set forth in a book of rates, the
first of its class (1558). Following this reform came more stringent
regulations against smuggling and fraud on the part of officials. All
through the Tudor period the cost of collection was unduly high. For the
first six years of Elizabeth it has been estimated at one-sixth of the
gross receipts.

Just as in the 14th century the subsidy had followed the "old" and "new"
customs, so in the 16th the "impositions" levied by royal prerogative
formed a supplement to the parliamentary subsidy; but the principal
employment of this expedient occurs in the next century. Another
significant indication of the future course of indirect taxation was
furnished by the grants of monopolies to inventors, producers and
traders. These privileges, when they affected important commodities,
operated in the same way as taxes farmed out to collectors, and, though
the profit to the crown was small, they enhanced prices and excited
discontent. The wisdom of Elizabeth (or her ministers) was shown in the
promise of redress after the hostile debate of 1601.

From one point of view it may fairly be said that the great struggle of
the Stuart kings with the parliament centred round financial issues. It
is, at all events, beyond dispute that questions of taxation were the
chosen ground of conflict. Taking the period from the accession of James
I. to the opening of the Civil War (1603-42) it appears that the legal
basis of indirect taxation was tested for the port duties in the "Great
Case of Impositions" (known as Bates' case, see BATES, JOHN), while that
of direct taxation was considered in the even more famous "Ship Money"
case (for ever associated with the name of Hampden). In parliament the
debates deal with impositions, monopolies, the grounds for voting
subsidies, and the proper application of the funds granted; in fact,
with nearly all the financial questions of the time. Notwithstanding
these difficulties and disputes the financial system shows evident signs
of expansion and adaptation to the needs of the state.

The direct grants of the parliaments of James I. far exceeded those of
earlier periods (in 1606 six "fifteenths and tenths," three lay and four
clerical subsidies), but the efforts to extend the other sources of
revenue by the exercise of the prerogative naturally reacted on this
spirit of liberality. The last "fifteenth and tenth" was voted in 1624,
from which date this old-established form disappe