Parliamentary taxes on personal property, 1290 to 1334: a study in mediæval English financial administration 8p58pd37v

Citation preview

MONOGRAPHS OF

THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA

No. 9

ACADEMY PUBLICATIONS | No. 1. A Concordance of Boethius, by LANE COOPER | No. 2 A Concordance to the Historia Ecclesiastica of Bede, by , P. F. Jonss No. 3. A Survey of the Manuscripts of Tours, by E. K. Rann, two volumes, text and plates

No. 4. Lupus of Ferriéres as Scribe and Text Critic, by C. H. BEESON, with facsimile of MS. Harley 2736 } No. 5. Genoese Shipping in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Cen-

turies, by E. H. Byrne (Monograph No. 1) No. 6. Greek and Syrian Miniatures in Jerusalem, by W. H. P.

Harcu, text and plates |

No. %. Harunw’l-Rashid and Charles the Great, by F. W. BuckLER (Monograph No. 2)

No. 8. Alien Merchants in England, 1350 to 1877, by ALicr

Brearpwoop (Monograph No. 3) |

No. 9. A Concordance of Prudentius, by R. J. Dererrari and J. M. CAMPBELL

No. 10. The Script of Cologne from Hildebald to Hermann, by L. W. Jones, text and plates No. 11. Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100-1291, by J. L. La Monte (Monograph No. 4) No. 12. Alexander’s Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations, by A. R. ANDERSON (Monograph No. 5)

No. 13. The Administration of Normandy under Saint Louis, by

J. R. StRaveR (Monograph No. 6) |

No. 14. The Cathedral of Palma de Mallorca, by Raten ApaMs : Cram, text and plates No. 15. Borough and Town: A Study of Urban Origins in England, by CarL STEPHENSON, with maps (Monograph No. 7) No. 16. Ordination Anointings in the Western Church before 1000 A.D., by GERALD ELLagD, with reproductions (Monograph No. 8) No. 17. Middle High German Translations of the Regula Sancta Benedicti, The Eight Oldest Versions, by Caru SE&LMER, with reproductions No. 18. Glossary of Mediaeval Terms of Business, Italian Series, 1200-1600, by Florence Edler

_ No. 19. Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property, 1290 to 1334, by J. F. Wituarp (Monograph No. 9)

No. 20. The Earliest Book of Tours, by E. K. Ranp with the assistance of L. W. Jonss, text and plates

PARLIAMENTARY TAXES ON PERSONAL PROPERTY

1290 TO 1334 A STUDY IN MEDIAEVAL ENGLISH FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION JAMES FIELD WILLARD Professor of History University of Colorado

WZ easy

THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 1934 KRAUS REPRINT CO. New York 1970

The publication of this book was made possible by a fund granted the Academy by the Carnegie Corporation of New York

Coprricut, 1934 BY

THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA Printed in U.S. A.

Reprinted with the permission of the original publisher

KRAUS REPRINT CO. A U.S. Division of Kraus-Thomson Organization Limited

PREFACE f ee present book is the ofIintermittent studies spread over many years: moreoutcome years than care to mention or remember. That it has reached completion is the result of a pleasant sabbatical year in England and of the insistence of my wife and numerous friends

that it be written. My one great regret is that my friend Thomas Frederick Tout did not live to see it in print, for he had urged me repeatedly in his illegible hand and by word of mouth that I finish it. It is sent into the world without apology, with the hope that it may help others towards an understanding of some of the administrative methods of the English government during the later Middle Ages. At the end I have to thank several friends and acquaintances who have

assisted me with advice and information. Charles Johnson, whose stores of accurate knowledge have always been at my command, has read the manuscript of this book and has offered many valuable suggestions. Charles G. Crump has helped me over many an administrative stile with his kindly advice. Hilary Jenkinson, while head of the Literary Search Room of the Public Record Office, helped me to solve many a

palaeographical problem. T. F. Tout, whose information about the ways of departments of expenditure was boundless, lent his aid to the student of the habits of tax collectors. Erwin F. Meyer, my colleague,

has read the manuscript and suggested various verbal changes. The references in my notes have been checked by Dorothy M. Broome, Helen M. Chew, and L. Margaret Midgley. Since the membrane numbers in a few rolls have been changed of late it is possible that, despite their diligence, a few errors may still remain. I wish to thank the officers of the Public Record Office, the Bodleian Library, the John Rylands Library, and the British Museum for their uniform courtesy and helpfulness. The president and board of regents of the University of Colorado, by granting sabbatical leaves on three occasions, enabled me to

study at leisure in England. I now offer them my sincere thanks. In the usual fashion of those who lead the academic life and write books, I close this list of acknowledgements with thanks to my wife, Margaret, who has helped me at all times, but who has heard so much of mediaeval taxation that she will view the departure of the manuscript of this book from my study as the dawn of a new era.

BouLDER, COLORADO JAMES EF. WILLARD 10 August 1933 V

CONTENTS Page

List OF ABBREVIATIONS... 0.0.0.0... ccc ccc eee eens x

INTRODUCTION. 0000 ee eee tenn teens 8 CHAPTER I

THE GRANT OF THE TAXES... 0.0.0.0... ccc cece ete ene 9 1. A Brief Survey of the Taxes upon Movables, 1290-1334. ... 9

2. The Assemblies That Granted the Taxes................ 18 3. Purposes for Which the Taxes Were Granted............ 18 4. Crown Possessions Not Subject to Parliamentary Taxation. 26 CHAPTER II APPOINTMENT OF TAXERS AND COLLECTORS................-.4. 99

1. The Commissions to the Taxers and Collectors.......... 33 2. Districts to Which Men Were Assigned and the Persons

Selected to Serve... 0.0... cc eee eee eee = BY

3. Taking of Oaths and Delivery of Commissions and In-

structionS 2.0.0... cece eee eee AG

4. Assistance and Supervision..................0000000--. O1 CHAPTER ITI

Tue MaAcHINERY AND REcorps oF ASSESSMENT................ 54

1. The Machinery of Assessment......................... 654 2. The Observance of Instructions........................ 59 3. Local Rolls of the Assessment.......................... 64 4. Supervision of the Work of the Local Assessors and the

County Rolls... 0.0.0... 0c eee eee = 68 CHAPTER IV

MovaBiLes ASSESSED AND EXEMPT................ 000000000008

1. The Movables Assessed............... 0.00... c cece eee WB

2. Movables Officially Exempt.......................002. U7 8. The Worth of Rural Assessment Rolls as Descriptions of Holdings of Property. .........0 20.0... 0 cee ee ee eee §=§ Bl 4. The Worth of Urban Assessment Rolls as Descriptions of

Holdings of Property. ....... 0.0.0... ccc cee eee eee ee 85 Vil

Vill Contents CHAPTER V

EXEMPTIONS IN THE ‘FORM’ OF THE TAXATION................. 87

1. The Taxable Minimum.....................000000-0.. 87 2. The Clause Relating to Lepers ....................... 92 3. The Position of the Clergy: Definitions and Principles..... 93

4. Church Property and Lay Taxes, 1290-1306............ 96 5. Church Property and Lay Taxes, 1307-1334.............. 102 CHAPTER VI

SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS AND COMPOSITIONS. ................-+.-. 110

1. Introduction... 0.0... ec ee eee eee eeeees 110

2. Men Serving in Gascony and Wales.................... Ill

3. The Men of the Five Ports............................ 114 4. The Moneyers of London and Canterbury.............. 117 5. The Stanmary Men............... 0.000000 eee ee eee eee 118

6. Individuals... 0... ce eee ee eee = 120

7%. Counties, Vills, and Towns............................ 122 8. Religious Houses and Hospitals........................ 195 9. Manors in the Hands of the King, Queen, and Prince of

Wales... 0.0 cece eee eee eee ee 197

10. Compositions. ........0.0..0 000. ccc eee eee ence ne 129 CHAPTER VII SripE Lights ON THE ASSESSMENT.........0.. 0.000 e cece cece ee 188

1. Conventional Valuation.....................0..02..-. 188 2. The Nature of the Tax-Charges....................... I4l 3. Some Mistakes Made by the Assessors................. 148

4. Rolls Returned to Be Emended........................ 156 5. The People Whose Goods Were Assessed................ 162 6. Popular Opposition to the Assessment and Dilatory Sub-

Taxers. 00 tee e eee ec eceeee 170

7. Population and the Tax Rolls......................... 174 CHAPTER VIII

Tue COLLECTION OF THE TAXES..................02.......... 188

1. The Machinery of Collection.......................... 183 2. The Machinery in Operation................... ....... 188 3. Difficulties of the Collectors............... 0. ........ 195 4, Allowance to the Chief Taxers for Expenses........... . 197 5. Additional Remuneration and Corrupt Practice.......... 205 6. Investigation of Corrupt Practice and Trial of Offenders . 219

Contents 1x CHAPTER IX

DRAFTS UPON THE TAXERS AND COLLECTORS................... 280

1. General Matters... 0.0.0.0... 0c ccc ce eee eee es 280 2. Assignments under the Seal of the Exchequer........... 233

3. Drafts under the Great Seal................0........... M41 4. Drafts under the Privy Seal.........................2.. 246 CHAPTER X Tuer CoLLECTORS AT THE RECEIPT OF THE EXCHEQUER.......... 250

1. The Receipt of the Exchequer......................... 250 2. Payments in Cash at the Receipt....................... 258 3. Presentation of Writs and Receipts by the Collectors..... 261

4. The Receipt and the Writ and Tally System............ 269 CHAPTER XI

THe CoLuEctors aT THE Upper Excaequer: THE VIEW oF

ACCOUNT. 00... ee tee eee e ence cee ee 26 1. The Stages of the Accounting......................... 276

Account... 0.0.0... BIT

2. The Appearance of the Collectors at the Exchequer of

3. The View of Account............ 0.0.0 cece eee ee 285 4. What the Collectors Proffered at the Exchequer......... 292

5. Tardy Taxers and Collectors........................... 294 6. Days Given and Respites............................. 303 CHAPTER XII

Tue Frnau ACCOUNTING... 0.00... eee eee eee es 808 1. The Steps in the Final Accounting..................... 3808 2. Appearance in Person or by Attorney.................. 3809 3. The Records of the Final Accounting .................. 318 4. The Final Accounting.............0.000 000000000000 00.. S3Ql

5. The Collection of Arrears...................0.......... 9885 6. The Income from the Taxes........................... 848

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS' MANUSCRIPTS

Exchequer L.T.R., Miscellaneous Rolls — Exchequer Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer, Miscellaneous Rolls. K.R.M.R. — King’s Remembrancer’s Memoranda Roll. L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies — Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Enrolled Accounts, Subsidies. L.T.R.M.R.— Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Memoranda Roll. PRINTED MATERIALS AND SECONDARY ACCOUNTS

1. Periodicals: A.H.R.— American Historical Review. E.ALR. — English Historical Review.

2. Government Publications: C.C_R. — Calendar of Close Rolls. C.Ch.R. — Calendar of Charter Rolls.

Cal. Chan. War. — Calendar of Chancery Warrants. C.F .&. — Calendar of Fine Rolls. C.P.R. — Calendar of Patent Rolls. C. Var. Chan. R. — Calendar of Various Chancery Rolls. Parl. Writs — Francis Palgrave, Parliamentary Writs and Writs of Military Summons. London, 1827-1834. Red Book of the Exchequer — Hubert Hall, ed., The Red Book of

the Exchequer. Rolls Series. London, 1896. Return Members Parliament — Return of the Name of Every Member of the Lower House of the Parliaments of England,

Scotland and Ireland . . . , 1213-1874. Parliamentary Papers, 1878, uxt1, Part 1. [London], 1878. Rot. Parl. — Rotult Parltamentorum: ut et petitiones, et placita an parliamento. 6 vols. [London, 1767-1777]. 3. Rolls of Taxation: Assoc. Archit. Soc., Reports and Papers — W. G. D. Fletcher,

ed., “Ihe Earliest Leicestershire Lay Subsidy Roll, 1327,’ Associated Architectural Societies, Reports and Papers, X1x, 209-312, 447-478; xx, 130-178. Lincoln, [1888-1889]. 1 Abbreviated titles have been adopted only for manuscripts and printed materials frequently referred to.

list of Abbreviations XI Cumberland Lay Subsidy — J. P. Steel, ed., Cumberland Lay Subsidy: Being the Account of a Fifteenth and Tenth Collectes

6th Edward III. Kendal, 1912. Dugdale Society, vi — William F. Carter, ed., The Lay Subsidy

Roll of 6 Edward III (1332). Publications of the Dugdale Society, v1. London, 1926.

Shropshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., Trans. — W. G. D. Fletcher, ed., “The Shropshire Lay Subsidy Roll of 1 Edward III, 1327,’ Shropshire Archaeological and Natural History Socrety, Transactions, 2nd Series, 1, 134-200; 1v, 287-338; v,

343-362; etc. 1889 ff. Reprinted, Oswestry, 1907, in one volume. Somerset Record Society, 11 — F. H. Dickinson, ed., ‘Exchequer

Lay Subsidies 169/5 [1327],’ Somerset Record Society, 11, 79-284, [London], 1889. Suffolk Green Books, rx — 8S. H. A. Hervey, ed., Suffolk an 1327: Being a Subsidy Return. Suffolk Green Books, No. rx. Woodbridge, 1906.

Suffolk Green Books, xvi1—S. H. A. Hervey, ed., Two Bedfordshire Subsidy Insts, 1309 and 1332. Suffolk Green Books,

No. xviu. Bury St Edmunds, 1925. Surrey Record Society, xvur1— Surrey Taxation Returns, F2f-

teenth and Tenths: Part A, The 1332 Assessment. Surrey Record Society, No. xvii. London, 1922. Sussex Record Society, x — William Hudson, ed., The Three Earliest Subsidies for the County of Sussex in the Years 1296, 1827, 18382. Sussex Record Society, x. London, 1910.

Wm Salt Archaeol. Soc., v11— G. Wrottesley, ed., “The Exchequer Subsidy Roll of a.p. 1327,’ The William Salt Archaeological Society, Collections for a History of Staffordshire, v1,

Part 1, 197-255. London, 1886. Wm Salt Archaeol. Soc., x. — G. Wrottesley, ed., “The Subsidy

Roll of 6 Edward III, a.p. 1332-33,’ The William Salt Archaeological Society, x, Part 1, 81-132. London, 1889. Wore. Hist. Soc., a.p. 1895 — F. J. Eld, ed., Lay Subsidy Roll

for the County of Worcester, 1 Edward I |misprint for IIT]. Worcestershire Historical Society, 1895. Oxford, 1895. Wore. Hrst. Soc., A.D. 1899 — John Amphlett, ed., Lay Subsidy Roll, A.D. 1332-8, and Nonarum Inquisitiones, 1340, for the County of Worcester. Worcestershire Historical Society, 1899. Oxford, 1899.

Xl Iast of Abbreviations Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Serves, xvi — William Brown, ed., Yorkshire Lay Subsidy: Being a Ninth Collected in 25 Edward

I (1297). The Yorkshire Archaeological Soctety, Record Serves, xvi. [London], 1894. Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Sertes, xx1 — William Brown, ed.,

Yorkshire Lay Subsidy: Being a Fifteenth, Collected 30 Edward I (1801). The Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, xxi. [Leeds], 1897. 4. Miscellaneous: Cal. Letter-Books, London — Reginald R. Sharpe, ed., Calendar of Letter-Books Preserved among the Archives of the Corporation of the City of London at the Guildhall. Letter-Books A ff. London, 1899 ff.

Stubbs, C.H.E. — William Stubbs, The Constitutional History of England. 3 vols. Oxford, 1896. Tout, Chapters — 'T. F. Tout, Chapters in the Administrative History of Mediaeval England: The Wardrobe, the Chancery and

the Small Seals. 6 vols. Manchester, 1920-1933. Vincent, L.L.S8.,1— John A. C. Vincent, Lancashire Lay Sub-

sidies. The Record Society for . . . Lancashire and Cheshire, xxvut. [London], 1893. Only the first volume appeared.

PARLIAMENTARY TAXES ON PERSONAL PROPERTY 1290 TO 1334 A STUDY IN MEDIAEVAL ENGLISH FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION

INTRODUCTION ANE” kind of taxation came into existence in England later Middle Ages, the taxation of personal property,during knownthe to contemporaries as the taxation of movable goods. Movable goods were cows, oxen, grain, household goods, and other possessions—property that could be transferred from place to place. The house which a man owned was not classed as a movable and, like his land, escaped taxation.! The tax demanded from each individual in the country was, unless his property was specifically excused, a sixth, a tenth, a twentieth, or some other proportion of the assessed value of his movables. The origin of the principle embodied in this plan of taxation may be found in certain tithes for a crusade of the reign of Henry II and in the occasional levies upon personal property under Richard I and John.? During the reign of Henry III we pass from the period of origins. The principle was utilized four times during the reign of that king, in 1225, 1232, 1237, and 1269, and twice during the early years of Edward I, in 1275 and 1283.8

The new taxes were regarded as extraordinary, and the revenue from

them was kept apart from the remainder of the king’s income. The commissions under the great seal issued to the collectors of these taxes were not enrolled by the exchequer and their actions were not guided by the officers of that department. What is more, special receivers took charge of the money gathered, and nothing but small sums, owing after they had been discharged, were paid into the lower exchequer. In other words, the exchequer of receipt, the lower exchequer, which received the income from sheriffs, escheators and others, interfered only to secure

the collection of arrears from the collectors of taxes upon movables. The exchequer of account, the upper exchequer, audited the accounts of

the receivers and, occasionally, of the tax collectors, but the time1H. Pirenne, Belgian Democracy (Manchester, 1915), 43, n. 1, states that it is ‘well known that the oldest sources for town law’ in the Low Countries regarded houses as movable goods. 2S. K. Mitchell, Studies in Taxation under John and Henry III (New Haven, 1914), reviews the early history of the plan of taxation; see also W. E. Lunt, The Valuation of Norwich (Oxford, 1926),

6-8 (The Saladin Tithe). 3 For a brief summary of the several taxes see Mitchell, Studies in Taxation, and J. A. C. Vincent, Lancashire Lay Subsidies (London, 18993), 1.

4 The status of the taxes and their relation to the exchequer are discussed in my paper, ‘An Exchequer Reform under Edward I,’ in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro (New York, 1928), 225-244. 3

4 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 honored financial board had no control over either until they appeared before it to account for their transactions. During the year 1290 the taxes upon movables were taken over by

the bureaucracy and were placed under the direct control of the exchequer. They were still regarded as extraordinary, as foreign, but in other respects they lost their distinguishing characteristics. Under William de Marchia, appointed treasurer of the exchequer 6 April 1290,!

there began an attempt to force the payment of all the income of the crown into the treasury at Westminster. While this attempt was not completely successful under the three Edwards, it was immediately so in the case of the taxes upon movables. ‘The officers of the exchequer were given charge of the oversight of the assessment and collection of the taxes, the tax-collectors accounted before them, and the revenue accruing was paid into the lower exchequer. For some years the novelty of the situation led to the keeping of separate records of the receipts from

the taxes, and for two years after the grant of the tax of 1290 the disbursements of the money so received were noted on special issue rolls; in other respects the exchequer quickly learned to treat the taxes and their assessors and collectors as they treated other sources of income and other tax-gatherers. This study of the taxes upon movables, therefore, opens with the grant of the tax of the year 1290.

The years from 1290 to 1334 form a distinct period in the history of the taxes upon personal property. On the one hand, the administrative machinery by means of which the exchequer exercised its control over the assessment and collection of the taxes and the accounting of the

collectors was developed to a rather high state of efficiency. This development carried with it a literally enormous increase in the volume of records dealing with the activities of the collectors and the exchequer.

On the other hand, the taxes preserved throughout the period the elasticity that they had had before 1290, but which they lost entirely after 1334. The basis upon which the method of taxation rested from 1290 to 1332 was the individual property owner, whose goods were valued by juries of his fellow villagers working under the direction of groups of chief taxers

selected by the central government. Each person not exempt who held taxable property paid a stated proportion of the assessed value of that property when a tax was granted in parliament. His share would rise and fall with the rate of the taxation and with the increased or decreased value of his personal property. Se the amount accruing from townships, boroughs, and counties increased or decreased as the rate of taxation 1 C.P.R. 1281-1292, 349.

Introduction 5 changed, or as war or peace, plenty or famine, heavy taxation or moderate levies, affected the wealth of the people. The year 1334 saw the adoption of a new plan of assessment. It was obviously meant to be temporary, and was used to avoid the corrupt practices that were said to have prevailed when the tax of 1332 was assessed and collected. Exchequer and other government officers were sent into the counties to serve with resident heads of religious houses as assessors of the fifteenth and tenth.! They were to proceed by the method of collective agreement with the people of the townships and boroughs. The result of this collective bargaining plan was that each administrative unit of taxation agreed, or was forced to agree, to pay a definite sum of money. The government officers did not go behind this agreement, but left the people of the district to apportion the sum in a manner satisfactory to themselves. Whereas the rolls of the tax of 1332 contain the

names of the property holders of the townships and boroughs and a statement of the sum each man was to pay, the rolls of the tax of 1334 contain simply the names of the townships and boroughs and the sums for which those units were responsible. There was nothing inherently inelastic in the new plan of assessment,

since succeeding years might have seen other negotiations and other agreements, with a resulting rise or fall in the amount due from townships and boroughs. It was not tried again; the sums agreed upon in 1334 became the basis of a standardized fifteenth and tenth that lived until 1623. The amount that each community had to pay in 1334 had been reached by what was, in theory at least, a mutual understanding between men whose probity could hardly be questioned and the property owners of each district. The result was a schedule of taxes that might be regarded as an approximation to justice. At any rate it was a schedule comparable to that used for the taxation of the clergy, the taxation of Pope Nicholas IV, of 1291. The schedule of the lay fifteenth and tenth was adopted for the levy of the next tax, that of 1336,? and remained in use for nearly three hundred years.

The coming of standardization changed entirely the nature of the fifteenth and tenth. Thereafter the taxes bearing that name were simply grants of fixed sums of money from the townships and boroughs and from

the country as a whole. Increasing wealth in any district brought in its train no increase in the amounts due from the local units. A decrease in wealth might bring alleviation in the form of a reduction in the sum demanded from a township, but the exchequer during the fourteenth 1C.P.R. 1834-1338, 38-40. 2 C.F.R., 1v, 480.

6 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 century always tried to restore the amount charged in 1334.! The government abandoned the old-time plan of assessment of the goods of individuals under the direction of chief taxers sent to the counties, and, though it still appointed such officers, left the local people to distribute the burden of taxation among themselves. The present study of the taxes upon movables has been confined to the period 1290-1334, when those taxes were elastic and the machinery for handling them was being developed by the exchequer. There is much to be learned about the later period—about the attachment of tax-charges to parcels of land, about the working of the new system of collective responsibility, and about the development of abuses; these problems are left for a future historian of taxation.

The literature dealing with the history of the taxation of personal property and the procedure in the exchequer during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries is scanty and inadequate. For the earlier period there is more information. S. K. Mitchell in his Studzes in Taxation under John and Henry IIT has covered most of the field and his book

will serve as an introduction to the present volume. Thomas Madox furnished an invaluable guide to earlier exchequer machinery and practice in his History and Antiquities of the Exchequer (London, 1769). A. Hughes, C. G. Crump, and C. Johnson in their edition of the Dialogus

de Scaccario (Oxford, 1902) added many details, and R. L. Poole in The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1912) gave a clear-cut and eminently satisfactory explanation of a number of exchequer pro-

cesses. But the twelfth-century exchequer was far from being the powerful and active department that it became after the reforms of 1290

and later years. This part of the history of the exchequer has been largely neglected, though several modern scholars have studied special problems.’

Very little writing has been done on the subject of the history of the

taxes upon movables during the period covered by this book. John Sinclair’s History of the Public Revenue (1785-1790), published during the 1 There are several instances of reassessment during the reign of Edward III which did not persist; e.g., Tamworth, Staffordshire (Lay Subsidies, 177/11, 177/12, 177/14, 177/15); Walpole, Tilney, etc., Norfolk (Lay Subsidy, 149/13, C.C.R. 1837-1839, 293, Lay Subsidies, 238/111, 149/17, 149/31, 149/37, 149/56).

2 Reference may be made to the work of Miss Mabel Mills on the sheriffs’ accounts in Surrey Record Society, xx1 (1932), and elsewhere, and to the work of H. Jenkinson on tallies and the receipt of the exchequer in Archaeologia, uxt (1911), 367-380, and Lxxiv (1925), 289-351, and in his Manual

of Archive Administration (Oxford, 1922). T. F. Tout has made illuminating comments in his Chapters and in The Place of Edward II in English History (Manchester, 1914). The contributions of modern scholars are noted by A. B. Steel, “The Present State of Studies on the English Exchequer in the Middle Ages,’ A.H.R., xxx1v (1929), 485-512.

Introduction 7 latter part of the eighteenth century, contains some interesting informa-

tion, but is wholly inadequate on mediaeval taxation. John Stevens’ The Royal Treasury of England (London, 1725), published before the work of Sinclair, though at times useful, is also inadequate. The later book of Stephen Dowell, A History of Taxation and Taxes in England (London, 1884), is mainly valuable for the years beyond this study. He relied upon printed material for his descriptions of mediaeval taxes and the amount of such material at his disposal was slight. I have found his treatment of the subject of very little use in the present study. The best treatment of the taxes upon movables is found in the small volume by J. A. C. Vincent entitled Lancashire Lay Subsidies (London, 1893). Unfortunately, Vincent never got beyond the reign of Edward I, and,

still more unfortunately, though he knew the records, he was not interested in the details of the methods of assessment and collection of taxes.!

The publication of records dealing with our taxes and with exchequer procedure, though fairly voluminous, has been confined to a few phases

of a large subject. Many rolls of taxation have been issued by local record societies and a few detailed assessment rolls have found their way

into print. This is valuable material. The editors of these rolls have, however, been largely interested in local genealogy or local topography

and have dealt sparingly and usually incorrectly with administrative problems. Thanks to the interest of the deputy keepers of the public records, the: Calendars of the letters and writs of the chancery for our period are complete. They throw light upon many obscure processes. F. Palgrave, by printing many letters and writs in full in his Parlramentary Writs and Writs of Military Summons, has left all of us in his debt.

But the great mass of the records of the exchequer, the records upon which any study of taxation and administration must be based, still remain in manuscript. There is not in print, for example, a single memoranda roll, and the memoranda rolls are the most important records that exist for an understanding of the ways of mediaeval tax-collectors and mediaeval exchequer officers. This study has, therefore, been based perforce largely upon an examination of documents, admirably preserved, in the Public Record Office. The topical method of treatment, adopted in the following pages, has 1A brief outline of the taxation methods may be found in my paper, “The Assessment of Lay Subsidies, 1290-1332,’ in the Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1917, 281-292. I have also reviewed the processes of assessment, collection, and accounting in the introduction to

Surrey Record Society, xvu (1922). A brief survey of the records may be found in my ‘Brief Guide to the Records dealing with the Taxes upon Movables, 1290-1350,’ in the Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 111 (1925), 27-87.

8 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 led to some repetition, but has avoided, it is hoped, the larger amount of repetition involved in a strictly chronological survey. It has also made it possible to picture the consecutive stages in the administrative process,

a more important matter than the story of this or that separate tax. It may be noted, in closing these introductory remarks, that a conscious attempt has been made to describe the machinery of assessment,

collection, and accounting in action. In other words, this book is intended to serve as a guide to the practical working of the administrative

system within a limited sphere of activity. Few materials save those relating to taxation have been drawn upon for information, but in that field few details have been set aside as unworthy of consideration.

CHAPTER I THE GRANT OF THE TAXES 1. A Brier SURVEY OF THE TAxES UPON MoVABLES, 1290-1334

A RARE thetaxation reign ofofHenry III property and the early years phenomenon of his son andduring heir, the personal was raised to high estate during the second half of the reign of Edward I. The year of reform within the exchequer, 1290, witnessed the grant of a

fifteenth of movables. Between 1290 and 1307 there followed half a dozen other similar levies, excluding the tax of the eighth and fifth of 1297 which was superseded by the ninth of the same year before the assessors

and collectors had made any progress in their work. Dated by the year in which they were granted by parliament, the seven taxes were: the fifteenth of 1290 already mentioned, a tenth and sixth in 1294, an eleventh

and seventh in 1295, a twelfth and eighth in 1296, a ninth in 1297, a fifteenth in 1301, and a thirtieth and twentieth in 1306.1

Under the plan of single rating, used in 1290, 1297, and 1301, all movables throughout the country were taxed at the same rate. This was following the precedent of the generations before 1290; otherwise it had no particular merit, save, perhaps, that of simplicity. In 1294 someone conceived the idea of separating the urban from the rural districts and of charging the goods found in the former at a higher rate. This double rating system found favor in the eyes of crown and parliament and was used again in 1295, 1296, and 1306. Whenever there were two rates,

such as a tenth and a sixth, the men in the rural districts paid only a tenth of the assessed value of their personal property, while the men living in the cities, boroughs, and ancient demesne paid a sixth. Such a graduated rating was just, not only because of the burgesses’ greater wealth, but also because much of their property was in the form of cash or sums still to be collected from customers to whom goods had already been supplied, and thus difficult for the assessors to uncover: indeed, it rarely was uncovered. It is, however, open to question whether the new scheme was based upon any abstract principle of justice. When, in 1294, negotiations for a levy were opened with the boroughs, not represented in parliament, London granted a sixth instead of the parliamentary tenth given at Westminster, and the other boroughs were induced to assent to 1 The taxes, with the amount of the tax-charges against the counties, are listed in my paper in E.H.R., xxv (1913), 517-521. 9

10 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 the same amount.! The London grant, whether due to pressure exerted

by the crown or to generosity on the part of the citizens, formed a valuable foundation for future action. Is it purely a comcidence that the next granting parliaments, those of 1295 and 1296, contained borough representatives, and gave the king an eleventh and seventh and a twelfth and eighth? The higher rate of taxation imposed upon the burgesses was probably a recognition, quite unsought for, of their economic advance.? But it is difficult to find any economic reason for the similar increase in rate of

taxation which the dwellers in the rural ancient demesne land of the crown were called upon to bear. There was, nevertheless, a precedent in that both the boroughs and the manors of the ancient demesne had, since the twelfth century, been subject to levies of tallage. That tax was, as is well known, an incident of tenure. A lord, were he the king or simple lord of the manor, could demand financial aid from the tenants

on his demesne land. Notwithstanding the fact that many of the boroughs taxed at the higher rate during the reign of Edward I and again in the fourteenth century were neither directly held of the crown nor in any sense ancient demesne, they too were subjected to the same burden of taxation. During the reign of Edward II, taxes upon movables were levied seven times: a twentieth and fifteenth granted in 1307, a twenty-fifth in 1309,

a twentieth and fifteenth in 1313, a twentieth and fifteenth in 1315, a sixteenth and fifteenth in 1316, an eighteenth and twelfth in 1319, and

a tenth and sixth in 1322.3 The plan of double rating had evidently come into its own, for the grant of a flat rate of a twenty-fifth in 1309 stands in splendid isolation. The variations in the proportions of the value of their personal property

demanded from the inhabitants of the rural and urban districts show a lack of sound contemporary knowledge of the relative taxpaying capacity

of rural and urban groups. That there was some difference of capacity 1 See below, p. 15.

2'The lists of boroughs found on the tax rolls do not correspond with those of royal and other boroughs compiled by Ballard and Tait in their invaluable British Borough Charters (Cambridge, 1923). There are on the tax rolls a large number of boroughs for which those writers have found no charters. See my paper in Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait (Manchester, 1933), 417-435. The lists of vills described as ancient demesne vary considerably in length during our period. Down to 1316 they are usually short. In that year an energetic attempt was made to revise and enlarge the lists. The results of this endeavor are found in the greater number of such vills set forth on the rolls. An examination of the enrolled accounts of the taxes before and in 1316 gives, at times, almost startling results; e.g., L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 1d., 5, 7d., 10 (co. Oxford); mm. 5, 8, 10 (co. Northampton). 3 Five of the taxes are listed in my paper in L.H.R., xxrx (1914), 317-321. The remainder, those of 1309 and 1319, were summarized by Sir James Ramsay in E.H.R., xxv (1909), 319.

The Grant of the Tazes 11 may be taken for granted, but those who originated the various double ratings during Edward II’s reign clearly did not know how to express it with any degree of accuracy. In comparison with the rural twentieth, the urban fifteenth was a thirty-three and one-third per cent higher rate of taxation; the urban twelfth was a fifty per cent advance upon the

rural eighteenth, and the tenth in the rural districts was offset by a sixty-six and two-thirds per cent increase, a sixth of movables, in the rate imposed upon the cities, boroughs, and ancient demesne. The most curious of the double ratings would seem at the first glance to be that of the sixteenth and fifteenth of 1316. Here, however, we really have to deal with two separate taxes. Instead of granting a tax with one rate for the rural and one for the urban districts, early in 1316 parliament granted a fifteenth from the urban centers and a foot-soldier from the vills of the rural districts. Later on in the same year the latter was compounded for at a special meeting of magnates and knights by the grant of a sixteenth of movables. When special compositions were to the fore almost anything might happen, and the ratings of 1316 are therefore valueless for the purpose of comparison.

The first three taxes of the reign of Edward III were a twentieth granted in 1327, a fifteenth and tenth in 1332, and a fifteenth and tenth

in 1334.1 With the grant and levy of the latter year one phase in the evolution of the taxation of personal property ends. The grant of the fifteenth and tenth of 1336 opens a new era, for which the tax of 1334 had prepared the way. What happened was this. Charges of corrupt practice had been made

frequently in the past against the assessors and collectors of the taxes upon movables, and in a later chapter it will be shown that some at least of these charges were well founded. The men who served in 1332 were apparently as guilty as any of their predecessors, for when parliament met in 1334 and another subsidy was granted, dissatisfaction with the way in which the tax of 1332 had been handled came to a head in a number of complaints. In consideration of these complaints, the method

of assessment was changed for the new subsidy, in order to avoid a repetition of the abuses. The original commissions, so called, to the taxers and collectors, are enrolled in the patent rolls and bear the date 4 October.?, Two men were commissioned to act in each county, one a servant of the crown, a chancery or exchequer official or a justice of one

of the benches, the other an ecclesiastic, usually an abbot or a prior. These two were placed in charge of the assessment and were told to levy 1See my paper in E.H.R., xxx (1915), 69-74. 2 C.P.R. 13384-1838, 38-40; printed in full in Rot. Parl., 11, 448.

12 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 the same amount for the fifteenth and tenth as had been levied in 1332. The same rolls record the issue to the same men, on the same date, of letters called commissiones secundarie, which note the complaints of abuses, and instruct the said commissioners to treat with the commonal-

ties of the cities and boroughs and the men of the vills and ancient demesne, and settle in consultation with them the amount that they should pay. If these negotiations failed, the taxers and collectors were to assess the amount themselves. Seemingly contradictory to us, the two letters were not regarded as such by the exchequer. Writs, under the seal of the exchequer of 24 February, 1335, addressed to a number of the taxers and collectors, first recited the directions contained in the secondary commissions, and then added that they should collect and receive from the cities, boroughs, vills, and ancient demesne as much money as had been levied under the previous tax, namely that of 1332.! As the assessment of the tax of 1332 was suspect, it would have been

absurd to have left no way open for alteration. The method of conference and agreement was resorted to by most of the chief taxers, and the result was a considerable increase in the tax-charges against the counties.

The methods used in 1334 to secure the crown and the people against corrupt practice were eminently fair to all parties. The crown protected its interests by the appointment of assessors and collectors who were

above ordinary suspicion and by insisting that the amount of the tax levied in the various districts should not be less than that contributed in 1332; the holders of property were protected by the provision for con-

ference and agreement, and by the integrity of the assessors. The resultant tax would appear to the men of the time to be a just one; it would also appeal to the love of mediaeval administrators for stability.

The services of the tenants on the manor and the wages of servants remained unchanged for generations; the farms of counties and boroughs had long been set at fixed sums, and in the second quarter of the fourteenth century the clergy of the province of Canterbury were still paying taxes upon the basis of a valuation made in 1291.2, With the more precise valuation of 1334, it was now possible to stabilize the lay taxes on personal property. The final stage in the development of this type of taxation was opened

in 1336; it did not close until the reign of James I. The parliament assembled at Westminster in March, 1336, granted a fifteenth and tenth. A little later, commissions dated 7 April were issued to groups of men 1K.R.M.R., No. 111, m. 321, Brevia retornabilia. 2 Owing to the depredations of the Scots, a new valuation of the province of York was taken in 1818, (C.P.R. 1317-21,160, 244, 258, 336). Cf. C.P.R. 1313-17, 649. See also Stubbs, C.H.E., 11, 580.

The Grant of the Taxes 13 in the different counties.1 The writs made no mention of assessment, but simply ordered the commissioners to receive from the cities, boroughs,

and vills the same amount that the men of those districts had paid to the tax of 1334. To aid the collectors, schedules of the amounts paid in that year were handed over to them when they took their oath.? Tlhe apportionment of the sum charged against any one district was, however, left

to the discretion of the local people. From this time forward, each parliament based its grant of a fifteenth and tenth upon the immediately previous similar tax, the ultimate foundation of all such taxes being the charge upon the taxpayers of 1334. A fifteenth and tenth was therefore a fixed sum of money, the amount paid in 1334, nothing more and nothing

less. This is not to say that no temporary alteration was permitted in exceptional circumstances or in cases of obvious hardship. But while the assessment might be lowered for a township suffering poverty, it was not increased for any enjoying greater prosperity. Yet there was, after all, a loophole of escape for a needy government. Later on, when the returns from the normal tax on personal property would have been insufficient to meet obligations, two such taxes, or one and a half, were

imposed simultaneously. For all practical purposes a double tax was as profitable to the crown as any reassessment would have been, and it also had the twofold advantage of causing little extra trouble to the executive and none of the exacerbation to the taxed that a new assessment might have roused. 2. THE ASSEMBLIES THAT GRANTED THE TAXES

Throughout the period from 1290 to 1334, the bodies which granted the taxes we are considering were more or less completely constituted national assemblies. The name of the granting body was, however, not

so definitely established in the records of either the chancery or the exchequer as modern investigators could wish. During the reign of Edward I the descriptive term most commonly used was colloquium.‘ Since the exchequer was far more interested in the groups or classes participating in the grant of the tax than in the title given to them collectively, it normally simply noted that the grantors were the arch1 C.F.R., rv, 480-481.

2K.R.M.R., No. 112, mm. 2738d.-274, Brevia retornabilia. For an example of these schedules see Lay Subsidy, 120/4.

3 For example, in the reign of Richard IJ, two tenths and fifteenths were granted in November, 1384, and one and a half tenths and fifteenths in 1385 and 1391 (Rot. Parl., 111, 185, 204, 285-6). 4H. G. Richardson and G. Sayles, in their paper, “The Early Records of the English Parliaments— II, The English Parliaments of Edward II,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, v1 (1928), 82-85 and notes, have discussed the matter of the names of the meetings during the reigns of Edward

I and Edward II.

