Charles, Parliament and the Rule of Law (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Charles, Parliament and the Rule of Law
The developing parliamentary crisis
Charles I faced mounting complaints about his favourite, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. The King understood that Parliament would not grant him funds unless he sacrificed his friend, but he refused to make this concession. Two factors drove Charles's stubbornness: personal loyalty to Buckingham, and anger at Parliament's attempt to dictate his choice of adviser. Charles believed in his prerogative right to govern according to his own judgement. Rather than compromise, he decided to raise money through methods that bypassed parliamentary approval.
Charles's refusal to compromise revealed a fundamental conflict between his belief in royal prerogative and Parliament's expectation to influence key decisions. This stubbornness would define his troubled relationship with Parliament throughout his reign.
Forced loans
Forced loan – An ancient feudal right allowing the monarch to request loans from wealthy subjects during emergencies. Despite being presented as loans, these sums were rarely repaid, making them effectively a form of taxation imposed without parliamentary consent.
Charles continued collecting Tunnage and Poundage without parliamentary authorisation. He then expanded a forced loan, demanding that JPs collect contributions from their localities. Anyone refusing to lend money to the Crown faced imprisonment or conscription into the army. These tactics were not unprecedented. Earlier monarchs had requested such loans, though Charles was the first to systematically imprison those who refused.
The Five Knights Case (1627)
In 1627, five gentlemen challenged the King's authority to imprison them for refusing the loan. They became known as the Five Knights. After considerable pressure from Charles, the judges ruled reluctantly in the King's favour. Charles attempted to have this judgement recorded as a legal precedent for future use.
The King claimed he was merely exercising his legitimate right to govern effectively. In practice, however, he undermined the rule of law and established foundations for tyrannical rule. It became clear that if Parliament were summoned, it would challenge these actions.
The Petition of Right (1628)
By 1628, Charles had created a constitutional crisis. He lacked resources to manage it. The ongoing war demanded funds, forcing him to summon a new Parliament. The experienced lawyer Sir Edward Coke led the Commons in drafting a Petition of Right. This document challenged the Five Knights Case judgement and requested that the King declare an end to four practices:
- Forced loans
- Imprisonment without trial
- Use of free lodgings (billeting) for soldiers in civilian households
- Use of martial law against civilians
Parliament voted five subsidies but refused to send them to the House of Lords until Charles accepted the Petition. He had no alternative but to agree.
Language and strategy
The term 'Petition of Right' was deliberately chosen. Parliament presented itself as assisting the King by helping him define the law, rather than restricting his power. The document asserted a right rather than making a request, thus maintaining outward respect for royal authority whilst avoiding any suggestion that these rights depended on the King's goodwill.
Parliamentary Strategy:
The Petition claimed these rights already existed, and that Charles was merely correcting a mistake by the judges. This careful wording avoided asking the King to admit error. It ensured that whilst Charles retained his right to refuse a forced loan in future, he could not take it away once he had accepted the Petition. The contents now carried the force of law.
The failure of reconciliation
At this stage, the Petition of Right and the grant of money appeared to offer an opportunity for reconciliation between King and Parliament. The prospects improved in August 1628 when Buckingham was assassinated. However, mistakes by both Charles and volatile MPs destroyed this chance.
When Parliament reassembled in 1629, some celebrated Buckingham's death openly, which distressed the grief-stricken King. Parliament then prepared legislation to extend its control over Tunnage and Poundage. Charles denied this was necessary, undermining Parliament's authority over taxation. The most serious division concerned the King's religious views and his policies for the Church.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Charles I refused to sacrifice Buckingham despite parliamentary pressure, choosing instead to raise money through forced loans that bypassed Parliament and undermined the rule of law.
-
The Five Knights Case (1627) established a dangerous precedent by ruling in favour of the King's right to imprison those who refused forced loans.
-
The Petition of Right (1628) marked a constitutional crisis. Parliament, led by Sir Edward Coke, demanded an end to forced loans, imprisonment without trial, billeting, and martial law against civilians.