English History - The Personal Rule 1629-1640, Charles I Revision Notes

Charles I's commitment to the personal rule

-Intends to maintain the ancient and just rights and liberties of his subjects.
-He wants his subjects to be happy and free.
-He denies backsliding into Catholicism.
-He wants to avoid rebellion.
-He expects the people to submit to the royal prerogative and be obedient to his demands.

Accusations

Charles accused Parliament of using the requests as the 'demands of war to force him to agree to conditions' showing the main cause of the breakdown of tensions was Parliamentary Radicalism.

Pledges of Charles I

-Refutes the move to Catholicism.
-Respect the rights and liberties of the people.
-He demands obedience.
-He doesn't want to present himself as an absolute rile or as a tyrant.

Key Question

How well governed were Charles I's kingdoms during the personal rule?
-Parliament's POV: '11 years of tyranny'
-Royalist's POV: 'period of stability and good government' (up until 1637)

Second Key Question

Why did the personal rule end?

Timeline

...

1629

-Beginning of Personal Rule.
-Scottish Protestants ordered to kneel for communion annually.
-Bishops ordered back to their dioceses.
-Dissolution of Parliament.
-Peace with France.

1630

-Treaty of Madrid
-Birth of future Charles II.
-Peace with Spain

1631

-New Book of Orders
-Polish soap monopoly granted.

1632

-Publication of Histrio Mastix

1633

-New Book of Rates issued in Ireland.
-William Laud becomes Archbishop of Canterbury.
-Reissue of Book of Sports (Jacobean)
-Wentworth becomes Lord Deputy of Ireland.
-Abolition of Feoffees for impropriations.

1634

-39 Articles introduced into Ireland.
-Prynne's ears lopped.
-All Scottish Bishops are made Justice's of the peace.

1635

-Archbishop Spottiswoode becomes Lord Chancellor of Scotland.
-Ship money levied across England.
-Revised Book of Rates.
-Ship money extended to inland countries.

1636

-Bishop Juxon appointed Lord Treasurer of England.

1637

-Trial and punishment of Puritan pamphleteers: Prynne, Bastwick and Burton.
-Ship money trial of John Hamden.
-Prayer book riots in Scotland e.g. St Giles' Cathedral on the 23rd July.
-November: Formation of the Tables.

1638

-Fenland riots in Norfolk.
-February: Scottish National Covenant.
-February: Non conformity is made treasonous.
-November: General Assembly and Parliament suspend the prayer book, canola and Episcopacy.

1639

-April: Oath of Allegiance in York
-18th June: Pacification of Berwick
-September: Recall of Wentworth to England from Ireland.
-First Bishops War.

1640

-April-May: The Short Parliament.
-July: Convenanters launch pre-emptive attack on England.
-End of the Bishop's War.
-The Long Parliament.
-September: Treaty of Ripun.

Nature of the Government during the Personal Rule

-Ruling without Parliament brought about a number of problems for Charles I. Charles I innovate his government in order to solve these issues:

No legal taxes could be passed

Solution:
Charles I turns to Fiscal Feudalism (Medieval forms of finance).

No legal taxes could be passed

Charles rules within the existing laws, but uses prerogative courts and appoints judges to interpret laws favourably.

-This is changing the existing laws to favour him and is manipulating the political system.

Grievances could not be expressed through Parliament

-No grievances about the monarch.
-No laws could be made to help the local constituencies and no problems are solved.
-Disconnection between London and rural aspects.

Charles I reforms local government through the Book of Orders. This is where people are given certain roles making them accountable to Charles and are addressed at a local level.

Yet each of these solutions caused problems.

Justices of the Peace (JPs)

The JPs formed the bedrock of the judicial system. They depended on the constables for the presentation of cases and offenders. Their main responsibility was to judge lesser criminal cases and send more serious cases for trial by jury under the supervision of the circuit
judges. The Privy Council expected JPs to enforce an ever-growing list of regulations and statutes, such as supervising poor relief, regulating alehouses and maintaining roads. JPs did not form a reliable army of royal officials in the provinces. They were local men, appointed on the advice of sheriffs and Lord Lieutenants. They served for the
honour of the office and the opportuņity to enhance their social standing. JPs had the chance to belong to a wider political world, held together by the circuit judges during the half-yearly county assizes. All JPs had to attend the assize courts, where the importance of major national trials such as the Five Knights' case (1627) or the Ship Money case (1637) would have been explained to them. Charles I may have ruled without Parliament, but this did not stifle national political debate.

Lord Lieutenants

The Lord-Lieutenant of the county
organised local defence and, in times of
national emergency, mobilised the county militias into a national army. The Deputy Lieutenants actually did the work, but wereill-equipped to train amateur militias. The Crown appointed one Lord Lieutenant for each county, choosing what the Earl of Clarendon called 'the prime gentlemen of quality' from local aristocratic families.

Sheriffs

The King chose the sherif, who worked with local communities to select the constables, and supervised their work. A sheriff's main task was the administration of justice, holding alleged criminals in
gaol and presenting them for trial at the county assizes. The sheriff received judicial writs (legal instructions) and enforced the judgements of the courts. In the 1630s sherifs were responsible for collecting unpopular taxes such as Ship Money. Being a sheriff was a highly unpopular office.

Constables

The job of policing the hundreds fell to the constables, men with local knowledge who were answerable to the county sheriff. Constables were drawn from the local community, serving
unpaid for one year at a time. They were ideally suited to upholding the common law, but poor instruments for imposing
central government orders. Their loyalty was to the community they served and - in an abstract form to the King.

Limitations on local government

Unpaid
-No incentives to do the jobs.
-Relies in honesty.

Lack of accountability
-No system of checking.

The Local Government

Today, the government' consists of two parts: the elected politicians, who pass
legislation through Parliament; and the Civil Service, which translates Parliament's decisions into action, uniformly, throughout the country. When
Parliament passes a new law, the Civil Service enforces it.

