Benevolence (tax)

Last updated

A benevolence, also called a loving contribution, voluntary contribution or free gift, was a type of tax imposed by several English monarchs from the 15th to the 17th century. Although taken under the guise of a charitable contribution to the King, the money was in fact extorted from the king's subjects. Commissioners or letters were sent from town to town, detailing the financial need of the king and asking that the town's wealthiest pay. The requested could not refuse to give, unless they denied the king's need or professed their own poverty, a "doubtless difficult, if not virtually impossible" task. [1] Benevolences allowed the king to raise money outside of Parliament, which traditionally had to authorise any tax the king proposed.

Contents

A benevolence was first imposed in 1473 by Edward IV. It ended lucratively for the king, and he made similar demands leading up to the 1482 invasion of Scotland which yielded yet more for the royal coffers. Despite this, the benevolences were extremely unpopular and gained Edward a "reputation for avarice". Richard III attempted to make similar exactions, but met with stringent condemnations of the taxes from Parliament which described them as unjust and unprecedented impositions. Richard's benevolences were not carried out and Parliament ultimately outlawed the practice in 1484.

Richard's deposer Henry VII sidestepped these statutes and imposed a benevolence in 1491. His actions were supported by Parliament, although not by the whole populace, and earned him £48,000. Henry VIII levied yet more benevolences in 1525 and 1545: the first ending in rebellion and withdrawal, and the second ending with a profit of £120,000. During Elizabeth I's half-century long reign, benevolences were only raised a few times in the 1580s and 1590s, and then only to small subsets of the population, and raising small amounts. Benevolences had grown increasingly unpopular, criticised by contemporary writers to the ire of Elizabeth's government. The last benevolence of the Tudor period was levied in 1599.

Benevolences were revived when James I, meeting with an obstinate Parliament, used them to augment his treasury extra-parliamentarily in 1614. This proved successful, but a further benevolence in 1620 to support Frederick V of the Palatinate did not, forcing James to call Parliament the following year. No further benevolences were collected, though both James and his son Charles I took preliminary steps to implement them during their reigns.

Exaction

Benevolences were exacted from the public by methods essentially the same as those of forced loans. Commissioners, typically gentlemen, would travel from town to town supplied with rationales for the benevolence, commonly bearing upon to the safety of the kingdom, and approach the gentlemen of the town to give this justification and ask for a gift. Alternatively, letters under the monarch's authority were sent to the town's wealthiest individuals emphasising this danger. Benevolences were usually put forth as an alternative to military service in a time of crisis, the subject obliged to help the king in other ways. Legally these contributions were considered voluntary, but in practice subjects usually could not refuse the request, and were only able to dispute how much they would give. [2] The only way to escape the obligation would be to deny the necessity, [3] or plead poverty, [4] a task which was—as one historian has put it—"doubtless difficult, if not virtually impossible". [1]

Late medieval invention: 1473–84

Edward IV (r. 1461-83) was the first English king to impose benevolences. King Edward IV.jpg
Edward IV (r. 1461–83) was the first English king to impose benevolences.

According to English medievalist G. L. Harriss, the concept of benevolence in financing the king's activities goes back to the early 14th century, [5] when the exhortations to pay taxes or loans to the crown first exhibited a common "emphasis on these twin features of obligation and benevolence." [6]

The first English king to impose a benevolence proper was Edward IV in 1473. [7] He had earlier imposed forced loans, but the term "benevolence" allowed Edward to jettison the expectation of having to repay his subjects. [8] Additionally, forced loans were expected to only be imposed within the bounds of reason, while good will to a king was supposed to be limitless. [9] Benevolences were, for Edward's purposes, a new form of extra-parliamentary taxation, by which he could compound the already heavy taxes of the 1470s. [10] These benevolences were justified with reference to the supposedly looming threat of France to the realm, for which the king proposed to lead his army in person. [11] In total, the king raised £21,000, [lower-roman 1] a remarkable amount, more than three times what the king had raised with the income tax of 1450. [10] The king made similar impositions from 1480 to 1482, to fund the English invasion of Scotland in 1482. [13] The yield of this benevolence surpassed that of 1473, bordering on £30,000. [lower-roman 2] [14] These developments became an incredibly unpopular aspect of Edward's rule. Dominic Mancini, an Italian who visited England at the close of Edward's reign, commented that Edward had acquired a "reputation for avarice" for his unending pursuit of riches through such methods, a reputation which was by then "publically proclaimed". [15]

