Origins of the English Civil War Essay -- european history, british hi

The English Civil fight of 1642-1651 can be considered as a feud between the King and the English Parliament. Long beforehand the onset of the civil fight, Parliament and king Charles I had distrusted each other. As a result, Parliament often refused to finance the kings wars. ineffectual to gain enough patronize from Parliament, Charles I challenged local reserve of nobles and landowners, who dispassionate of the majority of Parliament, by levying new tariffs and duties, attempting to collect discontinued taxes, and subjecting English seat owners toforced loan and then imprisoning those who refused to payas well as quartering troops in private homes (Craig et al. 560). Parliament attempted to control the kings power when it presented to Charles the Petition of Right in 1628. This predication required that there would be no loans or taxation without the concur of Parliament, that Charles would not be able to imprison any free human being without due cause, and that no troo ps would be quartered in private homes. Although Charles initially agreed to the petition, he dissolved Parliament in 1629 and did not rally it again until 1640. Parliaments resentment of the kings imperative actions combined with its resistance to control the king refused to grant Charles financial support for the war with Ireland in 1640. Charles retaliated and made inevitable a civil war when he dissolved Parliament once more and arrested five of its members (Taylor vii). The resulting tightness between Charles and Parliament eventually erupted in a Civil War in 1642 and lasted until 1651. Many scholars have been associating the phenomenon of the English Civil War to a variety of causes and motives. Among Parliaments support... .... Furthermore, Charles I had attempted to make himself the inaugural despot by reducing Parliament to a nullity (Macaulay 64). It should be noted that during the time of Charles I, the king had no standing army, and that the king could not legally raise money without the consent of Parliament (Taylor 3, 4). However, because Charles had always been in favor of the notion of absolute monarchy (Taylor viii), he had dared to make extraparliamentary actions without the consent of Parliament. These include the trespass onto the constitutional rights of the English people, levying taxes without the consent of Parliament, imprisoning civilians and court nobles alike without due cause, and quartering troops in private homes during times of war (Macaulay 63-64). all told these actions challenged local control of nobles and landowners (Craig et al. 560).