England did not possess a modern civil service in the 1650s. The government relied for the implementation of royal policy on local unpaid officials to maintain the King's Peace. Keeping law and order was the main concern of such officials. Persuasion was far more effective than coercion. It had to be, when the class most affected by government initiatives was the very
landowning class responsible for their enforcement. Local government was
precisely that- government 'of the county, by the county, for the county'- not, as we would now understand it, the imposition of central government policy on local communities. During the 1650s, Charles I placed local government
officials in a quandary by calling upon them to assist his efforts to raise money
through non-parliamentary methods. Their lethargic, inefficient reaction
frustrated the King.

The King

The King's law enforcement powers were formidable. He appointed all the judges, and could expect favourable verdicts in high-profile political cases. The Privy Council had the authority to investigate any aspect of government business, and to punish offenders. The Crown stood at the head of the local government structure, appointing in each county the Lord Lieutenants and the sheriffs.

The King was the Supreme Head of the Church of England, whosecourts were responsible for the enforcement of family law and for punishing offences such as adultery and non-attendance.

But there were also severe limits on royal power. JPs, juries, constables, sheriffs and churchwardens were all unpaid officials. A culture of local discretion and mediation permeated the administration of justice and government.

In the absence of Parliament the only way the Crown could 'legislate' was to ensure that the existing lawvs of the realm were reinterpreted to achieve, in effect, new laws.

In the struggle to achieve this, two institutions stand out for having played a vital role in the Personal Rule:

The Prerogative Courts

The Court of Star Chamber

This consisted of members of the Privy Council hand-picked by the King. The Crown could remove cases such as
conspiracy, riot or perjury from the common-law courts and have them
heard in secret before the Court of Star Chamber. Unlike in the common- law courts, defendants could be questioned in private. The Star Chamber could not sentence a man to death, but could inflict fines, imprisonment and corporal punishment.


The Court of High Commmission

The highest ecclesiastical court in the
land, which could be used for enforcing religious uniformity. Cases where the defendant was found guilty were passed to Star Chamber for sentencing. After 1633 Archbishop Laud sat on both courts, and was said to have made a point of always passing the most extreme sentence possible.

Regional Councils

The Council of the North

Based in York, it was used as a prerogative court for enforcing royal policy against powerful northern families.

The Council of the Welsh Marches

Based in Ludlow, its original purpose was to protect England's border with Wales. By the seventeenth century it was less important than the Council of the North because the local English magnates were less powerful than their northern cousins.

Significance

+Have got around the issue of not passing laws.
+Keeps order and prevents opposition.

Why this would this cause alarm?
-concerns over how fairs trials are.
-arbitrary rule.
-sinister effort to eliminate opposition
-top down attempt to control legal freedoms.
-harsher sentences
-infringes on the right to a fair trial (liberties).

People are concerned about not being able to access a free trial as Charles manipulates legal system.

The Book of Origins

-January 1631

Context:
-In 1629 and 1630 there were poor harvests.
-->Agricultural economies are inherently unstable.
-->Inflation of crops cause dissatisfaction.
-This resulted in concerns about vagrancy as people moved out of the area to parts of the country where prices where cheaper.
-This causes a big homelessness problem and resulted in concerns about social stability.

The Book of Orders - 1631

The Book of Orders was a response to these issues and social problems.

However, it was not a law, but a way of getting around issues.

It included:
-Public work schemes
-->employ homeless for manual labour e.g. clearing the streets.
-->gets vagrants employed and investing in the economy.

-Poor children were provided with apprenticeships.
-->creates the option of making money and removes people off of the streets.
-->establishes a long term solution.

-It established a clear chain of command to inform the Privy Council of local issues:

1.Justices of the Peace convene meetings to discuss local issues.

2.Justices of the Peace produce reports and send them to sheriffs.

3.Sherifs read and pass the report to circuit judges.

4.The circuit judge sends the report to the privy council.

Note: The punishment for non-compliance was carried out in the star chamber. This creates an incentive to perform duties.

Good Governance

-Helping with a social problem.
-->Effective solution.
-Getting around the fact that he is unable to pass laws.
-->Innovative
-Still wants to be connected to local regions.
-Chain of command remove the problem of corruption.

Absolutism

-Only incentive is threat.
-Book of Orders as a policy is a day of getting around Parliament and is replacing MPs with Justices of the Peace.
-->This causes concerns about the role of Parliament and top down control.

Finance Problems

-Cannot raise money.
-Built up a debt from £1 million to £2 million.
-->concerns about the role of Parliament and top down control.
-Ordinary income does not cover the cost of the government.

Finance Solutions

Reduce Spending
-Charles decides to make peace with Spain and France.
-England has no stand in army... it is made by the local lieutenant. This cuts costs as to finance an army is difficult and expensive.
-Richard Western, Lord Treasurer, cuts the cost of Charles' household.

Increasing Revenue
1. Increases Ordinary Income
2. Collects extra-parliamentary taxes.
This is called fiscal feudalism (Medieval Finance)

Sources of Income During Personal Rule

1. Customs duty including Tonnage and Pundage.
2. Recusancy Fines
3. Distraint of Knighthood.
4. Monopolies
5. Wardship
6. Forest Fines
7. Building Fines
8. Enclosure Fines

1. Customs Duty Including Tonnage and Poundage

Definition
Extra-Parliamentary taxes on imports and exports. In 1635, a new Book of Rates increased the amount of tax resulting in a huge increase in income.

Problems
Charles had only been granted the tax for one year in 1625 to collect it for the whole of this period. Parliament had complained about it in two documents: The Three Resolutions and The Petition of Right.

Effectiveness
Trade improved once Englan was no longer at war with France and Spain so customs revenue increased 1631 - 35 to £270,000 p.a. and increased again post 1635 to £425,000 p.a.

2. Recusancy Fines

Definition
Fines on those who refused to attend compulsory Church of England services.

Problems
Laud's religious reforms during this period took the church in an Arminian direction. This angered their religious opponents, the Puritans.

