anges. It did not wish to upset the ageing queen whom it feared and respected. Elizabeth knew that the value of the support offered by the growing merchant class and spared no efforts to promote the interests of trade and commerce (hence her struggle against Spanish rivalry on the seas). When she died and James I was crowned (1603-1625) the situation was quite different. [3, p.99] Elizabeth, James I tried to rule without Parliament as much as possible. He was afraid it would interfere, and he preferred to rule with a small council.was clever and well educated. He had strong beliefs and opinions. The most important of these was his belief in the divine right of kings. He believed that the king was chosen by God and therefore only God could judge him. James «s ideas were not different from those of earlier monarchs, or other monarchs in Europe. He expressed these opinions openly, however, and this led to trouble with Parliament.Elizabeth died she left James with a huge debt, larger than the total yearly income of the Crown. James had to ask Parliament to raise a tax to pay the debt. Parliament agreed, but in return insisted on the right to discuss James »s home and foreign policy. James, however, insisted that he alone had the «divine right» to make these decisions. Parliament disagreed, and it was supported by the law.had made a mistake of appointing Elizabeth «s minister, Sir Edward Coke, as Chief Justice. Coke made decisions based on the law which limited the king »s power. He judged that the king was not above the law, and even more important, that the king and his council could not make new laws. Laws could only be made by Act of Parliament. James removed Coke from the position of Chief Justice, but as an MP Coke continued to make trouble. He reminded Parliament of Magna Carta, interpreting it as the great charter of English freedom. Although this was not really true, his claim was politically useful to Parliament. This was the first quarrel between James and Parliament, and it started the bad feeling which lasted during his entire reign. [4, p.88] came from Scotland where industry and foreign trade were practically undeveloped, and the merchant class was not half so influential as in London. He was lavish, for, being unused to the glamour of the English court and the country «s apparent wealth by contrast with Scottish comparative poverty, he committed errors of judgement and so very soon had to approach the Parliament with money requests. Where Elizabeth took things as a matter of course and thought little ofpompous speech-making and the putting on of airs, he kept voicing his royal theories of the divine right of kings. Where Elizabeth was understandable and protective, James proved to be obtuse paying no attention to the suppression of Spanish marine power, doing little or nothing to uphold the power of the English fleet so that English merchant ships suffered from piracy. He made peace with Spain that did not promise the London merchants any profit for it did not stipulate their right of trading with the colonies of Spain. No wonder the king made enemies of the powerful London merchants while he made friends of those merchants » ancient enemies; he became friendly with the Spanish king. [3, pp.99-100] neglecting the interests of the historically progressive classes of the period, James Stuart had a Parliament opposition formed against him, growing during his reign and culminating to a head during t...
