short parliament april-may 1640
the distrust of charles was evident from the beginning. whilst laud and his other advisers. parliament said that because laud and charles's other advisers were involved parliament would not vote him the 12 subsidies requested. even though he did link the situation to the abandonment of ship money.
the commons; led by pym stated that the settling of grievances should be made before any subsidies were voted. at this point, laud characteristically inflamed a new set of canons with clear support for the divine right.
the king dissolved parliament rather than haggle with them as he regarded it as beneath his dignity. it was a serious mistake as attitudes hardened for charles after the dissolution. atleast in the short parliament, a significant number supported charles.
long parliament november 1640
charles had to call parliament as he had lost the bishops war. parliament were dterrmined to stop charles slidng to catholic side (arminianism) they believed that this was because of laud.
wanted to punish charles's main advisers = windibank, finch, and especially Laud and Strafford. "anti-court consensus" 'evil advisers'
eliminate the financial innovations of personal rule, such as forest fines and ship money.
straffor in ireland 1633: as lord deputy. hated in ireland and feared in england.