James I Booklet by Darren Sudlow

3 Booklet

LEVEL 3 HISTORY

Theme B Government and Politics

James I and Issues of Government

Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 The New King CHAPTER 2 Government â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Court, factions and favourites CHAPTER 3 Religion CHAPTER 4 Finance CHAPTER 5 Foreign Policy NOTE: Multiple Kingdoms and Parliament are not included here

C A N T A N E T

Chapter

H I S T O R Y

England's New King The people of all sorts rid [rode] and ran, nay rather flew, to meet me; their eyes flaming nothing but sparkles of affection; their mouths and tongues uttering nothing but sounds of joy. James I describing his arrival in England to Parliament in 1604.

Focus Questions:  

What advantages did James have over Elizabeth when he came to the throne? What disadvantages did he have?

ames' long journey from Edinburgh to London to take up his new throne in 1603 was a triumphant royal progress. People rushed to welcome the new King and he stayed at many fine houses, marvelling at England's apparent wealth. James always saw this mighty welcome as a sign of God's approval and as a tribute to him personally. Yet it owed at least as much to the work of Robert Cecil, Elizabeth‟s chief minister who, tipping James to succeed, had secretly corresponded with him and worked behind the scenes to ensure a smooth succession. James ingratiated K E Y T E R M S himself with all and sundry as he went, lavishly doling out gifts, offices and titles (he created no fewer than 300 knights on his Succession way south). After Elizabeth‟s stinginess, this generosity was Calvinist applauded. Petition Presbyterian Divine Right of Kings

The great relief of the English that, despite a couple of abortive plots the succession had been a peaceful one. There had been fears of a disputed succession leading to rebellion or even civil war after Elizabeth's death as she had no direct heirs.

Great expectations Most of all perhaps, people had great expectations of their new King. And, on the surface at least, James seemed to have a lot going for him. 

He was an experienced King. James came to the English throne at the age of 37 having more or less successfully ruled Scotland for the whole of his adult life. (During his childhood regents had ruled Scotland on his behalf.)



He was a learned man who had written books on subjects like kingship and religion, and he could argue and debate with the best of them.



He was a convinced Protestant having been brought up in the Calvinist faith and he liked the English Church with its system of government by bishops.



He had three surviving children, two sons and a daughter, so the future succession seemed assured

C A N T A N E T



H I S T O R Y

He was a man in a man's world. Many welcomed a king after 50 years of "petticoat rule".

“Kings are called gods by the prophetical King David because they sit upon God his throne in the earth and have the count of their administration to give unto him. Their office is "to minister justice and judgment to the people," as the same David saith; "to advance the good and punish the evil," as he likewise saith; "to establish good laws to his people and procure obedience to the same," as divers good kings of Judah did; "to procure the peace of the people," as the same David saith.”

It was hoped that James would bring about reforms in such matters as taxes, religion, monopolies, patronage and law that Elizabeth, especially in her later years, had neglected. (One disillusioned subject had described Elizabeth then as like "the sluttish housewife who swept the floor but left the dirt behind the door"!) James was showered with petitions asking for reform and he accepted them graciously. However, whether he would do anything about them was another matter. Alas it was not to be long before some of his subjects were looking back nostalgically to the "golden age" of Elizabeth!

Figure 1: James on the role of monarch

Scotland v England James' biggest disadvantage was that he was a foreigner from a country which had traditionally been England's enemy. Furthermore he lacked "hands on" experience with English politics, laws and institutions. Unfortunately, at least to begin with, James didn't fully appreciate that ruling England was going to be a very different proposition from ruling Scotland. Let‟s see why. 

Population: England with about 4 million inhabitants had five times the population of Scotland.



Wealth: England was richer than Scotland which had a primitive rural economy. But lames I greatly overestimated the wealth of his new kingdom.



Monarchy: The Scottish Crown did not have the powers of the English Crown. It was like a case of "first among equals”. Other Scottish noble families were related to the Stuarts or were their friends or, possibly, enemies. The monarchy had never become as remote from the rest of the ruling class as it had in England.



Parliament: The Scottish Parliament was small, consisting of only one House dominated by the nobility. Face to face discussion was possible almost like that in a club. There was no equivalent of the huge English House of Commons whose importance James was slow to grasp. (Indeed he was also slow to realise how important the gentry class generally was in England.)



Church: In Scotland the Presbyterian Church was dominant. James had had much strife with Presbyterian ministers who considered the Church separate from and even superior to the state. He greatly preferred the English system with its hierarchy of bishops appointed by and responsible to the Crown.

Figure 2: James I

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y



Law: The Scottish civil law was interested mainly in the rights of royalty and nobility whereas the English common law took into account the rights of the subject generally.



Foreign policy: Unlike England which was still at war with Spain at James' accession, Scotland had no enemies in Europe. James liked to think this was due to his skilful diplomacy, but it was due more to Scotland's insignificance in the European scene, whereas England was a leading Protestant power.



Local government and taxes: Scotland retained its own system of tax collection and local government (though James was later to introduce the English office of justice of the Peace there).

