1 James I and early stuarts (1603-1625)

Parliamentary opposition was the main reason for the deterioration in relations between Crown and Parliament in the years 1604 to 1625? – assess the validity of this view

• Parl opposition, finance, religious tensions, foreign policy, personality, favourites

• James, being willing to compromise, normally deescalated tension as can be seen with the Subsidy Act of 1624 (crown granted subsidies but only if used for specific areas of FP)

Parliamentary Opposition; what kind of relationship did James want to have with parl

• Initially hoped to have a harmonious relationship - seen in speech in 1609

Disputes over royal prerogative

• demanded money which was met with resistance

• used to the Scottish system being more absolute.

issues with tonnage and poundage

• 1606 parl refused to allow tonnage and poundage

• tax on imports and exports

• james refused to compromise = beginning of disagreements 

The great contract 1610

• This failed as parl rejected it

• led to James referring to parl as ‘house of hell’

• prompted him to dissolve parl 

disputes with parl

• Ripped out the page from Commons journal that contained parls right to speak freely

• dissolved parl in 1621

• Parliamentary criticism of James’ favourites and policies.

Finance; what was the financial situation when james came to the throne

• Inherited an insecure financial situation

• inherited debt and an outdated system

What happened due to this situation and what was his spending like

• had to rely on parl grants

• his frequent requests for these were met with resistance as were concerned about his management

• James’ extravagance and inability to live within his income

Great contract 1610

• try to resolve issues by this, securing regular income

• but MP’s unwilling to grant the king the financial support he sought without seeing a greater commitment to financial reform and the reduction of royal expenditure.

what unpopular impositions did he rely on

• Reliance on unpopular impositions and monopolies

• were seen as an overreach of royal power, weakening parls

• Parliamentary frustration over lack of financial reform.

Religious tensions; attempt to maintain relations with both catholics and protestants

• both unhappy

• eg puritans feel church too catholic + wanted more radical reforms

The Spanish match + other leniency towards catholics

• Spanish match - marriage with Charles and henrietta seen as catholic leaning

• Disputes over James’ leniency towards Catholics and hostility towards Puritans.

Gunpowder plot 1605

• group of radical catholics planned to assassinate James and blow up parl intending to trigger a catholic uprising and restore catholic monarchy 

• This opposition and the King’s inability to fully satisfy the religious demands of Parliament led to escalating mistrust

Foreign policy; rex pacificus

• James wanted to maintain peace mistrust of this from parl

• Seen by parls opposition to James’ pro-Spanish policies and the marriage negotiations. Spanish match = parl saw as a betrayal of protestant interests

• The pressure on James in the 1624–25 Parliament to intervene in the Thirty Years’ War was against his desire to continue as Rex Pacificus (seen as hostility)

No gains

• Failure to effectively manage relations with Spain or to achieve substantial diplomatic gains further alienated Parliament, also perceived failure to act in England’s national interest

How serious was the threat posed by Catholics and Puritans to the authority of James I in the years 1603 to 1625?

• Religious, parliamentary and foreign policy threat

• Did cause some difficulties but overall james’ prerogative approach limited resistance and threats

Religious threat - catholics; rejected the monarch

• Catholics rejected the crown as the supreme governor of the church

• instead placed religious authority in the pope - this raised concerns of political loyalty

Gunpowder plot 1605 and main and bye plots 1603

• Gunpowder plot 1605; group of radical catholics planned to assassinate James and blow up parl intending to trigger a catholic uprising and restore catholic monarchy 

• Main and Bye plots 1603; documented conspiracies (didn't take place) clearly show they were a threat to James’ authority in the early years of his reign 

• Minority; however, these events were unrepresentative of most catholics. Majority were moderates or church papists (conformed publically to anglicanism to avoid persecution)

James’ pragmatic approach

• James’ pragmatic approach; initially offered toleration but became more repressive after the gunpowder plot to ensure the initial threat didn’t grow into a broader rebellion

Religious threat - puritans; reformations

• Reformation of COE; did not reject his authority outright 

• Millenary petition 1603; signed by over 1,000 ministers and called for the abolition of certain ceremonies, vestments and bishops. While this challenged elements of royal supremacy in religion, it was framed as a request, not a rebellion

how did james repsond to the millenary petition

• Hampton court conference 1604; James addressed these demands and offered some concessions

• most notably the commissioning of the King James Bible in 1611 (intended to unify religious groups).

• However, he also made clear that radical reform would not be tolerated.

Radical puritans but only minority

• some pushed boundaries and implemented godly reforms but the majority accepted james’ jacobethan balance

• Emigration; most radical puritans did this, reducing internal tensions. 

George Abbot

• George Abbot; James appointed him, a Calvinist, as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1611 which reassured moderate Puritans. 

Parliamentary threat - catholics; penal laws

• meant that catholics had virtually no voice in parl as they were excluded from holding public office

Parliamentary threat - puritans; church

• Puritan MP’s; challenged the direction of the church and sought greater reforms

• and concerns grew with james’ acceptance of the emergence of arminianism (seen as very close to catholicism)

• Puritans viewed these developments as the Church moving away from its Calvinist roots, and that James was undermining Protestantism.

