The Publishers would like to thank the following for permission to reproduce copyright material.

Photo credits

Photo credits: p.6 © The National Trust Photolibrary / Alamy; p.9 © Georgios Kollidas – Fotolia; p.34 © Hulton Archive/Getty Images; p.43 © The Granger Collection, NYC / TopFoto; p.63 © culture-images/fai/Topfoto; p.70 © The Granger Collection, NYC / TopFoto; p.87 Attempted arrest of 5 members of the House of Commons by Charles I, 1642, 1856-66 (fresco), Cope, Charles West (1811-90) / © Houses of Parliament, Westminster, London, UK / Bridgeman Images; p.95 © 2003 Fotomas / Topham Picturepoint / TopFoto; p.110 © Georgios Kollidas/iStock/Thinkstock; p.121 © The Granger Collection, NYC / TopFoto; p.147 © 2003 Fotomas / Topham Picturepoint / TopFoto; p.156 © The Granger Collection, NYC / TopFoto; p.163 © 2004 Topham Picturepoint/TopFoto; p.173 © B.O’Kane / Alamy; p.186 © Georgios Kollidas/iStock/Thinkstock; p.191 A History of the New Plot: Or, A Prospect of Conspirators, Their Designs Damnable, Ends Miserable, Deaths Exemplary (engraving) (b/w photo), English School, (17th century) / © Private Collection / Bridgeman Images; p.195 Babel and Bethel: or, the Pope in his Colours, 1679 (engraving), English School, (17th century) / © British Museum, London, UK / Bridgeman Images; p.200 © Photos.com/Thinkstock; p.204 © The Granger Collection, NYC / TopFoto; p.234 © Print Collector / HIP /TopFoto; p.246 © 2003 Charles Walker / Topfoto; p.256 © The Print Collector / HIP / TopFoto; p.270 © Print Collector / HIP /TopFoto; p.281© Print Collector / HIP / TopFoto; p.298 © Liszt Collection / TopFoto; p.309 © Tony Baggett/iStock/Thinkstock; p.311 © Roger-Viollet / TopFoto

Acknowledgements

p.73 Kevin Sharpe, ‘The Personal Rule of Charles I’, an essay in Before the English Civil War, edited by Howard Tomlinson, 1983, pages 74–75, Palgrave Macmillan; p.276 Table 1, p.277 Table 2, p.302 Table 1, p.303 Tables 2 and 3, p.304 Table 4 B R Mitchell, British Historical Statistics, © Cambridge University Press, 1988, pages 462, 468–9, 600–1, 448–9, 462–3, 578–9, reproduced with permission.

Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked, the Publishers will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity.

Although every effort has been made to ensure that website addresses are correct at time of going to press, Hodder Education cannot be held responsible for the content of any website mentioned in this book. It is sometimes possible to find a relocated web page by typing in the address of the home page for a website in the URL window of your browser.

Hachette UK’s policy is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products and made from wood grown in sustainable forests. The logging and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin.

Orders: please contact Hachette UK Distribution, Hely Hutchinson Centre, Milton Road, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 7HH. Telephone: +44 (0)1235 827827. Email education@hachette.co.uk. Lines are open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to Friday. You can also order through our website: www.hoddereducation.co.uk

ISBN: 9781471836701
eISBN: 9781471836633

© Andrew Boxer, Mary Dicken, Nicholas Fellows 2015

First published in 2015 by

Hodder Education,

An Hachette UK Company

Carmelite House

50 Victoria Embankment

London EC4Y 0DZ

www.hoddereducation.co.uk

Impression number  10  9  8

Year         2026 2025 2024

All rights reserved. Apart from any use permitted under UK copyright law, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or held within any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or under licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited. Further details of such licences (for reprographic reproduction) may be obtained from the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited, www.cla.co.uk.

Cover photo © iStockphoto/duncan1890

Illustrations by Integra Software Services and Barking Dog Art

Typeset in ITC Legacy Serif Std Book 10/13 by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry, India

Printed in the UK

A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

Contents

Introduction

British Period Study: The Early Stuarts, 1603–46

Gateway to the Stuarts, 1603

Chapter 1 James I and parliament

What did James mean by Divine Right?

Why did James have such problems over finance?

How did James try to solve his financial problems?

Why did James and parliament disagree?

What were the aims and actions of James’ foreign policy?

Why was parliament critical of James’ policy?

Historical debate: James I: A political success?

Study Skills: Understanding the wording of the question and planning an answer

Chapter 2 James I and religion

What was the religious situation in 1603?

How much was achieved by the Hampton Court Conference?

Why did Arminianism develop?

Why was there growing opposition from Puritans?

What was James’ attitude to Roman Catholics?

Why did the Gunpowder Plot fail?

What was the impact of the plot?

Historical debate: How successful was James at dealing with Catholics?

Study Skills: Writing an introduction and avoiding irrelevance

Chapter 3 Charles I, 1625–40

What problems did Charles I face in 1625?

Why were Charles’ relations with his parliaments so difficult up to 1629?

To what extent did Charles’ financial and religious policies lead to his Personal Rule becoming unpopular?

How did the policy of ‘Thorough’ impact on England and Ireland?

What was the impact of events in Scotland?

Why did the Personal Rule break down?

Historical debate: How successful was the Personal Rule?

Study Skills: Avoiding descriptive answers, writing analytically and the crucial opening sentence of each paragraph

Chapter 4 Charles I and the victory of parliament, 1640–46

What were the aims of Charles and of the opposition in 1640?

How extensive were the reforms of the Long Parliament, 1640–41?

What was the contribution of the crises of 1641–42 in causing the First Civil War to break out?

What were the strengths and weaknesses of the royalists and parliamentarians in 1642?

Why did the parliamentarians win the First Civil War?

What was the impact of neutralism?

Historical debate: How important was religion in deciding allegiances?

Study Skills: Writing a conclusion and overall essay writing

Enquiry Topic: The Execution of Charles I and the Interregnum, 1646–60

Chapter 5 The failure to achieve a settlement, 1646–49

Why was it so difficult to achieve a political settlement in the period 1646–47?

What were the main causes of the emergence of radicalism and how serious was its threat?

Why did a Second Civil War break out?

Why was Charles I executed?

Study Skills: Understanding sources and how they relate to an issue

Chapter 6 Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649–58

What problems did the Rump face in 1649?

Why were Cromwell’s campaigns in Ireland so controversial?

Why was the Rump dissolved in 1653?

Why was Barebone’s Parliament short-lived?

How successful was Cromwell as Lord Protector?

Study Skills: Evaluating a series of sources

Chapter 7 The Restoration of Charles II

Why was Richard Cromwell unable to command support?

How important were the army and General Monck in bringing about the Restoration of Charles II?

How important were Charles’ actions and the Declaration of Breda in bringing about his Restoration?

What role did the Convention Parliament play in the Restoration?

How popular was the Restoration of Charles II?

Study Skills: Using a set of sources with confidence

Revise, Review, Reflect

Enquiry Topic: The Glorious Revolution, 1678–89

Gateway to England, 1678

Chapter 8 The last years of Charles II, 1678–85

What was the situation in England in 1678?

Why did the question of Exclusion develop?

Why was Exclusion defeated?

How powerful was Charles in the years 1681–85?

How serious a threat was the Rye House Plot?

How strong were the Tories in the period from 1681 to 1685?

Study Skills: Understanding sources and how they relate to an issue

Chapter 9 James II, 1685–88

What were James’ aims when he ascended the throne?

How successfully did James establish himself as king in 1685?

How serious a threat were the Argyll and Monmouth rebellions?

Was James able to win the support of the non-conformists?

How successful was James’ policy towards Catholics?

Why was the trial of the Seven Bishops important?

Study Skills: Evaluating a series of sources

Chapter 10 The Glorious Revolution of 1688–89

Why had a crisis developed in England by the summer of 1688?

How important was the invitation to William in his decision to invade?

To what extent did James’ actions in the late summer of 1688 aid William?

Why was William’s invasion successful?

Why did James’ departure create problems in the search for a constitutional settlement?

Why were William and Mary offered the Crown?

Study Skills: Using a set of sources with confidence

British Period Study: The Making of Georgian Britain, 1689–c.1760

Chapter 11 The Revolutionary Settlement and politics, 1689–1714

How significant were the changes made in England by the Revolutionary Settlement of 1689–90?

How successfully did William III overcome the problems he faced in establishing his regime in Scotland?

Why was William III able to defeat the Jacobites in Ireland by 1691?

Why was the Settlement successfully consolidated in England in the period 1690–1701?

Why was party strife so bitter in the reign of Queen Anne?

How effectively did the Marlborough–Godolphin ministry deal with the challenges it faced?

What were the achievements of the Harley ministry?

Why did the union with Scotland occur in 1707?

Historical debate: How revolutionary was the Glorious Revolution?

Study Skills: Understanding the wording of the question and planning an answer

Chapter 12 Aspects of politics, 1714–80

Why did the 1715 Jacobite rising fail?

Why did Robert Walpole become the King’s principal minister in 1721?

How successful was Walpole in achieving his aims between 1721 and 1742?

How was Walpole able to maintain himself in power for so long?

How serious a threat did the Jacobites pose in 1745, and why did they fail?

How significant was the growth of radicalism between 1760 and 1785?

Historical debate: What was the nature of Walpole’s rule?

Study Skills: Writing an introduction and avoiding irrelevance

Chapter 13 Social and economic developments, c.1700–80

Why did an evangelical revival occur in the eighteenth century?

How is the emergence, growth and appeal of Methodism best understood?

How significant was Britain’s financial revolution?

Why did British trade expand during the eighteenth century?

Why did cities and towns grow in size in the eighteenth century, and what problems did this bring?

How serious was the problem of urban crime in the eighteenth century?

Why were riots a regular feature of urban life?

Historical debate: Why did Methodism spread in Britain?

Study Skills: Avoiding descriptive answers, writing analytically and the crucial opening sentence of each paragraph

Chapter 14 Foreign policy, 1689–1763

To what extent did William III achieve his aims in the Nine Years War, 1689–97?

Can Britain’s participation in the War of Spanish Succession be considered successful?

To what extent did the interests of Hanover shape British foreign policy under George I?

How successful was Walpole’s handling of foreign policy?

How significant was Hanover in British foreign policy under George II?

To what extent were British successes in the Seven Years War due to the leadership of William Pitt the Elder?

Historical debate: What was Pitt’s contribution to Britain’s victories in the Seven Years War?

Study Skills: Writing a conclusion and overall essay writing

Revise, Review, Reflect

Glossary

Index

Introduction

This book has been written to support your study of:

•  the British Period Study and Enquiry Units Y108 and Y138, The Early Stuarts and the Origins of the Civil War 1603–1660 and Y109 and Y139 The Making of Georgian Britain 1678–c.1760.

This introduction gives you an overview of:

•  the OCR AS and A Level course

•  how you will be assessed on this unit

•  the different features of this book and how these will aid your learning.

1 The OCR AS and A Level course

This study will form part of your overall History course for the OCR specification, of which there are three Unit Groups and an Independent Investigation. The Unit Groups comprise:

•  British Period Study and Enquiry, which follow chronologically on from each other (Unit Group 1 – AS and A Level)

•  Non-British Period Study (Unit Group 2 – AS and A Level)

•  Thematic Study and Historical Interpretations (Unit Group 3 – A Level only).

