Why did Charles I decide to dissolve parliament in 1629 Essays

Why did Charles I decide to dissolve parliament in 1629 Essays Why did Charles I decide to dissolve parliament in 1629 Essay Why did Charles I decide to dissolve parliament in 1629 Essay Essay Topic: History There were many factors that contributed to the breakdown in trust between Charles I and his Parliament in 1625-29, which finally led to his decision of dissolving Parliament. I intend on concentrating on the main key factors, which built up over a specific timeline, and give evidential and factual suggestion and analysis to show that Charless decision was not unjustified, yet incorrect on his behalf, where he is to blame. The first topic, which was Charless most troublesome in contributing to further problems, and Parliaments most influential power, was Parliaments reluctance to grant Charles money. Charles needed money from Parliament in 1625 for possible war against Spain. They offered i 140,000, yet this was inadequate. Charles was dissatisfied as he hoped Parliament would be as co-operative as the previous. This in itself was wrong as Parliament were not informed of the actual size of money wanted and the specific time to be offered. Tonnage and poundage was customs revenue (tax) traditionally granted to the King by the first Parliament of his reign and provided a large portion of his income. In 1625 this became an issue because Charles did not receive full amount and as Parliament were worried about the issues to which it would be used, and also they wanted to change the system this would prevent him granting more, therefore limiting his power. This in fact was a wrong move on Parliaments side as it pushed Charles further away. This also caused further problems as Charles carried on collecting. Charles was suspicious about Parliament, as he could not understand why they would not finance a war that they had approved. They also blamed Buckingham for mishandling the session and the Kings affairs; Charles regarded this attack as an attempt to undermine his authority. He then believed that conspirators wishing to undermine royal authority were leading the Commons astray. Vice-Versa, Parliament was confused at Charless refusal to negotiate with them in the usual way. They had found cause to doubt his word in breaking the promises of war and marriage negotiations. Neither Charles nor Parliaments actions in this case were justified. There was clear misinterpretation of Parliaments concerns, as they did not mean to offend. Between 1625 and 1627 Charles raised money by securing a loan against the Crown Jewels, and selling Crown land. Charless decision on a forced loan was controversial as it made the Crown poorer in the long term and was illegal and left people unhappy. The evidential conclusion to this was the occurrence of the Five Knights case. This proved to be important, as the protesters tried to test the legality of their imprisonment, which would then test the legality of the forced loans would have to be tested in court. The Attorney General (royal legal officer) on Charless side tried to change records, on Charless request, so when this story emerged Charless reputation was damaged. This was a decision Charles should have regretted that left Parliament seething. In 1628 Parliament offered five subsidies and tonnage and poundage. This was only dependant upon an agreement of the role of Parliament. Charles raised extra money he needed in 1628 by seizing goods from merchants who had refused to pay tonnage and poundage, one of whom was an MP. These methods increased Parliaments distrust of him, as they wanted some security for the future. The reluctance to grant Charles money in accordance to the first three points was Parliaments major downfall, which could be the largest contribution to the dissolution of Parliament in 1629. The second influential topic in the dissolution of Parliament was Parliaments dislike of the Duke of Buckingham, which was caused by foreign policy failures. In terms of foreign policy in 1625, Charles and Buckingham hoped to set up an anti-Spanish front to force the Hapsburgs to restore the Palatinate to Charles brother-in-law. They hoped to achieve this aim through: 1) an alliance with Christian IV of Denmark in exchange for financial support from England, whereby he would attack the Catholic Hapsburgs in north Germany. 2) Financially supporting the Dutch in the same cause. 3) An English army of 6000, to be provided for the German Protestant mercenary commander. 4) A sea war against Spain to try and cut off its supplies of gold and silver from South America. These steps when carried out were a failure on a large scale, which left Charles embarrassed. England landed itself in war with both Spain and France. Buckinghams decision to help the Huguenots, besieged by the French was horrendous. He led the disastrous military landing, which finished in a retreat in ships without helping the defenders of La Rochelle, who eventually surrendered to the French. Basic indication and logic suggest that this decision was bad for all and another cross on Charless achievements. The Duke of Buckingham became a focus of MPs discontent by the 1626 Parliament because he was influential on court and Charles. He had also moved towards Arminianism, which was suspicious when combined with lax enforcement of the laws against Catholics. Buckinghams control of the armed forces prompted fears that he was intending to seize control of the Government and establish a Catholic state. The commons identified him as a source