Financial policies and reactions Flashcards
Why was the king forced to find alternative sources of finance (in terms of finance)
Because he felt parliament was exploiting his need for financial help. They challenged his royal prerogative by refusing to grant him sufficient funds for war
What was the parliaments argument for not granting the King money
Parliament argued they were trying to maintain their traditional rights and privileges against an innovative king.
What was the crowns debt in 1629
£2 million far exceeding the king’s income
In what areas did Charles cut expenditure
- Reduce spending on foreign affairs by concluding peace with France (1629 treaty of Susa) and Spain (1630 Treaty of Madrid)
- Reform of Charles’ household, to dramatically reduce it’s share of royal expenditure. In 1628 the royal household cost 40% of Charles’s ordinary income, dropping dramatically in 1629-1630.
Term for non-parliamentary methods of raising finances
Fiscal feudalism
State the two the most efficient revenue sources for Charles
- Custom duties
- Monopolies
Definition of custom duties
Included tonnage and poundage, a tax on imports and exports. Products that incurred Customs Duty were listed in an official book of rates,
How were custom duties enforced to increase finance
Granted to Charles for only one year in 1625 he continued to collect tonnage and poundage during personal rule.
In 1635, a new book of rates updated official valuations.
Trade improved once England was no longer at war so customs revenue increased. From 1631-1635: £270,000 pa
What were recusancy finances
Fines on those who refused to attend compulsory Church of England Sunday services. By 1634 revenue was £26,886 from £5,300 in 1620s
How did monopolies benefit the King’s finances (popish soap)
Buying a monopoly gave a corporation the sole right to produce, import or sell a product so the sales of monopolies was a ripe avenue for corruption. Charles could sell monopolies ti corporations.
Richard Western procured a monopoly of soap for a consortium of his friends. Rumoured to have been financed by catholic friends of the queen and therefore called ‘popish soap’. - Earned Charles £33,000
Potential problems of collecting tonnage and poundage during personal rule
It was something that parliament had’t allowed during 20s. Deepened tensions and reopened debate of royal prerogative vs parliamentary sovereignty
Potential problems for Charles of using monopolies as source of income
Eliminated competition creating higher prices as consumers had no alternative supplies.
Lead to political and social unrest
Definition of purveyance
The crown’s right to purchase food and other necessities at below market value. Could be paid either in kind or by cash
Potential issues with purveyance
Could lead to shortages of goods
When did Charles levy ship money
October 1634 he levied ship money on coastal towns and villages but in 1635 he extended it to the whole of england
Evidence that Charles’ imposition of ship money was successful
- He raised approximately £300,000 pa, the equivalent of 3 parliamentary subsidies
- Initially there was at least a 90% compliance rate
- In October 1634, almost the full amount of ship money was collected by the sheriffs in maritime counties
What was the Hampden case
In November 1637, Sir John Hampden, a prominent puritan MP, was taken to court for failing to pay his ship money dues. The case became a test for the king’s prerogative.
Successes of Charles financial expedients in the 1630s?
- Resistance to tonnage and poundage collapsed in 1629
- In October 1634, almost the full amount of ship money was collected by the sheriffs in maritime counties
- Recusancy laws weren’t particularly unpopular, especially with anti-catholic opinion at the time
- There was no forum for anyone to express discontent with the ship money tax because parliament was not sitting (building opposition)
Failures of Charles financial expedients in the 1630s
- The new tax seemed difficult to justify as there appeared to be no immediate threat of invasion in the mid-1630s and therefore it didn’t seem like a dire necessity
- Hampden case
- The decision to extend ship money to inland counties from June 1635 met opposition, the tax now appeared to be a permanent land tax
How did the Hamden case create opposition to the King
- The defiance of Hampden directly challenged the kings authority as it exposed ship money as unlawful and violating Parliament’s sovereignty
- 5 out of 12 judges gave their verdict against the crown, which stiffened the resolve of many to oppose the tax - in law Charles may have won the case however his authority had been greatly damaged . The narrow ruling weakened public confidence in the judiciary system and suggested the king was manipulating justice
