Between 1625 and 1627 Charles raised money by securing a loan against the Crown Jewels, and selling Crown land. Charles’s decision on a forced loan was controversial as it made the Crown poorer in the long term and was illegal and left people unhappy. The evidential conclusion to this was the occurrence of the Five Knights case. This proved to be important, as the protesters tried to test the legality of their imprisonment, which would then test the legality of the forced loans would have to be tested in court. The Attorney General (royal legal officer) on Charles’s side tried to change records, on Charles’s ‘request’, so when this story emerged Charles’s reputation was damaged. This was a decision Charles should have regretted that left Parliament seething.
In 1628 Parliament offered five subsidies and tonnage and poundage. This was only dependant upon an agreement of the role of Parliament. Charles raised extra money he needed in 1628 by seizing goods from merchants who had refused to pay tonnage and poundage, one of whom was an MP. These methods increased Parliament’s distrust of him, as they wanted some security for the future.
The reluctance to grant Charles money in accordance to the first three points was Parliament’s major downfall, which could be the largest contribution to the dissolution of Parliament in 1629.
The second influential topic in the dissolution of Parliament was Parliament’s dislike of the Duke of Buckingham, which was caused by foreign policy failures.
In terms of foreign policy in 1625, Charles and Buckingham hoped to set up an anti-Spanish ‘front’ to force the Hapsburgs to restore the Palatinate to Charles’ brother-in-law. They hoped to achieve this aim through: 1) an alliance with Christian IV of Denmark in exchange for financial support from England, whereby he would attack the Catholic Hapsburgs in north Germany. 2) Financially supporting the Dutch in the same cause. 3) An English army of 6000, to be provided for the German Protestant mercenary commander. 4) A sea war against Spain to try and cut off its supplies of gold and silver from South America. These steps when carried out were a failure on a large scale, which left Charles embarrassed. England landed itself in war with both Spain and France. Buckingham’s decision to help the Huguenots, besieged by the French was horrendous. He led the disastrous military landing, which finished in a retreat in ships without helping the defenders of La Rochelle, who eventually surrendered to the French. Basic indication and logic suggest that this decision was bad for all and another cross on Charles’s achievements.
The Duke of Buckingham became a focus of MPs’ discontent by the 1626 Parliament because he was influential on court and Charles. He had also moved towards Arminianism, which was suspicious when combined with lax enforcement of the laws against Catholics. Buckingham’s control of the armed forces prompted fears that he was intending to seize control of the Government and establish a Catholic state. The commons identified him as a source off all its concern and refused to work with Charles while the Duke was in office. Charles’ reaction to this was annoyance and the dismissal of Parliament. Parliament had again made another error by refusing to work with the Duke, as there may could have been an easier solution, after all their main objective as Parliament and King is to ensure the smooth operation of the country and provide the best well being and society possible while creating a strong economy.
Charles blamed Parliament for the assassination of Buckingham in 1628 because Felton said he had been inspired by the remonstrance, which named Buckingham as the cause of the nation’s ills. This may only be a minor factor, but was a major contribution emotionally in addition to Charles’ already growing unhappiness with Parliament.
Another key factor in the long list in why Charles dissolved Parliament in 1629 was Parliament’s fears of the King’s support of Arminianism and Charles’ fears of Puritan MPs.
Charles helped the Arminian High Church party to become more prominent through his favour and proclamation, which attacked the Puritan ‘mainstream’ of the Church of England. He further irritated Parliament and the Church of England (which to be noted he was head of) 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. 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. This lack of thought and analysis of a delicate situation which he could of stepped down from or lowered his support suggests that his true objective and role as King was not met and only made situations worse for himself.
The last topic with some specific significance to why Charles dissolved Parliament in 1629 was Parliament’s attempts to stop what they saw as abuses of royal powers, and Charles’s reaction to these.
To ensue that the Privy Council followed him even when Parliament didn’t, Charles eliminated opponents, which narrowed the range of opinion represented on the Council, which also ceased to offer alternative advice after an open discussion. This sneaky form of deviation caused hot hostility and a prominent show of difference between the court and Parliament. What the court, Privy Council, and nobility wanted was often different to Parliament. Nobility were shielded from the reality of every day life in the land of the average person and therefore logically we can analyse that their decisions may have been incorrect for the ideal solution. On Charles’ behalf, this was a clear mistake.
The Petition of Right introduced in 1628 by MPs was the definition of traditional rights of the subject, which had existed ‘time out of mind’. It laid out points stating the illegality of the forced loans, that no free man should be imprisoned without ‘just cause shown’, that soldiers should not be billeted on private individuals against their will, and marital law was illegal. The MP’s introduced this because it acted as a safeguard, with the force of law. Charles did not accept this view of the role of Parliament and viewed the debates with deep disfavour. He wanted expressions of absolute trust and loyalty not restrictions on his freedom of action. Parliament were only alienating his affections further.
When Charles tried to adjourn Parliament in 1628 after he was not granted customs, the speaker went to rise from his chair at the end of the session and was met with force by being held down by two MPs while another called out three resolutions. Sir John Eliot’s three were as ‘a capital enemy to the King and commonwealth’ 1) anyone who promoted innovation in religion, popery or Arminianism 2) anyone who counselled the collection of tonnage and poundage without Parliamentary consent 3) anyone who voluntarily paid the duties. Charles dissolved Parliament after this because he was frustrated in his attempt to rule in accordance with tradition when the commons would not grant him the revenues that were traditionally due to him.
In conclusion the four key areas, which included Parliament’s reluctance to grant financial support, Parliament’s hostility towards the Duke of Buckingham, the King’s support of Arminianism, and Parliaments attempts to stop abuses of royal powers, gradually caused a high amount of tension between the two. But I have also found extra reasons underlying within this area that all input significance into Charles’s final decision to dissolve Parliament in 1629. Distrust as a result of Charles’s manipulation of law in response to Parliament’s reluctance to financially support him led to misinterpretation of each other’s intent, foreign policies and it’s failure with increased problems with the Duke, religion and Charles’s specific support of Arminianism with change to ranking within the Church, the repeated dissolution of Parliament, the war and it’s effects, and Charles’s personality and beliefs. These all had a significant part to play in why Charles I dissolved Parliament in 1629.
I have analysed and interpreted events to finalise a short list of reasons, which I now believe do not fully justify Charles for having good reason to dissolve Parliament. Out of all the explored sources it is evident that Charles’ mistakes fully outnumber Parliament’s.
