England under the Tudors and Early Stuarts

The Neolithic Revolution 7000 8000 BCE: shift from hunter-gatherers to settled agriculture Rise of civilization (I guess we defined this by agriculture thing) Agriculture enables large nad complex human counities. Division of labor. Most are working on the land, but some people do other things. Before this point, most people were nomadic hunter-gatherers. After this point, worked in subsistence agriculture as peasant-farmers. People are born into a small plot of land. These people get tools and men and boys work on this. This is true for most of the last 10,000 years across the vast majority of the world. Subsistence means producing for your own consumption. The alternative to subsistence is a sophisticated division of labor which start in England for the first time in history. Social hierarchies are now there in the world. Elites are not engaged in work or labor, but they live off of the surplus provided to them by the people who labor the earth as peasant farmers. Writing only comes with civilization. So history begins to be recorded around this time. Trade did not really exist at this time. Extra was not traded. Extras were given to the elites. If there was something beyond something for the elites, then maybe that would go to trade . England in the Middle Ages Western Europe in the middle ages is just a variant of civilization A feudal society means largely agrarian Cycles and rhythms of life are determined by the seasons. We can nowadays work before and after the sun. But they were everything in them middle ages. They could only work when they can see. Life was dominated by the cycles between farming and harvesting. What is feudalism? Manoralism is just a variant of feudalism The vast majority of the population are serfs that owe fealty/subservience to aristocratic lords. Serfs are quasi-slaves. You cannot buy or sell them. Theres a difference between dominion and ownership. There was no private property, but there is dominion. Ownership implies you can buy and sell things. Lords and nobility have control and dominion over vast plots of land. Serfs owe fealty / vassalage to a lord. It is not like the relationship I have with the guy I rent my apartment from. I do not owe him anything except money. But he actually owns my apartment. You as a serf owe the surplus to the lord as vassalage. Either you owe a certain number of hours of work to the vassal or you owe a certain amount to the lord. Nobody thinks of it as an economic relationship, it is a duty that is owed. A lord has to be a lord. He has to provide external defense and he must keep order he must provide for defense. He usually has a band of retainers with which he provides defense and order. The lord is also the organizing unit of law. Tri-partite cast structure: those who pray (priestly caste), those who fight (warrior caste), those who work (laboring caste). People took the divinity of the priestly caste in a way tha tis far more seriously than we do now. We do not have the same belief in divinity in our clergy anymore. At that time, these people were like wholly different people. This is a small elite class. Political life of dominated by the noble landholding clas, which consists of the aristocracy and gentry. Gentry is noble and so is aristocracy Gentry has no title. Lower and middle nobility. Sir, Esquire, Gentleman House of Commons There arent enough seats in this, so they have elections within the gentry to decide who sits here. Aristocracy has a title. Duke, Earl, etc Parliament No elections, you pass these seats on

30 January 2015British History Notes

The Tudors and early tuarts Feudalism is dead around this time. The realm is pacified as over-mighty lords By the year 1500, serfdom has collapsed, feudalism is no more. There is no centralized state at this time. Peasant revolts, great instability, Malthusian crisis Tudors were what replaced the old system The Tudors created a centralized state in Britain Why were they able to create this? The system of socioeconomic organization that replaced the older feudal system This new system is capitalist agriculture or commercialized agriculture replaces feudal agriculture Capitalism starts in agriculture, but soon starts to be the dominant form of organization for the culture as a whole This starts late 15th century and ends 18th century. It was a slow process. It is a molecular transition, but it did certainly occur. The most important thing: The shift from aristocratic lord and serfs/bondsmen to aristocratic landlorsd (i.e. commercial rent-taking) capitalist tenant farmers agrarian wage-laborers. The latter set is the classic triangle of largescale capitalist agriculture in England. There was a whole attempt to re-inserf the peasantry when they transitioned, but this failed. As a result, the wealthy no longer had the ability to coerce a surplus over the serfs. Instead, they started to assert private property. They can alienate their land. The concept of dominion was replaced by the concept of private property. These peasants are masterless men. These people are willing to work the land for a wage. They used to work for their own consumption then give the rest to their masters. The aristocrats then rent out their land to the freed peasants. They then use this wage to buy necessities. A capitalist relationship begins exist. It is now production for the market, not production for subsistence. The new relationship is not coerced, it is economic. People choose freely in the capitalist sense of this term. Advances in agriculture begin to come about because of competition. The Roman Catholic Church is the enemy of the capitalist progressive aristocracies because It is a large land holder It is subservient to the papal state and the Vatican Lots of holidays, not enough time for work! Superstition! Standing in the way of power! They are aligned with the leading powers Hobbesburk: Spain Austria Etc Englands needs are not in line with the Roman Catholic Church Henry the 8th wants a divorce, but this is not granted to him The Spanish says no to pope and pope says no to Henry Henry is figuratively whipped by Roman Catholic church England realizes that the Roman Catholic Church is not aligned with its interests. Declares the Royal Supremacy. Henry is not just ruler in State but also supreme ruler in Church. He takes similar stuff from the Roman Catholic Church but puts it under the centralization of the State. The Anglian church is basically roman Catholicism without the pope People are just generally against the roman catholic church Lots of absues Have to pay taxes to them Hierarchy etc The King of England is the head of the Anglican church The British monarchy is still the head of the Anglican church. The queen of England is not just the head of England, but also the head of the church.

