history
Why did Charles I rule for 11 years without parliament, 1629 – 1640?
Charles had no intention of ruling for a definite, or an indefinite, period without Parliament. Charles declared he had been driven ‘unwillingly out of that course’, and he intended to recall Parliament ‘when such as have bred this interruption shall have received their punishment’. Apart from Parliament, all the normal institutions of government operated. Indeed, Charles lacked the financial, military and administrative capacity to have an effective tyranny. He wanted efficient and effective government. This policy is given the name of ‘thorough’. Charles intended to rule by benevolent prerogative power, but the absence of the contact point of Parliament and the apparent inaccessibility of the Privy Council and Court were threats to many areas of law, finance and religion.
To sustain a personal rule and to anticipate a cooperative Parliament at the end of it, Charles needed to avoid confrontation in the following areas:
Financing his rule without Parliament
Asserting his authority in matters of law, religion, choice of Councillors throughout the monarchy
By 1637, Charles I’s policies were being openly challenged. By 1640, the Personal Rule ended as a result of accumulated tensions in key areas.
How successfully did Charles finance his Rule without Parliament?
Finance was they key issue
Between 1630 and 1634, ministers such as Richard Weston at the Treasury and Francis Cottington at the Exchequer were able to increase the revenue without causing major excessive opposition, they used devices such as:
Impositions (worth about £200,000 a year)
Collecting tonnage and poundage without the consent of Parliament
Improving the efficiency of revenue collection
A loophole in the 1624 Monopolies Act, which had banned the granting of monopolies to individuals, saw them granted to companies instead – the most famous of theses was the so-called ‘Popish Soap Monopoly’ that was bringing
Charles had no intention of ruling for a definite, or an indefinite, period without Parliament. Charles declared he had been driven ‘unwillingly out of that course’, and he intended to recall Parliament ‘when such as have bred this interruption shall have received their punishment’. Apart from Parliament, all the normal institutions of government operated. Indeed, Charles lacked the financial, military and administrative capacity to have an effective tyranny. He wanted efficient and effective government. This policy is given the name of ‘thorough’. Charles intended to rule by benevolent prerogative power, but the absence of the contact point of Parliament and the apparent inaccessibility of the Privy Council and Court were threats to many areas of law, finance and religion.
To sustain a personal rule and to anticipate a cooperative Parliament at the end of it, Charles needed to avoid confrontation in the following areas:
Financing his rule without Parliament
Asserting his authority in matters of law, religion, choice of Councillors throughout the monarchy
By 1637, Charles I’s policies were being openly challenged. By 1640, the Personal Rule ended as a result of accumulated tensions in key areas.
How successfully did Charles finance his Rule without Parliament?
Finance was they key issue
Between 1630 and 1634, ministers such as Richard Weston at the Treasury and Francis Cottington at the Exchequer were able to increase the revenue without causing major excessive opposition, they used devices such as:
Impositions (worth about £200,000 a year)
Collecting tonnage and poundage without the consent of Parliament
Improving the efficiency of revenue collection
A loophole in the 1624 Monopolies Act, which had banned the granting of monopolies to individuals, saw them granted to companies instead – the most famous of theses was the so-called ‘Popish Soap Monopoly’ that was bringing