1 Answer | Add Yours
Both kings dealt with a longrunning battle with Parliament over finances, a major issue precipitated by the need to pay for wars. James was an absolutist by temperament, and was given to lecturing Parliament on what he said ought to be its subservient role to the monarch. When, in 1621, Parliament refused to grant money without a reconsideration of his foreign policy, James dismissed the body. This approach was very much consistent with that taken by Charles, who dismissed Parliament in 1629 when they demanded some input in the selection of his ministers in return for granting money. Charles actually outdid his father, refusing to call parliament for eleven years, a period in which he raised money using a number of constitutionally dubious means. He finally gave in in the face of a rebellion in Scotland in 1640, but quickly dismissed the so-called "Short Parliament" when it demanded more powers than he was willing to recognize. He called the "Long Parliament" in 1641, and his attempts to have several of its members arrested in the wake of the Grand Remonstrance led to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642. His heavy-handed methods in dealing with a Parliament that was seeking to expand its role, were his undoing, even if they were in many ways an inheritance from his father.
We’ve answered 319,199 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question