To what extent were Henry’s economic policies a success?
Henry VIII’s economic policy was characterised by a series of chaotic decisions, as a result of ill
planned conflicts and generally volatile leadership. Although trade expanded rapidly under
Henry’s rule, other, potentially lucrative, areas, such as exploration were neglected. Moreover,
the debasement of coinage and resulting urban poverty demonstrated active economic failures
under Henry. Therefore, I assert that Henry’s economic policy was partially unsuccessful.
Firstly, the expansion and development of domestic and international trade was an example of
economic success under Henry’s rule and conveyed significant social and economic change
under Henry. Internationally, despite a decline in exports of raw cloth, England was able to
continue to play a crucial role in the European wool industry as a member of the Antwerp Cloth
Trade through the export of woollen cloth. Over Henry’s reign, exports of woollen cloth nearly
doubled. Furthermore, there were significant increases in the exports of tin and hide and iron
ore production in the Weald of Sussex and Kent was greatly augmented - largely due to the 26
blast furnaces by the middle of the 16th century. Greater spending as a result of economic
success was shown in the increased imports of wine for the prosperous classes - suggesting a
greater available income. Domestically, Newcastle played an increasingly important role in
supplying London with coal from the north-east by sea. The expansion in trade led to greater
social mobility, particularly for wealthy and entrepreneurial clothiers. William Stumpe of
Malmesbury, Wiltshire, became MP for Malmesbury, high sheriff of the county and a wealthy
landowner and beneficiary of the dissolution of the monasteries. The expansion in trade under
Henry allowed for greater social mobility, enhanced England’s international position and
improved the quality of life in England. While international trade often benefited those outside
England, despite 70% of cloth exports having been transported by English merchants by the
1550s, the expansion in domestic trade benefited England more directly and indicated that it
was not only London which was to take advantage of the expansion. Thus this economic policy
showed England to be able to adapt and improve, leading to an improved international position
and better lives for its citizens.
Nevertheless, the issue of the debasement of the coinage suggested a desperation and lack of
foresight to Henry’s economic policies. Although coin debasement was a common enough
practice, Henry’s government failed to carefully control the period following it, especially after
the Great Debasement of 1544. Between 1541-46, the King had doubled Navy size and
commissioned many new warships. As well as this, the military campaign and siege and
fortification of Boulogne had cost more than £1,000,000. Motivated by depleting crown funds
due to the third french war, an act was passed so that between 1542-51 silver coins struck were
to be 25% silver with 1-2g of silver to a penny. Likely to have been masterminded by Thomas
Wriothesley, the act avoided going through parliament to gain funds. The fifth issue of silver
coins was copper with only a hint of silver - changing the ratio of gold and silver coins to 1:10,
while the continent still followed 1:12. Because of the decrease in the value of English currency
relative to the continent, the value of money in France and Flanders became so enhanced that
coins were carried out of the realm daily, despite orders from the King to officers of ports to
enforce statutes against this. Henry had devalued the English currency internationally to the
point that many english-coins were becoming short-changed and were in many cases not
Henry VIII’s economic policy was characterised by a series of chaotic decisions, as a result of ill
planned conflicts and generally volatile leadership. Although trade expanded rapidly under
Henry’s rule, other, potentially lucrative, areas, such as exploration were neglected. Moreover,
the debasement of coinage and resulting urban poverty demonstrated active economic failures
under Henry. Therefore, I assert that Henry’s economic policy was partially unsuccessful.
Firstly, the expansion and development of domestic and international trade was an example of
economic success under Henry’s rule and conveyed significant social and economic change
under Henry. Internationally, despite a decline in exports of raw cloth, England was able to
continue to play a crucial role in the European wool industry as a member of the Antwerp Cloth
Trade through the export of woollen cloth. Over Henry’s reign, exports of woollen cloth nearly
doubled. Furthermore, there were significant increases in the exports of tin and hide and iron
ore production in the Weald of Sussex and Kent was greatly augmented - largely due to the 26
blast furnaces by the middle of the 16th century. Greater spending as a result of economic
success was shown in the increased imports of wine for the prosperous classes - suggesting a
greater available income. Domestically, Newcastle played an increasingly important role in
supplying London with coal from the north-east by sea. The expansion in trade led to greater
social mobility, particularly for wealthy and entrepreneurial clothiers. William Stumpe of
Malmesbury, Wiltshire, became MP for Malmesbury, high sheriff of the county and a wealthy
landowner and beneficiary of the dissolution of the monasteries. The expansion in trade under
Henry allowed for greater social mobility, enhanced England’s international position and
improved the quality of life in England. While international trade often benefited those outside
England, despite 70% of cloth exports having been transported by English merchants by the
1550s, the expansion in domestic trade benefited England more directly and indicated that it
was not only London which was to take advantage of the expansion. Thus this economic policy
showed England to be able to adapt and improve, leading to an improved international position
and better lives for its citizens.
Nevertheless, the issue of the debasement of the coinage suggested a desperation and lack of
foresight to Henry’s economic policies. Although coin debasement was a common enough
practice, Henry’s government failed to carefully control the period following it, especially after
the Great Debasement of 1544. Between 1541-46, the King had doubled Navy size and
commissioned many new warships. As well as this, the military campaign and siege and
fortification of Boulogne had cost more than £1,000,000. Motivated by depleting crown funds
due to the third french war, an act was passed so that between 1542-51 silver coins struck were
to be 25% silver with 1-2g of silver to a penny. Likely to have been masterminded by Thomas
Wriothesley, the act avoided going through parliament to gain funds. The fifth issue of silver
coins was copper with only a hint of silver - changing the ratio of gold and silver coins to 1:10,
while the continent still followed 1:12. Because of the decrease in the value of English currency
relative to the continent, the value of money in France and Flanders became so enhanced that
coins were carried out of the realm daily, despite orders from the King to officers of ports to
enforce statutes against this. Henry had devalued the English currency internationally to the
point that many english-coins were becoming short-changed and were in many cases not