14 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 bishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, knights, and so on. But the assembly at Lincoln in 1301, surprisingly for Edward I’s reign, is

referred to as a parliament both in the writs of summons and in the records of the exchequer.! During the reign of Edward II, the term ‘parliament’ was generally used by both exchequer and chancery, though the assembly of 1307 was called indiscriminately collogurwm or parlzamentum,” and that of 1322 colloquium or tractatum.2 Of the three assemblies granting taxes during the early years of Edward III, the first, held in 1327, was described in the records as colloquium or tractatum, and the other two, held in 1332 and 1334, as parliaments.‘ For convenience, and in conformity to modern practice, all assemblies

will hereafter be referred to as parliaments, but it is well to recognize that contemporary nomenclature was not so uniform. Since in this book we are examining the development of personal property taxation and not the evolution of parliament, the description of the grantors of a tax is of far greater importance to us than is the technical significance of the term by which was described the assembly in which they met. We need to know which groups were present when the tax was granted, because if one large group, such as the representatives of the boroughs, was absent,

the absent group would not be counted as participating in the grant of the tax. With certain exceptions, the barons, higher clergy, and representatives of the counties and boroughs, were regularly summoned from 1290 on-

wards to the assemblies granting taxes. The actual number attending in each of these groups is immaterial. As for the exceptions: in 1290, 1294, and 1297, the sheriffs were not commanded to cause the election of

representatives from the boroughs,’ but the only absolutely irregular assembly was that of July, 1297, which granted an eighth and fifth of

movables. It was considered so irregular, even at that time, that its grant was soon superseded. Of this we shall have more to say later on.° The usual procedure when the boroughs were not represented and so did not participate in the grant of the tax, was to induce some or all of them afterwards to submit to a levy. What happened in 1290 and in the

early months of 1291, during the preliminaries to the taxation of the cities and boroughs, is not clear. The instructions accompanying the commissions of 22 September, 1290,’ to the taxers and collectors of the 1 Parl. Writs, 1, 88ff., 106, 107; Pipe Roll, No. 152 B, m. 27. 2 Parl. Writs, u, 1, 1; L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 1. 3 Parl. Writs, 1, 1, 263, 278, 280; L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 14. 4L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 15, 16; Rot. Parl., 11, 447. § Parl. Writs, 1, 15ff, 26, 63, 64. § See below, p. 16.

7K.R.M.R., No. 64, m. 5.

The Grant of the Taxes 15 fifteenth expressly stated that certain exemptions of property from taxation therein specified were not to run in the cities, boroughs, and other towns. Then, on or about 16 January, 1291, a writ was issued for the assessment and collection of the fifteenth in London, and, by other writs, dated 23 February, the taxers and collectors throughout the country were ordered to exempt a list of goods belonging to persons in cities, boroughs, and market towns.! It would seem, therefore, that there had been some accommodation with the greater towns, or with London at least, to offset their absence from the assembly which had granted the tax. However, vague as is our knowledge of what actually took place in 1290—for it is not certain whether any consultation with the cities and

boroughs was held—there is no doubt as to what occurred in 1294. The assembly which met early in November of that year and granted a

tenth of movables did not include representatives of the boroughs. Commissions for the collection of this tenth were dated 12 November.’ Shortly afterwards the men of London granted a sixth of movables.? A few days later, by writs dated 21 November, several men, each assigned to a group of counties, were directed to request the grant of a sixth from

the royal demesne, cities, and other towns. The commission for the assessment and collection of the sixth in London is dated 26 November. Again, in 1297, when the boroughs were not represented in the assembly which granted a ninth of movables, the commissions, dated 14 October, issued to the taxers and collectors,’ did not cover the cities and boroughs. But subsequently, when the citizens of London had granted the king a

ninth of movables, it is noted on the memoranda roll that the council thereupon ordained that the assessors and collectors in the counties should levy and collect the ninth in all the cities, boroughs, and royal demesne land. Commissions dated 23 October’ were issued to that effect, and the instructions to the collectors were corrected to meet the new situation. The boroughs of England had so long been taxed without representation in the national assemblies that it is not remarkable, despite the precedent of 1294, that the assent of London alone to the grant of the ninth was considered to be sufficient for all practical purposes. Yet during the thirty-seven years between 1297 and 1334 no attempt was made to repeat the plan of separate negotiation with the boroughs. 1 Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 178, has summarized these instructions. 2K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 72.

8 Ind., m. 73. See also, m. 75, the exchequer writs to the sheriffs of Oxford and other counties, dated 24 January, 1291, in which the grant by London is specifically mentioned.

4 Ihid., m. 73. Vincent has printed the letter patent (L.L.S., 1, 183). °K.R.M.R., No. 71, m. 120; L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 38. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 38d. Cf. Rot. Parl., 1, 241; Parl. Writs, 1, 35. 7 Summarized by Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 214. See also D. Pasquet, Origins of the House of Commons (Cambridge, 1925), 110.

16 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 The one obviously irregular assembly was, as we have already said, that of July, 1297, which granted an eighth and fifth of movables. It thus precedes in’ date the assembly of which we have just spoken. In July, a great military levy met Edward I in London preparatory to an expedition to France. After some trouble with the archbishop of Canterbury, ‘Edward brought together in his own chamber the most important men who had attended the military levy, and although they had not been summoned to a parliament, nor possessed the credentials of representatives, he chose to regard them as qualified to make a grant on the instant.’ This group gave the king an eighth and fifth of movables, and commissions dated 30 July were issued for the collection of the tax.? At this time the taxers and collectors who were chosen to serve in any one county were residents of another. The men assigned to Yorkshire, for example, came from the counties of Nottingham, Northumberland, and Lincoln; those appointed to Lincolnshire, Westmorland, and Lancashire all came from Yorkshire. On 4 August, Edward by means of a writ of privy seal enjoined the officers of the exchequer to dispatch the whole business as quickly as possible, and in consequence arrangements were promptly made for an expeditious taking of the oaths of the taxers and collectors and for an immediate explanation of the situation to the people in the counties.’ But these efforts failed in their object, for trouble arose with the barons, and the tax-collectors found it difficult to carry out their instructions. There was nothing to do but appeal to a more comprehensive assembly. That body, the parliament of October, 1297, revoked the July grant and replaced it with that of a ninth. The assessors of the eighth and fifth had evidently, however, been put to some considerable trouble, for several groups were granted fifty, and some even one hundred shillings for their expenses.®

There was one other departure, in the year 1316, from what may be

considered the customary procedure in granting a tax on personal property; but it by no means belongs to the category of unconstitutional proceedings, since the parliament concerned, which met at Lincoln in

January and February, was a fully constituted national assembly of prelates, barons, and representatives of the counties and boroughs. On 20 February, according to the record as set down in the Rolls of Parliament, the magnates and community of the realm granted the king

an armed footman from every vill in the kingdom, but not from the 1 Stubbs, C.H.E., wu, 1492.

2K.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 117d.; Parl. Writs, 1, 53-55. 3K.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 118. 4 Stubbs, C.H.E., 11, 142 ff.; Vincent, D.L.S., 1, 202 ff.; K.R.M.R., No. 70, mm. 117-119. 5 L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 126, 126d., 129. These are orders to the sheriffs to pay them.

The Grant of the Taxes 17 cities, boroughs, and royal demesne; the citizens, burgesses, and knights of the counties granted a fifteenth of movables in the excepted districts.1 Since the communitas regnt which assented to the grant of an armed man

included the knights of the shire, it seems curious to find the same knights also assenting to the grant of a fifteenth. Yet even the enrolled accounts of the fifteenth state clearly that the fifteenth was granted by the

knights of the shire, the citizens and burgesses, and the communitates

of the cities, boroughs, manors, vills, and royal demesne.? Since a serious attempt was made about this time to bring within the scope of the fifteenth all the ancient demesne, whether in the king’s hands or in the hands of others for life, it is possible that the knights were included as

grantors in order that no manor or township of the ancient demesne, both obviously rural districts, might escape. It is certain that, whatever this conjecture may amount to, only the cities, boroughs, and ancient demesne were regarded as subject to the fifteenth.? The collectors of the fifteenth received their commissions in June, but there the matter rested for a time, while the reforms promised by the king and the selection of the armed men were both delayed. By writs dated 25 June, the knights were instructed to appear on 29 July at Lincoln.‘ In the presence of the lay magnates there assembled, they asked to be permitted to substitute for the earlier grant of armed men the grant of a sixteenth. The change was allowed, and commissions, dated 5 August, were issued to groups of men to assess and collect the sixteenth.’ The grant of two separate taxes

by parts of parliament meeting at two different times is unique in the period covered by this study. From the foregoing discussion it appears that there was established during the reigns of Edward I and Edward II a workable standard of qualifications for an assembly having power to grant a tax upon the personal property of the people of England. Such an assembly or parliament must contain properly summoned lay magnates, prelates, and representatives of the counties and boroughs. The number attending in any one of these groups does not appear to have been a matter of primary

importance. Unfortunately, there is no known method of discovering with any degree of accuracy how many magnates were present. The record of the parliament of 1306, which granted a thirtieth and twentieth, is unusual in that it names the magnates and prelates who were present 1 Rot. Parl., 1, 351.

2L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 10. 3 Ibid. See also Parl. Writs, 11, u, 164-165, for the commissions and instructions to the collectors. 40.C.R. 1313-1818, 346.

6 Parl. Writs, u, 11, 167. It is stated in the commissions that the earls and barons were present when the grant was made.

18 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 in person or by proctor. Three of the higher clergy were present in person; twenty-four others sent substitutes. Seventeen lay magnates were present; three sent substitutes. After the final name of this series, that of Edmund, Earl of Arundel, there follows the phrase ‘et quam plures alii prelati magnates et proceres regni,’ which may be a purely rhetorical phrase, but may, on the other hand, be literally true. If it is a statement of fact, it renders the list of names valueless for an estimate of attendance. Anyone who has worked long among mediaeval records

will, I believe, regard the phrase as nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. The number of knights of the shire can be calculated more accurately, for there remain the writs de expensis of those who attended parliament. “These show that most of the counties were represented in

the parliaments of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II and of the early years of the reign of Edward III.2 The attendance of borough representatives has given rise to much discussion,’ but while, apparently, often only a few were present, the problem is complicated by the fact that for certain men, known from other records to have attended, there is no evidence of the issue of writs de expensis.4 If it could be shown that there

was some connection between a large attendance of members of all groups in parliament and the grant of a tax, that fact would be of real importance. ‘Thus far, however, I have been unable to discover such a coincidence, and am forced to the conclusion that the prerequisite for the granting of taxes was the attendance simply of some members of each group. 3. PurposEes For WHIcH THE Taxes WERE GRANTED

During our period, grants of taxes upon personal property were regarded as additions to the ordinary revenue of the crown for the purpose of meeting

a special need. As the most frequent cause of extraordinary financial strain in those days was war, most of the grants were made either to pay the expenses of military operations already embarked upon or to provide

funds for those to be undertaken. Such of the grants as do not fall within the category of war levies were, with one exception, made for some object considered uncommon and properly justifying a request to parliament for aid. 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 76, m. 43. 2 J. G. Edwards, “The Personnel of the Commons in Parliament under Edward I and Edward II,’ in Essays in Mediaeval History Presented to Thomas Frederick Tout (Manchester, 1925), 197-214; A. F. Pollard, The Evolution of Parliament (London, 1926), 316-320, 387-388; M. McKisack, The Parliamentary Representation of the English Boroughs during the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1932).

3 The studies of Edwards and Pollard are concerned with this matter as well as with that of the attendance of county members. 4 Edwards, op. cit., 208-211.

The Grant of the Taxes 19 There is all too little information in the rolls of parliament concerning the purpose for which a tax was granted. When the records of a session have been preserved, they at times tell us something, but most of such records for our period have been lost. To fill in the gaps it is necessary

to turn to the commissions issued to the tax-collectors, in which the object of the levy is frequently stated, or, mm default of any evidence there, to other less satisfactory sources of information. It may be objected that the official statement in royal letters and other government records of the purpose of a tax may not disclose the true reason which induced parliament to grant the tax. That is not impossible, but in any event there is usually no way of penetrating behind the scenes. The chroniclers who noted the action of parliament are as likely to have based their accounts upon the statements in the commissions, or upon the conditions in the country that would seem to them to have made the tax necessary, as they are to have received the news at first hand from a member of parliament. Of the seven subsidies levied during the reign of Edward I, beginning with that of 1290, four were clearly ear-marked for war purposes. Those of 1294, 1295, and 1296 were specifically stated in the commissions sent to the tax-collectors to be for the recovery of Gascony;! that of 1306 is stated in the record of the parliament held at Westminster to have been granted for the knighting of the king’s eldest son and for the war against Scotland.2. Two of the other three taxes were also war levies, though not described as such in the commissions or in the exchequer enrolment of the accounts. During the year 1297 the English were at war in France, and Edward I was raising money from all possible sources. A quarrel

with the barons and other sections of the population ended with his renewal and confirmation of the Great Charter and the Charter of the Forest, in return for the grant of a fifteenth. The expenses of the expeditions to Flanders and Gascony were enormous,‘ and the fifteenth was

obviously intended to cover a part of them.® In 1301 there was a similar situation. Edward had led an army against the Scots in 1300, only to agree with them upon a truce which would expire on 21 May, 1301. The parliament which met at Lincoln in January of the latter year had as its background the dissatisfaction of the king with the results of his 1C.P.R. 1292-1301, 103, 170; Parl. Writs, 1,51. The entries in the enrolled accounts repeating the statements are to be found in print in Vincent, Z.L.S., 1, 189, 195.

2L.T.R.M.R., No. 76, m. 43. Compare the heading of the enrolled account of the subsidy in Vincent, Z.L.S., 1, 259-260. 3 J.H. Ramsay, The Dawn of the Constitution (London, 1908), 436-448. ‘ For some figures of expenditure see Tout, Chapters, 1, 118-119.

5 In a writ to the sheriffs in November it is stated that the subsidy was granted for the defence of the realm (C.C.R. 1296-1302, 137).

20 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 campaign in Scotland. The leaders of the English were also dissatisfied, though for different reasons, and when parliament granted a fifteenth of movables it made the assessment and collection of the tax conditional

upon the completion of a perambulation of the forests. As this was delayed, the commissions to the taxers and collectors were not issued until October. Hardly had the members of parliament reached home

before the king began his preparations for war against Scotland. In writs dated 14 February and 1 March, the earls and barons were summoned to the army and the sheriffs were commanded to array the menat-arms in their counties.?, ‘The army was to be ready for action immedi-

ately after the expiration of the truce. The plans were carried through and the summer was spent in an invasion of Scotland. It seems clear that the fifteenth of 1301 was a war tax. The fifteenth of 1290, however, can-

not be so classified, for the country was at peace in that year. Nor is there any other obvious need for the grant of extra revenue, and probably the chief reason for the generosity of parliament was Edward’s promise to expel the Jews from England.’ The English Justinian so far profited from the hatred of the unhappy Jews that, by exerting all the force of his administrative machinery, he was able to extract from his people the largest yield from a tax upon personal property during the Middle Ages. The shadow of troubles with Scotland hung over the reign of Edward II also. Baronial rule might come and go, but the activities of Robert

Bruce allowed the English government few breathing spells. Of the seven taxes upon movables levied during the reign, all but one were granted for war with Scotland. This exception is the levy of 1307, which was granted to meet the expenses of the burial of Edward I and of the marriage and coronation of the new king.’ Yet even so, when, in June, 1308, orders were issued to the taxers and collectors to bring in by

8 July the money they had collected, under penalty of a £40 fine, the reason alleged for such speed was the king’s need of money for war with Scotland.’ Three of the six war taxes were specifically designated as such in the commissions issued to the tax-collectors. These were the grants of the years 1309, 1316, and 1319.” Of the subsidy of October, 1313, the 1 C.P.R. 1292-1301, 611-613. 2 C.C.R. 1296-1302, 480.

3 Vincent, £.0.S.,1, 171. The fifteenth and the expulsion of the Jews are connected, though not directly, in a writ of 1301 (C.C.R. 1296-1302, 463.)

4 B.A.R., xxvii (1913), 519. The contrast between the tax-charges in 1290 and those of succeeding years is startling. ’ The summonses to members state these matters as the object of the meeting (C.C.R. 1307-1318, 41), and Stubbs (C.H.E., 11, 330) adds that the grant was made for these purposes. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 98d., Brevia retornabilia. Cf. m. 97. ’C.P.R. 1307-1318, 183; C.P.R. 1313-1317, 473, 529; C.P.R. 1317-1321, 347.

The Grant of the Taxes 21 author of the Vita Edward Secundi states that it was given the king ‘in subsidium guerrae suae.”"! Before the meeting of this parliament of 1313 Edward had tried, with what success I do not know, to raise loans from various church dignitaries to repel the threatened invasion of the Scots.2. Early in the following year the war was resumed only to end in the disgrace at Bannockburn. The background of war places the next tax for us. Bannockburn was a blot on the honor of the nation (for so a defeat in war has always been regarded), a blot that had to be removed. The parliament which lasted from January to March, 1315, granted a

subsidy of a twentieth. It was followed by an order to the sheriffs, dated 20 April, to cause to be proclaimed ‘that it was the king’s intention,

from the time of the grant of the twentieth granted to him to resist the Scotch invasion, that the requests of the commons concerning the ordinances’ should be observed.? The commissions to the taxers and collectors

of the twentieth are dated 15 March.‘ Writs dated on the same day as that found in the orders to the sheriffs were issued to the taxers and collectors commanding them to keep at work, because the king was ‘in need of money to resist the Scottish invasion.’”> In May, places were selected

in the north of England in which the money that had been gathered should be kept, so that it might be within easy reach of those who needed it.6 —The remaining subsidy to be accounted for, that of 1322, was granted in November, while the Scots were in the northern counties. It was an emergency grant that requires no search for a justification.’ Only three taxes upon movables were granted to Edward III up to and including 1334. Huis reign opened with an inglorious campaign against

the Scots during the summer of 1327. In the summonses to attend a parliament in September of that year, the purpose of the meeting was stated to be to treat with the king concerning the defence of the realm against the Scots, who were, so it was understood, preparing to invade the

kingdom.’ When parliament assembled, it granted a twentieth for such defence. ‘The commissions to the tax-collectors? and the official exchequer enrolment of their accounts” both contain the statement that 1 Vita Edward Secundt, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward ITI, ed. William Stubbs, 11 (Rolls Series, London, 1883), 196.

2C.C.R. 1813-1818, 66-67. The writs are dated 26 July, 1313. 3 Ibid., 224.

4K.R.M.R., No. 88, mm. 144, 144d., Recorda. The commissions for the collectors of the fifteenth

are dated 10 May (Originalia Roll, No. 75, m. 30). The matter of the taking of the oaths of the taxers and collectors is dealt with in L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 220d. 5 C.C.R. 1313-1818, 224.

§ Ibid., 180. The writ is dated 22 May. ’ Stubbs, C.H.E., u, 370-371. 8 C.C.R. 1827-1380, 216-217. Writs dated 7 August, 1327. 9 C.P.R. 1327-1880, 172.

J0L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 8, m. 1.

22 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 this was the use to which the proceeds of the tax were to be put, though we may conjecture that the expenses incurred during the previous sumnier loomed large in the mind of the government. For the motives which actuated the grant of 1332 we are fortunate in having a memorandum of the proceedings in parliament.! According to this document, statements of the troubles in Ireland and of the prospect of difficulties with Scotland were set before the assembly. A fifteenth and tenth was granted so that the king might cope with these difficulties. Oddly enough, the commissions note that the tax was given to Edward for the business of Ireland, but fail to mention Scotland.2 During the summer of 1334, Edward made war on the Scots and after Halidon Hill succeeded in placing his puppet

king, Edward Balliol, a little more firmly on the throne of Scotland. But there was much discontent in the northern kingdom and the English

king had to prepare to support his protégé. So the last of the three subsidies, that of 1334, was granted in a September parliament, according

to the commissions to the tax-collectors, for the defence of the realm against the Scots, as well as for other and great matters.* A number of the taxes upon movables during our period were given

after the king had agreed to remedy certain grievances, but two only, those of 1301 and 1309, were granted with the attachment of conditions which had to be fulfilled before the tax could be levied. With these two we are especially concerned here. As this book is not intended to be a constitutional history, no attempt will be made to go into the subject of the development of the principle that a redress of grievances should precede a grant of supplies. The subsidy of 1301 has a curious history. In March, 1300, a parlia-

ment granted the king a twentieth of movables, on the understanding, apparently, that certain reforms should be undertaken, especially that perambulations of the forests should be carried through. No writs were issued for the assessment and collection of the twentieth at the time, and there the matter rested until January 1301, when another parliament met at Lincoln. In the writs of summons it was stated that reports on the perambulations of the forests were to be received, and the sheriffs were ordered to send those knights who had served in the preceding parliament, permitting the selection of others only if these had died or

were definitely unable to appear.’ By this parliament a fifteenth of 1 Rot. Parl., u, 66—67.

2C.P.R. 1380-1834, 357. The same statement appears in the headings to the accounts of the collectors in L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 8, m. 2. 8 Rot. Parl., u, 447. ‘Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 227-233; Ramsay, The Dawn of the Constitution, 472-478. 5 Parl. Writs, 1, 89-91. Summarized in Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 231-232.

The Grant of the Taxes 23 movables was substituted for the twentieth of 1300, on condition that certain grievances, notably, as we have already pointed out,! those concerned with the forests, should be remedied.? Difficulties arose immedi-

ately, for in March, 1301, the king began his preparations for a campaign against Scotland, and needed all the ready money he could obtain.? A series of letters dated 1 March provided for the purveyance of victuals

for the army.‘ Additional letters bearing the same date were sent to the assessors and collectors of the fifteenth, directing them to pay for the provisions purveyed in their counties out of the proceeds of the tax.®

But no taxers and collectors had been selected, nor could be before Michaelmas, as is acknowledged in a letter sent to the men of Essex under the date of 18 April. The orders to pay were, therefore, to be held over until the assessors and collectors had been chosen. Once the campaign against the Scots had opened, the king’s need of ready money became so acute that he resorted to an irregular anticipa-

tion of the revenue to accrue from the levy of the fifteenth. John de Drokensford, keeper of the wardrobe, went to London and, as is stated in a letter dated 20 July, induced the men of that city to grant the king 2500 marks of the fifteenth to be levied upon their personal property.’ If the fifteenth should not be collected, the sum thus given was to be allowed on their farm and the other issues of their city. London had, as usual, been induced to lead the way in the irregular transaction. Oxford quickly followed her example, for a letter dated 2 August states that the men of that borough had compounded for the fifteenth to the tune of £200.8 As a result of this preliminary success, writs dated 2 August were sent to the officers and men of fifty-seven of the larger towns of England commanding them to give credence to what certain men should say on

the king’s behalf. On the same day, Drokensford and others were directed to go to these places and to treat with them for a grant in anticipation of the fifteenth. A statement of what the fifteenth of 1290 had yielded from the cities and boroughs was handed over to the negotiators, who were to induce the townspeople to grant the same amount, or more, in aid of the king. Should the fifteenth not be levied, the grantors were 1See above, pp. 19-20. Ramsay, The Dawn of the Constitution, 477. 3 See above, p. 20.

*C.P.R. 1292-1301, 578-579. This is a reference to the letters patent ordering the purveyance of a large quantity of victuals. ® Thad.

8 Tbid., 589.

"C.P.R. 1292-1301, 602; Cal. Letter-Books, London, E, 48. ®°C.P.R. 1292-1301, 603.

°C.C.R. 1296-1302, 461-468.

24 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 to be given credit on the farm of the borough or elsewhere. How far this special procedure was successful I have not been able to determine, though some returns have been found. John de Drokensford and John de Insula went to a number of cities in the eastern part of the country. They induced Lincoln to grant £400, Kingston-upon-Hull, 50 marks, Scarborough, £200, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, £213 13s. 4d., Northampton, 200 marks,! and Barton-upon-Humber, 100 marks,? all substantial sums. The Templars and Hospitallers paid 700 marks each to John de Drokensford for the future fifteenth before the general request. A more thorough search of the records than has been made might furnish other examples, but those noted will suffice to illustrate the success of the venture. When the time neared for the levying of the tax both the exchequer and the chancery were in the north, where the king was actively engaged

in the war with Scotland.‘ It was now necessary to make up the instructions for the collectors of the fifteenth, and to provide for the promised election of the men of the counties who were to act as assessors and collectors. The treasurer selected the instructions of 1297 as a basis for discussion, and placed them in a revised form first before the king and

tha magnates in the army at Glasgow, and then before the Prince of Wales and his followers at Newcastle-upon-Tyne.’ Some slight alterations were suggested and the instructions were returned to the exchequer on 8 October for further discussion and insertion of the emendations. Orders dated 8 October, at Stirling, were issued to the sheriffs to cause the election of four or three knights, or others, to serve as assessors and collectors of the fifteenth. These men were to be present on different

days at the exchequer at York to take their oaths and receive their commissions, the days varying in the direct ratio of the distance of their counties from York. If the sheriffs were expected to convene a county court and hold a proper election, the time allowed them was rather short, for the returns from the counties of Leicester, Lincoln, Derby, and Warwick, to mention no others, were to be in by 23 October. While some of the commissions to the elected assessors and collectors are dated 24 October,’ others are dated as late as 12 November. The accom1C.P.R. 1292-13801, 608.

2K.R.M.R., No. 75, m. 52. 3 C.P.R. 1292-1301, 600, 606.

4D. M. Broome, in her ‘Exchequer Migrations to York in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’ (Essays in Mediaeval History Presented to Thomas Frederick Tout, 291-300), has told us of the peregrinations of that body. I infer the position of the chancery from the place dates in the chancery rolls. 6 A record of this and the following transactions is to be found in K.R.M.R., No. 75, mm. 58, 59. 6 C.C.R. 1296-1302, 499. 7 C.P.R. 1292-1301, 611.

The Grant of the Taxes Q5 panying instructions contain no clause exempting certain property from

taxation. When the knights who had been sworn received their instructions at York, they evidently noticed that the usual exemptions in

favour of knights, gentlemen, and their wives were omitted. This matter was considered by the king and the magnates and a writ of privy

seal dated 23 November, 1301, was sent to the treasurer and barons ordering them to restore the list of exemptions as it appeared in the instructions for past taxes.! But it was not until December that a writ to that effect, under the seal of the exchequer, was sent to the taxers and collectors.?

The history of the twenty-fifth of 1309 is similarly eventful. The parliament which met at Westminster in April, 1309, with the commons as well as the lay and ecclesiastical magnates in attendance, granted the king a twenty-fifth on the condition that he assent to eleven articles of reform.? These articles dealt with abuses touching purveyance, customs dues, prises, the coinage, the tyranny of escheators, and other matters. The action of the king was postponed until the next meeting of parliament and no commissions were issued for the time being to taxers and

collectors of the twenty-fifth. Writs dated 11 June were issued to the higher clergy and the barons alone to meet at Stamford in July.4’ There the king consented to deal with the recommended reforms.’ After the meeting had dispersed, letters close were issued with a view to remedying

some of the grievances of the people. Then, over the date 26 August, commissions were issued to the taxers and collectors of the twenty-fifth,’

who, however, did not start work until several weeks later. During the month of December, according to letters close dated the tenth of that month, Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, called Edward’s attention to the fact that the articles granted at Stamford were

not being observed, and the king, at the request of the said earl, of Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, and of Peter de Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, ordered the taxers and collectors to suspend collection of the tax between 29 December, 1309, and 16 February, 1310.9 They were, 1K.R.M.R., No. 75, m. 11. 2Ibid., m. 11d. The writ is dated 9 December. ° The writs of summons are in C.C.R. 1807-1813, 142. The eleven articles are found in Rot. Pazl., I, 443-445. A description of the parliament may be read in Stubbs, C.H.E., 1, 3388-40. 40.C.R. 1307-1818, 159. 5 Rot. Parl., 1, 443-445. 6 E.g., C.C.R. 1307-1818, 170, 174-175, 225.

7 C.P.R. 1807-1318, 183-186. , 8 See below, p. 37.

°C.C.R. 1807-1818, 189. The dates for the suspension of the collection were from the feast of St Thomas to the quinzaine of the Purification.

26 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 however, to proceed with the assessment and to bring to the exchequer all the money already levied and to be levied before the said 29 December. The reforms were to be carried out in the interval. Letters of 12 December summoned the prelates and lay magnates to meet at Westminster on 8 February, 1310.1 At this assembly many of the old grievances were examined, and finally, in March, ordainers were elected to watch over the affairs of the

kingdom.? Since the original grievances of the parliament of 1309 were now likely to be redressed under the direction of the ordainers, orders,

dated 1 April, were issued to the taxers and collectors to finish any assessments still incomplete and to proceed with the collection of the money.’ What had happened in the counties between 16 February, the date indicated by the writ of 10 December for the resumption of collection, and the first day of April, the date of the definite order to resume collection, is not clear. I have found no mandates to the tax-gatherers directing a further stay in the proceedings, and no reference is made to any such orders in the writ of 1 April. Whatever may have obtained in February and March, the work went on rapidly in April; the tax was collected, and, in due time, accounted for at the exchequer. 4. Crown Posssessions Not SuBsJEcT TO PARLIAMENTARY TAXATION

The taxes upon movables granted in English parliaments during the period selected for this study at no time ran beyond the boundaries of England, and even within England certain favored districts escaped what were otherwise national levies. The English possessions in France and the Channel Islands, with their separate systems of administration, were obviously beyond the province of parliamentary taxation. The same is true of Ireland and Wales, though there are a few instances, especially under Edward I, of requests for grants from both that were almost contemporaneous with demands made upon the English. The attempts to induce the Irish and Welsh to give aid at the same time as the English strengthen the view so often expressed that Edward I had a broader vision of the unity of his possessions than his successors were to have for many generations to come. [I shall describe the situation with

respect to these extra-English lands of the crown before I take up the districts in England itself that were normally free from parliamentary taxation.

Within the realm of taxation, the most striking illustrations of the vision attributed to the first Edward are to be found in the years 1290 and 1291. An English parliament in July, 1290, gave the king a fifteenth 1 C.C.R. 1307-1318, 237.

2 J. Conway Davies, The Baronial Opposition to Edward II (Cambridge, 1918), 358-361. 2 0.C.R. 1307-1813, 204.

The Grant of the Taxes Q7 of movables, of which the assessment and collection were to be spread over the ensuing two years. In January, 1291, ‘the earls, barons, knights, freemen and the whole community of Wales’! were asked to grant a fifteenth ‘like the rest of the realm.’ The response to this request seems

to have been generous, though no evidence has been found that it extended to the principality. There are, however, a number of letters enrolled on the patent roll of 1292 granting to the earls of Surrey, Hereford, Pembroke, and others, who had given a fifteenth of the personal

property of their men and tenants in specified parts of the March of Wales, that the entry of the royal tax-collectors into their lands should

not be drawn into a precedent.2. The returns from the grants of the Marcher lords came in while the English fifteenth was being collected

and, interestingly enough, were recorded on the receipt rolls of the English exchequer side by side with the returns from the parliamentary fifteenth and the tenth granted by the English clergy.?. During the four exchequer terms, beginning with that of Easter of 21 Edward I (April, 1293), the respectable total of £2,651 15s. 1114d. was credited on those rolls to the fifteenth in Wales. The taxers and collectors of the fifteenth in the county of Flint appeared before the exchequer at Westminster during the Michaelmas term of 28 Edward I for an audit of their accounts. At that time they owed £118 10s. 134d., which they stated that they had been unable to levy because of a war, with resulting destruction of property, in their county. As late as the year 1331 the heirs of the collectors of 1292 in Flint were still being held for the same amount.’ The method of handling

the receipts from the tax as well as the unique grant by the Marcher lords, mark the Welsh subsidy as one of special interest to students of mediaeval taxation in Great Britain.® A grant of a fifteenth from ‘all the king’s subjects in Ireland’ was also requested in 1291. It appears that William de Vescy, who was justiciar of Ireland, Gilbert de Clare, William de Valence, Roger Bigod, and other English magnates having lands in Ireland had already been approached, 1C.P.R. 1281-1292, 419. Adam de Bovington was paid 100 shillings for the negotiations he carried on in Wales for the grant of a fifteenth; see Issue Roll, No. 67 (19 Edward I, Mich.), m. 1. 2 C.P.R. 1281-1292, 499, 500, 502, 503, 510, 511; J. E. Morris, The Welsh Wars of Edward I (Oxford, 1901), 239. Mr Morris describes the plan as an innovation.

3 Receipt Roll, Nos. 126, 128, 131, 133. The sum due from Flint was £464 10s. 814d., according to the enrolled account of the fifteenth of England (Pipe Roll, No. 140, m. 24d.). See also T. Jones Pierce, ‘A Lleyn Lay Subsidy Account,’ in the Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, v. 4*L.T.R.M.R., No. 71, m. 70, Stat. et Vis. Comp., Mich. 5’ L.T.R.M.R., No. 103, m. 68.

§ John de Godelegh, king’s clerk, was, in December, 1293, ordered to examine the rolls of the fifteenth in Wales and Cheshire in order to check any defaults (C.P.R. 1292-1301, 109).

28 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 and had granted a fifteenth, before the general request was made in letters patent of the English chancery, dated 26 October.! The concession made by the magnates and others was not to be drawn into a precedent. The subsidy was duly granted by the king’s subjects and assessed and collected by collectors both within and without the Pale. The receipts

poured into the Irish exchequer and were there accounted for.? As a source of income these were far more profitable than those of the corresponding Welsh tax. Preparations for a new campaign against the Scots led Edward during

the early months of 1300 to repeat the experiment of 1209-1291. By letters patent dated 17 January, Richard de Burgo, Ear! of Ulster, John Wogan, the justiciary of Ireland, and Thomas Cantok, the chancellor of Ireland, were appointed to require a subsidy from the ‘earls, barons, knights, and others in Ireland’ in aid of the proposed expedition against

the Scots.2 In March the English granted a twentieth of movables. Then on 1 April John de Havering, justice of West Wales, was directed to request a subsidy from the men of West and North Wales and in May

he and others were told to make the same request of the men of other portions of the same country.‘ On this occasion, therefore, the Principality was included. No information has been found about the demand made in Ireland. The English twentieth was never assessed and collected and the fifteenth of 1301 was put in its place. The response of the Welsh seems to have been general and was favorable,’ and once more it was promised that the grants should not form a precedent. The subsidy was

paid to Richard de Havering and taken by him to Scotland, where the king needed it for his military operations.®

The reign of Edward II produced, so far as has been discovered, but

one instance of a fairly close correspondence of English and extraEnglish subsidies. During the second half of the year 1318 the men of North and South Wales granted a fifteenth of their personal property.’ An eighteenth and twelfth was given the king by an English parliament in May of the following year.’ On the final membrane of the enrolment 1C.P.R. 1281-1292, 446, 448, 449. The archbishops, bishops, abbots, and other ecclesiastics were asked to give a tenth of their spiritualities (¢bid., 449, 28 October, 1291). There are further directions

issued as to the collection of the lay grant in ihd., 486 (18 April, 1292). The list of exemptions is interesting. 2 Calendar of Documents, Ireland, 1293-1801, Nos. 48, 90, 118, 180, 140, 160, 183, 208, 222, 261 ff. 3 C.P.R. 1292-1801, 490.

4 Ihid., 503, 517-518. The commissions are dated 21 May. 5 Ibid., 526, 634. 8 Jind.

7 C.C.R. 1818-1823, 19; C.F.R., 1, 379. 8 Stubbs, C.H.E., 1, 361.

The Grant of the Taxes 29 of the audits of the accounts of the taxers and collectors of the eighteenth and twelfth there was some space left for additional matter. Here was

set down the amount of the fifteenth of Carnarvon, Anglesey, and Merioneth in North Wales.! The sum total was £929 12s. 914d.

Within the boundaries of England there were at least two favored communities that were usually not subject to the general levy of taxes upon personal property. These were the palatinates of Chester and Durham. The immunity of Chester from such taxes was complete during our period. The men of the county, as it was said, granted the king the subsidies levied upon their property. In 1292, when they granted a fifteenth, Reginald de Grey, justice of Chester, was appointed to assess the tax and to arrange for its payment.? He selected two men to do all the work and their actions were closely scrutinized by the exchequer.* The palatinate of Durham, as stated by Lapsley, ‘was altogether freed from ordinary royal taxation; the king could levy nothing there except through the bishop and by his leave.’* It was only when Durham was in charge of a royal keeper that the movables of its people were taxed by the crown. A thirtieth and twentieth was granted to the king in parliament in 1306. Shortly after the appointment of taxers and collectors, the two men assigned to care for the subsidy in Northumberland were commissioned to assess and collect it in Durham as well.’ As late as 2 Edward II it was found necessary to set a time for the accounting of these collectors.¢ The sum charged against the men of the palatinate was £523 5s. 744d.7. When the next subsidy was granted, in 1307, assessors and collectors were appointed to serve in the liberty of the bishopric of Durham, but these were ‘vacated by surrender.” Two liberties adjacent to Northumberland, Tyndale and Hexham, were treated in much the same fashion as the palatinate of Durham in connection with the subsidy of 1306. One group of taxers and collectors was appointed to serve in all three districts, as well as in the county of Northumberland.’ There the likeness ends, for while the charge against Durham may be found among the enrolled accounts of the subsidy of 1L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 12d. See also the sums which the chamberlains of Carnarvon and Carmarthen were ordered to pay to Roger Mortimer (C.P.R. 1317-1821, 242, 243). 2 C.P.R. 1281-1292, 503. 3 C.P.R. 1292-13801, 109. One of the king’s clerks was appointed to look for defaults (L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 85d., 94; No. 70, m. 69; No. 105, m. 129d.). 4G. T. Lapsley, The County Palatine of Durham (New York, 1900), 116.

6 C.P.R. 1801-1307, 491. This commission also covered Hexham and Tyndale. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 76. 7 Pipe Roll, 152A, m. 33. 8 C.P.R. 1307-1318, 24. °C.P.R. 1301-1807, 456, 491.

30 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 1306, the exchequer was still trying to get in the memoranda connected with the assessment and collection in the two liberties as late as the year 1316.1 In 13807, when the commission to the Northumberland taxers and collectors to act in Durham was revoked, there was no corresponding

revocation for Tyndale and Hexham.? It is evident, however, that these liberties were considered to be apart from the county of Northum-

berland, within which they were situated. This is confirmed by other records. The county roll of the subsidy of 1295 lists neither district among those contributing, yet there is a separate roll of the same tax in existence.? This would indicate, not exemption from taxation, but a separate set of taxers and collectors or a separate assessment. Unfortunately for any detailed study of the situation during the years that followed 1307, Northumberland did not again contribute to the taxes upon movables until 1336. When at that time the county reappears on the tax-list, the taxers and collectors accounted for £315 13s. 844d. of the fifteenth except the fifteenth of the movable goods of the men of the bishopric of Durham and its liberties and the fifteenth of the liberties of Hexham and Tyndale.‘ It is then stated that an answer was given below

for the tax in those districts. The entry below is of the sort that is found on so many pipe rolls. It is made up with a blank space to contain the amount of the sum owed, but this is not filled in. Since the palatinate was surely not expected to pay and since the two liberties are joined with it in the account, it seems highly probable that, despite the separate roll of 1295, Hexham and Tyndale enjoyed a similar right of exemption. Concerning the other liberties in the country, the answer is clear; they did not escape the burden of taxation. Though the clause directing the taxers and collectors to assess and collect taxes upon all goods ‘tam infra

libertates quam extra’ does not appear in their commissions until the year 1306, there are several references to this duty in writs from 1290 onwards. What is more, the districts called liberties are listed on the tax rolls throughout our period and, save in exceptional cases to be discussed later, there seem to have been no difficulties encountered in the 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 176d. 2 C.P.R. 1301-1307, 2A. 3 Archaeologia Aeliana, 3rd Series, x11 (1916), 186, 187.

4L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 21d. The same statement reappears in connection with the next subsidy (2hid., m. 23d.). The sum given above does not cover the other part of the tax, the tenth. 5 Parl. Writs, 1, 178. 6 F.g., L.T.R.M.R., No. 63, m. 37. In this instance the sheriff is told to assist in Stamford without regard to its position as a liberty. In a writ of the exchequer dated 16 December, 23 Edward I, the statement is made that the collectors were to act ‘tam infra libertates quam extra’ (K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 74).

