and religious policy. There is no doubt that foreign policy played a major part in the souring of relations between monarch and Parliament in the period 1603-1629. However, its influence can be seen to have increased later on in this period - after Charles came to power. With James I, foreign policy did play a part in affecting his relationship with Parliament - especially towards the end of his reign. However, it was his foreign policy combined with other issues - particularly finance - which led to a breakdown in relations in 1621. Perhaps if foreign policy had been the only issue things would not have reached such a crisis point. And, even after the breakdown occurred, the fact that James called another Parliament in 1624 showed that it was by no means permanent. In contrast, all of Charles' problems and disagreements with Parliament appear to have stemmed from issues surrounding his foreign policy - and the breakdown in 1629 was far more threatening to the continued existence of Parliament than any with James as monarch. 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. Marked by a teacher

    History of british race relations

    3 star(s)

    The Jewish immigrants had the tendency to keep a feeling of familiarity; they opted to live in close-knit communities. They settled in inner city areas like London's east end, Strangeways in Manchester and Leyland in Leeds.

  2. Why did Charles' relationship with Parliament deteriorate between 1625-1629? ...

    There was much conflict between the King and Parliament over this, and it was argued fervently in court. Charles suspended Parliament, which was fiercely contested by a group of MPs. They passed Three Resolutions against the growth of Arminianism, the collecting of tunnage and poundage and the conduct of those who paid it.

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

    In response to the growing uncertaintity of the law and the King, best summed up when Sir John Eliot remarked, "Where is Law? Where is property? It has fallen into the chaos of a higher power", Sir Edward Coke, the great champion of Common Law and the constitution, drew up the Petition of Right.

  2. Why Did Charles Dissolve Parliament in 1629?

    ultimately dissolved in 1629, Charles's character and beliefs played a key role. Charles was not a good 16/17th Century monarch, he did not know how to handle and negotiate with Parliament, and this ultimately would have led to Charles embarking upon the Personal Rule.

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

    It was felt to parliament that Buckingham had only his own interests at heart and his families and not the welfare of the king or the country. He was soon after assassinated. Which parliament was quite pleased about as it meant that they could achieve that little more power back over the king.

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

    by allowing controversial and banned sermons to be published. This was unpopular with the Archbishop who was then suspended, which enraged many. A bad idea was apparent through replacing the Arch Bishop with a man who had influence and who could promote the Arminians, and attack Calvinist puritan ministers.

  1. Foreign policy was the major reason for the breakdown of crown-Parliament relations from 1625-1629

    This air of distrust was generated right at the beginning of Charles? reign when he appointed Montagu, who supports everything that the church is against, as his Royal Chaplain, which only make way for Parliament to not feel complete trust in him.

  2. How far was foreign policy the main cause of conflict between Crown and Parliament ...

    James however had estimated £750,000 was necessary and remained convinced that England could not fight Spain without an ally. A marriage alliance, therefore, was agreed with the French. This angered parliament who hoped plans for a catholic marriage had been lost with the failure of the Spanish match.

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