OCR Specification focus:
‘the inadequacy of royal finances and the proposed Great Contract (1610).’
James I inherited a financially strained monarchy and attempted to reform royal income. His proposal of the Great Contract (1610) marked a turning point in crown–parliament relations.
The Inherited Financial Situation
James I inherited a monarchy already weakened financially from the reign of Elizabeth I. While Elizabeth had been relatively frugal, her reliance on extraordinary sources of income left James with structural problems.
Structural Weaknesses in Royal Finance
Ordinary revenue (crown lands, customs duties, feudal dues) was insufficient to cover rising costs of government.
Extraordinary revenue (parliamentary subsidies for war) was irregular and politically dependent.
Inflation reduced the real value of revenue, while prices had more than doubled since the mid-16th century.
Ordinary revenue: The regular income of the crown from sources such as crown lands, customs, and feudal dues.
James’s Spending Patterns
James quickly gained a reputation for extravagance.
Lavish spending on favourites, court entertainments, and gifts.
Generous patronage of courtiers, creating pressure on the crown’s finances.
High-profile displays of wealth at the Jacobean court alienated many MPs, who believed the king squandered limited resources.
The Immediate Financial Problems
By 1608, James’s debts were estimated at around £400,000, a serious burden given annual ordinary revenue of about £300,000.
Cecil’s Reforms
Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, attempted to stabilise the situation through financial reform. His measures included:
Book of Rates (1608): Reassessment of customs duties to increase income.
Greater efficiency in collection of revenue.
Plans for a comprehensive reform of the crown’s finances, leading to the proposal of the Great Contract.
The Great Contract (1610)
The Great Contract was Cecil’s ambitious plan to permanently resolve the crown’s financial inadequacy.
Key Provisions
Parliament would grant the king £200,000 annually in perpetuity.
In return, James would surrender certain feudal dues, such as purveyance and wardship, which were deeply unpopular.
Wardship: The crown’s right to administer the lands of underage heirs of tenants-in-chief until they came of age.
Engraving of the Court of Wards and Liveries, the royal body that managed wardship revenues. It illustrates the administrative machinery behind a key feudal due targeted by the Great Contract (1610). Although engraved in 1747 from an earlier image, it depicts the institution that persisted into James I’s reign; the period setting is slightly broader than the syllabus focus. Source
These dues, though resented, provided the king with significant though irregular income. Parliament would effectively replace them with a guaranteed annual grant.
Aims of the Contract
Provide the crown with a stable, predictable income, removing dependence on irregular parliamentary subsidies.
Abolish outdated feudal rights, modernising financial relations between king and subjects.
Reduce sources of parliamentary grievance, since many MPs resented purveyance and wardship.
Reactions to the Great Contract
The Contract became a flashpoint in relations between James and Parliament.
Crown’s Position
James initially welcomed the idea, as it offered long-term stability.
However, he feared loss of prerogative rights, since giving up feudal dues diminished his traditional independence from Parliament.
James’s extravagance meant he doubted £200,000 would cover long-term costs.
Parliament’s Concerns
MPs were wary of granting the king permanent revenue, fearing it would reduce their ability to influence policy through control of subsidies.
Many believed James would continue extravagant spending regardless of the contract.
Suspicion that the crown’s financial mismanagement would persist made MPs reluctant to commit.
Failure of the Great Contract
Despite negotiations throughout 1610, the Great Contract collapsed.
Printed royal proclamation by James I dissolving Parliament on 31 December 1610, marking the immediate political context of the failed Great Contract. The blackletter heading and royal arms highlight crown authority amid financial dispute. This document slightly exceeds the narrow financial detail but directly illuminates the Contract’s political end point. Source
Reasons for Failure
Distrust between king and Parliament: Neither side fully trusted the other’s intentions.
Cost disputes: MPs questioned whether £200,000 was sufficient, while the crown feared it was not enough to compensate for lost dues.
Political resistance: Many MPs wanted to keep control over subsidies as leverage.