The English Revolution of the Mid-Seventeeth Century

World turns upside down. Why? English Revolution flip the world, figuratively speaking. Why does Charles I reign last only a short time? He was beheaded in 1625. Why was he beheaded? Growing conflicts between Charles and the Parliament across a wide range of affairs Taxation Foreign Affairs Etc This is a bit odd because the entire 16th century was in lockstep. They set up the Centralized state together? [e.g. nobility in parliament versus King] Why was there is 1620s and 1630s falling out? Conflict over how much centralization do you want to occur? The monarchy wants an absolute monarchy, but the parliament doesnt want this. Naturally conflict ensues over the degree of centralization. From the monarchs Growing divisions between Puritan groups and the Church of England hierarchy.

The Reign of Charles (Day 4)

The reign of Charles I (1625 1649) Growing conflicts between Charles I and Parliament across wide range of affairs (foreign policy, constitution, taxes, etc.) They are fighting over who has control over the Centralized state These conflicts began with James, but intensified with his son, Charles. In the past, they moved lockstep over a variety of issues (they had similar enemies and similar goes). This was the Tudor revolution. Growing division between Anglicans (Church of England) and Puritan groups Anglican Church: Catholicism + Protestantism No Pope Century long debate between those who essentially who want to keep the church essentially Catholic. High Church Anglicans (Ludians) They want strict hierarchy resembling Catholicism without a Papacy. This is the dominant, conservative group. The opponents are the Puritans, they want to purify the Church of England. They did not call themselves Puritans but it was a originally a pejorative term. They want it to be more Protestant They initially wanted to purify the Anglican church, but eventually they just wanted to be outside the church so they set up their own churches. Presbyterians: Simple churches but still have a church governance (democratically elected though) Independents: Radical egalitarianism (looks like a Bible study to us today) Ideological conflict between advocates of king-in-parliament and divine right absolute monarchy Monarch was put on Earth by God and therefore he cannot be dissenting or discontented against by the people. What are appropriate ways of expressing discontent? Prayers: Prayers are a way of expressing to God what you want the King to do something. Tears: You cannot actively resist. You can only express resistance through Prayers and Tears to god. People in Parliament want to appeal to Medieval ideal of King-in-Parliament, where the king still has to be advised by Parliament. The way that Parliament is able to hold on to power is power of purse in the sense that the King needs Parliament for extraordinary income. If the King needs to go to war, the house of commons needs to tax itself to give extraordinary income for the king. This gives them some negotiating power. Eventually the King decides he will no longer rely on parliament. In 1629, he starts personal rule for 11 years. He rules without ever calling parliament. How was he able to do this? Charles sets long term policy to be able to raise financial resources without calling parliament Forced loans on bankers, goldsmiths, etc He also needs a standing army Roman Catholic Irishmen no connection Royal absolutists have armies that is completely independent of its own people The English Civil Wars and Revolution England engulfed by civil wars between royal and parliamentary forces from 1642 and 1648 Parliamentary forces are increasingly radicalized Parliamentary forces, with Oliver Cromwell and the New Model Army at the forefront, are ultimately victorious [Sounds like they had a Civil War between these two armies?] They just want to stop Charles I from having an absolutist state without Parliament. Parliament had to involve regular citizens. These normal citizens were never involved in politics before. They need to get money and men. Parliament needs the masses inorder to fill the coffers and armies. Lines were meritocratic and based on ideology under Oliver Cromwell. They were a modern, standardized. Commited to victory of Parliament and victory of the anti-Christ (Charles). Parliamentary forces, with Oliver Cromwell and the New Model Army at the forefront, are ultimately victorious Results of the war Popular soverignty : Parliament is supreme because it seeks to represent the people King is simply an executor of the laws passed by Parliament. Parliamentary supremacy / sovereignty Charles I is tried and executed in January 1649. This is the first time a king was put on trial. There have been executions of Kings, but this was the first trial. They argue that the King is a traitor to England. This implies that sovereignty does not come from the King. To be able to try a King implies that the law does not flow from the King. It implies that the King is subject to the law and therefore that the law has another source. This is a new radical conception of law and justice. This implies that the law is from elsewhere than the King. Normally people at this time would say that the King is the law and therefore above the subject of the law.

