To what extent was the outbreak of the civil war in england caused by Charles I's attempt at personal rule without parliament?

For the next 11 years from 1629, Charles I adopted Personal rule, running the country without Parliamentary influence, a perfectly legal procedure.  Despite a positive outlook, Charles personal reign was racked with controversy in both social and especially religious issues. In an attempt to carve out his authority, Charles made an effort to punish those to which he felt opposed him, especially those in the previous parliament. Several MPs were arrested for ‘notable contempt committed by them against ourself and our government and for stirring up sedition against us.’ In order for these accused men to be found guilty Charles mercilessly manipulated legal proceedings which occurred in the resented Star Chamber. This court was used as a means to suppress opposition to royal policies, and was begrudged as it no right of appeal or indictments and the Privy Council, the main body of the Star Court, decided the outcome with no oppositions.  Several MPs were brought and to, and tried at the infamous chamber, with evidence stacked against them in a way that the defendant could only be guilty and prosecuted them for their actions or words against him in Parliament. Prisoners were subsequently fined and imprisoned as a result of their convictions, most remaining there until the recall of Parliament in 1640. Other social issues also concern the economy at the time of the Kings reign. The 1630’s saw a growth in trade which contributed to an income of £218,000 a year, which was able to substitute the Crowns lack of direct taxes, a parliamentary measure. The re-emergence of Ship Money, a resented yet successful rate also contributed £200,000 and along with the sale of monopolies, the total was brought to just below £1m per annual. Ship tax was resented as it not only affected the rich who could afford the rates, but the poor who barely could; it was seen as a way of ‘directly imposing royal authority on relatively humble people.’ The role of ship money has been disputed by different historians some praising it as a ‘great success story’ such as Sharpe and Gaunt, who believed Ship money, whilst disputed had ‘very little principled resistance and financially they were remarkably successful’ whilst others have dubbed them as ‘an utter oppression of the subjects’ liberty’. However it is looked at, I believe that Ship Moneys, whilst unpopular, was very useful in attempting to stabilize the economy.

During Charles I personal rule there were severe Religious divisions within the country as a result of Charles and the newly appointed Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury’s religious reforms and ideals. The English people were becoming more and more concerned with the religious ideals and beliefs of the King. His marriage to his wife, a French Catholic, alarmed the people and made them more and more suspicious of Charles and Laud with his promoting of the high church which the Puritans felt ‘smacked of the Roman papacy.’ This led the majority of puritans to believe that Laud had a hidden agenda, which Merriman writes as ‘Most puritans also believed that Bishop Laud was secretly working to make Catholicism the established church of England,’ which was increased when Charles announced his faith as Arminian, a Protestant sect which held placed more emphasis on the reverence of the service, the cordoning off of the communion table and use of stained glass windows. This alienated the other Protestant sect of Puritanism which wanted a much simpler form of religion, and so it was inevitable that the two clash over forms of worship Charles believed wholly in the high church and its associated ceremonies, whilst the Puritans wanted to move away from this and remove as much of this pomp from the service as possible. It can be argued that as a result of the alienation of the Religious groups of England, in particular that of the Puritans, Charles created an army which was to later oppose him.

Probably the most significant event in the course of Charles personal rule was that of the Bishops wars in Scotland. Along with the controversial religious reforms passed in England, Charles wanted his ‘three quite disparate kingdoms to be more uniform in matters of religion. ‘ By this Charles meant to rule all three countries as one which according to Conrad Russell had the negative and same effect as if Charles were to ‘drop a match into this powder-keg by setting out to achieve one uniform order of religion within the three kingdoms’  Charles believed, under Lauds influence, that the best way to do this was by introducing a new Anglican Prayer book to be read in churches across Scotland in 1637.  The imposition of the prayer book caused so much opposition that it resulted in rioting, the most notable of which in St. Giles Cathedral, the local church goers heckled and harassed bishops reading from the new prayer book and Scottish nobles and landowners even began ‘evicting Anglican bishops and taking over churches, and the Scots rose up in arms.’ The continued rioting led to the signing of the National Covenant which was a declaration of Scottish identity and a promise to defend the Kirk against the influences of Anglicanism. Despite the Covenanters proclaiming loyalty to the throne Charles viewed the Covenant as ‘damnable’ and saw it as a challenge to his authority. Charles was now determined to crush the rebellion, Charles amassed 5000 Irish forces in order to put down the rebellion, to which the Covenanters responded in kind by also raising an army.  The two met at in the summer of 1639. Charles was at a distinct disadvantage as he had according to Young, ‘failed to mobilise public opinion behind his effort’ This was reinforced by the Irish forces failure to turn up, resulting in Charles’ rather embarrassing surrender and led to the King signing the Pacification of Berwick, an agreement that the King would ‘appoint an Assembly and Parliament in August of 1639 to deal with Scottish complaints and resolutions’ and the Covenanters would disband their army. Charles subsequently ignored the treaty and recalled parliament in the hope that they would fund a second war against the Scottish Covenanters, so Parliament was recalled for the first time in 11 years, an event that was to be likened to the opening of Pandora’s Box.

