Events and Issues in the Reign of James I

The accession of James I 1603 When James came to the throne in 1603, he had experience as a successful king in Scotland. He was a Protestant, was married and already had three children, including two sons. This seemed to reassure English people about the future succession. Many in the governing class were pleased to have a man ruling England again after half a century of “petticoat government”, although some resented his Scottishness and Scottish clients.

The Millenary Petition 1603 Protestant reformers saw the new king as an opportunity to press for reform. They presented James with a petition seeking his support for Church reform. James agreed to convene a conference to discuss religious matters.

The Hampton Court Conference A conference was held at Hampton Court. It provided an opportunity to James to demonstrate his grasp of religious matters. When he realised that many reformers wanted to remove bishops and replace them with a Presbyterian system, he refused to agree to this. The conference broke up with no real outcome, other than the eventual publication of the King James Bible in See the notes and source tasks on Moodle.

The Gunpowder Plot 1605 In 1605, a group of disaffected Catholics led by Guy Fawkes plotted to blow up Parliament when James was in attendance. The plot was discovered before Parliament sat. The plotters were either killed, or taken prisoner, tortured and executed. This plot led to a further outbreak of anti-Catholic hysteria and persecution

James’ first parliament As was normal with a new reign, a parliament was called. There were concerns raised about the eligibility of some candidates for this parliament. There was some concern about the Crown “interfering” in elections. 72 MPs signed a petition called the “Form of Apology and Satisfaction”, asserting Parliamentary privileges such as free elections, free speech for MPs and freedom from arrest during a Parliamentary session, and reminding the King that he did not have absolute power over religious matters. However, there was no serious challenge to James’ rule. Most parliaments cooperated with the Crown in passing bills as requested by the monarch.

James and “divine right” James was a firm believer in the divine right of kings to rule. He saw himself as an authoritarian but benevolent ruler. He was keen to assert his right to exercise his royal prerogative. While emphasising this right, James did not want to be seen as an absolute tyrant. He respected the role of Parliament in granting subsidies and passing legislation.

James’ view of royal authority “Out of the law of God, the obedience of the people ought to be to their lawful king, as God’s lieutenant on earth, obeying his commands in all things, except directly against God. In the Parliament... the laws are but (begged for) by his subjects and only made by him at their (request) and with his advice. Certainly a king that governs not by his law cannot have a happy and established reign. For (although) it is true... that the King is above the law, as both the author and giver of strength thereto, yet a good king will not only delight to rule his subjects by the law but will conform himself to the law by his own actions.”

Financial woes One of the ongoing problems for James was finance. He had inherited debt from Elizabeth’s reign, and was somewhat extravagant himself. The state of the Crown’s finances was worsening. Robert Cecil, his Lord Treasurer, tried to grapple with these problems. He attempted to increase Crown revenue through measures such as Impositions – additional customs duties - increases in rents for Crown lands, as well as trying to make economies in spending. Such measures made him very unpopular.

The Great Contract 1610 The 1610 session of parliament was characterised by criticism of James’ financial measures. Cecil proposed a “Great Contract” – parliament would grant James an annual sum of £200,000 in return for the surrender of ancient feudal dues such as purveyance and wardship. Although this proposal was a sensible compromise, both James and Parliament were unwilling to come to a final agreement, and the proposal was dropped. Parliament was dissolved in Reading, Murphy et al, Pg

The Addled Parliament 1614 Cecil died in His death created the opportunity for rival factions to contend for influence with James. This parliament only lasted a short time. It was riddled with faction fighting between the pro- Catholic Howard faction and the anti-Catholic faction led by Archbishop of Canterbury George Abbot. Both factions promoted handsome young men as a means of gaining influence with James. Summoned to help James ailing finances, this parliament achieved very little, with complaints about royal favourites, continuing Impositions and requests for subsidies. After two months, James dissolved parliament, believing it was being obstructive and irresponsible in not cooperating with him to help rule Britain effectively.