This book covers two Period Study Topics (The Early Stuarts 1603–1646 and The Making of Georgian Britain 1689–c.1760) and two Enquiry Topics (The Execution of Charles I and the Interregnum 1646–1660 and The Glorious Revolution 1678–1689) from Unit Group 1 of the OCR History Specification. You will study one of either, The Early Stuarts 1603–1646 (Period Study) and the Execution of Charles I and the Interregnum 1646-1660 (Enquiry) or The Glorious Revolution 1678–1688 (Enquiry) and the Making of Georgian Britain 1689–c.1760 (Period Study) for the examination.

The Early Stuart and Interregnum option considers why and how monarchical rule broke down and the reasons for the outbreak of Civil War in 1642 and subsequent parliamentarian victory, which ultimately led to the execution of Charles I. It also considers the attempts to find a solution to the constitutional problems once the king had been executed and concludes with the failure of these experiments and the Restoration of the monarchy, under Charles II in 1660.

The Glorious Revolution and Making of Georgian Britain option focuses on the recovery of royal power under Charles II and its sudden collapse under his brother, James II in 1688. There is consideration of how the constitutional problems that James’ departure brought about were resolved and how in the first half of the eighteenth century Britain became politically stable and a major power overseas and economically.

The chapters in the book correspond to the Key Topics in the specification, with four chapters for each Period Study and three for the Enquiries.

2 How you will be assessed

A Level

Each of the three Unit Groups has an examination paper, whereas the Independent Investigation is marked internally but externally moderated.

•  Unit Group 1 – the British Period Study is assessed through two essays, from which you answer one, and the Enquiry is assessed through a source-based question. This counts for 25 per cent of your overall marks.

•  Unit Group 2 – the Non-British Period Study is assessed through a short essay and one longer essay. This counts for 15 per cent of your overall marks.

•  Unit Group 3 – the Thematic Study and Historical Interpretations Unit is assessed through two essays which cover at least 100 years, and one in-depth question based on two interpretations of a key event, individual or issue that forms a major part of the theme. This counts for 40 per cent of your overall marks.

For the Topic-Based Essay you will complete a 3,000–4,000 word essay on a topic of your choice. This counts for 20 per cent of your overall marks.

AS Level

Each of the two Unit Groups has an examination paper:

•  Unit Group 1 – the British Period Study is assessed through your choice of one of two essays, and the Enquiry is assessed through two source-based questions. This counts for 50 per cent of your overall marks.

•  Unit Group 2 – the Non-British Period Study is assessed through an Essay and an Interpretation Question. The Interpretation Question will come from one of two specified Key Topics. This counts for 50 per cent of your overall marks.

Examination questions for Unit Group 1

For both the AS and A Level you will have been entered for a specific unit and your examination paper will contain only the questions relating to that unit.

There will be two sections in the examination paper. Section A is the Enquiry section and Section B is the Period Study section.

In Section A there will be one set of documents. For the AS there will be three sources and two questions. Question (a) will be worth 10 marks and Question (b) will be worth 20 marks. For the A Level there will be four sources and one question, which will be worth 30 marks.

In Section B there will be two essay questions, both worth 20 marks and you will have to answer one of them. Each essay will be drawn from a different Key Topic, although the questions could be drawn from more than one Key Topic.

AS Section A questions on the Enquiry

The first Section A questions on the Enquiry will be worded as follows for AS:

(a) Use your knowledge of X to assess how useful Source Y is as evidence of Z.

For example:

Use your knowledge of religious issues during the Protectorate to assess how useful Source A is as evidence for religious attitudes. [10]

In this type of question the key term is ‘useful’ – this requires you to consider the provenance of the source. It will involve you discussing issues such as who wrote it, when and why it was written and whether the tone or language suggests it might be exaggerated.

The second Section A questions on the Enquiry will be worded as follows for AS:

(b) Using these three sources in their historical context, assess how far they support the view that X was due mainly to Y.

For example:

Using these three sources in their historical context, assess how far they support the view that the policies of Cromwell’s Protectorate were designed to heal divisions. [20]

This type of question refers to the sources ‘in their historical context’. This requires you to explain how events at the time the sources were written might have influenced the author’s views. You will also have to consider the provenance of the sources and apply own knowledge to the sources to test their reliability as evidence when assessing how far they support the view given in the statement.

A Level Section A questions on the Enquiry

Section A questions on the Enquiry will be worded as follows for A Level:

Using these four sources in their historical context, assess how far they support the view that X was due mainly to Y.

For example:

Using these four sources in their historical context, assess how far they support the view that the policies of Cromwell’s Protectorate were designed to heal divisions. [30]

As with the second question for AS, this type of question refers to the sources ‘in their historical context’ (see above for guidance on this).

Section B questions on the Period Study

For AS and A Level Section B questions on the Period Studies the types of questions set will be the same. Examples of questions using some of the more common command terms and specific requirements for each can be found at the end of Period Study chapters. The command terms are important and a key to success is understanding what these terms mean and what you have to do.

Command term | Description | Example in the book
Assess | Weigh up the relative importance of a range of factors and reach a supported judgement as to which is the most important. | Page 29
To what extent | Consider the relative importance of the named issue by comparing it with other issues and reach a balanced judgement as to its relative importance. | Page 75
How far | Consider the relative importance of the named issue and weigh up its role by comparing it with other issues to reach a balanced judgement as to its relative importance. | Page 29
How successful | Consider a range of issues and make a judgement as to how successful each was before reaching an overall judgement about success. | Page 49

Answering the questions

Both the AS and A Level examination are one and a half hours in length. Section A carries slightly more marks than Section B and therefore, particularly as you will need time to read the sources, it would sensible to spend about 50 minutes on Section A and 40 minutes on Section B. Before you start any of the questions, make a brief plan. Advice on planning essays is given on pages 29 and 102.

The answers you write will be marked against the relevant mark scheme. It would be useful to familiarise yourself with these before the examination so that you are aware of the criteria against which your work will be marked. Mark schemes offer guidance, but they cannot cover everything and if you write something that is relevant and accurate, but not in the mark scheme, you will gain credit for it. You will be rewarded for well-argued and supported responses. Marks will not be deducted for information that is incorrect, but you should remember that incorrect knowledge may undermine your argument.

What will the examination paper look like?

The cover of the examination paper will tell you the level for which you have been entered, either AS or A Level. It will tell you the unit number, which for the AS is either Y138 or Y139 and for the A Level is either Y108 or Y109. It will also tell you the title of the unit, the date of the examination and the time allowed for the examination. The cover will also give you instructions about the answer booklet and the marks available.

About this book

At the start of each Period Study and Enquiry covered in this book there is a section called ‘Gateway’. This provides a one-page summary of background material to the period you are about to study.

Each chapter in the book then covers one of the Key Topics listed in the OCR specification for the unit.

Chapters start with a brief introduction and a series of key questions. An overview of the period or theme of the chapter provides a brief introductory narrative along with a timeline which outlines the key events.

Key questions

The chapters are divided into sections, each addressing one of the key questions listed in the chapter introduction. The key questions may be broken down into sub-questions to help your understanding of the topic. By the end of the section you should be able to answer the key questions.

Key terms

The key terms that you need to understand in order to grasp the important concepts surrounding the topic are emboldened in the chapter the first time they are used and defined in the glossary on pages 353–55.

Sources

As the Enquiry Topics are source-led those chapters will contain a significant number of sources, often with questions to enable you to develop and practice the skills you will need for the examination. There will also be other visual sources within the book.

Activities

In both the Period Study and Enquiry chapters there are activities to help you develop the key skills needed for the examination. In the Period Study chapters they will focus on developing analytical skills and making judgements, whereas in the Enquiry chapters they will focus on understanding and evaluating sources.

Historical debates

As historians often disagree about the causes or significance of historical events or personalities, each chapter of the Period Study units has contrasting passages from the writings of two historians. Not only will this introduce you to some of the key historical debates about the period you are studying, but by using your historical knowledge and the information in the chapter you will be able to test the views of the historians in order to determine which view you find more convincing. There will also be a list of books for further research on the issue. Knowledge of the debate is not necessary for the examination in Unit 1, but it will enrich your knowledge and help to develop a valuable skill, which is tested in Unit 3 of the A Level.

Summary of the chapter

At the end of each chapter there is a bullet-point list of the key points covered, which gives a summary of the chapter and will help with revision.

Study Skills

Each chapter has a Study Skills section. These gradually help you to build up the skills you need for the Period Studies and Enquiries examination papers, providing examples of parts of strong and weak responses and further questions and activities on which you can practise the skills.

Revise, Review, Reflect

At the end of each Period Study and Enquiry there is section which helps you to consolidate your understanding of the whole topic. It encourages you to think about the period as a whole and question many of your earlier views. There will also be further activities to help you prepare for the examination.

Chapter 1 James I and parliament

This chapter concerns the nature of James I’s relationship with his parliaments. It considers how far James’ belief in the Divine Right of Kings contributed to his difficulties with parliament. It analyses the reasons why finance was such a constant cause of disagreement. It examines the means whereby the treasurers tried to increase revenue and the reasons, such as the King’s extravagance, why they found it hard to do so. It outlines royal hopes for a peaceful foreign policy and the difficulties James faced in realising such a policy in a Europe which was more and more divided by religion.

This chapter focuses on a number of key issues:

•  What did James mean by Divine Right?

•  Why did James have such problems over finance?

•  How did James try to solve his financial problems?

•  Why did James and parliament disagree?

•  What were the aims and actions of James’ foreign policy?

•  Why was parliament critical of James’ policy?

This chapter will also explain how to understand the wording of a question and then how to plan a response to the question. It will focus on identifying the key words within the question and then explain how to ensure that you address the key demands of the actual question, rather than simply writing all you know about a topic.

Timeline

1603 | March | Accession of James I
1604 | March | Parliament meets
| August | Treaty of London with Spain
1605–06 |  | Second session of parliament
1605 | March | Robert Cecil created Earl of Salisbury
1606 | July | Bate’s Case
1606–07 |  | Third session of parliament
1608 | March | New Book of Rates and impositions levied
1610 | July | Fourth session of parliament
1610 | November | Great Contract rejected
1611 | February | Dissolution of parliament
1612 | May | Death of Salisbury
1613 | February | Marriage of Princess Elizabeth and Frederick of the Palatinate
1614 | April to June | ‘Addled Parliament’
| December | Cockayne’s scheme
1618 | May | Outbreak of Thirty Years War
1619 | November | Acceptance of Bohemian Crown by Frederick
1621 | January | Parliament meets
| March | Cranfield made Lord Treasurer
| December | Protestation of the Commons
1623 | February | Buckingham and Prince Charles travel to Madrid
1624 | February | Parliament meets
| June | Marriage of Charles and Henrietta Maria agreed
1625 | March | Death of James

Overview

James I came to England in 1603 as an experienced king, aged 37. He was a married man with three surviving children, Henry, Elizabeth and Charles, aged between nine and three. He was a strong believer in the Divine Right of Kings, but also intended to govern within the law. His first parliament met in March 1604, delayed because of outbreaks of plague in London. James wanted a full union between England and Scotland and was dismayed to find strong opposition in the English parliament. This caused him some initial disillusionment. There were also problems about how he saw his prerogative, which led the House of Commons to draw up the Form of Apology and Satisfaction.

