ESSAY: How far was James I’s financial problems of his own making?

After Elizabeth I’s reign James was left to deal with a large financial issue in England. Before 1600 both price inflation and Elizabeth’s sales of crown land in order to finance the war with Spain (a short term fix which caused a long term problem) left James in a debt of £100,000. The sale of this land also cut off a large source of revenue for the monarch as he was no longer able to claim rents. During peace time James had to ‘live off his own’ so therefore had to obtain revenue from other sources such as purveyance, wardship and monopolies. Many would argue that the blame for the financial issues that James faced were primarily on the shoulders of Elizabeth and the failures of Parliament in trying to find new sources of income. However, James’s excessive spending habits and financial irresponsibility leads others to believe that he was the cause of the financial issues facing England in this time. I will be delving further into James’s failures in handling money in order to show how this was, as I believe, the strongest reason for the financial failures of England during the period of 1603-1625. 

In 1603 Elizabeth I had died leaving a public debt of £420,000; thereby claiming most of the blame for England’s financial issues. However, £300,000 was still to be collected in government subsidies during James’s reign and £120,000 had been raised through forced loans. James entered his reign fairly debt free. However, his extraordinary generosity when concerning his favourites left him in a much trickier situation than that of what he began with. James had many favourites, his first being the Scotsman Sir Robert Carr, who he loved showering with gifts such as the £10,000 he gave his wife, the countess of Somerset, on their marriage. James particularly favoured his Scottish friends. In 1606, parliament granted James three subsidies so that he could settle his debt. James granted £44,000 of this money to three Scottish friends and then later gave £67,000 to eleven other Scotsmen. James appeared unable to grasp the concept of the value of money and significantly overestimated the wealth of the crown. James’s irresponsible handling of money only exasperated the problems that he had inherited in his reign. Elizabeth had left him a debt of £100,000, and had sold of much of the crowns land during the war with Spain. Instead of doing everything in his power to find new sources of income James only worsened the situation with his unnecessary, excessive gift giving and generosity towards his favourites. This lack of responsibility ultimately proves that James clearly no handle on the issues that he faced. He was out of his depth and faced the matters at hand with an immature and juvenile attitude. 

James’s economical negligence also shone through with his extravagant social and personal life. James had a strong love for hunting and unnecessary dining and drinking which shed a bad light on his moral obligations as a heavy debt hung on his shoulder and economic crisis was not far away for England. He also felt that after years of female rule the royal wardrobe had to be changed in order to be fitting for a King; henceforth expenditure on royal clothing went up from £10,000 in 1603 to £36,000 in 1610. James also had financial responsibilities towards his family. Elizabeth never had such obligations and would never have allowed the additional expenses that James put into court entertainment.  James believed that his family had the right to live in similar magnificence to that of his own; whereas royal finances under Elizabeth had always orientated around one person as the queen never married. This steep incline in expenditure after Elizabeth’s reign was surely going to take its toll on the England’s financial stability. James’s behaviour and spending habits undoubtedly added to the problem and caused more issues than he had originally inherited in the beginning of his reign. 

Finally one of James’s most significant financial failures during his reign as king was his failure to agree to the great contract. The Great Contract was put forward in 1610 by the Earl of Salisbury as an attempt at fundamental reform. The aim of the contract was to allow James to pay off all of the royal debt. James approached the situation in a discourteous manner, complaining to parliament that the decision making process was taking too long. This only served to anger many MPs and led to a decline in support for the contract. James also believed that a £200,000 subsidy was inadequate and would therefore not meet the needs of government. James’s failure to go ahead with the Great Contract meant that he had missed a major opportunity for such a fundamental reform. This, as an example, successfully shows James’s financial immaturity and carelessness, as when faced with a solution to a deep-seated issue, he responded discourteously and failed to win the support of those in parliament. This was a large factor in the cause of the financial instability during James’s reign and goes to prove that a large part of these problems were of his own making. 

However, many historians would argue that James’s extravagances were relatively insignificant when compared to the underlying issues in England’s economy and would say that there were crucial flaws that went past James’s individual financial irresponsibility. An example of this would be the patronage system that meant that James would have had to reward those who served him. This meant that a simple gift to a one of his favourites was no different to rewarding someone for the work that they had done for him. It was a flawed system which provided no favours for the King when trying to tackle the financial issues that he faced. Also, the failures of Cranfield when attempting to reduce the royal household expenses were a factor in the financial issues of Britain. Although he did reduce household expenses by 50 per cent, Cranfield represented an unjust system. Buckingam (the King’s favourite) took measures to have him impeached for bribery after he attempted to extend his powers at Buckingham’s expense, proving that he was not past improving his own situation at the expense of others. ‘Cranfield’s failure illustrates the complexity of the crown’s financial problems’ – Anderson 1999. It is apparent that the financial issues of England were more complex than just James’s personal extravagance and Cranfield highlights this. Many historians would say that he embodied the idea of an unjust and corrupt system that first needed to be fixed before any real reform could be made. 

To conclude, I firmly believe that the failures of Elizabeth in her reign and the debt that she bestowed upon James and the corruption of the government at the time, although massive set backs, may have been minor if James had had a more mature attitude towards the value of money. His spending of money would have been considered extravagant even in the most stable of time. Considering the financial state of England at the time his gift giving and self indulgences were more than juvenile. During James reign the royal debt reached £900,000; almost double the original debt that he was left by Elizabeth I. The original debt that James inherited was primarily caused by the war with Spain; however James ended this war within his first year of becoming King. This new debt showed James as being incapable when handling money and provides strong evidence against his case when asked the question ‘ how far were his financial problems of his own making?’.