Effectiveness
The 1620's revenue was £5300 p.a.
In 1634, it was £26,866

3. Distraint of Knighthood

Definition
Anyone holding land worth £40 or more had to, in theory, attend the coronation of a new king to be knighted. If they did not attend, they recieved a fine even though this practise had not been used since medieval times.

Problems
Not employed since early Tudor times (1480's), the innovative method of raising money out the lesser gentry particularly hard. Oliver Cromwell was one of the many victims.

Effectiveness
By 1635, revenue of £175,000 had been raised from gentlemen including Oliver Cromwell.

4. Monopolies

Definition
The Crown sold corporations the sole right to sell goods in the Kingdom.

Problems
Parlimarnt had legislated against the crown granting monopolies to individuals in 1624, declaring that they were a sign of corruption. Charles got around Parliament's law by selling the right to corporations not individuals. New monopolies such as the 'Popish Soap' raised concerns about Catholic corruption at court.

Effectiveness
For every £100,000 that went to Charles, £750,000 went to monopoly holders.
Popish Soap brought in £33,000 and was one of the most notorious monopolies.

5. Wardship

Definition
The Crown could administer the estate of an heir who inherited land before they became 21.

Problems
The Crown was accused if exploiting vulnerable estates.

Effectiveness
Warships raised £45,000 revenue at the beginning of the Personal Rule. Cottington became Master of the Court of Wards in 1635 and by 1640, annual revenues were £84,000 collected very efficiently.

6. Forest Fines

Definition
A fine on landowners who had extended their land boundaries be on ancient limits and into royal forests.

Problem
Many wealthy landowners cannot produce the legal documentation proving their right because this went back centuries. This angered wealthy landowners.

Effectiveness
£38,667 was raised (£20,000 from the Earl of Salisbury), at the coast of significantly and growing rich and powerful landowners.

7. Building Fines

Definition
Fines for building beyond the chartered boundaries of the town.

Problems
Largely seen as a tax on the growth of London. London would later become the centre of radical opposition to the Crown in the 1640s.

Effectiveness
Burden particularly fell on builders where over 6000 new homes had been built since 1603

8. Enclosure Fines

Definition
Fines on landowners for illegally enclosing (fencing, for uses fields) common land.

Problems
Seen as a fine on landowners wanting to improve their estates.

Effectiveness
Unknown financial value.

Argument for effective governance

-Raises money, about £800,000 a year.
-By 1635, Charles had a surplus.
-Most of the methods are legal and raise money.
-Charles is respected and people willingly pay, not out of fear. This payment suggests support for Charles.

Arguments against effective governance

-Tonnage and Poundage is illegal.
-Short-term solutions e.g building fines.
-Angered powerful groups e.g. landowners, puritans and Londeners.
-No accountability.
-Concern of absolutism.

Financial Policy and Reaction

Case Study: Ship Money

Context

Historically, ship money was a prerogative tax, collected in the coastal counties in times of war and emergency.

It was used to bring an income for the defence of the county and was part of the Royal prerogative as Parliament will take too long in an emergency.

It was collected by sheriff's who was unpaid and therefore had limited incentives.

Personal Rule, Ship Money

Charles has a surplus of money.

Fiscal feudalism is the short-term tax as most are fines. This is a short term solution which is only going to last as long as people do the things are taxed for.

Charles introduces ship money in 1634 as a long-term sustainable tax. Charles said he was introducing it due to the threat of Pirates.
This shows some elements of absolutism as it allows Charles to collect tax without Parliament.

In 1634, Charles realises he does not have enough from coastal villages so, in 1635, Charles extends the collection to inland counties. This only been done once before in 1588, due to the Spanish Armada, which was a legitimate reason.

There is no emergency condition in 1634 to 1635. This is, therefore, an attempt to establish tax about Parliament so Charles goes against the historical context.

Effectiveness

Between 1634-37, there was a compliance rate of 90%.

Furthermore, it also raises around £200,000 per year. This is more money than Parliament ever granted Charles.

Yet

The 90% of people that paid may have been concerned about arbitrary arrest.

The policies financial success also disguise as political problems:

-Fear of arbitrary arrest

-They cannot complain formally due to the lack of parliament and there is no opportunity to reject the policy.

-Landlords from inland countries did the tax as illegal and began to refuse to pay. For example, John Hampton, the former MP of Buckinghamshire, was a radical or puritan and oppose this. In 1637, Hampton takes Charles to court over this issue.

Reaction to the Policy
Hampton Case - November 1637

-Test case for the legality of Ship Money.
-Decided by 12 Judges, biased to Charles.

Crown's Case

Hampton was not denying refusal to pay, so the crown's case made 2 points:
1. Charles had the right to demand money when the kingdom was in danger. The king should protect the realm through his Royal Prerogatives.
2. Charles I is the sole judge of when the kingdom is in danger. (personal motivations behind this)

Hampton's Case

As expressed by Oliver St John (puritan and civil war Parliamentarian):
1. Do not dispute point 1 of crown case (moderate).
2. England was not in danger and collection of taxes would take 7 months, by which time, Parliament should be the judge. (This disputes point 2 - parliament should have a say).
3. Therefore, the tax is illegal.

Outcome

Instead of an overwhelming victory for Charles, he wins by the narrowest of margins (Crown 7 - Hampton 5).

This is seen as a moral victory for Hampton.
-Legal professionals oppose this tax.
-Legal credibility to opponents.

Consequence

After the case, the financial effectiveness of Ship Money falls.

-In 1638, the compliance rate was 80%
-In 1639, the compliance rate was 25%

Sheriffs stop collecting the tax as they have no incentive.

Therefore, personal rule cannot be good governance as the people like Parliament and want everything to be legitimised.
-This shows opposition.
-Although it brings in money, it is undermined by inherent political flaws.