The Grant of the Taxes 31 assessment and collection of the taxes. On the roll of the ninth of 1297 in Yorkshire appear the liberties of Ripon, of the archbishop within and

without, of the provostry within and without, and of the chapter.! Other liberties, not covered by the incomplete roll of 1297, appear in that of 1301.2. The Northumberland roll of the tax of 1295, which omitted the liberties of Hexham, Tyndale, and Redesdale, included the liberties

of Tynemouth and Embleton.? It was the same with the tax roll of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 in Cumberland, on which appear the liberties of Cockermouth, of Egremont, of the prior of Carlisle, and of Penrith.‘ Thus far I have been unable to find a single important liberty, save those

mentioned in the previous paragraphs, that was omitted from the taxrolls.

The statement that liberties were included within the scope of parliamentary taxes does not mean that there are not signs of a desire on the part of the lords of such districts or of their bailiffs to preserve a certain amount of local autonomy. A few concrete cases will illustrate the manner in which it was attempted to realize this desire. Of these, the best

that has been found is that of the abbot of St Edmund’s. When the time came for assessing and collecting the subsidy of 1290, a fifteenth,

the abbot compounded for the tax by paying the sum of 1000 marks. This composition or fine relieved the goods of his convent, his villeins,

and all the townspeople of Bury St Edmund’s, but saved to the king the fifteenth of all other free tenants of the abbot and convent.’ The amount of the fine was entered separately upon the enrolled account of the subsidy, that is, not with the county of Suffolk, where it would naturally belong. This was one method of keeping out the taxers and collectors. The next subsidy, that of 1294, produced a different result. A writ under the seal of the exchequer recites that the abbot and convent claimed, by charters of the king’s progenitors, to have a liberty in the borough of Bury St Edmund’s so that no secular person or minister of

the king might intrude without their consent.’ In spite of this protest, the taxers and collectors, who had been told to assess and collect the tax within liberties and without, were directed to proceed with their work, this time without prejudice to the future position of the liberty. 1 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, XVI, p. Xviil.

2 Ind., xx1, Table of Contents. There are listed the liberties of St Peter, Alverton, Byland, Whitby, and of St Mary, York. 8 Archaeologia Aeliana, 3rd Series, x11, 208. ‘ Cumberland Lay Subsidy, 52, 57, 61, 67. §L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 5. § Pipe Roll, No. 140, m. 24. Since the abbot had fined for the fifteenth, he was allowed to assess and levy it for his own use within his liberty (C.P.R. 1281-1292, 414415). 7K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 74.

32 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 The protest seems to have availed the abbot little thereafter, for no trace of any separation of Bury St Edmund’s from the county of Suffolk

has been found for later years. On the roll of the taxation of the twentieth of 1327 both the liberty of St Edmund’s and the town of Bury St Edmund’s are listed with their inhabitants, charged to the subsidy.! Other examples of attempts to repel the intrusion of the royal taxers and collectors are of a different nature. The sheriff of Northumberland, by writ dated 30 April, 1292, was ordered to attach the bailiff of Edmund, the king’s brother, in the liberty of Stamford to answer why he would not permit the assessment of the fifteenth within that district.?

Nearly two years later it was charged that Edmund Mortimer and Richard son of Alan, Earl of Arundel, would not allow the assessors of the same tax to enter their liberties in Shropshire, but by their bailiffs and ministers impeded them.’ The bailiffs of a number of vills within the

liberty of the Earl of Lancaster would not, so it was said, assist the taxers of the eighteenth of 1319 so that they were unable to complete the

assessment in the county of Derby.‘ The lords of the liberties named were all important men, and we may sympathize with the tax-collectors who were confronted by their bailiffs. Yet in no instance, so far as Iam aware, was an attempt at resistance successful. Though some taxers and collectors might hesitate to face the wrath of a lord of a liberty, most, with royal orders to back them, were not so timid.

But there is one case of zeal on the king’s behalf that could hardly be expected of any group. William de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, was Edward I’s uncle, a warrior of note, one of the leaders of the barons, and

avery great man. On the Wye, across the river from Hereford and not within the county, lay his liberty and castle of Goodrich. The Herefordshire taxers and collectors of the subsidy of 1290 nevertheless compelled the men of William’s castle of Goodrich to come before them outside the

liberty in order that they might assess the fifteenth on the goods of William and his men within the liberty.’ William, righteously indignant, complained that no writs save his own ran in the liberty, and that taxes of that sort were not levied within it. In answer, the barons of the exchequer were ordered to cause William to have such a remedy as they might deem sufficient. 1 Suffolk Green Books, 1x, 136-217. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 63, m. 37. 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 65, m. 90. 4L.T.R.M.LR., No. 90, m. 146; K.R.M.B., No. 93, m. 141.

5 L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 19. The information is contained in a royal letter of 8 June, 1291. The situation is made more complicated by the fact that the earl was one of the Marcher lords who granted a fifteenth in 1291.

CHAPTER II APPOINTMENT OF TAXERS AND COLLECTORS 1. Tae ComMMIssIONS TO THE TAXERS AND COLLECTORS

ARsparliament, the grant ofthe a tax property had been made in firstupon steps personal in the administrative process were the drafting of the commissions to be issued to the men selected to act in the counties and the preparation of the instructions in accordance with which the tax was to be assessed and collected. The commissions were notifications to the men of each county that a subsidy had been granted to

the king and that certain men, who were named, had been appointed to

assess and collect it and answer for the money they might gather. Accompanying the commissions were detailed instructions as to how the taxers and collectors were to perform their duties; these were known as the form of the taxation. The commissions were letters patent under the

great seal and were written in Latin; the forms were issued under the seal of the exchequer! and were in French. Before the letters patent were

given to the men appointed to serve in the counties they had, after drafting, to be engrossed, sealed, and enrolled on the patent rolls of the chancery.2. The forms went through a similar process, though they were not addressed to anyone, nor were they dated. There is not a great deal of evidence as to the department which made

up the preliminary draft of the commissions and instructions. Such information as has been found seems to show that both the exchequer and council were responsible at times. But it is clear from contemporary records that the terms exchequer and council were not mutually exclusive, for the council often met at the exchequer and was for the moment composed of the treasurer and barons of the exchequer with, presumably, the addition of a few other men.’ As the exchequer preserved the records of

past taxes and as its staff had ample experience in all such matters, it would seem safe to conjecture that usually the instructions at least, and perhaps the commissions as well, were roughly made up in the exchequer, or outlined in a council in which exchequer officers predominated.

In the first year of our period the story that it 1s possible to piece out 1C.P.R. 1807-1818, 84; C.C.R. 1307-1318, 179. 2 For a full description of the procedure see Sir H. C. Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Seal of England (London, 1926), 228-399. 3J. EF. Baldwin, The King’s Council in England during the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1913), 218-214; J.C. Davies, Baronial Opposition, 274-278. 33

34 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 in part from the records is an illuminating one. The king, his advisers, and the chancery were in King’s Clipstone, in the county of Nottingham, on 20, 21, and 22 September, 1290.!. Thence a writ dated 22 September was sent to the exchequer at Westminster containing directions for the taking of the oaths of the taxers and collectors.2, With that writ went letters patent, dated 22 September at the same place, appointing the said taxers and collectors. The instructions were probably sent at the

same time. No statement is made about the body which drafted the letters sealed with the great seal, but it is likely that the council was responsible. The council was, however, some distance from Westminster, which may be the reason why subsequent changes had to be made both in

the commissions and in the form of taxation. It must be confessed, however, that the exchequer officers were at the time hardly more experienced than other royal officers in the methods of handling subsidies.* The changes made by writs of the exchequer were important. In the first place, writs dated 10 December changed the time of the first payment due

from collectors. Then other exchequer writs, dated 23 February, 1291, set a single date, 30 September,’ instead of the period 1 August to 29 September of the form of taxation, for the assessment. That is to say, the assessment was to be based on the goods held on that day. Also, in the instructions sent to the assessors (before the cities and boroughs had been induced to grant their share of the subsidy), there was, not unnaturally, no list of exempted goods of citizens and burgesses. This list was, therefore, supplied by the writ of 23 February. A second example shows the exchequer actively engaged in the process

of drafting the form of the taxation, with the advice of the council.® As has been stated in the preceding chapter, the subsidy of 1301 was granted on condition that certain reforms be carried through. In the autumn of the year, such reforms being actually or nominally completed, the time had come to prepare the instructions for the assessors and collectors of the fifteenth. On the memoranda roll of the year 1301, made up in the exchequer of account, there is a copy of the form used for the collection of the ninth of 1297,’ corrected throughout to make it suitable for the levy of a fifteenth, with certain phrases annotated for discussion. 1 C.P.R. 1281-1292, 388, 407; C.C.R. 1288-1296, 103, 145.

2K.R.M.R., No. 64, m. 5. 3See my paper, ‘An Exchequer Reform under Edward I,’ in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro, 225-244. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 38d, Brevia pro rege, Mich. 6 Ind., m. 41, Brevia pro rege, Hil. 6 Baldwin, The King’s Council, 214, has dealt briefly with this grant and the methods followed.

7K.R.M.R., No. 75, m. 58. The details mentioned in the text are to be found on this and the following membranes.

Appointment of Taxers and Collectors 35 Even the oath of the taxers and collectors, which is also transcribed, is changed a little. Under the corrected instructions it is noted that the form was taken to Glasgow and Newcastle-upon-Tyne to be submitted to the king and his barons, and to Edward, Prince of Wales, and his followers.: The results of these conferences were delivered into the exchequer by the treasurer on 8 October. Then John de Drokensford,

the treasurer, and the barons got to work, making a few changes of minor importance. The final version was then enrolled on the memoranda roll and, below it, the letters patent assigning the men to assess and collect the tax. Though there was no lack of consultation with the king and his advisers, the exchequer was clearly the active body in the

matter. A further important addition was made to the instructions after the issue of the commissions. In an exchequer writ of 9 December, 1301, the assessors were told to exempt the goods of knights, gentlemen, and their wives. This order was warranted by a writ of privy seal dated 23 November,” and seems to have been due to a remonstrance made in the exchequer by the county taxers and collectors.

The other evidence forthcoming is along the same line. When, for example, the clause exempting a minimum amount of property was omit-

ted from the instructions of 1306, it is noted that it was agreed ‘by the treasurer, the chancellor of England, the barons of the exchequer, and others of the king’s council’ that it be restored.? A writ of 1309, in calling attention to the instructions, refers to them as “the ordinance for the collection of the said twenty-fifth made by the king and his council,’ and a letter of 1316 mentions ‘the form provided by the council and delivered to the

principal taxers.’"> The form had been handed over to them in the ‘council in the exchequer.’®

There are also a few notes added to the commissions concerning their

authorization. The authorization, or warrant, for the chancery letters was often used as a rough draft for the instrument to be issued under the great seal. Throughout the early part of our period there is no mention in the patent rolls of the warrant for the commissions. Later, however, there is. All the letters patent issued to the taxers and collectors in 1322, and some in 1334, are recorded as warranted ‘By K’; that is, by the king himself, an indefinite phrase which carries us nowhere.’ The warrants 1 These conferences are referred to in the letters patent issued to the collectors dated 24 October, 1301 (C.P.R. 1292-1301, 611). 2K.R.M.R., No. 75, m. 1ld., Communia, Mich. 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 76, m. 47.

40.0.R. 1807-1313, 179. Cf. K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 68, where the form of 1295 is said to have been ordained by king and council. 5 C.LF.R., u, 283.

6 C.P.R. 1318-1317, 531. 7 C.P.R. 1321-1824, 224 (1322); C.P.R. 1834-1338, 40 (1334).

36 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 in 1827 and 1332 for all the commissions, and for the remaining commissions of 1334, were ‘by king and council.’! It is, therefore, highly probable that the council, no matter where it sat, had the deciding, and even the preliminary voice in the matter. When no other provisions were made, the men named in the commissions were presumably selected by the council. Indeed, this is specifically stated to be so in the year 1306. On the King’s Remembrancer’s Memo-

randa Roll of that year, under the form of the taxation and the oath to be taken by the taxers of the thirtieth and twentieth, there is a list of names described by its heading as ‘nomina militum et aliorum electorum

per concilium Regis ad taxand’ et levand’ tricesimam et vicesimam predictas.’? The usual phrase in the letters and writs, that the men had been assigned or appointed by the king, is purely conventional, but the fact that the commissions are likely to have come out of the council means much. This point need be dwelt upon no further than to note that changes in the appointments of taxers and collectors in 1332 were warranted by the council alone, or by king and council, and that in 1334 similar changes, as well as the commissions to the men selected to act in the cities and boroughs, were warranted in the same fashion.? There is also preserved a letter from the council of the reign of Edward II, in which that body, at the request of the Earl of Warwick, directs that two new commissions be issued to men selected by him to serve in the counties of Worcester and Warwick.‘ There were, however, several occasions when special provisions were made for the selection of the assessors and collectors. The most striking exception to general practice is that of the year 1301. It was then, so it is stated, ordained by the council that three or four knights or other discreet and useful men should be elected in each county by the communities of the county to act as taxers and collectors.5 Writs were sent to the sheriffs, dated 8 October, 1301,° to cause this to be done, and commissions, dated 24 October, were issued to those elected in the county of York, and to those elected in some of the other counties near the seat of

government in the north.’ A very different method had been used in 1 C.P.R. 1327-1330, 172 (1327); C.P.R. 1830-1334, 357-358 (1332). 2K.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 44, Recorda, Trinity. 3 C.P.R. 1380-1334, 358-359; C.P.R. 1334-1838, 39-40. One collector of the subsidy of 1295 was named by the treasurer and barons to replace one of the men first appointed who had subsequently been appealed of felony (K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 66). 4 Davies, Baronial Opposition, Appendix, 588-589. These were, I believe, taxers and collectors of

1307. See L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 24, where the Warwickshire taxers are mentioned in the same connection. 5 C.C.R. 1296-1302, 499; Parl. Writs, 1, 106. °C.C.R. 1296-1302, 499. 7 C.P.R. 1292-1301, 611-613; Parl. Writs, 1, 106-107.

Appointment of Taxers and Collectors 37 1290. As stated above, the commissions were sent from King’s Clipstone,

in the county of Nottingham, to the exchequer at Westminster. Some of these contained the names of the taxers and collectors, others did not;

the barons of the exchequer were directed to cause certain men to be selected to serve in the latter counties.! Still another method was adopted in 1294 to fill the vacancy caused by the absence of Robert de Berkeley,

one of the taxers and collectors appointed to serve in the county of Gloucester,? who was in Wales with the army. It is stated that, since the treasurer had not at hand a clerk fit for the office, John de Langley, the other taxer and collector, with the assistance of the sheriff of Glouces-

ter, should choose a man to take the place of Robert. The procedure followed in 1309 was more peculiar. In the commissions issued for the levy of the twenty-fifth are to be found the names of three, four, five, and even six men.? Such numbers were unusually large for the time; they were reduced by a process of elimination. The commissions, forms, and writs of aid directed to the sheriffs were sent by exchequer messengers to the sheriff of each county, who was directed. to receive the oaths of the

taxers and collectors. A writ of the exchequer directed the sheriff to report by letter or other memorandum what he had been able to do. The returns show that in many counties two or more of the men named

in the lists were sworn, and that the others were removed.‘ Several collectors of the tax of 1332, appointed to fill vacancies, were selected by the exchequer.®

Whichever department chose the taxers and collectors, it was not always accurately informed of the availability of the men at the time of their selection. The short lists of supplementary appointments to fill

vacancies caused by the inability of the men first selected to serve illustrate this faulty knowledge. Some of the collectors were found to be dead, others to be infirm or already engaged upon government business. Of the men appointed in November, 1307, one was dead, two were otherwise employed, and one was removed for some reason not stated. In 1327 three men were noted as unable to serve, one because 1 K.R.M.R. No. 64, m. 5.

2K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 73. The case of the men who came to the exchequer to take their oaths and accused each other of various misdeeds and were removed on that account is worthy of notice (L.T.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 19; K.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 88). 3C.P.R. 1807-1813, 188-186. Two men are named for the counties of Cambridge, Sussex, Berks, Rutland, and Middlesex. Parl. Writs, 11, 11, 38-39, gives the commissions. ‘The commissions and forms are found in L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 16. On the back of the same membrane is the list of those assigned to tax and collect the twenty-fifth. Notes are placed by the side of those chosen, usually in this form or its equivalent: ‘sunt jurati et alii nominati in commissione

amoventur. On m. 20 the procedure is explained in full. °K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 105d. 6 C.P.R. 13807-1318, 34.

88 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 of infirmity, one because of absence on the king’s business, and one because he was ‘unable to serve.’! The substitutions in 1332 were for reasons of infirmity, illness, extreme old age, and some inability not explained.2, When the difficulties that would naturally beset the government in gaining information about the health or business of the proposed

taxers and collectors are taken into consideration, the supplementary appointments seem remarkably few in number.

One subject remains to be discussed in connection with the formal side of the commissions: that is, the indications they give of time and place of issue. The letters patent issued to the taxers and collectors wind up with a dating clause such as this: “Teste me ipso apud Westmonasterium XV die Januarii anno regni nostri septimo.’ The value of such a clause has been called into question by the author of a recent work on the chancery and there seems to be no reason for doubting his judgment. Certain facts, however, may be mentioned which seem to throw light upon the process of making up the commissions. A comparison of the data given in the commissions with the time and place of the meetings of the parliaments which granted the taxes gives interesting results. In 1294, 1295, and 1296 the day and place given in the former correspond exactly with the time and place of the grant of the subsidy in parliament.‘ Under the circumstances, the dating clause can have no reference to the time when the letters patent were written and enrolled in the chancery; it is based upon the warrant, whatever that may have been, which authorized the issue of the letters. The date of the commissions of 1327 is that of the ending of parliament,® and the

same may be true of the date of the commissions of 1297.° In several other years the dates of the letters fall within a week of the close of parliament.’ As it is well known that the council often remained in session after parliament had dispersed,® and, as that body in all likelihood authorized the making up of the commissions, the day noted in the dating clause of the commissions is probably that of the warrant sent to the chancery by the council. When the tax-granting parliament met during the summer, as in 1290 and 1306, and the assessment was to be 1C.P.R. 1327-1330, 174. 2 C.P.R. 1830-1834, 358.

3 Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Great Seal, especially 241-265. See also my paper, “The Dating and Delivery of Letters Patent and Writs in the Fourteenth Century,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, x (1932), 1-11. 4Vincent, U.L.S. 1, 199. 5 C.P.R. 13827-1830, 172; Stubbs, C.H.E., u, 388. The date is 23 September. 6 Parl. Writs, 1, 63; Stubbs, C.H.E., u, 146; Vincent, U.L.S., 1, 213. 7In the years 1315, 1319, 1332, 1334. 8 Baldwin, The King’s Council, 310-311.

Appointment of Taxers and Collectors 39 made on goods held the following autumn, or when the grants were made

early in the year subject to reforms being carried out later, as in 1301 and 1309, there was no connection between the time and place of the commissions and the parliamentary session. In all four of these years the king’s household was in the town from which the letters patent were dated on the day named, and the dating clause may, therefore, have been that of the warrant.! Before the letters patent commissioning the taxers and collectors left

the chancery they were usually enrolled upon the patent rolls. This enrolment was made either from the draft furnished to the chancery or from the finally engrossed instrument.2. Three times, however, during the period under consideration, in 1290, 1296, and 1315, the chancery officers, for some unknown reason, failed to enroll the letters patent.

While the matter of enrolment might be of no great moment to the chancery, it was quite otherwise to the exchequer. It was of vital importance to that department to have accurate records of documents concerning the assessment and collection of the taxes upon movables. The king’s remembrancer, an officer of the exchequer of account, consistently made transcripts of the commissions on his memoranda roll and to these one may turn whenever no record is found upon the patent rolls.®

2. Districts TO WauichH Men Were ASSIGNED AND THE PERSONS SELECTED TO SERVE

The men named in the commissions were to direct both the assessment

and the collection of the taxes upon personal property within counties

or other administrative divisions of the country. Though the duties connected with the taxing and levying of a subsidy were recognized as different, only once during our period, in 1334, were they assigned to

different men throughout England. Two men, one the head of a religious house or the like, and the other a government officer, were assigned

in that year to assess the goods of the people in the counties or to come to an agreement with them; but the collection of the money was placed in the hands of the abbot or prior alone.*’ There was also an exception of minor importance in the year 1316. There were two groups appointed to assess the fifteenth of that year in the counties of Lincoln and Rutland; the collection of the tax in both counties was to be made by two of the 1 In each instance I have examined the various chancery rolls, looking especially for writs of privy seal, and have based my statement upon the results of this examination. * Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Great Seal, 359, 361.

3The commissions for the years noted are found in K.R.M.R., No. 64, mm. 5, 6; No. 70, mm. 87—-88d.; No. 88, m. 144. Copies of the same documents are usually found on the rolls of the treasurer’s remembrancer as well. 4C.P.R. 1884-1838, 38-39. The above statement does not hold true for the cities.

40 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 Lincolnshire men.! The procedure of the chancery in 1319, though unusual, does not fall within the same category. On the same day separate commissions were made ready for the taxers and collectors of the

eighteenth and of the twelfth.2 As the same men were appointed to assess and levy both taxes, and as they are referred to in other documents as taxers and collectors of the eighteenth and twelfth,? it is difficult to explain the irregularity. The taxers and collectors were appointed to serve either in groups of counties, counties, parts of counties, or large towns. The normal practice was to assign a group of men to each county; the exceptions to this rule are relatively few. When, however, in 1316, the commissions were issued for the assessment and collection of the fifteenth to be raised in cities, boroughs, and ancient demesne, there are several examples of one group being assigned to two counties.* The task of the chief taxers was, however, considerably lighter than usual, inasmuch as the rural districts were not included within their province.

The extent of the large counties of York and Lincoln placed an obstacle in the way of carrying out the plan of one group of taxers to one county. Both, however, had long established sub-divisions which could be utilized, namely, in Yorkshire the East, West, and North Ridings, and in Lincolnshire the parts of Holland, Kesteven, and Lindsay. It was customary to send a group to each of the Yorkshire ridings and, after 1313, to each of the parts of Lincolnshire.*®

The smaller districts receiving the distinction of the assignment to them of a separate group of taxers and collectors were few in number. The liberties of the bishopric of Durham, Hexham, and Tyndale, were accorded that honor in 1306° and 1307,’ as was the liberty of the archbishop of York in Beverley in 1334.8 The Five Ports, normally excused from the parliamentary levies, were given the honor in 1314.9 But each 1C.P.R. 1813-1317, 474. 2 C.P.R. 1317-1321, 347-849.

3 In the accounting of the taxers and collectors they are so referred to (K.R.M.R., No. 93, mm. 189 ff.). Some writs were, however, directed to the collectors of the eighteenth; e.g., zbid., mm. 146d., 146, 147, 147d. 4 There are nine examples of such a procedure, among them Surrey and Sussex, Oxford and Berks,

Somerset and Dorset (C.P.R. 1313-1317, 473-475). The grouping follows that of the shrievalties, with the exception of Norfolk and Suffolk. 6 The use of these sub-divisions is given in my papers in #.H.R., xxvii (1913), 517-521; xxix (1914), 317-321; xxx (1915), 69-74. The exceptions to the plan are there noted. 6C.P.R. 1301-1307, 491. 7 Ihd., and C.P.R. 1807-1818, 24. ®C.P.R. 1834-1888, 40.

°C.P.R. 1818-1317, 51. The tax was, however, to be assessed and collected by the constable of Dover Castle or his lieutenant, with a clerk selected by him.

Appointment of Taxers and Collectors 41 of these was an exception, and the appointment of separate taxers and collectors was not repeated. With respect to London the situation was different. That city had the status of a county and special groups were assigned to it throughout the period.!. The city of York received the same privilege in 1319 and the following years,? as did Newcastle-uponTyne and Huntingdon in 1334.8 Two or three men were assigned to each of the divisions noted, to act as principal taxers and collectors. The usual number was two and there are only a few instances, when two was the prevailing number, of three

men appointed to serve.4 In 1297 three men were selected to serve in each of the counties, but it was provided that two, or even one, of the three might act. The larger groups of 1309, as has been noted, were reduced in size by the elimination of those who did not take the oath tendered them by the sheriffs. The only years, aside from 1297, when three was the normal number of men assigned to a district, were 1301, when the taxers and collectors were elected by the men of the counties, and 1316.°

The taxers and collectors were to be assisted by a clerk, appointed by themselves, who had no official standing in the eyes of the government so far as the work of assessment and collection was concerned. The taxers and collectors were usually laymen, residents of the districts to which they were assigned, often knights, and normally men of affairs in those districts. The laymen who served in the counties did not belong to the upper ranks of the feudal nobility, for it would be too much to expect a great baron to act as a taxer and collector. They were for the most part well-to-do landowners, and a number, probably the greater

number, were knights. There were thirty knights, so designated, appointed to serve in as many districts with other men, not so described,

in 1295,’ and in 1322 fifteen out of a total number of eighty-one men assigned to all districts were called knights. The communities were in 1301 directed to elect knights or other fit persons to act as taxers and "See the returns in my papers referred to in note 1 above. There were separate groups of taxers and collectors assigned to Middlesex. 2 Ibid.

3 C.P.R. 1834-1838, 40. Though a group was assigned to tax and levy the subsidy in Huntingdon, I have been unable to find any record of the accounting of these men. The enrolled account of the collectors in the county of Huntingdon covers the town as well (L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 8, m. 4).

4 he, Norfolk and Suffolk, Lincoln and Cornwall in 1807 had three, whereas all the other

counties had but two save Yorkshire, which had four (C.P.R. 1807-13813, 22-24). § Parl. Writs, 1, 63. ° C.P.R. 1292-1801, 611-613; C.P.R. 1818-1317, 478-476. 7 C.P.R. 1292-1801, 170-172. 8 C.P.R. 1821-1824, 224-225.

42 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 collectors! and, though the commissions issued do not indicate the status

of the men so elected, it may be assumed that most belonged to the knightly class.? The information given about the status of the principal taxers of 1309

is explicit, for the clerk who entered on the memoranda roll the names of the men who were finally sworn to serve added a word describing their station in life? Throughout England the great majority belonged to the knightly class. In several instances one of the two is described as serjeant (serviens), while in Hertfordshire alone there is no descriptive title attached to the names of the chief taxers. In other years a number of the men appointed can be identified as knights and it is probable that a diligent search would reveal many more. Residence, or at least the holding of property in the district, seems to have been a qualification for service in a county, and rightly so. Ata time when the central government lacked detailed knowledge of vills and

boundaries and of local values, a resident of experience was needed to supervise properly the assessment and collection of a tax upon personal property. The only general exception to this plan was in the year 1297, when taxers and collectors of the eighth and fifth, which tax was never collected, were in every instance except that of Rutland selected from a

county adjacent to that in which they were to perform their duties.‘ The method used in 1334, when extraordinary care was taken to secure a Just assessment, was to select the head of an important religious house (or, in three cases, a dean, a parson, and a provost) who was a resident

in the county, and a king’s clerk or officer, who was not necessarily a resident.> The ecclesiastic would supply the needed local information and it was he who was directed to collect the money due.

As has been stated, most of the principal taxers were men of importance in their districts and a large proportion had as well the qualification of experience of service in a similar capacity at some previous time. It 1s obvious that when the government went to work to select men it would normally settle upon those whose names were known to it in other connections. The lists of taxers, therefore, contain the names of men who had served as commissioners of oyer and terminer, as commissioners of array, as members of parliament, as custodians of royal or other property, and even, though the instances are not numerous, as sheriffs. ‘The men 1C.C.R. 1296-1302, 499. This was the result of a request made by parliament that four knights be elected in each county by the common assent of the county (Parl. Writs, 1, 105). 2 C.P.R. 1292-1301, 611-613. 3 L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 16d. 4 C.P.R. 1292-1301, 297; Parl. Writs, 1, 53-54. 5 C.P.R. 1384-1838, 38-40. There is one exception to the rule that the ecclesiastics were resident, for the abbot of Ford, whose abbey was then in Devonshire, served in Somerset.

Appointment of Taxers and Collectors 43 appointed belonged to the county families, so frequently called upon by the crown to act for it in all sorts of capacities during the later Middle Ages. In 1332, for example, ten of the tax-collectors were among those returned as members of the parliament which granted the subsidy, while sixteen or seventeen had been returned to the earlier tax-granting parliament of 1327.!_ Of the chief taxers appointed in 1327, at least twenty-

five had been returned to parliaments during the reign of Edward II, and eight were returned to the parliament which granted the tax.? The list of taxers and collectors of the ninth of 1297 contains for each county

the name of the sheriff of that county.? This was, perhaps, a result of the troubles of that fateful year, for it is difficult to find instances of the service of sheriffs as tax-assessors and collectors at other times.‘ ‘To have

used them in this capacity would have unnecessarily complicated administrative machinery; not only were the sheriffs busy officers, but they were called upon in their official capacity to bring tardy and delinquent

taxers and collectors to terms by distraints and attachments. While sheriffs or other holders of permanent offices were rarely appointed, it is uncommon to find a principal taxer and collector who had not performed

some sort of service for the crown in the county to which he was assigned.

The number of taxers and collectors who had had experience at some previous time in the same sort of work was also rather large throughout our period. The figures about to be presented are, however, mere approximations. ‘The variations in the spelling of the names of men and even in the names of places are so great at times that it would take more labor for their complete identification than the results would warrant. Granting the probability of slight error, the outcome of an investigation of the appointments made during the reign of Edward II is impressive.

Four out of every ten men appointed by the commissions issued for six subsidies of the reign had assessed and collected taxes upon movables at least once before.’ As one might expect, the percentages of experienced men selected in any one year run both above and below this average. In

1316 about fifty-five per cent were experienced, in 1313 about thirtythree per cent. Generally, however, one experienced man was put to work with another who had not served before. The results in the reign of Edward III are not so favorable, for the reason that in 1327 only a 1C.P.R. 1330-1334, 357-358; Return Members Parliament, 1, 98-99. 2C.P.R. 1827-1830, 172-173; Return Members Parliament, 1, 78-79. 3 Parl. Writs, 1, 68-64. 4 One of the collectors in Oxford in 1295 was the sheriff of Oxford (L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 90), and it was necessary to call upon the coroner to distrain his goods. The same happened in Lincoln in 1309 (K.R.M.R., No. 83, m. 95). 5 The six subsidies are those of 1307, 1309, 1313, 1316, 1319, and 1322.

44 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 little over twenty per cent of the chief taxers had had experience and in 1332 about twenty-nine per cent. Though the percentages given show the value placed upon acquired

knowledge, they do not tell the whole story. A number of men were appointed again and again to act as chief taxers. John Daubernon of Surrey, to take one extreme example, was appointed to serve in his own

county in the years 1306, 1307, 1309, 1313, and 1316. The record of John Basset of Rutland was even better, for he was selected at least eight times.! Other men, like Roger de Tyringham of Bucks,? and John de Crek of Cambridge,? were appointed five times between 1306 and 1332,

and many others were selected more than twice. The amount of time spent by such men on public business must at times have been a severe burden, for it is clear from entries on the patent and close rolls that those who belonged to this class were repeatedly called upon by the crown to do other kinds of work. It was not customary for appointments to be made from the ranks of

the clergy. There are, however, a few exceptions to this. Once, and once only, were the heads of religious houses called upon in large numbers; namely in 1334, when, as we know, special care was taken to secure incorruptible assessors. In that year great abbots, like those of Crowland, Tewkesbury, Ramsey, and St Mary’s, York, as well as many abbots and priors of lesser importance, were selected to serve with various king’s clerks and other officers of the crown. The dean of Hereford, the provost of St John’s, Beverley, and the parson of Burton in Kendale, were appointed in the same year to serve in the counties of Hereford, York, and Westmorland. Seven parsons of churches were selected as chief taxers in 1295,° while in most of the other counties men described as clerks were named in the commissions by the side of the knights. The men called

clerks may not have entered into even minor orders, and might have no lay property upon which distraints could be levied by the sheriff should trouble arise. Such may have been the situation when Ralph de Bomound, clerk, one of the chief taxers in Suffolk in 1295, owed a small amount of the money due from the eleventh and seventh.® Since he had no lay fee, it was found necessary to call upon the bishop of Norwich to bring him to terms.

Apart from 1295 and 1334, very few examples have been found of 1In 1306, 1307, 1309, 1318, 1316, 1819, 1822, 1332. This may be an example of the son taking up the duties imposed upon a father. 2In 1306, 1313, 1316, 1322, 1327. In 1306, 1313, 1316, 1319, 1322. ‘C.P.R. 1834-1338, 38-40. 5 C.P.R. 1292-1301, 170-172. 6 K.R.M.R., No. 76, m. 80d.

Appointment of Taxers and Collectors 45 ecclesiastics serving as chief taxers. The provost of Wells and the dean of the church of St Martin le Grand were appointed to act in London in 1322,} but the provost, Robert de Hazelshaw, was at the time the keeper of the royal exchanges of London and Canterbury, and so an official of some rank.? William de Leycestre is named in the commission for the county of Buckingham in 1332 without indication of title or position,’ but the record of the audit of the account of the collectors refers to him as the rector of the church of Chinnor. This fact suggests uncomfortable possibilities, yet a search for similar instances would of necessity be long, arduous, and hardly worth while. 3. TakING oF OATHS AND DELIVERY OF COMMISSIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

After the taxers and collectors had been selected and the commissions had been made up in their names, there remained but one stage in the

administrative process to be completed before they could enter upon their duties; they had to take an oath, and to receive their commissions and instructions. As a preliminary to the taking of the oath before the treasurer and barons of the exchequer, or other designated persons, it was necessary to notify the chief taxers of their appointment and to warn them to appear in person to go through the needful formalities. When such oaths were to be taken at the exchequer it was usual to employ the sheriff for the purpose of notification. In the year 1290 the sheriffs of the several counties were ordered by writs under the seal of the ex-

chequer to distrain the chief taxers to appear before the barons on Wednesday, the feast of St Luke the Evangelist, and other days, to hear and do what the said barons should tell them.’ If they did not appear in person they were to be amerced forty pounds. The taxers and collectors of the year 1301 were elected in the counties, and a command was issued through the sheriff that they should appear at the exchequer to

take their oaths before the treasurer and barons.’ The sheriffs were

directed in 1316 to warn the chief taxers ‘to appear before the Council in the Exchequer’ to receive the form of the taxation and their orders,’ and the like procedure was followed in 1319.2 In 1306 the method of 1C.P.R. 1821-1824, 226. 2 Tout, The Place of Edward II, 366. 3 C.P.R. 1830-1834, 357. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 174.

5 L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 34d. This writ is printed in Surrey Record Society, xv, p. XXV. 6 K.R.M.R., No. 75, m. 58. 7C.P.R. 13138-1317, 5381. They would take their oaths at the same time. 8 C.P.R. 1317-1321, 350. Cf. C.C.R. 1318-1828, 79.

46 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 distraint by the sheriff was utilized, but the chief taxers, as will be seen below, were not compelled to come before the exchequer.} In special cases when the men appointed were not reached at first, when they did appear at the exchequer in response to the warning, or when for some reason a different method of oath-taking was adopted, the sheriff was usually called upon to act in the matter.?. In a number of such instances he was also directed to receive the oaths of the men, a procedure

that is reserved for later discussion. When other arrangements were made for the taking of oaths and the delivery of commissions the sheriff

was also employed. In 1316, for example, when Master William de Coventry was directed to receive the oaths of the taxers and collectors of the sixteenth in Shropshire and Warwickshire, the sheriffs of those counties were ordered to distrain the men to appear before him.?

At this stage in our discussion 1t must be pointed out that the men appointed were bound to appear to take their oaths and to serve as chief taxers. Theirs was no voluntary service. The penalty that was threatened in 1290, forty pounds, was heavy enough to deter almost anyone. ‘That it was seriously intended is shown by the action of the sheriff of Sussex who answered for twenty pounds from the goods of one

of the men who did not appear.‘ Later, the chief taxer was pardoned this sum because of his appearance. Again in 1316 the amercement for non-appearance was set at forty pounds.’ The taxers and collectors were not released from their duties without specific excuse, such as illness

or employment in other service.®

The oath of the taxers and collectors was usually taken at the exchequer before the treasurer and barons. On this point there is ample evidence throughout our period.’ The sheriffs, as already seen, were commanded to see to it that the chief taxers appeared before the financial board for the purpose of going through the formality of oath-taking.

There is proof that they appeared, for in a number of instances the memoranda rolls record, in notes placed alongside the lists of names of the men assigned to the counties, that they had been sworn.? At times 1K.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 44d. 2¥E.g., K.R.M.R., No. 68, m.72d.; K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 66; L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 97; K.R.M.R., No. 88, m. 144; C.P.R. 1292-1301, 105.

$L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, mm. 135, 153. There was some difficulty about the matter, and the prior of Coventry was directed to take part in the receiving of the oaths. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 34d. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 153. In another case the sum was £20 (ibid., m. 135). 6 | have already described the excuses offered and accepted in Chapter JI, Section 1, pp. 37-38. 7 In 1290 the officers of the exchequer were directed by a writ from the king to take the oaths of the taxers and collectors (K.R.M.R., No. 64, m. 5). § The note Jur is found in the place indicated above on the following rolls: L.T.R.M.R., No. 78,

m. 24 (1307); L.T.R.M.R., No. 84, m. 30 (1313); K.R.M.R., No. 88, m. 144 (1315); L.T.R.M.R., No. 89, m. 37 (1319); L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 14 (1322).

Appointment of Taxers and Collectors A'7 the remembrancer of the exchequer of account who added these notes

gave still further information. It is recorded in the case of several groups of the chief taxers of the tax of 1319 that they had come to the exchequer and taken their oaths, while other groups had taken their oaths

in the chancery.! The notes attain to greater importance with respect to the chief taxers of Kent selected in 1316, for they record the days on which the oaths were taken.? The same information is given in several instances with respect to the taxers and collectors of the fifteenth of 1290.3

Though swearing in at the exchequer was the customary method, there are a number of instances of other provisions being made for the taking of the oaths. The taxers assigned to a few counties took their oaths in chancery in 1319, a most unusual proceeding.‘ In the year 1301 a different method was adopted, when in several counties the man appointed to supervise the assessment and collection of the tax was authorized to receive the oaths of those ‘who did not take the oath before at the exchequer.”> The clerks selected in 1334 to act with the chief commissioners in the assessment of the fifteenth and tenth were directed to receive the oaths of their colleagues. The sheriffs were directed in 1309 to take the oaths of the chief taxers throughout England.’ ‘T'wo alternatives were offered to the taxers and collectors of the year 1306. Writs under the seal of the exchequer, dated 30 July, were sent to the sheriffs telling them to distrain the goods of the chief taxers to force them to appear before the treasurer and barons on 30 September to hear and do what might be enjoined on them, or, in the meantime, to go before William de Carleton and other men assigned to different parts of England to receive oaths and instruct the chief taxers.2 Seemingly, this plan of alternatives was given up, for there is a memorandum added that the taxers and collectors were to take their oaths in the presence of William de Carleton and the others, and that the commissions and instructions were handed over to these men for delivery to them. In a number of instances when, for some reason, one or both of the chief taxers assigned to a county had not appeared at the exchequer to take the oath, the sheriff or other person was directed to receive it. In 1295, for example, an exchequer writ states that several men had not 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 89, m. 37. 2K.R.M.R., No. 89, m. 105. One of the chief taxers in Essex and Berks received commissions and forms on 29 June. 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 34d. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 89, m. 37. 5 C.P.R. 1292-1301, 614. °C.P.R. 1334-1888, 38.

7L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, mm. 16, 16d. 8 K.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 44d.

48 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 come to take the oath before the king and council, which body was elsewhere referred to as the exchequer, and several sheriffs were therefore commanded to set a time and place for the appearance of the tax-collectors before them, at which time the formality should be carried out.}

The sheriff of Westmorland, receiving the same directions in 1308, ordered the chief taxers to take their oath before the bishop of Carlisle,?

| and in 1315 the abbot of Whalley was deputized to act as receiver of the oath of the taxers in Norfolk. The assignment of Master William de Coventry to serve in a like capacity in 1316 has already been mentioned. In all the above, as well as in other instances of the taking of oaths outside the exchequer, it was the latter department that directed the procedure.

