OCR Specification focus:
‘financial policies during Personal Rule and reactions to them, including ship money’
During Charles I’s Personal Rule (1629–1640), finance became a central source of contention. Without Parliament, Charles relied on innovative yet controversial methods of revenue-raising.
The Context of Personal Rule Finance
When Charles I dissolved Parliament in 1629, he committed himself to governing without parliamentary taxation. The monarchy still required significant income for defence, administration, and court expenditure, but Parliament traditionally controlled taxation. This restriction forced Charles to exploit prerogative rights and legal devices to secure income independently.
The Financial Needs of the Crown
The monarchy’s expenditure had grown substantially. Costs included:
Maintenance of the royal household and court
Defence commitments, particularly against Spain and France
Naval expenditure for England’s maritime security
The burden of debts inherited from James I
Without regular subsidies from Parliament, Charles resorted to expanding older financial devices and exploiting prerogative revenue.
Revenue Sources during Personal Rule
Charles relied on a variety of mechanisms to generate income. Some were legally defensible, while others provoked widespread resistance.
Traditional Crown Revenue
Crown lands: Income from leasing and fines, though often insufficient.
Customs duties: Tonnage and poundage continued to be collected, even though Parliament had not formally granted them beyond 1629.
Feudal dues: Wardships and monopolies provided additional revenue.
Exploitation of Legal Devices
Charles extended and reinterpreted existing laws to maximise income. Among these methods, none was more contentious than Ship Money.
Ship Money: A prerogative tax traditionally levied on coastal counties in times of emergency to fund naval defence.
Ship Money: Origins and Extension
Background
Traditionally, Ship Money was raised in times of crisis from coastal counties to build or equip ships for national defence. However, in 1634 Charles revived the levy without declaring an emergency.
Expansion
1634: Ship Money levied on coastal counties.
1635: Extended inland, an unprecedented move.
1636 onwards: Annual levy, effectively becoming a new form of regular taxation.
Charles justified this by claiming national defence was a permanent concern, not just a temporary emergency.
Charles extended ship money to inland counties in 1635 and imposed successive annual writs, collected locally by sheriffs and justices.
A 1635 ship money list for Kingsbridge Hundred (Wiltshire) records named payers and amounts in shillings and pence. Such parish-level assessments operationalised the crown’s prerogative levy without Parliament. The image shows extra local detail (specific parishes and taxpayers) beyond the OCR syllabus’ required overview of policy and reactions. Source
Public Reaction and Grievances
Initially, compliance was high, with around 90% collection rates in early years. However, opposition soon grew as Ship Money came to symbolise wider fears of arbitrary rule.
Main Grievances
Illegality: Critics argued only Parliament could authorise such taxation.
Arbitrary authority: The king appeared to bypass constitutional tradition.
Economic burden: Merchants, gentry, and landowners bore heavy costs, fuelling resentment.
Precedent: Ship Money suggested the crown could create taxes at will, undermining parliamentary sovereignty.
Hampden’s Case (1637)
The turning point in resistance came with John Hampden, a Buckinghamshire gentleman who refused to pay Ship Money.
Hampden argued the tax was illegal without Parliament.
The case went before the Court of Exchequer Chamber.
In 1638, judges ruled in favour of the king by a narrow majority (7 to 5).
Though Charles technically won, the case politicised resistance and exposed divisions within the judiciary. Hampden became a symbol of opposition to royal overreach.
John Hampden’s refusal to pay a small levy became a test case in the Exchequer Chamber (1637), decided seven to five for the Crown but politically damaging.
Portrait of John Hampden (public-domain reproduction). Hampden’s challenge to ship money crystallised constitutional opposition to fiscal innovation during Personal Rule. This image focuses on the sitter; it does not depict the courtroom or judgment details discussed in the text. Source
Prerogative: The discretionary powers held by the monarch independent of parliamentary approval, traditionally justified by necessity or precedent.
Wider Financial Grievances
Ship Money was the most notorious grievance, but it was part of a broader pattern of controversial financial policies.
Other Devices
Forest fines: Fines levied for encroaching on royal forests, often based on outdated maps.
