Ship Money Flashcards
Describe development from Charles’ first interest in ship money to the creation of the Sovereign of Seas.
James first told Charles to develop interest for shipbuilding in the 1610s. In 1631 he demanded a full report on the navy and inspected dockyards, clambering aboard to ask questions.
4 new ships were produced by 1634, and the Sovereign of Seas, capable of holding 102 passengers, was made in 1637 with a model to show visitors.
What did Kevin Sharpe argue Charles spent his ship money on?
Ship money was never used to replace parliamentary subsidy as Charles spent the money entirely on building a stronger fleet.
What are positives and negatives of Ship Money?
Positives : Able to bolster trade negotiations and regulate foreign shipping, protecting trade against piracy.
Negatives : Did not stop the Dutch annihilating Spanish on English Waters at the Battle of Downs, 1639.
How much ship money was needed annually? What did Charles ask the council on June 1634?
£200,000 was needed annually, and parliament would have refusal to even pay a third of this. On June 1634, Charles instructed the council to consider means of supplying the navy.
What did Cust argue about the first writ of October 20 1634?
The first writ was successful, on 20 October 1634, reflecting on priorities of defence against piracy and that Charles would be master of the seas. 90% was raised.
What did Cust argue about the second writ?
The second writ was not as successful, argued Sharpe, generating investigation and entanglement for the rest of the decade.
What test case was used before the Hampden trial?
An earlier test case with Saye had been referred to judges before trial who declared the King could collect money in international emergency, deciding himself when this would be appropriate.
Describe reactions to the Hampden trial.
Several concluded this would be permanent. Russell pointed out that the 12 judges were a hand-picked sample, so the fact five opposed him is significant. Judges showed a depth to the notion of taxation and parliamentary statute as the ultimate source of law. Oliver St John’s arguments were applauded by the crowd as he argued Parliament could generate the money in the time the writs were issued, while Holborne argued the King’s prerogative.
What did Richard Cust, Sharpe, and Clarendon claim about the Hampden case?
Richard Cust : the Hampden case gave opposition momentum and made them more hostile.
Clarendon claimed the case gave more for Mr Hampden than it did the King.
Sharpe argued the writs were delayed for three months as intended by Hampden, impairing the levy of arrears, but still 90% was generated despite the plague in Scotland.
Why did the ship money take longer to collect in 1637?
By 1637, the £196,000 took longer to collect due to Scotland’s progress towards rebellion, and England’s preparations, alongside the Hamden Case.
Describe the payment of ship money before and after the Hampden trial…
In November 1637, at the Exchequer Court, Hampden’s case was heard before twelve judges. Before the trial, sheriffs announced much slower payment of the ship money, as people waited to hear the verdict. However, after the trial this began to pick up. Hampden was an associate of Eliot who sat in the 1620s parliaments and was imprisoned for refusal to pay Forced Loan.
Describe the crown’s argument at the Hampden case, and Oliver St John’s…
The King had the right to commanded his subjects to pay Ship Money in times of danger.
He was to be the sole judge of the danger, and how it should be prevented.
Berkeley used weak arguments such as ‘rex is lex, lex loquens, a living, a speaking, an acting law.’
He claimed that English was at threat and the King had his rights and duties to defend this security. in 1637, the country was at peace, so the King claimed shipbuilding was a long and strenuous process, and therefore the ships had to be built before the crisis became too severe.
Oliver St John argued the country was not in a state of emergency and that while the King had rights, the subjects were given 7 months to pay the money, plenty of time for parliament to be called. He stressed the important roles of Parliament and the Law Courts.
Who won the Hampden case and what revolts did the results lead to?
The Crown won, but 5 judges voted in favour of Hampden and petitions against ship money for the privy council commenced, with a tax revolt from 1639/40 as non-cooperation was shown by those who had to pay, and those who collected the tax.
What was the issue with rating disputes and what did Kevin Sharpe and Conrad Russel argue?
Rating dispute :
Chelsea protected in Middlesex at being rated equally with Acton, having paid less for subsidy,
In Cambridge it was hard to meet assessment as many were exempted through privileges of the University.
Kevin Sharpe claimed that rating disputes could have been used as a veil to protect themselves from being persecuted for expressing more polarised opposition. However, people did not show true unwilling to pay, with the Treasury of the Navy still managing to collect £800,000 over 6 years, and 90% of the requested money being paid up to 1639.
Conrad Russel claimed that even if the issue of ratings disputes was not serious enough, it was still a problem.
What did Braddick argue about reluctance to pay?
Reluctance to pay was universally expressed in technical or bureaucratic complaints, but people were unwilling to accept the political consciousness of ordinary people, assuming that this was only a ratings dispute. However, evidence shows otherwise, with shown participation and consciousness, above local officials being reluctant to take up office.
