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

Why Did Charles Dissolve Parliament in 1629?

Extracts from this document...


Why Did Charles Dissolve Parliament in 1629? In March of 1629, Charles dissolved parliament and began the 'Personal Rule', which lasted until 1940. The question is not why did Charles dissolve parliament, it is what were the events and key issues that lead to the complete breakdown in trust between Charles and parliament which resulted in Charles believing he had no option but to rule without parliament? Of course, there are some short-term causes, which contributed to Charles' decision to rule without parliament. These causes mainly revolve around events that took place during the sitting of the 1628 to 29 parliament. One of the main events in this parliament that severely damaged the trust between parliament and Charles was the publication of the Petition of Right. Charles included his original and unsatisfactory reply to the petition. This seriously reduced its impact and the act was seen as highly dubious by parliament. The second event of the parliament, which resulted in relations breaking down between Charles and Parliament, was the seizure of goods from merchants who refused to pay tonnage and poundage (one of which so happened to be a MP). These and other events were the final straw in breaking the trust between Charles and Parliament but there were many long running causes following this issue of trust that also contributed. The way that Charles dealt with the finance of the crown and the issue of forced taxation was a major factor in the trust ...read more.


This is so because the commons wanted someone to blame for the disasters in foreign policy and who better to blame than the Lord Admiral, Buckingham. After the first accusations against Buckingham were made, Charles warned parliament that parliaments were under his power. The present parliament took little notice and made moves to have Buckingham impeached. Charles again took the attack personally and dissolved parliament to bring an end to the impeachment. Charles had sacrificed trust between him and his parliament for the sake of a friend. Buckingham then contributed again to the disintegration of trust by making a series of political moves, which would in turn remove opposition from the Privy Council. This was seen as a further step towards an autocracy. Buckingham was also blamed for the poor discussions over the Petition of Right and one MP went as far as to say 'Buckingham is the cause of all our miseries'. Parliament also said that the failures of Buckingham's foreign policy were a judgment from God. In 1628, a man named Felton assassinated Buckingham. Even after his death, Buckingham stil managed to sour relations because Charles blamed parliament for Buckingham's death. This is so because Felton said he had drawn inspiration from parliaments view that Buckingham was the cause of the nations problems. I believe that Buckingham was the principal cause of trust collapsing between parliament and Charles. ...read more.


This gave Sir John Eliot time to call out three resolutions. They stated that any one who promoted Armenianism or church innovation was a 'capital enemy of the state' as well as any one who counselled the collection of tonnage and poundage without parliament or any one who paid it. These three resolutions finally linked the two main issues that had caused the complete and utter breakdown of the working relationship between Charles and Parliament: Religion and finance. I believe that the Armenian issue is on a par with the breakdown of trust as to why Charles dissolved parliament in 1629. This is so because religion was an issue that was very important in 17th Century England and because Charles and Parliament had such contrasting views, it provided a fundamental disagreement, which would hinder their working relationship. Also it prompted one of the three resolutions which would have made Charles not want to recall parliament after 1629. To conclude a mixture of reasons resulted in Charles dissolving parliament in 1629. These reasons can be split into two main groups: those of trust and those of politics/religion. The political issues all came together in the three resolutions, which affectively brandished Charles a 'capital enemy of the state'. The issues of trust were continuous and would have only caused the working relationship to decrease to a point where Charles and Parliament could no longer work together. One of them would have to go. Tom Langrish L6.2 1 ...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?

    The made up a sizeable part - perhaps as much as fifty per cent - of the King's income. However, the parliament of 1625 only granted Charles one year of Tonnage and Poundage, much to the King's dismay. Although at first this may seem a direct insult to the King

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

    They had found cause to doubt his word in breaking the promises of war and marriage negotiations. Neither Charles' nor Parliament's actions in this case were justified. There was clear misinterpretation of Parliament's concerns, as they did not mean to offend.

  1. 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.

  2. This essay examines the actions of Charles VII in relation to events pertaining to ...

    Charles T. Wood is a Daniel Webster Professor of History, emeritus at Dartmouth College and a Fellow of the Medieval Academy of America. He is the author of Joan of Arc and Richard III: Saints, Sex and Government in the Middle Ages.

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

    The trip was unsuccessful and caused considerable embarrassment for Charles and Buckingham, leading them to declare war with Spain in vengeance, undoing King James' efforts to keep the peace. He also negotiated Charles' marriage to the Catholic princess, Henrietta Maria and led many unsuccessful expeditions, including the ill-managed attack on

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

    Theoretically, uniformity could possibly only be achieved in seventeenth-century countries through Royal absolutism. From around the eighteenth century onwards, new systems of rule could work in harmony with uniformity, but not in the seventeenth-century, because political thought had not developed sufficiently yet.

  1. The following essay intends to assess how far religion can be blamed for the ...

    which were essentially bribes in reward for loyalty and his creation of George Villiers as Duke of Buckingham. The financial issues in effect could also help to explain these growths of tensions Yet in 1618, we saw the outbreak of the Thirty Years War, the outbreak of which polarised religious

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

    the United Provinces: Count Mansfield?s expedition, a total failure, had wasted parliament subsidies. A series of humiliating and costly military failures ensued with expeditions to Cadiz in 1625 and 1626 and to La Rochelle in 1627. The French use of English ships to attack Huguenots was yet another humiliation and

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