Was Charles I or Parliament more responsible for the breakdown in
relations 1625-29?
Introduction:
The breakdown in relations was due mainly to the actions of Charles, with his
insistence on the divine right of kings, financial mismanagement, control over
religion, and unwavering support of Buckingham alienated key segments of the
population.
However, Parliament do also share some of the responsibility, as they refused to
grant him tonnage and poundage for more than one year, constantly tried to gain
more power whilst limiting the authority of the King, as well as ignoring the King’s
right to a royal prerogative.
Nevertheless, with Charles ultimately dissolving Parliament in 1929, it highlights his
significant role in the breakdown of relations in contrast to parliament, who were
trying to reach agreements with Charles that he shut down harshly.
Tonnage and Pondage Parliament:
The most important reason for the breakdown in relations between 1925-29 was the
issues over finance and particularly the issue over tonnage and poundage, with
Parliament potentially being to blame for trying to use finances to control Charles.
Parliament refused to grant him tonnage and poundage for life, which had been a
tradition for over 100 years, and due to the Crowns heavy debts and war costs we
can infer that this was done by parliament to try and increase the monarch’s
dependency on them and force him to call them next year.
This decision by Parliament to refuse Charles tonnage and Poundage was significantly
because of the disastrous Mansfeld campaign during 1620-22, when Charles wasn’t
king and held little responsibility for.
Therefore, the significance of Charles’ reaction to this, which led to the rapid
breakdown in relations, can be slightly diminished, with him requiring the forced
loan, which he was allowed to do with his Royal Prerogative, as he did not have the
money he needed for his expenses.
Tonnage and Pondage Charles:
However, even though he was technically within his right, Charles reacted poorly to
this decision, and therefore his following actions hold much more significance in the
breakdown of relations.
As with historian Christopher Hill who stated that “Charles’s unyielding pursuit of
lifelong tonnage and poundage was a reckless affront to parliamentary authority”. In
1626, Charles issued a forced loan without the backing of Parliament and threatened
to imprison anyone who did not pay. Many in Parliament, such as Lord Chief Justice
Carew, who was dismissed after refusing to endorse the legality of the loan, were
angry that Charles had done this without their permission.
Furthermore, in 1627 Charles arrested Five Knights who refused to pay and
imprisoned them without trial. They sued for release under habeas corpus, but were
refused the opportunity to go to court, because the king claimed a right to an
emergency.