Distraint of knighthood: Penalties on landowners who failed to present themselves for knighthood at coronation.
Monopolies: Grants of exclusive rights to produce or sell goods, leading to higher prices and resentment.
Reaction
These policies alienated a broad spectrum of society:
Gentry and nobility: Resented financial burdens and loss of influence over taxation.
Merchants: Objected to monopolies and Ship Money as damaging to trade.
Common people: Experienced price increases and disruption from monopolies.
Political and Constitutional Implications
Charles’s financial policies during Personal Rule had far-reaching consequences.
Constitutional Debate
Parliament’s role: Traditionally, only Parliament had the authority to grant taxation. Ship Money challenged this principle.
Royal prerogative: Charles claimed necessity justified his actions, but opponents saw this as a dangerous expansion of absolutism.
Rule of law: The Hampden case revealed the judiciary’s vulnerability to royal pressure, undermining trust in impartial justice.
Growth of Opposition
Financial grievances united disparate groups against Charles.
Resistance laid foundations for the hostility Parliament expressed when recalled in 1640.
The failure of Ship Money, especially after poor collection rates in later years, demonstrated limits to the king’s power.
Decline of Ship Money
By the late 1630s, opposition intensified. Collection rates fell dramatically:
1639: Only about 20% compliance, coinciding with rising tensions over the Bishops’ Wars with Scotland.
Financial disobedience became a form of political protest.
The decline of Ship Money illustrated the breakdown of Charles’s financial strategy and the deepening crisis of trust between crown and subjects.
FAQ
At first, many subjects viewed Ship Money as a revival of a traditional levy for national defence.
Sheriffs enforced it rigorously, ensuring strong collection.
Fear of legal penalties encouraged payment.
The early writs coincided with no immediate crisis, so resistance was slower to form.
Only once the tax became annual and nationwide did concerns about legality and fairness grow, reducing compliance.
Foreign observers, particularly in Europe, saw Ship Money as evidence of Charles strengthening royal power without parliamentary control.
It suggested a monarch moving towards absolutism, similar to continental rulers like the French king. This reinforced suspicions abroad that Charles was adopting authoritarian tendencies, undermining his position as a Protestant leader.
Collection depended on sheriffs and justices of the peace in each county.
They assessed amounts owed by parishes and individuals.
Lists were drawn up recording names and sums due.
Reluctance among local elites sometimes led to under-assessment or slow collection.
This reliance on local elites meant the policy was vulnerable to passive resistance and uneven enforcement.
Although the court ruled in Charles’s favour, the narrow margin (7–5) undermined the decision’s authority.
The publicity surrounding the trial gave Hampden status as a defender of liberties. It revealed divisions within the judiciary and encouraged opposition to resist future royal policies.
By 1639, declining compliance meant Charles lacked secure income for military campaigns against the Scots.
He struggled to fund troops and supplies.
Forced loans and emergency measures further alienated subjects.
The weakness in financing highlighted the failure of Personal Rule, making him reliant on recalling Parliament in 1640.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
In which year did Charles I first extend Ship Money to inland counties?
Mark Scheme:
1635 = 2 marks
Any other date = 0 marks
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain why Ship Money became a major grievance during Charles I’s Personal Rule.
Mark Scheme:
Award up to 6 marks. One mark per valid point, with development or explanation required for higher marks.
Illegality: Critics argued only Parliament had the right to approve taxation (1 mark). Explaining how this undermined constitutional tradition = +1 mark.
Arbitrary authority: The levy symbolised Charles bypassing Parliament and ruling by prerogative (1 mark). Explaining how this reflected absolutism = +1 mark.
Economic burden: The tax placed a heavy load on landowners, merchants, and gentry (1 mark). Explaining how this generated widespread discontent = +1 mark.
Hampden’s case: Publicity from John Hampden’s refusal and narrow court ruling deepened resistance (1 mark). Explaining why the decision was politically damaging = +1 mark.
Indicative levels:
1–2 marks: Identifies one or two points with limited explanation.
3–4 marks: Explains two points clearly.
5–6 marks: Explains three or more points with clear understanding of why Ship Money caused widespread grievance.
