Parliament had begun to realise that it very much had its own rights. The greatest, and most important right, was there Freedom of Speech. This meant that the Crown accepted that Members of Parliament had the right to discuss matters which affected the Commonwealth. These included things such as taxation, the Poor Law, the state of highways and Crime. Another right of Parliament was that the King had no right to enter the House of Commons chamber. This way the king had no way of interfering with Parliament when it was in session.
Arminianism and the fear of Catholics
By Charles’ reign, England was now a Protestant Country. The Crown believed however, that the real problem, and threat to stability, came from the Puritans. The Puritans however, believed that the Catholics would stop at nothing to destroy England. At the heart of this mistrust was ‘The Protestant Nightmare’. For example the most infamous Catholic attack was The Gunpowder Plot of 1605. Several Catholics tried to blow up the King and the Houses of Parliament. This failed attack only strengthened the Puritans deep mistrust in Catholics.
However in between the conflict between Catholicism and Puritanism there was another struggle, that of Arminianism and Purism. The Arminians believed in more Catholic ideas, such as the use of ritual and Ceremony in Church. The puritans however were extreme Protestants, and wanted simple and bare churches. The Crown favoured Arminianism; however it could not openly admit its catholic persuasion without rebellion from the Puritans. So instead, Charles used William Laud to enforce Uniformity, and bring the conflicting ideas into one religion. However Uniformity still incurred the wrath of many Puritans. For instance one rule of Uniformity was that, ‘Priests to wear vestments, to bow at the name of Jesus, and to light candles at the altar’. This induced extreme opposition from Puritans.
Fear of Absolutism
Parliament began to fear that Charles might impose Absolutism on the country. Charles had formidable enforcement powers and used these to great extent to find a way around Parliaments laws, so that he could be independent of Parliament. For instance, the King appointed all judges. This meant that during high profile political cases, Charles could expect favourable result. The king also made good use of the Prerogative Courts. For instance Charles used the Court of Star Chamber to remove cases from common law courts, and instead have them heard in secret. This meant that Charles could remove opposing cases and incarcerate anyone who rebelled. This made many believe that Charles was becoming tyrannical, as he was leading without a Parliament, and was mis-using his power.
According to the Magna Carta the King could not raise taxes without the consent of Parliament. Therefore, to rule without Parliament, Charles needed a way of generating revenue, without calling upon Parliament. He set about finding old laws and taxes that could be used and exploited to raise income. The most unpopular of Charles' taxes was Ship Money, a medieval custom that required coastal towns to pay for the upkeep of naval defences in times of emergency. In 1635, he extended the tax to include inland counties. Even though ship-money was intended to finance a new fleet for England's defence, there were strong objections because the King had imposed what amounted to a new tax without the consent of Parliament. A concerted campaign of non-payment was led by Viscount Saye and Sele, whose associate John Hampden was prosecuted before the Court of Exchequer in 1637. Advised by the lawyer Oliver St John, Hampden challenged the legality of the tax. Of the twelve judges who heard the case, five found in Hampden's favour while seven supported the King. Although the verdict had gone against Hampden, he was widely regarded as having won a moral victory against the King's tyranny.
Laud and Strafford believed that many of the king’s problems originated from the King not being well served. They introduced the idea of ‘Thorough’, which would hold officials accountable for their oversights and mistakes. An example of this in use was the publication of the ‘Book of Orders’ in 1631. This gave instructions to Sheriffs and clarified their responsibilities and made them accountable to the Privy Council. It meant that the King would be served by more responsible, accountable subjects, and would be in harmony with his subjects.
In conclusion, there was much hostility towards Charles in 1640. His personal rule caused many to oppose him and his ideals. Among this was the provocation of the Puritans. His refusal to appease them, and instead appoint Archbishop Laud who imposed Arminian ideals, only served to anger them, and lead to greater hostility. Also Charles’ attitude towards Parliament, and his belief that it was his divine right to rule, led to many enemies within, and outside of the Parliament, mainly among the gentry, as they believed that the king had to ac within the law. Lastly, his enforcing of absolutism meant that many officials began to fear his rule, and to react negatively toward Charles. Therefore it was expected that there was lots much hostility towards Charles in 1640.
by
cypher97 (student)
