The Failure of Personal Rule, 1637–40 (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Failure of Personal Rule, 1637–40
Introduction: The vulnerability of Personal Rule by 1637
Political and religious discontent had spread well beyond the Puritan minority to affect broader sections of society by 1637. This opposition had limited means of expression without Parliament. Charles maintained his position through growing trade revenues and Ship Money (a tax collected without parliamentary consent), which provided financial independence. Without needing parliamentary taxation, Charles could dissolve any Parliament that obstructed his policies.
The apparent growth in parliamentary power since the Reformation could be swiftly reversed by a monarch with secure finances and administrative control. Charles's financial independence meant he could maintain Personal Rule indefinitely—as long as he avoided creating crises that required additional resources.
Charles's decision to extend his reform programme to Scotland exposed his fatal lack of political awareness.
The Scottish crisis begins, 1637
Charles's approach to Scotland
In Ireland, Charles had withdrawn the Graces (royal proclamations granting Irish Catholics religious freedom), and Strafford appeared to have suppressed resistance. Scotland presented different challenges. The Kirk (the Scottish Presbyterian Church established by John Knox in 1560) enjoyed substantial independence and strength. When Mary, Queen of Scots returned from France in 1560, Protestant Reformation had already been completed. The Kirk operated through committees of ministers and elders rather than bishops, making it largely independent of royal control.
Charles had already taken tentative steps towards greater uniformity. James I had shown understanding of Scottish politics and culture, attempting to strengthen links between English and Scottish Churches by persuading Scots to accept bishops in an advisory role rather than enforcing conformity as in England. In 1621, James proposed establishing a formal order of service similar to the English Prayer Book, but fierce opposition convinced him to withdraw the plan.
Charles's Critical Mistake
Charles demonstrated considerably less awareness of Scottish concerns and considerably less tact than his father. Where James I had carefully withdrawn plans for a Scottish Prayer Book in 1621 after encountering opposition, Charles would push forward with similar reforms—but without any consultation.
The Prayer Book imposition, 1637
In 1637, Charles ordered a new prayer book for Scotland, modelled on the English version and formally adopted in Edinburgh churches. The order came through proclamation without reference to either the Scottish Parliament or the Assembly of the Kirk.
The Jenny Geddes Incident: A Spark of Rebellion
When the new prayer book was read in St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh, a woman named Jenny Geddes became so incensed that she threw her stool at the bishop conducting the service. The service erupted into riots, which rapidly sparked disturbances elsewhere among people infuriated by both the book itself and the manner of its imposition.
The Scottish Council withdrew the book, but Charles insisted his orders be carried out. The Scottish clergy and nobility united in anger.
The Covenant and Scottish resistance, 1638
Opposition to English domination intensified, and early in 1638 supporters met to draft a declaration, known as the Covenant. The Covenant was a binding agreement in which signatories pledged to defend the existing Kirk through force if necessary and to remain united until its safety was assured.
The Covenant as Rebellion
Predictably, Charles felt outraged by their defiance. As Covenanters claimed to act in God's name, Charles regarded them as rebels who merited military suppression. Signing the Covenant was therefore an act of rebellion that Charles could not ignore without losing all authority.
The First Bishops' War, 1639
Charles's military response
Charles responded to this defiance by raising an army. He regarded the Covenanters as rebels and showed no hesitation in using military force to suppress rebellion. Unfortunately, he faced severe limitations:
- He lacked the financial resources to employ mercenaries
- He had to rely on English support
- Many nobles had no desire to fight
- The JPs demonstrated half-hearted commitment to their preparations
English Military Reluctance
The militia was locally based, and men proved reluctant to leave their home areas. When deployed, soldiers who became involved in attacking Church ornaments or joining rioters in pulling down enclosures (fences designating private land, often taken from communal use and resented by poorer community members) revealed their lack of enthusiasm for the cause they were asked to fight for.
Scottish determination
The Scots demonstrated commitment to their cause. Covenanters viewed the Kirk as embodying both their religion and culture, regarding the King as unwittingly serving the Anti-Christ by restoring devilish ceremonies to the Church. They would fight to defend their religion and felt justified in resisting their sovereign in God's name.
Charles recognised he lacked the strength to win and signed the Treaty of Berwick in 1639. This allowed the Scots to decide their own religious settlement, and they immediately exercised their freedom by abolishing both the Scottish Prayer Book and Scottish bishops.
Charles's growing isolation
If Charles ever intended to respect the treaty, this action ensured he would not. His political isolation became clear:
- London merchants refused to lend money to raise a new army
- Some English nobility from the Puritan faction had already made contact with the Scots
- Lord Saye and Sele and his son Nathaniel Fiennes encouraged Scottish intervention in England
Charles remained unaware of the depth of resentment he faced and determined to reassert his authority. He recalled Sir Thomas Wentworth, now Lord Strafford, from Ireland.
The Short Parliament, April 1640
Strafford's advice
Strafford advised Charles to call Parliament, hoping traditional anti-Scottish sentiment would enable him to rally support. This represented a dangerous strategy, but there was probably little alternative. The Bishops' War had forced the government to borrow money, and the financial gains of Personal Rule had already been eliminated.
Generous concessions on grievances might have enabled the King to win over his critics, although the substantial number of petitions listing grievances sent to Westminster to greet the MPs who assembled in April 1640 suggests it may already have been too late.