The Character of James I What kind of a man was James? The answers have been extraordinarily diverse. Some of the more extreme descriptions make him seem little better than a wild animal, and yet the opinion of contemporaries who observed him as King of Scotland were far more complimentary. These accounts give contrasting views. The first was written by M. de Fontenay, envoy from Mary Queen of Scots, to his brother in 1584. Resource A [James] is for his age [18] the premier prince who has ever lived. He has three qualities of the soul in perfection. He apprehends and understands everything. He judges reasonably. He carries much in his memory and for a long time. In his questions he is lively and perceptive, and sound in his answers ... In brief he has a marvellous mind, filled with virtuous grandeur and good opinion of himself. His manners, as a result of the failure to instruct him properly, are aggressive and very uncivil, both in speaking, eating, clothes, games, and conversation in the company of women. 1 have noted in him only three defects which may possibly be harmful to the conservation of his estate and government. The first is his ignorance and failure to appreciate his poverty and lack of strength, overrating himself and despising other princes. The second that he loves indiscreetly and obstinately despite the disapprobation of his subjects. The third, that he is too idle and too little concerned with business, too addicted to his pleasure, principally that of the chase. The second was written by a courtier, Sir Anthony Weldon, after James had died. Resource B He was of a middle stature, more corpulent through his clothes than in his body ... his clothes ever being made large and easy, the doublets quilted for stiletto-proof ... He was naturally of a timorous disposition ... his eyes large, ever rolling after any stranger that came in his presence ... His beard was very thin, his tongue too large for his mouth, which made him speak full in the mouth and made him drink very uncomely, as if eating his drink, which came out of the cup at each side of his mouth. His skin was as soft as taffeta sarsnet [a thin silk], which felt so because he never washed his hands, only rubbed his finger ends slightly with the wet end of a napkin; his legs were very weak, having had, (as was thought), some foul play in his youth ... that weakness made him ever leaning on other men's shoulders; his walk was ever circular, his fingers ever in that walk fiddling about his cod piece ... He was very liberal of what he had not in his own grip, and would rather part with £ 100 he never had in his keeping that one twenty shilling piece within his own custody ... A very wise man was wont to say that he believed him the wisest fool in Christendom, meaning him wise in small things, but a fool in weighty affairs. Look carefully at these two accounts. Which seems to be more unbiased and trustworthy? Consider the background of the writers. M. de Fontenay had been sent by James‟s mother. Sir Anthony Weldon hated the Scots and wrote a most abusive pamphlet about them of which a typical example is: 'To be chained in marriage with one of them (Scots) were to be tied to a dead carcass and cast into a stinking ditch.' James found out about the pamphlet and dismissed Weldon from his court position. Weldon got his revenge by writing his savage attack on James which has coloured uninformed opinion of the king ever since. The judgement of more discerning historians would agree with de Fontenay that James was intelligent, that he had

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

appalling manners, that he often over-estimated his position in foreign affairs, that his fondness for young male favourites was very unpopular and that he neglected state matters to indulge his passion for hunting.

Formative Years Many of James‟s personality traits can be traced back to his childhood. Deprived of both his parents as a baby (his mother was probably an accomplice in the murder of his father) he grew up as a lonely boy who was to crave affection throughout his life. His marriage to Anne of Denmark became loveless after a successful start. James turned to a series of young men, beginning in the 1580s with his cousin Esme Stewart, later Duke of Lennox. These supplied the family life that James had never known as a child and was unable to successfully create as an adult despite having two sons, Henry and Charles, and one Figure 3: Anne of Denmark daughter, Elizabeth, who survived into adulthood. It is striking that James‟s relations with Buckingham, his last favourite, were more cordial than with his own son Charles. James signed his letters to Buckingham 'your darling Dad' and addressed him as 'Steeny'. It is uncertain whether James was a practising homosexual but contemporaries were scandalised by the way he caressed his favourites in public and resentful of the honours he heaped upon them. James had no one on whom to model himself as king. It is unfortunate that his manners, which were extremely coarse, had not been corrected as a child. Persuading the king not to lecture his subjects, which he was inclined to do after he became King of England, might have been more difficult. James liked to prove the correctness of his position by lengthy explanations, but the unfortunate members of the English parliament did not enjoy the king haranguing them for hours at a time. James went so far as to apologise for this in 1621 'I never meant to weary myself or you with such tedious discourses as I have done heretofore'. The positive side of this aspect of James's character was his love of learning. He was genuinely interested in philosophy and theology and he wrote a number of books including The Trew Law of Free Monarchies which was a justification of the divine right of kings and Basilikon Doron which set out his views on religion. James was unusually tolerant for the early seventeenth century and the execution of Catholic priests virtually ended in his reign. Another part of James‟s character that attracted unfavourable contemporary comment was his lack of physical courage. There had been a number of plots against him when he was King of Scotland and within three years of his accession to the English throne those involved in the Gunpowder Plot tried to blow up not only the king but the assembled members of the Lords and Commons. So James had good reason to be wary of assassins especially as the death of Henry IV of France in 1610 confirmed the vulnerability of kings. However, contemporaries did not like their sovereigns to show signs of weakness and Sir Anthony Weldon wrote scathingly about James‟s padded clothes which were designed to prevent a dagger from reaching his body. Along with his fear of personal violence went a much more praiseworthy desire to avoid war. James hated war and sought throughout his reign to keep England from being sucked into one. Ultimately he failed, but much of the blame lies with Buckingham and Prince Charles who exerted great pressure to persuade the king to agree to war against his better judgement

C A N T A T N E T

Chapter

H I S T O R Y

The Court, Factions and Favourites Review

1. What was Elizabeth’s court like? 2. How did she manage patronage and with what success?

Focus Questions:  

What was the nature of James’ court? How did James manage patronage and factional politics and with what success?

FACTION: A group within a larger group, such as government, which follows its own interests and sometimes its own policies/agenda. ROYAL FAVOURITE: A close personal friend, possibly even a lover, of the monarch

The Court Reorganization. K E Y

T E R M S

Bedchamber

In 1603 the Court was reorganized, for three reasons:

Faction

(a) The new monarch was male

Favourite

(b) He was a Scot

Privy Chamber

(c) He was very sociable and enjoyed the company of social companions. The royal Bedchamber became the heart of the royal private apartments and, instead of the privy chamber, the Patronage centre of the monarch's private life. The Bedchamber Court consisted of those personal attendants whom the king appointed to wait upon him. In an age of personal rule access to the king became allimportant: if one had had the king‟s ear things would get done. Baronet

The Bedchamber also replaced the Privy Council, the Privy Chamber and bureaucratic ministers (such as Elizabeth's Burghley or Robert Cecil) as the focus of administrative management and of political power in government. James's chief ministers and privy councillors were not given free access to his Bedchamber. Instead they would have to hang around until he came out to talk with them. His chief minister, Robert Cecil, who in the late Queen's last years wielded great power and enjoyed open access to her, now felt pushed aside and rejected. He grizzled and whined, I wish I waited now in [Queen Elizabeth's] Presence Chamber ... I am pushed from the shore of comfort and know not where the winds and the waves of the [Court] will bear me. One thing was certain. They would not bear him into the royal bedchamber. The Presence Chamber, where the monarch appeared in public, was next to the more informal and private Privy Chamber. It was there that Robert had often made informal contact with Her Majesty.