The oath taken by the principal taxers and collectors was simple in form and remained practically unchanged during the years under examination. They pledged themselves to assess goods of the men of the realm well and faithfully and to collect the tax according to the instructions given them. Nothing was to be omitted for love or hate, gift or promise, and nothing was to be taken for the tax except what was due. They also promised to present the results of their labors to the treasurer and barons.‘ When this oath had been taken the chief taxers assigned to a county were given their commissions under the great seal, the form of the taxation, and a writ to the sheriff ordering him to assist them in their work. The latter, though noted on the patent rolls, was a letter close. Wherever the oath was administered, the men appointed could not enter upon their duties until they had received their commissions and instructions. Since the taxers and collectors were usually sworn before the officers

of the exchequer, it was from the same officers that they normally received their credentials. It is specifically noted in 1290 and 1319 that the commissions and other necessary documents were sent to the exchequer for delivery to the men appointed, and in the former year that they were so delivered. Reference is made to the handing over of the form, commissions, and writs in other years.’ 1K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 72d. It is noted in the heading to the writ that these men had not appeared at the exchequer. It is not necessary to do more than refer to a few other examples of sheriffs

receiving the oaths of the chief taxers. See K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 73 (1294); K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 66 (1295); L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 226d. (1315). In the first two instances the sheriff was associated with another person for the purpose. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 93d. $L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 225d. 4 Examples of the oath in print may be found in Parl. Writs, I, 68, 105. 6 They are frequently referred to as such on the memoranda rolls. ¢K.R.M.R., No. 64, m. 5; L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 34d; C.C.R. 1318-1828, 79. 7L.T.R.M.R., No. 89, m. 105 (1816). Davies, Baronial Opposition, 270, notes that the documents were handed over to the men assigned ‘before the council’ in the presence of the treasurer and barons.

Appointment of Taxers and Collectors 49 When the chief taxers were sworn in places other than Westminster in the presence of sheriffs or others, the commissions, forms, and writs to the sheriff to assist were sent from the exchequer to the person who was to act in the place of the treasurer and barons.! Twice during our period the treasurer’s remembrancer of the exchequer saw fit to record on his memoranda roll details concerning these transactions which throw light upon the proceedings. It is stated that on the fourth day of October, 1309, at the sixth hour, there was delivered in full exchequer by the treasurer and barons to John called the Cook, nuncius of the exchequer, a writ to the sheriff of Northumberland telling him to take the oath of the men deputed to assess and collect the twenty-fifth in that county. At the same time John was given, for delivery to the same sheriff, the commission, form of taxation, and a letter close directed to the sheriff to aid the chief taxers.2. The proceedings in connection with the oathtaking of the chief taxers in Shropshire and Warwickshire in 1316 were

long drawn out, but may be briefly summarized here. William de Coventry was directed in a writ of the exchequer, dated 30 September, to receive the oath of the men assigned to those counties and to deliver the commissions and forms to them. The sheriffs were to distrain them

to appear before William. The several documents were delivered to William de Faucon, clerk of the sheriff of Warwickshire, present in court, on the same 30 September to carry to the first William, together

with a letter close directed to the sheriff to assist the taxers. On 25 October William de Coventry testified at the exchequer that he had

received the oath of the taxers in Shropshire, but that the Warwickshire taxers had not appeared. The sheriff was thereupon ordered to distrain the latter, and a writ, dated 25 October, directed to the prior of Coventry

and calling upon him to act in Warwickshire, was delivered to John Dymmok, usher of the exchequer, who was to send it and the other necessary documents to the prior. On 11 November the prior signified by a letter that he had taken the oath of one of the men and delivered the form and commission to him, but that the other had not appeared. Once more the sheriff was called upon, this time to compel the delinquent

to appear before the prior. On the twelfth, writs directed to the sheriff and prior were delivered under the seal of the exchequer to Henry de Messig, nuncius of the prior. Somewhat later the prior certified that the man had taken his oath. The foregoing description of the process of oath-taking and of the 1K.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 44d. (1306); L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 93d. (1307); L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 226d. (1815); L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 136 (1316). ?L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 20. §L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, mm. 135, 153.

50 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 delivery of commissions and instructions has made it clear that there was no close connection between the date on the commissions and the time when the assessors and collectors were ready to take up the duties assigned to them. In 1290, whereas the commissions bear the date 22 September, writs dated 6 October were sent to the sheriffs ordering them to compel some of the chief taxers to appear at the exchequer for their

oath-taking on the eighteenth;! others were to be at Westminster on the twentieth and those in Northumberland on the twenty-ninth. The parliament which granted the thirtieth and twentieth of 1306 met in May, and it was determined to assess the tax upon the goods in the possession of the people the following Michaelmas, 29 September. This obviated any need of haste in the selection of the chief taxers. Whatever may have been the day on which they were chosen, their commissions

are dated 22 July.2, Exchequer writs dated 30 July were sent to the sheriffs to compel the appearance of the chief taxers before the treasurer

and barons on 30 September if they had not taken their oaths before other men selected to receive them.? The date on the commissions of 1309 is 26 August,‘ but it was not until 4 October that John the Cook was given those addressed to the Northumberland group, and not until 3 November that the exchequer received word that the sheriff had done

what he had been told to do.’ It is stated of the collectors of Kent in 1316, whose commissions are dated 9 June, that one took his oath on 25

June, another on 1 July and the third on 5 July. When, however, the chief taxers selected were not reached on first attempt, the time intervening must have been much longer.’

It is clear from what has been stated that several weeks frequently elapsed between the date recorded on the commissions to the principal taxers and collectors and the day on which they received them. The situation in the years for which there is no direct information was probably much the same. It is certain in a number of instances that the date on the commissions was not that on which those documents were

ready for delivery to the chief taxers. It will also be remembered that the sheriffs had to be notified to tell the chief taxers of their appointment, 1K.R.M.R., No. 64, m. 5; L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 34d. 2 C.P.R. 1301-1307, 456.

3K.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 44d. 4 C.P.R. 1307-1818, 183.

6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 20. Other groups were probably similarly situated (zbid., m. 16d.). 6 K.R.M.R., No. 89, m. 105. ’ E.g., the commissions to the collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth of 1807 are dated 28 Novem-

ber (C.P.R. 1807-1813, 22), but as late as 17 January, 1308, we find a writ sent to the sheriff of Westmorland to hasten the oath-taking of the chief taxers assigned to that county (L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 93d.).

Appointment of Taxers and Collectors 51 that the latter might not be found at once, and that they had to travel to the exchequer to take their oaths and receive their commissions. In the circumstances there is no basis for using what happened as an illustration of mediaeval slowness.! | 4. ASSISTANCE AND SUPERVISION

At the time when the chief taxers were sworn, they were given letters close under the great seal directed to the sheriffs of the counties. These

writs recited the grant, named the chief taxers, and commanded the - head of the county to counsel and assist the men appointed in the assessment and collection of the tax.2. It was not intended, however, that the sheriffs should take any direct part in either the taxing of the goods of the people or in the levying of the tax. They were only to be ready to help if called upon. It may be added that the commissions given to the chief

taxers in the form of letters patent were addressed to the knights and others of the counties, advising them of the appointment and commanding them in general terms to advise and assist in the assessment and collection. Ample provision was thus made for the taxers and collectors to be aided in their work, even though the nature of the aid was undefined.

From the entries on the memoranda rolls having to do with the accounting of the chief taxers, it is possible to gain more or less specific information concerning the nature of the assistance needed and given. The complaint made by the Norfolk taxers and collectors of the subsidy of 1319 that they were unable to complete the collection of the tax because the sheriff was not present to assist them, lacks definiteness, since it does not state what he was supposed to do.? On the other hand, when the Derbyshire taxers of the same subsidy complained of the failure of certain bailiffs of liberties and other districts to aid them, the sheriff was ordered

to attach them to give such assistance. When, in 1323, the Lincolnshire collectors stated that they were unable to bring £600 to the exchequer because of the perils of the way, the sheriff was ordered to provide for the safe transport of the same,® a duty for which, it would seem,

he ought not to have required a special writ. In another year the sheriff is found taking the rolls of taxation to Westminster on behalf of the taxers and collectors,® this being because he was on his way there, 1 For a more detailed discussion of this matter see my paper, ‘The Dating and Delivery of Letters Patent and Writs in the Fourteenth Century,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, x (1932), 1-11. 2 Examples of these writs of aid in full may be found in Parvl. Writs, 1, 54, 107-108.

3L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, m. 147. 4 Ibid., m. 146.

6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 94, m. 167d. | 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 35 (the subsidy of 1306).

52 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 and again carrying money gathered by collectors to the same place.! In the ordinary course of events the nature of the assistance given by the sheriff would not be noted in the records of the exchequer, for that department was not interested in the matter if all went well. When the government wished to expedite the assessment and collection of a subsidy, or to avoid any chance of corrupt practice on the part of the chief taxers, men were appointed to superintend the work of the principal taxers and collectors in one or more counties. The men selected were described as king’s clerks or simply as clerks. Connected not with

the local gentry, but with the clerical staff of the central government, they would be free from the local ties and prejudices which must at times have made the work of the chief taxers difficult.

In most years the letters to the men appointed to superintend the assessment and collection were dated within a few days or weeks of the dates recorded on the commissions of the taxers and collectors. So close were the two dates that the chief taxers could hardly have entered upon their duties when the former letters were issued. In 1297 the commissions were dated 23 October, while the letters issued to clerks, each one to serve in two counties, to superintend the taxation of the ninth in order to secure greater expedition in the assessment and collection, bear the date 6 November.? These men were to assist the chief taxers as well as

keep track of what they did. One of the supervisors of the subsidy of 1301 was appointed by letters patent dated only two days later than the commissions, while others were appointed within three weeks.? The date on the letters of 1327 was 24 November, whereas the commissions to the taxers and collectors of the twentieth bear dates from 23 September

to 12 October.‘ In one instance, in 1314, there is a wide divergence between the two dates, and it may be inferred that the supervisors were to review and examine the work of the chief taxers. On 12 February, 1314, various clerks were appointed by exchequer writs ‘to superintend

and examine’ in one or two or three counties what the chief taxers had done, and were instructed to assist them.’ The commissions bear the date 1 December, 1313.6 The writs of the exchequer were, however, recalled in February, and in July other men were appointed to investigate charges of transgressions.’ 1 Pipe Roll, No. 152 B, m. 27 (co. Oxford enrolled account of 1301); L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 5 (co. Gloucester enrolled account of 1318); L.T.R.M.R., No. 94, m. 165 (co. Northampton audit of the subsidy of 1322). 2.L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 39d. 3 C.P.R. 1292-1301, 611, 614. 4 Surrey Record Society, xvi1, pp. xxvili-xxix; C.P.R. 1827-1330, 172-173; K.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 6. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 84, m. 148. 8 Jind., m. 30.

7 Iid., mm. 148, 30. A schedule is attached to m. 30 in which are found the names of the men assigned to inquire concerning the transgressions.

Appointment of Taxers and Collectors 53 A slight amount of information of a different character concerning the

supervisors is found in other years. On the issue roll for Easter, 19 Edward I, there are several entries recording payments for expenses made to clerks who had been assigned to supervise the work of the assessors and collectors of the fifteenth granted in 1290 in ‘divers counties’.1 There is also a record of money for expenses paid to several of the clerks who supervised the work of the taxers and collectors of the eighteenth and twelfth of 1319; the amount varied from 20 shillings in Mid-

dlesex to 40 shillings in the counties of Bedford, Warwick, Rutland, Essex, and Stafford.? William of Bath, assigned by letters patent of the exchequer to oversee and hasten in the county of Dorset the levy of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332, handed in a certificate at the exchequer of

what had been done in the county, which document was used in the absence of the rolls of taxation. Walter of Gloucester, sheriff of Somerset, and appointed to supervise and examine the work of the chief taxers in his county and to inquire into defaults, is recorded to have held in-

quisitions and to have discovered fraud. His duties were, therefore, somewhat broader than those usually assigned to a supervisor, and overlap those of men appointed to seek for evidence of corrupt practice. The appointment of men to superintend the assessment and collection

of the taxes by the chief taxers, may have been necessary in order to accelerate the work and to check up what was being done, but, as will be

seen, it did not wholly succeed in either object. In 1327-1328, when such clerks® were sent out, the collection of the twentieth was quite as slow as usual, and in other years they were unable to prevent fraudulent transactions from taking place. It would not be fair to expect one man, a king’s clerk, to be able to keep in close touch with the activities of the chief taxers in two or three counties. How far their work was well done or otherwise, it is, however, quite impossible to state, because of a lack of evidence. If they reported to the exchequer or chancery, I have been unable to find their reports or any reference to them save in the Dorsetshire case of 1332 noted above. 1 Issue Roll, No. 67, m. 1.

2L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, mm. 146, 146d., 147d. I have not found the writ appointing the superVisors.

3 L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 160. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 38d. 5 Among the clerks sent out in 1327 the following were connected with the exchequer: Roger de Gildesburgh, auditor of foreign accounts; Robert de Nottingham, baron; Richard de Glatton, auditor of foreign accounts; John de Langeton, chamberlain; Adam de Herewynton, chancellor; William de Brokelesly, remembrancer; William de Bath, auditor of foreign accounts; William de Stowe, engrosser of the great roll.

CHAPTER IIT THE MACHINERY AND RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT 1. Tot Macuinery or ASSESSMENT

Wm missions the chiefattaxers and collectors had been their comthe exchequer or elsewhere, and given had received their instructions, they were ready to go to the counties to which they were assigned and to begin the work of assessment and collection. ‘Their commissions told them nothing of the procedure to be observed; they only commanded them to assess and collect the tax and specified the dates on which they were to answer at the exchequer for the money they

gathered. The instructions, called ‘the form of the taxation,’ or more briefly ‘the form,’ contained carefully worded and explicit directions as

to the way in which they were to perform their duties. In the present chapter only those parts of the form which describe the process of assessment will be described; the goods valued and the collection of the taxes

will be treated in subsequent chapters. Since the words precept and practice were no more synonymous in the Middle Ages than they are to-day, an attempt will be made to discover, in this as well as in the following chapters, how far the chief taxers and their subordinates followed the letter of their instructions. Throughout our period a fundamental principle underlay the instructions concerning the method of assessment; the personal property of each individual was to be valued in the first instance by men of his

neighborhood. Though the chief assessors might oversee what was being done and though they might correct defects, they were not supposed to assess the goods of the local people unless or until the sworn men

of the local districts failed in their duty. That the goods of the chief taxers were to be valued by the barons of the exchequer is hardly an exception to this rule, since the special circumstances demanded special treatment. One of the outstanding features of the procedure is that the

little people in the villages were allowed to assess the goods of great ecclesiastics and great nobles, even though this may have been done with the assistance of the resident bailiffs and reeves of the same great men. The machinery for carrying out this principle, described in the form

of the taxation, underwent several changes after the year 1290. The first plan, embodied in the form of 1290, was used until 1296 and again

in 1306. The second plan was set forth in the form of 1297 and was 54

The Machinery and Records of Assessment 55 followed thereafter, with the exception of 1306, until 1332. The third was used for the subsidy of 1334 alone. Each of these will be given separate treatment. The instructions of 1290 directed the chief taxers assigned to a county

to summon before them the best men of every hundred within their district. From each of the several groups thus brought together they were to select twelve men to serve in each hundred. The twelve, having been sworn, were to go to every vill within their hundred, and, with the assistance of the reeve and four men of the vill, were to go from house to

house making a true valuation of the goods possessed by each man between the first of August and Michaelmas. Several weeks later it was directed that the assessment should be made of goods that were held on the morrow of Michaelmas, instead of within the period from August to the end of September.? After 1290, Michaelmas itself, not the next day, was with but two exceptions adopted for the purpose of assessment.® If, as

often happened, the assessors did not appear to make the valuation until a subsequent day, the sale or removal of property held on Michaelmas was not to exempt such property from the burden of taxation.4 The assessment of the goods of the reeve and four men, to return to the instructions of 1290, was to be made by the twelve; that of the goods of the twelve by the chief taxers and collectors, and that of the property of the latter by the treasurer and barons of the exchequer. Rolls of the local assessment were to be made up, and the chief taxers were to go through the county in order to review the work that had been done, to revise any false valuations, and to report to the treasurer and barons the names of those who had not fulfilled their sworn obligation to assess goods according to their true value. The only variation worthy of notice in this first form during the period of its existence was the provision in the form of 1306 for the selection of men to serve in the cities, boroughs, and royal demesne, as well as in the hundreds.’ This was merely a more careful wording of the instructions, for separate local assessors were assigned to cities and boroughs before

that date. The second plan, that of 1297 and the following years with the exception of 1306 and 1334, placed the responsibility for the assessment of

property directly upon the men of the township, the vill, without the 1 The form of 1290 is translated in Vincent, L.Z.S., 1, 177-178. It is found in K.R.M.R., No. 64, m. 5, and in L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 3d. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 41. § The exceptions were 1306, when the first plan of 1290 was followed, and 1822, when the day selected was the feast of St Andrew the Apostle. 4 This is found in the form of 1290 (Vincent, D..S., 1, 177), and in after years. 5 Parl. Writs, 1, 179.

56 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 intervention of any intermediate group of sworn men of the hundred.! The changes that were made in the instructions after 1297 were of minor importance in comparison with the shifting of responsibility from sworn men of the hundred to sworn men of the township. In 1297 and 1301 the chief taxers were directed to cause to be chosen four or two men, less or more, as the townships were small or large, to serve as assessors in the districts within which they resided.? If worthy men could not be found in one of these districts, they were to choose men from the nearest neighboring townships. The local men were then to be sworn faithfully to tax the goods that the people held in house, field, or elsewhere on Michaelmas day. The results of their valuation were to be set down on two rolls, one of which, under their seals, was to be delivered

to the chief taxers, and the other, under the seals of the chief taxers, was to be retained for the collection of the tax. A few alterations in the instructions of 1297 were made in the form of 1307, and these were recopied with minor verbal changes up to and including the form of 1332.4 The new instructions of 1307 commanded

the chief taxers to cause to come before them the best men from each city, borough, and vill both within liberties and without. From these they were to select four or six, or more, to act as sub-assessors in each local district. ‘These men were to be placed under oath to tax at their true value all goods held at Michaelmas, except those specifically excused in the form, and were not to overlook goods sold or otherwise removed since Michaelmas. The results of their inquiry were to be writ-

ten on an indented roll one part of which, under their seals, was to be handed over to the chief taxers, the other to be retained under the seals

of the same chief taxers. Because of charges in parliament that the king had lost a part, a third or more, of the receipts of earlier taxes through fraud, it was provided in 1319 that the sub-taxers should not be chosen from those who had been connected with previous assessments.* When, as in 1313 and 1316, separate instructions were issued to the chief taxers in London, the machinery of assessment was the same, though the sub-taxers were to be assigned to wards.’ In 1319, when there were two forms, one for the rural districts and one for the cities and boroughs, the sub-assessors in the latter were to be appointed to serve in each ward, leet, or parish.° 1 The form of 1297 is found in Parl. Writs, 1, 62-63. 2 Parl. Writs, 1, 62, 105. 3 Parl. Writs, u, 0, 15, 39, 117, 164, 212, 213, 279; Rot. Parl., 1, 426, 447. 4 Parl. Writs, 01, 1, 212. 5 Parl. Writs, m, u, 119, 163.

6 Parl. Writs, u, u, 213.

The Machinery and Records of Assessment 57 No form has been found for the subsidy of 1334 and none was needed,

since the commissions issued to the taxers and collectors contained all that was necessary for their instruction. The principal assessors were to treat with the commonalties of the cities and boroughs and the men of the vills and ancient demesne and ‘to agree on the sums to be paid by them in respect of the tenth and fifteenth.’! Should, however, the men of the local districts fail to come to an agreement with the chief assessors,

the latter were to assess the amount to be paid. It was provided that the amount levied on any local district should not fall below that of the tax of 1332,? and summaries of the rolls of the taxation of 1332 were handed over to the chief taxers in order that they should know the smallest amount that might be agreed upon.? The method of negotiation seems to have been intended to prevail over that of direct assessment in assessing the fifteenth and tenth; this rendered detailed instruction unnecessary. When the amounts due from the various local districts were determined, the two chief taxers were to record them upon an indenture, one part of which was to be sent to the exchequer, the other to be kept by the chief assessor, the abbot or prior, for the purpose of collecting the subsidy.‘ Under the two earlier plans of assessment in use before the year 1334, the valuation of the goods of those who were actively engaged in assessing and collecting taxes was placed in the hands of those next above them in

rank. When the hundred jury of twelve was in use, the goods of the assistants in the vills were to be assessed by the twelve, and the goods of the latter by the chief taxers with the help of good men selected for that purpose.® The goods of the chief taxers were to be valued by the treasurer and barons of the exchequer. From 1297 onwards, with the exception

of the year 1306, the assessment of the personal property of the subtaxers in the township or other local unit was to be made by the chief taxers, aided by good men chosen by them, and the goods of the chief taxers, as earlier, were to be valued by the treasurer and barons of the exchequer.®

The instructions, as described, though detailed, were not sufficiently comprehensive to account for all the later actions of the principal taxers 1 Rot. Parl., 1, 447-448; C.P.R. 1334-1838, 38. 2K.R.M.R., No. 111, m. 321. This is a writ of the exchequer dated 23 February, 9 Edward III. 8In one instance, Kent, the original rolls were handed over (K.R.M.R., No. 111, m. 181d.). The wages of the clerks who made the summaries are noted on Issue Roll, No. 279, under the dates $ and 18 November. ‘ Writs under the seal of the exchequer for the immediate delivery of these indentures into the exchequer are dated 23 February, 1335 (K.R.M.R., No. 111, m. 321). 5 Vincent, U.LZ.S., 1, 177-178.

6 Parl. Writs, 1, 62 (1297); u, u, 15 (1307).

58 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 and collectors and their subordinates. The similarity of the local assessment rolls throughout the country and the uniformity in the method of making up the county rolls, for example, were clearly not due to any rules laid down in the form of the taxation. To explain these phenomena it is necessary to look elsewhere. It will be remembered that the chief taxers usually went to the exchequer to take their oaths loyally to assess and collect the tax. There they could receive from the expert officers of the department supplementary and oral instructions concerning points

of detail. What is more, most of the groups assigned to a county included one man with experience in the assessment and collection of an earlier tax. As the chief taxers were allowed to retain for their own use a duplicate of the county roll handed in at the exchequer, an experienced officer may well have had possession of, or access to, the county roll of a

previous subsidy. It is also possible that the clerk employed by the groups to make up the county rolls and the clerks assisting the subtaxers had served before in like capacities. The men who were selected to act as chief taxers were residents of the county to which they were assigned and would have at least a fair knowledge of local sub-divisions and local values. With the opportunities described for gaining informa-

tion as to methods and documentary forms, there is no need to seek further for an explanation of the similarity of procedure. The carefully worked out scheme of assessment by local sub-taxers

was abandoned in 1334 and for it was substituted the plan already described.! If the men of the vills would not come to an agreement, the chief taxers were to assess the movables themselves, though presumably

with the assistance of local assessors. The latter plan was evidently utilized in some of the districts of Wiltshire, for on the roll of 1334 there are lists of names and sub-taxers in Salisbury, Hindon, and Ludgershall, whereas in the remainder of the roll only the sums due from the districts are given.? In Kent the older method of assessment was used throughout the county.* This was due to the presence of the property of the money-

ers of Canterbury and of the men of the Five Ports. This property, as will be seen, was exempt from taxation. It was far simpler, however, so far as the sub-taxers were concerned, to value all property at once and have it designated as belonging to men of the Five Ports or to moneyers than to attempt to anticipate the action of the crown with respect to these privileged classes. It may be noted that the Sussex roll of the same subsidy gives no evidence that the same method was followed 1 See above, p. 57.

2 Lay Subsidy, 196/10. 3 Lay Subsidy, 123/12.

The Machinery and Records of Assessment 59 in that county in order to determine what property belonged to the men of the Five Ports.! 2. THe OBSERVANCE OF INSTRUCTIONS

There is ample evidence upon which an investigation of the practical working of the plans described in the preceding section may be based. The best sources of information are the local rolls of assessment, made up by the sub-assessors, and the summaries of these, embodied in the rolls

for the whole county. The latter will hereafter be referred to as county rolls. The evidence shows that reasonable care was taken to follow instructions. While divergencies from the letter of the instructions were fairly numerous, they affected no fundamental principles and gave an

adaptability to the machinery of assessment not discernible in the official ‘form of the taxation.’ For the short period beginning with the year 1290, when the burden of valuing personal property rested upon twelve men in each hundred assisted by the reeve and four men from each vill, direct evidence of practice is scanty. What there is, however, exhibits the hundred as the normal administrative unit of the assessment and twelve men as subtaxers within that district. The county rolls of the taxation of 1294 in both Berkshire and Hertfordshire conform to the precept of the instruction, even though the twelve men, separated from the other taxpayers

on the latter roll at the end of the hundred lists, are not called subtaxers.2. There still exist either county or local rolls of the subsidy of 1295 in Herefordshire, Hertfordshire, Lincolnshire, Northumberland, Rutland, and Sussex.? Though the practice revealed by these rolls is often at variance with the instructions, the exceptions are not numerous enough to affect the general statement already made. On the Northumberland county roll the ward, which corresponds to the hundred elsewhere, is generally noted as the administrative unit and the twelve jurors are described as such. Yet on the same roll there are several instances of the assignment of jurors to vills and combinations of vills. In Sussex the hundred is the unit most frequently used, but the halfhundred also appears and the jurati, the sub-taxers, assigned to these districts vary in number from nine to twelve, the latter number being

the most frequent in the returns. On the other hand, in the county of Rutland the jurors, when noted, are usually named at the end of the 1 Lay Subsidy, 189/7. 2 Lay Subsidies, 73/5, 120/3.

3 Lay Subsidies, 237/83 (co. Hereford, a local roll); 120/5 (co. Hertford, a county roll); 135/2 (co. Lincoln, a local roll); 158/1 (Northumberland, a county roll); 165/1 (Rutland, a county roll); 189/1 (Sussex, a county roll). The latter is printed in Susser Record Society, x, 4-105.

60 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 lists of the property holders within the vills, and it is likely that the two, three, or four men thus designated were the assistants to the jurors of

the hundred. The goods of the men of the liberty of Burghill, in the county of Hereford, were valued by six men, while in the Lincolnshire local assessment rolls the twelve jurors are in evidence. In all these rolls the borough is treated as a unit apart from the hundred. There is, in addition to the above, an interesting record of the fines agreed to by the sub-taxers of the fifteenth of 1290 in Surrey in order to redeem themselves from charges of concealment and other transgressions.! The men are called taxers and are grouped by hundreds, boroughs,

and the large town, the villa, of Guildford. The smallest number of taxers mentioned as serving in a hundred or borough is six, this being in

the hundred of Effingham; from that small group the number rises to ten, eleven, and twelve in other districts.’ A few rolls of the subsidies of 1297 and 1301 have also been preserved.

It was in those years that the second plan of assessment was put into force, the plan which provided for four or two local assessors, less or more, to serve in the vills. The term vill, as before, included within its scope the boroughs which were not ordinarily referred to under that title. A wide latitude was, therefore, allowed to the chief taxers in the matter of the number of the local jurors, but none, strictly speaking, as to the district to which these men were to be assigned.

The local rolls and part of the county roll of the taxation of the ninth of 1297 in portions of the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire contain references to the taxatores who made the assessment and to the districts in which they served.? Throughout, the vill is normally the unit, there being very few instances of the coupling of these districts. The number of local assessors was usually two, though there are examples of one to a vill and of groups up to eight in number.‘ The lists of property holders within the small districts frequently contained the names of less than six persons and at times but one; nevertheless one or more assessors were assigned to these vills. This might seem to reduce the plan of subdivision of the county for the purpose of assessment to an absurdity; but it is highly probable that there were in this relatively poor section of the north of England a number of people whose goods would have to be valued, yet whose names would never appear on the tax-lists because of 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 65, m. 68. This record is printed in Surrey Record Society, XVIIl, pp. XXX—-XXXiv.

2 While it is not certain that all the sub-taxers in a hundred were accused of concealment and forced to agree to the several fines, this seems to have been the case. 8 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Serves, Xvi.

4 Kilham, a large place, had eight (ziid., 138, 143). 5 Ibid., 185, 141, 153, 154.

The Machinery and Records of Assessment 61 their poverty. The returns of the taxation of the fifteenth of 1301 in Yorkshire are also incomplete, but in the parts of the county roll that remain, the vill, with occasional coupling, was the unit for the purpose of assessment.! Unfortunately, the sub-taxers are not designated.

The other rolls of the taxes of 1297 and 1301 are those which were made up by the local assessors. They are fragmentary and add only a little to our knowledge of the practice in those years. In large towns, like Colchester and Dartford in 1301, the number of sub-taxers ran high, there being ten in the former? and eight in the latter.2 In Kent the small and very numerous hundreds seem to have displaced the vill as the unit, while the Bedfordshire local rolls of 1297 exhibit the vill as the unit and

name two or three sub-taxers.5 For Lincolnshire there is preserved a series of small rolls containing the taxation of the goods of the sub-taxers for the ninth of the year 1297.6 For each wapentake six men are named as assessors of the goods of the sub-taxers. Then follow the names of the

sub-taxers assigned to the vills, who vary in number from two to four, with a statement of their goods and the amount they were to pay. During the years from 1307 to 1332 the instructions provided for four or six men, or more if necessary, to serve in the cities, boroughs, and townships. For an investigation of the extent to which these directions were observed in practice we have a great mass of material, especially for the years 1327 and 1332 when, because the king’s remembrancer of the exchequer had been made the official custodian of the county rolls,’

a large number of these records have been preserved. Owing to the greater amount of evidence, it is possible to gain a more comprehensive knowledge of the adherence to and departure from the letter of the form of the taxation. Though there was no hard and fast official rule as to the

number of the sub-taxers, four was the minimum. There would also seem to have been no official sanction for any administrative units other

than the city, borough, and township. Yet in view of the returns, it is impossible to suppose that these instructions were meant to be rigidly observed. The chief taxers followed the more important precepts of the form with care on the whole, but when they found that the machinery devised for the assessment did not fit in with local conditions or customs,

they disregarded it, obeying the spirit rather than the letter of the law. Since the treasurer and barons, who received the county rolls, raised no L Jhid., xxi.

2 Rot. Parl., 1, 243. 3 Archaeologia Cantiana, 1x, 298.

4 Lay Subsidies, 128/5, 123/6. See also 123/12. 5 Lay Subsidies, 71/2, 71/3, 71/4. § Lay Subsidies, 135/3, 1385/6. 7 Red Book of the Exchequer, 111, 866 (Ordinances of 1323).

62 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 objections to this action, it behooves us not to regard the departures from the instructions as signs of disobedience, but rather as justifiable accommodations to the situation in the county. Of the many county rolls preserved for the taxes granted in and after 1307, the majority show a rather close adherence to the precept to assign

sub-assessors to the vill and the urban centres. This seems to be true for the subsidies of the years 1309 and 1316 in the county of Bedford, for the subsidy of 1327 in the counties of Cambridge, Leicester, Suffolk, and Worcester, and for the subsidy of 1332 in Bedford, Buckingham, Cum-

berland, and Warwick.! There are some exceptions to the general rule in each of the counties named, but they are rare. Except for Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, the sub-assessors are not named on the rolls of the counties mentioned; in these the usual number was two, with

three or four appearing occasionally. Even when not named on the county rolls, the sub-assessors may frequently be detected. This is due to the practice of taxing such assistants in round sums, especially at a shilling, a shilling and sixpence, or some such figure. The rolls of the hundred of North Erpingham, Norfolk, for the subsidies of 1327 and 1332 afford excellent illustrations of this practice.? On the first roll the

taxers are named, there being two for each vill. Most of them were charged one shilling, while others were charged one shilling and sixpence,

two shillings, and a few other amounts. There are no sub-taxers named as such on the roll of 1332, yet many of the names at the end of the lists of property-holdings within the vills are the same as those of the taxers

of 1327. In addition, the tax-charge against the last two men on the lists is generally a shilling or eighteen pence. It is reasonably certain that, though no sub-taxers are so designated in 1332, the men who bring the vill lists to a close are those who valued the goods of their fellow villagers.’

The variations from more strict observance of the letter of the law can be illustrated by the procedure in a few other counties. The Shropshire roll of 1327 is an excellent example of the use of all kinds of combina-

tions of vills as the units within which the sub-assessors worked.‘ Since 1 Lay Subsidy, 71/12 (co. Bedford, 1816); Suffolk Green Books, xvii (co. Bedford 1809 and 1332); East Anglian (not in bibliog.), Series $8, x, x1, x11 (1904-1908) (co. Cambridge, 1827); Assoc. Archit. Soc., Reports and Papers, x1x, p.xx (co. Leicester, 1827); Suffolk Green Books, 1x (Suffolk, 1827); Wore. Hist. Soc., A. D. 1895 (co. Worcester, 1327); Lay Subsidy, 242/64 (Bucks, 1-14, Edward III); Cumberland Lay Subsidy (Cumberland, 1332); Dugdale Society, v1 (co. Warwick, 1832). 2 Walter Rye, Some Rough Materials for a History of The Hundred of North Erpingham, 11 (Norwich, 1885), 403-431.

§ The charges against the sub-taxers are treated at length in Chapter VIII, Section 5. 4W.G. D. Fletcher, The Shropshire Lay Subsidy Roll of 1 Edward III, reprinted in 1907 from the Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Natural History Society.

The Machinery and Records of Assessment 63 these sworn men are named, it is possible to make definite statements. The normal unit in the county was the vill, with usually two sub-assessors assigned to it, though three and even four of these men are occasionally

mentioned. There are, however, a goodly number of instances of two vills being joined, and some of three, four, and five. Six and seven vills were each twice united for the purpose of assessment, and there is one instance of fourteen and one of fifteen being brought together to serve as units. It might be expected that more sub-taxers would be assigned to the combinations of townships, but this was not so; two were almost as usual with these as with the single vill.!. In Surrey, in contrast to Shropshire, the township, being small, gave place to the hundred.? The number

of sub-taxers assigned to these districts varied from four to eight, the average being six. The goods of the people in the larger towns and boroughs were valued by from three to six sworn men. Five men were

selected to act as sub-taxers in the hundred of Blackheath, Kent,' whereas two or three normally served in a like capacity for the assessment of the tax of 1327 in the hundreds of Devonshire.* The Sussex rolls of the subsidies of 1327 and 1332 show a curious change in practice.®

On the former roll the sub-taxers, who are named, were assigned to hundreds, half-hundreds, vills, and combinations of two, three, four, five, and six vills. Two or three were assigned to each district, though again four are occasionally mentioned, and there is one instance of six. The variations in the number of these assessors serving in the larger towns and boroughs were about as great, for six are named for Chichester and

but two for Lewes. In 1332, on the other hand, the sub-taxers were appointed for the hundred and half-hundred; there are no cases of the joining of several vills, and only two instances, both in the hundred of Longbridge, of single vills being used as units. What is more, in this year the number of sub-taxers was raised, for three and four are named at the close of the lists of property holders in most of the hundreds, though there are also several groups of two. ‘T'wo local assessors were in most instances deemed to be sufficient for the half-hundred. The Cornish unit in 1327 was the parish and the number of sub-taxers usually two.’ 1 Shrewsbury and Bridgnorth, being large towns, had respectively eleven and six sub-taxers. 2 Surrey Record Society, xvirr. The tax is that of 1332. ’ Edward Hasted, History of Kent (ed. by H. H. Drake, 1886), 286. 4 Lay Subsidy, 95/6. The hundred was the local unit. The hundred was used in Gloucestershire, and six or more sub-taxers were assigned to each of them. Gloucestershire Lay Subsidy 1 Edward III, published by Sir Thomas Phillipps. 5 Sussex Record Society, x, 109 ff. 6 Sussex Record Society, x, 316-317.

7 Lay Subsidy, 87/7.

64 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 A final reference may be made to the procedure in Somerset in 1327.! Within that county there appear as units, alongside the vill, the manor and free manor, the Island of Michelney, and the vicus Templariorum at Bristol. Most of the cities and boroughs were treated as units for the purpose

of assessment, one group of sub-taxers valuing the movables of all the property holders within their boundaries. In certain of the larger places, however, separate groups were assigned to their already existing subdivisions. In Cambridge, Canterbury, Gloucester, and London there were sub-taxers for each ward.? In York and Oxford the parish was utilized for the same purpose, in Norwich the leet, and in Bristol the quarter.®

The description in the preceding paragraphs of the methods used by the chief taxers in the selection of local districts and local assessors brings us back to the use of ‘reasonable care’ made at the beginning of this section. While a hundred was not a township, or a manor always of the same extent as a vill, and while combinations of townships were clearly outside the letter of the law, nevertheless it could hardly be expected that any group of chief taxers would set aside local custom or a useful local unit in favor of one that would merely add to their difficulties.

Though there was much red-tape in the later Middle Ages, neither national nor local administrators had attained to the bureaucratic methods that are so decried at the present day. There was still a large amount of elasticity left in the machinery of government. 3. Locat Rous or THE ASSESSMENT

The instructions issued to the chief taxers in 1297 and thereafter provided that, after the local assessors had valued the goods of all the men of their districts, they were to prepare duplicate rolls of their assessment. Although those directions have not been found in the earlier instructions, such rolls were made up,‘ probably as a result of oral instructions given at the time of the oath-taking of the chief taxers. One of the rolls under the seals of the chief taxers was to be kept by the local assessors, the other under their seals to be delivered by them to the chief taxers. 1 Somerset Record Society, 11, 79-281. See also the abstract on pages 282-284. This abstract is, however, not detailed enough. The hundreds named in it were not taxation units, but the manors, free manors, and so on, were. 2 Lay Subsidies, 123/10 (Canterbury); 81/5 (Cambridge); L.T.R. Enr. Accts, No. 14, m. 12 (London); Gloucestershire Lay Subsidy, 1 Edward III (Gloucester). 3 Lay Subsidies, 217/3, 217/5 (York); 161/9 (Oxford); 149/9 (Norwich); E. A. Fuller in Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Transactions, x1x (1895), 269 ff. (Bristol). * KE. g., the local assessment rolls of the tax of 1295. Lay Subsidies, 135/2 (co. Lincoln); 237/33 (co. Hertford).

The Machinery and Records of Assessment 65 The task of the sub-taxers was not so simple as the foregoing statement might imply. Various exemptions of goods and men were embodied in the form of the taxation, and special exemptions were brought to the

attention of the chief taxers in writs and letters of the crown. These exemptions will be dealt with in a later chapter. Occasionally there were

other difficulties. In 1294, for example, the men of London granted a sixth of movables shortly after parliament had granted a tenth. It was decided that the goods and merchandise on land and sea of the citizens

of London should be valued by London juries. Unfortunately, the taxers and collectors of the tenth in several counties do not seem to have

been informed of this and in Henley, in the county of Oxford, for example, there were valued twelve quarters of wheat, twenty quarters of barley, and other goods belonging to a London merchant.!' The principle

taxers and collectors in Oxfordshire as well as in other counties were warned to supersede the tax in such cases, since all goods of London merchants were valued in London. The case of Henry de Cherringg, a London merchant, illustrates what may have been a frequent difficulty with men of his occupation.? Henry is said to have stated that he was a merchant and had merchandise not only in the city of London but also in the county of Middlesex. He was taxed for all his movables in London

under the grant of 1309. Nevertheless the sub-taxers in Middlesex assessed such goods of his as they found there. A special writ was needed to get him out of his troubles. One may wonder, also, if the assessors appointed to serve in London in 1319 would not be lable to make the same sort of error. They were instructed to value the goods of all men, ‘save only their chattels arising from their foreign lands and tenements and appertaining to the same,’ if such goods were at the moment in the

city.2 Still other difficulties will be mentioned in later chapters, and these will make it clear that the sub-assessors and their superiors had to proceed along paths that were not strewn with roses.

