'Civil War in the Summer of 1642 Essay\r'

'There were a upshot of f diddleors and afterwards a number of people who were crucial in aggravating the outbreak of the first English urbane war, but most of these people were apart of twain prominent parties, namely the royalists and sevensarians. Of these devil groups, two figures outstand as bitter rivals, King Charles I and John Pym; together they contributed most significantly to the disagreement and aggression amidst fantan and King. However, ultimately I believe Pym to be the lesser of two evils. The dealingship and status of the monarchy in parliament’s eyes had already been in a verbalise of decline flush in the lead Charles’ harness.\r\nHis predecessor had been kn declare as the ‘wisest fool in Christendom’ and there was a lot of resentment towards the causality king, James, not only because of the number of times he dissolved parliament but also from his twist of power and alienation of them finished royal prerogatives, which were warrant by his own ‘ bode honorable of kings’ belief. It could be argued that Charles was pulled into an uphill battle from the start and was not to damned for the damaged relationship between the commons and himself, however, during Charles’ reign, he made no attempt to reconcile relations even repeating the ideals of his father through the ‘divine right of kings’ and also through the arrogance of his berth and subsequent dissolution of parliament on some occasions.\r\nHistory seemed to much or less be repeating itself, with 1629 marking the start of the ‘eleven eld tyranny’ through which Charles ran solely without parliament. By his own accord, he then enforced a number of taxes and reforms that were heavily criticised by both parliament and cosmos alike. Among these were the religious reforms brought on by the resented Archbishop William exalt, who was suspected of roman type Catholicism which together with the fact Cha rles’ wife was Catholic, disaffect parliament further and fed a rumor of a Catholic conspiracy. Other reforms brought on much(prenominal) as the principal Chamber and prerogative courts were apply to silence critics, and further deepened the divide between the two; some parliamentarians such as John Hampden even challenged the changes such as the ship m iy tax Hampden refused to pay. All these served to further throw away any hope of peaceful negotiations between parliament and Charles, with for each one new action undertaken gaining more criticism. Undeniably however, one of his biggest critics was John Pym.\r\nPym was a long serving genus Phallus of parliament who had inappropriate the monarchy even in the reign of James, having been active in the impeachment of Buckingham in 1625 and in the take of the petition of right in 1628. He had opposed Charles a numerous points and contributed significantly to the disagreement between Parliament and King and the subsequen t dissolutions of Parliament; Clarendon had utter during the Short Parliament of 1640, Pym had â€Å"had appeared to be the most booster cable man”. It was no surprise with such frenzy that by the time of the Long parliament, Pym had dodged an accusation of duplicity and become the leader of the opposition to the king. However, it is important to ready Pym was really middling fighting for the rights of parliament and against the overbearing monarchy Charles was imposing. Like many former(a) puritans, he had redeeming(prenominal) reason to fear the â€Å"Catholic conspiracy” mentioned to begin with and believed the despotic government of Charles was a way of destroying the Protestant faith in England. In this light, Charles’ arrogance comes through as he was obviously unable to manage over his unreasonable actions.\r\nWhen parliament finally necessitate to be called again in 1640 due to the frugal invasion, it marked a point of vulnerability for Charl es, which parliament and namely Pym took advantage of. Charles ask funding, and in alter for the money the Long parliament demanded the impeachment of both Laud and Strafford as well as the removal of the Star Chamber. In both cases, Pym was spearheading the legal proceedings, even having launched a Bill of Attainder to justify a termination sentence for Strafford which was currently reluctantly signed by Charles. The Earl of Strafford had been a close advisor of the king, and his death was a huge blow to Charles and something he always regretted disposed(p) the promise he made to Strafford â€Å"upon the word of a king, you shall not suffer in life, honour or fortune”.\r\nAs a result, Charles resented parliament and longed for revenge. With the state of relations between King and parliament at an all-time low, the last thing needed was more criticism to an already weakened king, who had just agree to the Triennial act of 1641 which meant parliament would be called at le ast every three years. Despite this, Pym and his supporters presented the dreadful Remonstrance; a list of 160 grievances and misdeeds of Charles. This in itself was something proposed by Pym and was almost mocking Charles with his â€Å"divine right of kings” ideal now appearing obsolete. This may clear turn out a last straw for Charles, who would deplete been building a great sense of petulance with Parliament and more specifically with Pym. Indeed soon after in 1642, Pym along with four other prominent members of the opposition was charged with treason, showing just how much of a threat Charles saw Pym as.\r\nWhen Charles took it upon himself to beat at parliament with 300 soldiers to personally vex the five members it destroyed any final shreds of intrust between Parliament and Charles. Members of parliament were representatives of the people and Charles was arrest five of them for merely criticising. This event embodied to Parliament the absolute monarchy they w ere fighting against and all the liberties they still needed to fight for. Charles must have even effected the mistake he had made in jailbreak any remaining ties with parliament, and six days subsequent headed for Oxford to prepare an army of the inevitable coming war.\r\nIn conclusion, both Pym and Charles can be interpreted as being the reason relations fell apart and Civil war broke out, however, even with Pym’s involvement in many parliamentary dissolutions and manifest opposition to the king, Charles still appears as the most unreasonable. Charles gave business deal of reasons for parliament and members such has Pym to criticise him, having made no attempt to learn from his father’s mistakes, public opinion for 11 years purposely without parliament noise and from imposing taxes and religious reforms which alienated people. The final act of attempting to arrest five members of parliament with hundreds of armed guards, proved not only too aggressive but also the final reason as to why Civil war became the only solution remaining.\r\n'