1D - The state of relations between Crown and Parliament by 1629 and the reaction of the Political Nation
Assess how far the crisis of 1629 represented a breakdown of government. Distinguish the collapse of cooperation at Westminster from reactions across the Political Nation, and learn why serious conflict still left room for obedience, accommodation and renewed negotiation.
The Petition of Right left disputed meanings
By 1628 disagreements involved more than the size of a subsidy. The Forced Loan, imprisonment of refusers, billeting of troops and martial law had raised fears about the security of property and personal liberty. Parliament sought to restate legal restraints through the Petition of Right. Its supporters presented these as established rights which the king's government had violated, rather than an invitation to replace monarchy.
Charles first offered an answer which MPs found insufficient, then gave formal assent in June 1628. Parliament granted substantial supply. This was real cooperation achieved under pressure: Charles obtained money, while MPs obtained a public commitment. It should not be dismissed as meaningless simply because conflict resumed.
The settlement was nevertheless incomplete. Charles continued to collect tonnage and poundage without a completed parliamentary grant, regarding customs as necessary traditional revenue. MPs challenged its authorisation and believed their petition should protect merchants who resisted. Royal attempts to enforce payment made the question practical: who would decide whether a claimed revenue right infringed the subject's liberty?
Trust also depended on religion. Protection and promotion of anti-Calvinist clergy encouraged fears that the king's church policies would undermine Protestantism. An agreement about taxation did not settle those fears. By the next session, opponents could interpret continued policy as evidence that the king's assent had failed to produce dependable redress.
March 1629 ended parliamentary cooperation
Parliament resumed in January 1629 with grievances about customs and religion still active. Merchants such as John Rolle resisted tonnage and poundage, and the seizure of his goods complicated the issue because he was also an MP. The Commons connected the treatment of merchants to parliamentary privilege and the Petition of Right.
On 2 March Charles ordered an adjournment. When Speaker Sir John Finch tried to carry out the order, Denzil Holles and Benjamin Valentine held him in his chair while resolutions associated with Sir John Eliot were advanced. They condemned the promotion of religious innovation, unauthorised collection of tonnage and poundage, and the payment of such duties. This was an exceptional attempt to maintain proceedings against the king's command.
Charles dissolved Parliament and pursued leading opponents through imprisonment and prosecution. From his perspective a group of MPs had used disorder and privilege to undermine lawful government. From theirs, the king's orders threatened to prevent defence of religion and liberties. Each could see the other's conduct as a dangerous innovation.
Institutional breakdown
The failure of institutions to conduct their expected work together. It may be serious without immediately ending government throughout the country or producing civil war.
The events ended the opportunity to resolve grievances and supply through Parliament. They did not abolish Parliament or prove that every member supported the dramatic final proceedings. Charles remained able to govern through councils, courts, clergy and local officers. The distinction between these facts is central to judging the extent of breakdown.
The Political Nation did not react uniformly
The Political Nation extended well beyond the MPs involved in the final confrontation. Landowners, officeholders, lawyers, clergy and merchants had different degrees of exposure to royal policies. A merchant facing seizure of goods had a direct customs grievance; a godly gentleman might be especially troubled by church appointments; a royal official might fear the consequences of parliamentary disorder.
Many shared a commitment to monarchy, property, law and the Church of England. These common values did not settle which side was preserving them. Charles claimed to defend lawful order against disruptive MPs. Opponents claimed to defend traditional law and true religion against harmful royal advisers. Other members of the elite could accept a grievance while disapproving of confrontational methods.
The Crown still relied on the local gentry to administer government. Continued service as magistrates or sheriffs mattered more to its immediate functioning than agreement with every royal decision. Cooperation could reflect loyalty, duty, ambition or a wish to protect local interests. Compliance was therefore not proof of enthusiasm; private criticism was not automatically organised resistance.
Parliament's absence reduced a collective national forum for expressing grievances. It did not erase local networks, petitions or legal challenges. Nor did it automatically combine all complaints into one opposition movement. The Political Nation had resources for resistance, but effective opposition depended on leadership, opportunities and agreement about acceptable methods.
Measuring how far relations had broken down
Use more than one criterion to judge the situation. At Westminster, relations had broken down severely: the last session ended in coercion, dissolution and punishment, and no agreed mechanism remained for routine parliamentary negotiation. In public confidence, recurring grievances and contested concessions had produced deep suspicion among influential opponents.
At the level of government capacity, the conclusion is more limited. Charles could still collect revenue and administer the kingdom through existing institutions. Most elite critics did not yet propose abolishing kingship. The end of expensive foreign wars also offered him an opportunity to reduce the need for exceptional supply. Royal rule without a sitting Parliament was not inherently unprecedented, although its length and controversial policies could later increase resentment.
An argument for a deep breakdown can therefore use the collision over liberty, religion and the king's command. An argument against a complete breakdown can use continuing local government, divided elite reactions and the survival of commitment to monarchy. These arguments can both be convincing because they measure different aspects of the relationship.
By 1629 parliamentary cooperation had collapsed and trust was badly damaged. Government and elite support had not collapsed everywhere, and the future depended on what Charles and his opponents did next.
1629 created risks rather than an inevitable war
Explaining the later civil war requires more than naming 1629 as its beginning. Parliament did not meet again until 1640, but royal government continued in the intervening years. Later fiscal demands, enforcement of religious policy and crises in Scotland and Ireland altered the balance of power. A chronological connection is not the same as an automatic causal chain.
The crisis did create lasting risks. Without Parliament, complaints were harder to negotiate collectively. Opponents retained memories of the Forced Loan, the Petition's disputed effect and the punishment of MPs. Charles could view future parliamentary demands through the memory of defiance. When renewed financial need forced a Parliament, both sides would bring this history to the meeting.
The change from James's reign was therefore an intensification of unresolved disagreements. Divisions over supply, privilege and royal advisers had existed earlier, but bargaining had repeatedly resumed. The dissolution in 1629 opened what became a sustained attempt to govern without Parliament. Whether that attempt would succeed depended on income, local cooperation and peace across his kingdoms, none of which divine right alone could guarantee.