How to write an essay paragraph

Structure:
-Point (answers question)
-Evidence - historical knowledge
-Analyse/explain evidence (significance)
-Link back to Question
-Balance (argument against the point).
-Overall judgement (conclusion for this parsgraph).

1625-1629 Specification Requirements

Monarchy and Divine Right: the character and aims of Charles I; the Queen and the court; the King's advisers; ideas of royal authority:
• Challenges to the arbitrary government of Charles I: reactions against financial policies; conflict over Church; reactions against foreign policy and the role of Buckingham
• Parliamentary radicalism; personalities and policies of parliamentary opposition to the King; the Petition of Right; the dissolution of Parliament and the King's commitment to Personal Rule

Why did the relationship between Charles and Parliament break down in 1629?

In 1625 no one could have predicted the breakdown in relations in 1625.
Yet,
In hindsight it is easy to see why Parliament feared absolutism due to Charles' influences, beliefs, and concerns about his aims.

Absolutism is the idea that one person ruled with complete authority.

In England, Parliament would opposed 'absolutism' because:
It had a role in limiting royal authority in relation to finances, impeachment, and Parliament had the right to certain privileges such as freedom of speech, freedom from arrest, etc.

Why did Parliament fear absolutism?
Charles's Influences

Charles' court was more closed than that of James I.
Charles closed off access to others -> in 1625 he ordered gentry to spend less time in London.
Only a select few were 'points of contact' to the King, and these were regarded with suspicion.

Why did Parliament fear absolutism?
Buckingham: Gentleman of the Bedchamber and Lord High Admiral

• Dominated patronage and power - e.g. as Lord High Admiral he was in charge of the English Navy.
• Buckingham was known for poor leadership by 1625 -> e.g. Mansfeld Expedition
Significance:
• Buckingham was believed to have too much influence on Charles. This made Parliament suspicious of him
• Charles was willing to dissolve Parliament to protect Buckingham from impeachment in 1626.

Why did Parliament fear absolutism?
Henrietta Maria

• Between 1625-28 Maria and Charles were quite distant. Maria was just 15 when she married Charles I, who was 25.
Yet, for those on the outside Maria was also seen to have an influence due to:
1. Politics
Her brother, Louis XIII of France (reign 1610-1643), was an absolute monarch in France. He was in charge of foreign policy, finance, and political policy and was answerable to no Parliament.

Significance:
• Many feared Henrietta Maria was encouraging Charles get rid of Parliament in England

2. Religion
Henrietta Maria was a Catholic and the terms of her marriage ensured that she, and her Catholic entourage were given protections.
Maria introduced Catholic practices at court such as mass and the 'Hail Mary' - A Catholic prayer considered to be 'saint worship'

Significance:
• Increased fears of Catholicism. An anti-Catholic conspiracy theory was developing in some areas of England. Some people really thought there was a plot to return England to Catholicism.
NB. Charles' Arminian religious policies did not help here.

Why did Parliament fear absolutism?
Charles' Beliefs

Charles was a firm believer in the Divine Right of Kings. He commissioned a painting, The Apotheosis of King James I, in order to illustrate his convictions.

Divine Right theory was a 'top-down' theory of political legitimacy. Charles believed his legitimacy came from a higher power (god) and that this was legitimate. Today we live in a society which has a 'bottom-up' theory of legitimacy in which the government's legitimacy is gained from the people. This is known as 'social contract theory'.

Because of Charles' belief in the Divine Right theory, he also firmly believed his royal prerogatives were above that of Parliament's privileges. Charles did not believe he had to work within the law because ultimately, he was accountable to God, not Parliament.

According to Charles: Royal Prerogatives > Parliamentary Privileges.

Therefore, Charles expected his demands to be met by Parliament.

Many in Parliament believed that Charles' ongoing belief in the Divine Right theory was an endorsement of absolute monarchy.
Hence, Parliament was often very critical of these ideas.

Why did Parliament fear absolutism?
Charles' Aims

Because of the issues noted above, many feared Charles intended to introduce absolutism in England and get rid of Parliament.

Yet, Charles did not express the aim of absolutism (and for good reason if he did intend to introduce it!).

The aims he did outline were quite moderate and somewhat popular:
1. Maintain 'King's Peace' - i.e. law and order and social stability
2. Defend England from foreign policy threats (e.g. Spain!)
3. Govern the Church of England
4. Manage royal finances

Why did the relationship between Charles and Parliament breakdown between 1625 and 1629?

Key factors involve:
1. Foreign Policy, reactions, and opposition to Buckingham
2. Reactions against financial policies
3. Reactions to arbitrary rule
4. Conflict over Church
5. Parliamentary radicalism

Foreign Policy Narrative: James' Legacy

James' reign had finished in failure relating to foreign policy. In 1623 the disastrous and embarrassing 'incognito' trip to Spain had failed to achieve the marriage between Charles and the Spanish 'infanta' that James had hoped for from around 1613. The era where James had sought reconciliation with Spain, to bridge the divide between Catholic and Protestant Europe, appeared to be over. Charles and Buckingham returned hurt and angry from Madrid, and were now eager to carry out some form of revenge.
By 1624 Parliament was also in the mood for war with Spain. They had granted the monarch subsidies in order to carry out a 'sea war' with the Spanish and to support England's Protestant allies in the Palatinate. Hence in January 1625, the Mansfeld Expedition sought to march a mercenary army from the lowlands of Holland all the way through central Europe to recover Fredrick's lost Palatinate land. The expedition set off, but was immediately met with disaster. The troops were poorly equipped and the Dutch countryside, which was supposed to sustain them, had been ravaged by armies. The expedition disintegrated and achieved nothing, wasting £60,000.

Charles I
March 1625

The first major foreign policy event came in May 1625 when Charles' marriage to Henrietta Maria in the Notre Dame in Paris (and then in-person at Westminster Abby in June 1625). The marriage had been negotiated with the French during James' reign with Buckingham taking a prominent role. The terms of the marriage were a £120,000 dowry as well as various concessions to Catholics in England: both inside and outside the court. There was also the verbal agreement of an anti-Habsburg alliance.

