Committee for the Advance of Money

Committee for the Advance of Money
Name	Committee for the Advance of Money
Formation	1642
Type	Parliamentary committee
Headquarters	London
Region served	Kingdom of England
Parent organization	Long Parliament

Committee for the Advance of Money

The Committee for the Advance of Money was an ad hoc parliamentary body formed during the English Civil War to extract financial resources from alleged Royalist supporters, fiscal agents, and property holders linked to Charles I; it operated alongside organs such as the Committee for Compounding with Delinquents and the Committee of Both Kingdoms in the wider context of Civil War finance and parliamentary governance during the 1640s and 1650s. Its remit intersected with legal instruments like the Ordinance (Parliament), intersected with figures such as Oliver Cromwell, John Pym, and Edward Hyde, and affected estates across regions including Yorkshire, Cornwall, and East Anglia. The committee's activities were contested by litigants invoking precedents in Common law and drew responses from judges of the Court of King's Bench and Court of Common Pleas.

Origins and Legal Basis

Established by resolution of the Long Parliament in 1642 amid the outbreak of hostilities with Charles I, the committee derived its authority from parliamentary ordinances and wartime exigencies invoked by leaders including John Pym and Arthur Haselrig. The legal framework referenced statutes such as the Statute of Treasons and parliamentary proclamations debated in the House of Commons of England and monitored by Parliamentarian generals like Thomas Fairfax and administrators like William Lenthall. Judicial tensions with the Star Chamber legacy and challenges brought before the Court of Exchequer and the Court of Chancery raised questions about property seizure, due process, and alleged abuses attributed to officers like Sir William Waller and Sir Thomas Fairfax.

Organization and Membership

Membership included members of the Long Parliament and allied gentry: notable figures included Oliver St John, Denzil Holles, Henry Vane the Younger, and financiers allied to Robert Harley and George Downing. Military-political coordination saw liaison with commanders such as Edward Montagu, 2nd Baron Montagu and envoys like Sir Arthur Haselrig, while clerical oversight involved individuals connected to William Laud's opponents and pamphleteers like John Milton and Marchamont Nedham. Committee secretaries and auditors drew on networks tied to the East India Company, the Merchant Adventurers, and lawyers from the Inner Temple and Middle Temple.

Functions and Activities

The committee assessed fines, levied sequestrations, and managed compounding agreements for alleged Royalist "delinquents", operating mechanisms comparable to those later used by the Committee for Compounding with Delinquents and instruments similar to ordinances debated alongside the Vindicative pamphlet productions of the period. Its activities included inventorying estates in counties such as Lancashire and Somerset, issuing sequestration writs enforced by commissioners including Humphrey Mackworth and Philip Skippon, and negotiating with claimants represented by lawyers who had appeared before the House of Lords and the Privy Council (pre-1707). The committee coordinated with the Admiralty for naval requisitions and with provisioning agents active in ports like Plymouth and Hull.

Financing and Methods of Advance

To raise funds for Parliamentarian forces under commanders such as Sir Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, the committee advanced loans, assessed forced contributions, and sold seized goods through markets in London and provincial fairs in Nottingham and Worcester. Financial methods engaged financiers associated with the Bank of Amsterdam networks, merchant houses trading with Genoa and Hamburg, and financiers such as George Downing; accounting disputes sometimes reached auditors trained at the Royal Exchange. The committee's fiscal instruments resembled early instances of public credit and involved promissory obligations, sequestration inventories, and compensation schedules debated by economists and political writers like Thomas Hobbes and legal commentators such as Edward Coke.

Controversies and Political Impact

The committee provoked legal challenges from landed magnates including Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon and military officers sympathetic to Charles I, resulting in petitions to the Court of Common Pleas and polemics circulated by pamphleteers such as William Prynne and Richard Baxter. Critics accused the committee of arbitrary seizures reminiscent of Ship Money disputes associated with John Hampden and of undermining property rights defended by jurists citing precedents in the Magna Carta and the writings of Selden. Politically, its work polarized factions within the Long Parliament and contributed to tensions leading to events involving the Rump Parliament, the Pride's Purge, and later reckonings during the Restoration of Charles II.

Decline and Legacy

The committee's powers waned as military victories consolidated under leaders like Oliver Cromwell and as institutional finance shifted toward bodies such as the Committee for Compounding with Delinquents and, post-1660, the restored apparatus under Charles II and the Treasury (of the Exchequer). Its records informed later legal reforms debated in the Convention Parliament and influenced administrative practices adopted by municipal authorities in London and county quarter sessions. Historians referencing archives from the Public Record Office and antiquaries such as John Evelyn and Samuel Pepys assess the committee as a seminal case in wartime fiscal governance, with implications traced through subsequent institutions including the Bank of England and the evolution of parliamentary control over taxation.

Category:1642 establishments in England Category:English Civil War