The second session of the parliament began in November 1605, with the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot and grievances such as purveyance were discussed. The third session in 1606–07 saw the final failure of James’ hopes for a union. By February 1610, the fourth session was focused on James’ financial problems. The outdated taxation system coupled with James’ continual extravagance led the Earl of Salisbury to propose the Great Contract, which could have solved James’ difficulties. But eventually both the King and the Commons had doubts about how far they were getting a bargain and so it failed and the parliament was dissolved.

In 1614 James was persuaded to call another parliament to try to get a grant, but the ‘Addled Parliament’ was a complete failure, resulting from the mistrust between the King and his Commons. This fiasco led to no parliament being summoned for seven years. Government was now dominated by George Villiers, a handsome young man who had come to court in 1614 and become James’ close companion.

In 1619 James’ son-in-law, Frederick of the Palatinate, a Protestant, foolishly accepted the Crown of Bohemia. He was rapidly defeated by the staunchly Catholic Habsburg Emperor and expelled not only from Bohemia, but also from his hereditary lands in the Palatinate. The feeling in England was that his cause should be taken up or the Catholics would become dominant in Europe. In 1621 James needed money if he was to try to regain the Palatinate, so he called another parliament. But MPs were reluctant to grant the heavy taxes which would be needed and the session ended with them being concerned again that James did not recognise their privileges. They expressed their feelings in the Protestation; James was so angry he dissolved parliament.

James then tried a diplomatic solution and suggested a marriage between his son Charles and a Spanish princess, hoping that the Spanish Habsburgs would persuade the Austrian branch of the family to hand back the Palatinate as part of the deal. This was never likely to happen and the proposed marriage to a Roman Catholic princess was very unpopular in England. The 1624 parliament wanted a war with Spain, but was, again, unwilling to pay for it. James agreed to send an expedition to the Continent. He prorogued parliament in May 1624. In his 22-year reign parliament sat for about 36 months, so was not a regular part of government. James died in 1625.

What did James mean by Divine Right?

The theory of the Divine Right of Kings held that a king ruled because God had chosen him to be king, so he was God’s earthly representative. He was responsible solely to God for his actions and disobedience to the king was sinful. Hence James was supreme governor of the Church, and the fountain and interpreter of the law. James was careful to distinguish between a just king and a tyrant. The former had respect for the law. For the subjects the appeal of Divine Right was that it suggested that a hierarchical society was what God wanted and this gave divine approval to the ruling elite. Their fear was that the just king might turn into an absolute king. Absolutism in the seventeenth century defined the monarchies of France and Spain, where kings ruled without recourse to parliament and with far fewer restrictions on their power. The English were wary of some of James’ claims because he seemed, at times, to be coming perilously close to absolutism.

Spanish and French monarchies

In both Spain and France the king ruled with the advice of a council. There were assemblies such as the Estates in France and the Cortes in Spain, but they had not acquired powers similar to those of the English parliament. The French Estates met very rarely and the Spanish Cortes were usually co-operative.

How did James express his views?

Before he became king of England, James had ruled in Scotland. He had received an excellent education and was well read. His studies had led him to consider the nature of kingship and the practical problems in ruling. One of his tutors, the elderly humanist, George Buchanan, who had been involved in the deposition of Mary, Queen of Scots, taught James that kings were chosen by the people to whom they were accountable. This meant that bad rulers could be deposed. The Presbyterian preacher, John Knox, asserted that it was the God-given duty of a subject to remove, or even to kill, an ungodly prince. James reacted against these doctrines. He may have remembered the beatings that accompanied his lessons. In any case he wrote several tracts, including The Trew Law of Free Monarchies in 1598 and Basilikon Doron in 1599. These were both written with Scotland more than England in mind and Basilikon Doron was the King’s advice to his eldest son, Henry.

In the former James wrote:

Albeit it is true that the king is above the law, as both giver and strength thereto, yet a good king will not only delight to rule his subjects by the law, but will even conform himself in his own actions thereunto, always keeping that ground that the health of the Commonwealth must be his chief law.

(James I, The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, 1598, quoted in Irene Carrier, James VI and I, 1998, page 79.)

To Henry he said:

Consider the trew difference betwixt a lawful good king and a usurping tyrant and you shall more easily understand your duty. The one acknowledges himself ordained for his people, having received from God a burden of government, whereof he must be accountable; the other thinks the people ordained for him, a prey to his passions and inordinate appetites.

(Quoted in Irene Carrier, James VI and I, 1998, page 79.)

In both these examples, the tension between the theory and the actuality of James’ ideas is clear. James was to prove a pragmatic monarch, careful of his prerogative, but not prepared to go to extreme lengths to defend it, unlike his successor, Charles I.

James I

James’ past

James was born in 1566. His mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, was forced to abdicate by the Scottish nobles after she had been accused of conspiring to murder James’ father, her husband Lord Darnley. Her supposed fellow plotter was James Hepburn, Lord Bothwell, whom she married and with whom she was accused of a sexual relationship before the marriage. Hence she was seen as an adulteress and a murderess. Mary fled to England and was imprisoned by Elizabeth I and, after many plots against the English Queen, was executed in 1587. James was virtually an orphan and had a harsh and lonely childhood.

What problems arose over Divine Right?

The problems relating to Divine Right tended to be linked with other issues. When James was prevented from achieving his desired ends, he became more incautious in his attitude to Divine Right. In his first parliament in 1604, James was seen as a welcome change from an aged and capricious queen. But the honeymoon period was short, largely because one of James’ cherished aims was a union between Scotland and England, while the English parliament had a strongly racist hatred of the Scots and refused even to let James call himself ‘King of Great Britain’. This coloured James’ attitude to other matters of prerogative which arose in three areas:

1  Decisions over disputed elections: The question here was whether the Commons or Chancery should decide disputed parliamentary elections. The precedents were unclear, but MPs feared that if the Chancery was responsible then the government might pack parliament. James told MPs that ‘they derived all matters of privilege from him’, which led them to argue their privileges were their own and no king could remove them. The matter ended amicably with the Commons being recognised as the authority in disputed elections, a compromise achieved by mutual co-operation.

2  Purveyance: James was prepared to give up this part of his prerogative but only with compensation. Officials in his household were hostile, however, giving the impression that James was two-faced and clinging on to outdated privileges. Discussion was to be held over to the next parliamentary session.

3  Wardships: The landowners wanted these abolished, because of the deterioration of estates during wardships and were ready to pay. Robert Cecil, James’ chief minister, drew up a scheme, but then the officials of the Court of Wards lobbied him and he came to realise that, as Master of the Court of Wards, he had much to lose himself. Hence he back-tracked and the Commons felt aggrieved and inclined to blame the King.

Purveyance

Purveyance was the right of the Crown to buy provisions and requisition transport at low prices. It fell most heavily on southern counties as the court mainly travelled in the south. It extended to the households of James’ wife and son so was a useful additional benefit for him.

Wardships

Wardships applied when a major landowner died and left an underage heir. The child became a royal ward and the lands were administered by the Crown. Usually the wardship was sold to a courtier, who might pay a high price, but could make a profit by exploiting the estates. The process was overseen by the Court of Wards, whose officials were frequently bribed by both the families of wards and prospective purchasers. When the heirs came of age they had to pay the King before they could take over their inheritance.

The issues came to a head when the House of Commons decided their position was under threat. They drew up a Form of Apology and Satisfaction, in which they asserted that their privileges were ‘our right and due inheritance, no less than our very lands and goods’. They pointed out that ‘the prerogatives of princes may easily and do daily grow, the privileges of the subject are for the most part at an everlasting stand. They may be by good providence and care preserved but, being once lost, are not recovered but with much disquiet’ (Irene Carrier, James VI and I, 1998, page 85).

The Commons went on to tell James that they had grievances which they had not pressed on Elizabeth out of regard for ‘her age and sex’. They were fortunate that the late Queen did not rise from her grave and denounce them. The Apology was never presented to James, but he saw a copy and when he prorogued parliament in July he told them, ‘I will not thank where I think no thanks due. You see how in many things you did not do well. You have done many things rashly. I wish you would use your liberty more modestly in time to come’ (Pauline Croft, King James, 2003, page 62). This was not exactly a rousing end-of-term report.

In the 1610 Parliament Divine Right was again an issue, and an untimely one since Salisbury was trying to get agreement over the Great Contract (see page 15). In 1607 Doctor John Cowell, the regius professor of civil law at Cambridge, had published The Interpreter, which was a legal dictionary. In this he asserted that the King was ‘above the law by his absolute power’. The House of Commons was alarmed at what this implied and censured Cowell. James condemned these notions in a proclamation, but the Commons remained uneasy. They were not particularly reassured by the speech which James made to them in March 1610, which is one of the most notable expressions of his beliefs.

The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God’s lieutenants on earth, and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God himself they are called gods. Kings are justly called gods for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth, for if you will consider the attributes of God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake, at his pleasure: to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged not accountable to none: to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects; they have power of raising and casting down; of life and of death; judges over all their subjects and yet accountable to none but God only.

Activity

1  Explain why parliament was wary about the Divine Right of Kings.

2  How far does the evidence suggest James was aiming at absolutism? Copy and complete the following table with your thoughts.

Evidence for
Evidence against

This sounded very much like absolutism. Yet at the end of the speech James added that:

a king governing in a settled kingdom leaves to be a king and degenerates into a tyrant as soon as he leaves off to rule according to law….I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws.

(Stan Houston, James I, 1995, pages 121–22.)

This speech is a good illustration of the problems over Divine Right. James was prone to making these apparently excessive general claims, yet he ruled within the law. He took his coronation oath to cherish the law seriously. He never raised taxes without consent from parliament and he recognised that he could not make laws on his own. In 1610 parliament claimed he was abusing his powers by creating new crimes by proclamations. James consulted his Chief Justices and they agreed, whereupon he ceased to issue such proclamations, thus showing his respect for the law.

In the later years of his reign James became embroiled in a dispute with Sir Edward Coke, his Chief Justice, who saw the common law as sovereign and James as trying to defy the law. Coke was dismissed in 1616 but continued his campaigns in parliament.

Sir Edward Coke

Sir Edward Coke, born 1552, was a lawyer and MP. He had been Speaker of the House of Commons and Attorney-General (the Crown’s chief legal officer). He told James ‘His Majesty was not learned in the laws of England’. In 1621 he helped draw up the Protestation (see page 26) and he supported impeachment of royal ministers. His opposition continued into the next reign.

Why did James have such problems over finance?

The reasons for financial problems for individuals, kings and governments change little across the ages. Too little income and too great expenditure are the basic causes and James suffered from both of these. As we shall see, the underlying reasons were a mixture of unfortunate circumstances and unwise actions.

Why did James not have enough income?

James came to the English throne in March 1603, on the death of Elizabeth I, and journeyed south to take up his inheritance happily anticipating richness and ease.

He discovered that he had been bequeathed a substantial debt of about £420,000. This was considerably more than the average annual Crown income. However, it was not as serious a problem as it appeared. There was still £300,000 of the grant made by parliament in 1601 to come in and £100,000 of the debt was owed to the landowners who had paid a forced loan in the 1590s and who had long given up any expectation that it would be repaid. Elizabeth had also lent large sums to Henry IV of France and to the Dutch and when she was a creditor her expectations were that there would be repayment.