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

That ended in 1603. James' arrival in London brought major changes in the style of government: (1) Favourites and personal servants, especially the king's groom of the stool, had more access to him than Cecil and other ministers and councillors. (2) The traditional style of the Scottish Court, kingship and government was much more relaxed, casual and easygoing than the English equivalents. It had much less formality and fewer ceremonies and rituals than Elizabeth's Court. In this laidback setting Scottish kings were on much more familiar terms with their companions, courtiers, councillors and servants than Elizabeth and the other Tudors had been. These Scottish traditions and practices James brought with him. (3) This had one serious consequence. James put his political trust in his intimate friends of the Bedchamber.

A BRITISH Court James I was very conscious that, as king of both England and Scotland, he was a British king: for example he had new royal plate made for dining, each piece decorated with roses and thistles. Although he was unsuccessful in his efforts to achieve Anglo-Scottish constitutional union, he wanted to achieve a political unity between the two peoples. He used the Court to express this, because it became a mix of Scottish and English politicians and courtiers. Unfortunately James' apparent favouritism towards the Scots who came south with him proved to be very unpopular: (1) For most of the reign they monopolized positions in the Bedchamber. This was widely resented because there they not only tended to his personal and bodily needs (e.g. bed-making, dressing him, emptying his 'close-stool' (=chamber pot)). They also controlled royal patronage and (it was widely feared) advised him on political matters. (2) Elizabeth politically legitimized her favourites by putting them on the council or in responsible government positions. James made his favourites officers of the Bedchamber. This excluded and alienated the ministers and councillors who carried the chief responsibility and workload of government. Excluded English courtiers and politicians, both nobles and gentry, were full of resentment. In the House of Commons in 1610 a prominent gentleman, Sir John Holles, expressed the discontent even bitterness, towards the Scots, [T]he Scottish monopolise his princely person, standing like mountains betwixt the beams of his grace and us. Holles cursed that the Scots not only monopolized 'the royal presence, they be warm within, while the best of ours starve without'

The Quality of James' Court A Dark Side It is well known and indisputable that, in sharp contrast to that of his predecessor, James' Court tended to be disorderly, at times undignified, and even on occasions out of control. The case of Anne, countess of Dorset illustrates this. When, in 1607, her husband sought legal separation from her, she aggressively turned to James for help. Courtiers reported that the king was burdened 'with a stormâ&#x20AC;&#x; from Anne, who had besieged him in his bedchamber. Next day, '[S]he will not leave, for she knocks at his chamber door, when he is retired, as if it were an inn, as indeed it is'. And yet again, 'His Majesty is so troubled with [her] as he can get no rest She will not be kept out of the bedchamber, but by force' HMC, Salisbury, 19, p.361-2.)

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

The Jacobean Court was also often rocked by scandals. These ranged from Lady Ros' affair with her own brother to e.g. the annulment of the earl of Essex's marriage to Frances Howard on the grounds of his impotence; her marriage to the king's favourite Robert Carr, earl of Somerset; the conviction of Frances and Robert for the murder of his friend, Sir Thomas Overbury; the massive embezzlement by Thomas earl of Suffolk, lord treasurer; the dismissal and imprisonment of Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon for bribery. It should be added that Court corruption reached new heights under James. He encouraged it by his extravagant generosity, the sale of offices and noble titles and the creation of a new honour, baronet, in order to raise money. A Bright Side This can be dealt with briefly, but do not under-estimate its importance. James' Court was culturally dazzling. The king who presided over it fully represented its cultural quality and contributed impressively to it: he was theologian, scholar and political theorist, someone who loved debate, and the patron of theatre and architecture. The king and his Court were also exceptionally active (and more so than Elizabeth and her Court) in establishing and developing European contacts

Faction Politics and the Rise of Favourites Robert Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury Until 1612 there was a sort of balance of power between Robert Cecil, an able Elizabethan politician and the Howard faction. Robert Cecil came from a powerful family, the son of William Cecil he provided a line of continuity from Elizabeth to James and in that was way was invaluable in James‟ accession and the early part of his reign. James was able to leave many matters of administration to Cecil who possessed considerable skill in that area. Robert followed a foreign policy of peace which was in accordance with James‟ own beliefs (James saw himself as the „peacemaker‟ of Europe) but his pursuit of the Great Contract and its subsequent failure meant a loss of face and power. He enriched himself in James service but did nothing about James‟ spending and avoided any form of retrenchment, which would have made him enemies. After Cecil‟s death in 1612 Robert Carr and the Howards were in the ascendancy until about 1618. But they were bitterly opposed by the Protestant faction. The Howard Faction

The Protestant Faction

Old noble family, disgraced in Elizabeth‟ reign due to support for Mary, Queen of Scots

A much looser grouping of men with Puritan sympathies

Were pro-Catholic, favouring an alliance with Spain

Were strongly anti-Catholic and anti-Spain. Wanted England to take an active stand against Catholicism in Europe

Related by marriage to royal favourite – Robert Carr

Introduced George Villiers to James to displace Robert Carr as favourite

Prominent members: Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton and Thomas Howard, Earl of

Prominent members: George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury and William

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

Suffolk

Herbert, Earl of Pembroke

Strongly supported the royal prerogative; opposed to calling parliament

Believed that James should call parliaments often and listen to their advice

Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset In 1607 Robert Carr, a young French-educated Scot, came to James‟ attention and rapidly achieved the status of chief favourite. In 1613 after a scandalous divorce case, Carr married Frances Howard, Countess of Essex, the daughter of the Earl of Suffolk. The agreement of the king to the divorce caused the reputation of the court to fall and concern about the development of a pro-Spanish foreign policy because of the Howards. The dominant position at court held by the Howards alarmed the Protestant faction who decided to entice James‟s favour away from Carr by introducing a new young man to court, George Villiers. Carr was eventually disgraced in 1615 through the Overbury Scandal and the Howards place of dominance was lost through the rise of Villiers and Thomas Howard‟s disastrous attempt in the position of Lord Treasurer. The Overbury Scandal Carr‟s friend and advisor Sir Thomas Overbury had opposed his marriage to Frances Howard in 1613 and was imprisoned in the tower on trumped up charges. There Frances Howard arranged for him to be poisoned. A deathbed confession in 1615 by a man who had assisted them led to an investigation which resulted in Frances and Carr being tried and convicted of murder. They were imprisoned in the Tower for six years after which they lived in relative obscurity. Only the lower orders who had helped Frances were executed! Figure 1 Frances Howard, Countess of Essex

The Duke of Buckingham, George Villiers Villiers came from a family of minor gentry in Leicestershire. He was introduced to the king in 1613 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in an attempt by the Protestant faction to undermine the influence of Robert Carr and the Howards. Villiers was 22 when he met James and reputedly possessed extraordinary beauty. James immediately took to him, “Christ had his John”, James said “and I have my George.” His rise was astonishing: 

 Gentleman of the bedchamber 1615;  Viscount Buckingham in 1616;  Earl of Buckingham in 1617; Marquis of Buckingham in 1618; Duke of Buckingham in 1623.

