• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How, and how effectively, did Charles I raise new sources of revenue in the 1630s?

Extracts from this document...


How, and how effectively, did Charles I raise new sources of revenue in the 1630's? Prior to the 1630's, conflict with Spain had left royal finances in a desperate state. Not only did Weston succeed to two million pounds of debt1 when he became Lord Treasurer in 1628, but the vast sale of crown lands to fund this war had left the monarchy unable to live of its own, and thus when it became clear that Charles I could no longer rely on Parliament for income in 1630, he and his Council were forced to seek out new sources of revenue. Through examination of the means by which former monarchs had raised money, Charles was led to the idea of reviving and financially exploiting feudal levies and rights such as ship money, distraint of knighthoods, wardships and forest fines. Although these taxes enabled Charles to raise enough income to sustain his rule until the outbreak of war with Scotland in 1638, it is nevertheless doubtful as to whether these new sources of revenue can be considered as effective, as whilst it they were financially successful, they were also highly politically costly, and can be seen as one of the key sources of friction between King and country. Arguably the most controversial of the new sources of revenue that Charles raised during the 1630's was that of ship money. Although ship money has long been recognised as a Crown right, with Professor Bard labelling it as an 'antiquated imposition'2, the monies paid by the maritime community prior to the 1630's were in fact a contributions to a ...read more.


Although the fine was met with some direct opposition, this was not largely in regards to its legality, but due to the amount that was charged (a minimum fine of �25 was demanded from JP's, and �10 from gentry)and because in 1626 those fined had not been worth the �40 that made them liable to pay. As a result, much of the gentry felt that they were being charged too much for an honour that they would not normally be considered for due to their birth or total wealth, leading some to complain or refuse to pay. In response to these defaulters, Charles sent personal royal letters to noblemen who headed up the commission in their counties expressing his disappointment and thus urging them to greater effort, and instructed his attorney to proceed against sheriffs who were not collecting the fines strenuously enough. The crude manner in which Charles rigorously enforced distraint of Knighthoods can be seen as a major factor in the distancing of King from country; even Clarendon, a firm royalist labelled Knighthood fines as 'ill husbandry' and 'most grievous'8 due to the obvious manner in which it was exploited simply to bring in revenue. Although by April 1635, knighthood fines had brought in �173,537; 'the largest single source of extraordinary revenue other than the loan and the sale of crown lands'9, meaning that it was a success in terms of revenue collected, in terms of the damage done between Charles and his subjects, Knighthood fines can be seen as a step on the road to collapse; as Leonard argues, it 'increased discontent without providing ...read more.


Overall it is evident that during the 1630's, Charles main means of raising new sources of revenue was via the revival and exploitation of obsolete laws, combined with the extensive application of existing laws. As Sharpe argues, instead of looking forward or across overseas to continental practice, Charles looked to the past for inspiration. However, this method of increasing income was highly politically costly, not least because the legality of many of these revived feudal fines was widely disputed, and without Parliament to settle the matter, debate could not be halted. A key example of this is ship money; despite the King winning his case against Hampton in a legal court, the public remained dissatisfied with this outcome. Although it is clear that these sources of revenue were effective in that they enabled Charles to raise enough income to sustain his rule until the outbreak of war with Scotland in 1638, they must also be recognised as one of the key reasons for the breakdown between King and country, as many of the fines were crudely implemented and left the impression that Charles was abusing his prerogative power, to the extent that even royalists such as Clarendon and Wentworth voiced criticism. Therefore, whilst Charles gained financially from these new sources of revenue, his political standing suffered hugely as a result, and thus it must be recognised that Caroline fiscal expedients were truly 'false mines for obtaining money'21, because their political cost was so much higher than their financial value. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree 1600-1699 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree 1600-1699 essays

  1. The Dutch trade during the Anglo- Dutch wars. The Anglo-Dutch wars were instigated ...

    trade Suriname for the New Netherlands was because this would give England possession of the entire North American coast. The Dutch trade was once again almost completely stopped because of the third Anglo- Dutch war.14 Although the Dutch trade was almost completely shut down, the Dutch Republic did gain a large and very profitable colony.

  2. Why was Richelieu's foreign policy so politically divisive from 1624-42?

    Richelieu and Louis were determined to curb the growth in Habsburg power, and show that France was prepared to intervene in order to retain the international status quo in Europe. The political divide over the Valtelline episode existed because of d�vot opposition to antagonising the Habsburgs.

  1. Why had the policies of Charles I and his ministers aroused so much opposition ...

    One of the most enduring features of the period leading to 1640 was the personal rule of Charles I. Often cited as the "Eleven Years Tyranny" by Whig historians, recent revisionists have attempted to redress the universally accepted view of a tyrannical period of British History.

  2. Assess the view that Charles I rather than Archbishop Laud directed ecclesiastical affairs during ...

    furthermore, some of the religious ideas adopted in Charles' reign can be seen to stem from Laud due to the claims he made to them many years prior; one such example is 'iure divino', the radical view that bishops form the very essence of the Church which Laud committed himself to in 1608.

  1. Why, and with what consequences did Charles I fail to defeat the Covenanters in ...

    It is now important to assess the reasons why Charles failed to defeat the Covenanters in the Second Bishops' War. In 1640 Charles again was at war with the Covenanters. The King's leading advisor by this time was Strafford, who had successfully suppressed opposition in Ireland and believed he could do the same in Scotland.

  2. How far can the problems facing the colony of Virginia from 1607 to 1624 ...

    due to recent scientific evidence which shows that a major drought, the worst in eight hundred years occurred between 1606 and 1612 which fits into the time frame of the Starving Time. Blanton states that ?even the best planned and supported colony would have been supremely challenged? by the this

  1. Economics in 17th Century New England

    These factions became extremely apparent when the Putnam family instigated many of the witch accusations during the infamous Salem witchcraft trials. Understandably, many of those accused supported the Porter family and lived on the eastern side of Salem Village. From the witchcraft trials, it is clear that the changing economy in seventeenth-century New England caused social and religious factionalism.

  2. How far was the English civil war a result of rule over multiple kingdoms?

    This proposition was not received well in England as previous taxation was already burdening enough, as seen through the Ship money tax of 1634 that taxed seaside towns in order to bolster defences there[6]. It must also be duly noted that: ?until the burdens of the Scottish war were added, most people paid ship money with little open dismay?[7].

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work