Where the actions of Charles the 1st the main reason for the political instability that existed in the years 1625-46? (20 marks)
There are many arguments that would support the statement but also many arguments disagreeing with the statement, saying it was things such as decisions made by parliament that moreover where responsible for the political instability.
Firstly a reason why people may agree with the statement and say that it was in fact Charles who caused the political instability may say that it was because of things he did such as raising ship money without parliament’s approval, this lead to the 5 night’s case. The 5 nights case occurred after Charles 1st forced a loan on his subjects telling them to "lovingly, freely, and voluntarily" to give him money, he did this after his increasing fear of running out of money. After the forced loan, when most of his subjects disobeyed and refused to pay, Charles arrested 67 of those representatives for their refusal to pay. Charles did not bring any case against these men in court for fear that the judges might decide against the Forced Loan's legality, after this, outraged by the imprisonment 5 of the 67 arrested took Charles to court and applied to the Court of King's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus which was to report an unlawful detention, however the result of this was parliament siding with Charles and imprisoning the 5 Nights. This may have caused political instability as this shows that Charles did not like to take things to parliament and so did things without their approval however he wanted, this overall weakens the trust and relationship between parliament and the monarch as one side could not fully trust or maybe even not want the help of the other therefore causing instability and entrusted relationship.
However you can also argue that Charles distrust may have arose because of actions by parliament for example the attempted impeachment of Buckingham who was one of James the 1sts favourite advisers and also one of Charles without advising the king or even letting him know. This happened when Charles found out that the 5 MPs in the House of Commons were planning on impeaching the Catholic queen Henrietta Marie because of acquisitions by them that she was involved in a catholic plot, when Charles found out he immediately went to the House of Commons to arrest those MPs. As Charles entered he was quickly kicked out, asked to knock before entering: after this time he came to find out that the 5 MPs he was after had escaped before he got there leaving him looking stupid and fooled. This may have lead to Charles distrust in parliament and also not wanting to approach parliament before he made any decisions because of the things they were planning on doing without advising the king or even giving him an explanation of why they did certain things, such as the attempting impeachment of the queen. This is the reason why people may argue that it was not the king’s fault but rather Parliaments in causing distrust or lack of approach in the first place where it later resulted in Charles doing the same back, therefore causing the political instability from their which later developed.
Furthermore as King of Scotland some argue that Charles the 1st trying to force a new religion onto the Scots caused some political instability which later resulted in Scotland invading England, Charles followed the Anglican ways on religion whereas the Scottish preferred much simpler and plain things. Charles tried to force upon the Scots a new prayer book following his way of beliefs which turned out to be bad for him and the country as this decision had caused a lot of unrest, this caused unrest because firstly the Scottish did not want such religious ways and secondly because they felt Charles did not really care for them as he only once visited after leaving when he was three, and that to only returning for his coronation. Overall this caused political instability as this weakened the relationship between Charles and the Scottish public which was bad as it made it hard for him to rule there even though he was King
Parliament can also be stood accountable for the political instability caused between the years 1625-46 because of their refusal to lend money to Charles which then later on resulted in other things such as Charles collecting ship money, his forced loan and lastly the dissolution of parliament. Firstly Parliament refused to fund Charles, this lead to him having to raise his own money so he could do what he wanted which lead him to raise ship money without parliament’s concession and also the forced loan. You can also argue that this lead to the dissolution of parliament from 1629-40 which was called by some the “11 years of tyranny” because the main use parliament had for Charles was funding although he should have also gone to them for things such as advice and permission, but this was excusable for him not to have as parliaments doings in the past may have lead to the break of trust between the two or just purely Charles himself and his belief of the divine right of kings where he believed as king he should have all power and does not need to listen to any outside influences if he does not please. This caused political instability as the main use parliament was to Charles was for funding purposes, so when he was refused funding he did not need parliament which leads to the “11 years of tyranny”: and so onto other ways of getting what parliament provided him with. This overall caused political instability as they gave Charles a reason for him not to need them.
Finally in conclusion I believe that the main reason behind the political instability that was caused between the years 1626-40 was King Charles the 1st mainly because his view of an absolute monarchy and his belief in things like the divine right of kings and the royal prerogative. I think this is why he is the main reason for the political instability because he should have cooperated with parliament as they did with him doing things in his favour with things such as backing him in the 5 nights case rather than just using them for one use, funding. Charles’s belief in the divine right of kings made him think that no one should have any influence over him and that he should rule as an absolute sovereign leader which was bad as most of his subjects wanted something more democratic like a constitutional monarchy which he refused towards which overall lead t even his execution where he refused to also cooperate although propositions were made. Apart from this I believe that parliament were slightly responsible for the political instability not that much compared to Charles because they repeatedly opposed him as well but overall believe that they were only counter arguing on the things they disliked about the rule and wanted what was in the best interest of the people which King Charles the 1st obviously did not care about as much.