Charles I

Question 1

Finance caused issues between Charles and Parliament 1625 to 1629

Answer 1

• An issue from the beginning, Parliament did not grant tonnage and poundage for life as they had done for every ruler since 1485
• War with Spain which began in 1625 spanned the period and along with war with France in 1627 caused financial issues
• Charles turned this into conflict with Parliament with forced loans, £240,000 was collected and 76 including John Hampden and John Eliot
• This was then a key grievence in the Parliaments in 1628 and 1629 and key evidence which was used for accusations of tyranny

Question 2

Finance did not cause issues between Charles and Parliament 1625 to 1629

Answer 2

• Evidence of concession throughout the period
• The Third Parliament of 1628 gave Charles 5 subsidies to fund the La Rochelle expeditions
• The First Parliament of 1625 granted £140,000 for his unsuccessful Cadiz Expedition
• This can also better be described as a conflict over constitutional issues, in this case Habeus Corpus for those who were imprisoned

Question 3

Foreign policy was a cause of conflict between Charles and Parliament, 1625 to 1629

Answer 3

Responsible for starting of war

• Charles did nothing to stop the ignition of war with Spain in 1625
• Equally war with France broke out in 1527

Unsuccessful expeditions accused by Parliament

• he Cadiz Expedition 1626 lead to 7,000 men lost and The La Rochelle Expedition in 1628 leading to 5,000 of 8,000 men who were brought perishing
• Ultimately since 1624 1/3 of the 50,000 men enlisted had perished on expeditions like this

Question 4

Foreign policy was not a cause of conflict between Charles and Parliament, 1625 to 1629

Answer 4

• Parliament was actually pro war with Spain, Charles was just satisfying a want which had been building up under James, he was seen as championing Anglicanism
• The fact that they agreed to fund both expeditions, especially La Rochelle after the failure of Cadiz with 5 subsidies
• Anger of their failure was more aimed at the Duke of Buckingham Charles’ foreign policy

Question 5

Constitutional powers caused conflict between Charles and Parliament

Answer 5

• Underlying issues with Parliament is a struggle over constitutional powers
• The Tonnage and Poundage conflict can better be explained as a battle of constitutional rights
• The Five Knights Case 1627 arguing for the basic constitutional right of Habeas Corpus in the case of the 76 imprisoned for refusing to pay forced loans is another example
• The Petition of Rights in 1628 finding that the King could not trample on the rights of his people is a landmark case in constitutional history
• This was a period was highly political, men like Pym and Holles, pushing the boudaries of Parliamentary Privilege with a king with a disregard for it lead to conflict

Question 6

Reasons for Charles’ issues with Parliament 1625/29 argument summary

Answer 6

• Financially and in foreign there was both conflict but also much cooperation
• Constitutional powers is the main cause, underlying all arguments and especially surfacing in this time of clashing ideas

Question 7

Religion as a successes of Personal Rule

Answer 7

Short term success

• Charles achieved his aim of imposing Arminianism on the Church of England
• Laudian reforms such as railing off the Altar and making priests wear surplices increased religious conformity whilst the banning of Feoffees of impropriations attacked puritan attempts to loosen the church structure.
• These reforms increased his control over religion and the church

Question 8

Religion was not a successes of Personal Rule

Answer 8

Long term failure

• Built up religious tensions, demonstrated in the case of Prynne, Bastwick and Burton 1637
• Imposition of the New Scottish Prayer book 1637 triggers the Covenanter Rebellion which significantly contributes to the breakdown in Personal Rule

Question 9

Finance was a success of personal rule

Answer 9

Can certainly be seen as a success in a utilitarian perspective

• National debt was decreased from £2 million to £1 million.
• Achieved this through Distraint of Knighthood, fines against those not present at Charles’s coronation made £170,000 by the end of the 1630s
• Ship money making £190,000 between 1635-37

Question 10

Finance was not a success of personal rule

Answer 10

His financial policies his evidence of tyranny

• Oliver Cromwell for example was one who fell foul of the Distraint of Knighthood tax demonstrating the closeness of these policies and the to be regicides
• Continuation of collection of tonnage and poundage despite not being granted it by Parliament for life was further evidence of Charles believing he was above the law
• The Ship Money 1637 case were John Hamden challenges the legality of the tax is further evidence of the great dissatisfaction

Question 11

Thorough policy was a success of personal rule

Answer 11

Charles increased conformity throughout his kingdoms using thorough in Ireland and the North

• Wentworth imposed the Anglican Church in Ireland with the 39 articles of 1634 along with taxes which made Ireland self sufficient
• Meanwhile in the north Charles imposed the Book of Orders 1631 which demanded loyalty from the gentry
• The prerogative courts, the Court of the High Commission and of the Star Chamber, could be used across his kingdoms, tightening Charles’ grip on his kingdoms.

Question 12

Thorough policy was not a success of personal rule

Answer 12

All these policies caused unrest

• Taxation, peace and conformity were only short term benefits
• Wentworth’s policies in Ireland, bullying the Irish nobility and amounting a private fortune through corruption turned the Irish against Caroline Rule, as evidenced by the Irish Rebellion of 1641.

