‘Charles’ Ability to Finance His Government Effectively and Without Too Much Resentment During the Personal Rule Was a Remarkable Achievement.’
‘Charles’ ability to finance his government effectively and without too much resentment during the personal rule was a remarkable achievement.’
How Far Do You Agree?
For the greater part of the 1630’s Englishmen paid their taxes, most likely grumbling whilst doing it, but they were paid. During his personal rule 1629-40, Charles I needed to raise revenue by using non-parliamentary means, i.e. in ways he would not need a parliament’s permission to collect. In order to do this, Charles changed certain policies to make them more financially gaining and brought back taxes that had not been used for numerous years, ranging from Ship Money to Credit to Monopolies.
Upon his arrival in the court of Charles I, Lord Treasurer Weston tried to curb royal expenditure. The royal household accounted for almost 40% of Charles’ income and was at nearly £260,000 a year. Although Weston managed to halt the upward curve of expenditure, he made no real structural reform of the King’s expenditure, meaning that the cost of the court did not reduce it stayed at the same level. However, upon Weston’s death in 1635, in terms of percentages of total royal income it did go down, but purely because gross income had risen. This clearly shows that some of the financial policies Charles held did work effectively as he had more money.
Another thing that Weston attempted to stop Charles doing was, borrowing credit. He along with William Juxon, Bishop of London endeavoured to stop the crown off borrowing money from the City of London and other financiers. Their aim was to reduce the interest payments on the outstanding loans that were crippling the crown so much that in the 1620s the crown jewels were pawned to the Netherlands. Weston and Juxon clearly managed to control crown borrowing as the annual crown deficit was cut to just £18,000, but it was not completely effective as the total crown debt remained at more than £1 million. However, in the 1630s the crown jewels were bought back,
How Far Do You Agree?
For the greater part of the 1630’s Englishmen paid their taxes, most likely grumbling whilst doing it, but they were paid. During his personal rule 1629-40, Charles I needed to raise revenue by using non-parliamentary means, i.e. in ways he would not need a parliament’s permission to collect. In order to do this, Charles changed certain policies to make them more financially gaining and brought back taxes that had not been used for numerous years, ranging from Ship Money to Credit to Monopolies.
Upon his arrival in the court of Charles I, Lord Treasurer Weston tried to curb royal expenditure. The royal household accounted for almost 40% of Charles’ income and was at nearly £260,000 a year. Although Weston managed to halt the upward curve of expenditure, he made no real structural reform of the King’s expenditure, meaning that the cost of the court did not reduce it stayed at the same level. However, upon Weston’s death in 1635, in terms of percentages of total royal income it did go down, but purely because gross income had risen. This clearly shows that some of the financial policies Charles held did work effectively as he had more money.
Another thing that Weston attempted to stop Charles doing was, borrowing credit. He along with William Juxon, Bishop of London endeavoured to stop the crown off borrowing money from the City of London and other financiers. Their aim was to reduce the interest payments on the outstanding loans that were crippling the crown so much that in the 1620s the crown jewels were pawned to the Netherlands. Weston and Juxon clearly managed to control crown borrowing as the annual crown deficit was cut to just £18,000, but it was not completely effective as the total crown debt remained at more than £1 million. However, in the 1630s the crown jewels were bought back,