Cadiz, Spain 1625

Charles' first aim as monarch was to continue the war against Spain and seek revenge for the insulting rejection of the 'Spanish Match'. While the anti-Spanish policy was popular in the previous Parliament under James, after the Mansfled Expedition there were considerable concerns about the competence of those in charge - namely the Duke of Buckingham.

Nevertheless, Charles pressed ahead with plans to attack Spain in order to divert their interests from the Palatinate and open up a 'second front' in Cadiz, on the southern tip of Spain. There was also a hope that the expedition could seize some Spanish gold ships which were regularly sailing from South America during this period. Charles and Buckingham took inspiration from recent history when devising the plan. As part of the Anglo-Spanish War (1585 - 1604), Sir Francis Drake raided the Spanish harbour of Cadiz in a pre-emptive strike to damage the Spanish royal fleet. Drake successfully burnt a number of Spanish war ships and is said to have boasted that he 'singed the King of Spain's beard'. Buckingham hoped that he would be the next Drake.
In June 1625 Charles' first Parliament sat and the priority was to arrange for a speedy supply to fund the war. Charles had wanted a one-off subsidy of £1 million. Initially Parliament was relatively cooperative and voted on two subsidies of £140,000. Charles considered these to be inadequate and asked for more (this was unprecedented). On the 12 August the Parliament was dissolved by Charles, his honeymoon period with Parliament already seemingly at an end.

Charles continued his preparations for war and had been assembling men at Plymouth harbour since the start of his reign. Running out of money even at this stage (there was said to be just £600 in the exchequer by the end of August), Charles decided to turn to alternative forms of income. The Queen's dowry of £120,000 was used to finance the expedition and he also borrowed a £70,000 sum from an international financier.

Organising the whole expedition was the militarily inexperienced Buckingham who had no experience of organising an expedition of this scale in terms of equipment, men, and resources. The Eventually, in October 1625 the fleet of 82 ships (with 6,264 naval personnel and 9,507 soldiers) landed in Cadiz, at the southern tip of Spain. On its arrival it spent several weeks attempting to capture the port of Cadiz, but the strongly fortified town had no trouble holding out against the poorly equipped English troops, who succeeded only in capturing the wine-store for the Spanish Indies fleet and rendering themselves incapable by consuming its entire contents. As it sailed for home in mid-November the fleet was battered by winter storms and many ships were lost or seriously damaged. To those who witnessed the return of the bedraggled remnants of the force to the south coast ports in late 1625, the abject failure of the expedition was all too obvious. The contrast with the legendary successes of Drake and the other famous Elizabethan commanders of the 1580s was also clear and, for Charles and his government, acutely embarrassing.
Returning to England, the failure of the expedition was blamed on Lord High Admiral Buckingham. Parliament was furious since the expedition had achieved absolutely nothing at a high cost to the country. Charles and Buckingham, although disappointed, remained undeterred and continued with military preparations. Parliament were furious about the wasted resources and the inept management of Buckingham. When Parliament was recalled in 1626, one of their first actions was the attempt the impeachment of Buckingham to remove his influence. Charles, in a fury, decided to dissolve Parliament to protect his closest advisor.

La Rochelle, France 1627-1628

With the marriage between Charles and Henrietta Maria sealed it appeared that relations between France and England were going to move into a more cooperative period. Their common enemy, in the form of the Habsburgs, enabled them to look beyond their religious divides in 1625. Nevertheless, relations had got off to a bad start. France had refused to join the Mansfeld Expedition and the early period of Charles' and Henrietta's marriage was not as successful as either side had hoped. The English despised the Catholic influence at court, while Henrietta, only 15 at the time, is said to have been considerably unhappy.

Relations were soon to get worse when France made a separate peace with Spain in 1626. Buckingham and Charles were furious after hearing of this treaty and once again sought revenge. Their motivation, however, was not just 'revenge' but also the more fundamental issue of religion. The French Catholic state had long persecuted its Protestant Huguenot (Calvinist) population, as evidenced by the 1572 St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre that had seen the murder of 5,000 of them. From 1625 The Huguenots had been under attack by the French state, and they had even used a number of English ships.

Consequently, Charles and Buckingham devised another naval expedition in the hope of relieving the Huguenots. Although questions had been raised about Buckingham in the 1626 Parliament, Buckingham remained at the centre of royal policy during the La Rochelle Raids. The plan was to capture Île de Ré, a small island of the west coast of France and use this as a base to attack La Rochelle, where the French Huguenots were centred. It was hoped that this would result in a large-scale Huguenot uprising.

The forces landed successfully and began to siege the citadel of St Martin, where the French forces had withdrawn to. After months of sieging, Buckingham decided to conduct a direct assault. Yet, once again, this ended in failure. The ladders that had been brought were so short that they could only get within 5 feet of the top on the defensive walls. After this the fleet sailed home in the aftermath of another failed expedition and waste of resources.

Once again Buckingham had led another disastrous foreign policy expedition. Between the years 1624 and 1628 around 50,000 men had served Buckingham and of these around one-third had died. In La Rochelle, of the 7833 soldiers who had been sent to La Rochelle, only 2989 returned. Not only was there this severe loss of life, Charles had made some catastrophic political decisions. He was now at war with both Spain and France. He had failed to protect and lead Protestants in Europe. He had ruled the country in an arbitrary manner in order to raise money, and vast amounts of resources had been wasted. Furthermore, he had placed his trust in the clearly inept advice of Buckingham. All of these factors had resulted in a worsening in his relationship with Parliament.

Royal Finances

Ordinary Income
-Monarch's private income: supposed to cover the day-to-day costs of government. E.g. patronage, cost of administration, royal court.
-Income from private land - farming and other forms of income such as rent from land owned by the monarch
-Ship money - the right to raise money from coastal counties to pay for the navy. Only accepted in times of national defence.
-Wardship - monarch took over the land of orphaned gentry and took income from land
-Purveyance - The crown's right to purchase goods below market value.


