he reign of his son Charles I.was successful in ruling without Parliament between 1611 and 1621, but it was only possible because Britain remained at peace. James could not afford the cost of an army. In 1618, at the beginning of the Thirty Years War in Europe, Parliament wished to go to war against the Catholics. James would not agree. Until his death in 1625 James was always quarrelling with Parliament over money and over its desire to play a part in his foreign policy. [4, p.88]
.2.2 The Age of Charles I Stuart «s Reign (1625-1649) I found himself quarrelling even more bitterly with the Commons than his father had done, mainly over money. Finally he said, «Parliaments are altogether in my power ... As I find the fruits of them good or evil, they are to continue or not to be.» And Charles dissolved Parliament., The King »s need for money forced him to recall Parliament, but each time he did so, he quarreled with it. When he tried raising money without Parliament, by borrowing from merchants, bankers and landowning gentry, Parliament decided to make Charles agree to certain «parliamentary rights». It hoped Charles could not raise enough money without its help. [4, p.89] 1628 the Parliament opposition uniting the bourgeoisie and the gentry scored a victory: the king was made to sign a document limiting his power, the so-called Petition of Right. It formulated their demands that no one should be arrested or kept in prison without being charged with a definite crime, that no one should be compelled to yield any property without common consent to confiscate it by an Act of Parliament. Charles had to sign the Petition as he needed money quite badly.never meant to be governed by the Petition, and when in 1629 the opposition-ruled Parliament voted the King Tunnage and Poundage, customary royal sources of revenue, for one year only instead of for life as was the custom, Charles dismissed the Parliament and did not summon it again during eleven years (1629-1640). He also arrested and imprisoned some of the leaders of the opposition. During the eleven years of Parliamentless rule Charles and his counsellors racked their brains trying to invent some sources of revenue. The wars were wound up but the everyday state expenses were to met, so Charles went all lengths, such as forcing the occupiers of lands that had anciently been royal forest, to pay for the revival of their claims to confirm the ownership (many nobles were alienated from the crown that way for they hated to have to pay for what they had always thought was theirs), baronetcies were sold, new monopolies were sold and new customs imposed; finally an old tax was revived, the so-called ship money, ostensibly meant for the benefit of the navy which really was badly in want of repairs, but treated as a regular and universal tax (and the king evidently meant to treat it that way ) it would have made the king independent of Parliament. In 1636 some of the leaders of the opposition refused to pay the tax; the example was followed by wide masses of people, but the movement was suppressed, and the tax was levied repeatedly. [3, p. 100] surprised everyone by being able to rule successfully without Parliament. He got rid of much dishonesty that had begun in the Tudor period and continued during his father's reign. He was able to balance his budgets and make administration efficient. Charles saw no reason to explain his policy to anyone....