Figure 2 George Villiers

 

He was appointed the king‟s cupbearer in 1614;

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

Due to his closeness to the king, he exercised immense power and rapidly achieved total control of patronage. His income was enormous – bribes, gifts, grants of land from the King and the „fruits‟ of numerous offices he held saw to that. But he was grossly extravagant and even went into debt on occasions. His corruption, Arminian sympathies, and control of patronage (which excluded many others from office) produced an army of opponents, but being so close to the king, he could not be touched by constitutional means.

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

C A N T A T N E T

Chapter

H I S T O R Y

James and Religion Review

1. Describe the Elizabethan settlement. 2. What challenges did Elizabeth face in implementing and maintaining this Church? Focus Questions:   

What type of national church did James favour? What challenges did James face? How and with what success did he face these challenges?

n spite of the overall success of the Anglican settlement of 1559, the Church was still being attacked on two fronts in 1603. Catholics wanted greater toleration and freedom; Puritans wanted greater reform; the Government still saw conformity as security. However, there was growing K E Y T E R M S recognition by many, even loyal and orthodox Anglicans, of the need for some internal reforms. The early hopes of all Millenary Petition these groups were not fulfilled. Puritan

Calvinist Impropriations Canon laws Arminianism Pluralism Recusancy

Like his predecessor, Elizabeth, James I had the intellectual training and ability to debate religious matters with churchmen and scholars. He liked to display his learning both in print and in disputation. It is now agreed that at the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, James played a role equal to that of the bishops and the would-be reformers, and deserves credit for some of the decisions that came from it. However, the fact that many of these decisions ware never put into practice was also due to the King.

The King's personal inclination towards toleration led him to try and find ways of containing both the English Catholics and the puritan critics within the established Church. This did not please his parliaments, or his people; but at his death, in 1625, the 50,000 or so English Catholics were generally peaceful, loyal citizens. The number of extreme puritans and separatists was not large.

Religion in 1603 In 1603 the English Church remained as Elizabeth had established it in 1559 

Governed by bishops.



Doctrinally Calvinist. (Most clergy, including Archbishop Whitgift, were Calvinist in doctrine).



English Catholics (and some extreme Puritans) were excluded from it.

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y



Puritan demands wore generally moderate; many had reverted to outward conformity within the Church.



Roman Catholics seemed less of a threat than formerly

A Summary 1603-1625 1. James's views on religion: He was sympathetic to Calvinist doctrine until the end of his reign. However, he was also determined to defend episcopacy ('no bishop, no King'). 2. Archbishop Bancroft (1604-1610) was fanatically anti-Puritan. He was anxious to purge the Church of Puritans. James kept him in check 3. After having high initial high initial hopes, Catholics were disappointed by the few concessions eventually granted by James. (This disappointment led to the Gunpowder Plot of 1605). Note that Puritans also gained little from the Millenary Petition, and the Hampton Court Conference 1604. 4. In the first decade of the 17th century, a Dutch theologian, Arminius, rejected the Calvinist idea of predestination. His ideas were read with approval by English anti-Calvinists. (Their following however was still very small in number). 5. Abbot, Bancroft's successor as Archbishop of Canterbury (1610), had Calvinist views similar to James's own beliefs. Unlike Bancroft, he was sympathetic to some Puritan ideas. However, he fell from favour as he opposed James's Spanish policy. In the 1620s, his influence declined still further. 6. Bishop Neile, an Arminian, managed to persuade James I to question (but not reject) Calvinism during the last year of his life.

PURITAN ACTIVITY The Millenary Petition In 1603, Puritan ministers (almost a thousand of them, if the name is to be believed) drew up a Petition for church reform to be presented to James on his way south from Scotland to assume the English crown. This shows that although overt puritan opposition to Elizabeth's church had been suppressed, opposition had certainly not disappeared from the parishes. Since a church settlement had followed Elizabeth's accession, it was reasonable to suppose that a new monarch would signal another time of revision in church matters. The petitioners denied that they were "factious men affecting a popular party in the Church, or.... aiming at the dissolution of the state ecclesiastical". The Millenary Petition asked for church reforms outlined below:       

A trained preaching ministry Strict observance of Sunday as a day of rest and prayer The Court of High Commission to be used “more sparingly” Pluralism (where ministers held more than on living) to be outlawed “Popish” ceremonies to be abolished “Popish” garments to be abolished “Popish” terms to be abolished

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

Their hopes must have been high when James agreed to a conference at Hampton Court to be held on November 1 (later postponed till January 1604) and planned to give up some royal impropriations of church land to increase clerical livings The Hampton Court Conference 1604 In spite of the role that James I played at the Conference, or maybe because of it, the puritan faction found little that pleased them in its outcomes. Reforms were approved in areas of general agreement, but James left it to the bishops to put these into effect, with the result that little was really accomplished. The Authorised Version (translation) of the Bible, also known as the King James Bible, was the one outcome of the Conference that posterity remembers, evidence that bishops and puritan scholars could work together. But it did not appear complete until 1611. Puritan church-goers and clergy continued to experience weekly the irritation of what they saw as Catholic heresies in their churches. It could be that the puritans had over-played their hand, both in stirring up expectations of the Conference and in reawakening in James his memories of presumptuous and disrespectful Scottish Presbyterians. His "No bishop, no King" statement demonstrated his clear support of episcopacy. But in his ecclesiastical appointments, to York as well as to Canterbury, the King made it clear that he favoured orthodox, Calvinist views in the Church of England. In 1604 he reversed an Act of Elizabeth's reign, which had made it possible for the monarch to "plunder" church wealth. He certainly showed no sympathy for the new Arminian ideas. Jacobean Archbishops Both these Archbishops subscribed absolutely to the basic Anglican doctrines of their time ď&#x201A;ˇ

Calvinistic beliefs about predestination

ď&#x201A;ˇ

An Episcopal framework for church government.