Richard III attempted to make a similar demand several times, but met with the stringent opposition of Parliament. [8] In Parliament, the benevolences were disparaged as "a new imposicion [...] wherby dyvers yeres [in various years] the subgettes and Comens [subjects and Commons] of this londe [land] agaynst their willes and fredome have paid grete sommes of money to their almost utter destruccion"; [16] this sentiment was echoed by the ecclesiastical Croyland Chronicle , which chronicled "the laying of the new and unheard-of services of benevolence, where everyone gives what they want to, or more correctly do not want to." [lower-alpha 1] [17] In 1484, one of the first acts to pass in Richard's only Parliament outlawed benevolences. [18] [19]

Tudor usage: 1491–1599

Cardinal John Morton was credited with an argument for Henry VII's first benevolence, known as Morton's Fork. Cardinal John Morton.jpg
Cardinal John Morton was credited with an argument for Henry VII's first benevolence, known as Morton's Fork.

Having deposed Richard, Henry VII freely ignored this law, [lower-alpha 2] making substantial use of benevolences during his reign, under the guise of "loving contributions". In 1491, seven years after the law had been passed, he employed commissioners to procure such gifts from his subjects. [17] [18] Additionally, earlier that year, Henry had called a Great Council to authorise him to levy this benevolence, giving the "contribution" at least the semblance of legitimacy and popular consent. [21] Henry's Chancellor and Archbishop of Canterbury John Morton was credited with a widespread argument for this form of taxation: [lower-alpha 3] if one lived modestly, one must be saving and so could afford a gift for the king; if one lived luxuriantly, one must have income to spare, which ought instead to be presented to the king. This argument was given the nickname "Morton's Fork", a term which entered the vernacular as an expression for any dilemma between two unpleasant options. [17] [22] Commissioners employed the argument against any unwilling subjects, to demand exorbitant amounts of money. [23] [9] Henry also used justifications similar to those Edward had employed 20 years earlier, whereby the threat of France was stressed—commissioners armed with the proclamation that "Charles of France not only unjustly occupies the king's kingdom of France, but threatens the destruction of England" [24] —and the king proposed to personally lead the English army. [11] The benevolence was proposed as an alternative to military service. [18]

This action garnered retrospective support from Parliament, who used a 1496 act to enforce benevolence on threat of death. [17] According to historian Roger Schofield, in the early Tudor period, benevolences were used only to anticipate or supplement "the collection of duly authorised taxes from a small number of wealthy subjects", rather than as a means of "superseding parliamentary grants". [25] Indeed, the Great Chronicle remarked that the toll caused "less grugge of hys comons" than previous taxes, as only "men of good substaunce" were asked to contribute. [10] However, historian Peter Holmes has maintained that the benevolence was "paid only with reluctance" among the taxed population, the Great Council's proclamation easing their irritation little. [21] In sum, Henry VII raised £48,000 [lower-roman 3] with this benevolence, an amount exceeding any of his precursors'. [14]