However, there were other issues which would have a real impact on James’ revenue. The main parliamentary tax was the subsidy. It was often accompanied by grants of fifteenths and tenths. It was irregular as it could be collected only when parliament agreed and was meant to be only for emergencies like war. For the rest of the time James was meant to ‘live of his own’; that is to subsist on the income from Crown lands and other sources. Unfortunately for James, the amount brought in by a subsidy had declined drastically. In 1558 Elizabeth had received about £137,000 from each subsidy. By 1621 this had fallen to £72,500, a drop of nearly half the value. To make matters worse there had been inflation over Elizabeth’s reign which meant that James could buy about a fifth of what Elizabeth had been able to fund from a subsidy. The reason for the decline in the value of the subsidy was that the householders who paid it were assessed by commissions often consisting of their neighbours. Hence estates and possessions were under-valued as commissioners had no desire to court local unpopularity. The Duke of Buckingham, whose income was close to £400,000 a year was assessed at £400. In Sussex, 78 gentry families paid an average of £48 in 1560. By 1626 this had fallen to £14. To expect tax-payers to reverse this situation voluntarily would be foolish. James wrote to his Council in 1607 that ‘the only disease and consumption which I can ever apprehend as likeliest to endanger me, is this canker of want, which being removed, I could think myself as happy in all other respects as any other king or monarch that ever was since the birth of Christ’ (Stan Houston, James I, 1995, page 14). Sadly this situation could not be achieved.

James contributed to his financial problems by his growing and apparently uncontrollable extravagance. James had been brought up in unusual circumstances in Scotland with the death of his father in 1567 and the enforced abdication of his mother in 1567, when he was one year old. The Scottish lords responsible for his education saw that he was well taught and his physical needs were all met, but emotionally he was insecure. He seemed unable to accept that he could be liked for himself and so needed to give lavish presents to his friends to maintain their friendship. His generosity began on his journey to London in 1603 and he gave Elizabeth an impressive funeral. One of James’ Scottish friends was James Hay, Earl of Carlisle, whose catchphrase was ‘Spend and God will send.’ Hay invented the ante-supper where a whole meal would be prepared and then removed and discarded before the real supper was served. In 1621 an ante-supper at a Twelfth Night feast cost over £3000, which was about the annual income of a wealthy landowner. One estimate was that Hay received gifts from James totalling £400,000, a year’s royal income. Hay was in charge of the royal wardrobe, where expenditure quadrupled. When economies were needed it was decided the only way to stop Hay was to buy him out, even though this cost £20,000.

This pattern was repeated with other friends and supporters. Where Elizabeth had been frugal, James was magnanimous and generous. By 1610 he was giving away £80,000 a year as compared with £30,000 under Elizabeth. Admittedly, Elizabeth had been very sparing in her gifts in her later years so there was some pent-up demand to satisfy, but James went much too far. He was fond of jewels and spent £185,000 in this way over nine years. James expanded the personnel in the royal household, possibly adding as many as 200 extra courtiers, all of whom had to be fed and many of whom pilfered regularly from household provisions. Then he liked lavish court entertainment. The Accession Day Tournaments were held on 24 March, with plenty of pomp and pageantry. In 1621 it cost nearly £7000 to kit Prince Charles out for his debut in the tiltyard. When tournaments became less fashionable, James moved on to masques, elaborate spectacles using music, dance and tableaux, which had originally been encouraged by his wife. His architect, Inigo Jones, was used to design sets, while some of the organisation fell to the playwright, Ben Jonson. A few thousand pounds were seen by participants as a small price for such magnificence.

James did have one justification for spending more than Elizabeth had done: he was a married man with a family. His wife, Anne of Denmark, and his eldest son, Prince Henry, both had their own households. Henry seems to have followed in his father’s footsteps and over a decade his expenditure rose tenfold. When he died from typhoid in 1612 he was given an elaborate funeral, while the next year James had to pay for the wedding of his daughter, Elizabeth. These two events cost him £116,000.

One of the side-effects of James’ extravagance was that it cloaked the very real issue of lack of regular income. As MPs and others witnessed James’ excessive spending, they were able to argue that if he was more frugal then there would not be a problem. This was not true but there was no way of proving this to James’ critics while he was such a spendthrift.

Activity

1  Copy and complete the following table to make a list of the reasons why James could not increase his income.

2  For each of the reasons explain how far James was in a position to overcome it or how far it was beyond his control.

Reasons why James could not increase income
How much control did he have?

How did James try to solve his financial problems?

James was able to make some savings from his peaceful foreign policy. Once the war with Spain was over and intervention in Ireland much reduced he could spend less. He went on to avoid war as much as he could. As England and Scotland now had the same ruler there was less need for border patrols, although it was some time before the reivers on both sides of the border abandoned their lawless ways. He also tried to increase his income in various ways.

How did James get more money from trade?

One of the more steady sources of revenue was customs duties. These were charged on selected imports and exports and were known as ‘tonnage and poundage’ from their origins as taxes on wine and dry goods. The right to collect these taxes was conferred by parliament at the start of each new reign. The rates were laid down in a Book of Rates. This had last been updated in the reign of Mary I and had resulted in increased revenue for Elizabeth I. As trade expanded so did the income from duties. It also meant that the merchants paid their share of taxes and the whole burden did not fall on landowners. By the 1580s about a third of royal revenue came from customs duties.

James tried two ways to get more money from trade. First, his Lord Treasurer, the Earl of Dorset, and his secretary, Robert Cecil, decided to collect the duties in a different way. Instead of using government agents, they decided to farm out the collection process. This meant that the right to collect was sold to a group of financiers for a set figure. They then collected the duties and kept any profits they made over and above what they had paid. This encouraged them to be diligent in collection and discouraged smuggling. For the treasury the big advantage was that they knew for certain exactly how much money was coming in from the customs and they could budget more effectively. They could also borrow on the security of the revenue. The disadvantage was that, if trade boomed, then the farmers would benefit at the expense of the government. This is what happened when the Great Farm of Customs was sold to a merchant syndicate in December 1604 on a seven-year lease. The farmers paid £112,400 per year. By 1607 they were making so much money they agreed to pay £120,000, for fear of losing the lease. In 1614 the next lease for seven years cost them £140,000. By this time half of James’ revenue was coming from customs duties. It could be argued that it would have been more profitable to revert to direct collection of customs, but James did not have enough reliable collectors and, in any case, they had to be paid. The second method was to increase the rates and in 1604 the Book of Rates was reissued with higher charges and adjustments to recognise changing patterns of trade.

There were other ways in which an astute treasurer could supplement the royal income. Some customs duties were not imposed to provide revenue for the Crown but to regulate trade. These did not need parliamentary consent but could be granted from the royal prerogative. The Levant Company imported currants from the Levant and such a duty had been charged to provide funds to help the merchants keep a representative at the court in Constantinople. This was necessary to ensure they were able to trade unhindered. By this period the duty, known as an imposition, was going to the Crown. In 1606 a merchant, John Bate (or Bates), refused to pay on currants he was importing through London. Alerted by Dorset, Salisbury (Robert Cecil was made Earl of Salisbury by James in 1605) pursued Bate in the Court of Exchequer and Judge Fleming, the chief baron of the Exchequer, found that the Crown’s prerogative allowed it to impose impositions on selected goods. This was very welcome news for the ministers, although the merchants were most concerned at the possible implications. Salisbury drew up a list of over 1000 luxury items on which impositions could be charged in a new Book of Rates published in 1608. This was revenue which came in much more rapidly than the money from the Great Farm and in a single year £70,000 was raised.

Robert Cecil

Robert Cecil, born 1563, was the son of Elizabeth’s chief minister, William Cecil. He was a short, hunch-backed man, possibly resulting from being dropped by his nurse as a baby. He had been secretary to Elizabeth I and continued to serve James. He was instrumental in ensuring James’ succession was smooth. James enjoyed visiting Cecil at Theobalds, his country house in Hertfordshire, and so Cecil gave it to James and in return was given Hatfield, where he built himself a new house and where his descendants still live.

Thomas Sackville

Thomas Sackville, born 1536, had been made Lord Treasurer in 1599 and James kept him on in the post and made him Earl of Dorset. He was nicknamed ‘Lord Fillsack’ because he enriched himself from his position. He died in 1608, when he had a stroke at a Council meeting.

How did Salisbury increase James’ income?

After James’ first Lord Treasurer, Dorset, died in 1608, Salisbury was given the job in addition to his secretaryship and was very proactive in increasing income. He saw that existing sources could be exploited and he had the skills and patience of a good bureaucrat. A few days with the records in the Exchequer soon gave him plenty of information about debts to the Crown which were outstanding, from recusants for example. He also followed up on subsidy collectors who had not yet paid in their takings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Julius Caesar, was full of admiration for his boss who in a single day’s work was capable of finding as much as £9000 due to the Crown.

Salisbury went on to look at Crown lands. These had been diminished in size in the previous century, both in the rewarding of faithful service and in necessary sales in time of war. Reduction in the amount of land held by the Crown obviously reduced the income. Cecil managed the royal woods more effectively, harvesting timber, but also conserving stocks. He sold off some small properties which were uneconomic and persuaded James to entail more land so it could not be sold. Crown tenants had to pay higher entry fines when they took on leases. Salisbury tried to stem James’ generosity by drawing up a Book of Bounty where lists of grants available to courtiers were written. Those interested could then apply through the Exchequer, where Salisbury ensured they did not get special terms. All these measures bore fruit and an extra £100,000 per year was added to the royal coffers.

Why did the Great Contract fail?

Salisbury believed that the only way to deal with the ‘canker of want’ was to find some permanent source of revenue for the King. Inflation was continuing to erode the value of his income and Salisbury was seriously concerned that there was no reserve fund to meet emergencies. He gave James some very frank advice and suggested he should take Henry VII, the first Tudor king, from whom James derived his claim to the throne, as his model. As Henry was renowned for his meanness, this was an unlikely outcome. James was beginning to be disturbed by the amounts that were spent, but was apparently unable to curb his generosity. It is said that when he asked for £20,000 for one of his friends, Salisbury assembled the money in cash and then showed it to James. The King soon amended his request to £3000, but the respite was only temporary. By 1610 one calculation suggests that eleven Scottish friends had amassed over £200,000 between them.

Salisbury saw the solution in parliamentary revenue. He persuaded James to summon parliament in 1610 and put his proposals before them. This is known as the Great Contract. His suggestion was that parliament should pay off the royal debts, calculated at £600,000 and agree to give James £200,000 each year. This would need parliamentary sanction for the first payment and would continue automatically after that. In return Salisbury offered concessions over wardships and the end of purveyance and some legal privileges enjoyed by the Crown. The advantages of this proposal for the King were obvious. To convince the House of Commons that they had got a good deal was harder. In the early negotiations Salisbury had to offer the abolition of the Court of Wards, rather than reforms. He tried hard to preclude arguments about royal extravagance being the cause of the crisis, at least in public. He pointed to the expense of Elizabeth’s funeral and the coming of ambassadors to see the new King. He noted that the security of the country depended on it being solvent and he referred to the stinginess of Elizabeth in her last years and the welcome contrast provided by James’ open-handedness.

The House of Commons was not convinced. Their views on taxation were conservative and, indeed, outdated. In their eyes there was no war, the King was far too generous, especially to Scotsmen, extra taxes were only justified if the national interest demanded them. One MP was unkind enough to compare James I with a ‘leaky cistern’; as fast as money was poured in, it came out again. They had a point in that most of them were landowners who ran their own estates and lived within their incomes.

