Ship money was a medieval tax levied in England during times of war in order to fund the equipping of a navy. It was traditionally only assessed on the inhabitants of coastal areas and it was one of several taxes that English monarchs could levy by their prerogative right without the approval of Parliament.

In 1619 James I levied £40,000 of ship money on London and other seaport towns without arousing any popular opposition.

The attempt by King Charles I from 1634 onwards to levy ship money during peacetime and to extend it, without Parliamentary approval, to the inhabitants of the inland counties of England provoked increasingly fierce resistance, and was one of the grievances of the English propertied class in the lead-up to the English Civil War.

SHIP-MONEY IN ESSEX - 1634-1640.
BY WILLIAM CHAPMAN WALLER, M.A., F.S.A.

IT is not often, methinks, that antiquarian research can be dubbed mischievous, but it has to be conceded that Mr. Attorney General Noy's talents might have been turned in some other direction with happier results to all concerned. For it is generaily admitted that his researches among our ancient records led him to suggest the revival of the form of taxation known as Ship-Money, and enabled him, by the production of obsolete precedents, to persuade the Council to adopt his scheme. Of this the earliest intimation is found in some notes by Secretary Coke, dated 1634, on the project of setting forth a fleet for guard of the Narrow Seas, and assessing the cost thereof on the port-towns. The matter was at the time before a Committee and a later entry (July 22, 1634) shews that the Attorney General was willing at the time to go further than it was, as he is described as being "still upon it to have the maritime counties joined with the towns for easing the charge," whereas the Committee still thought it "safest to begin with the towns." In the long run, as we all know, the limit of safety was - very far exceeded.

For more than six years no Parliament had met, and the pecuniary needs of ttie Kingdom had been met by the grant of monopolies and the revival of long-disused prerogatives of the Crown, accompanied by a careful economy in administration. During a time of peace these methods sufficed, but a possibility of war entirely changed the aspect of affairs. In such a case the constitutional course was to summon a Parliament, the only alternative being a fresh recourse to methods which, if not absolutely illegal, were at any rate un-constitutional. The King chose the alternative and the year 1634 saw a revival of Ship-Money. Among the State Papers of the time are still to be found memoranda furnishing a collection of precedents alleged in justification of the imposition of the tax, some of them reaching back, beyond the Edwards, to the date of Danegeld.

The published Calendars of State Papers (Domestic S eries) enable us to trace the progress of affairs in Essex, more or less intermittently, it is true, but yet in a way not altogether devoid of interest. The King's first writ, addressed to the bailiffs and other legal men of certain towns as well as to the Sheriffs of Suffolk and Essex, was dated October 20, 1634, and called on them to provide a war-ship of seven hundred tons burdfm, two hundred and fifty men, and other materials of war, by the lst clay of March; and to maintain the same for twenty-six weeks thereafter. The ship was to be at Portsmouth by the elate named. Under this writ power to levy by distress was conferred on the corporations, and such persons as proved rebellious might be sent to prison. By March 28th in the following year 2,446l. had been received, and on August 31st, 657l. gs. 6d . out of a total sum of 6,6 15l. still remained clue from the two counties.

The apportionment of this sum between the two counties seems to hav.e been a matter of contention, although the sma ll amount in dispute was hardl y worth the trouble of an appeal. However, under elate Nov. ro, 1635, we find that Suffolk bad agreed to raise, for a first assessment, 2,65ol., as against 2,Jool. to be raised in Essex, "leaving a sum of 5ol., as to which there was a dispute." The second assessment ( l ,615l.) Suffolk a lleged was to be divided equally, but Essex averred tha t there were certain conditions. \!\Tha t these were appears later, when a certificate, under the hands of six men, was put in, to the effect that, on December 6, 163+, Suffolk agreed to pay 2,65ol., leaving 2,35ol. for Essex. Essex 'condescended ' to pay 2,3ool., and it was agreed that if either Essei-; appeared to be easier rated than Suffolk, or if Earl Rivers contributed towards the charge of Essex, that that county should pay the 5ol. left in difference; if not, Suffolk should bear it. The signatories add that they have heard that Essex was. easier rated, and that the Earl did contribute. Two other persons also put in evidence on the same point, one saying that the Sheriff of Essex had told him that he would take one half of the whole sum in charge; the other alleging that the Sheriffs and Commissioners said that, if Earl Rivers paid in Essex, there was 15ol. to be taken off Suffolk and laid on Essex.

The extension of the levy to the whole area of each county was naturally accompanied by a corresponding rise in the amount of money demanded, and, under the writ issued on August 4th, 1635, the Essex contribution was fixed at 8oool. There is a note as to its being reduced to 65ool., but the intention was evidently never carried out, as, on November l5th, the Sheriff of Essex put in a declaration of the way in which the sum of 8oool. was assessed, stating the sums to be paid by each corporate town and by each of the nineteen hundreds. H e further reported that the chief constables and hunclredors of nine hundreds could not agree as to the assessment of the sums imposed upon them, and that he had appointed meetings with them "for better expediting the service." He says, also, that he himself has assessed every division and will send the names of constables who are refractory, some having given him no answer.

Nor was this recalcitrance on the part of their subordinates the only difficulty placed in the way of the Sheriffs' execution of th eir duty. The assessments were often disorderly and unequal, and they were sometimes so made as to bring in more money than would 'do the business.' Some coll ectors had money in hand and would not pay it over to the Sheriff; others, having collected more than enough, kept it, as they alleged" for other public uses." Altogether the High Sheriff of that time seems to have endured much during his year of office, and perhaps more after it.

