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

Why did Charles I decide to dissolve parliament in 1629?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Why did Charles I decide to dissolve Parliament in 1629? There were many factors that contributed to the breakdown in trust between Charles I and his Parliament in 1625-29, which finally led to his decision of dissolving Parliament. I intend on concentrating on the main key factors, which built up over a specific timeline, and give evidential and factual suggestion and analysis to show that Charles's decision was not unjustified, yet incorrect on his behalf, where he is to blame. The first topic, which was Charles's most troublesome in contributing to further problems, and Parliament's most influential power, was Parliament's reluctance to grant Charles money. Charles needed money from Parliament in 1625 for possible war against Spain. They offered �140,000, yet this was inadequate. Charles was dissatisfied as he hoped Parliament would be as co-operative as the previous. This in itself was wrong as Parliament were not informed of the actual size of money wanted and the specific time to be offered. Tonnage and poundage was customs revenue (tax) traditionally granted to the King by the first Parliament of his reign and provided a large portion of his income. In 1625 this became an issue because Charles did not receive full amount and as Parliament were worried about the issues to which it would be used, and also they wanted to change the system this would prevent him granting more, therefore limiting his power. ...read more.

Middle

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. ...read more.

Conclusion

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. ...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?

    It was a very relevant concern in England. As one MP remarked in 1626, "We are the last Parliament in Europe that retains its ancient privileges". James I had believed in the Divine Right of Kings, but not actually put it into action.

  2. Why Did Charles Dissolve Parliament in 1629?

    Even though Charles had purged parliament, they would not grant him the money he required to follow his foreign policy. Charles dissolved the parliament. The Crown now had enormous outgoings, in excess of 1 million pounds, and no additional income.

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

    Two subsidies were granted to Charles by the first Parliament of quid 140,000, this was generous by Elizabethan standards but still inadequate by 1625. By the time the second Parliament was called in 1626 Charles and Buckingham's naval attack on Cadiz had failed miserably.

  2. The Effects of the Dissolution of the Monastries

    With an offer such as this, how could Henry refuse? At the time previous to the dissolution, the net income of the Crown estates was three times less than the net income of the monasteries, according to the Valor Essclesiasticus.

  1. arctic story

    that we are going to?," I asked "Well there is said to be a lot of things that have been frozen solid," he is not helping me. "Like what?" "Mainly animals, but we are looking for a distant relative of you," he joked.

  2. Why did Charles I decide to govern without calling the parliament?

    Another incident was during the Ile de Re expedition, Buckingham led 7000 ill-equipped army by himself and suffered heavy loss, Buckingham got all the blame for this again and the King protected him. In 1628, parliament offered Buckingham to go into exile if his presence was causing the quarrels between King and Parliament, but the King refused the offer.

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

    This clearly angered Charles, and was the breaking point for relations between king and Parliament. The handling of finances was not one of King Charles' strong points and was the cause of much tension between him and Parliament. Charles wanted money so that he could govern by his own ideologies, money that Parliament was reluctant to keep paying out.

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

    These failures made foreign policy a continued cause of conflict for Crown and Parliament between 1618 and 1629. Relations were worsened during this period through conflicts over finance in part brought into greater significance due to the pressures of war.

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