James was not pleased with their comments and resented the slow progress over the Great Contract. He was even less happy when the Commons diverted into discussions about absolute monarchy (see page 8). Salisbury hoped to put the MPs in a more compliant mood. The popular heir to the throne, Prince Henry, was created Prince of Wales in an impressive ceremony. Salisbury hoped this would warm the hearts of MPs. He appealed to another emotion, that of fear, when he took advantage of the assassination of Henry IV of France and the consequent instability in France, as the heir was a minor. Salisbury emphasised the good fortune of England with an experienced king and an adult heir.

Prince Henry

Prince Henry, born in 1594, was a keen Protestant and happier in the public eye than his father or his brother. He was a perceptive patron of the arts, especially painting. His death, probably from typhoid, in 1612 was seen as a disaster since the shy and unconfident Charles now became heir to the throne.

But it did not work. The MPs took up the issue of impositions, questioning their legality and asserting that Bate’s Case (see page 14) did not provide a sufficient precedent for other impositions to be levied. After several weeks of debate an exasperated James agreed that no impositions would be initiated in future without the consent of parliament. This was a blow to Salisbury, who had been counting on the emergence of new luxury imports which he could then tax. By the summer of 1610, the Commons had agreed in principle to the annual levy of £200,000, but not to any compensation for the lost revenue from the Court of Wards, nor had the payment of the royal debts been discussed. They had also granted a subsidy and one-fifteenth, far short of what James needed. The MPs then had their summer break. Reporting back to their friends and neighbours, they soon discovered great reluctance to pay a regular annual tax and increasing objections to impositions. James and Salisbury became anxious that the concerns about impositions would hold up the negotiations and removed nearly 900 articles from the list of items on which impositions could be charged.

Parliament reassembled in October, but in much diminished numbers. MPs simply did not want to have to shoulder the blame for agreeing to extra taxes and feared the wrath of the gentlemen of the shires. James made his last offer. He would take £500,000 instead of £600,000, but he needed it quickly as interest rates were crippling him. He would not compensate members of the Court of Wards who would lose their jobs, even though some of them were MPs, unless he got the money from the Commons. They refused to negotiate any more. James was further infuriated by a rumour that the House was about to petition the King to send all his Scottish friends back to Scotland and he dissolved the parliament.

The Great Contract was never to be revived.

Why the Great Contract did not satisfy James or parliament

The underlying reasons for the failure of the Great Contract can be found in the distrust between the King’s subjects and the King. They feared that with an independent income he would call no more parliaments. They disapproved of his extravagant and ‘immoral’ court. They saw no foreign threat against which there needed to be defences. There were also vested interests. Purveyance was mostly a burden on the south-eastern parts of the country where the King spent most of his time, so abolishing it was not of universal benefit. Ending wardships was only relevant to the greater landowners. James also came under some pressure not to agree to parliament’s terms. Sir Francis Bacon, always an enemy of Salisbury, told him it was unkingly to haggle with his subjects. Sir Julius Caesar argued that £200,000 was not that much more than the revenues being given up and would soon be reduced further in value by inflation. Courtiers who were officials from the Court of Wards were against the Contract too.

Arguably the Great Contract was a great missed opportunity. It recognised that royal finances could no longer produce sufficient revenue to run the country and it envisaged grants from parliament as the best solution. It even saw that the Crown would need to make concessions in order to get its money. This is, indeed, what occurred later in the century, but only after disruption and bloodshed on a scale that could not have been foreseen by James and his opponents.

Sir Francis Bacon

Sir Francis Bacon, born 1561, was Robert Cecil’s cousin but there was little affection between them. Bacon was a lawyer but had not won promotion at court under Elizabeth. James knighted him and in 1613 made him Attorney-General, and later Lord Chancellor, the chief legal officer of the Crown. In 1621, Bacon’s rival and enemy, Sir Edward Coke, accused him of taking bribes and he was impeached and disgraced. He claimed he was no more corrupt than other judges and did not always find innocent those who had bribed him. He concentrated on academic pursuits in retirement and published his Essays. There is a body of opinion which contends he was the author of some of the plays generally attributed to William Shakespeare. He died in 1626, supposedly from catching pneumonia when experimenting in the snow to see if a chicken could be preserved by refrigeration.

Sir Julius Caesar

Sir Julius Caesar, born 1558, was of Italian descent and trained as a lawyer. He held various legal posts under Elizabeth and acquired extensive estates. He was known for his ambition and desire for wealth. He became an MP and was knighted by James in 1603. By 1607 he was a member of the Privy Council. He wrote a history of the Exchequer and of the Council.

What other ways were used to raise money?

Salisbury had one further idea to bring in money. He embarked on the selling of titles and invented a new one, the baronet. These were sold for £1095 and between 1611 and 1614, £90,885 was collected. In 1611, 88 purchasers came forward, of whom over 20 had Catholic connections and took this chance to show themselves as loyal subjects. James agreed that only 200 should be created, but, even so, the value fell with time and by 1622 a baronetage cost a mere £220, to the annoyance of those who had paid the full price. Much of the money raised this way went to meet the costs of keeping an army in Ireland. This was Salisbury’s last contribution to James’ finances. By the end of 1611 he was ill with terminal cancer and he died in 1612.

James also sold peerages, so that the number of earls increased from 27 to 65 in 1628. The revenue was often earmarked for special purposes, but was rarely as much as James had hoped, because the courtiers who were the go-betweens in negotiations took their own cut. This devaluing of the peerage annoyed holders of ancient titles who despised the up-and-coming new noblemen.

In 1614 the Earl of Suffolk, Thomas Howard, became Lord Treasurer, but no fresh ideas for solving the financial problems emerged. He asked the King’s wealthier subjects for a benevolence, a gift to the King out of their good-will. There was some grumbling as this non-parliamentary tax had last been raised in 1546, but £65,000 came in, almost as much as a subsidy.

In December 1614 James allowed himself to be persuaded to agree to a project put forward by a rich merchant and royal creditor, Alderman Sir William Cockayne. The justification for the scheme was that the profit made from cloth exports could be much increased if the cloth was exported in a finished state. Much cloth was being sent to the Netherlands unfinished and the dyeing and other processes were carried out there. Cockayne claimed that at least an extra £40,000 a year could flow to the treasury if his syndicate took over the trade. The dyeing industry would be developed, with further profits. James was taken in and he cancelled the charter of the Merchant Adventurers, who controlled the cloth trade to Germany and the Netherlands. Cockayne’s company then turned out to be unable to find the capital to develop the dyeing industry or even sufficient skilled dyers and by 1615 had to ask for permission to export unfinished cloth again. It appeared that Cockayne’s aim had been to seize the trade of the Merchant Adventurers. In 1616 the Dutch, whose cloth markets had been disrupted, refused to accept any more English cloth. The bales piled up in warehouses, weavers became unemployed and there were riots in the West Country wool towns. In 1617 James was forced to end Cockayne’s scheme and return to the Merchant Adventurers. His only gain came from the bribes they distributed to recover their privileges. The cloth trade took time to recover as the Dutch remained resentful of the needless disruption.

In 1615 the Dutch ambassador suggested the Dutch should buy back Brill and Flushing, the towns the English held as security for the loans made to the Dutch. James eventually agreed in May 1616, even though the price – £250,000 – was less than half the outstanding debt. But he needed ready money to pay for Prince Charles’ household as the prince would soon be of age and have a separate establishment.

Towards the end of his reign James also made money from the granting of monopolies. These were usually sold to courtiers who then had the sole right to import goods or sell licences and articles. The holders could make substantial profits as they could set their own prices as there was no competition. Hence these were very attractive purchases, even though inducements had to be paid to officials to acquire them. But monopolies put up prices and so were unpopular. They had caused serious trouble for Elizabeth I in the parliament of 1601 and James came under similar criticism in 1621 and revoked 20 of them as a concession.

Thomas Howard

Thomas Howard, born 1561, had commanded a vessel fighting against the Spanish Armada. He was knighted in 1597 and enjoyed royal favour as a friend of Cecil’s. His wife had Roman Catholic sympathies. James made him Earl of Suffolk and, in 1614, Lord Treasurer. But he fell from power once Buckingham supplanted Somerset in James’ affections and was tried for corruption, along with his wife, Bacon being the prosecutor. He was imprisoned and fined heavily but later released by James.

The murder of Sir Thomas Overbury

The murder of Sir Thomas Overbury was one of the great scandals of James’ reign. Overbury was a friend of Robert Carr, James’ favourite, later Viscount Rochester and then Earl of Somerset. Overbury assisted Carr in his pursuit of Lady Frances Howard, but once Carr had married her, found she was his enemy. He was dismissed from royal service and imprisoned in the Tower in 1613, where he died from poison, possibly administered by the Countess. In 1615 details began to leak out and in 1616 the Somersets were tried for murder and found guilty, although James reprieved them from a death sentence.

Hence, taken as a whole, these various methods produced quite limited amounts of revenue, but generated a considerable degree of discontent and complaint. This helps to show how the Great Contract would have been a better alternative.

How successfully did Lionel Cranfield deal with royal finances?

Lionel Cranfield was a successful merchant, who had started in business at the bottom as an apprentice and made a fortune in the City. He had served as Surveyor General of the Customs and was brought in by the Privy Council in 1617 to supervise an austerity programme to include economies in the departments of state. Superfluous personnel were removed and perquisites of office, like the right to take away barely used and expensive wax candles, clamped down on. Even top officials were not safe from the new broom. In July 1618 Suffolk was charged with corruption and dismissed. The downfall of his son-in-law, the Earl of Somerset, over the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury had weakened his position. His profits from office had enabled him to build Audley End House in Essex, one of the most magnificent Jacobean mansions and the largest private house in England. When James visited him there he remarked that it was too grand a house for the King but just right for the treasurer, showing a touch of irony.

The treasury came under another commission and in 1621 Cranfield was made Lord Treasurer. Like Cecil, Cranfield had a two-pronged policy: to increase revenue and to cut down expenditure. He was able to get more money out of the Court of Wards, he got the customs farmers to pay an extra £4000 a year and he increased impositions. On the expenditure side his economies in the Household, Wardrobe, Navy and Ordnance budgets saved over £100,000 a year. He cut military expenditure and made drastic reductions in the pensions and gifts that flowed from the King. He achieved what had seemed impossible. He balanced the books. But there was one thing he could not do. He could not stop the King spending money and he could not reduce the size of the royal debt, now approaching a million pounds. As fast as new revenues came in James gave much of them away, £500 regularly in New Year gifts to each of his Scottish friends. In 1622 James promised Cranfield that no more grants would be made without approval from the treasury and then, almost at once, began to make exceptions, especially for Buckingham, who needed £20,000 for his new house and £10,000 to prepare, with his wife, for the birth of his first child. James was also spending heavily on his building projects, notably the Banqueting House in Whitehall, designed by Inigo Jones.

It was the problems in foreign policy which ruined Cranfield’s achievements. By the 1620s defence costs had tripled from ten years earlier. The trip to Madrid by Buckingham and Charles from February to October 1623 cost nearly £50,000. Buckingham returned from Spain intent on war. Cranfield, created Earl of Middlesex in 1622, was totally opposed to a war which would undo all his work. But resisting the royal favourite was a risky undertaking. Middlesex made a crude attempt to undermine Buckingham by putting his own handsome nephew forward in a ploy to attract the attention of the King. This turned Buckingham from a friend and supporter to an implacable enemy. In April 1624, Middlesex was accused of taking bribes and defrauding the Crown. He was impeached, found guilty and imprisoned in the Tower. Since his income in 1614 had been about £2500 and ten years later it was about £28,000, it seems likely that he had been as ready as the treasurers before him to fill his own pockets. But his error was to antagonise Buckingham and thus let loose all those who had suffered from his cuts, who clamoured for his downfall. James was less vengeful. He released Middlesex as soon as the parliamentary session ended and he warned his son and his favourite that they would live to regret their eager embracing of impeachments of faithful royal servants.

