To What Extent Was Buckingham to Blame for the Dispute Between Charles and His Parliaments Between 1625 and 1629?

To what extent was Buckingham to blame for the dispute between Charles and his parliaments between 1625 and 1629?

There can be no question that Buckingham played a major role in the breaking down of the relationship between Charles and his parliaments between 1625 and 1629. However, it is important to acknowledge that there were numerous other factors such as `The Petition of right`, Charles' stiff stance on Armianism and the `Five Knights' case` which all caused a great deal of discontent between Charles and his parliaments.

Buckingham had an iron grip over patronage which caused much antipathy amongst parliament. He was responsible for the marriage treaty between England and France, his first mistake was that he made the treaty preferential to the French Catholics, at a huge cost to the English, Henrietta Maria was allowed to practise Catholicism freely, thus recusanscy laws throughout the realm were enforced less sternly. This caused resentment amongst the protestant English. The increased influence of Catholic courtiers in the English court Ð'- predominantly Henrietta Maria's entourage infuriated parliament to adopt a firm attitude against Buckingham, he was described as "the grievance of grievances". The marriage treaty also promised to send a fleet of protestant English ships to kill the Huguenot revolt in France Ð'- which meant that England was not supporting Charles was less shrewd than his father James, and always felt he had less of a sure touch with Buckingham, therefore Charles felt the need to protect Buckingham in every way possible. So in the parliament of 1625, when John Pym, Elliot and Wentworth represented a personal attack on Buckingham, Charles imprisoned them and dissolved parliament. The imprisoning of three MPs infuriated parliament furthermore, as they felt Buckingham had too much influence on Charles, and he in turn did nothing about it, rather made it worse by saving him.

Buckingham's foreign policy was arguably the main reason for parliament's hatred of him. Buckingham was not a strong commander and failed to accomplish any victories in foreign policy. The autumn of 1626 saw the failure of the expedition to Cadiz, the fleet crept home in humiliation; it had achieved nothing at a huge cost which parliament had paid. Consequently, parliament would become increasingly tight-fisted with the handing out of subsidies to the crown, as Charles discovers in the parliaments to come. Before Charles summoned the next parliament, he dismissed Coke, Wentworth and Seymour from the Commons, hoping this would transform the Commons, making it less in favour of the removal of his closest friend Buckingham. Nonetheless, this did not work, but simply gave an opportunity for the rest of the Commons to show their frustration at Buckingham. This shows that by taking extreme measures to protect Buckingham, Charles created further opposition for himself in the Common's. In essence, Common's hated Buckingham, they wanted a scapegoat for the failures in foreign policy, and Buckingham provided this. The question is can we blame Buckingham for Charles's actions to protect him? We can only blame Charles' for his actions and inadequate dealing with his parliament.

In 1627 Buckingham's inept diplomacy leads England into a war which it cannot afford. England is faced with the mighty Spanish and French at the same time, finance was seriously stretched already. As part of the marriage contract between Charles and Henrietta Maria, Buckingham sends English ships to La Rochelle, to fight the Huguenots, therefore fighting against people of his own religion, which angered parliament. Whilst trying to redeem himself, Buckingham makes maters worse by sending English ships to help the Huguenots in La Rochelle Ð'- a complete contradiction to his previous expedition to France. This sparks off war with France, who had made a secret treaty with Catholic Spain, leaving England cornered, and Parliament grossly irate with Buckingham. Parliament wished to remove Buckingham, and this angered Charles as he thought parliament were interfering with matters of prerogative, he thought parliament was trying to decided the king's advisors, which deeply offended Charles as he was so keen on the idea of his divine right. Charles' stiff attitude towards his own divine right and prerogative powers seems to be the main cause of disruption between Parliament and the crown here. The prime source of money for this expedition was the forced loan 1626, which was met with grave resistance.

The forced loan of 1626 was an issue of prerogative versus Privilege. Parliament argued that the King had no right to take money from his subjects without parliamentary consent. Charles argued that he had the right to do anything, as he was divinely ordained by God. Most subjects paid the forced loan which amounted to five subsidies; however a few refused to pay and were imprisoned. In 1627, those imprisoned appealed and "The Five knights'" case took place. They challenged Charles' right to imprisonment without trial for not paying the forced loan, and challenged Charles' right to collect money in the form of a forced loan without parliamentary consent. Charles retaliated and claimed he had divine right and could do so if he wished. The judge's rule in Charles' favour, but it is important to remember that Charles appoints the judges himself. Charles is creating his own downfall here, as he is to learn when he calls the next parliament in 1626.

The parliament of 1626 was called in desperation by Charles; he was still at war and dreadfully short of money. Sir Edmund Coke produced the "Petition of Right" which in effect defined the privileges parliament claimed it had traditionally since the Magna Carta, and asked Charles to sign it and acknowledge these privileges. This infuriated Charles, as he firmly believed could make any decisions without explaining them to anyone as he was divinely ordained by God. Parliament offered five subsidies as an incentive to sign the petition, and as Charles was so desperate for money he did. Parliament asked for their rights to be defined, rather than telling Charles what to do and maintaining respect for Charles without being dependent

on his good will. Buckingham took no part in the quarrelling between prerogative and privilege; hence he was not the cause of dissatisfaction between King and Parliament here.

In 1625, the first parliament granted tonnage and poundage to Charles for one year, instead of life which was the norm. Parliament did not grant it for life as the plague has seriously affected England's population with twenty percent of London's population dead. Charles was oblivious to this