King Henry VIII continued his father's practice of benevolence. [8] In 1525, he attempted to impose the Amicable Grant, a compulsory benevolence taken at a standard rate from large swathes of the population. [26] [27] It was expected to raise a whopping £333,000. [lower-roman 4] [28] [29] This proved extremely unpopular, as it deviated controversially from previous benevolences; these had been restricted to the wealthiest in the population, with the size of payments settled on an individual basis. [27] It did not help that the Grant followed two large, and as yet unrepaid, forced loans the king had taken out in 1522 and 1523, together amounting to an owed £260,000. [lower-roman 5] [29] Thus, many opposed the Grant on constitutional grounds. [27] As historian Michael Bush put it, "[w]ith no assurance of repayment, and authorized neither by parliament nor convocation but simply by commission, it smacked of novelty and illegitimacy". [28] The Amicable Grant's principal promoter, Cardinal Wolsey, faced criticism as a "subversor of the Lawes and Libertie of England". [27] The commissioners of the Grant met with an unwilling populace, [26] many of whom pleaded poverty to escape the tax. [4] The compulsory aspect of the Grant was soon dropped and, after protests flared up in the South East, followed by riots in Suffolk and Essex, the benevolence was abandoned entirely. [26] [28]

Henry VIII again imposed a benevolence in 1545. Henry was more careful in averting rebellion this time: the fares were lowered and the threshold raised. [28] Henry did not, however, shy away from severity in enforcing this benevolence; one London alderman was driven up to the Scottish border to fight the Scots as punishment for hesitance in paying his part. [26] The political background of the 1540s was also of assistance: in the manifest French threat the 1545 Battle of the Solent had afforded, and the prosperity a spell of good harvests leading up to 1525 had provided. [26] This ended in success, raising £120,000 [lower-roman 6] for the Crown. [30]

Elizabeth I (r. 1558-1603) was more averse to benevolences than her forerunners, demanding only a handful in the 1580s and 1590s. Queen Elizabeth I by George GowerFXD.jpg
Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603) was more averse to benevolences than her forerunners, demanding only a handful in the 1580s and 1590s.

The first benevolence to be raised in Elizabeth I's reign was foisted upon the clergy in the 1580s. In raising the £21,000 [lower-roman 7] needed to repair Dover Harbour, which had deteriorated steadily since its construction by Henry VIII, Elizabeth's Privy Council resolved to find a way to extract this sum from the nation. Alongside taxes on recusants, ships and alehouses, the Privy Council sent forth a benevolence to the church, urging wealthy clergymen to donate at least one tenth their income for 3 years to fund the repairs. [31] Ultimately, the benevolence took 5 years to collect, [32] and the funding of the repair came to rely predominately on ship tariffs. However, the idea of benevolences on the clergy did come to inspire future financial actions in Elizabeth's reign. [33]

Prompted by the financially taxing French campaigns of the 1590s, Elizabeth's chief advisor and Lord High Treasurer Lord Burghley drew up plans for a benevolence in 1594 of 3,000, expected to net the Queen £30,000, [lower-roman 8] but these plans were never put into practice. [34] In 1596, another benevolence was levied on the clergy to fund the Anglo-Spanish War, but the clergy were so unwilling that it was apparently never collected. [32] After the death of Treasurer Lord Burghley in 1598, the virtual bankruptcy of the Tudor state came to light; a few days after his death, a rumour was spreading in London which alleged the Queen's had only £20,000 [lower-roman 9] in her treasury. In the midst of several loans to the government, a benevolence was asked in 1599 of lawyers and officers in several government offices. The government was expected to levy another soon after, but instead the Crown sold off some of its land, generating a healthy sum of £212,000. [lower-roman 10] [35]

Benevolences, alongside other forms of extra-parliamentary taxation, grew increasingly unpopular in Elizabeth's reign. [15] Elizabeth used benevolences much less often than her predecessors, with the notable exception of those gifts expected of her subjects during Royal Progresses. [36] Her government was also quick to deny the accusation of gratuitous exactions; Lord Burghley asserted, in a heated debate, that Elizabeth would never "accept any thing that had been given to her unwillingly", including benevolences "she had no need of". [37] This did not save it from the satires of contemporary writers. Thomas Heywood, in his anonymously published play Edward IV (1599) depicted the benevolences of Edward's rule as tantamount to extortion, a demand which, historian Andrew Whittle comments, would be "all too familiar to Heywood's audience". [38] Sir John Hayward's history The Life and Raigne of King Henrie IIII (1599) was considered to have satirised the crown on similar grounds, leading to an interrogation by Attorney General Sir Edward Coke where he forced a confession out of the middle-aged lawyer, asserting he had "selected a story 200 years old, and published it last year, intending the application of it to this time." Among the seditious points criticised by Coke in the work was the anachronistic portrayal of benevolences in Henry IV's reign. [39] [40]

