• 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...


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.


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.


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 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.

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

    After the death of Buckingham, parliament thought that things might have a chance of getting better but his wife Henrietta Maria jumped in Buckingham's place and became the king's new advisor. This was another bad idea as far as parliament were concerned as she was a catholic and so they

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

    Many of the schemes that the King implemented were unquestionably legal. However, even these caused widespread resentment. This was because these rights were often abused to an extent. For instance, wardship was put into action when a landowner died and the heir had not come of age and so the Crown looked after the property.

  2. 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.

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

    Many were convinced that Charles was a secret Catholic or sympathetic to the Arminian or Popish ways. He seemed to love the beauty and splendour of the mass and the way they stressed ceremony, meaning he was making enemies within his own Church.

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

    career as well as a tool in grasping the idea of the war as a whole. The results of Joan's victories are slightly touched upon, but not with much depth. Perroy, Edouard. The Hundred Years War. New York: Capricorn Books, 1965.

  1. 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.

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

    Parliament?s fear of popery and arbitury government led to many conflicts of religion and prerogative. The Commons Protestation in 1621 was seen by James as clear attack on royal prerogative as the commons took it upon themselves to discuss and criticise foreign policy.

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