off all its concern and refused to work with Charles while the Duke was in office. Charles reaction to this was annoyance and the dismissal of Parliament. Parliament had again made another error by refusing to work with the Duke, as there may could have been an easier solution, after all their main objective as Parliament and King is to ensure the smooth operation of the country and provide the best well being and society possible while creating a strong economy. Charles blamed Parliament for the assassination of Buckingham in 1628 because Felton said he had been inspired by the remonstrance, which named Buckingham as the cause of the nations ills. This may only be a minor factor, but was a major contribution emotionally in addition to Charles already growing unhappiness with Parliament. Another key factor in the long list in why Charles dissolved Parliament in 1629 was Parliaments fears of the Kings support of Arminianism and Charles fears of Puritan MPs. Charles helped the Arminian High Church party to become more prominent through his favour and proclamation, which attacked the Puritan mainstream of the Church of England. He further irritated Parliament and the Church of England (which to be noted he was head of) by allowing controversial and banned sermons to be published. This was unpopular with the Archbishop who was then suspended, which enraged many. A bad idea was apparent through replacing the Arch Bishop with a man who had influence and who could promote the Arminians, and attack Calvinist puritan ministers. The Arminian High Church promoted the divine right of the King, supported the forced loan and used Gods messenger as a defensive device. The King in this instance went with what he wanted, but what was not necessarily best for the country. This lack of thought and analysis of a delicate situation which he could of stepped down from or lowered his support suggests that his true objective and role as King was not met and only made situations worse for himself. The last topic with some specific significance to why Charles dissolved Parliament in 1629 was Parliaments attempts to stop what they saw as abuses of royal powers, and Charless reaction to these. To ensue that the Privy Council followed him even when Parliament didnt, Charles eliminated opponents, which narrowed the range of opinion represented on the Council, which also ceased to offer alternative advice after an open discussion. This sneaky form of deviation caused hot hostility and a prominent show of difference between the court and Parliament. What the court, Privy Council, and nobility wanted was often different to Parliament. Nobility were shielded from the reality of every day life in the land of the average person and therefore logically we can analyse that their decisions may have been incorrect for the ideal solution. On Charles behalf, this was a clear mistake. The Petition of Right introduced in 1628 by MPs was the definition of traditional rights of the subject, which had existed time out of mind. It laid out points stating the illegality of the forced loans, that no free man should be imprisoned without just cause shown, that soldiers should not be billeted on private individuals against their will, and marital law was illegal. The MPs introduced this because it acted as a safeguard, with the force of law. Charles did not accept this view of the role of Parliament and viewed the debates with deep disfavour. He wanted expressions of absolute trust and loyalty not restrictions on his freedom of action. Parliament were only alienating his affections further. When Charles tried to adjourn Parliament in 1628 after he was not granted customs, the speaker went to rise from his chair at the end of the session and was met with force by being held down by two MPs while another called out three resolutions. Sir John Eliots three were as a capital enemy to the King and commonwealth 1) anyone who promoted innovation in religion, popery or Arminianism 2) anyone who counselled the collection of tonnage and poundage without Parliamentary consent 3) anyone who voluntarily paid the duties. Charles dissolved Parliament after this because he was frustrated in his attempt to rule in accordance with tradition when the commons would not grant him the revenues that were traditionally due to him. In conclusion the four key areas, which included Parliaments reluctance to grant financial support, Parliaments hostility towards the Duke of Buckingham, the Kings support of Arminianism, and Parliaments attempts to stop abuses of royal powers, gradually caused a high amount of tension between the two. But I have also found extra reasons underlying within this area that all input significance into Charless final decision to dissolve Parliament in 1629. Distrust as a result of Charless manipulation of law in response to Parliaments reluctance to financially support him led to misinterpretation of each others intent, foreign policies and its failure with increased problems with the Duke, religion and Charless specific support of Arminianism with change to ranking within the Church, the repeated dissolution of Parliament, the war and its effects, and Charless personality and beliefs. These all had a significant part to play in why Charles I dissolved Parliament in 1629. I have analysed and interpreted events to finalise a short list of reasons, which I now believe do not fully justify Charles for having good reason to dissolve Parliament. Out of all the explored sources it is evident that Charles mistakes fully outnumber Parliaments.

