You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Charles I inherited his father's crown in March 1625, and with it his father's unsolved problems — an insolvent Crown, an assertive Parliament, a Church he wished to reshape, and a favourite, the Duke of Buckingham, now committed to an expensive war. What Charles added was a temperament and a style of kingship that turned soluble tensions into a spiral of mutual distrust. In just four years, between his accession and the dissolution of 1629, the new king managed to alienate three successive Parliaments so completely that he resolved to govern without any Parliament at all. Understanding how that breakdown happened — how each side came to believe the other intended its destruction — is the central task of this lesson, and it is the essential prelude to the Personal Rule that follows.
The story of these four years is one of interlocking failure. Failed and under-funded foreign wars — the Cádiz expedition, the disaster at the Île de Ré — bred financial desperation. Financial desperation drove the Crown to raise money by controversial means: the Forced Loan, the collection of customs duties Parliament had refused to grant for life. Those expedients provoked constitutional resistance, culminating in the great Petition of Right of 1628. And religion ran through it all, as MPs came increasingly to fear that the king favoured "Arminianism" — a theological tendency they associated with a drift back towards Rome. Each grievance fed the others, and the accumulating effect was the collapse of the trust on which any working relationship between Crown and Parliament depended. By the "Three Resolutions" of March 1629, with the Speaker held down in his chair while the Commons voted, that trust had gone.
The organising question is whether the breakdown of 1625–1629 flowed chiefly from Charles's own character and conduct — his rigidity, his secretiveness, his tactless loyalty to Buckingham, his tendency to read opposition as conspiracy — or from the structural inheritance of insolvency, war, and religious anxiety that would have strained any monarch. How one answers bears directly on the largest question of the whole unit: how far the Civil War was made by Charles the man, and how far by forces beyond any individual's control. Keep it in view: the same structural problems had existed under James, who contained them; the variable that changed was the king.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y108 (British period study and enquiry): England 1603–1660 — The Early Stuarts and the Origins of the English Civil War. Within our own teaching sequence it forms the first of two lessons on Charles I before the Civil War: the breakdown of trust with his early Parliaments here, the Personal Rule that followed it next. We have chosen to divide Charles's pre-war reign at 1629 because the contrast between the years of open parliamentary conflict and the eleven years of government without Parliament is the clearest way to organise the material; this is our pedagogical arrangement, not a transcription of the specification's ordering. (Refer to the official OCR specification for exact wording.)
Keep asking, throughout, whether each breakdown was driven by the man or by the situation, and how the two interacted. Those questions are the analytical spine of the lesson.
Charles came to the throne on 27 March 1625 already committed to war with Spain and already bound to the deeply unpopular Buckingham — the two circumstances that would poison his opening years. He had returned from the humiliating Madrid escapade of 1623 not chastened but bellicose, determined on war with Spain to avenge the insult and recover the Palatinate for his sister and brother-in-law. War required money; money required Parliament; and Parliament distrusted both the policy's chief architect, Buckingham, and the young king's judgement. The mismatch was fatal from the outset.
| Circumstance | Significance |
|---|---|
| Commitment to war | Charles was pledged to an expensive anti-Spanish war before his reign began, needing subsidies he could obtain only from a suspicious Parliament |
| Dependence on Buckingham | The favourite who had dominated the last years of James's reign now dominated the new king's; his continued monopoly of patronage and policy inflamed the political nation |
| A Catholic queen | Charles married Henrietta Maria of France in 1625; her Catholicism and her household fed perennial fears that the Crown was soft on popery |
| Charles's temperament | Reserved, formal, and convinced of his own rectitude, Charles lacked his father's flexibility and his willingness to argue his case; he tended to regard criticism of policy as an attack on his honour |
The military record was disastrous and it set the tone. The Cádiz expedition of 1625 — an attempt to seize the Spanish treasure fleet and raid the port — was a fiasco, its ill-supplied troops returning in disgrace. Worse followed. Buckingham's attempt to relieve the French Protestant Huguenots besieged at La Rochelle led to the catastrophic expedition to the Île de Ré in 1627, which failed humiliatingly and, by opening war with France while the Spanish war continued, left England fighting the two greatest Catholic powers of Europe simultaneously and successfully neither. Military failure bred financial desperation, and financial desperation bred constitutional conflict — the causal chain that structures the whole of these four years.
Unable to fund his wars by ordinary means or by parliamentary grant, Charles turned to expedients that raised the gravest constitutional questions of the reign so far. Each was a rational response to an immediate cash crisis; each was read by the political nation as a step towards arbitrary government.
