Wentworth was among the most verbal Petition of right supporters which tried to limit the King’s power. Following the reluctant acceptance of the Petition by Charles, Wentworth thought it was suitable to offer support to the crown. He stated that ‘The king’s power is the basis which closes the curve of government and order.’ As a result, he was termed a traitor.
In the 1628 parliament, Wentworth became part of the famous leaders who opposed imprisonment and arbitrary taxation but attempted to realize his objective without committing wrong against the Crown.
Wentworth became leader of the group for the bill that would have presented the freedom of the person totally, as was later done by Petition of Right. However, this was in a way that did not offend the King at all.
The proposal was not a success due to;
1. Parliamentary party’s rigid character
2. Charles’ adamant rejection about making compromises
So, the leadership was taken away from Wentworth by John Eliot as well as Edward Coke. Afterwards during the session, he had an argument with Eliot as he desired to come into an agreement with Lords in order to give the King a chance to take action freely in particular emergencies.
In 1628 on 22 July, soon after the prorogation, Wentworth was made Baron Wentworth and obtained the guarantee of North Council’s presidency during the following vacancy.
The implication of this was that principle remained the same. He now differed with the Parliamentary Party on two key topics of policy, refusing the aim of Parliament to take away the executive powers as well as its leaning towards Puritanism.
After the creation of the breach, naturally, it became huger. In part, due to the effort invested by each section of its work and in part from the individual differences that came up.
Until then, Wentworth had no direct connection in the country’s government But after Buckingham was murdered in 1628, he was made Viscount Wentworth. Shortly after this, he became Council of the North’s president.
In the York speech about assuming office, he declared his objective, nearly in Francis Bacon’s words, putting in his best, to tie up the Crown’s right and the freedom of the person in identical union.
He said, ‘Anyone who queries the king’s right and individuals will not manage to sum them up once more, in the attractiveness and organization he came across them.’
His methods were similar to the one he implemented afterwards in Ireland. This led to the allegation that he intended to integrate all executive power at the individual’s expense in rebellion of constitutional freedoms.
The result of the 1629 parliamentary session was a disagreement between Parliament and the King, which rendered a moderator’s role useless. Wentworth needed to make a choice between either assisting House of Commons controlling the King; alternatively, assisting the king to control House of Commons.
He opted to take the latter action and immersed himself in oppression work with typical zeal and by stating he was sustaining the previous constitution. Also, that his adversaries in Parliament were trying to change it by assuming control of Parliament.
From henceforth, he worked as one of the two key members. Canterbury’s Archbishop William Laud was the other one, in a group of main royal advisors (the ‘Thorough Party’) in the course of a period of 11 years of complete monarchical law, exclusive of parliament (referred to as Personal Rule as well as the ‘dictatorship of 11 years).