How successfully did Elizabeth I handle her finances?

A counter argument for the increasing sources of revenue is that although revenue increased the methods were short term and didn’t keep up with inflation. An important method that Elizabeth used was monopolies. Monopolies were seen as a cheap form of patronage and Elizabeth used them too often, especially towards the end of her reign. If Elizabeth gave a member of the Privy Council for example, a monopoly, this meant that that particular person could fix the price of a certain commodity and anyone who wanted to buy that item would have to pay that price. However, this caused opposition and in the case of the example I used, could cause factional division in the Privy Council. Any properties the crown owned, the rent was raised to try and increase revenue. However, as was the case for many similar issues, these prices did not keep in line with inflation and therefore were useless to Elizabeth. Also, the selling of crown lands weakened the crowns financial base in the long term.

Another factor to show that Elizabeth handled her finances successfully was that she decreased expenditure. The first way in which Elizabeth did this was that she used unpaid officials in government. These people did not have a fixed salary but instead worked for rewards, such as favourable leases on land and import and export licences. Elizabeth used a similar reward system for courtiers. Elizabeth would give them monopoly rights or wardships which did not involve financial outlay. Elizabeth made sure that anyone who worked for her had a low salary. These did not keep in line with inflation and were inevitably almost useless. Another way that Elizabeth decreased expenditure was that no new buildings were ordered. This meant no new palaces were built and that annual maintenance costs were halved. Lastly, a way in which Elizabeth decreased expenditure in the military was that naval expenses were maintained at a minimum by remodelling old ships rather than building new ones.

A counter argument for the decreasing of expenditure was the methods used to decrease expenditure were often unpopular and caused unrest. An example I used in the previous counter argument that fits here also is monopolies. After 1597, the number granted of these increased dramatically. It was felt that monopolies meant profits for the holder at the expense of the purchaser, because the price of goods such as iron, salt and oil increased. In the last parliaments of her reign, attacks on Elizabeth for granting monopolies were ferocious causing her to back down and promise to investigate and restrict such grants.

Another factor to show that Elizabeth handled her finances successfully was that throughout her reign, Elizabeth collected large subsidies from Parliament. In 1593, Elizabeth asked for three subsidies from Parliament. These were eventually granted after 24 days of debate. In October 1601, Cecil called for £300,000 to be raised. Elizabeth was granted four subsidies by Parliament to cover this. Elizabeth was also granted a quadruple subsidy; this was unprecedented however Elizabeth was still granted this subsidy.

A counter argument against Elizabeth collecting large subsidies was the failure to reform taxation and so allowed corruption. In Elizabeth’s reign there was an increasing demand for parliamentary taxation. In the 1570’s Parliament was asked to approve subsidy taxes, even in peacetime, on the grounds that they were necessary for the country’s defence. The outbreak of war with Spain led to unprecedented demands for taxation, even though Elizabeth’s determination not to run up large debts influenced her military decisions. As parliamentary taxation was not efficiently administered the collectors, known as subsidy commissioners, were often corrupt. Ownership records were often decades out of date, leaving many untaxed. Above all, the assessment of wealth and income was based upon unsworn declarations.