The English Wars Etcetera 4 February 2015

The English Civil Wars and Revolution England is engulfed by civil wars between royal and parliamentary forces during the 1640s Parliamentary forces are radicalized along political and religious lines They are against arbitrary power; against one man They want to go back to the medieval ideal of consultation with nobles They just want the nobility and gentlemen to gather together and to advise and consult with the King. In other words, they were not really radical. It is the King that is innovative, because historically speaking what the Parlimentary people were asking for is what has precedence. Under the Burbon Monarchy: they were building these great power absolute monarchies. Theres a dilemma faced by the Parliamentary folks Every time the King wins he Was the world really turned right side up? No. despite he restoration of the church of England as the establishd church, de facto religious diversity continues broad view that religious skism will lead to political skism. You cannot have a stable social and political order without a stable religious order. The traditional ideal of the stable political life has just gone away. People have experienced conflict Public opinion came into the wars and began to publish petitions and debate in coffee houses and pubs. Throughout the restoration the stuart monarchy tries to put the genie back in the bottle and they cant. The secrets of state are increasingly the subject of public opinons. The structural problem of the centralized territorial state persists. Who ultimately control the state? This was not completely resolved. Does the monarchy govern on its own or does it govern with reference to parliament?

As the 1660s draw to a close, deep seated political conflict is back. Central question, is this newly emerging central territorial state is that controlled by Monarchy with or without parliament? Is parliament checking monarchy? Its unclear what the precise relationships. In the 1660s-80s. When the restored monarchy attempts to be a royal absolutist again, they are faced with the same dilemma that 1620s: drawing the sword to make the king come to the table is a risky proposition. Last time they did it, this let out social and political forces that were outside of control. The next generation of the landed parliamentary elite, they know that any force resistane they have against the monarchy risks bringing back all the risks that they grew up with when young (the civil wars and the commonwealth period). This dilemma remains throughout the rest of the course up till the American revolution for Britain.

The European World after Westphalia: Bourbon France, the Dutch Republic, and the Balance of Power. Following the treaty of westfalia we are going to focus on the powers that matter during this time, Frame and Dutch republic. Civil war is what happened after the Treaty was signed. England is out of European great power diplomacy because it is focused on a civil war inside. What is going on the European continent during this time that Britain is involved in this civil war? 30 years war. 1618 1648. Engulfed remaining European powers What does Great power diplomacy look like before this period? One of the key features of the 17th century was Spain, specifically the decline of spain. They had the preeminent position in the 16th century (Charles 5th, Phillip 2nd), Hobbesburg spain was the power of the world during the time perio If you look at a map at the end of the 16th century, they own a Lot of the world not only in Europe, but also in the rest of the world . People thought that Spain would restore a universal monarchy. They thought these people would recreate the Roman Empire over the world. People thought this would bring about the return of Christ (wtf). But they went throughout a decline during the 17th century. Several of their northern territories are able to successfully revolt to make themselves independent. By the end of the 30 years war, they have exhausted itself the conflict of great power interests. How will a balance of power be observed? Peace of Westfalia establsiehs European multistate system and the principles of balance of power. Ruler of the territory can determine religion of its subject. Enshrined in treaty of westfalia is Borders of European states. There exists a plurality of European states. Rulers can determine religions of their own states. They have soverign authority of Sovereign states determine internal affairs more generally They can also jostle back and forth with one another in a balance of power. War is just politics by other means War is just a part of renegotiating global politics There is a constant negotiation. What is balance of power? Power has to be balance to avoid any single hegemony again. Great power: The Dutch Republic The Dutch Revolt established the Dutch republic as independent from the Spanish Politically open and republican, religiously tolerant, derives wealth from trade & manufacturing, maintains a strong navy and seeks to expand maritime power through spread of commerce. Christopher hill writes that : two conceptions of civilization were in conflict. This conflict embraced the whole of life. One conception took the French model and the other the Dutch republic. How do you choose the great powers to align with as a statements in this area? You are choosing who to ally with and what way of life that you want.

