Why Did James Seek A Union With Parliament Essay

From start of this period, right through to the end, James constantly faced difficulties with parliament. These difficulties weren’t simply limited to his determination to seek a union with Scotland, there were far more issues and instances which caused difficulties with parliament such as clashes between royal prerogative and parliamentary privilege, finance and how James raised money.
James’ proposition for union with Scotland caused many difficulties with parliament as he was hugely enthusiastic about it, yet on the other hand parliament despised the thought of it. Tension arose between James and parliament after great hostility in Parliament and much criticism of the King, souring James’s attitude towards Parliament. Opposition to the union was so strong that it was effectively abandoned in 1607 with parliament making only relatively minor concessions to James, including an agreement that all those born in either kingdom after 1603 should hold dual nationality. For such an important proposition to James to cause such adverse reactions from parliament so early in James’ rule meant that the
foundations for the relationship between the king and his parliament had been damaged. However, its importance should not be exaggerated, as it is overshadowed in comparison to other factors.
The issues surrounding the proposition of union only lasted four years, this pales in comparison to issues such as finance which posed vast amounts of problems for James and his parliament for his entire reign. Purveyance was widely disputed due to the abuse corruption behind it, parliament petitioned against it. Cecil so proposed a scheme to deal with purveyance, although it failed to materialise due to complaints of James’ extravagance. Another right of the crown, the system of wardships was out-dated and hated by parliament, they proposed to buy out and abolish the court of wards, although the king outright rejected as he saw it a challenge to his prerogative. Further opposition to James arose when impositions, extra custom duties were established following the Bates’ case in 1606. Parliament stridently complained and objected to the fact that the crown had the right to impose extra duties on already accepted customs.
By far the biggest financial issue was James’ extravagance and conspicuous consumption. He overspent considerably – the cost of the royal household rose from £64,000 1603, to £114,000 1610. As a result, James had to raise money; the treasurer had proposed the Great Contract. Feudal dues would be exchanged for a yearly fixed sum. Under the proposals tension had accumulated as James’ as critical and demanding approach towards parliament angered them. Furthermore, James felt that it was below him to be negotiating what was his prerogative with parliament, to sell the “flower of his regality” would be a form of prostitution. Parliament did not even offer a sufficient price for it.
James’ conspicuous consumption was to cause more conflict with parliament after it seeped into his favourites, to whom he allowed to wield real political power and influence which did not sit well for parliament.
Somerset an early favourite of James was influential within government, particularly in moving James towards a pro-Spanish foreign policy. However, it was the rise of George Villiers to royal favour that was of particular significance, politically. It was this one figure that held a monopoly on the Court and Government and stranglehold over the King’s favour and patronage. Many MP’s were hugely angered that they were being bypassed in the decision-making process and that a huge amount of the advice given to James came from non-elected men – many of whom he brought with him from Scotland, a problem because parliament were still Xenophobic against the
Scottish.

The root of all James' problems was his personality. The reason why the issue over union was so prolonged and tense was that James believed he was he was destined to bring about union because of his royal descent and to play the part of ‘Rex Pacificus’. He was a firm believer in the divine right of the kings, so having such financial benefits was part of his prerogative, he should not have to bargain it. If there were any conflicts with parliamentary privileges, he believed his prerogative stood above this as was his claim that the monarch was above the Law, and that his subjects' liberties and privileges only existed by his goodwill, not by right. His personality contained his weakness for weakness for young handsome men, who he spent ridiculous amounts on and allowed real political power and influence.