James' Revenue: Problems, solved? & who was to blame

Definition >>> Purveyance > King's right to buy goods below market prices

                         Wardship > King's right to control an estate if left to a minor

1st Parliament complained about purveyances

Action taken? - King James was offered £50,000 a year to end purveyance but MPs believed this was too much and lowered it to £20,000 

Solved? - Salisbury realised the sum was insuffiecient so it remained in place > James also made sure to issue a proclaimation for prevention of corruption in purveyances and even have royal officials punished = nothing was achieved

- The Commons proposed to buyout James right to wardship > James refused because compensation was inadequate 

MPs complained in the 'Form of Apology and Satisfaction (1606)

Who was to blame? - James treasurer, Earl of Salisbury because he could have agreed to the lowered price of £20,000 to end purveyance

Definition >>> Duties on imports and exports

Action taken? - Great Farm of Customs (1604) originally introduced by the Earl of Dorset or Phil Sack (merchants could collect and keep customs duties to help ordinary revenue for James providing him with a regular income in return for an annual payment of rent) worried MPs as they saw customs duties as a form of taxation that was not under their control

Solved? - MPs refused the ideas of the Great Farm of Customs and when the Bate's case was introduced as a way for the Crown to exploit impositions, MPs feared it would undermine their powers

Who was to blame? - 1. Parliament > if they accepted the Great Farm of Customs then James would not have introduced the Bate's Case as a form of ordinary revenue

2. MPs knew that the Crown was financially unstable and did not see this as a strategy to raise impositions by having new ways of handling customs duties 

Action taken? - James and MPs abandoned the Great Contract due to 1. MPs not wanting to fund his extravagance and fear of scottish courtiers benefitting from it 2. MPs feared the additional annual income would make James independent of Parliament

Solved? - There was still disputes over impositions making James fear he could lose 2 ways to increase his revenue

Sir Julius Caesar also suggested the £200,000 MPs wanted to compensate to the king was insufficient to cover loss of wardship and purveyance 

Who was to blame? - 1. James > since his extravagance could be to blame which made Parliament distrust him

- 2. Parliament > Did not allow James' strategies to improve impositions

Purveyance and wardship would be taken care of with Great Contract so they should have accepted it

Definition >>> The selling off of the right to make a certain product

James promised not to grant monopolies anymore since it caused tensions between Elizabeth and her Parliaments but he went back on his word when finances worsened

Action taken? > James  between 1603 and 1623, 108 monopolies were agreed to by James and by 1621 MPs became resentful since monopolies only enriched monopolists rather than protecting a new invention

- MPs investigated monopolies e.g. Sir Giles Mompesson who had a monopoly for licensing of inns (ended up fined and stripped of knighthood) which showed James just granted monopolies to anyone who would pay 

Solved? > James promised to end harmful monopolies and MPs finally dealt with it by the Statue of Monopolies (1624) > made any monopoly not concerned with protecting a new invention illegal

Who was to blame? - James > he was irresponsible with the way he was granting monopolies which were not for new inventions but just as a sole purpose to get paid