Charles I’s early parliaments, foreign policy failures, and the dominant role of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, deeply shaped relations between Crown and Parliament, fuelling mounting conflict.

Charles I and His First Parliaments

When Charles I ascended the throne in 1625, he immediately inherited unresolved tensions between Crown and Parliament. His relationship with the Commons was strained from the outset due to:

• Financial demands: Charles required funds to support foreign policy aims, especially intervention in continental conflicts.

• Suspicion of absolutism: MPs feared Charles’ belief in Divine Right of Kings, which suggested the monarch’s authority came directly from God, above parliamentary control.

The 1625 Parliament was reluctant to grant Charles the full tonnage and poundage (customs duties normally awarded for life) because of distrust over his intentions. Instead, Parliament voted it for only one year, a clear assertion of parliamentary control. This unprecedented move aggravated Charles, who saw it as an attack on his royal prerogative.

Foreign Policy Aims and Failures

Charles’ foreign policy was motivated by both religious and dynastic concerns:

• He sought to defend Protestant interests in Europe, especially during the Thirty Years’ War.

• His marriage to Henrietta Maria, a French Catholic princess, caused unease in a largely Protestant England, raising fears of Catholic influence at court.

Foreign policy quickly faltered:

• The Cadiz Expedition (1625), a naval attack on Spain led by Buckingham, ended in disaster, with poor organisation and heavy losses.

• The failed Mansfeld Expedition (1625), intended to aid Protestant forces in the Palatinate, collapsed from disease and lack of supplies.

These failures reinforced MPs’ belief that Charles was mishandling national policy and wasting resources, especially when his financial demands increased.

The 1626 Parliament and Escalating Tensions

By 1626, Charles summoned a new Parliament, still desperate for funds to continue foreign engagements. Instead of providing subsidies, MPs focused on criticising Buckingham, whose incompetence and influence they saw as central to repeated disasters.

The Role of Buckingham

George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, was Charles’ closest advisor and held enormous power.

A formal portrait of George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, Charles I’s chief favourite and minister. His armour and baton symbolise martial ambition and courtly authority, helping explain why Parliament viewed him as dangerously influential. Source

His influence became the focus of parliamentary anger for several reasons:

• He dominated appointments, foreign policy, and military strategy.

• His mismanagement of expeditions like Cadiz made him a symbol of failure.

• Parliament attempted to impeach him in 1626, directly challenging royal authority.

Charles defended Buckingham vigorously, dissolving Parliament to prevent his removal. This act deepened the rift between king and Parliament, as Charles seemed determined to protect his favourite at all costs.

The Forced Loan of 1627

After the 1626 Parliament refused funding, Charles resorted to extra-parliamentary taxation. He introduced a Forced Loan — a compulsory financial levy on the wealthy, justified as a temporary necessity. This sparked widespread resistance, with many seeing it as illegal because it bypassed parliamentary approval.

• Several prominent figures, including Sir Thomas Darnell, refused payment, leading to their imprisonment.

• The legal challenge, known as the Five Knights’ Case, upheld Charles’ right to imprison without trial, undermining trust in the rule of law.

This incident illustrated how Charles’ determination to fund war and protect Buckingham alienated political elites and inflamed constitutional disputes.

The 1628 Parliament and the Petition of Right

By 1628, military defeats mounted, including the disastrous Île de Ré expedition against France, again under Buckingham’s leadership.

A contemporary plan of the La Rochelle campaign (1627–1628), showing siege lines, fortifications, and blockades. This illustrates the strategic setting of Buckingham’s failed Île de Ré expedition, highlighting the logistical and military challenges that undermined England’s intervention. Source

Facing desperation for money, Charles called another Parliament.
Parliament responded with conditions:

• They drafted the Petition of Right (1628), demanding an end to arbitrary taxation, imprisonment without trial, and the billeting of soldiers.

• Charles reluctantly accepted, though he later claimed he was not bound by its terms.

The Petition became a cornerstone of constitutional law, symbolising Parliament’s resistance to royal overreach.

Despite the Petition, tensions persisted. Parliament continued to attack Buckingham, whom they considered the root cause of England’s troubles.

Buckingham’s Assassination and Aftermath

In 1628, Buckingham was assassinated by John Felton, a disgruntled soldier who blamed him for England’s failures. Public reaction was striking: Felton was celebrated by many as a hero, highlighting the depth of resentment toward Buckingham’s dominance.

• Charles was devastated, mourning his favourite deeply.

• Yet, Parliament felt vindicated, believing the removal of Buckingham opened the door to better governance.

However, Buckingham’s death did not resolve tensions. Charles remained convinced that Parliament’s opposition had undermined his policies, and he increasingly turned toward ruling without parliamentary involvement.

Key Consequences of Early Parliaments

The early years of Charles I’s reign established a destructive pattern:

• Parliament withheld funds unless grievances were addressed.

• Charles dissolved parliaments when challenged.

• Buckingham’s failures highlighted the dangers of excessive royal favouritism.

• Foreign policy defeats drained resources and eroded trust in the Crown.

These struggles laid the foundation for the breakdown of trust between king and Parliament, setting the stage for the Personal Rule (1629–1640) and, ultimately, the deeper conflicts of the 1640s.