Royal favourites

Royal favourites were an issue in James’ reign because of his devotion to them. It is likely that James was gay or bisexual, though these are modern identities that would hold no meaning for him. James’ relationships with men were deplored by the Puritans. He had numerous Scottish friends who came with him to England. In 1607 Robert Carr, a good-looking, young, blond Scottish man caught his fancy, after being injured in a jousting match. He was followed by George Villiers. James employed both as advisers and secretaries and both built up a party of supporters at court. Both controlled access to James through the bedchamber, to which only a few were admitted and through their near monopoly of patronage, so that anyone wanting a position at court or in the government needed to pay them bribes and win their support.

Inigo Jones

Inigo Jones, born in 1573, was the son of a Welsh clothworker. He joined the Duke of Rutland’s household and then was patronised by James. He drew up the designs for over 500 theatrical performances and introduced movable scenery. He visited Italy and was influenced by the classical architecture of Palladio. In 1613 he became Surveyor of the King’s Works. He is thought to be the first British architect of the classical style.

George Villiers

George Villiers, born 1592, was from a minor landowning family. He was very good-looking and was brought to court in 1614 in the hope that he would eclipse the Earl of Somerset, the current favourite. He went on to become even more dominant. He was knighted in 1615 and rose through the peerage to become Duke of Buckingham in 1623, the only non-royal duke in 100 years. James called him Steenie, after St Stephen, who had the face of an angel and lavished affection and gifts on him and his family. In 1617 James told the Privy Council, ‘Christ had his John and I have my George.’ The letters they exchanged suggest the relationship was sexual.

Activity

1  Copy and complete the following table about the sources of income of James I.

Sources of income | Advantages to James | Reasons for opposition | Outcome
Parliamentary taxes |  |  |
Customs duties |  |  |
Impositions |  |  |
Sale of titles |  |  |
Feudal revenues |  |  |
Cockayne’s scheme |  |  |
Sale of cautionary towns |  |  |
Monopolies |  |  |

2  Although Cranfield was successful in many ways he could not solve financial problems. For each of the reasons why he was unable to solve the government’s financial problems, award a mark from 1 to 6 (6 being the biggest reason) and explain your judgements:

•  Corrupt officials

•  The size of the royal debt

•  James I’s extravagance

•  The cost of foreign policy and defence

•  Then write a concluding paragraph summing up your views on the difference reasons.

Why did James and parliament disagree?

As we have seen, James had one view of the role of parliament and the House of Commons had another. There were also problems between them over money. James needed more and the Commons were reluctant to provide it. In addition, parliament was critical of James’ spending habits and some of his friendships, the two factors being closely linked. There were also religious issues which are discussed in the next chapter and matters relating to foreign policy.

There is no doubt that James’ relationship with parliament worsened as his reign proceeded. Initially he had the benefit of the soothing presence of Cecil in the House of Commons, but the chief minister was quickly promoted to the House of Lords and few members of the Privy Council sat in the Commons, a contrast with the Elizabethan parliaments. This was the result of James’ generosity with titles for his councillors. Leadership of the House fell into the hands of Sir Edwin Sandys, an experienced MP, who was quick to exploit any perceived attack on the privileges and protocol of the Commons. He sabotaged James’ hopes for a union between his two kingdoms by insisting that the Scots must be ruled by English laws and an English parliament in a ‘Perfect Union’. This the Scots would never accept and so the plan foundered. All James achieved was that the post-nati – that is those born after James’ accession – were citizens of both England and Scotland.

Sir Edwin Sandys

Sir Edwin Sandys, born 1561, was the son of a former Archbishop of York. An MP and a lawyer, he travelled widely in Europe and had interests in the East India Company and the Virginia Company. He was knighted by James in 1603 but tended to be opposed to the court in parliament and was very critical of monopolies.

After the death of Salisbury in 1612, James did not have advisers of the same calibre and also took more part himself in government. At first he was his own secretary – a disaster because he was so lazy – and he set up a commission to run the treasury, equally unfortunate as no one was in charge or had overall responsibility. Always prone to extravagant friendships, James was now under the sway of Robert Carr, whom he had made Viscount Rochester. The King attracted further criticism when he intervened to allow Rochester to marry Lady Frances Howard, wife of the Earl of Essex. A commission, appointed by James, declared the marriage void.

A further factor was the growth of faction at court. In general terms the factions were divided by foreign policy. Some favoured a peaceful policy with Spain and others saw Spain as a serious threat and wanted a more hostile attitude and even, at times, war.

The pro-Spain group was associated with the Howards, notably the Earl of Suffolk, father of Lady Frances and the Earl of Northampton, her great-uncle. Northampton was second only to Cecil in power and influence but died in 1614. The opposing faction was a looser grouping but included the Earls of Pembroke and Southampton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot and Sir Ralph Winwood, who was to become the secretary when James tired of the task. The rivalry between the factions was responsible for the failure of the 1614 parliament, called to provide funds for the impoverished King. James’ debts now totalled £680,000 and the annual deficit of over £50,000 simply added to this each year. The parliament met on 5 April and was dissolved on 7 June. It became known as the ‘Addled Parliament’ because it ‘hatched no bills’. In other words it was as unproductive as an infertile egg. Its failure resulted from the divisions within the Council. It was put forward by Sir Henry Neville, a friend of Pembroke, that the critics of the Crown could be won over as ‘he dared undertake for most of them that the King’s majesty, proceeding in a gracious course towards his people should find these gentlemen exceeding willing to do him service’ (Stan Houston, James I, 1995, page 47). In other words, some timely concessions were needed to win some MPs over. But not all councillors agreed and Sir Francis Bacon suggested that the Council would be better occupied in ensuring the election of ‘persons well affected and discreet’.

The Earl of Pembroke

William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, born 1580, had been imprisoned by Elizabeth I for making one of her maids-of-honour pregnant. He was restored to favour by James and served him loyally. He had close links to William Shakespeare.

The Earl of Southampton

Born in 1573, Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton inherited his title as a child and was brought up by Cecil’s father. He was imprisoned under Elizabeth I and released in 1603. He moved in theatrical circles and knew Shakespeare well. In 1605 he entertained James and his wife at a performance of Love’s Labour’s Lost. He was a patron of painters and involved in the Virginia Company, which was hoping to colonise part of North America. He opposed Buckingham and fought in person against Spain in the Netherlands and died there of a fever in 1624.

Sir Ralph Winwood

Sir Ralph Winwood, born 1563, had been ambassador to France and served on embassies to the Netherlands. He was strongly anti-Spanish. Knighted in 1607 he became secretary in 1614. He favoured the release of Sir Walter Raleigh from the Tower and encouraged Raleigh’s expedition to South America. When Raleigh returned and was executed for attacking the Spanish, he would have fallen too, had he not died in 1617.

Many courtiers had no desire for a parliament which might curtail royal generosity, so they leaked information about both the ‘undertakers’ idea’ and the attempts to ‘pack parliament’, whether by ‘undertaking’ or by choice of candidates. The Commons investigated and expelled one MP for corrupt electoral practices. Their mood was thus far from conciliatory and they then went on to their favourite topic, the evils of impositions. They wanted to make them illegal, fearful as they were that the King might use them to avoid calling parliaments. By the time they had moved on to the issue of Scottish favourites, ‘spaniels to the king and wolves to the people’, James had had enough and dissolved the House, much as he had done in 1610. Behind the scenes Suffolk had been working to discredit Pembroke and so exposed the ‘undertakers’ and there were rumours that the Howards had paid MPs to be troublesome. James let off steam to the Spanish ambassador and told him frankly, ‘The House of Commons is a body without a head. The members give their opinions in a disorderly manner. At their meetings nothing is heard but cries, shouts and confusion. I am surprised that my ancestors should ever have permitted such an institution to come into existence. I am a stranger, and found it here when I arrived, so that I am obliged to put up with what I cannot get rid of’ (Godfrey Davies, The Early Stuarts, 1959, page 18).

Sir Henry Neville

Sir Henry Neville, born 1564, was an experienced MP and had served as ambassador to France. He had been imprisoned for supporting a plot under Elizabeth and was released by James and became an MP again. He advised James to yield to the demands of parliament. He had hoped to become Secretary of State when Cecil died. A recent theory suggests he wrote Shakespeare’s plays. He was a friend of Southampton.

Again, this sounds as if James was against parliament but he was speaking privately to the Spanish envoy and he was very irritated that he had taken advice and called a parliament, hoping for a generous grant and then had received abuse about impositions but no money. So perhaps it is not surprising that he felt hard done by.

James’ later parliaments were much concerned with foreign policy and are discussed later in the chapter.

Activity

The following factors suggest reasons why James and his parliaments disagreed:

•  Money

•  Relations with Spain

•  Corruption at court

•  Impositions

•  Interference with privileges

Write a sentence explaining why each of these issues caused problems and then put them in order of importance with a paragraph explaining why you chose that order.

What were the aims and actions of James’ foreign policy?

James disliked war, particularly religious war, and liked to see himself as rex pacificus. His state entry into London in 1604 emphasised constantly that the peacemakers were blessed (Beati Pacifici). Hence James was eager to end the war with Spain and to improve relations with the Spanish. The English navy might have defeated the Spanish Armada, sent in 1588 by the most powerful country in Europe, but this did not mean that James was an equal player in Europe. The Continent remained dominated by the power struggle between France and Spain. England’s only role in this was to be sought as an ally by one or the other. Hence foreign policy was much more reactive than proactive.

James believed that war could be legitimate and he was ready to fight in a ‘just’ war, but he preferred to rely on diplomacy and negotiation to settle international disputes. In this respect he was in advance of most of his contemporary monarchs. In 1604 he had said that ‘in peace the towns flourish, the merchants become rich, the trade doth increase and the people of all sorts enjoy free liberty to exercise themselves in their several vocations without peril or disturbance’ (Stan Houston, James I, 1995, page 69).

The Spanish Armada

Spain sent a large fleet in 1588 to invade England and remove Elizabeth from the throne. It was defeated by the English at the Battle of Gravelines in the Channel and forced to sail home north of Scotland, where it lost many men and ships.

The chief problem James faced with his improved relationship with Spain was that many of his subjects were convinced that Spain and Roman Catholicism continued to be a serious threat. The extent of the Spanish decline after the bankruptcy in 1598 and the death of Philip II was not appreciated in England. Also foreign policy was, by tradition, part of the royal prerogative and so made by the King. James was not always prepared to explain what he was trying to do and so his aims became misunderstood.

As the memories of the long war with Spain under Elizabeth I faded, they were replaced by myths. The heavy taxation and the loss of life were forgotten. The naval victories were talked up and the belief engendered that a war with Spain could pay for itself through the activities of privateers preying on Spanish shipping. This was to have considerable impact later in the reign.

What were James’ actions in foreign policy?

