Key Reasons for the Failure of Charles I Personal Rule

Financial problems were one reason for the end of Charles I's personal rule because Charles' need for money to fund his war with the Scots was the single reason he was forced to call parliament. Furthermore, his prerogative taxes caused a lot of opposition from the political nation. However, Charles' religious policy and absolutist behaviour also undermined personal rule. The most important reason for the failure of personal rule, rather than just opposition to it, was Charles' imposition of Laudian reforms on Scotland, which ultimately created a financial problem so bad - a war - he was forced to end personal rule.

Though not the main reason for the end of personal rule, financial problems did play a vital role. Personal rule refers to the king ruling alone and independently of Parliament; therefore personal rule ended as soon as parliament was recalled in 1640. There were no constitutional obligations on Charles to call a parliament and therefore the only thing that would make him do so was the need to raise funds. Charles managed to rule for eleven years without calling parliament by using prerogative taxation; collecting taxes without parliamentary consent. He brought back long unused taxes such as the distraint of knighthood and forest fines. These taxes were unpopular and caused resentment from the political nation, alienating many of the most powerful people in the country. Distraint of knighthood taxed people for what should have been the privilege of being a knight. Forest fines demanded rent on land that had not been collected for centuries. Monopolies were sold more than once and even to Catholics, leading to the 'popish soap' scandal. But most unpopular of all was Ship Money. The levying and extension of Ship Money as an annual tax, when it had previously only been collected in times of emergency, and nationally, when it had previously only been collected from coastal towns, led to a legal challenge by John Hampden which was the most significant example of resistance to personal rule in England. By 1637 many of the ruling elite concluded that Charles I was creating a tax-raising system without reference to parliament. This fuelled fears that Charles was creating an absolute monarchy because if he was financially independent he would never have to call parliament. However, all resistance to Charles' financial policies before the Bishops Wars failed and therefore the financial problem that caused personal rule to fail was the Bishops' Wars. It was the need to fund an expensive military campaign against the Scots in 1639-40 that effectively ended personal rule. A taxpayers strike and an inability to borrow money meant Charles' only option was to call parliament, first the Short Parliament which only lasted three weeks, then the Long Parliament which was the definitive end and failure of personal rule.

However, the failure of personal rule cannot be reduced to financial problems. The financial problems that forced Charles to recall parliament were caused by his failed attempt to impose Laudian religious reforms on Scotland. The Bishops' Wars were therefore the reason for the financial problems, making this factor more important. Scotland and England were separate nations at this time and therefore, even though Charles was king of Scotland, there was opposition to his attempt to bring the Scottish church in line with Laud's Church of England. The Scots had their own church, the Kirk, which was separate from the Church of England. The Kirk, unlike the Church of England, had undergone a Calvinist reformation in the sixteenth century and was further from Arminianism than the Church of England had been before Laud's reforms. It was also Presbyterian rather than Episcopal. This meant that they were much more hostile to Arminian reforms because the changes were more radical to them than they had been in the Church of England. In 1636, Charles issued the Book of Canons to Scottish clergy which began introducing practises associated with the Church of England. But resistance really began in response to the introduction of the English Prayer Book in 1637. When the book was read out in Edinburgh, a riot broke out and disorder spread across the country, leading Scottish clergy and nobility to meet and draw up the National Covenant in defence of the Kirk. Scottish opposition to Charles was not just religious. Charles had alienated Scots by only visiting to be crowned in 1633, having been their king since 1625, and largely ignoring the Scottish Privy Council in favour of exiles in London. Even opposition to the Laudian reforms had a political element as there were fears attempts to unify religious practices were a step towards political union with England. However, it was ultimately the religious policies which triggered the Bishops' Wars between England and Scotland, which in turn led to Charles' financial problems, and ultimate recall of parliament, making Charles' religious policy in Scotland the main reason for the end of personal rule.

Although it was Charles' religious policy in Scotland rather than financial problems alone which led to the end of personal rule, Charles' religious policies in England as well as his absolutist tendencies also undermined personal rule. The reforms that were imposed in Scotland were a continuation of Laud's changes to the Church of England. There were widespread fears of Catholicism and absolute monarchy, particularly from Puritans, during personal rule. Archbishop Laud's 'Beauty of Holiness' reformed the church along Arminian lines, placing the altar in the same place as Catholic churches and including many kinds of outward worship and ceremony associated with Catholicism such as stained glass windows and decorative vestments. Furthermore, Charles' was friends with many Catholics at court and was married to the French Catholic Henrietta-Maria. Henrietta-Maria openly practised Catholicism, despite it being illegal in England, and there were fears the royal children were being raised Catholic. Laud's reforms and the presence of Catholics at court led to fears that Charles was a secret Catholic. This was a problem in and of itself because of Protestant fears of Catholic violence, for example the Gunpowder Plot against the parliament of James l. but also because Catholicism was closely associated to absolutism. The French and Spanish absolute monarchies were both Catholic and known for persecuting Protestants, and there were fears during personal rule that Charles was moving England in the same Laud's imposition of uniformity cracked down on Puritan preachers, preventing them from preaching in the Church of England as well as independently by banning the Feoffees who collected money for them. Puritan criticism of Charles' religious policies was censored, most famously Bastwick, Burton and Prynne were the most notable victims of this strict regime, imprisoned and mutilated by Charles' prerogative courts. In Ireland, through the policy of Thorough', the Earl of Strafford was treating the English Puritans just as harshly as other groups, amassing both immense wealth to himself as well as a Catholic army. This fuelled fears that Charles' might use Strafford's army to impose Catholic absolutism in England. Even resistance to financial issues fits this theme of anti-Catholicism and Puritan opposition as the Hampden case against Ship Money was organised by Puritans; it is possible their opposition was not to the financial policy alone but saw this as a possible opportunity to attack Charles without meeting the fate of Bastwick, Burton and Prynne. This is further supported by the fact that Charles' prerogative taxes, including Ship Money, were generally paid and collected without opposition until problems began in 1637 in Scotland. There was resistance within England to personal rule which was not just concerned with financial issues but religious policy and fears of Catholic absolutism. However, none of these attempts to resist or undermine personal rule succeeded and the political nation could not bring about its end until Charles summoned parliament due to the financial demands of the Bishops Wars.

In conclusion, financial problems were not the main reason for the failure of Charles I's personal rule in the years 1629-40. The main reason for the failure of personal rule was the Bishops Wars with Scotland which were caused by Charles' religious policy. By attempting to impose Laudian reforms on Scotland's independent and Calvinist church, Charles turned them against him and caused a war. This war put too much of a financial burden on his government forcing him to recall parliament and end personal rule. It is clear that in the short term of 1640 it was financial problems that led to Charles calling parliament, and there was a lot of opposition to his arguably illegal taxes such as Ship Money, but ultimately it was the misjudged religious policies in Scotland that led to the biggest financial problems and the taxes had been successfully collected until the last year of personal rule. On balance, whilst financial problems did cause opposition to personal rule in England and in the short term explain the recall of parliament, it was Charles' attempt to impose Arminian reforms on the Scottish Kirk that led to the failure of personal rule.