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 …show more content…
Another example, of a feudal duty reinstated with vigour was the policy of wardships. A warship is when a landowner dies leaving a child heir and the Crown has the right to look after the estate until the heir came of age. It collected £55,000 p.a. in the mid 1630s, three times, as it had done in 1613. It was a highly efficient way for the crown to make financial gain; however, it was deeply resented as the Crown was frequently accused of exploiting vulnerable estates. In all the above-mentioned examples of fiscal feudalism they were mainly begrudged because of the unfairness of the impositions and because of there arbitrary nature.
Ironically, Charles’ Lord Treasurer Weston, applied recusancy laws more vigorously in the time of personal rule. A recusant was a Catholic who refused to accept the Act of Supremacy, which acknowledge the King as the ‘Supreme Governor’ of the Church. Charles it is thought was a secret Catholic and he was married to a Catholic, Henrietta