James I of England

James I of England appears in the account as both the successor to a contested political order and an active defender of royal power against parliamentary constraint. His reign links resistance to technological change with the broader use of extractive institutions: the Crown sought to preserve authority through control of economic opportunity, while Parliament challenged some of the means by which that control was exercised.

Accession to an Unsettled Political Order

When Elizabeth I died in 1603 without children, the Tudor dynasty gave way to the Stuart dynasty, and James inherited not only its institutions but also the conflicts surrounding them. England had become more politically centralized, and social change was redistributing power, but its institutions were not yet pluralistic. The political and economic arrangements inherited and sustained by the Tudors remained extractive, even as the growing influence of groups beyond the monarchy and aristocracy helped make opposition to absolutism possible.

James desired to rule as an absolutist. In doing so, he pursued a stronger monarchy and a reduced parliamentary role, following the direction of absolutist institutions being constructed in Spain and France. The struggle was therefore not simply a personal disagreement over procedure: it concerned whether the Crown or a broader political coalition would shape the state and control economic life.

The Stocking Frame and the Limits on Innovation

The conflict between royal authority and innovation had a clear example in William Lee’s stocking frame. In 1589, Lee travelled to London to demonstrate the machine to Elizabeth I and request a patent that would prevent others from copying it. Elizabeth refused, arguing that mechanized production could deprive hand-knitters of employment and turn them into beggars. After failing in France, Lee returned to England and appealed to James, Elizabeth’s successor. James also refused a patent on the same grounds.

The machine promised a substantial increase in productivity, but it also threatened established livelihoods and, in the book’s analysis, political stability. Both monarchs feared unemployment and the disorder it might bring, as well as a threat to royal power. The episode makes visible a recurring tension: a technology capable of making society more prosperous could also displace workers and unsettle existing arrangements. The account emphasizes that the decisive resistance of elites often came not only from concern for those who would lose work, but from the prospect that the resulting instability might weaken the rulers themselves.

Monopolies and Parliamentary Resistance

Under James, extractive economic institutions were especially visible in the proliferation of monopolies. A list of them was read in Parliament in 1601, and by 1621 there were seven hundred. Such grants gave individuals or groups exclusive control over the production of particular goods. They restricted entry and impeded the movement of talent toward more productive uses, while the Crown also used its power to grant monopolies as a source of revenue and as a way to reward supporters.

This system brought the Crown into conflict with members of Parliament whose interests were damaged by restrictions on trade, both overseas and within the British Isles. Parliament’s opposition culminated in the Statute of Monopolies in 1623, which prohibited James from creating new domestic monopolies. The victory was limited: he retained the right to grant monopolies over international trade, an area beyond Parliament’s authority, and existing monopolies remained in place. The statute thus checked one royal instrument without dismantling the wider system.

The Stuart Conflict Continues

James’s son and successor, Charles I, shared the ambition to strengthen the monarchy and reduce Parliament’s influence. The account presents this as a continuation of the same struggle rather than a settled resolution under James. The Crown’s reliance on monopolies had made economic control a central point of contention, while Parliament’s success in 1623 established a precedent for resisting at least some forms of royal intervention.

The narrative also places James’s reign within a longer redistribution of political power. Popular insurrections, including the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, had helped broaden the groups able to make demands of the monarchy. Efforts to make Parliament a counterweight to the Crown consequently formed part of a wider movement toward political pluralism. James’s absolutist aims stood against that movement, and his reign’s monopolies and patent refusals show how the defense of royal control could obstruct both economic opportunity and institutional change.