 Online College and University Degree Guide
| The growth of London was all but unique in Europe. London's population rose by eight times between 1500 and 1650.
In 1650, the city’s population stood at 400,000. By 1700, it was 575,000 that -represented 11% of England’s population. By comparison, only 3% of French people lived in Paris during a comparable time span. Norwich was England’s second biggest city with 12,000 people.
London’s consumption of corn doubled between 1605 and 1661. This demand for food stimulated a rapid growth in farming in the Home Counties. The feeding of London was secured by an elaborate set of institutions and activities known as the London Food Market. This organisation promoted a quick change in agriculture in the Home Counties. The Thames Valley specialised in grain while Kent was famed for its fruit production. Such was the demand for food in London that cattle were sent to the city from Wales.
London had total economic dominance. It handled 90% of England's overseas trade and London generated the capital that was to be fundamental for industrial development. London's population kept expanding therefore offering a huge market for goods of all sorts. London was the nation’s centre of government, administration, financial institutions and law courts. By 1640, the richest men in the country were from the city and by 1642, Charles I had few friends in the city.
London had an enormous concentration of economic resources, political influences and professional skills. Control of the city was vital – if Charles lost control of the city, he had lost his grip on the nation’s financial, political, economic and military resources on a large scale.
Daniel Defoe called London “a leech sucking dry the vitals of the country.” As early as 1604, provincial merchants had complained that the city merchants were monopolising every aspect of trade and that they were engrossing – buying up as much as was physically possible so that London maintained its grip on the economy. Provincial merchants frequently complained about the control merchants in London exerted on the nation’s economy. However, those merchants in the capital probably felt that they had a right to have such an influence as on an annual basis they paid £110,000 in custom dues whereas the rest of England paid just £17,000. Whereas monopolists were the result of a royal policy involved in the raising of revenue and the money that these monopolists acquired was vast, they were a source of major anger once again with provincial merchants who had no hope of breaking into this highly lucrative market as they were not based in London nor were they ‘in’ with the favourites of the likes James I and Charles I. Whereas these provincial merchants had little chance of breaking into monopolies, they were well represented in the House of Commons. Their anger needed to be disciplined and co-ordinated. Sir Edward Coke did that in the reigns of James and Charles. Coke had his own personal reasons for getting back at the Stuarts and their favourites and aided by his legal background, he was very good at what he did.
Those who were deemed to be ‘in’ had the chance to make vast sums of money. Companies such as the Muscovy Company and the East India Company enjoyed great privileges and loaned the Crown money to ensure that these privileges were maintained. With access to money, the royal family was content; with access to foreign markets protected by a monopoly, the companies were content. However, the number who shared in this good fortune was small and the anger it created within London from those outside of this system was to have a marked impact in the lead up to the English Civil War. The fact that Charles lost control of his own capital involved a number of factors – but the anger of those who were the ‘outs’ in this system of royal patronage was a major factor. Even within one company, there were major disparities and these had to be a cause of tension. The Merchants of Adventurers had 6,000 members attached to it and had an effective monopoly of the woollen trade. But power within the company lay with just 200 merchants. 50% of the merchants with the company handled just 10% of its trade whereas 10% of the merchants in it handled 50% of its trade. It was this 10% that made great sums of money and dominated how the company should be run. These men loaned money to the Crown – but they expected something in return, which was the continuance of a system that they did very well out of.
Those areas outside of London that failed to show loyalty to the Crown during the civil war did not experience such comfort. In 1612, Barbary pirates inflicted £40,000 of damage on the Newfoundland fishing fleet. Based on the west coast, the ports in which this fleet came from had to pay Ship Money – but seemingly got nothing in return for such payments. Coal ships from Newcastle sailing to London suffered similar problems – their ports paid Ship Money but got nothing in return. Such a situation could only lead to antagonism towards the crown.
If you have any enquiries or notice any problems please contact me at enquiries@historylearningsite.co.uk | |
| © 2000-2008 historylearningsite.co.uk | ||