Bancroft's attacks on puritans showed his determination to enforce church rules and the power of bishops. They cast no doubt on the orthodoxy of his Calvinist beliefs.

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

Richard Bancroft Succeeded John Whitgift in the Archdiocese of Canterbury in 1604. Whitgift had died in February, and Bancroft, as Bishop of London, more or less assumed the role of leader of the Church of England, until he was officially appointed to it later in the year. During this time he presided over the Convocation called to draw up a new set of canons (church laws), 141 in all, which would spell out clearly regulations governing all aspects of church life. Bancroft's zeal in detailing and enforcing the regulations, which saw 100 non-conforming ministers deprived of their livings, persuaded James that here was a churchman who would make troublesome puritans (who reminded him of Scottish Presbyterians) tow the line. James enforced the canons by royal proclamations. This gave Parliament the opportunity for criticism in every subsequent session, both for the way in which its members had been excluded from the law-making process, and for the plight of the deprived ministers. Parliament also criticised non-residence and pluralism among the clergy. In trying to deal with these perennial problems, Bancroft bought into another struggle, this time with the common law courts. Many of the Church's problems were due to its poverty, and the Archbishop tried to ensure that tithes produced adequate funding. Frequently tithes had been commuted into money payments and the amounts had remained fixed, in a period of inflation, Important products were exempt from tithes. When Bancroft tried to remedy this via church courts, he found that common law lawyers opposed him and they wore supported by the judges. Before Bancroft's death in 1610, the judges had gone on the offensive attempting to limit the power of the High Commission Court, as well as to secure jurisdiction over the question of the commuted tithes. George Abbot Was appointed by James to succeed Archbishop Bancroft in 1610. He, also, was a stickler for upholding canon law and fought to keep control of the church courts. Abbot had been chaplain to one of James Scottish friends, and, like the King, would have nothing to do with the newer religious (Arminian) interpretations in which Bancroft had shown some interest. In 1612 under Archbishop Abbot's authority, and with the King's approval, the last two heretics to be burnt in England suffered for denying the divinity of Christ. But soon after that, Abbot's Influence with the King waned, as he refused to agree to the divorce of Lady Frances Howard so that she could marry the royal favourite Somerset. For a while he was even suspended from office after opposing the King's wishes on several other matters such as the Book of Sports. This declaration, encouraging games on Sunday mornings, after church services, had been produced In Lancashire. James ordered that it be read from the pulpit in all churches. The puritans wore angry at this affront to their views and many of the clergy, including the Archbishop, opposed the royal order, which James then decided to withdraw. Although the King restored Archbishop Abbot to his office he allowed him little further influence in church affairs. This situation continued until Abbot's death in 1633

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

The Sailing of the Mayflower 1620

Figure 3 the Mayflower in Plymouth Harbour

Any assessment of puritan discontent in the reign of James I cannot ignore the depth of feeling that caused groups like the so called Pilgrim Fathers to realise all their worldly wealth and make the harsh journey to a new life in the New World in North America where they could worship as they wished. Their numbers were comparatively small, but they were an indication of the intensity of religious ideas in the day-to-day lives of some people at that time.

THE CATHOLICS Like the puritans, Catholics in England in 1603 held hopes that the new King would make life easier for them. He had promised as much, if he obtained their loyal support. For a while, the recusancy laws were held in abeyance, but James had miscalculated the depth of anti-Catholic feeling in England. The laws were put into effect again in 1604. James' policy of making peace with countries, which had remained enemies of England for far too long, was to have its effect on English Catholics. In the peace that Philip III of Spain made with James I in 1604, he no longer tried to build in more favourable treatment for English Catholics. After James made peace with the French a year later, Jesuit missionaries in England could find no foreign power to support their work and were ordered out of the kingdom. The English Catholic community, numbering a roughly-estimated 35,000 in 1603, had generally speaking disappeared as a political force. During the first two Stuart reigns they played little part in politics. At first glance the half-formed plots of 1604 and the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 give the lie to the previous statement. But the plots are best understood as an epilogue to the plotting of Elizabeth's reign, as a result of hot-headed frustration at the withdrawal of Spanish support. The English Catholic community at large, in spite of the general panic exemplified in the rhyme, did not support them: Remember, remember the 5th November With gunpowder, treason and plot. We see no reason With gunpowder treason Should even be forgot. The Gunpowder Plot 1605 and its consequences There is little doubt that there really was a plot. The conspiracy centred on the digging of a tunnel under the Houses of Parliament which would then be blown up when James was attending the opening of a new session. The main plotters came from gentry families which probably suffered most from recusancy fines. The plot was revealed when one conspirator sent a warning to a relative to keep away from parliament.

Figure 4 Guy Fawkes 15

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

The plot upset James. The Venetian ambassador reported that 'the king is in terror. He does not appear nor does he take his meals in public as usual. He lives in the innermost rooms with only Scotsmen about him'. Recusancy fines were increased and Catholics were forbidden to live in or near London or to hold public office. They were also required to take a new oath of allegiance, which denied the Pope's authority to depose kings. The Pope opposed the oath but most Catholics were happy to demonstrate their political loyalty by taking it. The Catholics gave James no further trouble. They were allowed to practise their religion albeit at a financial cost. The penal laws (imposing fines) were often ordered to be enforced more strictly when a parliament was due to meet as a concession to the violently anti-Catholic

Commons. However, Catholicism did not become a major political issue until after the outbreak of the Thirty Years War in 1618. Then a number of events combined to increase fears about popery and the crown's commitment to true religion. James's attempts to secure a Spanish bride for Charles, the failure to support the Protestant cause on the continent, and the relaxation of the recusancy laws in 1622-3 as part of the negotiations with Spain all contributed to a growth in anti-Catholicism which would increase as fears about the advance of popery at home and abroad intensified. 1618-25 The Arminians The outbreak of the Thirty Years War increased religious polarisation and brought many tensions to the surface. Up to 1629 the Catholic armies of the Emperor and the Spanish swept all before them. The very existence of Protestantism in Germany seemed to be under threat. Fears about the international spread of Catholicism were heightened by the Spanish marriage negotiations which, if successful, would mean a Catholic queen and Catholic worship in London. An apparent change in James's attitude to religion increased the worries of many. James had always been Calvinist in his theology even if he disliked the Calvinist method of church organisation. This meant he believed in predestination, which was the standard orthodoxy of Figure 5 Jacob Arminius the Church of England. A Dutch theologian - Jacob Arminius -attacked Calvin's doctrine of predestination and asserted that men had free will to decide their own fate, because God willed the salvation of all who believed. The followers of Arminius were known as Arminians. Apart from free will, they believed in services, which were more ceremonial and put more stress on the sacraments. They regarded the Catholic Church as being in error but still a true church, and they tended to exalt the power of the Crown.

