The End of Personal Rule and the Early Long Parliament

Charles also bypassed common law juries by using Prerogative Courts, such as the Star Chamber, to crush dissent. In 1637, three Puritan critics (Prynne, Burton, and Bastwick) were fined £5,000 and had their ears publicly cut off for criticising the regime. Without a Parliament, the gentry lacked a political "safety valve" to voice their anger, causing resentment to quietly build. This anger eventually exploded in the 1641 Grand Remonstrance, a document detailing 204 specific abuses of the King's power.

The "Thorough" Policy and Religious Control

A perfectly oiled machine does exactly what its operator wants without resistance. William Laud and Thomas Wentworth (the Earl of Strafford) attempted to run England and Ireland just like this. Their administrative approach, known as the Thorough policy, aimed to create a highly efficient, centralised, and authoritarian government.

As Archbishop of Canterbury from 1633, Laud heavily promoted Arminianism, a High Church style of Protestantism that terrified Puritans who believed it was a secret return to Catholicism. He rigorously enforced the "Beauty of Holiness" through strict reforms:

• Moving communion tables to the east end of churches.
• Turning them into stone altars and separating them with wooden rails.
• Enforcing the strict use of the surplice (clerical robes) and the Book of Common Prayer.

Meanwhile, Strafford applied the Thorough policy as Lord Deputy of Ireland. He doubled Irish customs revenues and built a highly trained Irish Catholic army. English MPs were terrified that Strafford would eventually bring this army across the sea to crush Parliament.

The Scottish Crisis and the Bishops' Wars

A single book can sometimes start a war. In 1637, Charles and Laud attempted to force a new English-style Prayer Book onto Presbyterian Scotland, sparking massive riots at St Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh. In response, Scottish Presbyterians, known as the Covenanters, signed the National Covenant in 1638 to defend their church from royal interference.

This religious defiance triggered the Bishops' Wars. During the First Bishops' War in 1639, Charles's poorly funded and badly trained forces failed to crush the rebellion, ending in an uneasy truce. The situation collapsed completely at the Battle of Newburn in August 1640 during the Second Bishops' War.

The Covenanters decisively defeated the English forces and occupied Newcastle, cutting off London's vital coal supply. Charles was humiliated and forced to sign the Treaty of Ripon in October 1640. The punishing terms included:

• The Scots would continue to occupy Northern England.
• Charles was forced to pay the Scots £850 a day in living expenses until a final peace settlement.

The Financial Trap: Why Parliament Was Recalled

Even a king cannot fight a war with an empty bank account. The Treaty of Ripon was the immediate trigger that destroyed Charles's Personal Rule.

Earlier in April 1640, Charles had summoned the Short Parliament to request 12 subsidies to fight the Scots. However, MPs led by John Pym refused to grant any funds until Charles addressed their grievances over Ship Money and religious changes. Furious, Charles dissolved them after just three weeks.

By late 1640, the Crown was entirely bankrupt, carrying debts over £1 million. The City of London refused to provide further loans, and peacetime revenues were exhausted. After a final, desperate meeting with his nobles in York, Charles realised only a Parliament could legally raise the taxes needed to pay the Scottish indemnity. He had no choice but to summon the Long Parliament in November 1640.

Calculate the financial pressure Charles I faced due to the Treaty of Ripon. If the King had to pay the Scots £850 every day for a full year to prevent an attack, what would the total annual cost be?

Step 1: Identify the daily indemnity cost.

• $\text{Cost per day} = £850$

Step 2: Set up the equation for the annual cost.

• $\text{Annual Cost} = \text{Cost per day} \times 365$

Step 3: Calculate the total.

• $\text{Annual Cost} = 850 \times 365 = 310{,}250$

The total cost would be £310,250. This massive sum, combined with existing debts of over £1 million, made calling Parliament an absolute mathematical necessity, as the King's "Personal Rule" revenues (like Ship Money) were completely exhausted.

Attacking the "Evil Counsellors"

How do you legally execute a man when the law says he is innocent? This is exactly how Parliament dealt with the King's favourite ministers. Because MPs could not legally attack the King himself, they blamed "evil counsellors" like Strafford and Laud. They initially tried a formal trial known as Impeachment, but ultimately had to force through legislative votes called a Bill of Attainder.

Process	Description	Standard of Proof
Impeachment	A formal judicial trial where the Commons prosecutes and the Lords judge.	Required strict legal proof of a crime (e.g., High Treason).
Bill of Attainder	A legislative act declaring someone guilty by a simple vote.	No formal trial or legal proof required; relies on a majority vote.

The Downfall of Strafford (1641)

In late 1640, Parliament attempted Impeachment against Strafford. However, the charge of High Treason legally required proving he had acted against the King. Since Strafford had acted on Charles's direct orders, the trial collapsed. Realising they would lose in court, radical MPs pivoted to a Bill of Attainder. Rumours of an "Army Plot" to free Strafford and pressure from London mobs forced the Lords and the King to agree. Strafford was executed in May 1641.

The Downfall of Laud (1640–1645)

William Laud followed a similar path of parliamentary vengeance. He was impeached in November 1640 for his "Thorough" religious policies and imprisoned in the Tower of London. His formal trial did not begin until 1644. Like Strafford’s case, the Commons found it impossible to prove he had committed legal treason. Consequently, Parliament abandoned the judicial trial and issued a Bill of Attainder against him. Despite the King’s opposition, Laud was executed on 10 January 1645. These attacks showed that Parliament was determined to dismantle the machinery of Personal Rule by removing the men who ran it.