Chapter 6 - stuart Britain - the state of relations between the crown and parliament by 1629 and reaction of the political nation

What did the petition of right parliament fail to address?

The 1628 petition of right failed to address two fundamental points of disagreement between Charles and Parliament

What were the two fundamental points?

- it did not explicitly mention the customs duty, impositions, or tonnage and poundage. As a result, Charles claimed he had not surrendered his rights to collect these
- Charles' open favour to anti-Calvinists. In the summer of 1628, anti-calvinists such as Laud and Montagu were appointed as bishops. Charles was clearly indicating his support for Arminianism, which many regarded as being close to catholicism

What did the petition of right parliament fail to address?

The 1628 petition of right failed to address two fundamental points of disagreement between Charles and Parliament

What were the two fundamental points?

- it did not explicitly mention the customs duty, impositions, or tonnage and poundage. As a result, Charles claimed he had not surrendered his rights to collect these
- Charles' open favour to anti-Calvinists. In the summer of 1628, anti-calvinists such as Laud and Montagu were appointed as bishops. Charles was clearly indicating his support for Arminianism, which many regarded as being close to catholicism

How did Charles reply the petition? Why was this significant?

There was also the question of trust, as at first Charles did not reply in a proper legal way.

What did the commons insist upon because of this?

A proper legal response, which charles eventually gave.

What had Charles told the royal printer to do? What did this do?

He had told the royal printer to deface the statute number, throwing doubt on the document's legality.

What did MPs wonder when this all came out and when did it come out?

1629 - when it all came MPs wondered if Charles could not be trusted to rule by the ambiguity of the unwritten constitution, should they try to enforce a more formal means of limiting his powers?

What did some still want in Parliament despite his dishionesty?

There were still some moderates who wanted compromise.

What did Denzil Holles and Benjamin Valentine do to the speaker of the house and when?

2 March 1629 - just as the speaker was preparing to read the royal order to suspend the parliamentary, radical holles and Valentine held the speaker down in his chair until 3 resolutions were passed condemning the king's conduct.

What did the three resolutions express?

Expressed opposition to Arminianism and to the collection of tonnage and poundage without parliamentary approval.

What was Charle' response to the three resolutions?

To dissolve parliament two days later

What did he do immediately after dissolving parliament?

Had his leading critics including John Eliot, Holles and Valentine arrested for treason

What did Charles realise the three resolutions was?

Was a revolutionary act - and the next 11 years he governed without ever calling Parliament.

What did Charles Durston (historian) also emphasise?

Emphasises that James maintained a sound working relationship with the PN through his parliaments - 'James never made any serious attempt to dispense with parliament for good. On the contrary, he continued to negotiate patiently'

What did Coward stress?

Historians must take care not to let subsequent events, namely the fact that Charles would rule without parliament for the next 11 years and that civil war would break out in 1642, unduly colour an interpretation of the events of 1629. He argues that although a number of practical problems caused tension between the crown and parliament in the 1620s, there was no fundamental breakdown between Charles and the broader PN at this time. There was still a notable difference between the members of the PN who rules the localities, the majority of whom were conservative and, therefore, royalist, and Charles' more radical and puritan critics serving parliament

What do historians think of Cowards view?

Most agree with his caution not to overstate the breakdown. However, there is little doubt that the relationship was under sever strain. While historians place emphasis on different factors as the main cause of this, all are in general agreement that Charles' early years saw deterioration in the crown-parliament relationship.

What does durston think?

For Durston, the 'damaging results' of these events were 'made worse by the king's refusal to listen to pleas for a change of direction. Charles' dismissal of all criticism and unwavering support for Buckingham had, by 1629, opened a huge divide between crown and Parliament'

What did Conrad Russell place more emphasis on?

'The burden of war' believing that 'war and Buckingham brought relations between central and local government and hence between King and Parliament, to a point of collapse in 1629'

What does L.J. Reeve think?

By 1629 'there was overwhelming evidence to justify the deepest suspicion of Charles among the PN'. Reeve argue shat 'Buckingham's financial and foreign policy failures had combined with a fundamental conflict over religion to produce a constitutional breakdown. Thus, in 1629 those excluded by the inner circle of the court were forced into opposition'

What view does David L Smith prefer?

A more valanced view of the state of relations between Charles and the PN in 1629. He says that although the debates of 1628 may have 'witnessed a hardening of attitudes and the emergence of political alignments based on deeper divisions of principle than had existed earlier in the century' these 'developments were not necessarily irreparable and particularly after Buckingham's assassination there were widespread hopes that relations between crown and parliament might improve'