Royal favourites James’ first favourite was Robert Carr, the Earl of Somerset. He was a handsome Scot, used by the Howard faction to gain influence with James. He eventually fell from favour as a result of his marriage to Frances Howard, wife of the Earl of Essex, and a scandal associated with the death of Sir Thomas Overbury, an opponent of this marriage. The Abbot faction took advantage of this scandal to promote George Villiers as Carr’s replacement in James’ affections.

James’ Third Parliament This Parliament was called to discuss European situation. James wanted a subsidy to help his Protestant son-in-law against Catholic Spanish forces in Europe. Parliament instead attacked monopolies and favourites. Parliament impeached Mompesson, a monopolist and Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor, finding them guilty, then fining and imprisoning them. Parliament offered “advice” on foreign policy. James told them this was his prerogative, warning them off. Commons responded with their “Protestation” asserting their right to discuss all matters of State. James dissolved Parliament.

The 1621 Protestation The Commons now assembled in Parliament, being justly occasioned thereunto concerning sundry liberties, franchises, and privileges of Parliament, amongst others here mentioned, do make this Protestation following, That the liberties, franchises, privileges and jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England; and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the King, State, and defence of the realm and of the Church of England, and the maintenance and making of laws, and redress of mischiefs and grievances, which daily happen within this realm, are proper subjects and matters of counsel and debate in Parliament; And that in the handling and proceeding of those businesses every member of the House of Parliament hath, and of right ought to have, freedom of speech to propound, treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the same; and that the Commons in Parliament have like liberty and freedom of speech to propound, treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the same...

James’ Fourth Parliament Parliament voted for subsidies for a war with Spain after Charles’ suit for the Spanish Infanta had been rejected. the Lord Treasurer, the Earl of Middlesex, was impeached James approved a law annulling all monopolies. Reading about Parliaments Pg

James’ Foreign Policy James’ primary intention was to pursue peace. He wanted to help restore harmony to Europe split by bitter religious struggles. Unlike many Englishmen, James had no particular bitterness towards the Spanish. In 1604, the Treaty of London ended war with Spain He also realised that war was very expensive and problematic, so his peaceful policy was pragmatic as well as idealistic. James agreed with the idea of his son Charles marrying a Spanish princess (the Infanta). This proposal created much controversy among English Protestants. The Spanish invasion of the Palatinate (ruled by his Protestant son-in-law) increased demands for support. The failure of the Spanish Match in 1623 led to the development of an anti-Spanish policy and, despite James best efforts to avoid it, war. Reading Pg

James I – a review James has received a mixed review of his reign from both contemporaries and historians. Many have focused on his perceived homosexuality, seeing it as a political weakness. Critical contemporaries may have also affected by an anti-Scottish bias. Some older historians may have relied too much on such biased primary evidence. Their interpretation was that James was essentially an ineffective ruler. More recent historians have criticised this interpretation, pointing out the benefits of James’ peaceful foreign policy and avoidance of internal religious hatreds. While James undoubtedly had some personal faults, the current consensus is that he was a reasonably effective ruler of England.

Differing views of James I “The wisest fool in Christendom.” Henri IV of France “His tongue was too large for his mouth, which ever made him speak full in the mouth and made him drink very uncomely, as if eating his drink, which came out into the cup of each side of his mouth;... He never washed his hands, only rubbing his finger ends slightly with the wet end of a napkin; his legs were very weak..., that weakness made him ever leaning on other men’s shoulders; his walk was very circular, his fingers ever in the walk fiddling with his codpiece.” Anthony Weldon “His cowardice, his childishness, his pedantry, his ungainly person and manners, his provincial accent made him an object of derision.” 19 th century historian Thomas Macauley.

Differing views of James I “There are no grounds for calling the first truly British sovereign ‘James the Great’, but he deserves to be remembered as ‘James the Just’ or ‘James the Well-Intentioned’... James’ subjects were lucky to have him as their king.” Roger Lockyer 1998 “The latest research indicates that he was a shrewd and highly effective governor of both Church and State... As both King of England and King of Scotland, James emerges in recent writings as a figure of sense, intelligence and flexibility who exerted a powerful force towards political stability and international peace. At last, James VI (of Scotland) and James I have become recognisable as the same monarch.” David L Smith, 1998