The rolls that were made up by or under the direction of the subassessors are very human documents. Though the standard of literacy in the villages would be low, there was evidently someone in or near most of these little communities who knew how to set down in Latin on parchment the results of the investigations made by the sub-taxers. Yet

evidence of the clerks is hard to find. Occasionally, as on the Yorkshire rolls of the subsidy of 1297, we meet with references to clerks serving as sub-taxers,‘ and still more rarely memoranda of payments to 1K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 75. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 62d. 3 Cal. Letter-Books, London, E, 122-124. Foreign would seem to mean outside London. 4 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xvi, 68, 69, 142, 149.

66 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 clerks who, presumably, had made up the rolls.1 The greater part of the evidence that the rolls were made up locally is, however, of another sort. Whenever a series of local rolls is preserved, there are usually many different kinds of handwriting to be found on them. An excellent example, coming from the years earlier than this study, is the series for Lincolnshire of the subsidy of 1225.2 The script varies from district to district, and, while much of it is like that of the time, marked individual differences appear. In addition, the handwriting on many of the rolls

is like that of the twelfth century. The same is true of the Wiltshire rolls of the same year.? Within our period there is a similar lack of uniformity in the handwriting on the Bedfordshire and West Riding of Yorkshire rolls of the tax of 1297.4 It is interesting to see in one district the script of a mature man who had learned to write at an earlier day, while in others the new style of the period has been adopted. No one person, or even half a dozen persons, could have written all the rolls for any fairly large district. At times the ink has faded because of the use

of an inferior product, probably produced in the district; in many another district it is as clear as when it was used. The sheets of parchment are often irregular in shape and vary in length from vill to vill. These rolls are stamped with an individuality that is hardly to be found in the documents made up by the well-trained scribes of the departments of the central government. Yet, as all know who have read the records of the exchequer, personal idiosyncracies in handwriting often appear even at Westminster. Two forms of these local rolls have been preserved. One, which was most widely used throughout the period, contains a detailed description of the goods that were taxed; the other, of which there are only a few examples surviving, contains a summarized statement of the property

held by each individual. The latter sort is relatively valueless to a modern student who wishes to know exactly what goods were assessed.

The descriptive rolls were made up in the following manner. First was set down the name of the property owner—man or woman, manor lord or simple villein, bishop or lowly parson, hospital or prior. Then the clerk described in detail the property valued by the sub-taxers. In the rural districts there were listed oxen, horses, cows, sheep, pigs, and quarters of wheat, barley, rye, oats, peas, and beans. In the bor1 Lay Subsidy, 242/12 (Wendon, Essex, 1307). At the end of the roll is this statement: ‘Et dederunt pro taxacione eorundem IIIs et clericus Is.’ Assize Roll, No. 598, m. 1, states that the sub-assessors and collectors paid two shillings to a clerk for making the rolls in a hundred of Norfolk. 2 Lay Subsidy, 242/127. See the photographic reproductions of a number of the membranes of this roll in H. Jenkinson, Palaeography and the Practical Study of Court Hand (Cambridge, 1915). 3 Lay Subsidy, 242/47. 4 Lay Subsidies, 71/2, 71/3, 71/4 (co. Bedford); 206/2, 206/83, 206/4 ff. (co. York).

The Machinery and Records of Assessment 67 oughs similar goods are described and, in addition, the household goods

and, at times, the merchandise of the dwellers in urban communities. A valuation of each of the items of personal property was attached. A rural roll may read: ‘Godwine Bronwode has one quarter of wheat worth four shillings; two quarters of oats worth five shillings; one cow worth five shillings; one pig worth twelve pence.’ Or the description may be a

little fuller: ‘Matilda de Nortone has four quarters of wheat valued at sixteen shillings, each quarter worth four shillings; four quarters of oats valued at ten shillings, each quarter worth two shillings and sixpence; two affers worth eight shillings;:one cow worth five shillings; two pigs worth three shillings.” And soon. These separate amounts were totalled and the sum recorded. Finally, the amount due from each person was calculated and set down on the roll.!| To illustrate the contents of an urban roll, the valuation of the goods of Edward de Berneholte, a coal-

dealer of Colchester, may be cited. He had in 1295 the following: ‘Thirty quarters of sea coal, at sixpence.a quarter; twelve and one-half quarters of salt, at five shillings a quarter; iron valued at twenty-five shillings; two cups of silver, valued at twelve shillings; a cup of mazer, value three shillings; a brass cauldron, value two shillings and sixpence; and four silver spoons, at tenpence a spoon.” It is a serious handicap to research that relatively few of these detailed local assessment rolls have been preserved in the archives of the exchequer. This is due, however, to no fault of the officers of that department. No provision was made for the delivery of the local rolls to anyone but the chief taxers and they were not required to hand them over to anyone else. Fortunately, from time to time, some were brought to Westminster because the exchequer of account desired fuller informa-

tion about the proceedings in the counties than was afforded by the county rolls. A few of these have escaped the wear and tear of time and the mediaeval destroyers of seemingly useless documents. I have found evidence that local rolls, having no official standing at the exchequer, were

at times cut up into strips and used to tie up other documents of greater immediate importance, but of less permanent value. We may be thankful that several of these rolls escaped the mediaeval wielder of shears or knife.

Few of the local assessment rolls have been brought to light beyond the documents preserved at the exchequer. Shrewsbury is, so far as I know, unique among the larger towns in having a remarkable number.® 1 The contents of these rolls will be described and discussed at much greater length in the chapter on the movables assessed. 2 Stephen Dowell, A Sketch of the History of Taxes in England, 1 (London, 1876), 148. Other detailed valuations may be found in the same place. 3 Calendar of the Muniments and Records of the Borough of Shrewsbury (Shrewsbury, 1896), 9. The King’s Lynn roll of 1275, before this period, is an excellent example.

68 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 When towns were concerned, there was always the bare chance that borough officers, having a place to store documents, might preserve the

rolls, but rural assessment rolls were almost certain to be destroyed. It is, therefore, interesting to find one such roll among the records of the manor of Cuxham.! What happened in that manor may have happened elsewhere.

The second kind of local rolls are, as stated, uniforming records. On

one type, coming from Waltham Holy Cross in connection with the subsidy of 1327, the entries read: ‘Bona Ricardi Bregg Taxantur in omnibus ad XLs. Inde vicesima IIs.’2 The Stratford-upon-Avon roll of 1309 slightly changes the wording: ‘Robertus de Wroxhale habuit in bonis XLI sol. Xd. Inde Regi X Xd.’ No local assessment rolls have been discovered for the fifteenth and tenth of 1334 even in the case of Kent, where one might expect to find them. The method of arriving at the sum to be paid by the men of the several local units would obviate the necessity of the old type of assessment record in most of the counties of England.

As the sub-taxers who gathered the information set down in these local rolls also collected the money due, no provision was made in the form of the taxation for any special remuneration on account of their work in valuing the goods of the people. What they received in the form of presents, allowances and reduced assessments when all their labors were ended and they had handed over the money to their superiors, the principal taxers and collectors, will be described later. 4. SUPERVISION OF THE WorRK OF THE LOCAL ASSESSORS AND THE

County Rois After the principal taxers and collectors had selected, or caused to be selected, the local assessors, 1t was directed that the former should move

about the county in order to oversee the work of these subordinates. It was their duty to ensure the correct valuation of personal property and

to see to it that no person, whose goods were liable, escaped. While making this tour of inspection they would receive their copies of the local assessment rolls. The latter, having been scrutinized and corrected, were to be summarized in duplicate rolls for the entire county. One of

the large county rolls was to be retained by the chief taxers for the purpose of collecting the subsidy, the other was to be sent by them to the exchequer. These, somewhat freely translated, were the instructions 1 Merton College MSS., No. 5905. The roll describes the assessment of 32 Edward I. 2 Lay Subsidy, 107/14. 3 Dugdale Society, v1, 90.

The Machinery and Records of Assessment 69 of the year 1297.1 Before that date and in 1301 the directions were less explicit, though the results, so far as the county rolls are concerned, were

the same.? In 1307 and after, the chief taxers were told to bring the rolls to the exchequer at the time of their first payment.’ Evidence indicating the nature of the scrutiny of the assessment made

by the local juries is meagre in quantity and doubtful in character. There exist a few local and county rolls on which corrections are found,

but it is far from certain which of these were due to a correction of scribal errors and which to a revision of the returns by the principal taxers and collectors. On several of the county rolls, however, there are

additions of names and the correction of tax-charges. ‘These are frequently made in a different hand and ink from the handwriting of the first draft. They could not have been made at the exchequer, for its officers would know nothing of the details of the local assessment. The local assessment rolls contain similar corrections in what appears to be a different handwriting. In both cases it is probable that many, perhaps

most, of the emendations were due to the survey made by the chief taxers. A description of some of the corrections will at least make clear what was done. For the twentieth of movables granted in 1327 both of the county rolls made up by the chief taxers in Essex remain.‘ One, which was handed in at the exchequer 8 November, 1330, has been corrected in a number of

places. The other is an uncorrected copy; it does not transfer the cor-

rections made on the first. The corrections on the first roll are not numerous, but they are significant. A few names have been added,‘ at least two tax-charges against individuals have been raised,* and there are

two examples of cancelled charges against moneyers.’ The name of John Calwe and his tax-charge are cancelled in one vill ‘because in Coggeshall parva.’® And, on several membranes, there are cancellations of charges against members of the clergy because of a writ of the king.® The handwriting of the corrections appears to be different from that of

the body of the document and seems to be that of the person who set down the totals due from the townships. I infer that the body of the roll was made up by a clerk of the chief taxers, that subsequent investiga1 Parl. Writs, 1, 63. 2 Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 177; Parl. Writs, 1, 105 (1301). 8 Parl. Writs, u, u, 15 (1807); Rot. Parl., 1, 426 (1327). 4 Lay Subsidies, 107/12, 107/13. The latter roll bears the corrections. 5 Lay Subsidy, 107/138, mm. 12, 14d., 15. § Lay Subsidy, 107/18, mm. 15, 18.

7 Lay Subsidy, 107/18, mm. 1d., 8. 8 Lay Subsidy, 107/13, m. 7d. 9 Lay Subsidy, 107/13, mm. 1, 4d., 5, 6d.

70 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 tion brought to light a few errors that were corrected, and that the corrections were added by another clerk,! who also totalled the items on the rolls.

The corrections found on other county rolls are of a similar sort. The editor of the Surrey roll of 1332,? alone of his kind thus far, has noted the additions that were made in a different handwriting or in a different ink.

All kinds of corrections appear. New names are added, the vill totals are corrected, the tax-charges against individuals are changed, and names are written over erasures. Some of these alterations are in the hand of the original scribe, while others are in a different hand. The Warwickshire roll of the same subsidy contains only a few corrections made in a ‘heavy handwriting,’ the only one of any interest being the addition of two names.? The Hertfordshire roll of the tax of 1290 has had a few names of property holders added to the vill lists, and in a few places a farthing has been added to the individual tax-charges.‘ On the back of the first membrane of the roll is a list of people not taxed at first and a note that their names were sent to the exchequer in a separate schedule. The Sussex roll of 1296 exhibits a few instances of added names, cancelled entries relating to the clergy, and correction of vill totals.°

The local assessment rolls that have been examined add very little information about the nature of the corrective labors of the chief taxers. In this connection the local rolls of the assessment of the men living in the vills of the hundred of Ewcross, Yorkshire, for the subsidy of 1297,

are typical.¢ Though the records of the taxation of the goods of the local assessors and occasional notes on where and when the money gathered was to be paid, show that the chief taxers had made their rounds,

not a single name was added to the lists of property holders and not a tax-charge was raised or lowered. There are, however, several examples of the cancellation of the tax-charges against religious bodies such as are found on the county rolls,’ and one instance where the valuation of the

goods in a grange is crossed out. Two rolls, one for Wenden, Essex, the other for Somerden, Kent, bear notes on the reverse side of the mem1 The breve cancellations must have been added later and can hardly be ascribed to scribal error. 2 Hilary Jenkinson, who prepared the text of the roll printed in Surrey Record Soctety, xvu11. 3 Dugdale Society, v1, 33.

4 Lay Subsidy, 120/2. 5 Sussex Record Society, x, 20, 21, 34, 39. Compare the mistakes rectified on the roll of 1832, 234, 236, 276, 287, 312, 316. § Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xvi, 1-115.

7 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xvi, 48, 64, '78, 108. These also appear on some Bedfordshire rolls of the same ninth of movables (Lay Subsidy, 71/2). 8 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xvi, 66.

The Machinery and Records of Assessment 71 brane that they had been examined and proved.! On the first the addition of the total amount due from the people of the vill is corrected, while on the other all odd farthings and halfpence appearing originally are crossed out and the tax-charges raised by one penny. Finally the roll of the assessment in London for the twelfth of 1319 1s corrected in a number of places.2, Names are crossed out because the men were paupers,

because they were not freemen, because they were clerks, and because they lived in another ward. The county rolls of the assessment, made up before or after correction by the chief taxers, were summaries of the detailed information contained in the local rolls.2 As they were used solely for the purpose of collecting the tax it was only necessary to record the names of the property owners and the amount that these were to pay. They are very formal documents. At the top of the first membrane of the roll there is a heading in which

the tax is described and dated and in which the principal taxers and collectors are usually named. The body of the roll contains the names of those whose goods had been assessed and the tax-charges against them.

These names are grouped by vills or other local sub-divisions of the county, and at the end of the vill or other unit of taxation in which the sub-taxers worked the tax-charges are totalled. In some districts the sub-taxers are named. The vills are grouped by hundreds, wapentakes, rapes, or other larger district and the amount due from the people of this area computed. The amount due from the entire county is noted on the final membrane. Whenever the tax was levied on the basis of one

proportion of movables from the men of the boroughs and ancient demesne and a different proportion from the people in the rural districts, it was customary to place the former districts in a separate section of the

roll. Even when all the people throughout England were taxed at one rate, as in 1327, the record of the tax-charges against the inhabitants of the boroughs and ancient demesne was at times similarly separated.‘ In 1334 the county rolls were even more compressed than those of previous years. Under the new plan it was necessary to send to the exchequer only a statement of the amount due from the vills and other districts. This simplified the work of the scribes. Instead of rolls con1 Lay Subsidies, 242/12 (Essex), 1238/6 (Kent). On the Essex roll the phrase reads: ‘Examinatur et probatur apud Pelham coram Y. le Gros.’ William le Gros was a chief taxer. The Kentish roll has the note “‘Examinatur et affiirmatur.’ 2 Lay Subsidy, 144/38.

8 Reference may here be made to a few of the rolls in print: Sussex Record Society, x (rolls of 1296, 1827, 1882); Suffolk Green Books, rx (roll of 1827); Cumberland Lay Subsidy (roll of 1882); Somerset Record Society, 111, 79-281 (roll of 1827); Wm. Salt Archaeol. Soc., vit, 197-255 (Staffordshire, 13827).

4 Suffolk Green Books, rx, 215-232 (the twentieth of 1827); Shropshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., Trans., 3rd Series, v1, 12-24.

72 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 taining many membranes, those for 1334 consist of two or three sheets of

parchment. In Kent alone, where, as previously noted, the older plan of assessment was used, was the roll of 1334 like that of earlier days.! The Wiltshire roll of the same year has a few districts with names and tax-charges, but the greater portion Is in the new style.’ When the rolls were in such form that they could be used for the col-

lection of the tax, one copy was sent or brought by the chief taxers to the exchequer. It was customary at this stage to note on the back of the roll the date of its receipt at the exchequer and the name of the officer who received it. As will be seen, it might be returned for correction or it might be accepted as it stood as the basis of the estimate of what the chief taxers were to bring in. At the moment, however, we are not concerned with these subjects, for it is now necessary to leave the story of the development of the machinery and records of the assessment in

order to turn to other matters connected with the work of the subtaxers and their superior officers. 1 Lay Subsidy, 123/12. 2 Lay Subsidy, 196/10.

CHAPTER IV MOVABLES ASSESSED AND EXEMPT 1. Tort MovaBuies ASSESSED

Te problem facing anyone wishing toisdescribe the goods were valued by the local tax-assessors comparatively easythat to solve; when, however, an attempt is made to find out why certain classes of personal property were not assessed, the task 1s more difficult.!. For © the solution of the first problem there exist a number of local assessment

rolls on which are listed the goods that were taxed. It is, therefore, only necessary to describe the contents of these rolls. The second problem is of a different sort, for, though the instructions of 1290 and after years describe the classes of goods that were to be excused from taxation, their descriptions clearly do not cover all the property released. The investigator is forced to turn to conjecture for an explanation of the latter question. The local assessment rolls, as already stated, list the goods that were assessed and give the value of the same goods for the purposes of taxation. The rolls emanating from the rural districts describe the large and small beasts, the grain, and some other crops raised by the villagers. They list and value the draught animals, oxen and horses. Occasionally differences in value due to age or strength are noted, though it was far more usual to assess all beasts in one class at a uniform rate. Bulls are mentioned, though they are far from numerous, and many cows. Young oxen and calves appear. Pigs are set down, though not so frequently as a reading of modern treatises on mediaeval agricultural economy and the records of mediaeval purveyance might lead one to expect.. Sheep and lambs are fairly numerous in some districts, yet they are far from being as plentiful as the amount of wool raised in mediaeval England and the descriptions of large herds would render necessary. The descriptions of grain and other products of the fields vary somewhat from district to district and reveal to a certain extent the preferences of the villagers or

the crop raising possibilities of different parts of the country.? The various kinds of grain raised during the Middle Ages are listed: wheat, 1 A brief description of the process of assessment and of the movables assessed may be found in my paper entitled, “The Assessment of Lay Subsidies, 1290-1382,’ in the Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1917, 281-292. 2'W. J. Ashley, in The Bread of our Forefathers (Oxford, 1928), passim, has discussed the matter of the distribution of grain raising, as well as the bread that was made, in the Middle Ages. 73

74 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 rye, oats, barley, and drage. Mesline, a mixture of wheat and rye, is often valued. Beans seem to have been an important crop in some districts, while in others they are not mentioned. Peas frequently appear on the rolls examined. Hay and forage are assessed in a few localities. A broad survey of the rolls from different sections of England brings to light all sorts of animals and many kinds of crops, but in one locality after another only a few kinds of beasts and grain were valued. The same rural assessment rolls occasionally list other kinds of taxable

goods. In the West Riding of Yorkshire carts are valued in three vills for the ninth of 1297.!_ In Littlethorpe and Bishopton they are described

as bound with iron, which means that their wheels had iron tires. In Bishop Monkton five carts are listed, one of which is described as decrepit

(debile), and valued at twelve pence. The remaining four are not so described and vary in value from twelve pence to two shillings. The iron-bound carts in the other townships were valued at two and three shillings. A few carts are listed on the Bedfordshire rolls of the same subsidy and are usually described as bound with iron.? They vary in value from two shillings to five shillmgs and were probably the larger village carts. Normally, no such vehicles are mentioned on the local assessment rolls. Atrare intervals merchandise of some sort is mentioned.

In the rural districts of the West Riding there is but one example of the valuation of merchandise.’ In the village of Holme in Bedfordshire, John the Smith had, in addition to his iron-bound cart and other goods, iron and charcoal.‘ A notable instance of a departure from the general rule that merchandise and household goods of the villagers were not valued is found in the assessment rolls of two hundreds of Kent for the subsidy of 1301.6 In the hundreds of Somerden and Rokeslee household goods and merchandise are occasionally valued either as such or under the phrase zn camera, and carts are listed. The only explanation of this phenomenon that I have to offer is that there was much confusion over

the matter of exempting goods from taxation in 1301 and that the assessors In a part of Kent, as a result of this confusion, taxed all kinds of goods.

The examination of the rural assessment rolls has resulted in the 1 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xvi, 22-24 (Littlethorpe), 28-29 (Bishopton), 34-36 (Bishop Monkton). 2 Lay Subsidies, 71/2, 71/3. See also Lay Subsidies, 242/12 (Essex, ‘I caretta ferrea precii Vs.’); 149/10 (Norfolk, William de Pokethorp, ‘I caretta IIs. VId.’)

3 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xvi, 23 (‘Rogerus Horn. . . . Item in merchandisa Vis. VIilid’.). 4 Lay Subsidy, 71/3. There is in print an excellent example of a rural assessment roll for the vill of Minty in the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Transactions, x1x (1895), 196-198. 5 Lay Subsidies, 123/5, 123/6.

Movables Assessed and Exempt 15 discovery of a definition of movable goods based on the practice of the local assessors that is quite different from that of the imstructions. As has been seen, the latter directed that all goods in the hands of the people at Michaelmas were to be taxed at their true value. The list of exempted goods in the same instructions contained none that would belong to a peasant. Yet the returns of the taxation in normal times did not list the household goods of the villagers, their butter, cheese, and other goods in the larder, their farming implements, or their geese and chickens. We

know that the peasant must have had some or all of these classes of property; otherwise he could not have lived through the winter or have

been able to cultivate the soil. An attempt will be made later on to explain the bases of this exclusion of whole classes of goods from the assessment; at the moment it is sufficient to note that movables in the rural districts usually meant the larger domestic animals, grain, and some peas and beans. Turning from the rural rolls of assessment to those that were made up by the sub-taxers in the urban communities, we find a different definition

of movables. It would appear on the surface that the assessors in the cities and boroughs, after excluding the few kinds of goods exempted from taxation, listed everything else that the people had in their posses-

sion at Michaelmas. The returns are full and valuable. The assessment rolls for the borough of Colchester for the subsidies of 1295 and 1301 are well-known examples of urban valuations.! On them are listed the oxen, cows, pigs, and sheep that illustrate the semirural character of the town life of Colchester. The inhabitants also possessed small quantities of the produce of the farm, such as wheat, rye, barley, and oats. In addition, there are listed whole classes of personal property not mentioned by the rural sub-taxers. Articles of personal adornment and of luxury appear in the form of rings, buckles, silver cups, and silver spoons. The equipment of the bedchamber is found in the valuation of beds, bed covers, linen sheets, towels, and clothing. Elsewhere in the house are found pitchers, bowls, brass pots, andirons, basins, tripods, pans, measures, and various other utensils. A salter is taxed for twelve and a half quarters of salt, which he presumably had for sale; a dyer had a large cask for use in his business; a tanner had many skins in his tannery, and a butcher had several carcasses of sheep and bullocks and a quantity of lard and tallow. Both rolls include all kinds of movables, though that of 1301 describes more household goods than its predecessor.

The returns of the sub-taxers in Colchester are duplicated by those 1 Rot. Parl., 1, 228-238 , 243-265.

"6 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 found on the assessment rolls of other urban centers. Everywhere household goods in large or small quantities are found along with the domestic animals and grain belonging to the semi-urban, semi-rural inhabitants of mediaeval towns. The rolls made up for the subsidy of 1319, a twelfth, in the city of York list the same kind of goods that were found in Colchester. Grain appears, as do cattle, household goods, and some merchandise. Gilbert Arnald, for example, was taxed for two robes, one for his own body and one for his wife, valued at 6s. 8d. He had malt,

barley, and oats worth 30s., two feather beds with bolsters valued at 6s. 8d., a mazer cup worth 3s., four drinking cups of silver worth Qs. 8d.,

and vessels and household utensils valued at 5s. Richard Raskel had among other taxable property a feather bed and a cup of mazer. Agnes Edus had a hanging (¢apeta) worth 3s. John le Plummer had lead pertaining to his trade valued at 10s., as well as a robe, drinking cups, and other goods. John Cook, whose name betrays his occupation, had a robe, a cup of mazer, six silver cups, merchandise worth 50s., and uten-

sils pertaining to his business valued at 7s. 8d. Though the citizens were charged for their cows, pigs, and grain, there is less evidence in the city of a connection with agriculture than there was in Colchester. The returns of the assessment of movables for the fifteenth of 1301 in Dartford,? the fifteenth of 1313 in Shrewsbury,* and the twelfth of

1319 in Bridport‘ describe the same kinds of goods as valued for taxation. On the Dartford roll the findings of the assessors are frequently

summarized under the words stock and chamber (camera). The latter obviously cover household goods. In other instances all assesssed goods

are named and these belong to the classes already described. The Shrewsbury roll records the assessment of wheat, malt, oats, rye, barley,

wood, sheep, pigs, horses, iron, steel, tallow, spoons, buckles, skins, cloth, and many other kinds of goods. The articles noted in the Bridport roll include ‘quarters of wheat, beds, brass platters, horses, fuel, wooden vessels, leaden vessels, ewers and basins, malt, hemp, tablecloths, hand napkins, girths and yarn, white leather, timber, hay, wool, millstones.” Whenever urban assessment rolls are found they contain similar descriptions of the personal property of the people.® From the foregoing examination of the contents of the rolls made up 1 Lay Subsidy, 242/95. 2 Archaeologia Cantiana, rx, 285-298. 3 [H. Owen and J. B. Blakeway], A History of Shrewsbury (London, 1825), 1, 153-154.

4 Hist. MSS. Com., Sixth Report, Part I, Appendix, 491. 5 Lay Subsidy 71/4 (Dunstable and Bedford) m. 4. In Bedford merchandise and utensils occasionally appear (Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xv1, 113-115). In Wakefield, the goods of the tanners and some merchandise arc noted. Some stock-in-trade is also mentioned on the Bridport roll of 1323 (Hist. MSS. Com., Sixth Report, Appendix, 492).

Movables Assessed and Exempt 77 by the sub-taxers in the urban districts it is possible to deduce a defini-

tion of personal property that is far more comprehensive than that utilized in the rural districts. The urban definition included household goods of all kinds and many articles of personal use. Though many of the peasants must have possessed beds and kitchen utensils, these were not valued by the rural sub-taxers. In the cities and boroughs, as in the agricultural districts, the tools of the workers do not seem usually to have been valued, despite the case of John Cook in York and occasional instances elsewhere. In the urban centers, as in the country, it was customary to exclude from the assessment butter, cheese, flour, and other food prepared for use and in the larder. So while movables in the cities and boroughs included household goods, some clothing, and articles of personal adornment and did not include those classes of goods in the rural villages, there were some points of similarity between the two definitions.

The contrasted meanings of personal property illustrate the failure of formal instructions to give full information. No study of the forms of taxation issued to the taxers and collectors from 1290 to 1332, no matter how

intensive such a study might be, would reveal the distinction that has been discovered or the reason why certain classes of goods were excused

from the assessment in both town and country. It is, therefore, my purpose in the remaining sections of this chapter to go behind the returns found on the assessment rolls in order to discover, as far as possible, why certain classes of goods were not valued and also what the same returns

of goods assessed really mean. I take it to be obvious that the listing and valuation of movable goods is no proof that either the goods described

or the values attached to them were what they appear to be on casual view. 2. MovaBLeEs OFFICIALLY EXEMPT

The standard lists of the classes of personal property that were to be excused from the assessment made by the sub-taxers are found in the

instructions of the year 1290. The few changes made in after years were relatively unimportant. The goods to be exempted from taxation in the rural districts in 1290 were as follows: the armor, riding-horses, jewels, and clothing of knights, gentlemen (gentiz homes) and their wives, and their vessels of gold, silver,

and brass.! It was added that these exemptions were not to apply in the cities, boroughs, or other towns to the goods of merchants; the latter were to be taxed without exception. ‘Treasure was added to the list of goods excused in the forms of the taxation of 1294 and 1295, so 1 Vincent, U.L.S., 1, 178, n. 1.

78 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 that the clause was made to read ‘treasure, armor, riding horses. . . .”! The plan was reversed in 1296, and treasure in money was specifically noted as being liable to the taxation of movables.? Thereafter treasure was not included among the goods to be excused. The special mention of the goods of merchants, found in 1290, was omitted from the instruc-

tions of later years, save in those of 1306.8 | In the year 1307 a new clause was added to the instructions concerning

exemptions of personal property in the rural districts.* It directed that rents and services, obviously payments in kind, due from a villein to his lord, were to be deducted from the goods in his possession before the assessment was made, for the lord was to be taxed for them as a part of his personal property. The clause remained in the forms of the taxation until the year 1319, then disappeared. The need of such a specific order is not altogether clear, for such goods belonged to the lord of the manor. It is quite probable, however, that, when villeins had not yet paid their rents to the lord, difficulties might arise over goods in their storehouses which belonged to another person. In connection with the assessment and collection of the subsidy of 1332 in Surrey, an interesting situation is to be found, based upon this difficulty of recognizing the ownership of property in the possession of the villeins. John d’Abernon and William de Weston, the principal taxers and collectors, were experienced officers, both having served in a like capacity before the clause was taken from the form of the taxation, as well as in 1327, when it was omitted. Never-

theless, their instructions to the sub-taxers must have been lacking in definiteness, since the latter failed in several districts to make the distinction noted. The matter was drawn to the attention of the central government, and writs were issued calling for a rectification of the mis-

takes made. The tax-charges against the villeins of the abbots of Westminster and Chertsey were reduced on the county roll of the taxation. The enrolment of the audit of the account of the collectors states that they did not owe forty-six shillings which they had charged against the villeins of the archbishop of Canterbury in Wimbledon and other vills because of property in their possession belonging to the same archbishop.® 1 Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 182.

?/Vincent, L.L.8., 1, 192. Tresor was omitted from the list of goods excused and the new clause, added. 3 Parl. Writs, 1, 179. 4 Parl. Writs, u, m, 15.

5 Surrey Record Society, xviu1: Westminster, 52, 60; Chertsey, 43, 49, 58, 54, 55, 58, 59. It was brought out at the accounting of the collectors that there were notable defects in the work done by the sub-taxers (K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 212). See also Sussex Record Society, x, 260, 263, 280.

6 Surrey Record Society, xvi, p. L. ‘. . . eo quod eadem taxacio facta fuit de redditibus et serviciis eorundem villanorum qui debuerunt fuisse deducta de taxacione predicta.’

Movables Assessed and Exempt 79 The list of goods to be excused from the fifteenth of 1290 in cities, boroughs, and market towns was embodied in a special writ of the exchequer, dated 23 February, 1291.1. The original form of the taxation had contained no directions concerning such goods,? and the deficiency was supplied by means of these supplementary instructions. The goods to be excused were: a garment for a man and one for his wife and a bed for the two, one ring, one buckle of silver or gold, and a girdle of silk, if

these were in daily use, and a drinking cup of silver or mazer. This description of the goods to be excused in the urban districts remained the same throughout the period, though in some later years the market towns were omitted from the districts to which it was to apply.? A closer examination of the two lists of movables exempted from taxa-

tion gives interesting results. ‘The rural list applied only to goods held

by the well-to-do. It excused the military equipment of the country gentry, their jewels and clothing, and their more costly dishes and cups. The urban list, on the other hand, included personal property that would be likely to be in the possession of most burgesses. Every man and his

wife would each have a garment, there would be a big bed in most houses, and the articles of personal adornment and even the one precious cup might, and probably would, be owned by a considerable number of the town-dwellers.

So much for a first glance at the instructions. Other differences immediately appear. It will be noted that while the military equipment needed by the gentry for performing military service to the crown is omitted, nothing is said of the plough and spade that the peasant needed for the cultivation of the soil. Nor is there any mention in the list of exempted goods of the loom and shears, the forge and pincers, that an artisan in the town would need im his trade. While clothing (in the one case all, in the other a limited amount) and articles of personal adornment

were not to be valued when in the possession of gentry and burgesses, no mention is made of similar articles in the possession of a peasant. Despite this lack of interest in the peasant, his household goods and food in the larder were not taxed, and his ploughs, small carts, rakes, and spades were left unvalued. His clothing was not assessed. And in the towns, without any provision being made for their exemption, it is only rarely that we find the tools of the trade of an artisan valued on the local assessment rolls. It is evident, therefore, that the assessors of movable goods were guided in their work, not only by their official instructions, but also by some principle or principles that were not set 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 41. 2 Vincent, D.L.S., 1, 177. 3 In 1832 the instructions were to apply merely to cities and boroughs (Rot. Parl., 11, 447).

80 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 down in the form of taxation. In addition to formal exemption, there was customary exemption. Any attempt to explain the phenomenon just described must of neces-

sity be based to a large extent upon records other than those made up by the assessors of taxes, for the various documents connected with the valuation of personal property do not offer a solution of the problems they raise. While I cannot hope to tender satisfactory explanations of all the omissions and inclusions of property, it is possible to find a reasonably convincing hypothesis that will account for some of them.

In order to account for the formal or customary exemption of tools and certain articles in general use, recourse may be had to a practice in a field seemingly quite remote from taxes and tax assessors. Tait, in discussing the clause in Magna Carta! relating to amercements, translates it as follows: ‘A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offence except in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a grave offence he shall be amerced in proportion to the gravity of his offence, saving always his position; and a merchant in the same way, saving his trade; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way, saving his tillage—if they have fallen into our mercy.’ His comment on the final phrase is as follows: ‘Saving his tillage, 2. e. without disabling the villein from carrying on the agriculture which was his livelihood, gives a good sense and casts protection over more than the mere “implements of husbandry.”’ For the economic ruin of the villein could in many cases be brought about as effectually by impounding his seed corn or his growing crops as by depriving him of his

plough or plough-team.’ As it was with the peasant so it was with the artisan, the merchant, and presumably with the fighting man; these were not to be so amerced as to deprive them of the tools that they must have if they were to continue to earn a living. The omission from the tax rolls of ploughs and looms as well as armor and riding-horses may pre-

sumably be accounted for on the same basis. Such goods as a man needed for his life work, whatever that might be, were not assessed for the levy of taxes. It is another, though similar matter with the more personal posses-

sions that were excused from the assessment. Tait has shown that contenementum in Magna Carta and elsewhere meant position in life, standing. A man’s position should not be injured by amercement. It

may be granted that the jewels, clothing, and plate were needed to uphold the dignity of the gentry.? If this is so, the dignity of a merchant

may well have needed for its support the smaller quantity of similar 1 Chapter xx. 2 ‘Studies in Magna Carta, 1, Waynagium and Contenementum,’ H.H.R., xxv, (1912), 720-728. 8 A search of the tax rolls has revealed not a single instance of the taxing of property in a castle.

Movables Assessed and Exempt 81 articles named in the form of the taxation. The makers of the form were not, as they had no reason to be, concerned about the position in life of the peasant. Yet the clothing and household goods of these villagers were

excused by custom, perhaps the same custom that led to the explicit instructions concerning the exemption of the goods of those higher up in the social and economic scale. 38. Toe WortH or Rurau ASSESSMENT Rots as DESCRIPTIONS OF Hoxpwines or PROPERTY

A more intangible problem than that of tools and the upholding of a property holder’s position in life, is the estimation of the value of the returns on the local assessment rolls as descriptions of the movables held

by a man on Michaelmas day. Several classes of goods have already been eliminated from the assessment by the examination of precept and custom, but it remains to be seen whether the property listed included

the residue of the goods that might have been valued. Discussions of possible omission through fraud and of the subject of undervaluation have been relegated to a later chapter. Allowing for such contingencies, it seems to be evident that the recorded individual holdings of grain, to mention no other items, were often insuflicient for the support of a family until the next harvest. For the time being, therefore, I shall confine my attention to grain.

Before attempting to substantiate the assertion that the assessed individual holdings of grain were often insufficient for the support of a family, it will be well to see what those holdings were. A few examples from vills located in different districts will suffice as illustrations of the general situation. Wheat, rye, oats, and barley will be counted as grain.

In Ingelton, Yorkshire, there were twenty-eight tax-payers and for these the average per capita holding of all kinds of grain was 12.3 bushels.

Without the dominus the average was 10.2 bushels. Thirteen men of the twenty-eight were not charged for any grain.! In some other vills of the same district of Yorkshire, the West Riding, the averages were 70.5, 39, 56, 31, and 24 bushels.2. For the one thousand and twenty property holders listed on the rolls of the West Riding, lords as well as tenants, the average holding of grain was 38.5 bushels. In Leighton, Bedfordshire, the average for one hundred and nineteen men was a little over 13.6 bushels; in Dunton, Bucks, 26.7; in Wenden, Essex, without the lord of the manor, 52.6; in Ronhale, Bedfordshire, without the abbot, 1 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xvi, 8-10.

2 Ibid., 86-87 (Ecclesfield), 88-89 (Handsworth), 90-91 (Lepton), 98-99 (Stanley), 106-108 (Metheley).

82 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 17.8, and in two hamlets of Ronhale, 20.5 and 29.2 bushels.!. In Skyren, Norfolk, there were seven property holders whose goods were listed.? Omitting Robert Cook, who was charged for 28 quarters of wheat, barley, and oats, the remaining men held on an average 60.2 bushels of grain. In Nasing, Essex, on the other hand, not counting the holding of one man, who was charged with 240 bushels of wheat and oats, the average holding

of the remaining twenty-three property holders was 14 bushels.’ It is evident that, though there was a large amount of variation, there were a number of vills in which the average holdings were relatively, even absolutely, small. If the grain listed was all that a mediaeval peasant had at Michaelmas,

the problem facing him must have been even greater than that of a modern student of taxation faced with the same returns. He had to live, the student has only to interpret assessment rolls. The situation of both may be made clearer by the following considerations. The tithe would naturally be excluded before the assessment was made and it is highly probable that seed corn would also be excused on the ground that it was a part of his waynage and needed for ‘carrying on the agriculture which was his livelihood.’ Yet even if the grain assessed did not include these

two items, it 1s very doubtful if 1t was sufficient for all other needs. While it is not possible to be dogmatic about the demands upon the income of a peasant, certain claims stand out that would usually have to be met. Ale, porridge, and bread were needed throughout the year for the

family of the villager. Oats were used to feed cattle at special seasons of the year. From time to time it was necessary to have cash in hand with which to purchase a ploughshare, a spade, woollen cloth for clothing or bed covers, and a bit of finery for the women of the household. There

were other times when cash was needed. Royal taxes had to be paid in coin of the realm; the lord of the manor might impose a tallage; fines in the lord’s court, though small, were frequent, and the peasant might be forced to pay, or might offer to pay, compositions for week-work and boon-work. Occasionally it would be necessary to buy cattle, pigs, and sheep to replace those that had died of murrain. To meet the demands for cash the villager had to have saleable products. He would be likely to have a pig or so for sale, and more surely some butter, cheese, chickens, and grain. He may have had a cow or ox which he did not wish to carry through the winter. Butter, cheese, 1 Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, vu, 122-124; Lay Subsidies, 242/35 (Dunton, Bucks, 1327);

942/12 (Wenden, Essex, 1307); 71/2 (Ronhale, co. Bedford, 1297, and the two hamlets of Sabiho and Ravensden). 2 Lay Subsidy, 149/10. The tax was that of 1339. 3 Lay Subsidy, 242/13. The tax was the twenty-fifth of 1309.

Movables Assessed and Exempt 83 chickens, and the like were low in price, and their sale, even in the aggregate, would add little to his store of cash. Decrepit large animals, though saleable, fetched low prices. If the ready money that the peasant had in hand is to be accounted for, the sale of grain has to be taken into consideration.

This is not the place to discuss at any length the evidence for the movement of grain across country during the later Middle Ages. Gras has shown how considerable was the trade in wheat and other cereals.! His figures relative to exports and his statements about the growth of market districts might be supplemented by others, equally convincing, relating to purveyance? and the coastwise trade. The growth of industry

in the towns, a growth depending largely upon the capacity of the villager to purchase goods, the importance of town and village markets, and the evidence of the carriage of grain on the rivers and roads,‘ bear witness to the possession of money by the peasants and to the sale of grain in large quantities by the dwellers in the mediaeval manor. It is now possible to turn to another type of evidence. The statement, that it may be doubted whether the average holding of grain in many districts was sufficient for the support of a family and for the provision of some money to meet other needs, is based largely upon the evidence we have of a minimum food wage. In order to discover what this wage was, recourse may be had to the allowances in food granted to manorial servientes,—the ploughman, carter, shepherd, cowherd, and others who were so paid by the lord of the manor. The servants on a manor, according to the unknown writer of a late

thirteenth century Husbandry, took one quarter of corn every twelve weeks for their allowance.’ If these payments were made throughout the year, they would give the servant a little less than thirty-five bushels

for the support of his family. This estimate of the proper food wage does not, however, cover the payments in cash or the perquisites that

were usually added in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. In Wistowe, Forncett, Manydown, and many other manors, the servants 1N.S.B. Gras, The Evolution of the English Corn Market (Cambridge, Mass., 1915).

