One other crafty tactic of Charles I was to expand Ship Money, this was a tax that people living on the coastal regions were forced to pay. It was officially for the reinforcement and fortification of the coastline to guard against pirates, or worse, the French. Charles introduced Ship Money on a national scale so regardless of where one lived they had to pay for the fortification of the coast line. His justification was that this would help defend the entire country and so it was only fair that the entire country should pay for it. It is debatable however as to how much of the newly raised capital was actually used to fortify the south coast. Although this was not entirely necessary as one of the first things Charles did when he began his ‘Personal Rule’ was to make peace with both France and Spain.
This was a remarkable achievement as both countries were predominantly Catholic and Charles’ ‘umbrella church’ was neither Catholic nor Protestant. While Charles was officially the head of the church, he was also rumoured to follow the teaching of Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch Theologian who died in 1609. The Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, was a loyal supporter of Charles I and his prolonged struggle with Parliament. Laud, the King, and Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford, constituted the triumvirate that attempted to achieve absolutism for the Crown in political and ecclesiastical matters.
Charles wanted to expand his religious and political influence into Scotland. In 1637 when Laud, with the support of Charles, attempted to introduce the Anglican liturgy in Scotland, a riot took place in St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh. The revolt spread and led to the formation of the Solemn League and Covenant of 1638 and the First Bishop's War in 1639. This was a large problem for Charles. His personal rule was fine until a war broke out because he had no need of extraordinary funds, but that is exactly what was happening in Scotland. Charles needed money and he needed it fast. He was forced to recall parliament in 1640 to ask for money due to the Second Bishop’s War and the invasion by the Scots.
Parliament also had ulterior motives. They were supposedly representatives of the country who were allowed a say in how it was run and yet they had been uncalled for 11 years. They certainly wanted to defend their country against the Scot’s invasion but also wanted something in return. They needed to ensure that Charles would not just dismiss them again when he had won his war. One of their acts was to impeach Laud for treason. His impeachment by the House of Commons was nullified by the House of Lords, but he was later condemned under a bill of attainder and beheaded.
There is no doubt that the only reason Parliament was recalled is because Charles needed money to fund his war against Scotland. This obviously gave Parliament back some control though as Charles needed their money. This meant that Parliament could exert their power over Charles and attempt to change some of his rulings. This in turn led to the abolition of ship money in 1641. Charles of course did not want his power to be revoked, he intended to continue his period of Personal Rule. This caused tension between the Monarch and his Parliament, tension which eventually led to a full scale civil war.
In order to comprehensibly answer this question, it is crucial to know whom the question is referring to. There can be no argument that there was a distrust of Charles by 1640, but distrust by whom? Certainly Parliament were unsure of Charles and his intentions. They knew he wanted money and did not want them to be involved in the country but they did not know for certain the lengths he would go to in order to achieve this. France and Spain had to have known that Charles was not making peace for the sake of it but mainly because he could not afford to go to war. They also knew that if push came to shove, Charles could recall the Parliament and fund a full scale war, regardless of how much he didn’t want to. The Scot’s also had been affected by the eleven year of Personal Rule, Charles had tried to introduce Arminianism to replace their Presbyterian clergy which had resulted in two Bishop’s wars which also resulted in Charles being forced to recall Parliament.
The other un-discussed party is Charles himself, was he sure of what he was doing and why? Did he have a clear and concise plan? and if so what went wrong? Was Charles being Proactive or Reactive? Did he manipulate events and people in order to serve his own means or did he simply go along with everyone else and take the easy route?
