later imposed on French wine in particular. Although restrictions on imports and exports as well as hostile measures against foreign merchants were matters of economic rather than financial policy, they had the indirect effect of increasing the control exercised at the ports. However, the loss of Calais (1558) dislocated the system of the staple by cutting off a vital centre of customs revenue. It may also have contributed to the changed method of valuing duty. Thus, in 1558, fixed valuations were, for the first time, substituted and set down in a book of rates. More stringent reforms and regulations followed, in particular against smuggling and fraud by corrupt officials. Despite such reforms, however, the cost of collection remained unduly high throughout the Tudor period. As in the 14th century, the subsidy had followed both old and new customs. Similarly in the 16th century, impositions levied by royal prerogative also supplemented the parliamentary subsidy, although their principal employment occurred during the following century. A further, significant indication of the future of indirect taxation was furnished by grants of monopolies to inventors, producers and traders. When these affected important commodities, they operated in the same way as taxes farmed out to collectors and, although crown profits therefrom were small, they effectively enhanced prices and excited discontent, promise of redress finally taking place after the hostile debate of 1601. It may fairly be said that one of the greatest struggles between the Stuart kings and Parliament centred round financial policy. It is beyond dispute that taxation was one sphere of conflict and, from the accession of James I (1603) to the start of the Civil War (1642), the legal basis of indirect taxation was tested for port duties in the Case of Impositions (the John Bates case), whilst that of direct taxation was considered in the even more famous Ship Money case, forever associated with John Hampden. Similarly, Parliament also debated impositions, monopolies, votes of subsidies and the proper application of funds therefrom as well as other related matters. Despite this, however, the overall system showed signs of expanding and adapting to the growing needs of the state. The direct grants of the parliaments of James I far exceeded those of earlier reigns—for example, in 1606 fifteenths and tenths, three lay and four clerical subsidies—although efforts to extend other sources of revenue by exercising the royal prerogative naturally reacted on this spirit of