Freddie Ogilvie
How far were James I's financial problems of his own making? [20]
When James died in 1625, he left behind a royal debt of nearly £1 million, equivalent to
roughly £250,000,000 in today’s money. It is evident from this obscene sum that something
went drastically wrong with the King’s finances during his reign. Perhaps the most
convincing argument that arises from this is that James I himself caused these problems
with his lavish spending and extravagant lifestyle, especially given there were few other
reasons for extensive spending during his reign. On the contrary, others might blame the
fact that when James came to power the financial state of the country was already weak
following Elizabeth’s reign, which included an inherited outstanding debt of £420,000, to the
point where James was unable to recover it. However, it was not without a lack of trying;
with James himself attempting to make money through multiple projects, many of which
were put forward by his advisors, in particular Robert Cecil, who worked in vain to attempt
to steady Britain’s economic ship.
The most substantial argument in favour of James being at fault for his own financial
problems is set out in the following quote by historian Alan Stewart, who described James’
reign as: 'twenty-two years of what many perceived as negligent government, [and] a
grossly lavish lifestyle’. James was well-known for his uncontrollable spending during his
reign, much of which can be put down to his view of England as ‘the land of promise’ and his
deep-set insecurities which stemmed from his violent upbringing. The latter became
apparent in 1610, by which point he had begun to give away £80,000 p.a. - a vast increase
from Elizabeth, who only gave away £30,000 in comparison. He felt the need to give lavish
gifts to his friends to maintain their friendship as he could not accept that he could be liked
for himself. On top of this came his huge wardrobe, which came at an annual cost of
£36,000 and was supplemented by £185,000 worth of jewels over nine years.
However, evidently a proportion of James’ vast expenditure was essential. For example, he
had to pay for a whole additional household for his son Charles when he came of age, on
top of his wife’s household. Given that Elizabeth died unmarried with little family to
support, she was not faced by this extra spending and so this will account for a section of
James’ increased expenses. Nevertheless, due to the dramatic increase in debt from
£420,000 in 1603 to £700,000 in 1606, it is clear that a larger family was not to blame, but
instead James’ personal spending habits. In this way, all of these aspects contributed to an
enormous expenditure bill which James’ royal income was unable to pay for. In this way,
James created a hole in the royal finances, which he constantly had to try to fill, creating a
huge burden both for his advisors and for parliament whom he had to ask for funds multiple
times during this period. They gave him 4 subsidies between 1604 and 1611, after which
they were far more reluctant until the end of his reign as it was evident that this money was
going to waste, which inevitably put a strain on his relationship with parliament. Thus, it
becomes increasingly apparent throughout James’ reign that he was definitely at fault for
his financial troubles, however the greatest problem was that even when this was
recognized by advisors, James did nothing to curb his spending, allowing it to escalate until
the end of his reign, resulting in a debt of £1,000,000 by 1625.
