Pr: Fiscal Policy

Front 1

Rents from Crown lands

Back 1

Inflation had caused the real value of fixed-rate rents to decrease significantly, and the Crown had sold a lot of land since the 1550s

Front 2

Purveyance

Back 2

- the Crown's right to purchase food and living essentials at below market value
- was met with widespread resistance in the counties

Front 3

Wardship

Back 3

- When a landowner died leaving a child heir, the Crown administered the estate until th child came of age
- there were frequent accusations of the Crown exploiting vulnerable estates

Front 4

Tonnage and poundage

Back 4

- customs duties on imports and exports
- trade revived in peacetime, so the value of customs duties rose auickly
- was not approved by Parliament, and had been a point of contention since 1625
- "by raising new impositions and increasinf existing ones, the Crown was able to take full advantage of the expansion in trade that accompanied a period of peace"

Front 5

Credit

Back 5

- borrowing money from the City of London
- the Crown Jewels were pawned in the 1620s
- Lord Treasurer Sir Richard Weston and Bishop of London William Juxton tried to reduce the crippling interest payments on the Crown's already-outstanding loans

Front 6

Monopolies

Back 6

- selling the sole right to import, produce or sell products to companies or individuals
- monopolies by individuals had been illegal since 1624

- reappeared as patents and were granted on a wider range of items
- Lord Treasurer bought a monopoly in soap production for him and his friends, leading to charges of corruption at court (Popish soap)

- government also sold licences to allow people to evade the operation of patents

Front 7

Distraint of Knighthood

Back 7

- at the King's coronation, men owning estates worth over £40 per year were meant to report to be knighted

- Charles fined people for not doing so, and raised £165,000 by 1635
- Punishment had not been practiced since the early Tudor period
- those punished felt caught out by an outdated law
- Oliver Cromwell was one of those fined

- James I had sold knighthoods for £30, and now landowners who refused to pay for a knighthood were being fined

Front 8

Revival of forest laws

Back 8

- the government researched the extent to which noble lands were encroaching upon medieval royal forest boundaries
- many landowners could not produce deeds for land that had been in their families for centuries
- this was a tax on population growth, and affected the rich and powerful
- "produced a total of barely £40,000, but by questioning the validity of titles to land, it struck the nobility on an extremely sensitive nerve"

Front 9

Fines for breaching of building regulations

Back 9

- ancient laws to prevent chartered towns from sprawling beyond the city walls were revived and used to fine property developers
- seen as a way of exploiting the growth of London: since 1603, 60,000 houses had been built outside the traditional city limits

Front 10

Enclosure fines

Back 10

- fines imposed upon landowners for fencing off open fields and common land for conversion from arable to pasture
- seen by landowners as a penalty for attempting to improve their estates

Front 11

Ship money

Back 11

- an ancient tax levied on coastal areas to build ships to protect trade from piracy
- Charles imposed levies year after year, and in 1634 extended it to include the whole of England and Wales
- the only precedent for raising the tax to inland counties was the Armada of 1588, and there was no precedent for elevating the levy to an annual tax

- argued that national defence should be paid for by everyone
- people rioted, and the bailiffs were on occassion assaulted, but the money was only used to strengthen the navy
- it made the office of sheriff far more unpopular, and strained the construction of local government. the efficiency of central government was also impaired by the sheer amount of complaints to the Privy Council
- lots of counties protested in the form of ratings disputes, which although in themselves were not outright opposition, they showed reluctance to pay
- over 90% of the levy was paid in its first year of collection

- nearly £600,000 was raised in the first three years of widened assessment
- it was not seriously unpopular until other governmental policies caused nationwide opposition
- Charles inspected shipyards personally
- 4 new ships were built by 1634

- yield dropped in 1637 because of increasing food prices, new taxes to raise troops to fight against the Scots and Hampden's case
- the improved navy was able to regulate foreign shipping, bolster negotiations with other powers and protected trade against piracy
- however, the navy was unable to prevent the Dutch annihilation of the Spanish fleet in English waters in 1639

- clear that SM did not affect allegiance in 1642

Front 12

John Hampden trial

Back 12

- Hampden was a highly-respected gentleman who refused to pay the Ship Money tax
- the Crown argued that the King had the right to command his subjects to pay Ship Money when the nation was in danger, and that the King was the sole judge of such danger
- Hampden's defence lawyer, Oliver St. John, argued that England was not at war, that subjects had 7 months in which to pay the tax, and that there was plenty of time to call a Parliament in those seven months
- the judgement was that the Crown won, but 5 out of 12 voted in favour of Hampden, and as the men were handpicked by the Crown, this was very significant!!!
- dozens of petitions led to a tax revolt in 1639-40
- the amount of tax paid dwindled over the years, going from 90% to less than 25%, and began quickly but was then collected very slowly indeed

Front 13

City of London

Back 13

- fined in 1632 for failing to provide Protestant settlers to take over land in Ireland

Front 14

Court of Wards

Back 14

• guided by Cottingham
• Crown took income of underage heirs to landed estates
• increased income from £35,000 pa in 1625, to £62,000 in 1637 and £76,000 in 1640

Front 15

Overall

Back 15

• none of these methods of raising money caused serious opposition
  
• the Crown remained underfunded in the 1630s as Charles did not attempt a real reform of money raising methods and taxation
• Personal Rule was successful in that Charles could run an effective government and fund a sober and culturally exciting court from the money he had access to