Extraordinary Income
-Income from Parliament: supposed to provide for the cost of extra-ordinary issues such as war, coronations, royal funerals
-Tonnage and poundage - a customs tax on imports/exports
-Parliamentary Subsidies - a wealth tax
-NB. Parliament would only grant these taxes if they felt it necessary. Parliaments were often willing to refuse taxes to influence policy.

Since Magna Carta in 1215 ALL taxes had to be granted by Parliament

James' Financial Legacy

1. A Parliament willing to restrict supply to the monarch in order to influence the king's actions
2. A considerable debt. James increased debt from £500,000 to £900,000 between 1614-1618.
Significance:
- Charles was always going to have problems raising sufficient finances

Financial Policies and Reactions 1625-27

- This period saw considerable disagreement between Charles and Parliament over financial policy
- Charles emphasised his Divine Right and royal prerogatives and Parliament's innovations.
- Parliament emphasised Charles' arbitrary rule and their right to restrict royal powers.

1. 1625 Parliament - Subsidies + Tonnage and Poundage
Subsidies

- CI requested a one-off tax of £1 million to fund attack on Spain
- Parliament was hesitant of granting such as large amount just one year after granting £300,000. Yet they were keen to demonstrate loyalty to CI. They agreed to granting £140,000 worth of taxes.

Consequence:
- CI was furious. He believed that the sum was inadequate and that Parliament were sending mixed messaged. They wanted war but seemed unwilling to fund it. He demanded more taxes but Parliament refused.
Significance:
- Charles believed that his Divine Right to rule was being challenged because Parliament were disobedient to his demands
- This restricted Charles' royal prerogative to conduct the foreign policy of his choice.
- Charles turned to other sources to fund the war: e.g. Tonnage and Poundage and the Queen's dowry (£120,000)
- Parliament were concerned by the heavy-handed nature of demands (arbitrary rule)

Tonnage and Poundage

-A tax on imports and exports.
- Collected since 1547 to support naval role in patrolling and guarding the coastline
- Historically Parliaments had granted T&P for the whole reign of monarchs.
- Yet, Parliament was concerned the revenue would go directly to Buckingham as Lord High Admiral
- Hence, they granted CI the right to collect t&p for just one year

Consequence:
- CI regarded it as his divine right to collect T&P and continued to collect it both before and beyond the first year
- CI dissolved Parliament in August expressing his anger at their disobedience

Significance
- Parliament was concerned by Charles' demands. Some in Parliament feared he was attempting to establish an absolutism by undermining Parliament's ability to grant taxes.
- Charles was concerned about what appeared to him to be a restriction of his rights.

Problems of Finance in the 1626 Parliament

- Between August 1625 and February 1626 Parliament does not sit. During this time the Cadiz expedition failed
- Charles recalled Parliament to raise more money - now with the intention of war with France and to build up defences in-case of a Spanish invasion.
- Parliament discussed four subsidies worth £350,000.
- Parliament wanted their grievances to be addressed before granting subsidies. Specifically, they wanted Buckingham to undergo impeachment.
o Buckingham was accused of...
▪ A monopoly of power (because he held too many titles)
▪ Corruption (accused of siphoning off public money for private means)
▪ Poor and illegal advice to Charles I (poor advice referring to Cadiz, and illegal referring to T&P)
- They were willing to grant the subsidies on the condition that Buckingham was impeached. Parliament felt they needed to ensure the taxes would be well spent and had traditionally held the right to impeach royal advisers.

Consequence:
- Charles interpreted this as another attempt to restrict his power to appoint ministers. Charles decides to dissolve Parliament in order to protect Buckingham
- Parliament remained concerned about Buckingham
- No taxes were raised so Charles had to turn to other ways of raising money....

1626-1627 - Period Without Parliament
The Forced Loan

- With Parliament not complying (and dissolved) with Charles and a looming financial crisis, Charles had to find other means of raising money to protect the realm
- The Forced Loan was a demand that individuals attend a public meeting whereby they would be asked to pay money to the king.
- The force loan effectively became a tax that was not granted by Parliament
- It was financially successful: raising £243,000 by 1627.
o Charles felt this figure justified that he was on the side of public opinion and that Parliament were not. This is not wholly accurate since there are reasons as to why people felt compelled to pay the tax, rather than being happy and willing to do so.

Yet, it had damaging political consequences:

- People feared the implications of the policy:
o If Charles could collect taxes without Parliament, what powers did Parliament really have? What was the future role of Parliament if they did not have this power?
o Was Charles moving towards absolutism?
- Political opposition to the policy developed in various forms:
o Anonymous pamphlets
o George Abbot refused to endorse a sermon promoting the policy and was suspended as Archbishop of Canterbury
o MPs such as Thomas Scott called on people to refuse
o Charles ordered the imprisonment of 76 gentry who refused to pay.
▪ Nb. Yet, Charles did not charge them with a specific offence and this led to the Five Knights case.

Significance:
- Charles was now directly collecting taxes Parliament had not granted, in breach of the 1215 Magna Carta document. This broke the fundamental liberty that property and wealth was protected by Parliament. For many this was of grave concern.

1626-1627 Period Without Parliament
Five Knights Court Case

- Five of the 76 issued a writ of 'habeas corpus' -> an ancient liberty which prevented any official from imprisoning an individual without making formal charges in a court of law. Essentially it is the notion of 'innocence until proven guilty'.
- Hence the legality of the imprisonment had to go to court.
- In court Charles' prerogative to imprison without trial was granted by the court but there was no mention of the tax's legality itself.

Reactions to Arbitrary Rule 1626-26
Overview

Between 1626-7 many feared that CI was undermining the 'fundamental liberties [freedoms]' of the English people.