Formation of the Delian League in Ancient History

Formation of the Delian League in Ancient History Several Ionian cities joined together in the Delian League  for mutual protection against the Persians. They placed Athens at the head (as hegemon) because of her naval supremacy. This free confederation (symmachia) of autonomous cities, founded in 478 B.C., consisted of representatives, an admiral, and treasurers appointed by Athens. It was called the Delian League because its treasury was located at  Delos. History Formed in 478 B.C., the Delian League was an alliance of mainly coastal and Aegean city-states against Persia at a time when Greece feared Persia might attack again. Its goal was to make Persia pay and to free the Greeks under Persian dominion. The league morphed into the Athenian Empire that opposed the Spartan allies in the Peloponnesian War. After the Persian Wars, which included Xerxes invasion by land at the Battle of Thermopylae (the setting for the graphic novel-based movie ), the various Hellenic poleis (city-states) divided into opposing sides ranged around Athens and Sparta, and fought the Peloponnesian War. This enervating war was a major turning point in Greek history since in the following century, the city-states were no longer strong enough to stand up to the Macedonians under Philip and his son Alexander the Great. These Macedonians adopted one of the aims of the Delian League: to make Persia pay. Strength is what the poleis had been seeking when they turned to Athens to form the Delian League. Mutual Protection Following Hellenic victory at the Battle of Salamis, during the Persian Wars, Ionian cities joined together in the Delian League for mutual protection. The league was meant to be offensive as well as defensive: to have the same friends and enemies (typical terms for an alliance formed for this dual purpose [Larsen]), with secession forbidden. The member poleis placed Athens at the head (hegemon) because of her naval supremacy. Many of the Greek cities were annoyed with the tyrannical behavior of the Spartan commander Pausanias, who had been leader of the Greeks during the Persian War. Thucydides Book 1.96 on the formation of the Delian League 96. When the Athenians had thus gotten the command by the confederates own accord for the hatred they bare to Pausanias, they then set down an order which cities should contribute money for this war against the barbarians, and which galleys. For they pretended to repair the injuries they had suffered by laying waste the territories of the king. [2] And then first came up amongst the Athenians the office of treasurers of Greece, who were receivers of the tribute, for so they called this money contributed. And the first tribute that was taxed came to four hundred and sixty talents. The treasury was at Delos, and their meetings were kept there in the temple. Members of the Delian League In The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (1989), author-historian Donald Kagan says the members included about 20 members from the Greek islands, 36 Ionian city-states, 35 from the Hellespont, 24 from around Caria, and 33 from around Thrace, making it primarily an organization of the Aegean islands and coast. This free confederation (symmachia) of autonomous cities, consisted of representatives, an admiral, and financial officers/treasurers (hellenotamiai) appointed by Athens. It was called the Delian League because its treasury was located at Delos. An Athenian leader, Aristides, initially assessed the allies in the Delian League 460 talents, probably annually [Rhodes] (there is some question about the amount and people assessed [Larsen]), to be paid to the treasury, either in cash or warships (triremes). This assessment is referred to as phoros that which is brought or tribute. 23.5 Hence it was Aristeides who assessed the tributes of the allied states on the first occasion, two years after the naval battle of Salamis, in the archonship of Timosthenes, and who administered the oaths to the Ionians when they swore to have the same enemies and friends, ratifying their oaths by letting the lumps of iron sink to the bottom out at sea. - Aristotle Ath. Pol. 23.5 Athenian Supremacy For 10 years, the Delian League fought to rid Thrace and the Aegean of Persian strongholds and piracy. Athens, which continued to demand financial contributions or ships from its allies, even when fighting was no longer necessary, became more and more powerful as her allies became poorer and weaker. In 454, the treasury was moved to Athens. Animosity developed, but Athens would not permit the formerly free cities to secede. The enemies of Pericles were crying out how that the commonwealth of Athens had lost its reputation and was ill-spoken of abroad for removing the common treasure of the Greeks from the isle of Delos into their own custody; and how that their fairest excuse for so doing, namely, that they took it away for fear the barbarians should seize it, and on purpose to secure it in a safe place, this Pericles had made unavailable, and how that Greece cannot but resent it as an insufferable affront, and consider herself to be tyrannized over openly, when she sees the treasure, which was contributed by her upon a necessity for the war, wantonly lavished out by us upon our city, to gild her all over, and to adorn and set her forth, as it were some vain woman, hung round with precious stones and figures and temples, which cost a world of money. Pericles, on the other hand, informed the people, that they were in no way obliged to give any account of those moneys to their allies, so long as they maintained their defense, and kept off the barbarians from attacking them. - Plutarchs Life of Pericles The Peace of Callias, in 449, between Athens and Persia, put an end to the rationale for the Delian League, since there should have been peace, but Athens by then had a taste for power and the Persians started supporting the Spartans to Athens detriment [Flower]. End of the Delian League The Delian League was broken up when Sparta captured Athens in 404. This was a terrible time for many in Athens. The victors razed the great walls linking the city to her harbor city of Piraeus; Athens lose her colonies, and most of her navy, and then submitted to the reign of the Thirty Tyrants. An Athenian league was later revived in 378-7 to protect against Spartan aggression and survived until Philip II of Macedons victory at Chaeronea (in Boeotia, where Plutarch would later be born). Terms to Know hegemonia leadership.Hellenic Greek.Hellenotamiai treasurers, Athenian financial officers.Peloponnesian League modern term for the military alliance of the Lacedaemonians and their allies.symmachia a treaty where the signers agree to fight for one another. Sources Starr, Chester G. A History of the Ancient World. Oxford University Press, 1991.Kagan, Donald. The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. Cornell University Press, 2013.Holden, Hubert Ashton, Plutarchs Life of Perciles, Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1895.Lewis, David Malcolm. The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 5: The Fifth Century BC., Boardman, John, Davies, J.K., Ostwald, M., Cambridge University Press, 1992.Larsen, J. A. O. â€Å"The Constitution and Original Purpose of the Delian League.† Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 51, 1940, p. 175.Sabin, Philip, International Relations in Greece, the Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome, Hall, Jonathan M., Van Wees, Hans, Whitby, Michael, Cambridge University Press, 2007.Flower, Michael A. From Simonides to Isocrates: The Fifth-Century Origins of Fourth-Century Panhellenism, Classical Antiquity, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Apr. 2000), pp. 65-101.