Parliament’s resentment of the king’s tyrannical actions combined with its resistance to control the king refused to grant Charles financial support for the war with Ireland in 1640. Charles retaliated and made inevitable a civil war when he dissolved Parliament once more and arrested five of its members (Taylor vii). The resulting tension between Charles and Parliament eventually erupted in a Civil War in 1642 and lasted until 1651. Many scholars have been associating the phenomenon of the English Civil War to a variety of causes and motives. Among Parliament’s support... ... middle of paper ... ....
The rump appeared to be more interested in issuing restrictive legislature - such as the aforementioned adultery and blasphemy acts -- rather than creating law and social reform. It also failed to pay the army, perhaps the biggest strain on the nation since the outbreak of the civil wars. The rump did have certain achievements which have been highlighted in this essay. The reason they have been labelled a failure is due only to the fact that did not achieve enough. Cromwell had left them there to create reform, and the political utopia he felt was necessary for England.
By only giving patronage to Buckingham's clients the court was weakening the links and support from the powerful political nation. This would come into play when Charles wanted favors from Parliament. This break down in the flow of patronage allowed discontent to grow, that could have easily been defused. Also as the court became isolated and full of 'yes men', subjects denied a voice court took to Parliament or the Lords as platforms to offer alternative ideas. As the court often failed to explain itself to Parliament resentment grew alongside hostility to the crown.
Parliament tried to punish him in 1626 for bungling a naval expedition against Spain but instead of punishing him, they got punished and two MP's were sent to prison by Charles because of this! There was also another reason for Charles getting off on a bad start but this time it was partly parliaments fault too. When a King or Queen comes to the throne, parliament usually votes to give the king or queen custom duties for life. Parliament only granted Charles custom duties for one year to force him to visit regularly but their plan didn't work. Instead of going to parliament and asking for more money, Charles continued collecting income tax without parliaments permission.
Due to his firm belief in the “divine right of kings,” Charles ordered to persecute them. As a result, the English were mainly angered by the persecution, not by the reform of the Church, and so the disputation of religion was out of this. Moreover, many were frustrated by the poor method of raising money. When the king asked rich men to buy the title, they refused. Consequently, they were fined the same sum of money it would have cost for the title anyway.
Although the French revolution did further the divide between some members, many of the ideological differences existed prior to the outbreak and were simply exposed showing the party to be split and erratic. A split and erratic party would never be elected into office. The ‘Friends of the people’, established by Lord Gray also added to the lack of party unity. Fox’s own leadership of the Whig party must also be criticised for the lack of political succ... ... middle of paper ... ... astute, did not just admit these men to the back bench seats but offered them prestigious places as ministers in his cabinet. This subsequently caused a further disintegration of the Whig party in politics between the period 1783-1815.
This eventually led to the conclusion that King Charles I was the type of man who could not be trusted with the legal promises he made to his people. The worries of Parliament were not seen as a major concern of his and he repudiated to consider any negotiations with whatever Parliament had to say. The kingâ€™s intractable ways caused Parliament to break away from his power before England became a place of political disaster. Although the obstinate king refused to recognize Parliamentâ€™s authorized power and influence, he turned his back on his Protestant country to form foreign alliances against his own people. If that wasnâ€™t ghastly enough, the king acted in an outrageous and appalling way when he put religion into the conflict and made it worse.
In 1625 the Parliament granted Charles £140,000 for war versus Spain and tonnage and poundage was granted for one year only, this affronted Charles but Parliament had no choice because they were not ready to trust Charles with large amounts of grants when they were not sure about his plans. Despite promises Charles launched the disastrous mansfeld expedition. From what Parliament could see Buckingham Charles’s chief minister was influencing Charles dominantly. Charles believed the problems in Parliament were linked to a small group of MPs but there were more than just a few MPs who were unhappy because he did not negotiate with them and there was no chance of any grievances to be met. Charles now had a problem.
The Pope at the time, Pope Innocent III, also had a small feud with King John. The Pope soon excommunicated him. His reputation soon became tainted, and many of the Barons of England became upset and wanted to restrict his power and ensure their rights. After the dispute with Pope Innocent III, King John promised the Pope that he would follow through with the Pope's wishes, and the Pope very quickly “de- excommunicated” him. Soon after, King John went back to battle against France and needed the money from his vassals, the Barons.
The colonists during and before the Revolutionary War believed that they had many well-thought reasons to rebel against England. Some of the most popular reasons would have to be the concept of "Taxation without representation" and the famous Stamp Act. Many colonists were not so concerned with taxes so they sided with the reason of the British restricting their westward expansion. But those colonists who did not go along with those excuses for rebellion just plain hated the British for invading their homes. But a single question arises: "What put all of these strong feelings toward Britain into the minds of the colonists?"