What are the 'fundamental liberties' of English people?
- The right to private property and wealth.
- Rule of law (passed by Parliament).
- Freedom from arrest without charges.
- The right of Parliament to:
o Pass taxes
o Freedom of speech
o Freedom from arrest
o Impeach
o To challenge royal authority

Parliamentarians feared that without Parliament sitting, Charles believed he had no constraints on his powers.

It is during this period where the concerns about absolutism combine with Charles' actual policy to intensify the concerns.

Charles I challenged these liberties by...

Royal Interference with the choice of MPs

- Before 1626 Parliament Charles and Buckingham attempted to remove opponents from the House of Commons by appointing leading MPs such as Robert Phellips and Wentworth and Edward Coke as sheriffs. Sheriffs duty was to collect taxes in specific counties and they could not stand as MPs (due to the risk of having them pass taxes in Parliament and then corruptly taking that money as sheriffs).
Significance:
- Charles was seen as removing legitimate critics from the House of Commons to make it more passive. One MP denounced this move when the Parliament sat, stating Charles was attempting to 'make the House of Commons a body without a head'.

In 1627, with Parliament dissolved and war with France, Charles turned to the following methods which further increased the fears above.

Billeting

- As Charles was at war, troops were concentrating in coastal ports. Yet Charles did not have enough money to support them wholly.
- Hence, the king commands subjects to take soldiers in and feed them at their own expense.

Significance:
- This threatened people's right to property and wealth.

Martial Law

- England did not have a permanent army until the Civil War. Therefore the presence of the military was bound to cause concern. In order to ensure social stability in regions where the military occupied, Charles declared martial law.
- The army took control of the legal system in some coastal areas where soldiers had been gathering. Normal legal proceedings ended. For instance:
o Legal proceedings within the law
o Right to appeal legal decisions
- and in its place came trial by court martial by military officials who had arbitrary powers to decide guilt and punishment.

Significance:
- This threatened the rule of law passed by Parliament and reeked of an absolutist attempt to rule without care for Parliament's laws.

Arrests Without Charges
Five Knights Court Case

- Charles imprisoned 76 gentry for failing to pay the Forced Loan, but did not charge them with a specific offense.
➔ Resulted in the Five Knights Case
- Five of the 76 issued a writ of 'habeas corpus' -> an ancient liberty which prevented any official from imprisoning an individual without making formal charges in a court of law. Essentially it is the notion of 'innocence until proven guilty'.
- Hence the legality of the imprisonment had to go to court.
- In court Charles' prerogative to imprison without trial was granted by the court but there was no mention of the tax's legality itself.

Significance:
- This threatened the right of people to freedom from arbitrary arrest without charge.

Extra Parliamentary taxes - e.g. T&P and Ship Money

-Tonnage and Poundage and the Forced Loan.
- The crown levied a one-off tax on coastal counties (outside Parliament).

Significance:
- This threatened the right of Parliament to control the passing of taxes
- It also threatened people's individual rights to liberties

Therefore...

All of these policies made people fear absolutism. They symbolised an increase in the power of the monarch and a supposed threat to the rights of Parliament.

Conflict over the Church
Arminianism

Church Government and Clergy
Episcopal - a system of church government with bishops and priests (hierarchy)
Bishops have a duty to support the monarchy since he is the Supreme Governor and holds the Divine Right. E.g. Robert Sibthorpe's sermon in support of the Forced Loan, 1627.

Church Building
'Church-Wreckers' and Puritans went too far in 'purifying' the churches of Catholicism and beauty.
'Beauty of Holiness': the belief that the decoration of churches was important to illustrate it as the holy house of God
Communion table railed off in the east end of the church

Doctrine
Double predestination is too harsh. God allowed each person to make a free choice so that all could be saved if they wanted to. Not all might choose to be saved.

Religious Practice
Firmly demanded the uniformity of worship. (Enforce the Act of Uniformity)
Ceremonies and rituals are important to show:
1. Individuals commitment to God
2. Reinforce the importance of social order based on rank and privilege since it was decided by God. (Promote Divine Right and the Great Chain of Being)

-Priority on prayer over sermons
-Order, obedience, duty (mirrored Charles' personality).

Significance:
Charles preference for Arminianism was seen by many to resemble a rise in Catholicism. This resulted in fears in the predominantly Puritan Parliament.

Religious Events and Conflicts 1625-28
Charles I Promotes Arminians

Richard Montagu is made royal chaplain in 1625.

He published a book in 1625 called Apello Ceasarem that pointed out the similarities between Catholicism and the Church of England.

Impact in Parliament:
- In In April 1626 Parliament passed a resolution noting 'Montagu is guilty of publishing doctrine contrary... the Church of England'.
- Montagu is arrested and impeachment begins.
- Charles dissolved Parliament in June.

Religious Events and Conflicts 1625-28
York House Conference, February 1626

- The conference was called by Puritans to show Charles the righteousness of Purtianism over Arminianism.
- Charles did not feel he had to attend, so Buckingham chaired the theological debate.
- Buckingham, politically, took the stance of Arminians.
- He refused to ban Apello Ceasarum as Puritans hoped.

Significance:
- Charles put his faith firmly in Arminianism.

Religious Events and Conflicts 1625-28
Arminian bishops preach in support of the Forced Loan, 1627

- Because of the importance of obedience to hierarchy, which was part of Arminian ideology, they were willing to place their faith in the King's Divine Right. This resulted in many Arminian Bishops calling for people to support Charles' extra-Parliamentary taxes.

Impact:
- Puritans disliked the attempt by Arminians, such as Robert Sibthorpe, to promote the Forced Loan and they also disliked the attempt of religious figures to interfere with politics.
- Archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot, refused to endorse sermons from Sibthrope and was suspended by Charles.

Significance:
- Arminianism now seemed to endorse absolutist policies, increasing concerns over the ideas amongst Parliamentarians.

Religious Events and Conflicts 1625-28
Further Promotion of Arminians, 1628

-William Laud promoted to Bishop of London (June)
-Montagu promoted to Bishop of Chichester (July)

Significance:
Charles continued faith in the ideas was clear, causing further concerns.