Parliament's response
Charles's handling of the situation destroyed any prospect of success. Without offering concessions or acknowledging their necessity, he requested funds to address the Scottish threat, a crisis his own actions had provoked.
The result was a chaotic session in which an 'opposition' began to assume shape and structure. Leading figures included:
In the Lords:
- The Earl of Bedford
- Lord Saye and Sele
- Lord Montague (later Earl of Manchester)
In the Commons:
- John Pym (Bedford's legal adviser) - the dominant figure
- Nathaniel Fiennes (already in communication with the Scottish army)
Why the "Short Parliament"?
Awareness of contacts between English nobles and the Scottish army may have encouraged Charles to dissolve Parliament quickly. Had he possessed proof of these activities, Fiennes would likely have faced a treason charge. As it was, the April Parliament, which became known as the Short Parliament, achieved nothing for the King.
The Second Bishops' War and military defeat, 1640
Charles's determined response
Despite everything, Charles remained determined to restore his authority. His actions during this period reveal both the best and worst aspects of his character: courageous and determined, yet stubborn and high-handed, and most dangerous in political terms, seriously lacking political awareness.
A Fatal Miscalculation
His lack of political sensitivity emerged in his willingness to borrow from Catholics and employ Catholic officers, whilst rank and file soldiers occupied themselves burning altar rails and other Catholic symbols. This alienated his own troops and undermined what little support remained for his cause.
The under-equipped and unenthusiastic English army proved unable to match the Scots, who had by now entered England. After a brief battle at Newburn, the army disintegrated, leaving the Scots in control of Newcastle and able to force their terms on the King once more in October 1640, in the Treaty of Ripon.
The Treaty of Ripon
The conditions represented a further truce with devastating financial implications:
- Charles agreed to pay the Scottish army £850 per day
- Further negotiations to end the war were postponed until a Parliament met
- These terms gave Parliament the advantage
Charles had already accepted the need to call a new Parliament and had concluded, somewhat late, that some concessions would be needed to gain support. He possessed little understanding of just how extensive those concessions would need to be.
The calling of the Long Parliament, November 1640
The Long Parliament met in November 1640. Charles's Personal Rule had collapsed completely, brought down by military defeat in Scotland and financial exhaustion. His attempt to impose religious uniformity on Scotland without consultation had provoked rebellion. His inability to suppress that rebellion through military means exposed his financial weakness and forced him to recall Parliament.
The Parliament that assembled proved determined to ensure that the problems of the 1630s could never recur. This would be no ordinary parliamentary session—it would fundamentally reshape the relationship between Crown and Parliament.
Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford (1593–1641)
Sir Thomas Wentworth was a gentleman from south Yorkshire with extensive blood connections and land. He served as Knight of the Shire (county MP) for Yorkshire in 1614. His election as a county MP rather than a borough representative demonstrated his influence and status within the county.
As an MP, he was initially associated with defending parliamentary rights against royal encroachments, being imprisoned in 1627 for refusing to pay the forced loan and playing an important role in presenting the Petition of Right. Much of his opposition was directed at the influence and inefficiency of George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham.
Strafford's "Betrayal"
When the King offered Strafford the post of President of the Council of the North after Buckingham's assassination in 1628, he accepted. This decision was regarded as a betrayal by some MPs, a perception that increased with his active role in Charles I's Personal Rule.
In 1629, he was appointed to the Privy Council, where he shared with Laud the responsibility for administering 'Thorough'. In 1632, he was appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland and remained absent from England for the next eight years.
Strafford proved an able and energetic governor, an effective administrator and a man of iron determination. In Ireland, he:
- Promoted trade
- Reformed the administration
- Built up the army
However, he faced resentment for his harsh control and dictatorial methods. This led Charles to recall him in his time of need and promote him to an earldom and the role of chief adviser.
A Fatal Miscalculation
Strafford recommended Charles call Parliament, believing he could manage it by exploiting anti-Scottish sentiment. This was a mistake, arising possibly from his long absence or possibly from his dislike of Puritan ideas. Whatever the reason, he soon paid the price.
When Parliament reassembled in November 1640, he became a primary target for the opposition, who may have desired revenge for his betrayal and certainly feared his abilities. Strafford was aware that opposition leaders were in contact with the Scots and planned to impeach them for treason, but was himself accused of having plotted to bring over an Irish army to use against Parliament.
Whilst he may have been willing to pursue this course, there was little evidence to support the claim. He defended himself brilliantly against impeachment proceedings in the House of Lords, and his accusers were forced to introduce an Act of Attainder in April 1641, by which he was simply declared guilty. He was executed on 12 May 1641.
Key Points to Remember:
- Charles's attempt to impose a new Prayer Book on Scotland in 1637 without consultation provoked riots and united Scottish opposition through the Covenant of 1638.
- The First Bishops' War (1639) exposed Charles's military and financial weakness, ending in the Treaty of Berwick which allowed Scots to abolish bishops and the Prayer Book.
- The Short Parliament (April 1640) collapsed when Charles demanded money without offering concessions, revealing organised opposition led by Pym, Bedford, and others.
- Military defeat in the Second Bishops' War and the Treaty of Ripon (October 1640) forced Charles to pay the Scots £850 daily and call Parliament, ending Personal Rule.
- Strafford's recall from Ireland and advice to call Parliament backfired; he became the opposition's primary target and was executed in May 1641.
- By November 1640, Charles's Personal Rule had collapsed completely, brought down by military defeat, financial exhaustion, and his own political misjudgments.