James’s extravagance: The king’s continued spending undermined faith in reform.
Aftermath
Parliament dissolved in 1611 without agreement.
The crown continued to rely on existing, unpopular sources of revenue.
The failure deepened tensions between crown and Parliament, establishing a pattern of mistrust that persisted throughout James’s reign.
Wider Significance
The Great Contract highlighted the fundamental problem of royal finances in early Stuart England.
The monarchy lacked sufficient ordinary revenue to function independently.
Parliament was reluctant to provide permanent financial security without assurances of responsible spending.
The issue of finance became a recurring cause of conflict, contributing to strained relations that would later intensify under Charles I.
Long-Term Impact
The inadequacy of royal finances remained unresolved, leaving James dependent on ad hoc subsidies and unpopular prerogative rights.
The failure of reform created an enduring structural weakness in crown–parliament relations.
Financial disputes became a central feature of Stuart politics, underpinning broader debates over sovereignty, prerogative, and parliamentary privilege.
FAQ
Wardship allowed the Crown to control the estates of underage heirs and arrange their marriages for profit.
For the gentry, this was deeply resented because it:
Reduced their ability to manage their own estates.
Risked unfavourable marriages arranged purely for royal financial gain.
Highlighted the Crown’s intrusion into private family affairs.
Many MPs in 1610 had direct experience of the practice, strengthening resistance to it and making its abolition attractive in principle.
Purveyance gave the Crown the right to purchase goods and provisions at below-market prices.
This:
Forced suppliers to accept low payments, often leaving them at a loss.
Disrupted local markets, as goods were seized for the royal household.
Was seen as both corrupt and unfair, since abuses by officials were common.
Although MPs raised it as a grievance, resentment of purveyance extended into wider society.
Cecil, as Lord Treasurer, designed the Contract as part of his broader reforms.
He balanced Crown needs with Parliament’s grievances by:
Proposing compensation for the loss of feudal dues.
Framing the £200,000 grant as a permanent, predictable settlement.
Negotiating terms to modernise finance while preserving royal dignity.
However, his cautious style and lack of charisma meant he struggled to overcome the deep mistrust between king and MPs.
1610 was marked by tense relations between James I and Parliament.
Recent disputes over James’s extravagance made MPs unwilling to concede.
A sense that the king was demanding money without reforming his court fuelled suspicion.
The broader European context of potential war raised concerns about future spending needs.
Thus, the Contract emerged during a period of heightened mistrust, limiting chances of agreement.
The experience shaped how MPs viewed financial negotiations with the Crown.
They recognised the danger of granting the king permanent funds without accountability.
They saw the importance of using subsidies to maintain influence.
It confirmed suspicions that Stuart monarchs were unwilling to reform their financial habits.
These lessons influenced later debates with both James and Charles I, entrenching Parliament’s cautious approach to financial concessions.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
What was the proposed annual sum that Parliament would grant James I under the Great Contract of 1610?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for identifying that it was an annual sum.
1 mark for correctly giving the figure of £200,000.
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain two reasons why the Great Contract of 1610 failed.
Mark Scheme:
Award up to 3 marks for each well-explained reason, maximum 6 marks in total.
Distrust between Crown and Parliament (1 mark)
Developed explanation: Neither side trusted the other’s motives; Parliament doubted James would spend responsibly, while James feared loss of prerogative rights (1–2 marks).
Concerns over permanent revenue (1 mark)
Developed explanation: MPs feared giving James £200,000 annually would reduce their influence, as control of subsidies gave them leverage over royal policy (1–2 marks).
Disagreement about sufficiency of the sum (1 mark)
Developed explanation: Crown feared £200,000 would not cover loss of dues such as wardship and purveyance; Parliament thought it excessive given James’s extravagance (1–2 marks).
James’s extravagance undermined confidence (1 mark)
Developed explanation: His lavish spending on favourites and gifts made MPs reluctant to commit funds, believing reforms would not solve financial inadequacy (1–2 marks).
(Max 6 marks: two reasons explained fully.)