Peace with Spain, 1604

The Treaty of London was negotiated between Spain and England. There was no reason for war to continue, beyond the insistence of the Dutch that they would fight on against Spain. The English felt that they were justified in making a separate peace and English soldiers in the Netherlands were transferred to Dutch regiments. England continued to be a trading partner with the Low Countries and was able to expand into Mediterranean markets. The two Dutch towns, Brill and Flushing, held by the English as security for loans to the Dutch, remained in English hands. The peace had a good outcome in that expenses were reduced, there was a trade boom and James fulfilled his ideals. He got what he wanted without making serious concessions to the Spanish. There was some opposition in England to the peace, largely from those who had profited from piracy or who had a deep-rooted hatred for Spain.

Relations with Henry IV of France

Henry was an anomaly in Europe. He was a Protestant who had become a Catholic, but still championed the Protestant cause in Europe. He was happy to help the Dutch Protestants in their fight for independence from the Spanish Roman Catholics, because he feared Spain. He thought James might do the same, but James wanted the loans Elizabeth had made to the Dutch repaid first and his idea of ‘help’ was more in the way of diplomatic support. As it happened, the Dutch agreed a Twelve Year Truce with Spain in 1609. But Spain still had troops in the Spanish Netherlands which Henry IV saw as a threat on his borders and he began to make links with German Protestants, hoping to squash the Spanish between two enemies. He wanted to entice James into this alliance. James was reluctant, but had more or less agreed to give assistance to the French King in 1609–10 against Spain and the Empire, when Henry IV was assassinated and French intervention collapsed. James was not sorry.

Arbiter and mediator

James won international respect for his mediation skills. He helped to settle a war between Sweden and Denmark in 1613. He negotiated a settlement of the Jülich–Cleves dispute in 1614, which was immensely complex. He arranged a marriage between his daughter, Elizabeth, and Frederick V, Elector Palatine of the Rhine, a leading Protestant. This led to James receiving some unusually favourable reactions from his subjects as at last he was carrying out what they saw as his role as a Protestant leader. James had become alarmed over French policy. Henry IV’s widow, as regent for their young son, Louis XIII, had arranged Louis’ marriage with a Spanish princess and the building up of a Roman Catholic power bloc meant that a Protestant response was needed to maintain a balance of power in Europe. James had the long-term solution to this situation. He had made his links with the Protestants. He would now build bridges with the Roman Catholics and so be in a position to bring the opposing camps together. The magnitude of the problem facing him does not seem to have daunted him. The means of achieving his ends lay in the marriage of his son, Charles.

The Spanish Match, part 1

James decided as early as 1614 that a Spanish Match for Charles would be good policy. He had the Spanish Infanta Maria, the daughter of Philip III of Spain in mind and hoped to use such a marriage to build a better relationship with Spain. The arrival in 1613 of a new Spanish ambassador, Don Diego Sarmiento de Acuña, who became the Count of Gondomar in 1617, encouraged James in this aim.

They became good friends, with the result that some felt James was unduly influenced by the ambassador. The Spanish Match was favoured by the Howards, who were Catholic sympathisers and also hoped the Infanta would bring a handsome dowry of some £600,000 with her. The staunch Protestants on the Council like Winwood, Neville and Southampton were vehemently opposed. Sarmiento was hopeful that James might become a Roman Catholic and certainly intended to prevent a French marriage for Charles. Spain was also concerned to ensure that England would not help the Dutch when the truce ran out in 1621. The marriage of Charles, who was only 14, was not urgent and when it became clear that Spain would expect any children of a marriage to be brought up as Roman Catholics and the Infanta to be allowed to have Roman Catholic services which would be open to the public, James knew it was impossible, as parliament would never agree to such terms.

The Thirty Years War

This war, which engulfed much of mainland Europe, broke out in 1618, when the Protestant nobility of Bohemia revolted against their newly elected king, Archduke Ferdinand of Styria, a Habsburg. In 1619 they offered their vacant throne to Frederick of the Palatinate, James’ son-in-law. Frederick asked James’ advice about what he should do, but did not wait to receive it before he accepted the offer of a throne, egged on by his wife who aspired to be a queen. James counselled caution. He did not believe that established kings should be cast down by rebels. But he was too late and unheeded. Archduke Ferdinand responded as James had expected. He had been elected as Holy Roman Emperor in 1619 and he invaded Bohemia, defeating Protestant forces at the Battle of the White Mountain. The Spanish Habsburgs joined their Austrian relations and attacked Frederick’s hereditary lands in the Palatinate with forces under their general, Spinola. By April 1621, Frederick and Elizabeth were refugees at The Hague. Their Crowns had proved fleeting and worthless. The situation was further complicated by the end of the Twelve Years Truce and the renewal of war in the Netherlands in 1621. One of the reasons for the Spanish attack on the Palatinate had been their need to keep the so-called ‘Spanish Road’ open so they could move troops easily from their lands in Italy.

The Holy Roman Emperor

The Holy Roman Emperor ruled over Germany. He was selected by seven electors, who usually chose a Habsburg. The Habsburgs were the hereditary rulers of Austria and so the biggest land holders in the area. They were strongly Catholic.

Map of the Thirty Years War.

What was James to do?

James was in a difficult position. Elizabeth was his daughter so he had family ties. She was also the next in line to the English throne after Charles, and, indeed, it was through her that the Hanoverians eventually succeeded to the English throne in 1714. In popular opinion she and Frederick were close to being seen as Protestant martyrs. But English intervention in the land-locked Palatinate was impractical. James saw himself as the most experienced king in Europe and envisaged a diplomatic coup to bring about peace. If Charles married the Spanish Infanta, James hoped part of the deal would be that the Spanish Habsburgs would put pressure on the Austrian branch to restore Frederick to the Palatinate, which was his by rights of inheritance. The dowry that came with the Infanta would also be useful. But this was over-estimating the value of the English alliance to Spain and the persuasive powers of the Spanish with their Austrian cousins. Gondomar’s aim was to prolong the negotiations to prevent any English aid going to the Palatinate, or, after 1621, the Netherlands.

James saw no alternative to the Spanish alliance since the French were occupied with Protestant unrest and thus unlikely to want to become part of a wider European Protestant alliance. But, to James’ subjects, this looked like the unthinkable. For what purpose had the Armada been defeated, only for England to fall into the arms of Spain a mere 30 years later?

The Spanish Match, part 2

In 1622 negotiations were opened again between Spain and England for the marriage. Gondomar was encouraging and Charles, now 22, was eager to marry. He resented the intervention of the House of Commons which had urged that he should be married ‘to one of our religion’. The Earl of Bristol, the English ambassador in Madrid, worked to convince Philip IV of the advantages of the match. These diplomatic norms were severely disrupted when Charles journeyed incognito with the Duke of Buckingham to Spain in February 1623 to claim the lady’s hand in person. This was quite outside the usual methods of negotiation and ‘Tom and John Smith’ were not incognito for long. Their motives were misunderstood by the Spanish who assumed that Charles would not have embarked on such a risky mission unless he intended to become a Roman Catholic. English observers felt similarly and so there was an outpouring of anti-Catholic sentiment at home.

The Spanish chief minister, the Count of Olivares, opposed the match, seeing no benefits in it for Spain. The Infanta Maria was unwilling and her brother, the King, would not force her into an unpalatable marriage. The Spanish kept asking for more concessions, not just for toleration for Roman Catholics in England but even for the abolition of the laws which restricted them. They were reluctant to make any promises about the Palatinate, and, indeed, did not have any hope of ensuring Frederick would be restored there, as the English should have realised from the start. As Spain prolonged the talks, James became fearful that his precious son and favourite might be detained and he was ready to make almost any concession to have them back home safely. Now hostile to Spain, feeling they had been humiliated, Charles and Buckingham finally returned to England in October to tumultuous rejoicing that the match had failed. For once in his life Charles was genuinely popular.

England sidelined

James had little room for manoeuvre in his policies in his final years. He recognised, as many of his subjects did not, that England could not begin to afford the huge outlay needed for large-scale intervention in Europe. He lost patience with Charles and Buckingham in their new enthusiasm for war with Spain. He was unwell. But he did not lose control of decision-making as was once asserted and would only agree to a limited expedition under the German mercenary, Mansfeld, to recover the Palatinate. His dreams of preventing a religious war in Europe had been shattered and the task was probably beyond any human agency. He would not fight Spain but he would agree to building up an anti-Habsburg alliance and made a treaty with the Dutch to this end. He also approached France and agreed a marriage for his son Charles with Henrietta Maria, the sister of the French King, Louis XIII. The French gave little real assistance and wanted toleration for English Catholics to be part of the agreement. Early in 1625, troops were conscripted to go to the Palatinate. Most of them got no further than Flushing, the Dutch port where they landed, as they died from plague. In March 1625 James became ill and died quite suddenly. His foreign policy had failed in its ultimate aim, but events in Europe were to prove that its aim had been a worthwhile one. The Thirty Years War led to carnage and bloodshed on an apocalyptic scale. To have striven to prevent this was a praiseworthy aspiration.

Activity

1  Copy and complete the table below, listing the aims of James I’s foreign policy.

2  For each item in your list decide how successfully James met these aims.

Foreign policy aim
How successful (mark out of 6)
What actions led to you awarding this mark?

Why was parliament critical of James’ policy?

The criticisms in James’ parliaments in 1621 and 1624 were multi-causal. Foreign policy was one issue. It was linked with fears about the perceived growing Roman Catholic influence and fuelled by radical Protestant views (see pages 33–35). Then there was also the fact that James had not solved his financial problems and his parliaments were reluctant to grant him large sums or to pay his ever-increasing debts. Without money he could not influence European affairs as he could make only empty threats of action if his peace plans failed. Finally, there was increasing criticism of James’ reliance on George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, and of the decadent and corrupt nature of his court, which was related to the financial position.

What caused difficulties in the 1621 parliament?

•  Circumstances: There was a serious trade depression from 1620. Exports of cloth fell, there was widespread unemployment and this was worsened by harvest failure in 1621. The disruption of foreign markets by the outbreak of war was probably to blame.

•  Monopolies: James had granted more and more monopolies and rising prices in a time of economic downturn aroused strong feeling. Monopolists such as Sir Giles Mompesson were impeached as a result of the outcry. James cancelled some monopolies, thus losing the revenue.

•  Factions: Sir Edward Coke and Lionel Cranfield used impeachment to ruin their rival, the Lord Chancellor, Sir Francis Bacon, showing the divisions in the Privy Council.

•  Money: James made it clear that over a million pounds would be needed to send an army to Europe, so the Commons voted two subsidies, about £140,000 for general purposes, and insisted the money was to be assessed as usual by neighbours. This would reduce its value to the King even further.

•  The Palatinate: MPs were ready, they said to risk their lives and fortunes to recover the Palatinate and the anti-Spanish group on the Council urged support for war with Spain. MPs began to realise they would have to face a backlash from their friends back home if they agreed to heavier taxes – ‘what we give, they must pay’, said one MP. A single subsidy was all they offered.

•  Royal marriage: The Commons wanted to see Charles ‘timely and happily married to one of our religion’. Discussing the personal affairs of the monarch was a breach of prerogative.

•  Recusants: Parliament pressed for them to be persecuted more vigorously but James did not want to disrupt his negotiations with Spain.

•  Parliamentary privileges: James told MPs not to meddle in matters of state in a letter sent from Newmarket where he had gone to hunt. This in itself caused problems as the differences could perhaps have been resolved by face-to-face discussions. MPs claimed their privileges were ‘an ancient and undoubted right and inheritance’. James came back to them saying ‘your privileges were derived from the grace and permission of our ancestors and us’. The House of Commons responded by drawing up a Protestation which asserted its rights, although only about a third of its 470 or so members signed it. James rejected this. He dissolved parliament in December, thereby sacrificing all the bills that had been passed. He sent for the records of the House of Commons proceedings and solemnly tore out the page containing the Protestation.