2 References to huge amounts of grain to be purveyed for the army are numerous; e. g., C.P.R. 1301-1307, 98-99, 159, 417; C.P.R. 1821-1824, 243; C.C.R. 1883-1837, 25-26. For the grain needed when parliament was to meet see C.P.R. 1807-1818, 468-464.

3The unpublished master’s thesis of my student, Mrs Minnie Berueffy, contains a list of over five hundred village markets in the early fourteenth century. 4T have briefly referred to this subject in my paper ‘Inland Transportation in England during the Fourteenth Century,’ Speculum, 1 (1926), 361-374. 6 Klizabeth Lamond, Walter of Henley’s Husbandry (London, 1890), 75. § ] am quite aware of the objection that the payments may not have been so continued. The next note, however, refers to annual wages.

84 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 were annually allowed from thirty-five to a little over forty bushels of grain, and some cash as well.!. An average of these sums would be of little value. The servant might have in addition a few acres of arable land on which he could raise a small quantity of grain, and he would probably have as well a cow, a pig or so, and some chickens. The thirtyfive or forty bushels of grain he received from the lord were not, therefore,

the sole means he had for the support of his family. Since the economic status of the servant was at least no better than that of other tillers of the soil, the allowance of from thirty-five to forty bushels of grain may be

taken as the minimum amount required for the bread, porridge, and ale of any peasant household.

If this inference may be taken as satisfactory, it follows that the average amounts of grain listed on a number of the assessment rolls were insufficient for the needs of a family. Most heads of households in such villages would not have enough to provide even the necessary bread and porridge and only a rare individual would have a few bushels for sale.

Are we therefore to conclude that in those districts the peasants at Michaelmas were about to enter upon a period of intense privation, even of starvation, or are we forced to adopt another explanation of the numer-

ous Individual holdings of grain that fell far below the thirty-five to forty bushel mark? The key to the puzzle seems to be found in the instructions issued to the taxers and collectors of the subsidies granted in 1225 and 1283. In the former year the list of exemptions was extremely long and need not be quoted in full. Among the classes of goods excused were, however, food in the larder and cellar belonging to freemen and those above them, save merchants. At the same time villeins were not to be taxed for the arms to which they were sworn, their utensils, or their fish, flesh, drink,

hay, and forage which were not for sale.2 The 1283 list of exempted goods was also comprehensive. It reads: ‘excepting treasure, riding horses, bedding, clothes, vessels, tools, geese, capons, hens, bread, wine, ale, cider, and all kinds of food provided and ready for use, of the men who are neither burgesses nor merchants.’? The two lists combined excuse from taxation goods in the larder and not for sale. If the instructions were interpreted fairly liberally, as they probably were, grain that 1N. Neilson, Economic Conditions on the Manors of Romsey Abbey (Philadelphia, 1899), 83 (Wistowe); F. Davenport, The Economic Development of a Norfolk Manor (Cambridge, 1906), 24 (Forncett); G. W. Kitchen, The Manor of Manydown (London, 1895), 150, 154, 160, etc.; J. E. T. Rogers, A History of Agriculture and Prices, 1 (Oxford, 1866), 288-289 (Cuxham); North Riding Record Society, N.S., 1 (1895), 231-232, rv (1897), 51, etc. (Pickering, wages of a forester), 209 (shepherds); cf. W. H. R. Curtler, A Short History of English Agriculture (Oxford, 1909), 61.

2 Patent Rolls, Henry III, 1, 560-561 (15 February, 1225). 3 Edgar Powell, A Suffolk Hundred in the Year 1283 (Cambridge, 1910), x1.

Movables Assessed and Exempt 85 was stored for family use, and so not for sale, would not be included among the movables assessed for taxes.

While, therefore, the instructions of 1290 and the following years contain no justification for such a procedure, it may well be conjectured

that the grain that was taxed, as well as the peas, beans, and small quantities of hay, formed the surplus that the peasant had for sale. The sub-taxers, following a custom embodied in the earlier forms of taxation, though omitted from those of later years, excused butter, cheese, bread, ale, grain for home consumption, and such other victuals

as were to be used by the family. The grain that remained and was valued on the tax rolls would represent the amount above and beyond the needs of the villager. This he could sell and with the cash thus gained he could meet a part at least of his other obligations, including the taxes levied by the king. The same early exemption lists may also embody either the beginnings of a custom, or one already in force, that excused household goods and

poultry from assessment. Reference has already been made to the exemption of household goods in connection with contenementum; the lists of 1225 and 1283 help to confirm the conjecture then made. Why the various kinds of poultry appear on the exemption list of 1283 and why they were continually excused after 1290, are questions that I must

leave to others to answer. It would appear to be evident that some general principle was involved and that the problem may not be dismissed with the suggestion that geese and hens were priced so low that they were not even to be considered by the assessors of taxes. 4. Tat Worts or UrBan ASSESSMENT ROLLS AS DESCRIPTIONS OF Ho.pines oF PROPERTY

When we leave the rural districts for the urban communities, we enter

upon very uncertain ground. It is impossible to formulate in advance any general list of movables that would be in the possession of all the burgesses at Michaelmas. Even if the occupation of the townsman is known, a statement of his probable holdings of household goods, beyond

those already excused, would be so conjectural as to be valueless. To list even his tools would be difficult as well as unnecessary, since they were included in his waynage, that is, necessary for the pursuit of his trade. The instructions of 1283 help us very little in this quest for information. ‘They did not call upon the assessors to excuse goods in the larder of the burgess, perhaps for the reason that he kept no large stores of these articles. He could draw upon the butcher, the baker, and the grocer whenever he so desired. Some, at least, of the grain that was found in

86 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 the possession of many townsmen was taxed. I have found no means of determining whether this grain was held for family use or for sale. It might be either, for no provision was made, either in 1283 or in 1290, for excluding it from the assessment.

Despite a lack of direct evidence to support it, the impression produced by the urban rolls is one of incompleteness. Fuller, who made a careful study of the assessment for the tallage of 1312 in Bristol, which was levied in part on personal property, concluded that ‘it is impossible to consider the assessment as in any way representing the real wealth of

the trading classes in Bristol in 1313.’2 He cites the case of John the Taverner, whose goods, seized because of his outlawry about the same time, were valued at two hundred pounds. On the roll of assessment John was credited with having personal property to the value of ten pounds. Opportunities of comparison such as this are bound to be rare and must be discovered by the local historian. My own impressions are

akin to those of Fuller, but, while they may have some weight, they are far from being conclusive. 1 It is stated that goods in the larder were taxed in Shrewsbury in 1818 (H. Owen and J. B. Blakeway, A History of Shrewsbury, 1, 153). 2 Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Transactions, x1x (1895), 206.

CHAPTER V EXEMPTIONS IN THE ‘FORM’ OF THE TAXATION A eee form of the taxation issued to the principal taxers and collectors contained three types of clauses relating to exemptions from taxa-

tion. The first had to do with the kinds of goods that were not to be assessed and has been discussed in the preceding chapter. In the second, provision was made for the smallest amount of personal property in the possession of one person that should be taxed; all holdings below that minimum were to be excused. The third directed the exemption of part or all of the goods of certain classes of people. These classes were, for

entirely different reasons, the lepers and the clergy. In addition to the exemptions due to the clauses in the form of the taxation, there were many that were due to special grant of the crown. In the present chapter only the clauses contained in the instructions to the chief taxers will be discussed; exemptions caused by special grant will be taken up in the following chapter.

1. Tur TaxasBLe Minimum

The clause in the instructions relating to the minimum amount of property to be taxed varied slightly in phraseology during our period, but its substance was always the same: the chief taxers were not to tax the goods of anyone for the subsidy unless their total value reached a stated sum.! The obvious intention of this command was to excuse the goods of the poor from taxation. As will be seen, however, the definition of the amount of property that distinguished those whose goods should be taxed from those who may be called poor varied from time to time; a man who was ‘poor’ when one subsidy was levied might be called upon

to pay taxes under the next grant. The form of the taxation of the year 1290 contains no clause relating to the exemption of holdings of property below a fixed sum.? The writ to the collectors simply states that all goods were to be taxed excepting 1 The clause of 1297 reads: ‘E les biens de nuli seient taxez au Noevyme, s’il n’amountent a neof souz, ou pluis’ (H. Hall, A Formula Book of English Official Historical Documents, Part II, Ministerial and Judicial Records, Cambridge, 1909, 45). The clause of 1332 is longer: ‘Et fait a remembrer, q des Biens des gentz des Countees, hors de Cittees, Burghs, & Demeignes le Roi, q’en tut ne passent la value des dys soldz, ne soit rien demande ne leve, ne des Biens des gentz de Cittees, Burghs, ne Demeignes le Roi, g ne passent la value de sys soldz en tut, ne soit rien demande ne leve’ (Rot. Parl., 11, 447).

2K.R.M.R., No. 64, mm. 5, 6. 87

88 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 those excused in the past, which statement does not lead to any exact

idea of what happened. For the subsidy of 1294 I have no certain evidence.}

Thereafter, with the exception of the years 1301, when the clause was omitted from the instructions,? and 1334, when the plan of assessment did not provide for an exemption of property, the forms always contained a statement concerning the minimum holding to be taxed. For the years 1295 and 1296 the sums varied with the rate of taxation, the eleventh and seventh having minima of eleven shillings in the rural districts and seven

shillings in the urban centers and ancient demesne. The ninth of 1297 had as a minimum nine shillings for everyone.’ A minimum of ten shillings was adopted in 1306 for both rural and urban property holders and was repeated in the instructions of 1309, 1313, 1316, and 1327.5 For the other taxes there were two minima, one for the rural districts and one for the cities, boroughs, and ancient demesne, the latter centers always having a smaller holding of property noted as the limit of the activities

of the sub-taxers. In 1307 the figures were fifteen shillings and ten shillings, in 1319 ten shillings and half a mark, in 1322 ten shillings and six shillings, and in 1332 ten shillings and six shillings.® As a result of this provision for excusing the property of the poor from

the burden of taxation there must have been many people throughout England whose names never appeared on the assessment rolls. It is the merest chance that we find on the roll of the twelfth of 1319 in London several instances of names crossed out because the persons concerned had not property enough to meet the six shillings and eightpence minimum.’

They are described on the roll as paupers or as having nothing. It is impossible to determine the proportion of the population included within this pauper class, either in London or elsewhere. ‘This is one reason, to mention no other for the moment, for avoiding the use of lists of taxpayers in estimating the population of boroughs or townships in the fourteenth century. On the whole, the instructions concerning the mimimum amount of property to be taxed seem to have been carefully observed. The lowest tax-charges noted on the rolls usually represent the tenth, fifteenth, or

other part of the minimum for the year. When, as for the fifteenth of 1 The form contains no reference to a taxable minimum (K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 72). 2K.R.M.R., No. 75, mm. 59, 60. 3 Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 188, 192. 4 Vincent, D.D.S., 1, 214. & Rot. Parl., 1, 446; Parl. Writs, m, u, 118; Rot. Parl. 1, 451, 452; n, 426.

6 Rot. Parl., 1, 443; Parl. Writs, u, u, 212, 218; Rot. Parl., 1, 458; 1, 447. 7 Lay Subsidy, 144/3, mm. 6, 7, 8, 16, 18, 19, 24. 8 The possibility of the adoption by taxers of a conventional minimum is discussed on pp. 138 ff.

Exemptions in the ‘Form’ of the Taxation 89 1301, there was no minimum, the results are quickly seen in the numerous

small sums charged against the taxpayers. The returns form a striking contrast to those found on the rolls of other years. On the Yorkshire rolls of that year there were tax-charges as low as a penny and a half, and there are many of twopence, threepence, and fourpence.! The highest of these, fourpence, would represent a holding of taxable property of only five shillings and the lowest of only a little over two shillings. So far as I have been able to discover, there is nothing to correspond to this in other years when there was a stated minimum. The low tax-charges under the subsidy of 1332 in Surrey and Sussex were due to peculiar circumstances, and do not represent an attempt on the part of some of the sub-taxers to include everyone, whatever the quantity of goods they might hold, within the scope of the tax. What happened in 1332, in Surrey at least, was this. The tax assessors

in a few districts valued the rents due to the abbots of Chertsey and Westminster as a part of the property for which the villeins, tenants of the abbots, should pay taxes. This was, of course, manifestly unfair to the tenants, and the chief taxers were told to rectify the mistake. They proceeded to do this by deducting from the tax-charge the part that was due to the valuation of rents and left the remainder to be collected from the villeins. The resulting charges were frequently very small. In the vill of Pyrford, one of the villeins of the abbot of Westminster was charged

a farthing, two others three farthings and one a penny.’ Similar small tax-charges are found in some Sussex vills and were, presumably, due to the same cause.? Since the tax levied upon the rural districts was a fifteenth, and the smallest holding of property to be valued was that worth ten shillings, the lowest tax-charge should have been eightpence. The tenant in Pyrford who was charged a farthing on the basis of taxable property worth less than fourpence had just cause for complaint.

Though the tax assessors normally avoided the mistakes made in Surrey and Sussex, their returns are interesting for other reasons. There were many townships in which the number of people paying the lowest possible sum, under the provision of a minimum amount of property to be taxed, was very large. In others the smallest tax-charge was above

the sum that would represent the fifteenth, twentieth, or other part of the same minimum holding. The first type may indicate a region of small holdings of land in which many people had some saleable grain and some cattle—in other words a general distribution of moderate prosperity.

It may, of course, indicate other things, but explanations may be left to 1 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xx1, 50, 53, 59, 63, 64, 66, 84, 85, 87, 89, etc. 2 Surrey Record Society, xvi, 52. See also 43, 49, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60. 8 Sussex Record Society, x, 260, 263, 280.

90 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 local historians. On the other hand, the absence from a tax list of a single person charged the lowest possible sum does not necessarily mean that the people in the vill were uniformly comfortably situated; it may

show that the sub-taxers, with the connivance of their superiors, had adopted a conventional minimum tax-charge. Both these phenomena may be illustrated by reference to the county rolls of taxation. Examples of relatively large numbers of tax-charges at the smallest possible sum are fairly frequent, but only a few instances need be cited here. On the Somerset roll of 1327, when the subsidy was a twentieth and the minimum tax-charge was sixpence, there are several districts that

illustrate what might happen. In the hundred of Bruton 68 persons were charged sixpence, in a total of about 200 taxpayers; in the hundred of Frome 243 of the 300 odd taxpayers, and in the hundred of Horthorne 137, in about 380, were charged the same sum.! The Surrey roll of the subsidy of 1332 contains several vills in which there are similar returns. In the villata of Dorking there were 96 property holders listed; of these

33 were charged eightpence, which was the lowest sum that could be charged.2. Of the 36 taxpayers of Windelsham eleven were charged eightpence.2 Other examples are to be found on the Staffordshire roll of the twentieth of 1327. The vill of Sandon contained 20 taxpayers, of whom 8 were charged sixpence; the vill of Langedon had 54 taxpayers with 16 at the minimum, and the borough of Lichfield 108 taxpayers with 31 paying sixpence.‘

In contrast to these returns, there were other districts in which the number of tax-charges at the minimum was very small. The Sussex rolls of the subsidies of 1295, 1327, and 1332 contain some excellent illustrations: I shall cite but two. Of the taxpayers to the subsidy of 1295 in the hundred of Whalesbone 5 were charged the minimum of one shilling, out of 122 listed; in 1327, 5 were charged sixpence, out of 112; and in 1332, 10 were charged at or below the minimum of eightpence, out of 107.5 The returns for the borough of New Shoreham belong to the

same category. The 90 taxpayers listed on the roll of the tax of 1295 had among them but one at the minimum, while in 1327 and 1332 there was not one charged the smallest possible amount. Districts in which no persons were charged the smallest possible sum 1 Somerset Record Society, m1, 101-104, 124-129, 216-222. See also 97-100, 115-124, 210-215, etc. 2 Surrey Record Society, xvim, 31-32. Cf. Albury, 28-29. 3 Iind., 47.

4 Wm. Salt Archaeol. Soc., vir, 201, 231, 235-236. 5 Sussex Record Society, X, 41-43, 172-173, 286-288. 6 Sussex Record Society, x, 66-67, 152, 227. See also 278-279 (Burbeach hundred, 1332); 166-167

(half hundred of Windham, 1327); 61-64 (hundred of Brightford, 1296). There are several other instances of the same.

Exemptions in the ‘Form’ of the Taxation 9] are also found on several county rolls. There are a number of these on the Leicestershire roll of the subsidy of 1327, when the minimum charge was sixpence for the dwellers in both urban and rural communities. In the hundred of Frameland, for example, no persons were charged sixpence

in the townships of Waltham, Muston, Cold Overton, Plugarth, Barkeston, Normanton, and others.!. In Waltham the lowest tax-charge was fifteen pence, in Muston seventeen pence, in Cold Overton thirteen pence,

in Plugarth two shillings, in Barkeston ninepence, and in Normanton eighteen pence. Each of these townships was small and it 1s quite possible that the sub-taxers had properly taxed the property of their inhabitants; but doubt is cast on this possibility by the appearance of the same results in far larger districts in other counties. In the county of Somerset, the subsidy and the minimum being those of 1327, the smallest sum charged in the hundred of Hartcliffe was sevenpence, in North Curry, eightpence, in Martock, ninepence, and in Glaston Twelve Hides, one shilling.2 Yet in each of these districts the taxpayers numbered well over 100. Of the 179 persons listed in the hundred of Westbourne, Sussex, in 1327 none was rated at the minimum of sixpence, while 78 were charged one shilling. The situation in New Shoreham has been described in the preceding paragraph. The Surrey boroughs of Kingston and Southwark give similar results for the tenth of 1332, when the minimum charge in

the urban districts was a little over sevenpence.4 Kingston had a list of taxpayers numbering 163. Of these none was charged the minimum, but 41 were held to pay one shilling, this being the smallest charge noted on the roll. Of the 112 persons in Southwark not one was charged less than one shilling and there were 42 who were held to pay that sum. It would be a mistake, without ample supporting evidence, to press the

charge that the tax assessors of the fourteenth century were evading their instructions. Especially is this true since the local situation in the districts concerned is unknown. Yet the appearance in different counties

and in different years of vills and boroughs in which the lowest taxcharge was above that which might be expected, if official precept ruled, suggests at least the possibility of evasion. The communities for which such returns were made are far from numerous in most of the counties investigated; which fact, among others, has led me to suspect the good

faith of the assessors. My feeling of doubt is doubly strong when the number of taxpayers in any such community is large. I conjecture that the 1 Assoc. Archit. Soc., Reports and Papers, X1x, 211-212, 212, 218, 214 ff. 2 Somerset Record Society, 1, 93-95, 104-107, 129-132, 204-206. See also 187-190, 204, 245-248, etc. ® Sussex Record Society, x, 231-234. 4 Surrey Record Society, xv, 2-4, 5-7. See also Suffolk Green Books, rx, 48, 58, 178.

92 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 results were due to the selection by the sub-taxers of a larger minimum amount of property to be taxed than that laid down in the form of the taxation. Why this was done is another matter. It may, as will be seen

later, have been due occasionally to a conscious evasion of precept resulting from bribes taken by the sub-taxers; it may, however, quite as possibly have been due to the desire of a good-natured or fearful man to relieve his poorer neighbors of the burden of taxation. Whatever the reason may have been, I question the explanation, on the grounds of purely local conditions, of the appearance in such a hundred as Martock of a minimum charge of ninepence as long as many men dwelling in neighboring hundreds paid sixpence.} 2. THe Ciause RELATING To LEPERS

Before we take up the question of the liability of the clergy to be charged for their movables along with laymen when parliamentary grants were levied, there remains one clause in the instructions to be considered. It had to do with the goods of those most miserable of mediaeval folk, the lepers. Throughout the period the personal property of lepers who were under the rule of a master leper was to be excused.? If, however, the master was sound, that is free from the disease, their goods were to be taxed. The exemption was based upon a sound hu-

manitarian principle, but why the second provision was made is not clear. When known lepers’ houses do not appear on the tax rolls, there is always the possibility that the master was a leper. There were, however, hospitals that were in charge of presumably healthy men and some of these at least received special treatment. The Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem, to cite the best known example, cared for lepers in England, but, because of the health of its officers, its property was not excused by the exemption clause. The personal property of the order was freed from taxation by special favor. In 1319 the master and brethren of the order besought the king to be relieved from the payment

of tenths ‘granted to the king by the popes and from other tallages to the king,’ stating that they ‘ought to be quit of such tenths and tallages by reason of their order and by virtue of papal bulls and other muniments.”? By a writ under the great seal, the treasurer and barons of the exchequer were ordered to cause the master and brethren and their successors to be excused. The matter came up again In the year 1333, as a result of a petition of the master and brethren “‘coram nobis et consilio 1 Somerset Record Society, rm, 129-132 (Mertoke); 210-215 (Hundredum de Stone cum Jevele); 255-260 (Hundredum de Kingesbury). 2 Parl. Writs, 1, 54 (25 Edward I); Rot. Parl., 1, 442 (1 Edward II); u, 447 (7 Edward III). 8 O.C.R. 1818-1328, 71. I quote from the summary of the writ granting the request.

Exemptions in the ‘Form’ of the Taxation 93 nostro in parliamento.’! The officers of the exchequer were directed to investigate the bases of the claim of the master and brethren that the order had been free from all taxes during the reigns of Edward III and his

father and to report their findings. The certificate embodying the results of their search was sent to the chancery. In it is set down the fact that from 11 Edward II onwards the order had been excused the payment of both lay and clerical taxes. A writ under the great seal completed the

process by ordering the treasurer and barons to cause the master and brethren to be discharged and released of all taxes past and future.’ The case of the hospital of Bolton, in Northumberland, is of a different sort. It had been founded, so it is stated, for the care of three chaplains

and thirteen lepers. It would seem that its masters were healthy, for the man in control when the subsidy of 1295 was levied was charged for

a holding of personal property worth the large sum of £36 15s. 6d.° Disaster overtook the hospital, because of the Scotch wars, at the time when Thomas de Baumburgh, king’s clerk, was its keeper, or master. By a letter patent, dated 28 October, 1332, the goods of the hospital and of its villeins were excused from the levy of the tenth and fifteenth of the same year and from all future levies of taxes as long as Thomas should remain keeper, ‘by reason of the Scotch wars and for the special affection which the king bears to Thomas de Baumburgh.”4 The exemption of hospitals caring for the infirm and sick who were not lepers will be described in the following chapter, for their needs were not covered by the form of the taxation issued to the principal taxers and collectors. 3. THE PosiTION oF THE CLERGY: DEFINITIONS AND PRINCIPLES

When the chief taxers and collectors of the reign of Edward II were told in their instructions to tax the proper goods of the clergy which were of their temporalities not annexed to their churches, most of these officers knew exactly what to do; they assessed the goods on such of the lands of the clergy as were not subjected to the burden of the clerical taxes. In other words, the clergy paid taxes on one part of their property

whenever parliamentary subsidies were granted and on another part when clerical grants were made by convocation. Temporalities alone, and only a part of them, were at the time subject to lay taxes, while both some temporalities and all spiritualities were subject to clerical tenths. 1K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 120. 2 O.C.R. 1883-1887, 44. 3 Archaeologia Aeliana, 3rd Series, xm (1916), 225 (F. Bradshaw, “The Lay Subsidy Roll of 1296’).

The date in this title is not that of the grant of the tax. ‘C.P.R. 1880-188}, 368.

94 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 Before discussing the development that lay behind this simple solution of a real problem, it is necessary to define in some rough fashion the terms that have been used. As is well known, the clergy had two types of possessions, two chief sources of income.! On the one hand they received tithes and oblations from the people; these were spiritualities. They received an income from land held by frankalmoin tenure and from the glebe-land of the parish churches; these lands were also classed among their spiritualities. Beyond these the clergy held lands and other possessions, manors, markets, mills, and burgages, as other people held them; these were counted as temporalities. So there were temporalities and spiritualities to be con-

sidered whenever the king wished to demand financial aid from the clergy. In our period, however, one rule was always observed: parliamentary subsidies were never laid upon spiritualities. ‘Taxes upon spiritualities were always granted by the clergy themselves. In contrast to this, while the movables on all temporalities of the clergy were taxed under parliamentary grants in 1290, 1301, and 1306, the plan that was adopted in 1294 and in most of the ensuing years was that of taxing the goods on only a part of the temporalities. The latter were the temporallities that were not annexed to their spiritualities or, as sometimes stated, not annexed to their churches. This too requires a few words of explanation. Papal taxes levied upon the clergy of England had long been in existence at the opening of our period in 1290.2 To facilitate their assessment and collection, schedules of taxable property were drawn up and these once made would naturally be available for the use of the king as well as of the pope. Two of these schedules are of importance in the period, the Valuation of Norwich of 1254 and the more comprehensive Taxation of Pope Nicholas IV of 1291. When, in 1290, instructions were issued to the chief taxers and collectors of the fifteenth granted in parliament, they were ordered to tax the temporal goods of the clergy. The clergy in the same year granted a tenth of their spiritualities on the basis of the Valua-

tion of Norwich. In 1291, the second valuation was completed, that known as the Taxation of Pope Nicholas. It included at least the greater

part of the temporalities of the clergy as well as their spiritualities. Both kinds of property were thereafter subject to levies made by the pope and also by the king when he too demanded money from the clergy 1W. E. Lunt, The Valuation of Norwich (Oxford, 1926), 75-79, discusses at length the meaning of the terms ‘spiritualities’ and ‘temporalities.’ 2 Lunt, op. cit., reviews the history of the taxation of the clergy in his introduction. On the papal

taxation of 1291 see Rose Graham, “The Taxation of Pope Nicholas IV,’ E.H.R., xxur (1908), 434-454.

Exemptions in the ‘Form’ of the Taxation 95 on the basis of the same valuable schedule of clerical property. The temporalities listed in the Taxation, often spoken of as annexed to spiritualities, were not within the province of parliamentary subsidies, unless

the clergy had refused at the time to grant a similar tax upon their property or unless they specifically assented to the inclusion of these temporalities. When convocation granted the king a tenth, it did so on the basis of the Taxation; when parliament granted a subsidy, all property listed in the Taxation was excused, unless as in 1301 and 1306 special directions were issued to the contrary.

The fact that the schedule of ecclesiastical property remained unchanged for generations to come, save for a revision in the northern dioceses under Edward II,' gave rise to difficulties that were quickly solved. It is common knowledge that both the secular and regular clergy continually acquired new land by purchase, by gift of the living, and by bequest of the dead. This property, if acquired after 1291, would not be listed in the Taxation of Pope Nicholas. Since it was in the possession of the clergy there was always the danger, which was a serious danger, that it would escape all taxation unless some provision was made to the

contrary. The omission of certain temporalities from the Taxation would place the movables on such land in a like position. The rule laid down in 1294 would, if carefully applied, cover both the temporalities

newly acquired and those omitted. It stated that the lay subsidy should be levied upon all goods found on temporalities of the clergy not annexed to their churches, for which they did not pay the king the clerical tax granted the same year. Difficulties arose over the whole matter of

clerical grants shortly afterwards, and the right method of reaching clerical goods was still unsettled when Edward I died. In 1307 the crown revived the plan of 1294 and at the same time amplified and made clearer

the instructions then issued. This solution of the problem remained in force until the close of the fourteenth century at least. To state it in its simplest terms, the rule was that goods on or issuing from temporalities not annexed to spiritualities were to be taxed with the goods of laymen whenever parliamentary subsidies were granted to the king. Other temporalities and all spiritualities were not taxed when lay subsidies were assessed and collected.

The foregoing discussion of terms and principles, however necessary

for the understanding of what happened, may not take the place of a description of the development of precept and practice in connection with the several taxes. It has, however, made it possible to avoid much repetition. 1 Stubbs, C.A.E., u, 580.

96 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 4. Cuurcu PRoPpERTY AND Lay Taxss, 1290-1306

In the parliament which met at Westminster in July, 1290, both lay magnates and greater clergy granted the king a fifteenth part of their movable goods. The commissions, dated 23 September and sent to the chief taxers, noted as the grantors of the subsidy the archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priors, as well as the earls, barons, and all others of the king-

dom.! The fifteenth was to cover the goods on the temporalities of the

clergy as well as on the lands of laymen. In October the assembled clergy granted a tenth of their spiritualities as listed in the Valuation of Norwich.? Some of the clergy, then as later, anxious to be rid of the visits of lay officers to their manors, compounded for their share of the fifteenth granted in parliament. The abbot and monks of the Cistercian order fined for the subsidy, as did the officers of the Order of Sempringham, of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, and of the Temple.? The

heads of the military orders are said to have compounded for the movables of their villeins as well as those of their order. Several heads of religious houses compounded for their share of the fifteenth, among them

the prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, the abbot of Westminster, the abbot of Glastonbury, the abbot of Waltham, and the prior of Barnwell.4 The abbot and convent of St Edmund’s, then as ever fearful of an invasion of their liberty, paid one thousand marks to have quittance of the fifteenth upon their movables and upon those of their villeins, saving to the king the fifteenth of the goods of their free tenants.® In this instance

there is specific designation of property of the abbot and convent as temporalities. The enrolment of the final accounting of the principal taxers in several counties records that the proper goods of a number of bishops, including those of Winchester, Hereford, Worcester, and Bath and Wells, were not taxed, “by writ of the king.’* I conjecture that the prelates compounded for the subsidy, though there may be another explanation.7

The plan utilized in 1290 was abandoned in 1294. In that year the 1K.R.M.R., No. 64, m. 5; Parl. Writs, 1, 24. The same list of grantors is repeated in the heading of the enrolled accounts of the subsidy (Pipe Roll, No. 140 (23 Edward I), m. 25). 2 Stubbs, C.H.E., u, 127, and his references. 3 Pipe Roll, No. 140, m. 24 (note the Lincolnshire account); Receipt Roll (taxes), Nos. 1611, 1612 (Mich. and Easter, 19 Edward I; see list of fines for the fifteenth). 4 Receipt Roll (taxes), Nos. 1611, 1612. The same and other names may be found on the enrolled

accounts (Pipe Roll, No. 140, mm. 24, 25). 5 Pipe Roll, No. 140, m. 24; L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 5. The fine is separately entered on the enrolled accounts. § Pipe Roll, No. 140, mm. 24, 25. E. g., Berks, Hereford, Southampton, Kent. 7 Receipt Roll (taxes), No. 161%. The Bishop of Bath and Wells compounded for one of his manors.

Exemptions in the ‘Form’ of the Taxation 97 clergy in convocation granted half of the income from their temporalities

and spiritualities, as listed in the Taxation of Pope Nicholas,! while parliament gave the king a tenth and sixth of movables. The commissions issued to the chief taxers of the latter subsidy made no mention

of the prelates and other clergy as having participated in the grant.’ The instructions sent out at the same time contained a clause directing that the tax should be levied on the goods of clerks if these were not annexed to their churches and if they did not give the king the moiety for them.’ The goods of villeins on their lands which were of their churches were not to be taxed.4- The other documents having to do with the subsidy add little save details to the story.’ They do, however, make it clear that the clergy did not pay the tax for the goods excepted by the instructions to the principal taxers and collectors. The prior and brethren of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem and the master and brethren

of the Temple compounded separately for the tenth and sixth of their goods and those of their villeins as they had done in 1290. The fines in both years amounted to five hundred marks.® The procedure in 1295 was the same as in 1294. The clergy assembled in convocation granted a tenth of their temporalities and spiritualities rated in the Taxation of Pope Nicholas’ and the laity granted in parliament an eleventh and seventh of their personal property.2 The instructions to the collectors of the latter were identical with those of 1294 both as to the goods of the clergy and the goods of their villeins.» The Hos-

pitallers and Templars, whose property was not valued in the papal assessment, fined separately for themselves and for their villeins.°

A few county rolls of the subsidy of 1295 have been preserved and these afford an opportunity of gaining an insight into the working of the system. They show that the plan of separating the temporalities of the 1Stubbs, C.H.E., 11, 256; Lunt, Valuation of Norwich, 72, n. 6. 2 Parl. Writs, 1, 27; C.P.R. 1292-1801, 103-104. 3 Vincent, U.D.S., 1, 182; K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 72. 4 For a reaffirmation of this part of the clause see C.C.R. 1288-1296, 457. At the end of the Hert-

fordshire county roll a series of membranes is attached. It is headed ‘Rotulus Brevium de Decimo in Comitatu Hertford anno r. r. Edwardi vicesimo tercio.” On it are the names of various religious houses, villeins of bishops and abbots and of others who were excused by writ (Lay Subsidy, 120/3). 6 Pipe Roll, No. 151, m. 40; K.R.M.R., No. 68, mm. 73d., 74d., 75d., 76. The latter are writs referring to the exemption of the clergy. On 74d. mention is made of the valuation of clerical goods made in 1291.

6 K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 73d.

7 The writs to the collectors of the clerical tenth mention the assessment for the tenth for the Holy Land, which was that of Pope Nicholas (C.P.R. 1292-1801, 172. Cf. 178).

8 Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 188. The commission to the collectors may be found in Parl. Writs, 1, 45, and in C.P.R. 1292-1301, 170-172. ° Vincent, U.L.S., 1, 188-189.

10K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 65d. (six hundred marks in each case).

98 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834 clergy which were taxed for the clerical grant of the same year, from those which were not valued in the Taxation caused confusion in a few districts. Some at least of the assessors would have served in 1290 and would have difficulty in understanding the new plan. To a few it might even appear that the goods of the clergy were about to escape taxation. The assessors in Rutland evidently made several mistakes due to these or other causes.

They taxed the temporal goods of the prior of Newstead, the bishop of Lincoln, the abbot of Peterborough, and the prioress of St Michael, as well as the goods of their villeins.1_ Writs were sent to the chief taxers ordering them not to collect the tax-charges against the ecclesiastics named

and these writs were attached to the county roll. Similar mistakes were

made elsewhere.? On the other hand, there are tax-charges against rectors and others of the clergy which were not cancelled; this would indicate that goods on temporalities not listed in the Taxation were rightly

valued by the assessors. Though all such temporalities may have been acquired by the clergy since 1291, the numerous tax-charges of the sort on the county roll of Northumberland would seem to render this interpretation improbable.’ The goods of a large number of alien priories, seized by the king and now released, were not to be valued for the subsidy because the priors had agreed to fines at the exchequer.‘ The year 1296 ushered in a short period of strife and confusion. This

was caused by the issue of the bull Clericis laicos by Boniface VIII. Parliament met in November, 1296, and granted a twelfth and eighth of movables.- The clergy then, and after the opening of the following

year, refused to give a subsidy because of the papal bull. The king thereupon decreed the outlawry of the clergy and the seizure of their lay fees. A large number of the southern clergy extracted themselves from this difficulty by coming to a separate agreement with the government on the basis of a grant of a fifth of their income, and the northern clergy in a body agreed to the same terms. Finally, in March, the archbishop of Canterbury advised the southern clergy assembled in convoca-

tion to act upon their own responsibility. They did this individually. The outcome of the dispute was that the clergy paid for their spiritualities and temporalities on the basis of the plan of 1294 and 1295. 1 Lay Subsidy, 165/1. There are corrections on almost every membrane. 2 Archaeologia Aeliana, 3rd Series, x11 (1916), 188. The endorsement of the Northumberland roll of 1295 indicates several mistakes. See also Sussex Record Society, x, 20, and K.R.M.R., No. 69,

mm. 69, 69d., 70, where there is a long list of writs sent to taxers and collectors ordering them to rectify errors. 3 Archaeologia Aelhiana, 3rd Series, x11 (1916), 253-260. See also Sussex Record Society, x, 54, 59, 60, 67, 69, 92.

4K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 68. There are seventy-seven priories on the list. 5 The following brief account of the trouble is based largely on the accounts in secondary books such as Stubbs, C.H.E., 1, 185-186, and Ramsay, Dawn of the Constitution, 434-438.

Exemptions in the ‘Form’ of the Taxation 99 The history of the difficulties of 1296 and 1297 may be traced in the

various letters and writs relating to the lay subsidy. When commissions, dated 29 November, 1296, were issued to the chief taxers of the twelfth and eighth, the clergy were not mentioned as grantors, and in the accompanying form it was expressly provided that their temporal goods were to be taxed.!. This was a reversion to the plan of 1290, but, so far as can be seen, was not enforced; the clergy came to terms too soon.

After those of the north in a body and those of the south individually had done so, letters of protection were issued to them “because they had

granted a fifth according to the last taxation of a tenth for the Holy Land.’? The clergy who agreed to pay were so numerous that a separate and supplementary close roll was provided for the enrolment of writs to

the sheriffs ordering the restitution of their lay fees, and to the chief taxers of the lay subsidy directing them not to tax the goods of the clergy on their temporalities annexed to spiritualities.2 Other writs, set forth on the same roll, make it clear that a number of chaplains, masters of hospitals, and clerks paid the twelfth granted in parliament despite their clerical status.4 In these the sheriffs were told to restore certain lay fees seized by them, as each of the individuals concerned had

stated that he ‘has no ecclesiastical benefice [and] gives the king a twelfth of his goods, just as laymen of the realm.’ One important change was, however, made in the plan of the assessment of the lay subsidy of 1296. The goods of the villeins of the clergy had been excused from the lay subsidies of the years 1290 and 1294 and had been paid for under the clerical grants. A new order was now issued. The taxers and collectors of the twelfth were directed to tax the goods of the villeins of priors and other ecclesiastics ‘in the same manner as other goods of laymen.’®

The instructions to the taxers and collectors of the lay ninth, dated 14

October, 1297, bear witness to a lull in the controversy. Though the clergy did not grant taxes upon their temporalities and spiritualities until a little later, the instructions provided for the assessment of the ninth upon only such goods of the clergy as were not annexed to their churches. It was also directed that the goods of villeins of archbishops, 1 Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 19%, summarizes the form. The original is to be found in K.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 87. For the commissions see C.P.R. 1292-1801, 225, and Parl. Writs, 1, 51. Both of these give the date as 16 December; the K.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 87, gives the date as 29 November. 2 C.P.R. 1292-1801, 235, 236, 237, 288, etc. 8 C. Var. Chan. R. 1277-1326, 17-65. Cf. C.P.R. 1297-13801, 260-286, for the letters of protection.

4C. Var. Chan. R., 20-22. Chaplains are frequently mentioned elsewhere on this roll as paying taxes with the clergy. 5 C. Var. Chan. R., 22. 8 Parl. Writs, 1, 62.