The Total Breakdown in Relations: 1628-1629
The Crisis of Parliaments 1628-29

(Specification: Parliamentary radicalism; personalities and policies of parliamentary opposition to the King; the Petition of Right; the dissolution of Parliament and the King's commitment to Personal
Rule)

By 1628 Charles had ran out of money once more - largely due to the failure at La Rochelle. Charles remained at war with both France and Spain and there were concerns about an invasion.
In order to seek further finances, Charles recalled Parliament in 1628.

MPs were concerned. One MP famously stated that 'this is the crisis of Parliaments. By this we shall know whether Parliament's live or die'.

Parliament offered Charles taxes as a gesture of goodwill, but wanted Charles to accept their grievances....

The Total Breakdown in Relations: 1628-1629
The Petition of Right, 1628

Parliamentarians, led by Edward Coke, produced a document they wanted Charles to agree to. The terms are as follows:

1. Subjects could only be taxed with Parliamentary consent (re-establishing the principle that Magna Carta established in 1215). (Charles had broken this in relation to his T&P policy and the Forced Loan).

2. Subjects could be imprisoned only if there was just cause demonstrated in court (so as to prevent Charles from arbitrarily imprisoning more of his subjects as he had done in response to the Forced Loan).

3. The imposition of billeting on the civilian population was deemed illegal.

4. The imposition of martial law on the civilian population was illegal.

This document is significant because it shows exactly why Parliament were unhappy in 1628.

Charles did sign the document, but later went back on his pledges....

Analysis and Impact of the Petition of Right, 1628

Analysis of the Petition:
- The Petition was a reaction to the events of 1627 and Charles' perceived arbitrary rule that year. Generally, it was a conservative response. More radical demands would have criticised religion, Buckingham, etc but these were left out. The document focused solely on the legal political issues which should have been easy to agree to had Charles not been so untrustworthy.


Impact of Petition of Right:
Despite being moderate, the document did not resolve tensions.

Parliament remained concerned about...
- Charles continuing to collect T&P without Parliament's consent (breaking the Petition of Right clause).
- Buckingham. Parliament produced a remonstrance against him in 1628.
- The trustworthiness of Charles. He prorogued Parliament in June 1628 when they criticised Buckingham (resulting in further fears of absolutism).
- Parliament became more radical (see Three Resolutions below).

Charles remained concerned about....
- Parliament questioning his authority (RP/DR) - e.g. his power to appoint ministers

Total Breakdown in Relations: 1628-1629
Assassination of Buckingham, 23rd August 1628

(his assassin was a disgruntled military lieutenant who had suffered in La Rochelle)

Significance/impact
- Charles blamed Parliament and their Remonstrance in 1628.
- Public celebrations -> famous poem:
Here lies the best and worst of fate
Two King's delight, the people's hate
- Charles was shocked by the celebrations.
- Buckingham could no longer be the scapegoat for Charles' policies.
- Titles became available - i.e. new figures were promoted through patronage.
- Charles became closer with Henrietta Maria.

Total Breakdown in Relations: 1628-1629
Parliamentary Radicalism in the 1629 Parliament

Parliamentary Radicalism Definition:
The notion that Parliament were attempting to claim powers that were above their traditional powers and rights and, furthermore, challenge the royal prerogative. E.g.
- Parliament restricting supply to influence policy (1626)
- Attempt to impeach Buckingham and Montagu in 1626 (Since Charles had the right to appoint ministers and bishops).
- The events of the 1629 Parliament enhanced the notion that it was Parliamentary radicalism that was to blame....

Charles recalled Parliament from its prorogation in January 1629.

Parliamentarians expressed two particular concerns:
1. T&P -> Charles' continued collection of the extra-Parliamentary tax (breaching the Petition of Right)
2. Religion -> Charles promoted Montagu and Laud (Arminians) to Bishops of London and Chichester

Charles I Attempted to dissolve Parliament in March when MPs did not grant his right to T&P.

Narrative of Events

When the Speaker was reading out this dissolution statement, John Eliot went to the speaker, pinned him down and read out the Three Resolutions (which became known as the Protestation of 1629).

Whilst this was going on, the King's representative - The Black Rod - had the doors of the House of Commons slammed in his face as he tried to enter. This was seen as a rejection of his royal authority and the Black Rod hammered on the door, demanding entrance. Today, the opening ceremony of Parliament involved this ritual in order to commemorate this event.

Total Breakdown in Relations: 1628-29
Attempted Dissolution of Parliament

Parliament symbolically rejected royal authority by refusing to dissolve and agreeing to the Three Resolutions.
In the Three Resolutions, Parliament agreed the following groups were traitors...
1. Anyone introducing religious innovation (Popery or Arminianism).
2. Anyone levying T&P without Parliament's approval.
3. Any merchant who pays T&P [because they betray the liberties of England].

Significance:
- This document was radical because it challenged the king's authority to control religion and implied the king and his advisers were traitors.
- The event was radical because Parliament essentially ignored the King's demand for it to dissolve. Closing the door in the Black Rod's face was seen as a rejection of royal authority.

Impact:
- Charles arrested eight MPs on charges of treason. John Eliot was put in the Tower of London and died there in 1632, refusing to ask for a pardon.
- Charles dissolved Parliament in 1629 and did not recall it until 1640.

Personal Rule 1629-1640

Spec Requirement: An experiment in Absolutism, 1629-1640

Charles I's Personal Rule: his chief ministers; methods of government; financial policies and the reaction against them [politics/finance and impact/opposition]

Religious issues: Laud and Arminianism in England and Scotland; the growth of opposition from Puritans [growth of Arminianism and rise of Puritan opposition]

Political issues: the role of Wentworth; policies in Ireland and England; the reactions against the Crown; demands for the recall of Parliament

Radicalism, dissent and the approach of war: the spread of religious radicalism; the Scottish Covenant and the Bishops' War; the Pacification of Berwick; the second Bishops' war