Question 13

Success of personal rule overall argument

Answer 13

• All the policies of personal rule yielded a short term success
• However in all areas this was unsustainable
• Personal rule was ultimately the reason the radicals in Parliament gained the power that was necessary to attack Charles, one of the key causes of the First Civil War
• Thus personal rule by no means can be seen as a success

Question 14

Charles was responsible for the outbreak of the Civil War

Answer 14

Long term
- Ship money was the highly objected against problem as demonstrated by the Ship Money Trial of 1637 where John Hampden backed by Saye and Sele only being found for the king by 7 to 5 judges in a prerogative court who historically only ever found strongly with the king

Short term
- 5 members January 1642, Charles with 400 armed men entered the House of Commons and failed to arrest Pym, Holles, Hampden, Haselrig and Strode
Lead to a diplomatic disaster, leaving London never to return
- This alienated his support in Parliament, before the 5 members he had a slight minority of 148/159 as demonstrated by the Grand Remonstrance in November 1641 being only slimly passed, this is not enough to start a wa

Question 15

Charles was not responsible for the outbreak of war

Answer 15

• Counter with Parliament’s aggressive policies to limit Royal prerogative, this however does not stand up, Charles’ alienation of his Parliamentary support with the 5 members is to blame

Question 16

Parliament was responsible for the outbreak of war

Answer 16

• Out to punish Charles and strip away his ability to have a personal rule ever again
• Distinction must be made between the acts to strip the powers of Personal rule and acts which were war mongering
• The Militia Ordinances of March 1642 followed by the 19 propositions of June 1642 stripped Royal Prerogative to the extent that it was war mongering

Question 17

Parliament was not responsible for the outbreak of war

Answer 17

• It was Charles’ responsibility to manage Parliament which he failed
• The alienation of his support in the Parliament lead the Parliament to fall under the control of men like Pym

Question 18

The Three Kingdoms were responsible for the outbreak of the Civil War

Answer 18

• They established pressure on the Charles administration
• The Bishop’s Wars 1639-40 lead to the breakdown of Personal Rule which ultimately gave Parliament the power to challenge Charles. The financial burden being £300,000 for them to leave
• The Irish Rebellion killed 3,009-5,000 protestants dead yet it was widely believed that some 200,000 were killed. Without Parliaments backing Charles couldn’t deal with this, without dealing with it Charles looked weak

Question 19

The Three Kingdoms were not responsible for the outbreak of the Civil War

Answer 19

• The outbreak of the Civil War was the result of the breakdown in relations between Charles and Parliament, the three kingdoms were secondary considerations

Question 20

Overall judgement for the causes of the Civil War

Answer 20

• Charles was the most significant supplying both the long term grievances and the trigger causes for the war
• Both the three kingdoms and the Parliament must be seen as Caroline mismanagement

Question 21

Resources and utility was the reason for Parliamentary victory in the Civil War

Answer 21

• Once the war had got going there was a stark imbalance of resources
• The Parliamentarians held London with its 400,000 population and financial districts, the arsenals in London and in Hull, the Navy and the majority of England’s large cities
• This provided a great fighting force, finances and weapons
• The Royalists on the other hand held only York as its largest city with 10,000 population, none of the main arsenals
• The utility of these resources was also greater
• High taxes, some 15-20%, selling off confiscated Royalist properties raised finances and taking loans from the city of London allowed Parliamentarian armies to be better paid, reducing mutinies and making it easier to recruit men, ultimately contributing to a greater fighting force

Question 22

Resources and utility was not the reason for Parliamentary victory in the Civil War

Answer 22

• London must be seen as the greatest asset as with it comes a the great population and the finances from the city a monumental imbalance to the Royalist resources
• The reason that the city fell to Parliament in itself was a Royalist Blunder after Edge Hill in October 1642

Question 23

The NMA was the reason for Parliamentary victory in the Civil War

Answer 23

• The NMA, founded months before the pivotal Battle of Naseby June 1645 was certainly a key factor of what triggered the Parliamentary victory
• At Naseby 1,000 Royalists were killed 4,500 captured with the loss of only 200 men of the NMA
• After Naseby the NMA was concerned in mopping up jobs, the Civil War was won at Naseby and Naseby was won by the NMA

Question 24

The NMA was not the reason for Parliamentary victory in the Civil War

Answer 24

• The NMA dictated when the war was one however the winning of the war is the result of an imbalance of resources, this was due to Royalist blunders

Question 25

Royalist blunders was the reason for Parliamentary victory in the Civil War

Answer 25

• The most pivotal moment of the war is the aftermath of the Battle of Edgehill in October 1642 when Essex retreats with the Parliamentarian armies to Warwick leaving the road to London open to Charles and the Royalist forces
• At this most pivotal moment Charles makes the blunder of reclaiming Oxford and Reading, allowing Essex to return to London and raise an army of 27,000 from the armed bands.
• After the war all fighting was a result of this imbalance

Question 26

Royalist blunders was not the reason for Parliamentary victory in the Civil War

Answer 26

• The war was by no means set in stone
• Without the genius of Parliamentary commanders such as Cromwell with his use of the Cavalry at Marston Moor July 1644 and Naseby June 1645, the organisation of the NMA and the use of all the resources parliament controlled the war would not have been won by Parliament
• However all these factors must be seen as secondary considerations, Parliament effectively making use of this great imbalance given to them by the blunders of the Royalists and most importantly Charles.

Question 27

Overall argument for the reasons for a Parliamentary victory

Answer 27

• The pivotal moment was the Royalist blunder in October 1642
• After that the war was the story of an imbalance
• The NMA dictated when the war was won, not who won it