100 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 bishops, religious, and all other clerks should be taxed to the ninth.! Once again mistakes, such as have been noted in the assessment of the subsidy of 1295, appear to have been made. It is stated in the record of the final accounting of several of the chief taxers that they had not taxed the goods of the clergy.?, The statement is made in the case of others that

they did not owe various sums charged on their county rolls against ecclesiastics because these charges had been cancelled by order of the king.’ The reason given in the case of the collectors in the county of Cambridge was that the bishop of Ely, who had been improperly charged

thirty shillings, threepence and a farthing, had, with the other clergy given a tenth of his goods to the king. On the local assessment rolls of the West Riding of Yorkshire and in Bedfordshire there are a few instances of the cancellation of charges against the regular clergy.4 The Templars and Hospitallers compounded for the ninth of their goods and of the goods of their villeins.®

In the year 1301 the crown reverted to the plan of 1290 in respect to the treatment of the temporal goods of the clergy. The prelates in the parliament assembled in January would not join with the laymen in the grant of a fifteenth of movables made by tthe latter, citing as the reason for their refusal the bull of Boniface VITI.¢ This availed them not at all, for the king proceeded to direct that the levy of the fifteenth should cover

all their temporalities. The commissions given to the chief taxers and collectors, variously dated late in October and early in November, made no mention of the clergy as grantors of the fifteenth.’ The form of the taxation provided for the taxation of all temporal goods.? In later writs, the only limitation placed upon the activities of the assessors was that

they were not to levy the fifteenth upon purely spiritual goods of the clergy; they were definitely told to collect the subsidy from all the temporalities of ecclesiastics and laymen.? Though an occasional assessor may have obeyed these instructions and have proceeded with the assessment of clerical temporalities,!° most of them seemed to have delayed, 1 This order was deemed worthy of special mention in the enrolled accounts of the collectors of the

subsidy (Vincent, Z.L.S., 1, 215, in the record of the Lancashire audit). 2 Pipe Roll, No. 143, m. 32d. (Kent, co. Gloucester, Rutland, co. Southampton). This list is not intended to be complete. 3 Pipe Roll, No. 143, mm. 32d., 33. See the accounts of the collectors in cos. Cambridge, Northampton, Surrey, Warwick, Somerset, Bucks, etc. The transcript in Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 215, gives a good example of error on the part of the assessors. 4 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xvi, 48, 54, 73, 108; Lay Subsidies, 71/2, '71/3, 71/4.

5 K.R.M.R., No. 71, m. 79. Each paid 700 marks. 6 Stubbs, C.H.E., 11, 157-158; Ramsay, Dawn of the Constitution, 477-478. ’ C.P.R. 1292-1301, 611-613; Parl. Writs, 1, 106-107. 8 Parl. Writs, 1, 105. °C.C.R. 1296-1302, 579; C.P.R. 1301-1307, 15. 10 C.C.R. 1296-1302, 571. The taxers and collectors in Middlesex.

Exemptions in the ‘Form’ of the Taxation 101 and writs, dated 9 February, 1302, were sent to all the groups charging them to set to work.! Yet the assessors still hesitated, for the wrath of an offended ecclesiastic was dangerous. In July and again in November, at the request of the archbishop of Canterbury, orders were issued to the chief taxers throughout England to supersede the collection of the fifteenth from the temporal goods of the archbishops and clergy annexed

to their spiritualities.2 The November writ postponed the levy until Easter, 1303. All negotiations, whatever they were, failing, the government, by writs dated 16 April, commanded the taxers and collectors in eleven counties to resume the levy according to the plan first devised. Finally, in June, peremptory orders were issued to all the chief taxers to proceed along the line laid down.? The returns of the taxation on the county roll of Yorkshire show that the clergy paid; its editor remarks that ‘the religious houses were by far the largest taxpayers.’ The lay subsidy of the year 1306 was levied upon the goods on the lay fees of the clergy. The prelates, earls, barons, and others assembled in

the parliament at Westminster in May gave the king a thirtieth and twentieth of movables for the knighting of his eldest son and for the war against Scotland.’ Those who gave the thirtieth added the request that

such a grant should not be drawn into a precedent; it was obviously a feudal aid thinly disguised as a national tax. A favorable answer was returned in letters patent dated 30 May, 1306.°

While the form of the taxation of 1306 states that the thirtieth and twentieth was to be levied upon the goods of the clergy on their lay fees,’ the other records connected with the subsidy refer to the goods on their

temporalities as subject to taxation. In the records of the proceedings in parliament the phrase reads ‘omnium bonorum suorum temporalium mobilium.’® The same statement with respect to goods to be taxed is repeated in the commissions issued to the chief taxers,® and in the enrolment of the accounts of the chief taxers.!° In an interesting writ, dated 13 March, 1307, the matter is clearly explained." The taxers and collec1 [bid., 579. 2 Ibid., 598, 610. 3 C.F.R. 1272-1307, 474-475, 479. 4 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, Xx1, p.xv. There are several ecclesiastics on the Colchester

roll (Rot. Parl., 1, 249, 253, 256, 261). The Templars and Hospitallers compounded (C.P.R. 12921301, 600, 606).

6 K.R.M.R., No. 76, m. 43. The proceedings in parliament are enrolled there. 6 C.P.R. 1301-1307, 486. 7 Parl. Writs, 1, 179: ‘E seit fete la taxacion ausi ben des prelatz des clers e de gent de religion et de leur gentz, come des autres les queus bens issent de Iai fe.’

8 L.T.R.M.R., No. 76, m. 48. ® Parl. Writs, 1, 178.

0 Vincent, D.L.S., 1, 260. See also L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 22. 1 C.C.R. 1802-1307, 528.

102 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 tors in Yorkshire had assessed the tithes of the abbot and convent of Selby of their appropriated church of Snaith. They were told to restore anything that they had levied on that account and also ‘that the other goods and chattels of the abbot and convent that are temporal and movable shall be taxed.’ It is quite evident, therefore, that the lay fees of the instructions meant the temporalities of the subsidies of 1290 and 1301.}

5. Cuurcu Property anp Lay Taxszs, 1307-1334 The accession of Edward II in 1307 ended the period of changing policies and confusion. Throughout his reign one principle was enforced so far as the clergy were concerned, which was, that they should con-

tribute to taxes granted in parliament for personal property on their temporalities not annexed to their spiritualities. This principle was embodied in the form of the taxation. The clause was dropped from the

form of 1327 and did not reappear during the reign of Edward III. Despite this, the plan formulated in 1307 was observed in practice and upheld by the exchequer in its dealings with the taxers and collectors. Not until the reign of Richard IT did a similar clause reappear in the instructions to the collectors of the fifteenths and tenths.? The instructions issued to the chief taxers of the twentieth and fifteenth

of movables granted in 1307 contained the following directions concerning the goods of the clergy. The proper goods of prelates, religious,

and other clergy issuing from their temporalities annexed to their churches were not to be valued for the current taxation of the goods of laymen, since the prelates and others had given the king a fifteenth of their temporalities and spiritualities. If, however, the prelates, religious,

and other clergy had lands or tenements acquired by inheritance or purchase, or held at farm, on account of wardship, or in other manner, which had not been taxed in the past for tenths granted by the clergy, the lay subsidy was to be levied upon all personal property found on such lands on Michaelmas day. The goods of the villeins of the clergy were to be valued for the twentieth and fifteenth, with the proviso that their rents and services, paid to their lords and for which their lords paid the tax, were to be excused.*? These directions reappeared in the remaining forms of the taxation of the reign of Edward II, with the exception that the clause relating to the goods of villeins was omitted in 1322.4 1 ‘The prior and convent of Durham claimed that they should not be forced to pay the tax on the ground that their goods had never been subject to such levies. This was another matter (L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 60). The Templars and Hospitallers compounded, as in the past (zbid., m. 22). 2 Fine Roll, No. 179, m. 5; C.F.R. 13877-1888, 52. 3 Parl. Writs, a, u, 15; Rot. Parl., 1, 442. 4 Parl. Writs, 1, 1, 213 (1319); n, 0, 280 (1322).

Exemptions in the ‘Form’ of the Taxation 103 This arrangement was eminently fair, both to the crown and to the English clergy. As long as the clergy paid taxes separately to the king for the temporalities and spiritualities described in the Taxation of Pope Nicholas, it was just that personal property found on lands within these categories should escape lay taxes. Throughout the reign of Edward II clerical taxes were levied at or about the time of the parliamentary grants, either by grant of the clergy or by imposition of the pope.!_ Parliamentary subsidies were thereafter described as granted by earls, barons, knights, and all others of the realm of England, as granted in parliament, or as granted by laymen (per laicos). The absence of the titles of the clergy in the recital of the grantors is significant.?

The evidence having to do with the observance of the instructions during the days of Edward II is not voluminous, yet it is sufficient to show that the rule was observed. There is, of course, no reason why there should be much evidence, for the great majority of the chief taxers would do what they were told to do. Fortunately for our purpose, some made mistakes. Because of claims that this had happened, inquisitions were held to determine the truth of such criticism, writs were issued to the chief taxers to rectify errors discovered, and the tax-charges against the clergy on the rolls of the taxation were cancelled. Another type of evidence is that afforded by the writs ordering the exemption of the personal property of some of the clergy from all lay and clerical taxes because of poverty or for other reason. Each of these kinds of evidence will be examined briefly.

When it was found necessary to test the claim of an abbot or other ecclesiastic to immunity from the levy of a lay subsidy, the complete records of the procedure of the exchequer are decisive. Unfortunately, I have not found any such records dating from the reign of Edward II,° and it is possible, though improbable, that the method of handling such claims originated during the reign of his son. Since two of the cases that have been discovered had their start in Edward II’s reign, an outline of the procedure may be given here. The record on the memoranda roll of 2 Edward ITI opens with the transcript of a letter of the king under

the great seal describing a complaint of the abbot of Thornton. He is 1 Stubbs, C.H.E., 1, $30, 339, 350, 355, 356, 361, n. 2, 871, n. 2.

2 ‘The headings of the enrolled accounts of the subsidies note the grantors: L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 1 (1807), ‘per comites, barones, milites et omnes alios de regno suo’; m. 8 (1809), no heading; m. 5 (1318), ‘per comites, barones, milites, liberos homines ac communitates comitatuum regni,’ etc. For the same form see Parl. Writs, 11, 1, 116; C.F.R., 1, 254. ‘Per laicos’ may be found in writs such as Lay Subsidy, 120/10, schedule attached; ‘In Parliament,’ with a description of the goods to be taxed, in L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 9 (1816). 3 J have made no serious attempt to find them, for the records of the procedure early in the reign of Edward III seemed to cover the ground.

104 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 said to have stated that, although his lands in Preston, Holderness, were annexed to his spiritualities, and although his predecessors had always paid clerical taxes for the same, he was now subjected to a summons of the exchequer for 18s. 6d. on account of the lay tenth of 1322.! The treasurer and barons were directed to look into the matter, and, if they found the statements to be true, to discharge him. A search of the records revealed the fact that the sum had been charged against him for his movables in Preston. It also established the fact that he was assessed to clerical taxes for temporalities held in Preston and that he held five bovates of land there of the yearly value of sixteen shillings each. Two men were appointed to inquire whether the abbot held any lands in the

locality other than the five bovates assessed for clerical taxes. They returned that he had no other lands or goods. A further search of the records showed that the abbot had paid for his goods in Preston when the

biennial tenth granted by John XXII was running in the year 16 Edward II. The abbot was thereupon released from the payment of the 18s. 6d. The even more protracted case of the abbot of Westminster need not be described here, though it may be stated that the goods on his lands, which had been assessed to the eighteenth of 1319, were claimed

and proved by inquisition to be issues from his temporalities annexed to his spiritualities and so taxed when clerical grants were levied.’ The principles underlying the tests applied to the claims of the abbot of Thornton are embodied in a number of writs issued from the chancery. In several of these the chief taxers are told not to levy upon the goods of ecclesiastics because these goods issued from temporalities annexed to spiritualities? or from lands held by free alms tenure.‘ The royal letters patent granting exemption from lay and ecclesiastical subsidies at times cover all possible taxes. In 1319, for example, in a grant to the warden and chaplains of St Peter, Kirkeby, it is stated ‘that their lands and goods

be quit of tallages, aids, wakes, and all contributions whatever to the king, and that whenever the clergy of the province of Canterbury shall grant a tenth or any other quota of spiritual goods, or the commonalty of the realm a fifteenth or other quota of their temporal goods to the king, the lands and goods of the said warden and chaplains and their successors, spiritual or temporal, shall not be taxed for the king’s use.’ 1K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 120. I owe this reference to the manuscript calendar of the Recorda made up in the Public Record Office. JI have at times taken the liberty of quoting from this calendar. The record is repeated in L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, m. 25. 2K.R.M.R., No. 106, m. 132; L.T.R.M.R., No. 102, m. 28. 3 C.C.R. 1307-1313, 17, 179; Lay Subsidy, 120/10, has a writ to this effect attached to the taxation roll. Cf. C.C.R. 1318-1328, 156. 4C.C.R. 13813-1318, 158; Interae Cantuariensis 1 (Rolls Series, London, 1887), 47. 5 C.P.R. 1317-1821, 340. Cf. C.P.R. 1807-1818, 207; C.P.R. 1817-1821, 192.

Exemptions in the ‘Form’ of the Taxation 105 The results of some at least of the mistakes made by the taxers and collectors of the lay subsidies appear on the rolls of taxation. On the Essex roll of the subsidy of 1319 a few errors are noted in the Colchester

assessment.! At the end of the statement of the tax-charges in that borough there is a note of the amounts that the abbots of St Osyth and St John and the prior of St Botolph were to pay. These entries are cancelled on the roll and the explanation 1s added that the abbots and prior were not to be taxed because their goods were taxed among their spiritualities and also because they had a writ of the king. When the entry charging the prior of St Bartholomew with 4s. 914d. was struck through on the Hertfordshire roll of the subsidy of 1316, the word breve was placed in the margin.? Above the cancelled entry it was noted ‘cancelled

by writ attached to this roll.’ The writ referred to ordered the chief taxers not to molest the abbot, since his goods were issues of his temporalities annexed to spiritualities and so not liable. In contrast to the release of some of the clergy may be placed instances

of others whose names appear on the tax rolls without cancellation. They presumably paid taxes for their goods. On the Hertfordshire roll of the subsidy of 1307, for example, the prioress of St Giles and the prior-

ess of St Margaret were charged to the twentieth. The Shrewsbury assessment list of 1313 contains the name of the prior of St John’s Hospital,‘ and the Cambridge roll of 1315, the scholars of Merton, the master of the Hospital of St John, the prior of the chapel of St Edmund and the prioress of St Radegund.’ The sum total of the charges in Cambridge has added to it the note, ‘with the above religious.’ The prior or cellarer of St Edmund paid lay taxes for the goods of the priory in the manor of East Bradenham, Norfolk, from 1313 to the end of the reign of Edward 11.°

Neither the commissions nor the forms of taxation issued in 1327, 1332, or 1334 said anything about the taxation of any goods of the clergy. Whatever the cause of this omission, the principles laid down during the reign of Edward IT were enforced in their entirety. The 1 Lay Subsidy, 107/10, m. 1. 2 Lay Subsidy, 120/10; cf. 120/9 at end. The records of the accounting of some of the chief taxers

afford other illustrations of mistakes made; e. g., L.T.R.M.R., No. 90 (13 Edward II), m. 146d. (Rutland, the prior of Westminster); L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 1 (1 Edward II, Surrey, the prior of the Hospital of the Blessed Mary without Bishopsgate); Suffolk Green Books, XVIII, 29, 156, 157, 160, 161, etc. § Lay Subsidy, 120/8. The names of other religious appear on the roll: m. 4, prioress of Halwell, m. 13, prior of Anstey. 4[H. Owen and J. B. Blakeway], A History of Shrewsbury (London, 1825), 1, 152-158. 5 Lay Subsidy, 81/5. § Lay Subsidy, 149/6.

106 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 goods of the clergy on their temporalities not taxed for clerical subsidies were valued for the lay subsidies.

Of primary importance for an investigation of the accountability of the personal property of the clergy are, in these later years, the county rolls of the assessment of the lay subsidies. A student of problems of taxation before 1327 is constantly hampered by the lack of such rolls. The ordinance of 1323 directed that the king’s remembrancer should preserve the county rolls,! and this was done very carefully during the years now under consideration. The large number of these documents kept by the king’s remembrancer, especially for the years 1327 and 1332,

makes it possible, as never before, to find members of the clergy who were charged with taxes as well as those who had to be excused by special writ because of the errors of the assessors. It would easily be possible to enumerate scores upon scores of instances

of tax-charges against individual members of the clergy and religious bodies recorded on the county rolls. Most of these charges were not cancelled and it is certain that in such cases the clergy were liable. On every roll that I have examined I have found several instances of charges against regulars or seculars. The number on the Suffolk roll of 1327 is

especially large and on that account valuable, for it includes charges against both classes.2. The editor of the roll notes that the bishop of Norwich, eight priors, one prioress, and the master of the hospital of Batisford were listed. There were seventy-two chaplains (capellant), nine property owners described as parson or rector, fifty-five men described as clericus, and twenty-eight called le clerk. A merely superficial survey of other rolls reveals chaplains, parsons, vicars, rectors, priors, abbots, master of hospitals, and a bishop among those whose goods were taxed.? The entries on these rolls leave us in no doubt as to whether the clergy paid taxes for some of their goods; the question of the nature of

the lands upon which these goods were found is answered by other documents.

The distinction between the taxable and non-taxable property of the clergy is brought out in several investigations similar to that made as a result of the complaint of the abbot of Thornton in connection with the subsidy of 1322. The claim of the prior of Ware to be free of the twen1 Red Book of the Exchequer, 11, 867.

2 Suffolk Green Books, rx. The editor’s statistics of clerical taxpayers are found on pp. xv—xvii of the preface. 3. g., Somerset Record Society, 1m, 92, 96, 111, 158, 164, 165, 185, 191, 273; Worc. Hist. Soc., A.D. 1895, 3, 7, 9, 44, 47, 48, 53, 65; Surrey Record Society, xv1u, 4, 28, 56, 58; Sussex Record Society,

x, 157, 165, 167, 179, 190, 215 (bishop of Chichester); Wm. Salt Archaeol. Soc., x, 83, 85, 105, 108, 110, 121; Cumberland Lay Subsidy, 48, 60, 61; Suffolk Green Books, xvi, 146, 147, 157, 162, 169, 175, 179, 187, 188.

Exemptions in the ‘Form’ of the Taxation 107 tieth of 1327 gave rise to an inquiry under the direction of the exchequer,!

as did also the claims of the bishop of Ely, the prior of Holy Trinity, Ipswich, and the prior of Monks Kirby, Warwickshire, to be free of the tax of 1332.2 For 1334 no such records have been found, but at least one inquiry was ordered, that having to do with a complaint made by the abbot of Westminster.? In each of these cases, save that of the abbot of Westminster, the complaint was made that the lands upon which goods

had been assessed for the lay subsidy were temporalities annexed to spiritualities and that the goods were paid for whenever clerical subsidies were levied. The rolls in the exchequer were thereupon searched for the

information they might give of payments to clerical and lay taxes. Local inquests were held to make certain that the lands, mills, and dovecots were customarily taxed when clerical subsidies were imposed, and

also that the complaining ecclesiastics held no property beyond their temporalities annexed to spiritualities. In the cases of the priors of Ware, Holy Trinity, and Monks Kirby, the decision reached by the officers of the exchequer was that, since their goods were found to issue from temporalities annexed to spiritualities, they should be excused from

the levy of the lay subsidy. On the county rolls of the same lay taxes the tax-charges against the priors were cancelled per breve.‘

It must be kept in mind that the absence of the names or titles of ecclesiastics from the tax rolls does not necessarily mean that they held no property subject to lay taxes in the district. It is probable that in the great majority of cases omission of the names of the clergy known to have held land in any place indicates that their goods were not taxed;

but there is always the bare possibility that a rector may not be so described and that the taxes of a religious house may have been paid in the name of a layman in charge of the land. The editor of the roll of the twentieth of 1327 in Suffolk states that John Tillot, who was charged twelve shillings, was rector of Gedding, though he is not so called on the tax list. Only a searcher with exact knowledge of local affairs is likely to unearth similar instances. The case of the manor of East Bradenham, 1K.R.M.R., No. 108, m. 237. Cf. the writ concerning the prior of Thornton (K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 125d.).

2K. R.M.R., No. 111, m. 136d. (Monks Kirby); m. 187d. (Holy Trinity); K.R.M.R., No. 112, m. 170d. (bishop of Ely). See also K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 143, for the case of the Hospital of St Bartholomew; K.R.M.R., No. 112, m. 139 (prior of St Sepulchre, Warwick); K.R.M.R., No. 118, mm. 170, 172d. (abbot of Selby). 3 C.C.R. 18838-1887, 3'71. The claim was made that his manors were held in frankalmoin. 4 Dugdale Society, v1, 19 (prior of Ware), 49 (prior of Monks Kirby); Lay Subsidy, 149/9, m. 76 (prior of Holy Trinity). For a case in print which is, however, not a complete record of all stages, see Cartularium Monasterti de Rameseia, 11 (Rolls Series, London, 1893), 30-31. 5 Suffolk Green Books, rx, p. XVII.

108 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 Norfolk, held in part by the abbey of St Edmund’s, is different, and illustrates the danger of counting too much upon the tax roll entries for infor-

mation. In 1309 Juliana de Thurston, who then held the manor, paid twenty-nine shillings and three farthings to the twenty-fifth of movables. The abbot paid for the taxes of the seventh and eighth years. When the taxes of the ninth and twelfth years were levied the cellarer of the abbey paid, and then the abbot paid again until the levy of 1322.1 In 1327 the abbot was excused and in 1332 the cellarer paid. If, therefore, the county rolls of 1309 and 1327 alone were preserved, no evidence would be forthcoming of the liability of the property of the abbey to the assessment for lay subsidies. A statement made by the prior of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem in 1333 has also a direct bearing upon the possibility of too much emphasis being laid upon the omission of the names of the clergy.’

He is said to have stated that the goods of the order were at times assessed for lay taxes in his name and at other times in the names of his

masters or farmers. The latter part of this statement was made and supported by reference to the tax rolls in order to show that the property of the Hospital had been taxed consistently for lay subsidies even though the prior was not named as its holder. The results of our inquiry indicate a just settlement of the problem of the taxation of the goods of ecclesiastics high and low in the hierarchy of the church. The clergy paid taxes for spiritualities and temporalities annexed thereto under their grants in convocation and paid lay subsidies

for goods on the property that remained. Though the plan appears to be most equitable, one may wonder how far it was understood by the masses of the fourteenth century. Complaints were made from time to time in that century that the clergy escaped taxation. Some may have done so, but those who complained may have occasionally confused the

fact that the property of many of the clergy was not assessed for lay subsidies with the escape of the same property from all taxes. Since the crowd would see only the lay assessors and collectors at work, its ignorance is understandable. What the people might do when aroused is seen in the action of the citizens of Canterbury when, in 1327, the prior and convent of Christ Church refused to contribute to a subsidy demanded from the city. The incensed citizens assembled and passed a series of

resolutions among which were the following: “That if the Convent 1 Lay Subsidy, 149/6. This is a statement of the taxes paid by the lord of the manor over a long period of years. 2K.R.M.R., No. 108, mm. 218-228. Cf. a similar statement made by the abbot of Selby (K.R. M.R., No. 113, m. 170, 172d). § Unless, of course, the newly acquired property was held by frankalmoin tenure. 4 Hist. MSS. Com., Ninth Report, Appendix, Part I, 98.

Exemptions in the ‘Form’ of the Taxation 109 would not contribute, their windows in Burgate should be broken, and their mills disabled. That their tenants should be compelled to leave their houses empty, under pain of banishment. Under the same penalty no one should give, sell, or lend any food or drink to the monks. . . . That if a monk, even the Prior, should come out of the Monastery into the City, his clothes and personal property should be taken from him, and his body arrested. That a deep trench should be dug immediately in front of the Monastery gate.’ Though I know nothing of the nature of the subsidy that caused the commotion or of the outcome of the resolutions, the attitude of the people towards the convent is enlightening as well as somewhat amusing.

CHAPTER VI SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS AND COMPOSITIONS 1. INTRODUCTION

ie addition the exemptions the forms of which the taxation, the chief to taxers were directedrecorded to observeincertain others, may be called special. Individuals as well as groups of laymen and clergy were either temporarily or permanently excused the levy of lay taxes upon their goods. The cause of the exemption might be simply the favor of the king, or it might be equivalent service, or poverty. The grant of the privilege was normally embodied in letters patent under the great seal rather than in formal charters. These were frequently supplemented by letters close

sent to the treasurer and barons in which the latter were told to give effect to the grant. When the release from the burden ot taxation had to do with a specific subsidy and was given, as in the case of the men serving

in Gascony, for equivalent service, no letters patent were required; a letter close sent to the treasurer and barons ordering them to cause the men concerned to be acquitted was all that was needed. The taxers and collectors would learn of the release of the several types of persons excused from taxation either through an inspection of the letters patent in the hands of the grantee, or through writs directed to them under the great seal or seal of the exchequer.

It is my purpose in the present chapter to describe all the types of these special exemptions that I have found. It is quite possible that the list is not exhaustive, though a serious attempt has been made to make it so. On the other hand, I have not tried to do more than illustrate the types that have been discovered. Compositions have been included within the chapter, not because they had anything to do with exemption, but because, for the time being, they freed the districts concerned from the assessors of the lay subsidies. In the following classification of the varieties of exemption, those that

were granted on the score of equivalent service have been given the first place. In such cases there was a quid pro quo. The king, in theory, lost nothing when, for example, the stannary men were released from the burden of parliamentary taxes, for the men working in the tin mines were subject to special levies. This fairly distinct group will be followed by another with fairly well marked characteristics. The persons concerned were excused without any idea of a return in cash or extraordinary 110

Special Exemptions and Compositions 111 service to the crown. The final types of exemption are suz generis and may be considered apart on their own merits. 2. Men SERVING IN GASCONY AND WALES

During the years from 1294 to 1297 Edward I had an army in Gascony and, during the winter and early months of 1294-1295, another army in

Wales. Many of the tenants-in-chief served in those armies, and, as a result, received special consideration with respect to the subsidies granted in 1294, 1295, and 1296.

The first expedition to Gascony left England in October, 1294,! and at the same time active preparations were being made for the subjugation

of the Welsh. For a time, therefore, there were two armies in the field with barons serving in each.? Parliament, early in November, granted a tenth and sixth of movables for the recovery of the king’s lands in Gascony, and commissions dated 12 November, 1294, were issued to the assessors and collectors of the same.? On or about 13 November, writs under the seal of the exchequer were sent to the taxers and collectors thus

appointed, ordering them to supersede, until further orders, the assessment and collection of the tenth of the movable goods of a long list of men serving the king in Gascony and Wales.‘ The orders referred to were sent to them in other writs issued during the late winter and early spring of the year 1295, and directed them to supersede the I*vy of the subsidy upon the goods of the men in Gascony and Wales, and of their villeins, until 1 August or some earlier date. Meanwhile, however, the chief taxers were to certify to the exchequer the taxable value of the goods of the same men and of their villeins. During the latter part of the year, after the respites had expired, a number of the men in the armies

were pardoned the tax upon their property and that belonging to their villeins.6 Though most of the pardons had to do with barons serving in Gascony or about to go there, in September, 1295, William de Valence, who was one of the leaders of the Welsh expedition, was included among those released from payment to the tenth after respite had been granted

to him until 1 August.’ A detailed investigation would probably find 1 Ramsay, Dawn of the Constitution, 408.

2 J. E. Morris, The Welsh Wars of Edward I, chapter vu. 3 C.P.R. 1292-1801, 103-104.

4K.R.M.R., No. 68, mm. 73 ff. Cf. C.C.R. 1288-1296, 438. 5 Lay Subsidy, 120/4, contains many of the writs issued to the chief taxers in Hertfordshire. Cf. K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 75; Cal. Chan. War., 1, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 57, 58, 59, etc.

§K.R.M.R., No. 68, mm. 75d, 76 (the writs are dated 20 August and after); Pipe Roll, No. 151 (in the enrolled account attached, the statements of pardons in the counties of Hertford, Gloucester, Oxford, Wilts, etc.); C.C.R. 1288-1296, 422, 456. ’ The writ calling for the respite until 1 August is in the Hertfordshire bundle, Lay Subsidy, 120/4. Mention of his release is found in the Hertfordshire account in Pipe Roll, No. 1. {, m. 44.

112 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 others like him. Behind the apparent simplicity of the procedure that has been outlined there lay a considerable amount of confusion.

We are fortunate in having, for the county of Hertford, a number of the original writs issued to the chief taxers of the subsidy of 1294.! On the back of these writs are entered the brief returns made to the exchequer by the chief taxers. Attached to several of these slender sheets of parchment are other sheets on which are to be found statements

in greater detail of the tax-charges against a baron and his villeins. The case of John le Chaundeler, who was in the army in Wales, is like several others. A writ of privy seal to taxers and collectors of the tenth bears the date 22 April, 1295, and is an order to supersede the taxation of the goods of John and his villeins until 1 August. The chief taxers were, however, to certify to the treasurer and barons the value of all

their goods. On the reverse side of the writ it is noted that John’s property in Little Hormead, on the basis of the tenth, should be charged £2 12s. 314d., and further, that he had no villeins in that place. Another

note adds that he later paid in full (‘postea solvit totum’). So all that John gained for his service in this connection was a temporary relief from the payment of the tax. A similar writ of swpersedeas, dated 13 February, was issued on behalf of Robert Fitz Walter, who was in the king’s army

in Gascony. The note on the back of the writ records that the goods of Robert were pardoned by another writ of the king and that his villeins paid in full. The attached schedule notes that the goods of Robert had been charged the sum of £7 18s. 514d., and that the charge against his goods and those of his twenty-two villeins, who are named, was £18 18s.

Tgd. In the case of William de Valence, though the writ has been preserved, there is no notation on its reverse. The schedule annexed records

the tax-charges against William and his villeins. The amount of the tenth of William’s personal property is set down as £16 13s. and some pence.

In due time the taxers and collectors of the tenth and sixth in Hertfordshire appeared before the treasurer and barons at the exchequer for their

final accounting. They owed £2,720 16s. 10d., of which sum they had paid into the treasury £2,600.2, As was usual, a statement was then made of the allowances. First of all they were cleared of any liability for the sums charged against William de Valence, Robert Fitz Walter, and Gilbert de Clare, because all three had been pardoned the payment of

the tenth of their goods. Then a second list of names appears. The collectors were not held to be responsible for the charges against Hugh 1 Lay Subsidy, 120/4. As the writs and schedules in this bundle were not numbered when I examined them, no further reference is possible for the subsequent statements. 2 Pipe Roll, No. 151, m. 44.

Special Exemptions and Compositions 113 Bardok, William de Say, Alan la Zouche, and others, and their villeins. These men, so it is stated, answered below. Similar statements concern-

ing the second list appear in the records of other counties. There the ‘answer below’ entries are incomplete—there is no record of payment— and it is stated in another hand and ink that the men concerned answered

in the pipe roll of 6 or 7 Edward II. The deferring of the accounting until the succeeding reign meant, as will be seen, the discharge of the debt. In other words, Hugh Bardok and the others did not pay, though not pardoned by Edward I. The procedure in 1295 and 1296 was the same as that of 1294. Writs of supersedeas and letters of pardon were issued in favor of some of the men serving in Gascony and in the records of the final accounting of the collectors of the subsidies there are allowances of the sort found before.} In the case of the latter, reference is also made to the pipe rolls of 6 and 7 Edward II. Alan la Zouche again appears among those whose accounting was deferred. The tale of his indebtedness will suffice as an illustration of what happened in the case of men who were in service in Gascony, who were not pardoned, and who did not pay. He was charged for his

personal property and that of his villeins in the vill of Wanborough, Wiltshire, in 1295.2 He had not paid when the collectors accounted, so they were granted an allowance for the amount that he owed. The annexed memorandum notes that he answered in the pipe roll of 6 Edward II. The pipe roll of that year records in blank the charge against Alan, for even then he had not paid.? The results of our investigation of the question of the exemption from taxation of the men serving in the armies in Gascony and Wales are confusing. No principle of any sort was generally applied, though it would seem that the idea was in the air that army service should be considered

equivalent to the payment of a tax. William de Valence and others received a full pardon; John le Chaundeler paid to the subsidy of 1294; Alan la Zouche and many others like him gained a respite, did not pay when the time of the respite had expired, and, what is more, never did

pay. Why should they pay? They doubtless knew that many of the magnates had been granted exemption from taxation on account of the same service, and their natural aversion to taxation of any sort would

be doubly strengthened by the inequality of treatment. Though the 1K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 67 (writs of supersedeas dated 26 January, 24 Edward I, in favor of a long list of men in Gascony). See also the Wiltshire account of the eleventh and seventh in Pipe Roll, No.

151, m. 85. There is a long list of pardons of the subsidy of 1296 in L.T.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 24, dated 2 February, 25 Edward I. Cf. the Wiltshire account in Pipe Roll, No. 151, m. 32d. 2 Pipe Roll, No. 151, m. 35. 3 Pipe Roll, No. 158 (6 Edward II), m. 27d., Restduum Wiltes. There are many other entries of a similar sort in this place.

114 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 exchequer kept their names and tax-charges on the books, it took no adequate means to enforce payment. In 1315 pardons of the sums due on account of the twelfth of 1296 appear on the rolls of chancery,! and in writs, dated 20 November, 1318, the treasurer and barons were directed

to discharge ‘the earls, barons, and all others who were engaged in the duchy [of Aquitaine] during the war between the late king and the king of France of the eleventh of 1295.2. The order was a fitting close to an administrative blunder. It may be added in this place that, so far as can be discovered, no similar pardons or writs of supersedeas were issued on behalf of the men serving later in France or Scotland during the reigns of either Edward I or of his successors. Indeed, in 1296, when writs of privy seal were sent to the chancery ordering the issue of letters under the great seal granting respites for debts owed by men with the king in Scotland, it was directed that the respite should not apply to ‘the subsidy granted by the laity.’

3. Toe Men or THE Five Ports The special position of the barons and others of the liberty of the Five Ports in relation to the lay subsidies was also based upon the principle

of equivalent service. Letters patent, dated 28 April, 1298, granted several privileges to the barons and men of the liberty in consideration of the charges to which they were put in order to keep up the king’s fleet. One of these privileges was ‘that they be quit of all tallages and aids payable from their own ships and the gear of the ships.’ On the same day Little Yarmouth and Great Yarmouth,’ which were not of the Five Ports, received the privilege that had been extended to Winchelsea, Romney, Dover, Faversham, Hastings, Pevensey, Rye, and Sandwich, members of the Five Ports. Difficulties arising over various clauses in the letters patent, these were remedied in the inspeximus of

25 February, 1327.6 It was then directed that the men of the liberty should contribute towards the maintenance of the fleet from all their goods within the liberty or without. At the same time these goods 1C.C.R. 1318-1818, 145, 173.

2C.C.R. 1818-1328, 30; cf. 638. At the same time the barons and others were released from the charges on account of the tenth of 1294. 8 Cal. Chan. War., 1, 70, '71 ff.

4C.P.R. 1292-1301, 348. The letters are dated 21 April in the Calendar, but 28 April elsewhere. Cf. C.P.R. 1327-1330, 24; Hist. MSS. Com., Fourth Report, Appendix, Part 1, 429; K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 129. But as early as the levy of the tax of 1294 the collectors in Sussex were told to supersede the demand of the tax from certain men of Pevensey because they were of the Five Ports (K.R.M.R., No. 71, m. 97). 5 C.P.R. 1292-1301, 349. °C.P.R. 1827-1830, 24.

Special Exemptions and Compositions 115 ‘whether without or within the liberty, which are taxed for the maintenance of the fleet and the service aforesaid, are in no wise to be taxed, for tallages or any other burdens whatever, with the goods of men not of the said ports.’ The effect of this grant would be to exempt the goods

of the men of the Five Ports from parliamentary taxes upon personal property.

Under the grant of 1298 only a part of the goods of the men of the Five Ports enjoyed an immunity from taxation, and it has been found impossible to trace the effects of the exemption clause relating to ships and the gear of ships. It is clear, however, that the men of the liberty were charged for the lay subsidies, even though for but a part of their goods. Robert de Burghersh, warden of the Five Ports, was associated with another man to assess and collect the fifteenth granted in 1301.! In 1310 the same procedure was followed; the warden and Henry de Cobeham were to assess and collect the twenty-fifth of 1309, unless the barons and others desired to compound for the subsidy.? In 1314 the constable of Dover Castle, who was also the warden of the Five Ports, alone was to assess and collect the twentieth and fifteenth.2 Though the men of the liberty might be granted the doubtful honor of having their goods valued by the warden, there is no question of their hability to pay for a portion of their personal property towards parliamentary taxes. The situation was changed entirely in and after 1327. In a record on

the memoranda roll of 2 Edward III it is stated that the king sent a writ under the great seal, dated 16 February, 1328, to the treasurer and barons commanding them to acquit the barons of the Five Ports of a twentieth demanded from them by the assessors in the counties of Sussex

and Kent, as they were taxed for naval service.’ The letters patent of 25 February, 1327, are referred to as the basis of this command. The rolls of the taxes of 1327 and 1332 in Sussex make no mention of Hastings, Pevensey, Rye, or Winchelsea, which were of the Five Ports.’ They were excused in 1334 and thereafter.® The Kentish roll of the tax of 1334 has unusual features.? In that year,

it will be remembered, the assessors entered into agreements with the 1C.P.R. 1301-1307, 314-315; cf. 489-440. They compounded for the subsidy in the sum of 2,000 marks (C.C.R. 1302-1307, 278). 2 C.P.R. 1307-1818, 230. 3 C.P.R. 1818-1817, 51, 198.

‘K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 129. 5 Sussex Record Society, x. The collectors in Kent of the tax of 1332 were excused the sum charged

against the men of the liberty (Pipe Roll, No. 178, m. 34d.). The statement is there made that the charges were removed to the Exannual Roll. 6 See Lay Subsidies, 189/7 (8 Edward III), 189/21 (18 Edward ITI). A list of the men of the liberty of the Five Ports in Sussex may be found in Exannual Roll, No. 4. 7 Lay Subsidy, 123/12.

116 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 men of the local units of taxation as to the amount each district should pay to the fifteenth and tenth. There was no assessment of the goods of individuals under the direction of the chief taxers, as had been the practice in the past. In Kent, however, the older method was preserved, and the resulting roll of the assessment contains the names of the individual property owners and a statement of the sum each was to pay. In addition, at the end of each hundred there is a list of the men of the liberty of the Five Ports and of moneyers—the latter also being freed from the levy of parliamentary taxes—together with a statement of the tenth or fifteenth of their movables. This is a curious state of affairs, for there was no intention of collecting the latter tax-charges. The charges against the men of the liberty and the moneyers were at once transferred to the pipe roll, and soon afterwards to a roll of desperate debts.!. The reason for the detailed assessment is, therefore, not quite clear, though one may guess at what happened. The assessors were faced with a real problem. They were told to come to an agreement with the people of

the several divisions of the county as to the tax to be paid by each district. But men of the liberty held a considerable amount of land in all parts of the county, and the moneyers, though not so numerous, did the same. What is more, these men would not, for the most part, reside in

the rural districts. In the circumstances an equitable agreement may have seemed difficult. What was done was to tax the goods of everyone

and, by means of simple addition, to calculate the total due from the hundred. The charge against the men of the Five Ports and the moneyers

was then deducted. In after years, in accordance with the system then in vogue, the hundred total reached before the deduction was made was

kept as the charge against the hundred. Each year the tax-charges against the men of the Five Ports and the moneyers were subtracted. As the value of the property of these men fluctuated from year to year, the sum to be deducted also varied. ‘To avoid injustice to the other residents in the hundreds, it was necessary to reassess the property of all

men in order to raise the money due from the district. While the rolls of the taxes after 1334 in nearby counties are uninteresting statements of

charges against vills, hundreds, and boroughs, the Kentish rolls give names of property owners and individual tax-charges.’ 1 Exannual Roll, No. 4, mm. 41-44. This roll was kindly brought to my attention by Miss Mabel Mills.

2 Lay Subsidies, 123/14 (14 Edward JIT), 123/20 (20 Edward III). For the continued release of men of the Five Ports see Exannual Roll, No. 4. When the tax of 10 Edward III (Nottingham) was accounted for, the charges against the men of the liberty, noted in total in Pipe Roll, No. 183, m. 10d.,

were promptly removed to the Exannual Roll. The record on the latter roll was made so promptly that there could have been no question of any hope of collection. See Exannual Roll, No. 4, m. 3.