Sir Humphrey Mildmay, who held office in 1636, was kept busy. Writing under elate March 28, 1636, the Council, learning that some of the inhabitants of Theydon Gernon, which was assessed at 29l., refused to contribute, on the ground that they owned no land, directed him to call the parties before him and cause assessment to be laid equally on every man without fear or partiality, it being the King's pleasure that personal estate should contribute. On June 20th he was further instructed that the bailiffs must be required to execute the warrants he issues 'for the shipping business,' or be bound to appear before the Board : if they refused to be bound, they were to be committed to prison. On July 9th Sir Humphrey reported to Mr. Secretary Nicholas that he did not think there was more than 3,rool. behind in Essex, he having paid in l,4ool. and having 6ool. more a t home,_ ready to pay in. It is clear that he had been urged to greater activity in the work; for, in conclusion, he adds the expression of a hope that the Council thinks he does what he is able, protesting that "there is no penny paid that is not forced among the people." There was trouble, too, at Stanford Rivers where the Collector had refused to perform the duties of his office, and, when the bailiff of the hundred had seized his cattle by way of distress, had rescued them by force out of his hands. Many people thereupon stopped paying their contributions until such time as they heard what became of this same collector.

On Nov. l7th Sir Humphrey reported further as to the bailiffs' not having demanded payment, and begged that some reformation might be had on some of the chief constables, some untoward Londoners, and the chief bailiffs. In the result he apprehended that the evil-affected would "quake at the noise thereof, and his Majesty's money come in roundly." Among the 'untoward' he named Sir William Marsham; Thomas Latham, of Stifford; Lord Warwick; Mr. Lamley; Sir Richard Saltonstall; Sir Gamaliel Capel; Sir William Roe; and Lady Lake.

An account of the Ship-Money received from the Sheriff of Essex, under the writ of Aug. 4th, is given under date Jan. 20th, 1637. From this it appears that 6,rool. had been received, leaving l,9001. still to come in ; and, three days later, the King, "taking notice that this arrear is far greater than that of any other county," commanded Sir Humphrey to use all possible diligence to levy it by Shrovetide, obtaining for the purpose warrants from his successor in office, and returning to the Board the names of sqch bailiffs as refused to assist. \i\T bat success be had in his efforts remains a little doubtful, but, later on, we shall again find him engaged in the struggle.

John Lucas, Sir Humphrey's successor ' in office, seems to have taken somewhat kindly to the work, which, in his case, evidently gave scope to an energetic and methodical character. He makes his first appearance under elate May 21, 1637, when be essays to answer a complaint as to bis rating made by the nobility and gentry, and the episode is one which brings vividly before us the 'Personal Government' of King Charles. The answer, which seems to have been a written one, set out that the Sheriff had taken care to ease the poorer sort of people, wherewith the county of Essex abounded, and thereby the assessment lay something the more on the abler sort. His Majesty observed that, through this Sheriffs industry, the whole county was now assessed, excepting only two parishes-one would like to know which these were, and the reasons for their omission, but our authority is silent as to the names of them. His Majesty went - on to declare how he "perceived by the Sheriff's prudent ordering of the assessment be had expressed a very good affection both to the service and to his country, for which he deserved double thanks; and, the Sheriff being called in by his Majesty's especial command, he had approbation and encouragement given him to proceed with cheerfulness to assess and levy the money of all men within his sbrievalty for the lands and abilities for which they were not assessed elsewhere, and that he should not fail therein to receive both countenance and assistance from the Board." 1 When one thinks of the wry faces made by those who had to pay the assessments, this royal command to be cheerful in making and levying them, occurs to one as being somewhat sardonic.

There still exists evidence more than sufficient to warrant the royal commendation of the Sheriff's labours, in the sh ape of a portly volume, containing more than a hundred and fifty closely written pages, and preceded by a title-page displayed in the following form :-
An A ccount of the Jvlony raised in the Connty of Essex for the Setting out of a Ship of eight himdred T imne appointed by his M aiesties writt to be ready at Portsmouth on the first of March 1636

In which the S everall Summes imposed by the Sherijfes upon the Inhabitants and the rates of the whole County are particularly expressed according to an order made by his M aiestie at the Coimcell Board the 23th of Aprill Last upon occasion of a Complaint then exhibited against the proceedings of the S heriffes in that business. On the dorse of this title-page a summary of the total amount to be raised, is given, as follows :- The whole charge being Eight thousand pounds was by the Sheriffes with the Consent of the Maiors a11d other head officers of the Corporate Townes proportioned in this Manner :-

To be paid by the Towne of:
Colchester 300 00 00 Walden 080 00 00 Maldon 070 00 00 Thaxted 040 00 00 Harwich 020 00 00

Mildmay was returned to Parliament for Peterborough at a by-election in 1576, probably about the time he attained his majority. His father was the Northamptonshire county Member, and no doubt arranged matters with their relation Sir William Fitzwilliam II. Sir Walter Mildmay no doubt also arranged the two subsequent returns at Higham Ferrers. Mildmay’s own few appearances in the records suggest that he had little enthusiasm for public service. In 1592 he upset the Privy Council by attempting to evade the command of 200 men in Essex. He promised to mend his ways, and in consideration of his father’s position, he was let off. But he continued to reside in London during his shrievalty, and when he was due to hand over to his successor, he was late arriving. He frequently defaulted in paying his taxes. No doubt he spent his days in the social and business engagements so well reflected for the following generation in the diary of his eldest son and namesake. He died a little in debt on 9 Aug. 1613 and was buried at Danbury.