Charles I and Parliament
- Created by: gds99
- Created on: 30-05-17 16:01
View mindmap
- Charles I and Parliament 1625-29
- Religion
- Catholic Queen Henrietta Maria = establishing her own court of Catholic advisers
- C had openly supported Arminianism = promoting Arminian clergy in the Church and offering them positions at court e.g. Richard Montagu
- Arminainism was a form of Protestantism = it alienated the majority of the political class - those who had economic, social and political influence.
- Montagu offered place at court
- C allowed Duke of Buckingham to state his favour for Armenianismat the York House Conference
- C made the Arminian William Laud the Bishop of London 1628
- Foreign Policy
- Charles' foreign policy was a failure (left from James) - 1625 he called P to fund an attack on the Spanish but the raid in Cadiz was a disaster
- C sought to help Protestant French Huguenots but his forces were defeated again at La Rochelle 1627
- Both of these defeats = national humiliation
- Charles' foreign policy was a failure (left from James) - 1625 he called P to fund an attack on the Spanish but the raid in Cadiz was a disaster
- C sought to help Protestant French Huguenots but his forces were defeated again at La Rochelle 1627
- Both of these defeats = national humiliation
- Both of these defeats = national humiliation
- C sought to help Protestant French Huguenots but his forces were defeated again at La Rochelle 1627
- Charles' foreign policy was a failure (left from James) - 1625 he called P to fund an attack on the Spanish but the raid in Cadiz was a disaster
- Both of these defeats = national humiliation
- C sought to help Protestant French Huguenots but his forces were defeated again at La Rochelle 1627
- P directed their anger towards Buckingham who had overseen the foreign policy - (C refused to have B impeached by P) = WAR WITH SPAIN (due to B)
- Charles' foreign policy was a failure (left from James) - 1625 he called P to fund an attack on the Spanish but the raid in Cadiz was a disaster
- Problems with Government/ Parliament
- Buckingham
- 1626 C called P again - issue of subsides was set aside and instead P launched an attack on Buckingham
- Commons, Lords and Court Rivals whom Buckingham had driven from office all launched an impeachment against B. C dissolved P in order to stop the process of impeachment = and did not have any grant of taxation.
- C responded by demanding a forced loan from all taxpayers = any who refused were punished by being imprisioned or conscripted into military service
- This angered P - many saw this as a challenge to the law and existence of P
- 5 Knights Case: 5 knights refused to pay and were imprisioned and refused bail - they were refused the opportunity to go to court as C had claimed a right to an emergency power of arrest.
- Some considered this as a clear indication of Charles' absolutist intentions - the King was taxing without consent and imprisioning as he wished!
- 5 Knights Case: 5 knights refused to pay and were imprisioned and refused bail - they were refused the opportunity to go to court as C had claimed a right to an emergency power of arrest.
- This angered P - many saw this as a challenge to the law and existence of P
- C responded by demanding a forced loan from all taxpayers = any who refused were punished by being imprisioned or conscripted into military service
- Buckingham
- Finance
- In order to finance foreign policy C needed to raise additional income through taxation = this needed P approval
- C inherited an £1m debt, empty treasury, dwindling credit
- C gained a loan from City of London merchants £60,000 - still not enough = needed P
- Disagreements began when P refused to grant C the right to collect an excise tax, tonnage and poundage = instead MPs suggested a grant should be made every year = this way C would be required to call P more often
- 1625 - P agreed to 2 subsides of £140,000 = this was short of the £1m C needed so C asked Commons for more = P refused so in 1626 C dissolved P
- Confrontation and dissolution 1628-29
- 5 Knights Case = major confrontation1628 - C summoned P for more funds - C was at war with both France and Spain so had no choice but to summon P to ask for more subsides
- As a result of the 5 Knights Case = PETITION OF RIGHT 1628
- The Petition of Right 1628 (as a result of calling P for the 3rd time)
- P stated that they would not grant C any subsides unless the following were met:
- There should be no taxation without the permission of P
- There should be no imprisonment without cause shown
- There should be no martial law to punish ordinary offences by sailors or soldiers
- There should be no billeting of soldiers or sailors upon householders against their will
- Desperate for P help and funds - C accepts the petition June 1628 - but his written reply was different to that of P's.
- P stated that they would not grant C any subsides unless the following were met:
- The Petition of Right 1628 (as a result of calling P for the 3rd time)
- As a result of the 5 Knights Case = PETITION OF RIGHT 1628
- 5 Knights Case = major confrontation1628 - C summoned P for more funds - C was at war with both France and Spain so had no choice but to summon P to ask for more subsides
- The Petition of Right 1628 (as a result of calling P for the 3rd time)
- P stated that they would not grant C any subsides unless the following were met:
- There should be no taxation without the permission of P
- There should be no imprisonment without cause shown
- There should be no martial law to punish ordinary offences by sailors or soldiers
- There should be no billeting of soldiers or sailors upon householders against their will
- Desperate for P help and funds - C accepts the petition June 1628 - but his written reply was different to that of P's.
- P stated that they would not grant C any subsides unless the following were met:
- Religion
Comments
No comments have yet been made