Great Power: The Dutch Republic

Dutch Revolt, lasting from 1568 to 1648, establaished northern provinces of the Spanish Netherlands as a free and independent country: the United Provinces of the Netherlands At this point in history, rulers begin to have secular reasons for foreign policy. In the past, the reason for war was fighting the anti-Christ. But now, it is this-worldly affairs. European statesmen still want to follow Christian principles, but they no longer use that as a justification of world. After 1648 there is a multi-state system of powers: Austria, Sweden, spain. But then there are two key powers also ascendency (Dutch Republic of Bourbon France). The Spanish powers used to own the Netherlands provinces, but these claim their independence

Great Power: Bourbon France

Bourbon France is the greatest power in Europe, with a vast landmass and a population of 22 million Two models for Englnds development: The Dutch Republic and Absolutist France They arent just allies in terms of foreign policy interest but also models for development. Should they pursue the Dutch model? Dominated by wealthy merchant citizens from wealthy cities? Local assemblies form a confederacy. They have an elected king and his principle responsibility is to run the military. Elected and non-heriditary. Still of noble background. Religious tolerance and republican. Maritime expansion. Should they pursue the French system. Louis the XIV. Absolutist monarchy. Expansion by military driven conquest. Religiously homogeneous Roman Catholic Realm. This is not just two different countries, but a choice between two ways of life.

Social and Economic Change in the Later Seventheeth Century: Part I (Engalnds Great Divergence and the consolidation of capitalist agriculture)

The geopolitical world had great powers But now we want to paint a picture of Britains economy and society during this point in society. All of these changes are taking place 1650-1700. Englands economy and society, c 1660-1700. England develops socially and economically quite rapidly during the Restoration periods. England is the first industrial country. But why? Goes through the industrial revolution [this comes into gear 1780s-1790s, after the end of our course] The industrial revolution wasnt all at once, it was something that needed the capitalist economy that was developed earlier in the century for 100 years or so. England was on a fundamentally different path of economic development than the rest of the world. This is Englands Great Divergence, along with a few other nations (like the Dutch Republic in the Netherlands). This becomes clear after 1650-1700 (the Restoration and its immediate aftermath), because it gave England a dynamic economy that led into the industrial revolution. Economic revolutions, unlike political revolutions, take a great deal of time to manifest. The reason why the divergence is so important: Not only does this set England apart from Europe, but it helps liquidate (e.g. break away from) traditional agrarian society. They are the first country to part ways with 10,000 years of historical ways of life. They are the first to depart with the agrarian way of life. This is not just the end of the middle ages, but also of agrarian civilization. The key signifier of this change is that by 1700, only 50-60% of the English population was primarily involved /employed in agriculture. The pre-modern or pre-capitalist economy across the world Development of settled agriculture created an agrarian surprlus that allowed for a small portion of the population to live off the land, and thus allowed for the growth of towns and trade. With the growth of towns and trade, an urban-rural division of labor emerged in the agrarian civilization and kingdoms The development fo the agrarian surplus was limited and, eventually, the growth of the population outstripped the growth of resources. Malthusian situation sets in: plague, pestilence, war, famine Phase A: population growth and economic development Phase B: population decrease and economic decline These phases occur because of limited economic productivity on land on the person [ remember that the limitation of human civilization is because not everybody has to work on the land] In pre-capatalist economy, although a portion of the population was able to live off the land in towns, and to engage in trade and manufacturing, these developments were constrictued by the Malthusian demographic cycle.

The Transition to capitalist agriculture (c. 1400 1700) Between the seventeenth centuries, the English countryside experienced the transition to capitalist agriculture Essentially, laborers were free but they have no land for themselves. The Lords had land,b ut they no longer have serfs to work on the land. The former serfs were free to live but they were also free to starve. These conditions led to the classic triad of capitalist agriculture Aristocratic capitalist landlord (collector of money rents) Commerical tenant-famrer (maker of profit) Agrarian wage-laborer (earner of wage) The spread of this structure led to competitive production. Farmers had the incentive to grow more productive and hence prices and efficiency improved. Labor productivity Specalization Capital Accumulation The pre-modern or pre-capitalist limits on the creation of agricultural surplus were transcended and Engalnds economy was able to escape the Malthusian trap. Commercialization: The development of commercial and manufacturing capitalism By the later 17th century, you can get what you You are going to seek the gains from trade that Adam Smith You are going to focus on the things you can make better than other else You are able to buy things by producing something at high quality and low cost. In order to produce a particular commodity as efficiently as possible, men and women broke up the production process into different tasks and procedures, thus creating a division of labor within each workshop. If you only produce one thing, youcan probably do it better than if you made many different things.