| Crisis point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Tonnage and Poundage (1625) | The Commons granted these customs duties for one year only, rather than for life as was customary for a new monarch — an unprecedented vote of no confidence, which Charles ignored, continuing to collect them anyway |
| Impeachment of Buckingham (1626) | Parliament moved to impeach the favourite for the military failures; Charles dissolved Parliament to save him, then arrested two of its leaders, Sir Dudley Digges and Sir John Eliot |
| The Forced Loan (1626–27) | Unable to obtain subsidies, Charles demanded a "loan" from his subjects with no intention of repayment; those who refused were imprisoned or pressed into military service |
| The Five Knights' Case (1627) | Five gentlemen imprisoned for refusing the loan tested the legality of detention "by special command of the king" without any stated cause — and the court declined to free them, alarming the political nation about arbitrary imprisonment |
The importance of this sequence is that it moved the quarrel from policy (the wisdom of the war, the fitness of Buckingham) onto the fundamental rights of the subject. The one-year grant of Tonnage and Poundage was itself a signal of distrust; Charles's decision to collect the duties regardless turned a snub into a constitutional breach. The Forced Loan was worse: a tax in all but name, levied without consent and enforced by imprisonment. And the Five Knights' Case raised the deepest question of all — whether the king could imprison a subject indefinitely on his mere command, without showing cause. When the judges declined to release the five knights, the political nation concluded that the ordinary legal protections of liberty and property were failing, and that only a fresh parliamentary settlement could restore them. That conviction produced the Petition of Right.
The Petition of Right was the most significant constitutional statement between Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1689 — a formal redress of grievances into which Charles, desperate for supply to continue his wars, was manoeuvred against his will.
| Provision | Significance |
|---|---|
| No taxation without parliamentary consent | Condemned the Forced Loan and benevolences, reasserting that only Parliament could grant taxation |
| No imprisonment without cause shown | Directly answered the Five Knights' Case and the practice of arbitrary detention "by special command" |
| No billeting of soldiers on private citizens | Redressed grievances arising from the failed expeditions, which had quartered troops on unwilling households |
| No martial law in peacetime | Protected civilians from military jurisdiction imposed during the war emergency |
Charles accepted the Petition — but only after first attempting an evasive, non-committal answer, and only under intense pressure from a Parliament that held the supply he needed. The manner of his acceptance mattered as much as the fact of it. He interpreted the Petition as narrowly as he possibly could, and he continued to raise revenue by non-parliamentary means, above all the disputed Tonnage and Poundage. The episode is genuinely double-edged, and a strong analysis holds both edges. It was a landmark assertion of the subject's liberties, a document to which later generations would appeal. But it was also a demonstration that paper guarantees meant little without the political power to enforce them: Charles signed, and then evaded, and there was no mechanism to compel his compliance. The lesson that liberty required power, not merely a statement of right, would not be fully learned until 1689. For the immediate crisis, Charles's narrow reading of a document he had been forced to accept confirmed the political nation's worst suspicion — that his word could not be trusted.
Running beneath the constitutional quarrels, and increasingly fused with them, was religion. Where James had preserved a broad Calvinist consensus, Charles was known to favour a rising theological tendency that alarmed the godly: Arminianism. It is essential to define this carefully, because the political danger lay less in the theology itself than in what it was thought to portend.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Arminian theology | An emphasis on free will, sacramental grace, and the priestly role of the clergy, in contrast to the predestinarian Calvinism that had been the working consensus of the Jacobean Church |
| Ceremonial tendency | An inclination towards more elaborate, "beautified" worship — vestments, altars, ceremony — that struck committed Calvinists as a return to Catholic forms |
| Royal patronage | Charles's visible favour to Arminian clergy, above all his promotion of William Laud, signalled that the Crown was tilting the religious balance |
| The political fear | To committed Protestants, Arminianism looked like crypto-Catholicism, and its promotion by a king with a Catholic queen fed the deepest fear in English politics: that the Crown was leading the Church back to Rome |
The importance of the religious dimension is that it converted a constitutional quarrel into something far more emotive and mobilising. Anti-popery was the most powerful force in English political culture, and once MPs came to believe that Charles favoured a Church tending towards Rome, they could read his constitutional expedients — the Forced Loan, the arbitrary imprisonments — as parts of a single design against both Protestantism and liberty. Religion and constitution thus reinforced each other: the fear that the king threatened true religion lent urgency and menace to the fear that he threatened the subject's rights. This fusion, still forming in the 1620s, would become fully destructive under the Personal Rule, when Laudianism turned anti-popery directly against the Crown's own Church.
The final breakdown came in the parliamentary session of 1628–29, when the accumulated grievances over religion and finance produced a confrontation so dramatic that it convinced Charles to abandon parliaments altogether.
| Factor | Detail |
|---|---|
| Tonnage and Poundage | The continuing refusal to grant it for life, and the disputes over Charles's collection of it regardless, remained a constitutional flashpoint that the Petition of Right had not resolved |
| Religion | MPs attacked the rise of Arminianism, accused Charles of favouring it, and complained of softness towards Catholics — with the Catholic queen, Henrietta Maria, a constant symbol of the danger |
| The Three Resolutions (2 March 1629) | When Charles ordered an adjournment, members held the Speaker, Sir John Finch, down in his chair while the Commons passed resolutions declaring anyone who promoted Arminianism, or who paid Tonnage and Poundage without parliamentary consent, "a capital enemy to this Kingdom" |
| Charles's response | He dissolved Parliament, imprisoned the ringleaders (including Sir John Eliot, who died in the Tower in 1632, becoming a parliamentary martyr), and resolved to govern without Parliament — beginning the Personal Rule |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.