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

James was at first an opponent of Arminius and sent representatives to argue against him in 1618. However towards the end of his reign he became more sympathetic to the Arminian cause because of the practical support it gave him. The 1620s saw mounting protests against Spain and Catholicism and questions about the Crown's handling of foreign policy. The Arminians upheld royal authority and did not share the irrational hatred of popery. It was natural, therefore, for James to promote Arminians, a development that was regarded with suspicion by many in the Commons who regarded Arminians as little better than papists. In 1622 James issued instructions to the clergy forbidding 'popular' preaching about predestination or 'reprobation' (damnation). This may have been partly because preachers were using sermons to criticise the king's foreign policy, or it may reflect a genuine change of heart by James. In 1624 he allowed the publication of an Arminian book by Richard Montagu. It is interesting to speculate whether, if James had survived throughout the 1620s, he would have encountered the same problems as Charles, with king and Commons frequently clashing over religion.

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

C A N T A T N E T

Chapter

H I S T O R Y

James and Finance Review

What financial problems did Elizabeth face? How and with what success did she deal with these problems? Focus Questions   

What financial problems did James share with Elizabeth? What new problems did he encounter? How successful was James in dealing with the issue of finance?

WHAT PROBLEMS DID JAMES INHERIT FROM ELIZABETH?

A K E Y

t her death Elizabeth left a surplus of 90 000 in the treasury and a debt of 400 000 which was in theory covered by outstanding debts owed by France and the Dutch, and by an uncollected subsidy voted in 1603. This is no mean achievement considering the war with Spain and rebellion in Ireland. Unfortunately Elizabeth managed her finances at the cost of her successors. T E R M S

Customs farmers Book of Rates Subsidies Book of Bounty Great Contract

Elizabeth‟s reluctance to grant rewards to her courtiers created an environment of extortion, bribery and corruption, as officials decided to use other means of compensating themselves. She also failed to increase royal revenue so it kept pace with inflation.

Impositions

Coupled with the effects of inflation was the failure to overhaul an archaic system of taxation that led to gross under assessment. This meant that the value of the subsidies James could collect decreased. For example the yield of each subsidy fell from 130 000 mid-sixteenth century to 55 000 by 1628. Of course the commons never fully appreciated this difficulty.

The Bates Case

Issues of Finance under James James’ Extravagance James made the problem of finance worse than it should have been through his own financial extravagance. On his journey south from Scotland to receive the crown James marvelled at the wealth of the English nobility and went on a spending spree. This was to continue for much of his reign. Between 1603 and 1612 he spent 185 000 on jewels; pensions given to courtiers as rewards rose by 50 000 to 80 000 a year and expenditure on the household doubled by 1610. Elizabeth had spent less than 300 000 a year in peace time but under James this figure rose immediately to 400 000 and reached a peak of 522 000 in 1614.

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

The nobility may have not minded so much if James had not spent so much of this money on the Scottish courtiers who arrived at the court with James. In 1611 eleven of these “hungry Scots” were given a total of 67 000 in royal cash and property.

Crown Lands At the beginning of James‟s reign the most important source of ordinary revenue was still crown lands. Leases on favourable terms were a way of rewarding courtiers and officials without direct cost to the exchequer. The importance of crown lands diminished throughout the reign, as one financial crisis gave way to another, successive Lord Treasurers saw the sale of land as being the quickest and easiest way to raise money. By 1640, crown lands had ceased to be a significant part of crown revenue.

Customs Revenue In 1604 direct collection of customs was abandoned and it was farmed out to a syndica6te of merchants. In return for an annual rent the customs farmers were able to collect and keep customs revenue. This gave the king a regular income which was in excess of what crown officials had paid to the exchequer from the customs. It also created an additional source of patronage and created a group close to the crown who would be able to provide loans when the king was in financial difficulty. The new efficiency of customs collection meant that in effect a new indirect tax had been created. This was to cause uneasiness in parliament, which saw its control of taxation being undermined. In 1608 a new Book of Rates was issued, which included new duties known as impositions which brought in an additional 70 000 a year.

Impositions and the Bates Case John Bate, a member of the Levant Company, imported currants from Turkey. In 1606 currants were among the few products subject to impositions. Bate refused to pay this additional duty claiming that it was, in effect, a tax which had been levied without Parliament‟s approval. This led to a landmark case in the Court of the Exchequer. The two views: 1. 2.

The King cannot levy duties or taxes without the consent of parliament The King‟s right to regulate trade is part of the royal prerogative. Imposing duties is the main way to regulate trade.

The court decided in favour of James and affirmed his right to impose duties on his own authority. This meant impositions were given the full backing of the law. This alarmed some of the MPs in the Commons who felt that the King would not need parliament if he could levy impositions at will.

Corruption Corruption was a major problem for James, as well as Elizabeth. Royal officials often siphoned off some of the money intended for the king to line their own pockets. Everyone sought to enrich themselves at the expense of the crown. A good example of this is the Earl of Figure 1: Hatfield House, one of Robert Cecil's mansions 20

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

Salisbury; in 1609, as master of the court of wards, Salisbury gained 1400 from a wardship that brought the crown 370. And in 1610 as Lord Treasurer he negotiated the renewal of his farm of the silk duties, on the original terms even though the trade had expanded. Instead of the modest profit of 434 which he had originally enjoyed, he was now gaining 7000 a year. Under assessment of taxes was also a problem, as those who were liable to pay had to declare what they were worth. Cranfield (Lord Treasurer 1621-4) estimated his total wealth at 90 000 but was taxed on only 150, while Buckingham, the richest man in the kingdom after the king, was apparently worth a mere 400.

Granting of Subsidies Jamesâ&#x20AC;&#x; first parliament (1604-10) granted 400 000, an unusually large sum. This helped mislead James into thinking that parliament would always pay for his debts. It was passed by only one vote, and was granted only as a gesture towards the new king. James would henceforth have difficulty collecting money from parliament. Between 1606 and 1621 James received only one grant (of under 100 000) and by the 1620s disillusion with the crowns handling of finance made it difficult to obtain adequate funds from parliament.