Stuart revival: 1614–33

James I (r. 1603-25) revived the practice of benevolences in 1614. King James I of England and VI of Scotland by John De Critz the Elder.jpg
James I (r. 1603–25) revived the practice of benevolences in 1614.

After the relaxation of benevolences in Elizabeth's reign, benevolences were not raised again until near the end of James I's reign. Faced with an unyielding Parliament, James I resurrected the practice in 1614. [41] He had already received large donations from the clergy, notably Archbishop Abbot, indicating his wealthy subjects were ready to support him. [42] [43] Letters were sent out detailing the compassion of those who had voluntarily contributed to the king in absence of parliamentary taxes, and inviting gentlemen to do the same. [43] These were followed, only two months later, by letters urgently describing the defeat of many of England's allies on the Continent, and thus the necessity for contribution to the king's military fund. [43] The benevolence met with protest but ultimately raised around £65,000, [lower-roman 11] owing to the support of these well-off subjects. [41]

In 1620, James declared his intention to militarily support the recently overthrown Frederick V of the Palatinate. However, it was clear the barren royal coffers could not spare the price of such a military action, so James introduced another benevolence in February of that year. [44] The cause of Frederick had become an extremely popular one in England, identified with the preservation of Protestantism on the Continent, and many notable figures made large contributions: then-heir-apparent Charles set out to pay £10,000; [lower-roman 12] each great lord was asked for £1,000; [lower-roman 13] and Secretary Robert Naunton promised to give £200 [lower-roman 14] a year to the war's end. [45] The sum contributed was apparently unsatisfactory for the king, as he asked for another contribution in October and November, but an expected recession of corn prices meant many of the kingdom's wealthiest were unwilling to contribute as much as they had previously. [46] In total, despite this apparent public support, James received only £30,000, [lower-roman 15] less than half of what he had earned previously, and so was forced to call the Parliament of 1621 to raise taxes. [47] [48] However, once this Parliament had dissolved, James imposed another benevolence in early 1622. This met with opposition—one contemporary pamphlet reported the populace not only opposed it on the basis of their own poverty but the former abolition of benevolences by parliament, which they still upheld—but managed to bring in over £116,000 [lower-roman 16] in total, almost as substantial as the funds Parliament had raised the previous year. [49]

After this, no further benevolences were collected, though they were proposed two more times near the end of James' reign, in 1622 and 1625. [17] In 1633, Charles I allowed diplomat Francis Nethersole to collect a benevolence on behalf of the recently widowed wife of Frederick V, Elizabeth Stuart, but an ensuing dispute between Nethersole and one of the king's in-laws caused the plans to be abandoned. [50]

Footnotes

Inflation notes

  1. ↑ £21,000 in 1473 equates to approximately £32,000,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  2. ↑ £30,000 in 1482 equates to approximately £26,700,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  3. ↑ £48,000 in 1491 equates to approximately £44,400,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  4. ↑ £333,000 in 1525 equates to approximately £313,500,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  5. ↑ £260,000 in 1525 equates to approximately £244,800,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  6. ↑ £120,000 in 1545 equates to approximately £73,100,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  7. ↑ £21,000 in 1580 equates to approximately £8,600,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  8. ↑ £30,000 in 1594 equates to approximately £8,900,000 in 2024 according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  9. ↑ £20,000 in 1598 equates to approximately £4,900,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  10. ↑ £212,000 in 1599 equates to approximately £61,500,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  11. ↑ £65,000 in 1614 equates to approximately £15,300,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  12. ↑ £10,000 in 1620 equates to approximately £2,600,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  13. ↑ £1,000 in 1620 equates to approximately £300,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  14. ↑ £200 in 1620 equates to approximately £53,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  15. ↑ £30,000 in 1620 equates to approximately £7,900,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]
  16. ↑ £116,000 in 1622 equates to approximately £26,100,000 in 2024, according to calculations based on retail price index measure of inflation. [12]

