Charles’ Policies throughout Personal Rule
Key: Essay Plan
Summary
‘The most important reason for Charles deciding to rule without Parliament were the events
of the 1629 session.’ How far do you agree?
Whilst the events of the 1629 session in parliament were important to Charles’ choice to
embark on a personal rule, it should be considered that these events were more so
cataclysmic and were simply a culmination of long term disparities between parliament and
Charles and it could be argued that Charles may have chosen to embark on a personal rule
without the events of 1629 parliament. The influence of Charles’ desire for financial
independence and the influence of Buckingham and his death should be considered, but
most importantly the influence that the ideological differences between Charles and
parliament had on all of these factors.
Para 1 -> 1629 session
The immediate event that culminated in Charles’ dissolution of parliament for the last time
over the next 11 years is the three resolutions; Charles was unhappy that these were passed
without his consent as Holles, Elliot and Digges held down the speaker and proclaimed
anybody collected or paid customs duties was an enemy of the state, and those accustomed
to popish inventions were too. This was an obvious attack on Charles’ financial and religious
policies ->had been prohibited and warned from collecting customs all the way back to 1625
parl. and in the petition of rights; attack on prerogative which was of the utmost importance
to Charles.
In addition, the parliament (1629) had continued to attack Charles for collecting customs
prior to the three resolutions. During the 1629 parl. Charles had also promoted a number of
arminians to high positions within the church due to a number of deaths amongst the
bishopry.
But, it should be evaluated that these were simply a culmination of grievances parliament
had held against Charles for a number of years -> petition of rights in 1628, attack of
Arminians in 1628 (Mainwaring), 1626 = York House Conference, parliamentary attack on
Montagu, discontent over Laud’s sermon to open parliament and therefore the explosive
outburst of the three resolutions should be evaluated as a catalyst towards Charles’ choice
to embark on personal rule, rather than a decisive factor. Parliament had consistently
attacked Charles based on the issues discussed in the 1629 parliament, whilst the three
resolutions were obviously important to Charles’ choice to embark on a personal rule it
should be a considered that this was viewed as a futile attempt to limit Charles’ prerogative
which he would not stand for; in addition to this it very obviously highlighted the ideological
difference between Charles and his parliament; it is obvious that Charles’ ideological
differences with parliament were more deep rooted and, rather than explicitly cause Charles
to embark on a personal rule, the events of the 1629 parliament simply solidified Charles’
recognition of irreconcilable ideological differences with parliament.
Para 2 -> Buckingham
One of the major factors in Charles and Parliament’s fraught relationship was Buckingham -
> dominated the privy council, e.g Arundel felt as though he was ignored over issues with
the Spanish in favour of Buckingham. It was also thought that Buckingham was an inept
Royal Admiral, (and this was exemplified by the failure in Cadiz that resulted in the loss of
, 5000 soldiers as well as embarrassment, this was then repeated at La Rochelle) leading to
Charles’ foreign policy becoming a point of criticism for parliament. Charles’ believed that
parliament’s attacks on Buckingham were directed at him -> e.g Arundel was imprisoned for
opposition to Buckingham, but this was filed as a charge against the King, additionally Elliot
and Digges were imprisoned and parliament refused to conduct business as usual over
issues with Buckingham. This would eventually end in the parliament being dissolved upon
the attempted impeachment of Buckingham in 1626, leading to Charles pursuing a period of
personal rule between 1626 and 1628. The issue of Buckingham very obviously highlights
Charles’ irreconcilable difference with parliament, as he was unwilling to compromise on any
issue in regards to his friend, allowing him to monopolise the privy council and foreign policy
- despite being an inept admiral - therefore alienating other members of parliament.
Buckingham’s death further highlighted this divide exemplified by the rejoice of the people
and parliament upon Buckingham’s death; in addition to this it pushed Charles towards
Henrietta Maria rather than towards his parliament - his French wife was more encouraging
of rule without parliament due to her French background. The replacements in the privy
council of Catholic influence, such as Cottington, also pushed Charles further towards
pursuing a personal rule.
However, Buckingham himself cannot take full responsibility for Charles’ decision to pursue
personal rule, as, in the 1629 parliament trivial matters of customs duties continued to be
debated. It should more so be considered that Charles’ relationship with Buckingham
demonstrated his belief in the divine right -> Charles’ belief that any attack on Buckingham
was an attack on himself is exemplary of his belief in royal prerogative, highlighted in 1626
when Charles proclaimed that parl was for his ‘calling, sitting and dissolution,’ - that his
decisions should not be disputed. There was commonality in the belief between James and
Charles, too, that foreign policy was totally under the prerogative of the King - which is
exemplified by Charles’ choice to keep Buckingham in the position of Royal Admiral despite
his numerous failures, first in Cadiz and then La Rochelle. The widening of the divide
between Charles and Buckingham’s death should also be considered to exemplify the
widening ideological divide between Charles and parliament, as well as parliament’s lack of
support for the King and his ideology. Therefore, although Buckingham was instrumental in
Charles’ choice to pursue a personal rule - it cannot be concluded that this was the sole
reason for Charles’ pursuit of a personal rule and it should be considered that Charles’
ideology was more responsible, as exemplified in his continued investment in his friend.
Para 3 -> Desire for financial independence
Another major factor in Charles’ decision to pursue a personal rule could be considered to
be his desire for financial independence -> financial quarrels had been an issue across all
three of Charles’ parliaments.
Customs for one year - he thought this was unfair, all other rules received for life since 1485.
Charles continued to collect customs duty anyway -> culminated in the petition of rights but
Charles still continued to collect customs duties which would eventually result in the passing
of three resolutions - this perhaps suggest that financial issues were the most important
reason for Charles pursuing personal rule since he dissolved the parl immediately after this.
In addition to this, the success of the levying of forced loan during 1626, raising £240,000,
perhaps demonstrated to Charles how little he needed parliament to fund his lifestyle.
HOWEVER, it should also be considered that Charles considered finances and the
supplement of finances from parliament as part of his prerogative -> didn’t feel the need to
justify his need for money (e.g 60k asked to reclaim palatinate in first parliament, continuing