Commercialization: the development of commercial and manufacturing capitalism Shift of opulation away from the land and the increase of disposable income of the opulation as a whole, allowed for growth of markets in non-necessities and luxuries More of the population no longer in agriculture. Agricultural capitalism is off the grouna and now the olpuatlin is away from the agribculture as the polulation is off the land they are free wage laborers. In the middle ages, there were people produceing goods in highly restricted guilds. These have secret technologies. They were not planned to produce at market prices. They sought to produce for a great lord. But now capitalist agriculture the people who are shifting off they are free wage laborers, this means that merchants can disrupt the guild structure and instead directly employ free wage laborers to produce for the market. Capitalist agriculture has given rice to commercial manufacturing capitalism. Adam Smith famously described how the expansion of the market leads to the divison of labor. As people get what they need from the market, they want to focus on things that they are very good at producing. They do this to achieve the gains from trade. Thats why we see the expansion of the market People become less educated about the overall creation of the pin but more educated about the specific part for which they are responsible. By 1700, England not only had an urban-rural (or town-country division of labor, which had existed in previous millennia but also an extensive division of labor between different towns, cities, and regions, as well as an extensive division f labor within individual productive units and workshops. The market increasingly mediated the social life in England. Men and women produced less and less for their own consumption. Rather, they worked n order to acquire the means (i.e. money) to buy the products of other peoples work. We do this now, but that wasnt something that was done before this time. The capitalist economy is ceaseless and restless. There is no stasis anymore. In the pre-modern world you only produce for your own consumption. While more production than ever before, if you want to make sure youre paid a wage as a worker. Urbanization: the growth of towns and cities By the 16th century, between 10-12% of the English population lived in villages, towns and cities. By 1700, 40% of the Egnlish population lived in villages, towns, and cities. The most important symptom is London, which is the most important city in London. The rest of Europe was becoming less urban but the process of urbanization continued in England. London had like 10% of the population at the time. In these new towns and cities there are lots of coffee houses being set up. The postal services grew along with the improvement and expansion of roads and canals in England. There was the need to improve transportation and communication. Roads and turnpikes, post offices etcetera. Imporved means of communication. The growth of letter writing. There was a massive explosion of letters. It originally flowed as business news. Also flourishing is a culture of pamphlet reading, nwletter reading etcetera. There was a massive politicization of the culture. They still want to know about politics. The transformation of the culture makes people want news ever more. When my wage is dependent on the market, then I become interested in the world. I am now dependent on all of these interconnections acrossed society. There was a massive growth of news. There was a vibrant political culture in these new villages in these manufacturing centers etcetera. There was a new culture of discussion taxes, regulation, etcetera. This discussion was not controlled by government. Political discussion used to take place with wealthy landed gentlemen in parliament and monarchy, but now they are taking place in pubs, coffeehouses, and anywhere else there are literate people. Now these people have an interest because it is an interdependent economy. This is a much more participatory realm because people participate not because of their background or because they are appointed by God but because they were willing to pay the pence and have the newsletter and cup of coffee. It is no longer limited by birth and background. Truth is no longer told to you by a King or a priest. Truth is seen to be something found in reason and discussion. The English Revolutiona dnt he country seconomic transformation While capitalist agriculture was the fundamental condition for the growth of towns, cities, trade, and manufacturing in England, the possibilities contained in such capitalist transformation were not fully realized until the English Revolution of the mid 17th century. More specifically, the polities of the English Commonwealth (1649-53) transofmred the ecounties political economy that is the relationship between the state and the economic organization of society. The English Revolution and the countrys economic transformation While capitalist agriculture was the fundamental condition for the growth of towns, cities, trade, and manufacturing in England, the possibilities contained in sucha capitalist transformation were not fully realized until the English Revolutio of the mid-seventeeth century More specifically, the policies of the Egnlish Commonwealth transformed the countrys political economy that is, the relationship between the state and the economic organization of society, in favor of commercial and manufacturing development at home as well as overseas commercial and colonial expansion The policies that came into place during the mid-17th century English revolution more specially under the republic / Commonwealth really new policies and practices. Why was this period of