Monopolies James ignored the lessons learnt during Elizabethâ&#x20AC;&#x;s reign and continued to grant monopolies. Those which were particularly objects of complaint were war supplies, luxury articles and especially grants to favoured courtiers in return for money. The growing chorus of discontent burst forth into furious song in the Parliament of 1621. All monopolies were banned except for new inventions and certain industrial monopolies.

Inflation of Honours In 1611 the title of Baronet was created and sold at the cost of 1095. By 1614 this had brought in 90 000, but by then the market was saturated and by 1622 the price had fallen to 220 which increased disillusion with honours and the court. James sold far more titles than Elizabeth, in the first four months of his reign he created 906 new knights. This extravagance could be found in all titles, in 1615 there were 27 Earls, by 1628 this had risen to 65, and not only served to decrease the prestige attached to a title but angered many of the older noble families who resented the ease with which humbler families rose to equal status.

The Cockayne Project Figure 6 A Baronet

This scheme was the idea of William Cockayne, a London merchant and alderman. The countryâ&#x20AC;&#x;s largest export was unfinished cloth which went to the Netherlands. The trade was handled by the Merchant Adventurers Guild and Cockayne wanted to break into their monopoly. He persuaded the king to prohibit the export of unfinished cloth on the grounds that this would generate employment in the finishing of the cloth and increase customs revenue by increasing the value of the product. In fact the opposite happened. Cockayne and his backers did not have the resources to purchase all the cloth produced and unemployment soared in the clothing districts. The Dutch reacted by finding new sources of unfinished cloth and late in 1616 exports through London were a third down on their 1614 level and customs revenue fell accordingly. At this point the Merchant

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

Adventurers guild were allowed to resume their control of the cloth trade which gradually recovered but never again reached the high point of 1614.

The Lord Treasurers 1. Robert Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury (160812) Salisbury tried to limit Jamesâ&#x20AC;&#x;s extravagance by issuing the Book of Bounty in 1608. This prohibited the crown giving away major items such as lands, customs or impositions. It was designed to lower the expectation of courtiers but did not succeed partly because James gave cash away instead. In the last four months of 1610 alone he was persuaded to give away over 36 000. He increased customs revenue and administered crown lands more efficiently, but his most imaginative scheme was known as the Great Contract (1610). Salisbury proposed that if the Commons would make a single grant of 600 000 for the debt and give the crown 200 000 a year, the king would give up his right to purveryance, wardship and some other lesser revenues. Months of negotiation with the commons followed and by the summer recess it had been agreed to, but there would be no parliamentary grant towards the debt. All that remained was for both bills to be enacted when parliament reassembled in November 1610. Over the summer doubts began to arise about the contract and it soon became obvious it was not going to succeed. James felt let down and humiliated, he had allowed bargaining with parliament over his divinely-given prerogative and had been rejected. Salisbury had put him in hi position and thereafter he lost his influence, although his was not removed from his position as Lord Treasurer before his death in 1612. What went wrong? The commons could not be sure the king would not continue to pocket the feudal dues while receiving his grant and were worried about the King being able to gather income without calling of parliament. Also, many MPs disliked the idea of funding the kingâ&#x20AC;&#x;s extravagance and feared the Scots would be the main beneficiaries. On the kings side the removal of some prerogative revenues like impositions would prevent the king from exploiting and expanding these revenues in the future In the long term the failure of the Great Contract was unfortunate for both the Stuart dynasty and the country. If it had been passed it might have begun the transformation of Englandâ&#x20AC;&#x;s administrative system. Importantly it would have given parliament the responsibility for raising royal revenue, which would have helped it to understand the problems of government finance more clearly and much of the conflict between the commons and the crown from 1620 to the civil war might have been avoided. The failure of the contract left the kings finances in a sorry state. Salisbury had reduced the debt from over 600 000, but by only selling 400 000 worth of crown lands. This could not be repeated every year so the debt steadily mounted until it stood at 900 000 in 1618. When Salisbury died in 1612 he was not replaced and the treasury was put in commission (run by a committee) for two years.

2. Thomas Howard, The Earl of Suffolk (161418) James appointed a new Lord Treasurer in 1614, unfortunately the man he chose was the Earl of Suffolk, whose corruption was beyond anything yet seen. In his four years as Lord Treasurer he built Audley End which was said to have cost 80 000. There was widespread selling of offices and men did not bother to hide the

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

profits they were extracting from their positions. The one successful revenue device was the sale of honours. While Suffolk was in control, the Crown‟s debt nearly doubled from 500 000 to 900 000. He was dismissed in 1618 and convicted of embezzlement.

3. Lionel Cranfield (1621-24) Cranfield was an astute businessman who became Master of the Court of wards in 1618 and Lord Treasurer in 1621 as the Earl of Middlesex. At his installation it was said that „if any man living can improve the king‟s revenue with skill and diligence, you are that good husband‟. He established a series of interlocking commissions to examine royal finaces, and by 1620 he had reduced the King‟s household expenses by over 50 percent. When he took the office finances were in a desperate state. The country was experiencing a severe depression; crown revenue had fallen while its expenditure had risen. Cranfield attempted to control the flow of generosity. A new Book of Bounty was issued in 1619, and in 1621 he demanded the immediate stop to the payment of pensions and insisted that new grants should be screened by himself. He lasted in the position for two and a half years and the number of enemies he made is proof partly of his difficult personality but also of his drive and determination. Existing sources of revenue were exploited more effectively but he failed in an attempt to reduce pensions and end the practice whereby men would sell and bequeath them to others. He refused to sell crown lands believing that it weakened the authority of the king as well as reduce future income. Immediate needs were met by two forced loans in 1622 and 1623. Cranfield‟s attempts to cut costs were despised at court who looked upon him as a money grubbing merchant. As long as he continued to have the support of James and Buckingham he could continue his campaign against waste. This changed when Buckingham and Charles returned from Spain eager for war against them. Cranfield opposed war strongly, realising it would be disastrous for finance. As a result Buckingham and Charles used the commons to impeach him for corruption. James was not prepared to save his treasurer in the face of attacks by his favourite and his son. Cranfield had achieved some impressive savings and had increased royal income by about 80 000. However, because he had tightened up the existing system rather than reforming it, he brought about no lasting improvement in crown finances.