Explanatory notes

  1. ↑ In the original Latin: "nova et inaudita impositio muneris ut per benevolentiam quilibet daret id quod vellet, immo verius quod nollet." [17]
  2. ↑ The benevolence was of questionable legality under Richard's statute, but there appears to be no evidence backing the assertion of some historians that the Tudors considered all statutes from Richard III's reign invalid. [20]
  3. ↑ This argument was attributed to Morton solely by Francis Bacon, in his History of the Reign of King Henry VII . The same argument was attributed to royal supporter and clergyman Richard Foxe by Erasmus, citing Sir Thomas More. [20]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henry VII of England</span> King of England from 1485 to 1509

Henry VII was King of England and Lord of Ireland from his seizure of the crown on 22 August 1485 until his death in 1509. He was the first monarch of the House of Tudor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard II of England</span> King of England from 1377 to 1399

Richard II, also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. He was the son of Edward, Prince of Wales, and Joan, Countess of Kent. Richard's father died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to his grandfather, King Edward III; upon the latter's death, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">House of Lancaster</span> Cadet branch of the House of Plantagenet

The House of Lancaster was a cadet branch of the royal House of Plantagenet. The first house was created when King Henry III of England created the Earldom of Lancaster—from which the house was named—for his second son Edmund Crouchback in 1267. Edmund had already been created Earl of Leicester in 1265 and was granted the lands and privileges of Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, after de Montfort's death and attainder at the end of the Second Barons' War. When Edmund's son Thomas, 2nd Earl of Lancaster, inherited his father-in-law's estates and title of Earl of Lincoln he became at a stroke the most powerful nobleman in England, with lands throughout the kingdom and the ability to raise vast private armies to wield power at national and local levels. This brought him—and Henry, his younger brother—into conflict with their cousin King Edward II, leading to Thomas's execution. Henry inherited Thomas's titles and he and his son, who was also called Henry, gave loyal service to Edward's son King Edward III.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Burning of Parliament</span> 1834 destruction of the Houses of Parliament, London

The Palace of Westminster, the medieval royal palace used as the home of the British parliament, was largely destroyed by fire on 16 October 1834. The blaze was caused by the burning of small wooden tally sticks which had been used as part of the accounting procedures of the Exchequer until 1826. The sticks were disposed of carelessly in the two furnaces under the House of Lords, which caused a chimney fire in the two flues that ran under the floor of the Lords' chamber and up through the walls.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parliament of England</span> Legislature of England, c. 1215 to 1707

The Parliament of England was the legislature of the Kingdom of England from the 13th century until 1707 when it was replaced by the Parliament of Great Britain. Parliament evolved from the great council of bishops and peers that advised the English monarch. Great councils were first called Parliaments during the reign of Henry III. By this time, the king required Parliament's consent to levy taxation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenway Estate</span> In Devon, former house of Agatha Christie

Greenway, also known as Greenway House, is an estate on the River Dart near Galmpton in Devon, England. Once the home of the author Agatha Christie, it is now owned by the National Trust.

In the United Kingdom, the Retail Prices Index or Retail Price Index (RPI) is a measure of inflation published monthly by the Office for National Statistics. It measures the change in the cost of a representative sample of retail goods and services.

