From 1625 to 1629, poor relations between Charles I (Parliament) are very evident. Charles disbanded three sessions of Parliament within a four-year period (1625-1629), and was then ruled by prerogative (without the help of Parliament) for 11 years. Charles’s beliefs about Divine right, religious differences as well his deep attachment and loyalty to Buckingham were all factors in poor relations. Their obstructionism and need to make changes is another reason.
Poor relationships were due to Charles’s inordinate view of Divine Right. He refused to give up on this issue. Charles repeatedly repeated the belief, despite it being not the only cause of poor relations. It was also a precursor to other harmful disagreements such parliament’s conduct. Charles believed that all of parliaments were ‘privileges’ and therefore subject to sovereign approval. James VI in Trew Laws of Free Monarchies (1598) also shared this belief. Charles was the one to put this belief in motion. However, Charles didn’t see it as extremely threatening to Parliament like his father. Although Parliament is a body that advises the King, Charles saw those who disagreed as disloyal. He often refused to argue. This was again a problem for MP’s. This absolutist and threatening behavior by Charles is the main reason Parliament behaved in this way in other Parliament sessions. Charles was denied one year of Tonnage or Poundage from Parliament. A King is entitled to it for their whole reign. Charles’s claim to divine right is evident in the 1628 clash with Parliament, which led to Charles refusing to pay Parliament tax and instead collecting it every year. Poor relations were caused by Charles’s high view of Divine Right. This led to tension and distasteful feelings for each other from the beginning. The stifling stance of Parliament was due to Charles’s elevated view on Divine Right. Because of this, Charles was unable to get the money he needed from parliament. They were threatened by the King and tried to show that their support was needed. The 1625 Parliament gave Charles subsides for PS140000 pounds, an insult. This is far below the 1 million Charles required to wage war in Spain. As they had worked hard to get war, but didn’t pay when it was due, this was extremely backhanded from Parliament. This would have inevitably caused a rift between Charles’s MP’s and theirs. Charles’s third Parliament in March 1628 also showed this kind of backhandedness. They agreed to give Charles his five preferred subsidies but only if Charles consented to the Petition. Charles was prohibited from receiving forced loans. Charles earned a lot of money by this act. He had already made PS240000 in more than expected. Although the behaviour of Parliament in providing money was unavoidable, it was an indication of Charles’s elevated view on Divine Right.
Charles’s relationship with Buckingham was a significant factor in his poor relations and disillusionment with parliament. Charles had appointed Buckingham as the commander of the 1626 Cadiz Expedition and the 1627 Ile de Re naval expedition. Both were disastrous. This had tremendously embarrased the kingdom. Sir Edwyn Sandys claimed that England received “not so dishonourable an blow” because it was fighting wars with France, Spain, and France. Buckingham, they felt, was the ‘grievance to all grievances’ and tried to impeach them. This is important in the poor relationships between Charles and Parliament. Charles loved Buckingham, so Charles dissolution Parliament. This shows parliaments insincere behavior. Parliament did not provide enough funding, so the troops had no training and were poorly equipped. Many died from starvation. Buckingham cannot be held responsible for the failure to provide more funding. Charles recognized this, which made it harder for him to reach an agreement with parliament. It’s possible that Charles would have had better relations if he wasn’t so heavily influenced as Buckingham. This is an important observation. The main reason for the change was, perhaps, that if Buckingham had not been blamable for the lack of funding, relations would have been much better.
Although Divine Right is the main reason for poor relationships, it would not be surprising if religion played a role. This was a time when belief issues were very contentious. Charles supported the Arminian group which is closely linked to Catholicism. Parliament, however, preferred Puritan beliefs. This created tension, especially when leading Armenians became bishops. William Laud was a member of the Arminian group and was elected Bishop of London in 1628. The belief of Armenians that ceremonies, statues, and bowing to Jesus were vital for services led parliament to believe there was a plot to retake the Roman Catholic Church. MPs believed that Recusuncy fines had been relaxed, which is a penalty for Catholics. The rise of Armenians and the belief that Recusancy fines were being relaxed both annoy and threatened puritan parliamentarians. As Parliament announced the Three Resolutions, which criticised the “innovations” and “change of religion,” it pushed Charles and Parliament further apart.
Although these were the major factors that led to the end of relations, there was also other small factors that could have an impact on relations. But when they were combined, they caused anger and ultimately bad relations between Parliament and the King. The acts of The Three Resolutions and Petition of Right were used by Parliament to display their arrogance (making kings agree to give them money). But, these acts did a great deal of damage to the relations because they went against King in their respective ways. They were laws that stipulated that if the King requests tonnage, poundage or other items, you will be a traitor of the nations. For example, “if my merchant shall give subsides of Tonnage …. This is against the will of the King, and can cause friction. The Reform of the Militia was also influential. In 1629, the King’s Council stated there would be reform. This was against parliamentary statuary (which forbids the setting-up of local militias since 1604). The council passed the decision, which is against tension-producing parliamentary statue. This indicates that other smaller issues were important for poor relations.
Charles’s high opinion of Dive Right was without doubt the greatest reason for the poor relations between Parliament and him between 1625-1629. It threatened Parliament’s power, which led to them acting aggressively (e.g. giving away money). This led to Buckingham being embarrassed. Charles was close to Buckingham, and Charles would fight for him. Religion was the least significant reason for poor relationships. Although the real religious battle took places later in Charles’s reign, it was a contrasting religious belief that caused the rift.