 The Short Parliament, so called as it lasted only three weeks, was recalled by Charles I in the hope of being granted the money he needed to fight another war against the Scottish Covenanters, the MPs however, saw this as a chance to address their problems with Charles’s eleven year rule. It can be argued that when Charles realised he was not going to receive the money and troops he required to fight a second war that the King subsequently dissolved parliament. However, Michael Young believes that the ‘dissolution of the Short Parliament was not all Charles’s fault’ as the opposition he faced in parliament under Pym’s leadership wanted the avoidance of war, and were subsequently unwilling to assist Charles and Charles was not ready for parliamentary debate over foreign policies. When Charles disbanded Parliament again, it seemed that the odds were already stacked against him, with the Earl of Stafford’s influence Charles decided to undertake another attempt at putting an end to the Scottish Covenanters, who were actually working with the English Parliament. The second Bishops War effectively ended before it began, with the Scottish taking the initiative against the King, overwhelming his army, causing the King to once again surrender and sign the Treaty of Rippon, where Charles was once again forced to recall Parliament.

The Parliament of 1640 focused its aggression on the king’s advisors who they believed to have influenced the King in a negative way, in particular the Earl of Stafford and later the Archbishop Laud. Parliament was so keen to make an example of Stafford that in order to ensure he was punished Pym passed an Act of Attainder, declaring Stafford guilty of treason. Despite promises of support the King, in an act of appeasement to Parliament, signed his closest ally’s death warrant. Tensions between King and country became apparent in 1641, with the Irish revolution when the Catholic peasants began killing the Protestant settlers, it can be argued that the people had lost faith in the King at this time as ‘many believed that the king could not or would not repress the insurgents.’ When Charles went to Parliament to request an army with which to repress the Catholics in Ireland, he was presented with the Grand Remonstrance, essentially a history of the past eleven years and the royal misdeeds committed during this time, calling for religious and administrative reform. The Remonstrance was narrowly passed showing that parliament was divided over issues regarding the King, mainly between the Puritans and wealthy nobles, once the sides had been drawn, Charles attempted to arrest Pym and his opposition by leading 400 soldiers into Parliament only to find that Pym and the other leaders had left and were being protected in the city. Merriman argues that once this move had been made there was no turning back, that ‘all chances of compromise disappeared’ As Charles had previously alienated the English population, who at least in London, supported Parliament, he moved to the North which he felt was ‘more friendly country.’ Forces were mobilized, sides taken and the country divided. The war had begun.

It is evident that Charles I's attempt at personal rule was one of the main reasons for the English Civil War. As a result of 11 years of self rule, the King managed to cause a deep religious rift which embodied the opposition that Charles and his Royalist army faced in the English Civil War. Charles’s personal rule was obviously viewed with discontent by Parliament, which led to the passing of the Grand Remonstrance, outlining all of the issues they disagreed with as a result of Charles eleven year tyranny. Whilst it is clear that personal rule was a major factor in the outbreak of civil war, one must also bear in mind events which occurred following the civil war, such as the Irish Rebellion, which led to the King resenting Parliament so much, as a result of their reluctance to provide Charles with an army to suppress a rebellion which needed suppressing due to its religious nature.  I believe that personal rule was a very dominant factor in the emergence of Civil War as it caused problems between King and Parliament which became apparent after Parliament had been recalled, leading to hostilities and tensions between the two, and eventually war.  

---