James’ Relations With Parliament

1. James’ Relations With Parliament

2. What were James’ relations with Parliament like? C16th and C17th Parliaments themselves were not necessarily a problem; rather it can be argued that they were a mirror which reflected problems in society. There were four Jacobean Parliaments: 1604-10 1616 (The Addled / Unproductive Parliament) 1621 1624 These Parliaments dealt with issues such as Constitutional Union, Wardship, Purveyance, the Great Contract and war with Spain. David Smith argued that “No aspect of James I’s kingship reveals his paradoxical blend of strengths and weaknesses of wisdom and misjudgement more plainly than his relations with English Parliaments.” So how far is this true?

3. It can be argued that James was more open to Parliament’s advisory role than Elizabeth had been. He was more relaxed than his predecessor, willing to mix with MPs, perhaps because he was a man in a male dominated political world. James understood the nature of Parliament and he was good at easing tensions. It can be said that disagreements he did have with Parliament were not prolonged or continuous from Session to Session as they would be with his son. He communicated frequently with Parliament in speeches and stressed his duty of care for the Commonwealth. However, it must be noted that James was known to lecture Parliament in his strong Scottish accent and did sometimes spark controversy by being disinterested or tactless. James had a number of disagreements with his Parliaments, for example over Constitutional Union, the Great Contract, his unwise indulgence in Favourites at Court and war with Spain. However, Conrad Russell has argued that, in general, not very much was wrong with relations between Crown and Parliament. James did enjoy some successes, for example, he allowed the revival of the Medieval process of impeachment. This was a popular move amongst some MPs because it meant that prominent monopolists could be tried.

4. What have historians said about James’ relations with Parliament? There has been a significant historical debate regarding the extent to which James was successful in his dealings with Parliament. The Whig interpretation treated 1603 as a political turning point. These historians have argued that Elizabethan skill was replaced with Jacobean incompetence and there was organised opposition against James in the House of Commons. The Revisionist interpretation of the 1970s and 1980s emphasised areas of agreement between Crown and Parliament. Historians such as Conrad Russell have argued that in actuality Parliament was relatively weak during the Jacobean period. The Post-Revisionist interpretation of the 1980s onwards argued that the Revisionist historians ignored or understated issues which showed Parliamentary conflict. Historians such as Ann Hughes and Richard Cust have argued that while it can be argued James enjoyed some successes with his Parliaments, this compliment must be tempered by the conflict which the King himself sometimes created.