No abstract

No abstract

For a brief time at the beginning of James I's reign purveyance appeared as the greatest grievance of the commonwealth, troubling the first two sessions of his first parliament. So much has long been known, but only recently has it been revealed how far the commons thought of going. The bills read in the house in 1604 and 1606, almost certainly identical or nearly so, did not look merely to remedy the abuses of purveyors, but to abolish purveyance itself – the king's right to be served provisions and carriage at prices below those current in the markets – which the house discovered was explicitly prohibited by numerous medieval statutes. The commons' refusal in the two sessions to buy the king out of his prerogative with a ‘composition’ was not then irresponsible, as one historian has suggested. The house could not readily agree to purchase what it had learned the king had no right to sell. The radical challenge to the king's prerogative embodied in the commons' bill, Dr Croft has recently argued, doomed the composition proposed by James's ministers. Instead, the house pursued its claims with ‘remarkable tenacity’, especially in 1606, when it passed the bill twice.

It is generally assumed that the earl of Salisbury's last years were a time of political decline, largely because of the failure of the Great Contract. “In 1610,” one historian has written recently, “Salisbury lost the confidence of both king and Parliament. The collapse of the Great Contract, in which so much of his credit was bound up, was a blow from which his prestige never recovered.” The outlines of the story are familiar. Salisbury, lord treasurer since 1608 and James's chief minister since the beginning of the reign, was securely established in the king's trust and affection at the beginning of 1610. His fall began with court opposition to the Great Contract, opposition which it has been suggested may have been the real cause of the contract's failure. According to Godfrey Goodman, a “great peer” on his deathbed advised the kingnot to lose any part of his prerogative, especially the Court of Wards and other great royalties which his predecessors had, for if he should part with these he should hardly be able to govern; that the subject was more obedient and did observe the King more for these than for any laws or other respect whatsoever; that the subject was bound to relieve him and supply his occasions without any such contractings.The dying peer blamed those who “did endeavour to engross and monopolise the King, and kept other able men out of his service.” From that point, according to Goodman, Salisbury, “who had been a great stirrer in that business, and was the man aimed at, began to decline.”

No abstract