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

C A N T A T N E T

Chapter

H I S T O R Y

James and Foreign Policy Review

What problems did Elizabeth face in foreign policy? How successfully did she deal with them? Focus Questions   

What was the Thirty Year War? Why did James follow both a Pro-Protestant and ProCatholic policy How successful was James in dealing with the issue of foreign policy

Introduction  

James‟s reign began when war with Spain had been dragging on for fifteen years. James constant objective was peace. This was understandable considering the English crown could not afford war.  By seeking Spanish friendship James flew in the face of public opinion somewhat. Causing alarm and hostility K E Y T E R M S amongst his Protestant subjects. Thirty Year war  James sought the role of peacemaker in Europe, trying to Palatinate keep a balance between relations with Spain and relations with Protestants in Europe. Duchy Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Emperor Elector Catholic League Hapsburg Infanta

James’ pro-Protestant Policy The early part of the 17th century was marked by an uneasy calm, punctuated by incidents which threatened to become major crises. James had ended the war with Spain in the Treaty of London 1604. This gave English merchants the right to trade in Spain and Netherlands without fear for their religion. At this time the Netherlands was still striving for independence from Spain.

In 1609 the Catholic ruler of the German duchies of Julich and Cleves died without a direct heir and two Protestants made claims for his lands. The dispute was settled by dividing the Duchies, but tension had increased and rival alliances had been set up; the Protestant League under Frederick of the Palatinate and the Catholic League under Maximilian of Bavaria. England was the only state capable of leading the Protestant world (French monarch Loius XIII was only 10), and in 1612 an alliance was signed between England and the Protestant

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

Union. The following year James‟ daughter, Elizabeth was married to Frederick. James was now at the centre of the Protestant world. Up to this point James‟ actions were supported by his Protestant subjects. He was pursuing a Protestant foreign policy, avoiding expensive wars but seeking to contain the Catholic threat.

Figure 7 Elizabeth Stuart

James’ pro Catholic policy

In 1613 a change in policy occurred which many found hard to understand. James began to court the friendship of Spain and sought to promote a Catholic marriage for the heir. This was unacceptable to many. For James it was simple, to be the peacemaker of Europe he needed two marriage alliances, Protestant and Catholic. The Privy Council became divided over the issue, with the pro Spanish Howards on one side and the protestant faction led by the Earl of Southampton on the other. This would continue to divide the council right up until the Civil war. The failure of the Addled parliament in 1614 also gave impetus to marriage negotiations. No money had been granted James by parliament, so the prospect of a rich Spanish dowry appealed. Philip III had no real desire for the marriage but it suited him to keep negotiations dragging on.

The Bohemian Crisis and the Thirty Years War The Holy Roman Empire (see the map) was a loose grouping of states with the Catholic Emperor of Austria as their overlord. Since the Reformation many of the Princes of these states and their subjects had become Protestants – so there was plenty of potential for religious conflict

Figure 8 Ferdinand II

Early in the 16th century the Emperor had become King of Bohemia also and, although the Crown of Bohemia was supposed to be elective, each succeeding Emperor had just taken it over. Ferdinand who became Emperor in 1619 had assumed he would also. But the Bohemians, many of whom were Protestant, knew that the Jesuit-educated Ferdinand was a fierce enemy of Protestantism. So just before he succeeded as Emperor they offered their crown to Frederick of the Palatinate instead

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

Against James wishes his son-in-law accepted, hoping to extend Protestant influence within the empire and believing that Ferdinand would not risk taking on Protestant Europe. Frederick was one of seven electors who chose the Holy Roman Emperor. By accepting Bohemia he would gain another vote and the Protestants would have a majority in the Electoral College instead of the Catholics. This was a threat the Habsburgs could not ignore. Elizabeth and Frederick took up residence in Prague but Ferdinand immediately moved against them. Their brief reign was brought to an end in 1620. The Palatinate was occupied by the Spanish (Spanish monarchy belonged to the Hapsburg family like the Emperor) and its elector and his family were forced into exile in the Netherlands. The sympathies of the English already lay with Frederick because his wife Elizabeth was Jamesâ&#x20AC;&#x; daughter. This was strengthened by the fact he was portrayed as a fervent Protestant struggling against the might of the Catholic Emperor. More importantly what impact would Spanish involvement have on James wish for a Spanish alliance?

Catholic marriage? James was anxious to avoid war and put his trust in diplomacy. He thought a marriage alliance with Spain would be the answer, because the Spanish king Philip III might be persuaded to put pressure on his cousin the Emperor. From 1618-23 James policy consisted of fruitless negotiations with Spain. In 1621 Parliament favoured a naval based war against Spain. James followed an anti-Habsburg rather than anti Spanish policy, but failed to inform Parliament fully of his intentions. The Commons was left uncertain about the Kings real intentions. James ended up dissolving parliament. This abrupt termination of parliament marks the beginning of an active dislike of the Crownâ&#x20AC;&#x;s foreign policy that was to intensify under Charles.

The 1623 Madrid trip In February 1623 Charles and Buckingham in disguise set off for Spain. The purpose of the journey was to demonstrate Charles commitment to the Spanish Infanta(Princess), Maria Anna. They were ceremonially welcomed into the Spanish court but if they expected to return

C A N T A N E T

H I S T O R Y

speedily to England with a Spanish bride in tow they were mistaken. Six months dragged by before the pair realised the Spanish were merely stalling and never intended to marry off the Infanta to Charles. He was never allowed to see her and returned to England his one thought being revenge for his humiliation.

Figure 9 Charles

The first step was to call parliament to vote funds for war. James was reluctant to do so but was ill in Nov 1623 and could not impose his will on the two determined young men. From this point until his death in March 1625 James found it increasingly difficult to direct events in opposition to Charles and Buckingham, although he was ready to point out the folly of their actions when he thought appropriate.

Tasks: 1. Some Historians agree with Professor D. Willson who claimed that James I‟s foreign policy was “the most shameful feature of his reign”. Argue for this statement by finding as much evidence as you can in the handout. 2. Others disagree strongly with the statement. Support this view with evidence from the handout 3. What aspects of James‟s foreign policy were most likely to cause problems with parliament