How far do you agree that Edward IV’s management of finances was the most successful aspect of
his reign from 1471?
The important thing to acknowledge here is that you need to focus on his 2nd reign. If you look at his
first reign you will get no credit! The other important thing to remember is that you look at other
factors (if it only wanted you to look at finances, it would ask “how successful was Edward IV’s
management of finances)
Other things you may wish to look at include noble policy, restoration of good government/law and
order, foreign policy, and possibly the idea of dynastic security. Remember, you don’t need to look
at all of these!
Think carefully about what view you intend to push, as you probably want to make some reference
to this in your introduction.
Financial management
When Edward died in 1483 he left £1,200 in the treasury. Although he deserves some credit for
dying solvent, this would not on the surface suggest that he managed finances particularly well. On
the other hand, considering that the years of 1481-2 were blighted by an expensive war against the
Scots, it could be said that the fact he remained solvent was due to his sound financial management
(there is no right or wrong answer!)
In many respects, Edward fell into the same financial traps as he did in his first reign, continuing to
give excessive amounts of land away which reduced the income he had available to him. Land that
had previously belonged to Oxford was given away, and the Talbot estates (he was a minor)
gradually went more towards Hastings who was able to rent it grossly under value!
On the other hand, it is possible to credit Edward for increasing his income from royal estates by
bringing in innovations when it came to land management e.g. appointing surveyors, auditors and
receivers to replace the land management roles that had previously been carried out by the
exchequer. In addition he also made new attempts to increase revenue by new forms of rental and
searching out neglected income e.g. wardships reliefs and marriages, however these were largely
restricted to his last 5 years. It is also unclear just how effective these new methods were- the
receipts of Stanley (receiver general in Duchy of Lancaster) increased, but others did not- Gloucester
as chief steward of the north largely ignored this, ensuring that Edward’s income from wardships,
reliefs and marriages remained negligible in the north.
The area in which he arguably deserves the most credit was through increasing the revenue of the
crown through customs duties (by maximising trade). He clamped down on pirates who preyed on
merchants and introduced port inspectors to make sure the correct customs duties were paid by
merchants. In addition to this, increased foreign trade helped increase customs revenue; the Treaty
of Picquincy of 1475 and the treaty with Burgundy 1478 ended most trade restrictions and allowed
trade in cloth and wine to expand. In addition, Edward leased navy ships to London merchants to
increase their trading capacity.
Clearly you can not mention all of these factors, although it is important to come to some sort of
judgement as to the success of his financial management, as you can then compare this to his
success (or lack of it!) in other areas. I would suggest stressing that his financial management was in
no way perfect (as demonstrated by his over generosity in terms of giving away crown land),
however he remained extremely innovative, and his attempts to boost income from customs duties
(by stimulating trade) was innovative, successful and forward thinking.
Restoration of good government/law and order
Like his financial management, Edward must be praised for some of his innovations, most notably
the decision to introduce the Council of Wales in 1472. This was an attempt to increase his control
over Wales and the Marches by appointing a Council who would ensure that Edward’s laws and
statutes were both implemented and obeyed; as a result and area that had enjoyed a large degree
of independence and autonomy and had not previously been bound by English laws became placed
under far greater control. This was continued by both Richard III and Henry VII, testimony to its
significance. In spite of such innovations, Edward was not however completely successful in
restoring good government/law and order, as even in the 1470s we see sustained defiance of
Edward’s authority as shown by the murder of the Deputy Constable of Cornwall. Similarly in
Lancashire there was private war between the Harrington and Stanley families. Whilst this lacked the
intensity of the previous Neville Percy feud under Henry VI, it did not reflect positively on Edward as
a supposedly strong monarch.
On the other hand, if you wanted to suggest that Edward was extremely successful in this field, you
could look at his reaction to the events of 1475, when following the demobilisation of troops after
the French campaign, large scale disturbances broke out in various parts of the country caused by
returning soldiers. In order to ensure that those guilty were brought to justice and restore law and
order Edward took his judges to the disturbed areas and even had some of the soldiers executed for
homicide (murder) and theft.
Management of the nobility
I would suggest pushing the view that this was the least successful aspect of Edward’s second reign
(and compares particularly unfavourably with his financial management. Although on the surface
Edward managed the nobility fairly well (there was no noble who openly rebelled against him as
Warwick had done in his first reign), and showed he could be ruthless by executing his own brother
Clarence, Edward in fact left a divided nobility on his death bed, of whom only a small minority was
loyal to his son.
By relying on an inner circle of magnates (Herbert and the Woodvilles became incredibly powerful in
Wales, Hastings became powerful in the North Midlands, Stanley in Cheshire and Richard
(Gloucester) in the north), Edward was excluding figures such as Ralph Percy and Buckingham, who
had no reason to be loyal to his children. Although Edward generally controlled the factional rivalry
within his court well, the rivalry was deep, ensuring that it was not resolved by the time of his death.
In spite of his attempts to reconcile Hastings (one of his most trusted nobles) with Dorset (the senior
Woodville) Edward left a destabilising legacy of distrust and hatred amongst the magnates on his
death, meaning few were willing to protect his heirs.
Foreign Policy/ the search for dynastic security
If you are to look at this, I would suggest pushing the fact that this was not particularly successful.
Although the Treaty of Picquincy of 1475 and the treaty negotiated with Burgundy in 1478 were
both beneficial for the English economy, Edward’s involvement in Scotland in 1481-2 was disastrous
for England’s economy leading to anti tax riots in the south. More significant was the international
implications of the failed invasion; with Edward sidetracked by events in Scotland, Burgundy and
France took advantage in order to come to terms at Arras in 1482. As a result of the Treaty of Arras,
Edward lost the French pension, and Louis went back on his agreement to marry his son to Edward’s
daughter. The collapse of this betrothal was critical, as it meant that by the end of his reign, none of
Edward’s children were either married or betrothed, ensuring that there were precious few
powerful families either in England or abroad willing to protect his dynasty.
Key points

The most important thing to do is to show regular judgement. When looking at a particular
policy area make sure that you focus on judging how successful it was. Don’t simply explain
his policies; come up with some sort of judgement, and then bring in appropriate evidence
to back this up!

Try to get regular comparisons going as to the extent of his success in different areas.
Although you will do this in your conclusion, it is good to do this in the main body of your
essay as well.

Come up with a specific verdict as to the success of his financial management, and compare
this to his success in other areas.

When making your verdict, try to show clear and careful reasoning as to why one particular
aspect of his reign was most successful? (e.g. does innovation constitute success, what other
factors constitute success?)