Charles' decision to rule without Parliament in 1629 marked an eleven year period of personal rule. Whilst the Whig historians viewed the eleven years of governance without parliament as the "Eleven Years' Tyranny"; contemporary historians seem to be more compassionate with Charles' actions. Nevertheless, in order judge the extent to which Charles was successful during the period of personal rule we must establish certain criteria to measure success.The key themes would be his ability to raise finance through "ordinary" means, to offer sound governance which ensures social and religious cohesion as well as his ability to stay connected to the people.
It is also important to establish that whilst the King might have been successful in the short term; he could have failed to pave the path for the long run, thus Charles was piling up trouble for himself for the future. Having dissolved parliament, the only institution which can grant the King the right to raise taxes, the immediate threat posed against the Charles was finance.Although Charles was not an extravagant King as James was, he still needed money for the general maintenance of the country; as such, William Noy the Attorney General was appointed to look through forgotten and outdated laws that could be exploited as a means of raising income for the Crown. Various non-parliamentary finances were discovered and employed with the most lucrative ones being the Distraint of Knighthood whereby men owning estates worth i?? 0 were suppose to present themselves as knights and those whom did not were fined as well as Ship Money, which is a levy to raise money for ships to be built to protect coastal areas from pirates.However, it is important to note that both of these sources of income were ancient and had been long unused. Nevertheless, statically, Charles' means of digging through neglected forms of rates and customs was successful as the Crown's income increased by 25% by 1636 when compared to a decade ago.
Ironically, despite the opposition to Charles in regards to his means of raising money; the Crown was doing exactly what MPs have been telling the King to do - to "live of its own". However, whilst the King was protected by law to raise income through the means of ordinary revenue, many subjects saw what Charles did as exploiting the law to his own advantage. As Clarendon said "though it (the King) had foundation in right, yet in the circumstances of proceeding it was very grievous and no less unjust".The Ship Money Case could be said to be the breaking point of the subject's patience of the Crown as it was seen as a step too far - although it was technically a rate, many saw it as an attempt for Charles to raise taxes without Parliament's consent. More worryingly is that Ship Money is estimated to generate i?? 200,000 for the Crown ever year; this will make the Crown even more financially independent thus might means parliament will never be called again. Lord Saye and John Hampden, both members of the puritan network refused to pay and the ship money case was taken to court.
The Puritan Network exploited the Ship Money case well, although the judges ruled in favour of the King 7 to 5, it generate an increase in objections towards the Crown: It was now the wide spread belief that Ship Money was an infringement of the Magna Carta. Therefore although Charles was able to generate revenue through Ship Money he was storing up discontent and was aiding the Puritan Network in gaining support. Secondly, one can say that it was just a matter of time until Charles had to call for parliament.This is because whilst the Crown was able to raise a good sum through ordinary revenue, in the time of crisis such as wars, he would need to ask for a parliamentary subsidy.
In regards to governance during the eleven years without parliament, Strafford played a dominating role in Charles' administration. Strafford was appointed Lord President of the Council of the North and was later promoted to the post of Lord Deputy of Ireland. Strafford embarked upon a "thorough" policy and had a strong belief that authoritarian rule was best for the people as it provides a strong government.One can praise Strafford as his policy was needed to shake up the inefficient and corrupted government passed on from James. Also, although he was impartial and strict, Strafford did govern through a parliament thus could not be labeled as an absolute. Charles' success in appointing someone capable to oversee Irish affairs was important as Ireland has always been a potential Catholic threat and the English Crown had never been able to manage Ireland beyond the Pale.
Governing without parliament also meant that Charles could not formally legislate. However, the Crown was able to utilize his control over the judiciary system to reinterpreted and bend laws. As such, the prerogative courts and regional councils became important institutions for the Crown. The Court of Star Chamber allowed Charles to carry out important political trails behind closed doors; whilst the regional councils was used to control non-conforming and powerful northern families.
Laud receive a promotion to the Archbishop of Canterbury position under Charles, and was the most important figure of the Church of England during the eleven years. Although MPs were highly critical of Laud for his High Church leanings; Laud can be defended as all he did was govern according to the Act of Uniformity. Also, just like Charles Laud favored the High Church and its artistic decorations - that did not necessarily make him pro-Catholic.On the other hand, Strafford and Canterbury's existence drew heavy criticisms as many feared that Charles would be influenced by absolutists. Strafford's "thorough" policy was seen to be a dangerous blueprint to how England could be potentially governed.
Whilst Strafford was simply feared, Laud was hated and was under constant attack for his Catholic sympathies and his desire to destroy Puritanism. Also, Laud was accused of using the Church of England to reinforce the Divine Right of King - something which Charles heavily believed in.Although one might think that the substance of what Strafford and Laud did was sound; their style attracted unneeded attacks and made the Crown even more unpopular than he was. Laud was even opposed by some of the King's own advisers and supporters for his arrogance.
Therefore, it was a failed political strategy to have given these two men such high profile jobs as it means opening the door to indirect criticisms at the Crown through attacking his key advisers.During Charles' eleven year without parliament, he became increasing distant to the people. One might say that this was due to Charles' seriousness to restore the dignity of the Crown which was much needed after James' reign which was infamously marked with corruption and scandals. Indeed, Charles might have genuinely wanted to safeguard the semi-divine status of the Crown and to prevent its reputation from being further tarnished; however this came with a cost. A "Court Versus Country" feeling developed.
The people saw the Court as an isolated group of elitists who was out of touch with public opinion; and were highly skeptical of the Court's motive especially in regards to religion. Charles should have known that without parliament, an institution which connects the Crown to his subjects to some extent, he needed to set out the image that he was willing to connect with the people or at less make an impression on public opinion. Charles' attempt to use painting as a means of reinforcing his Divine image was largely unsuccessful as the public saw through it as no more than a poor propaganda exercise.Although Charles managed to govern without parliament for eleven years, it seems as if survival was the focus and not success. Charles simply got by in regards to finance and governing; but his approach, even if deemed intelligent or sound, had a limited short term effect.
It seemed as if from the very start, Charles was doomed to fail. The Crown seemed to have undermined the role of parliament whilst overestimating the position of the Crown.Politically, Charles was storing up discontent against the reign and by surrounding himself with Buckingham-like advisors such as Laud and Strafford, matters were only made worse. Ironically, the eleven year tyranny benefited the Puritan Network most. Discontent MPs were ever so motivated to attack and plot against the Crown whilst the person of the Kingdom was made to feel alienated. As such, it is fair to conclude that the personal rule was much of a failure and indeed, it was a mistake for Charles to have decided to rule without Parliament in the first place.