In statistics, economics, and finance, an index is a statistical measure of change in a representative group of individual data points. These data may be derived from any number of sources, including company performance, prices, productivity, and employment. Economic indices track economic health from different perspectives. Examples include the consumer price index, which measures changes in retail prices paid by consumers, and the cost-of-living index (COLI), which measures the relative cost of living over time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Great Stink</span> 1858 pollution event in central London

The Great Stink was an event in Central London during July and August 1858 in which the hot weather exacerbated the smell of untreated human waste and industrial effluent that was present on the banks of the River Thames. The problem had been mounting for some years, with an ageing and inadequate sewer system that emptied directly into the Thames. The miasma from the effluent was thought to transmit contagious diseases, and three outbreaks of cholera before the Great Stink were blamed on the ongoing problems with the river.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">People's Budget</span> 1910 British legislation to fund social welfare programmes by taxing the rich

The 1909/1910 People's Budget was a proposal of the Liberal government that introduced unprecedented taxes on the lands and incomes of Britain's wealthy to fund new social welfare programmes. It passed the House of Commons in 1909 but was blocked by the House of Lords for a year and became law in April 1910.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edward Oxford</span> Would-be assassin of Queen Victoria (1822–1900)

Edward Oxford was an English man who attempted to assassinate Queen Victoria in 1840. He was the first of seven unconnected people who tried to kill her between 1840 and 1882. Born and raised in Birmingham, he showed erratic behaviour which was sometimes threatening or violent. He had a series of jobs in pubs, all of which he lost because of his conduct. In 1840, shortly after being dismissed from yet another pub, he purchased two pistols and fired twice at Queen Victoria and her husband, Prince Albert. No-one was hurt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Consumer Price Index</span> Statistics of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The United States Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a family of various consumer price indices published monthly by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The most commonly used indices are the CPI-U and the CPI-W, though many alternative versions exist for different uses. For example, the CPI-U is the most popularly cited measure of consumer inflation in the United States, while the CPI-W is used to index Social Security benefit payments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Poor relief</span> British government and ecclesiastical action to relieve poverty

In English and British history, poor relief refers to government and ecclesiastical action to relieve poverty. Over the centuries, various authorities have needed to decide whose poverty deserves relief and also who should bear the cost of helping the poor. Alongside ever-changing attitudes towards poverty, many methods have been attempted to answer these questions. Since the early 16th century legislation on poverty enacted by the Parliament of England, poor relief has developed from being little more than a systematic means of punishment into a complex system of government-funded support and protection, especially following the creation in the 1940s of the welfare state.

Carucage was a medieval English land tax enacted by King Richard I in 1194, based on the size—variously calculated—of the taxpayer's estate. It was a replacement for the danegeld, last imposed in 1162, which had become difficult to collect because of an increasing number of exemptions. Carucage was levied just six times: by Richard in 1194 and 1198; by John, his brother and successor, in 1200; and by John's son, Henry III, in 1217, 1220, and 1224, after which it was replaced by taxes on income and personal property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Baker Street robbery</span> 1971 burglary of a bank in London, England

The Baker Street robbery was the burglary of safety deposit boxes at the Baker Street branch of Lloyds Bank in London, on the night of 11 September 1971. A gang tunnelled 40 feet (12 m) from a rented shop two doors away to come up through the floor of the vault. The value of the property stolen is unknown, but is likely to have been between £1.25 million and £3 million; only £231,000 was recovered by the police.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lord Henry Seymour (politician)</span> British politician

Lord Henry Seymour was a British politician, the second son of Francis Seymour-Conway, 1st Marquess of Hertford. He was known as Hon. Henry Seymour-Conway until 1793, when his father was created a marquess; he then became Lord Henry Seymour-Conway, but dropped the surname of Conway after his father's death in 1794.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John F. Kennedy document hoax</span> 1993 American political hoax

In 1993, Lawrence X. Cusack III forged 350 documents from, or relating to, John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States. Some of the forged documents supposedly showed that Kennedy had dealings with organized crime, tax evasion, bribery of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, payment of hush money to actress Marilyn Monroe for being Kennedy's lover, and a secret first marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adele Meyer</span> English socialite, social reformer and philanthropist

Adele Meyer, Lady Meyer was an English socialite, social reformer and philanthropist. She was a suffragist and active supporter of the Women's Tax Resistance League (WTRL), the members of which protested against the disenfranchisement of women by refusing to pay taxes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Margaret Macpherson Grant</span> Nineteenth-century Scottish philanthropist