Royal policy

• increasingly questioned James’ decisions, and religious disputes often merged with concerns about finance, foreign alliances and court corruption

Operated within legal and constitutional frameworks

• while they exposed their concerns and voiced criticism, there was no organised movement to overthrow the king or radically reshape the political structure - mostly moderate and still accepted legitimacy of monarchy and church

James’ control

• was able to maintain control by dissolving parl and arresting his royal prerogative

Foreign policy threat - puritans; rex paificus

• Thirty years war 1618; european conflict between catholics and protestants placed james’ religious neutrality under pressure - puritans expected james to intervene on behalf of the protestant cause 

• Rex Pacificus; james now called this

• Spanish match; one of James’ attempts to keep peace, this cause uproar as seen as betrayal to protestantism 

• Prevented war; because of his peaceful approach which made aliantating certain groups worth it. Puritan frustration did not lead to any active resistance but did contribute to a growing sense of disillusionment among a key political faction that would worsen under Charles I.

1621 parl

• MP’s passed petitions demanding that he abandoned the spanish match and declared war on spain - james dissolved parl in response which caused divisions

To what extent did James I’s favourites undermine his relationship with his Parliaments in the years 1604 to 1625?

• Favourites, finance, foreign policy

• Favourites did undermine James’ relationship with Parliament but this became more of an issue because of the power that Buckingham was able to achieve from the depth of his relationship with James.

Favourites; robert carr

• Alienated parl by embodying the Crown’s perceived corruption and favoritism.

• Robert Carr; too much influence over king (parl mad as listened to him rather than experiences advisors), downfall came after overbury scandal (him and his wife poisoned the courtier who opposed their marriage) which also caused conflict with parl as reinforced ideas of a royal court rife with favoritism and corruption

Buckingham

• George villiers, duke of Buckingham; was an issue in regard to monopolies in 3rd parl, issue in 4th parl with regard to tension over the direction of foreign policy (failure at spanish match - parl wanted to impeach him) - his power alienated parl 

• This lack of trust can be seen during great contact, monopolies

Unprofessional reactions

• However, he occasionally had outbursts of anger and arrogance, seen in his reaction towards the debate of the union in 1606 (union of england and scotland) or the protestation of 1621 - these created tensions

‘Charles I addressed the financial weaknesses of the Crown, in the years 1625 to 1640, more successfully than James I, in the years 1603 to 1625.’

While Charles achieved short term gains his methods created deep political divisions (led to the civil war) and failed to address underlying fiscal problems.

Charles I’s successes; improved finances

• Inherited substantial debt 1629; Crown was £2m in debt 1629 but only £18k by 1635

Ways of raising finance

• Ship money; Raised around £200k annually + no parl approval

• Forest fines; punished land owners who had built on royal land

• Other taxes; older taxes brought back ie fines for not becoming a knight

• These methods were successful enough to allow him to rule without parl from 1629-40, showing he was more financially independent than james

Charles I’s failures; failed to make reforms

• Failed to address the structural weakness of the crowns financial system

unpopular taxes

• relied on heavily unpopular prerogative income that bypassed parl, rather than implementing lasting fiscal reform. 

• Hampden case 1637; Ship money was collected aggressively and became a regular point of resistance eg John Hampden refused to pay it and challenged its legality, bringing national attention to the issue.

Fiscal policies shaped by his desire to avoid parl

• Shaped by his desire to avoid parl; made peace with France and Spain in order to avoid wartime taxation and avoid summoning parl. Made sense in the short term but stemmed from a political move to isolate parl 

• Recalled parl 1640; he faced huge costs due to conflict in scotland, mainly due to the bishop's wars, which could not be funded through his prerogative. He was no longer financially independent 

• Alienated political nation; caused by his personal rule, this meant when crisis arose he had very little support. The summoning of the short parl 1640 and the long parl marked the end of his financial autonomy

James I’s successes; relations with parl

• Frequent consultation with parl; didn’t provoke the same level of constitutional crisis that charles did

• Political stability; unlike charles he was able to maintain a basic level of cooperation, maintaining stability

Ways of raising money

• Impositions; taxes on imports and exports that he utilised, didn’t need the approval of parl. These were confirmed as legal in the Bates case 1606.

• Monopolies; gave these out to courtiers giving them the exclusive right to sell certain goods. These were criticised but brought in steady money and didn’t cause as much anger as ship money did.

James I’s failures; lifestyle + debt at end of his reign

• Extravagant lifestyle; He was known to have a lavish lifestyle and spent significant amounts on his favourites and his royal household

• Debt at the end of his reign; accumulated over £1mil

Failures of robert cecil

• Book of Bounty 1608; introduced by his financial advisor robert cecil, aimed to restrict his generosity by setting limits on land grants and valuable items he could hand out, he ignored these and continued to reward his faves

• Great contract 1610; proposed by cecil where parl would provide the king with an annual income of £200k and the removal of some debts, in exchange for James giving up some prerogative income (what he could collect without parls consent). This failed as both parties felt there was too much to lose