Giles Mompesson

Giles Mompesson, born 1583, was trained as a lawyer and became an MP in 1614. Knighted in 1616, in 1617 he became Commissioner for Inns, which allowed him to charge fees for inn licences. He closed down ale houses he claimed were of ill-repute and then charged the landlords for permission to open them again. In 1618 he acquired the right to license sellers of gold and silver thread. His profits from these monopolies were about £10,000 each year. In 1621 he was impeached, fined and banished.

What caused difficulties in the 1624 parliament?

•  Circumstances: Since the 1621 parliament, Prince Charles and Buckingham had made their abortive visit to Madrid and returned very eager to make war on Spain. Their journey had sparked great public interest in foreign affairs with critical tracts and leaflets circulating widely. There was a general fear that the Roman Catholics were about to proceed from ‘toleration’ to ‘equality’ to ‘superiority’ and even suggestions that James would convert.

•  Monopolies: Grievances were raised again and legislation was passed to end the grant of monopolies to individuals, although chartered companies could still be granted monopolies. This was a blow to the royal prerogative.

•  Factions: The divisions reflected the differences of opinion between James and his son. On the Prince’s side, the ‘patriot coalition’, were Pembroke and Southampton with MPs like Sandys, Coke and Sir John Eliot. James had the support of Arundel and Cranfield.

•  Money: James made it clear that if there was to be an active foreign policy then parliament must be prepared to pay for it. He would not declare war until he had his money. Six subsidies and twelve fifteenths should suffice he thought. This was about £780,000. There was no hope that the Commons would grant this. They even suggested a war with Spain could be self-financing by attacking Spanish colonies. Eventually three subsidies and three fifteenths were granted, to be spent on the defence of England, securing Ireland, helping the Dutch and on the navy, under the supervision of a parliamentary commission, just in case James tried to take the grant to pay his debts. Again this was cutting away some of his prerogative.

•  The Palatinate: Despite what the Commons had laid down as the object of the grant they had made, James went on suggesting that he did intend to get the Palatinate back for Frederick. This was not the war that Buckingham wanted as he was bent on revenge on the treacherous Spanish who had sabotaged the Spanish Match. James was even still talking to the Spanish ambassador. This contradiction at the heart of affairs contributed to the inability of England either to fight Spain or to get back the Palatinate.

•  Royal marriage: Prince Charles promised that he would make no concessions to Roman Catholics if he married a papist princess. After the parliament was dissolved he married Henrietta Maria, the daughter of Henry IV of France, with a secret promise that restrictions on Catholic worship would be lifted. Naturally this leaked out and stored up trouble for the future.

•  Recusants: The fears remained, though James forestalled complaints by asking parliament how he could best defend the Church from popery.

•  Parliamentary privileges: James seemed to be mellowing when he asked parliament whether he should break off talks with Spain or not and sent Buckingham to brief them on his negotiations in Spain. But then, the House of Commons was very slow to pass the subsidy bill, until other measures had been passed, thus suggesting the idea that redress should precede supply was becoming current. James soon made it clear that detailed foreign policy decisions were still up to him, ‘whether I send 2000 or 10,000, whether by land or by sea, you must leave to the king’, and there parliament had to leave it.

Sir John Eliot

John Eliot, born 1592, was a Cornishman, who became an MP when only 22. He was made Vice-Admiral of Devon and knighted as a result of his friendship with Buckingham. In 1624 he spoke out strongly for the privileges of parliament.

Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel

Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, born 1585, was from the Roman Catholic side of the Howard family which had been disgraced under Elizabeth I. He was restored to favour by James and was a moderating influence on the Council. He was also an enthusiastic art collector.

Activity

For the following reasons as to why MPs resisted James’ foreign policy in 1621, find evidence to support each argument and assess how justified it was:

•  They wanted immediate action and thought James was stalling.

•  They wanted to be sure Prince Charles would be married to a Protestant.

•  They did not want to intervene directly in Germany because of the cost.

•  They did not want new taxes.

•  The peace policy had not worked and so should be abandoned.

Historical debate

James I: A political success?

Whereas scholars once thought James lacked the skills needed to be a successful ruler and was on bad terms with his parliaments and that the roots of the English Civil War could be found in James’ reign, more recent research suggests that James had considerable political ability. The following passages illustrate such interpretations.

Passage 1

The 1624 Parliament illustrates the extent and limitations of James’ political success by the end of his reign. He had clearly failed to quieten parliamentary fears that he had ‘absolutist’ intentions, but there is no evidence of a crown versus parliament split by this stage. The importance of the device of appropriating the subsidy to treasurers appointed by parliament and for specific uses can be exaggerated, since it was suggested by James and Buckingham, and not by a constitutionally-aggressive parliament, as was once thought. James had kept control of foreign affairs securely in his grasp. While he lived, diplomatic relations with Spain were never cut, nor was war with Spain officially declared. Moreover, by making judicious compromises on this and other issues James defused the political tension. He conceded a monopolies Act. The Commons and Privy Council commissions on trade worked together to combat the economic crisis. James’ last parliament provided promising signs of continued co-operation with the crown.

Barry Coward, The Stuart Age, 1995, pages 157–58.

Passage 2

James’ view of parliaments reflected a shrewd political realism that made him climb down, rather than push issues to the point where they caused serious political instability. Perhaps the best example of this pragmatic approach is James’ recognition in 1608 that opposition to his vision of a union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland was so strong, that the project had better be abandoned. This tactical shift showed James’ political insight and intelligence at their best. To argue that James was committed to promoting stability and consensus is not to lose sight of his weaknesses as a ruler. His tactlessness undoubtedly got him into political scrapes. His extravagance magnified the crown’s already chronic financial problems. A further problem with James’ kingship was his erratic judgement about people. He could be brilliantly shrewd. But there were other times when he was very wayward, especially when a sexual infatuation led his heart to rule his head. Yet through it all, James was, on balance, an effective ruler. Many of James’ subjects found him quirky and unkempt and at times lacking in judgement, but very few of them disliked him.

David L. Smith, essay in A Companion to Stuart Britain, 2003, pages 236–38.

Activity

1  In the light of the two passages above and further research, do you agree with the view that James was an effective ruler? Explain your answer.

2  Using the information in this chapter, find information to support each of the following two views:

(i)   James was responsible for the problems he had with parliament.

(ii)  Parliament provoked James and this led to problems.

3  Which view do you find more convincing? Explain your choice.

Further research

Use the books listed below to research how interpretations of James have changed over the years.

Pauline Croft, King James, 2003, pages 1–9.

Christopher Durston, James I, 1993, pages 1–5.

Stan Houston, James I, 1995, pages 100–115.

Chapter takeaways

•  James believed in the Divine Right of Kings but he also ruled within the law.

•  James inherited a weak financial system from Elizabeth I but was also extremely extravagant in his spending, which meant his reign saw large financial problems.

•  Salisbury (Cecil) tried hard to increase royal revenue but the failure of the Great Contract meant that fundamental financial reform could not be achieved.

•  Throughout his reign, parliament was reluctant to grant James subsidies because of the way in which he lavished money on his favourites.

•  James pursued a foreign policy based on peace and mediation but, as the religious rivalries in Europe grew more bitter, James faced a difficult task in bringing the sides together.

•  The start of the Thirty Years War and the folly of Frederick of the Palatinate made it harder for James’ policy to succeed.

•  The idea that a Spanish marriage for James’ son, Charles, was the best way to get the Palatinate back for Frederick was flawed.

•  The last two parliaments in 1621 and 1624 showed how concerned MPs were about friendship with Spain and led to them asserting their privileges and impeaching ministers.

•  The reign ended with foreign policy in disarray and a disorderly expedition to the Continent.

Study Skills: Understanding the wording of the question and planning an answer

The types of question set for AS and A Level essays will be the same and therefore all the advice in this section applies to both examinations.

Understanding the wording of a question

It is very important that you read the wording of the question you are answering very carefully. You must focus on the key words and phrases in the question; these may be dates, ministers or phrases such as ‘how successful’. Unless you directly address the demands of the question you will not score highly.

The first thing to do is to identify the command words; these will give you the instructions about what you have to do. You may be asked:

•  to assess the causes of an event

•  to what extent, or how far a particular factor was the most important in bringing about an event

•  how successful a government or ruler was.

Here are two example questions:

Examples

1  Assess the reasons why James I found it hard to solve his financial problems.

In this essay you would need to analyse a range of reasons why James could not solve these problems. However, in order to reach the highest levels you would need to weigh up – assess – the relative importance of the factors you have discussed and reach a balanced conclusion, not simply produce a list of reasons for their dominance.

2  ‘The most important reason for James I’s financial difficulties was his own extravagance.’ How far do you agree?

Although this question, like the first, requires you to consider the reasons for James I’s financial difficulties, you must consider the importance of his extravagance and write a paragraph on the named factor, even if you argue it was not the most important. However, even if you think it was the most important, you must still explain why other factors were less important.

Planning an answer

Once you have understood the demands of the question, the next step is planning the answer. The plan should outline your line of argument, which means that you will need to think about your thesis before you start writing and the plan should help you maintain a consistent line of argument throughout the answer. Consequently, your plan should be a list of ideas and reasons about the issue in the question. Your plan should not be a date list of events, as this will encourage you to write a narrative or descriptive answer, rather than an analytical one.

Consider the first example ‘Assess the reasons why James I found it hard to solve his financial problems.’

A plan for the essay might take the following form:

1  The outdated taxation system in England: Tax-payers assessed themselves and so paid far less than they should, Elizabeth I had not reformed the system so it was harder for James to do so, taxes needed consent from parliament, therefore most important reason as taxes were the only reliable way to get in more revenue.

2  His extravagance: Link to the above as parliament would not grant more taxes because they argued if James spent less he would not need more tax revenue.

3  Failure of the Great Contract: A missed opportunity to get a regular income for the Crown but some argument that it was not a very good bargain anyway, therefore less important.

4  Failure of money-raising ideas like Cockayne’s project and monopolies: These could have provided some useful income but Cockayne did not have the necessary skills and monopolies put up prices so not very likely to work well.

5  Buckingham undermined Cranfield’s reforms: Cranfield was a good financier and made real progress in balancing the books but limited the gifts going to courtiers who ensured his downfall and James did not stand up for him, so partly the fault of James.

6  Conclusion: Link between factors, but the defects in the taxation system were a crucial difficulty which other methods could not overcome.

The answer should not just list the reasons, but offer a comment about their importance and the conclusion should offer a clear line of argument which has been supported in the previous paragraphs.

Planning an answer should help you focus on the actual question and not simply write about the topic. In the first question you might write all you know about how James raised money, but not explain why his methods failed. Under the pressure of time in the examination room it is easy to forget the importance of planning and just start writing, but this will usually result in essays that do not have a clear argument or change their line of argument half way through, making it far less convincing.

Question practice

The focus of this section has been on planning. Use the information in this chapter to plan answers to the three following questions:

1  ‘James I’s foreign policy was ineffective.’ How far do you agree with this view?

2  Assess the reasons why James I’s last two parliaments were more difficult to manage than his first parliament.

3  How successfully did James I achieve his aims in foreign policy?