Margaret Macpherson Grant was a Scottish heiress and philanthropist. Born in Aberlour parish to a local surgeon, she was educated in Hampshire, and was left an only child when her elder brother died in India in 1852. Two years later, she inherited a large fortune from her uncle, Alexander Grant, an Aberlour-born planter and merchant who had become rich in Jamaica.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Morgan, 6th Baron Tredegar</span> Welsh peer and landowner

Frederic Charles John Morgan, 6th Baron Tredegar, was a Welsh peer and landowner. On 21 August 1954, he succeeded to the titles of 6th Baron Tredegar and 8th baronet following the death of his father, Frederic George Morgan, 5th Baron Tredegar. His own death in 1962 saw the extinction of the Tredegar barony and the Morgan baronetcy and his previous liquidation of the entirety of his family's Welsh estates brought to an end a social and political dynasty that had dominated South East Wales for 500 years.

References

  1. 1 2 Chrimes 1972, p. 202.
  2. ↑ Braddick 1996, pp. 84–85.
  3. ↑ Braddick 1996, p. 85.
  4. 1 2 Harriss 1963, p. 17.
  5. ↑ Harriss 1963, p. 8.
  6. ↑ Harriss 1963, p. 7.
  7. ↑ "benevolence (n.)". Online Etymology Dictionary . Retrieved 17 March 2020.
  8. 1 2 3 "Benevolence". Encyclopaedia Britannica . Retrieved 17 March 2020.
  9. 1 2 Harriss 1963, p. 12.
  10. 1 2 3 Virgoe 1989, p. 26.
  11. 1 2 Harriss 1963, p. 9.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory (2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)". MeasuringWorth . Retrieved 7 May 2024.
  13. ↑ Virgoe 1989, pp. 26–27.
  14. 1 2 Virgoe 1989, p. 38.
  15. 1 2 Whittle 2017, p. 235.
  16. ↑ Virgoe 1989, p. 25.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Benevolence"  . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  18. 1 2 3 Gunn 1995, p. 137.
  19. ↑ Whittle 2017, p. 121.
  20. 1 2 Chrimes 1972, p. 203.
  21. 1 2 Holmes 1986, p. 856.
  22. ↑ "Morton's Fork". Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable . Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 17 March 2020.
  23. ↑ Tanner 1922, p. 621.
  24. ↑ Dietz 1964a, p. 56.
  25. ↑ Schofield 2004, pp. 202–3.
  26. 1 2 3 4 5 Gunn 1995, p. 138.
  27. 1 2 3 4 Schofield 2004, p. 202.
  28. 1 2 3 4 Bush 1991, p. 393.
  29. 1 2 Bush 2009, p. 137.
  30. ↑ Gunn 1995, p. 132.
  31. ↑ Dietz 1964b, pp. 45–46.
  32. 1 2 Dietz 1964b, p. 78.
  33. ↑ Dietz 1964b, p. 47.
  34. ↑ Dietz 1964b, p. 73.
  35. ↑ Dietz 1964b, pp. 86–87.
  36. ↑ Tanner 1922, p. 620.
  37. ↑ Whittle 2017, p. 236.
  38. ↑ Whittle 2017, pp. 235–236.
  39. ↑ Whittle 2017, pp. 234–235.
  40. ↑ Boyer 2003, pp. 279–280.
  41. 1 2 Croft 2003, p. 94.
  42. ↑ Cramsie 2002, p. 139.
  43. 1 2 3 Dietz 1964b, p. 158.
  44. ↑ Croft 2003, p. 109.
  45. ↑ Dietz 1964b, p. 186.
  46. ↑ Dietz 1964b, pp. 186–187.
  47. ↑ Dietz 1964b, p. 187.
  48. ↑ Croft 2003, pp. 109–110.
  49. ↑ Dietz 1964b, p. 194.
  50. ↑ White 2016, p. 84.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.