revolution able to reflect such a radical transformation in Englands political economy? Turned into political radicalism and that helped them form something new into the economy They did not come from the landed elite The court and the landed elite had dominated They implemented policies that What happens in the mid-17th century is that new social and political groups come to the fore. Particularly, business, overseas entrepreneurial come to the fore. Part of that radicalism, that new republican regime is figuring out how to build a state apparatus (money, men, resources) in that process of radicalization that new groups came to the fore who had to find new ways of raising revenues and funds to support the new system monetarily both domestic and abroad. Before 1640, the English state was not commited to the development of commerce, manufacturing, and overseas expansion. The Stuart of James I and Charles extracted short-term revenues from commercial and overseas expansion in order to fund its initiative and projects. The King just said you can have the right to do this you can have monopoly but you have to give the king a cut. Some people wanted to settle in new colonies. The king would just say Ill give you a proprietary colony you can have a personally run and owned colony you can be an entrepreneur sorta but in return the King would ask for tax revenue in exchange. Basically these kings just wanted as much of this tax revenue as possible for short term gain. Over time these develop a series of obstacles of problems. All these monopolies and letters of patent arent good in the long run for central power During the English Civil War and Revolution, the politics and practices of the state were no longer exclusively determined by landed elites. Under the Commonwealth regime, new social groups, consisting largely of overseas merchants and entreprenuers, were involved in planning and implementing state policy. These groups brought new ideas and schemes, drawn from their experiences in overseas enterprise and commercial competition, to bear in the affairs of state. A lot of London based business people come ot the for and they suggest new ways of planning and implementing state policies. They bring new plans. These people tended not to be elites. They are from the middle ranks of society. These were allowed to set up colonies. They dont have monopolies or letters of patent. They come from a cometptive environment. No monopolies. They were kept out of the areas that were monopolized. So they had to go into more difficult lines of trade and overseas expansion. The people who got monopolies were the people who are elite, aristocrats. New politices committed the state to unlimited commercial and ovesreas expansion: the Navigation Act of 1651 and the additional navigation laws; the First Anglo-Dutch War; the abolition of chartered monopolicies in favor of free-trade zones; the creation of a sizeable standing navy; and the building of a naval-industrial complex Commodities have to do two things They have to pass through England. Commodities cannot be sold directly to other European colonies. Must be routed through England so we can have customs due etc. They have to go on English ships with English captains and seamen. This creates a protectionist policy for English shipping, perhaps it was an infact industry at the time. At first there is a union with the Dutch The Dutch were lightyeads ahead of England. Dutch say no. Why would we want an inferior partner? So, the English decide they are going to blow open trade by declaring war with Netherlands. This war was the first Anglo-Dutch War The Dutch kept English out of World trade through superior competition. The English wanted a competitive edge established through war Abolition of chartered monopolies through free-trade zones Whereas Charles I and James I had monopolies given out, the Commonwealth set up free-trade zones. People can have any sort of manufacturing process they want to etc etc. The Idea being that anyone can trade for free. The English have competition amongst themselves trading wherever they want to go. The creation of sizable standing navy & naval industrial complex There is a sizable effort to build a permanent ship building industry This is conditioned upon Cromwells protectorate. Rather than extracting short-term revnues from commercial and overseas economic development as James I and Charles I had done, the English Comonwealth was committed to raising long-term revnues on the asis of ever expanding commercial and overseas economic activity. The state sought to expand economic activitiy in order to increase its tax revenues, instead of arbitrarily raising taxes regardless of economic condition. There are no longer monopolies limited economic activity. There are entprenuers employing labors In competition with one another. The Stuarts (Charles I and James I) were only interested in short term gain. They did NOT care about economic development, especially not as an end in itself. New politices committed the state to unlimited commercial and overseas expansion: the Navigation Act of 1651 and the additional navigation laws; the first anglo-dutch war, the abolitionof chartered monopolies in factor of free trade zones; the creation of a sizeable standing navy; the the builidn gof a nval industrial complex Rather than extracting short-term revenues from commercial and ovesreas economic development as James I and HCarles I had done, the English Commonwealth was committed to raising lont-term revnues on the basis of ever-expanding commercial and overseas economic acitivirty The state sought to expand economic activity in order to increase its tax revnues, instead of arbitrarily raising taxes regardless of the condition of the economy.