Special Exemptions and Compositions 117 4. Tue Moneyers or Lonpon anp CANTERBURY

The managers of, and workers in, the king’s mints in London and Canterbury were likewise exempt from ordinary taxation. They were, however, subject to so-called voluntary contributions. Whether they escaped parliamentary taxes because they were government servants for the time being or because they made free-will offerings I do not know.

I am inclined to accept the latter explanation of their position and so have placed their exemption with those arising from equivalent service. It is quite possible, nevertheless, that their peculiar situation resulted from a combination of both causes. The privileged position of the moneyers dates from the days before the opening of our period. In 12 Edward II, when there was a review of the question of their exemption, a so-called charter, which was a letter patent,

dated 5 December, 1281, was exhibited. In it the moneyers, while working in the mints of London and Canterbury, were given freedom from all tallages, aids, and contributions to the king for their lands, tenements, goods, and chattels.!. While the same scrutiny was being held, there was also shown a confirmation of the same grant, dated 1 March, 1309. The principle of exemption from parliamentary taxes, which would be

covered by the terms of the grant, was upheld consistently throughout the period. On the other hand, there was equally no doubt of the right of the crown to request voluntary contributions from the moneyers. When such grants were made, the only stipulation was that they should be assessed and collected by the warden, or keeper, of the mint.? The goods of the warden were to be taxed by the treasurer and barons of the exchequer. The difficulties which arose because of the residence of the moneyers in London were annoying, but did not affect their exemption from royal taxes. When in 1301 the moneyers of London were taxed for the parliamentary fifteenth of that year, the officers of the city stated that they were charged not because they were moneyers, but because they enjoyed the freedom of the city. This rather specious plea availed the officers nothing and the process was quashed by the government. Nevertheless, the moneyers agreed to pay forty pounds in return for the 10.T.R.M.R., No. 89, m. 40. Cf. C.P.R. 1272-1281, 416, for a temporary grant of the same character, and L.T.R.M.R., No. 80 (8 Edward IT), m. 62d., where the permanent grant of immunity is repeated. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 89, m. 40 and C.P.R. 1307-1313, 152. 3 This procedure, which is described in L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 62d., was followed in 1824, when the moneyers of London are said to have granted a sixth of movables with others of the realm (C.F.R., it, 254-255). For a later example see C.C.R. 1833-13387, 549-550. 4 Cal. Letter-Books, London, C, 102-103. See, for a similar situation in 1336, C.C.R. 1883-1337, 549-550.

118 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 release from distraint and the dropping of the case. When, however, a purely local tax was being levied in London in 1311 and the question of the liability of the moneyers was raised, it was stated that they had paid such taxes in the past.!_ Since there is no reason for doubting the latter statement, 1t may be that the exemption from taxation did not cover local tallages. The Kentish roll of the fifteenth and tenth of 1334 lists tax-charges against the moneyers alongside those against the men of the Five Ports, for the reason described in the preceding section.? 5. THE STANNARY MEN

Among the many privileges enjoyed by the workers in the tin mines of Devon and Cornwall was that of being relieved of the burden of ordinary

taxation. They received this immunity in the charter of 1305; before that date they were not excused.? Though free thenceforth from parliamentary subsidies, they had to pay other taxes of various sorts imposed by the crown, and so rendered financial service comparable to the naval service of the Five Ports and the voluntary contributions of the moneyers.

The rule was that they should enjoy the privilege of exemption only while working in the mines, a rule that caused trouble at times because of the difficulty of separating the workers from those who, for the purpose

of temporarily escaping taxation, posed as stannary men. The first parliamentary tax affected by the charter of 1305 was the thirtieth and twentieth of 1306. The Devonshire assessors and collectors

of that tax were evidently in ignorance at first of the extent of the privileges granted the stannary men, for they assessed the goods of the workers in the tin mines, along with those of others in the county, to the extent of £25 16s. 624d. A writ of supersedeas caused them to withdraw the charges, and they were granted allowance for that sum on their account.‘ The chief taxers of 1307 in the same county, who were later brought before the exchequer in another connection, are said to have levied nothing of the goods of the stannary men for the twentieth and fifteenth of that year.’ In the pipe roll of 9 Edward II, however, there is a puzzling series of entries relating to the stannary men in connection 1 Cal. Letter-Books, London, D, 260. 2 Lay Subsidy, 123/12. Cf. L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 11, where a charge against the

moneyers in Canterbury is noted as answered for separately; that is, the collectors had not levied it. Exannual Roll, No. 4, tells the same story about the moneyers to 25 Edward III; their names are listed, though separately from the men of the Five Ports, and the sums charged against them are regarded as desperate debts. Cf. Pipe Roll, No. 183, m. 10d. 8G. R. Lewis, The Stannartes: A Study of the English Tin Miner (Boston, 1908), 39, 239-241. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 89d., a view of account. The audit of the account of the collectors of Cornwall does not mention the stannary men (L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 133). 5 L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 18.

Special Exemptions and Compositions 119 with the same subsidy of 1307. The chief taxers were charged with £127 10s., the remainder of their account. Among the items still owing was a large sum charged against a long list of stannary men who were held to answer separately.! By the side of the names of many of these

men is the letter T in a very black ink. If this is taken in its usual significance, It meant that the men whose names were so checked had paid the tax-charges.? If they did pay, their privilege of exemption was not observed. I have found no explanation of the phenomenon. An almost equally curious proceeding is found in connection with the subsidy of 1315, which was a twentieth and fifteenth of movables. The chief taxers in Devonshire appeared before the exchequer 24 July, 1315,

and stated that they had not taxed the goods of the stannary men.? They were directed to return on 2 September bringing with them a record of the assessment of the goods of these men. A writ under the great seal, dated 1 August, ordered the chief taxers in Cornwall to supersede until further orders the levy of the fifteenth upon the goods of the miners and to release any distraint laid upon them in that connection.’

During the Michaelmas term of the exchequer the Cornish collectors appeared. They craved allowance for £78 11s. 114d. charged against the stannary men, but not yet collected because of the writ of 1 August.® The officers of the exchequer, though repeating the command not to levy the money, ordered them to bring in the names of the same men. Though the mediaeval exchequer may have had its faults, it made few purposeless gestures. The evidence seems to look towards an attempt on its part to

bring about the taxation of the goods of the men working in the tin mines, despite the privilege of immunity. Though I do not know the outcome, it is likely that the writ of swpersedeas ended the matter.’

There seems to have been no further difficulty during the period we

are studying. ‘Thereafter some trouble arose, for the total sums due from the local units of collection had been fixed and the stannary men were wandering folk, now in one district, now in another. If they held property in one year that had belonged to another man, the necessity 1 Pipe Roll, No. 161, m. 41, Item Cornub. 2 Pipe Roll Society, N.S., 1 (London, 1925), Introd., xix. 3 L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 244. 4C.C.R. 1318-1818, 244. I have not found a similar writ for Devon. 5 L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 190. 6 The same sum appears on the enrolled account as owed by them (L.T.R. Enr Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 7). Reference is made to the Pipe Roll of 9 Edward II, where the debt is set forth but no answer noted (Pipe Roll, No. 161, m. 41d.). ” Again in the case of the subsidy of 1322 the collectors in Devonshire charged the stannary men

£15 12s. 1034d. and were granted a respite for the amount until Easter (L.T.R.M.R., No. 94, m. 161d.).

120 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 arose of making some arrangement that would be just to the remainder of the taxpayers in the district. There was also the well-grounded suspicion that many men claimed to be workers in the stannaries in order

to escape taxation. This led to the listing of stannary men on the tax rolls and to inquisitions as to their status.1 There was no intention of taxing them. 6. INDIVIDUALS

Quite distinct from the causes of exemption thus far considered are those to be taken up in the following sections. Long service to the king in the case of an individual, the loss of property resulting from the ravages of the Scots in the case of a vill or county, or slender endowment

in the case of a hospital might serve as reasons for exemption. Each case was decided on its own merits. A government officer or servant might be excused because he had performed his duties well and faithfully, but all officers who had the same record were not necessarily granted the

same boon. A hospital that cared for the sick and infirm might be released from the burden of taxation, but all such institutions did not receive the same treatment. We have therefore left the realm of equivalent service as a cause of exemption and have entered another province in which a selection was made of supposedly worthy men, districts, and institutions from a mass of others because of special favor or special need.

Grants to individuals of the exemption of their personal property from the burden of the taxes granted in parliament were rare save during the years 1309 and 1310. It is m keeping with the reputation of Edward II that we find his chancery, in the two years before the ordainers took charge of affairs, issuing more such grants than were enrolled during the years before and after. The grants were embodied in letters patent under the great seal which

usually had as their warrant a writ of privy seal sent to the chancery. In other instances the enigmatic ‘by king’ is cited as the basis of the issuance of the letters. The kinds of taxes from which the person was excused were described in the letters; they usually did not include a specific description of the taxes upon movables. John de Lentur, citizen of London, was in 1295 granted exemption for life ‘from all tallages, aids, watches and contributions whatsoever which might be exacted from him by the king’ or his ministers, by reason of the said John’s lands, tene-

ments, rents or other things or merchandise within the said city or without.’”? When this grant was confirmed by Edward II in 1309, a 1 See the lists of stannary men in Lay Subsidies, 95/13, 95/14, 95/17, 95/29. For the inquisitions see Lay Subsidies, 95/12, 95/22. See also Exannual Roll, No. 4, mm. 24ff. 2 C.P.R. 1292-1301, 144. See also C.C.R. 1296-1302, 52.

Special Exemptions and Compositions 121 clause was added noting that he was not to be forced to pay ‘any future grant to the king by the commonalty of the city of London.”! The list of taxes in the case of John Vanne and others in 1309, as described in the Calendar of the patent rolls, is brief. They were to be free for life ‘from all tallages, aids, wakes and contributions, the king’s prises excepted.” Taxes upon personal property are hardly referred to, save in the most general way, in this letter, but they were included, nevertheless. When the fifteenth of 1309 was levied in London, the name of John Vanne appears in the list of those from whom the tax gatherers did not collect

the tax. The names of several other men who had received similar grants of exemption appear on the same list. When, in December, 1327, Oliver de Burdegala’s exemption granted in 1309 was confirmed,

there was added for greater clarity the phrase ‘exemption for life . .°. from tenths, twelfths and other quota of movables when any such be granted to the king.’ The usual procedure was to make the grants for the life of the beneficiary; 1t was not so usual for the letters to contain a statement of the cause of the grant. There are a few examples of a departure from the normal plan of life immunity. Robert de Carlisle in 1309 received his exemption from prises and tallages during pleasure, William de Toulouse

during the following year was freed from the levy of the twenty-fifth, and Alice de Palmer was in 1327 granted immunity from the twentieth and all aids and taxes as long as she was engaged in the construction of a bridge over the Trent near Nottingham.’ It is rarely stated what particular service the men had performed to deserve exemption from taxation; far more frequently it is noted upon whose recommendation the letters were issued. Service to the king is mentioned in a few instances.’ Of those who are stated to have recommended the recipients of the letters

to the attention of the crown there may be mentioned Queen Isabella, Edmund, brother of Edward I, the earls of Lincoln, Gloucester, Surrey and Richmond, John Sturmy, king’s yeoman, and Roger de Northburgh, keeper of the privy seal. There is at least the basis for a suspicion of 1 C.P.R. 1807-1818, 152. 2 C.P.R. 1807-1818, 158. $L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 3d.

4K. g., Robert Person, John Selling, John de Triple, John de Lincoln, and William de Trent. Their letters of exemption are found in C.P.R. 1307-1318, 274, 270, 275, 188. John Selling’s taxcharge in 1336 is cancelled (Pipe Roll, No. 188, Kent). 5 C.P.R. 1827-1880, 196. Cf. the early grant in C.P.R. 1307-1313, 301. Several of the persons mentioned in the above and ensuing paragraphs, as well as others, are noted on the roll of the twelfth of 1319 in London as excused (Lay Subsidy, 144/83). 6 (.P.R. 1307-1818, 194; C.C.R. 1807-1818, 270; C.P.R. 1827-1880, 188. 7C.C.R. 1296-1302, 40; C.P.R. 1307-1818, 593; C.P.R. 1327-1830, 416. 8 C.P.R. 1313-1317, 352; C.P.R. 1292-1801, 144; C.P.R. 1307-1318, 188, 179, 229, 153, 276, 459.

122 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 official scandal in the selection of John de Warley in 1309 as the recipient of a letter of exemption at the instance of his brother Ingelard de Warley,

the unpopular keeper of the wardrobe.’ In January, 1310, Henry de Melton received his grant at the instance of his brother William de Melton, controller of the wardrobe.’ Most of the men who received grants of immunity were citizens of London, and several are described as king’s merchants. There are also instances of foreign merchants resident in England receiving the same

privilege; e. g., two of the Bellardi in 1309, Anthony, Manuel, and Leonard Pessaigne in 1312, and three members of the house of the Frescobaldi in 1311.3 William de Trent, John of Lincoln, Oliver de Burdegala, and others were either at the time of their selection, or at other times, in the employment of the crown. One instance has been found of a holder of a letter of exemption from taxation renouncing a part of his rights. In 1313, John Vanne, who had in 1309 been given such a letter and who had escaped the levy of the twenty-fifth in London, was admitted to the freedom of that city. He was thereupon ‘sworn to contribute to all the city’s charges . . . not-

withstanding the charter of exemption granted to him . . . by the king.”4 7%. CouNnTIES, VILLS, AND Towns

There was nothing permanent in the release of the inhabitants of a district from the burden of taxation. ‘Temporary exemptions were, however, granted for a definite reason, and when this was removed the goods of the people were once more brought within the scope of the taxes upon personal property.

The only examples of the release from taxes of all the people living within a large district are to be found in the northern part of England during a part of the reign of Edward II and the early years of Edward III. The Scots raided the North at intervals until there was distress on every hand and inability to meet even customary charges. Much of the personal property of the villagers was carried off or destroyed during these raids, and there must have been a large number of individuals whose property holdings did not equal the minimum required for assess-

ment. For these no special privilege would be necessary, since they 1C.P.R. 1307-1818, 204. 2 Ind. 3 C.P.R. 1307-1813, 158, 459, 321.

4 Cal. Letter-Books, London, E, 16.

5] have already treated the situation in the northern counties in a paper entitled “The Scotch Raids and the Fourteenth Century Taxation of Northern England,’ University of Colorado Studies, v (1908), 237-242. Some of the statements in that paper have been revised in this section.

Special Exemptions and Compositions 123 would not have paid taxes at any time. For the others who managed to save enough grain and cattle to be liable for taxes, the release from taxation which they gained because of general poverty in a district was a real exemption. There were probably a number of fortunate folk in the vills removed from the direct path of the raiders, yet when one of the northern counties received the boon of exemption, no distinction was made between them and those who had suffered losses of property. The districts most affected by the raids of the Scots were the counties

of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmorland. ‘The exemption of their inhabitants, because of the devastation within their borders, was effected in most years by the simple expedient of not sending assessors and collectors to care for the taxes upon movables. On other occasions, as will be seen, chief taxers were appointed for the northern counties, but upon their failure to collect the tax the matter was usually dropped. During the second half of the reign of Edward II the raiders penetrated farther south and, as a result, large districts in Yorkshire and Lancashire were relieved of the levy of taxes. The first serious difficulty caused by the raids into the northern counties arose In connection with the assessment and collection of the subsidy

of 1309. The commissions to the chief taxers throughout England are dated 26 August, 1309.1. The assessors and collectors in Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmorland were ordered by writs, dated 20 December, to pay John de Weston, chamberlain of Scotland, all the money they had gathered.?, During the Trinity term of the following year an order was issued for the distraint of the property of the chief taxers in the three counties to force them to bring in their rolls and to account.? Evidently they continued recalcitrant, for in July they were threatened with a fine of twenty pounds, to be levied against each group, unless they paid John de Weston the money which he reported that he had not received. Finally, the collectors of the twenty-fifth in Cumberland and Westmorland accounted, but there is no record among the enrolments of any money having been paid in by the collectors sent to Northumberland.®

In 1313, chief taxers were again appointed to act in the northern counties,* but when in March and April, 1314, an order was issued to hasten the levy of the subsidy, none was sent to them.? What happened 1C.P.R. 1307-1318, 183-186. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 90. $L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 118. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 93. 6 L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 4d. ° C.P.R. 1813-1317, 49-51. 7C.C.R. 1813-1818, 48; C.F.R., 1, 198.

124 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 thereafter is not clear, save that there is no record of any amount charged

against the three counties.! I conjecture that the chief taxers in Northumberland and Cumberland appeared before the exchequer, offered as their excuse the devastation of the North, and were released. The Westmorland chief taxers did not appear, despite all attempts to force them to do so,” and it was not until the reign of Edward III that the charges against the heir of one and the executors of the will and the heir of the other were dismissed, on the ground that it had been impossible to levy the tax because of the devastation of the county by the Scots.’ After the futile attempt to levy the subsidy of 1313, the government did not again appoint taxers and collectors for the three counties until 1332.4 The fifteenth and tenth of the latter year was collected in Cumberland and Westmorland, but, after a respite had been granted, the men of Northumberland were pardoned the subsidy because of the damage done by the forays of the Scots.* In 1334, commissions were again Issued to chief taxers for each of the counties, only to be vacated on the patent rolls.§

The Scots entered Lancashire and Yorkshire during the second half of Edward II’s reign to wreak havoc in those counties. The effect upon the levy of the subsidies of 1319 and 1322 was serious. In 1319, after the Lancashire chief taxers had set to work, they were ordered to supersede the taxation of the eighteenth in that county because of the devastation

wrought by the Scots.’? When they finally appeared before the exchequer, they accounted for only £81 18s. 944d. in contrast to the £242 17s. 714d. of 1316, referred to the writ of supersedeas, and stated

that they had collected nothing in the borough of Lancaster. In both the North and West Ridings of Yorkshire there was also a large amount of destruction. Writs were issued in November, 1319, ordering the chief taxers in both ridings to supersede the levy of the eighteenth in a large number of vills because of information received of the losses of their lords and inhabitants.? The chief taxers at the time of their accounting proffered these writs, and reported that they had not levied the eighteenth 1L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 5-6. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 86 (9 Edward II), m. 178. 3 K.R.M.R., No. 108 (6 Edward III), m. 243d. An inquisition was held to determine this fact. 4In addition to the absence of commissions from the patent rolls, there is the absence of taxcharges and in 1319 and 1322 positive statements on the memoranda rolls that such letters patent were not issued (K.R.M.R., No. 88, m. 144; L.T.R.M.R., No. 89, m. 37; K.R.M.R., No. 96, m. 67). § L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 8, mm. 2-3; C.C.R. 18338-1387, 85; C.P.R. 18380-1384, 484-485 ; C.P.R. 1884-1838, 114. 6 C.P.R. 1834-1338, 38-40. 7 C.C.R. 13818-1828, 162; C.F.R., mt, 27.

8L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 12d. 9C.C.R. 1318-1323, 166-167.

Special Exemptions and Compositions 125 within the vills.1 As the writs were seemingly issued after an investigation of the claims of destruction of taxable property, and after an attempt at an assessment and levy had been made, they may be classed as grant-

ing exemption from taxation. The chief taxers of the tenth and sixth in the North Riding reported that no taxable property had been found in

one hundred and twenty-eight vills, and the chief taxers in the East Riding made the same report of twelve vills.2, Since the people in these vills did not have enough property to come within the scope of the assessment, the matter of exemption from taxation does not enter. Only one other instance of the exemption of the inhabitants of a dis-

trict has been found to add to those already mentioned. A grant was made to the citizens of Carlisle in 1333 that they should not be subject to the fifteenth and tenth granted the preceding year ‘in consideration of their losses by the war of Scotland in the past, and their heavy expenses in the custody of their city.” No inability to pay taxes was alleged, and so this was an exemption for many of the people in the fullest sense of that term.

8. Reticious Houses anp HospitaLs The permanent exemption of religious houses and hospitals from parliamentary taxes was rare. Almost equally rare was the release of such institutions from the levy of a single subsidy. All of which shows the care with which the revenue arising from such taxes was guarded.

So far as has been discovered, the Premonstratensian was the only order to receive permanent exemption from lay taxation.‘ As already noted, neither the Templars nor the Hospitallers were granted a like immunity. A few individual ecclesiastical establishments were, however, granted the privilege. The priories of Henton and Witham, both in Somerset, were singled out from others of the Carthusian order for exemption by Edward I and the immunity was confirmed by his son.5 Within the same category were the chapel of St Mary in the manor of Sewer, Suffolk,® the chapel of St Peter, Kirby Bellars, in Leicestershire,’

and the hospital of St Bartholomew, Smithfield. Though it is quite 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, mm. 142d., 143; see also L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 11d., 12. 2L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 13d. The statement of the chief taxers may have been literally true if it is accepted that goods in the larder were not taxable. The Scots would have carried off such property as well as a large share of the cattle and smaller beasts. 3 C.P.R. 1330-1334, 402.

4C.P.R. 13818-1317, 40. The letter refers to a statute of 30 Edward I. 5 C.P.R. 1807-1318, 207; C.P.R. 1817-1821, 192. °C.P.R. 1327-1330, 482. 7C.P.R. 1317-1321, 340. §K.R.M.R., No. 109 (7 Edward ITI), m. 143. I am not certain of the cause of this release from lay taxes, for I have not the charters referred to in the record of the proceedings before the exchequer.

126 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 possible that other institutions of the sort may have escaped my notice, it is certain that the number was never large. Among the establishments receiving special exemption from the levy of one or more subsidies there were several hospitals. These were God’s

House, Dover,! Ospringe, Kent,? St Leonard’s, Derby,’ and St John without the East Gate of Oxford.4 With the exception of that of St Leonard’s, these hospitals are stated to have been founded by Henry ITI,

while that of St Leonard’s is said to have been founded by the king’s progenitors. In each case the reason given for the release from the subsidy then being levied was that the hospitals were so slenderly endowed that, if they were made to pay the subsidy, their almsgiving would be curtailed. The goods of the hospital of Bolton, Northumberland, were released from the levy of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 and were to be released from all such taxes as long as Thomas de Baumburgh, its keeper, lived, because of the affection of the king for Thomas.® Similar writs granting temporary release were issued in favor of a few

religious houses. In the year 1302, the treasurer and barons of the exchequer were directed to cause the priory of Deerhurst, a cell of the

abbey of St Denis, in the county of Gloucester, to be quit of the fifteenth. The reason given was the great devotion of the king to the French saint. Because of her poverty, the goods of the prioress of Cheshunt, in Hertfordshire, were temporarily released from taxation.’ The abbot and convent of Westminster received a like release of their goods on several manors because these lands had been given by Edward I for the yearly celebration of the anniversary of Eleanor, his wife.2 The

prioress of St Radegund, near Canterbury, was relieved of the burden of the thirtieth and twentieth of 1306 on account of lack of resources.®

When anyone is searching for instances of permanent or temporary immunity of religious bodies from lay taxation, there is always present the danger of mistaking for such the immunity due to the fact that the 1C.C.R. 1823-1827, 421; C.C.R. 1827-1830, 255; C.C.R. 18338-13387, 35%. Each of these references

has to do with the release from the levy of taxes that are named. 2C.C.R. 13823-1827, 421; C.C.R. 1330-1888, 520; C.C.R. 1333-1887, 275. The exemption was made permanent in 1338 (C.Ch.R., 1v, 444). 3 C.C.R. 1330-1888, 520. 4C.C.R. 1830-1833, 518; C.C.R. 1383-1837, 285. 5° C.P.R. 1330-1334, 368.

6 C.C.R. 1296-1302, 530. The charge of £9 16s. 714d. against the priory was withdrawn (Pipe Roll, No. 152 B, m. 27d.). 7 C.C.R. 1296-1302, 115. 8 C.C.R. 1288-1296, 436; C.C.R. 1296-1302, 14-15; C.C.R. 1323-1327, 481; C.C.R. 1833-1887, $71.

Cf. K.R.M.R., No. 106 (4 Edward III), m. 182. The latter refers to possessions (temporalities) annexed to spiritualities and is cited to illustrate the different types of holdings by an abbey.

°L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 67.

Special Exemptions and Compositions 127 houses concerned held only temporalities annexed to spiritualities. The word breve opposite the name of a priory on the tax rolls means that the tax-charge against the priory was cancelled by writ; it tells us nothing of the contents of the writ. It may be that the writ was issued because the priory, while holding temporalities not annexed to spiritualities, was released from the payment of the tax, or it may mean that its goods had been wrongly charged to the lay tax by assessors who did not know that its temporalities were not subject to lay taxes... Though I have tried to

avoid misinterpretation by referring only to cases that are at least reasonably certain, it is possible that in one or more instances I have been mistaken. On the other hand, I make no claim to have included all exempted houses. 9. MANORS IN THE HaAnps oF THE KING, QUEEN, AND PRINCE oF WALES

Property on the demesne of manors in the king’s hands because of the minority of a feudal tenant-in-chief or for other reasons, was exempt from

taxation. There are, however, very few references in the records examined to such cases. The taxers and collectors of the tenth and sixth of 1294 in Hertfordshire charged themselves with £5 7s. 634d. for the goods of the king in the manor of ‘Pissebury,’ which manor was in the king’s hands.2- They were granted allowance for that sum. The chief taxers in the county of Buckingham of the sixteenth of 1316 likewise charged themselves with £6 5s. 91d. for the subsidy in the vills of Langley Marish and Wyrandisbury, then in the king’s hands.’ In this instance, the royal bailiffs would not allow them to levy the sum and the chief taxers were granted a respite. A different situation 1s depicted

in a writ of 26 February, 1323.4 It is stated that, despite the fact that the lands of William de Monte Acuto were in wardship, the taxers and collectors of the tenth and sixth in Somerset were taxing the goods of William found on such lands. They were ordered to supersede the levy. Other records strengthen the foregoing statement relating to goods on demesne lands in the king’s hands. In a number of instances, personal property on the lands of a deceased tenant-in-chief was relieved of the burden of taxation because, as it is stated, he died before the grant of a 1 The editor of the Warwickshire roll of 1832 (Dugdale Society, v1, p. xiii), makes the curious mistake of interpreting breve as the cause of a special assessment of the goods of religious houses.

2 Pipe Roll, No. 151, m. 44; C.C.R. 1288-1296, 357; Lay Subsidy, 120/3, records the fact that a royal bailiff was in charge of the manor.

3L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 188. This is the audit of the account of the taxers and collectors. Reference to these vills as being in the king’s hands is found in C.F.R., 11, 152-158. 4C.C.R. 1818-1323, 6838. When the king’s clerk, William de Hamelton, held the manor of ‘Fesshowe’ in Essex by royal commission, rendering payment each year at the exchequer, the goods on the demesne were not to be taxed to the ninth of 1297 (L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 25).

128 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 tax upon movables. While this might appear on the surface to be due to the application of a principle of no taxation without personal participation in the grant, it was really the result of the seizure into the king’s hands of the lands of a vassal who had died. There would be, if the theory of the temporary freedom of goods on such lands from taxation be correct, no levy upon the goods on the demesne until the lands were released to the heir by the crown.

Two cases may be cited in illustration of the procedure. Edmund, brother of Edward I and Earl of Lancaster, died before the grant of the twelfth and eighth of 1296. His heir was a minor, and the land that he held in chief from the king was placed in the keeping of William Inge.!

The taxers and collectors of the subsidy in Bedfordshire and several other counties were thereupon notified not to levy the twelfth on the

goods that belonged to Edmund ‘as it appears . . . that Edmund died before the grant of the twelfth . . . .’2 When, on the other hand, Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, died before the grant of the same twelfth, his heir was of age, but in Gascony. His lands were seized into the king’s

hands until all matters connected with them were settled, and the treasurer and barons were commanded to direct the chief taxers to supersede the levy of the twelfth on all the goods of the deceased tenantin-chief.? There are other instances of the same procedure when tenants-

in-chief died, which help to strengthen the theory that has been advanced. The status of otherwise taxable property found on the demesne of manors held by a queen or a Prince of Wales was the same as that of such property on lands in the king’s hands. By a writ of privy seal, dated 25 January, 1291, the treasurer was ordered to cause the levying of a fifteenth on the goods of the king’s mother, Eleanor, to be stopped.°®

This command finds its complement in the record of the audit of the chief taxers in Berkshire.’ They were allowed in that place for £2 10s. 316d. charged against the goods of the late Queen Eleanor on the rolls of the taxation of the county. The property of Queen Isabella, wife of Edward II and mother of Edward III, was also wrongly taxed in 1319 and 1332. A clear statement of the nature of the exemption is found in 1 C.C.R. 1288-1296, 512; C.C.R. 1296-1302, 2, 39. 2 C.C.R. 1296-1302, 85. 3C.C.R. 1288-1296, 496; C.C.R. 1296-1802, 9.

4See the case of William de Valence noted in C.C.R. 1296-1302, 3, 9. See also that of Joan de Bosco, wife of John de Bosco, a tenant-in-chief (C.C.R. 1288-1296, 69, 410), and that of Richard de Welton, in Kent (L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 1). I have not been able to trace the latter

case further than the enrolled account. 5 K.R.M.R., No. 64, m. 7. 6 Pipe Roll, No. 140, m. 25.

Special Exemptions and Compositions 129 the record of the accounting of the chief taxers of the twentieth of 1332 in the county of Derby.! It is there stated that they did not answer for 13s. 4d. charged against the proper goods of Queen Isabella in Walton-

on-Trent because of a writ of the king directing them to supersede entirely the assessment and collection of the tenth and fifteenth of the proper goods of the aforesaid queen.? A writ of 22 February, 1320,

directed the taxers and collectors of the eighteenth in the county of Southampton ‘to supersede the taxing and levying of the eighteenth of the goods of Edward, Earl of Chester, the king’s son, in his manors in

that county . . . provided that his tenants of the manors be taxed according to the form of the taxation delivered to the taxers.” 10. COMPOSITIONS

Fines or compositions for taxes were definite sums of money paid by communities in lieu of the several amounts that would have been due from their individual members had the assessors and collectors of the taxes upon movables been permitted to complete their work. Whenever the men of a town, borough, or other district compounded for a tax, the chief taxers appointed by the crown ceased to have any jurisdiction over the matter. The amount to be paid was determined, without reference to an assessment at the time, by an agreement between the government and the head or other responsible agent of the community. As will be seen, however, this does not mean that the amount of the composition

had no relation to that of earlier taxes paid by the same community. After the sum had been agreed upon and the responsibility for its payment fixed, the crown was interested only in the payment of the money into the treasury; it did not direct how the money was to be raised by the

men of the community. On the contrary, it seems:to have been quite content to allow them to go ahead as they pleased. Therefore, while fines in no sense constituted a release from a financial burden, they did relieve communities from the intrusion within their boundaries of the taxers and collectors appointed to serve in the counties. To that extent, but to that extent only, did the boroughs and other communities which compounded gain freedom. In the official phraseology of the later Middle Ages those communities which compounded for taxes were said to make a fine (‘fecerunt finem’). 1L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 16d. 2 Cf. the writ of 20 October, 1319, in C.C.R. 1818-1823, 153-154.

3C.C.R. 1318-1823, 178. On the treatment of the goods of the Prince of Wales after 1334 see my introduction to the Surrey roll of 1332 (Surrey Record Society, xvi, p. xxi). It may be noted that in the reign of Edward I the movables of alien priories in the king’s hands were not taxed (Pipe Roll, No. 152 B, m. 27, the enrolled account of the taxers and collectors in the county of Northampton).

130 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 The men who were occasionally sent out to arrange for these compositions were ‘to receive fines,’ and fines were made ‘in their presence.’! When the representatives of the communities went to Westminster to seek compositions, the agreement was made ‘with the king.”? Some of the entries on the memoranda rolls relating to fines bring out clearly

the fact that they were regarded as substitutes for current taxes. In 1306, for example, John le Blound, mayor of the city of London, and all the aldermen of the same city appeared at the exchequer and granted

the king £2,000 to have pardon of the twentieth of that year.2 No mention is made of fining in this entry, but later in the same roll it is said that the men of London had lately made fine for the sum noted.‘ Occasionally, as in connection with the sums paid by the Templars and Hospitallers in 1297,5 what were undoubtedly fines were called gifts.

Of the various motives actuating the crown and the communities in their desire for compositions, two stand out clearly. On the one hand the crown, when in need of ready cash, would wish to anticipate the results of the labors of the assessors and collectors of taxes. Fines, in normal circumstances, would be paid into the treasury more quickly than

taxes. On the other hand, the boroughs were always anxious to gain as much local autonomy as possible. When they fined for a tax, the chief

taxers did not visit them, and this respite from the intrusion of royal officers would be a step, even though a short one, in the right direction.

Great religious establishments, such as the orders of the Temple and Hospital, and great abbeys like that of St Edmund’s, may be credited with a similar motive. Why the two motives mentioned did not result in a greater number of compositions than are to be found is another matter. Both the government and the boroughs were restrained from full indulgence in compositions by other considerations. Though the immediate need of revenue may have been great at times, there was always the influence exercised by the strong administrative departments, the exchequer and chancery, in favor of orderly methods of conducting the government. Fines were 1K.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 107, Gloucester, ‘Maiore et ceteri homines de . . . Bristoll fecerunt coram Reco de Wotton clerico R. ad fines . . . recipiend’; zhd., ‘Homines Burgi de Taunton finem fecerunt coram Johanne de Okham . . . .’ Both of these refer to the tax of 1319. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 56d., London, ‘finem fecerunt hic cum Regi’ (1806); L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 5, the abbot of St Edmund’s ‘finem fecit cum Regi’ (1290).

3L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 22. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 56d., ‘nuper finem fecerunt.”’ In 1332 the mayor of Bristol agreed to a fine of £200, ‘in order to discharge the commonalty and all the several inhabitants of Bristol of a tenth’ (L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 29. I have used the wording of the MS. calendar of the memoranda roll in the Public Record Office). Cf. Receipt Roll, No. 308 (7 Edward III, Mich.), 8 March. 6 K.R.M.R., No. 71, m. 79, ‘istud donum.’

Special Exemptions and Compositions 131 at best somewhat irregular, for they caused the setting aside of the ordinary machinery used for the assessment and collection of taxes. The burgesses also might well have doubts about the value of fines despite the relief from the intrusion of the taxers and collectors. It is clear that in certain instances at least they paid more as a group when the taxes were compounded than they did when the normal procedure was followed and they paid as individuals. London, for example, advanced £1,666 13s. 4d. towards the fifteenth of 1301 and £2,000 for the

twentieth of 1306.1 In 1297 the sum total of the charges against its inhabitants, for the ninth, was £1,221 19s. 5d., and in 1307, for a fifteenth, £1,714 4s. 144d. Taunton’s fine for the twelfth of 1319 was £16 13s. 4d., whereas the sum of the individual charges against its inhabitants in 1327, when the tax was a twentieth, was £7 3s.2. The amount of the fine of the borough of Stafford in 1319 was £20 6s. 8d., and the amount that its people were charged by the taxers and collectors of 1327 was £11, and, in 1332, £13 8s.2 Though the burgesses made their own arrangements for raising the money due to the crown when their officers compounded for a subsidy, they might well place in the scale against this advantage the increased burden of taxation which might accompany fines. It is, therefore, not surprising that there are few instances of the boroughs taking the initiative in the matter. From the records kept by the exchequer and chancery it is possible to gain some knowledge of the procedure followed by the central government and the communities when fines were being negotiated. Many, perhaps most, of the fines were the result of governmental initiative. In a number of instances it would appear that the boroughs or religious bodies made the first move, but it is always possible that unrecorded

suggestion, more or less in the form of a command, lay behind this seeming desire to compound.

In the years 1301, 1319, and 1334, at least, the crown, through properly accredited agents, treated with the cities and boroughs for fines. In 1301, after preliminary and successful negotiations had been carried through by the treasurer, and also, perhaps, by the keeper of the wardrobe, with London, York, Northampton, and Oxford, five groups of men

were assigned on 2 August to go to different parts of the country to treat with named cities and boroughs for advances on the fifteenth. The 1 For these and the other statements relating to London see E.H.R., xxvut (1913), 521; xxx (1914), 319-321. 2K.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 107, ‘item Somerset’; Somerset Record Society, 111, 274. 3K.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 145; Wm. Salt Archaeol. Soc., vir, 214; x, 81. 4 The writs to the communities, in which the men are named, are found in C.C.R. 1296-1302, 461-

462. In the instructions that were to guide these agents (p. 463), Oxford, Northampton, York, and

132 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 latter tax, though granted in January, was not to be assessed generally until the autumn. The men sent out were experienced officers whose

presence would command a respectful hearing. Roger de Hegham, William de Carleton, Richard de Abyndon, and Peter of Leicester were at the time barons of the exchequer,! and one, John de Insula, had been

a baron, though then perhaps engaged on other business.2 John de Drokenesford was keeper of the wardrobe, John de Kirkeby was a remembrancer of the exchequer, Nicholas Fermbaud was constable of Bristol Castle, John de Berewyk was an experienced justice, and Nicholas de Warwick and Hugh de Nottingham had served on various commissions

on behalf of the crown.? These men were to repair to the cities and boroughs named, going first to the king’s towns, to set before the citizens

and burgesses the needs of the king and induce them to pay for the fifteenth in advance of its assessment. They took with them a schedule drawn up in advance under the direction of John de Kirkeby, remembrancer of the exchequer, and certified by him, in which were set down the sums paid by the cities and boroughs to the fifteenth of 1290. The

negotiations were to be based upon the returns in this schedule; the resulting compositions were not to fall below the amount of the tax of 1290, though the king’s agents were to try to get more. It was to be promised that, if the fifteenth was not levied in the autumn, allowance would be made the burgesses on the farm of their borough or on other debts due to the crown.® Later in the year, by letters dated 26 October, agents were sent to the counties of Lincoln, Norfolk, and Suffolk, and Cumberland and Westmorland, to receive fines from the men living in London are stated to have made the advance already. The patent rolls record the pardons from the fifteenth issued from chancery in view of these compositions: C.P.R. 1292-1301, 602 (London, 2,500 marks under date 20 July, 1301); 603 (Oxford, £200 under date 2 August, 1301); 608 (Northampton, 200 marks under date 13 October 1301). On the London grant see also Cal. Letter-Books, London, E, 48-49. 1 Madox, History of the Exchequer, u1, 324. See also C.C.R. 1296-1302, 317 (Peter of Leicester), 334 (Richard de Abyndon), 551 (William de Carleton); C.P.R. 1292-1801, 5038 (Roger de Hegham, appointed as baron 1 April, 1800). See also Tout, Place of Edward II, 341 ff. 2 Tout, Place of Edward II, 342 (John de Lisle).

3 Drokenesford and Kirkeby are stated to have held these positions in the letters sent out on 2 August (C.C.R. 1296-1302, 461 and 463). Fermbaud is called constable of Bristol] Castle on the rolls (ibid., 367, 487); John de Berewyk served as justice in eyre in the county of Cambridge several times (ibid., 363, 370, 428); the indexes to the Calendars of the patent and close rolls give several references

to both Nicholas and Hugh. 4 JT have based this description on the various documents in C.C.R. 1296-1302, 461-463.

5 J have not been able to discover many references to the results of these negotiations. Bristol agreed to a fine of £133 6s. 8d., (Pipe Roll, 152 B, m. 27d., Gloucester). Lincoln paid £400 into the exchequer and received a pardon of the fifteenth dated 23 August, 1301 (C.P.R. 1292-1301, 605). The latter may have been the result of negotiations before 2 August. London paid 2,500 marks to be free of the fifteenth (Pipe Roll, 152 A, m. 28).

Special Exemptions and Compositions 133 hundreds, wapentakes, and other districts if they wished to make a fine for the fifteenth.! In 1319 the procedure was very much like that of 1301, whereas in 1334 it was quite different. The commissions to the taxers and collectors of the eighteenth and twelfth of 1319 were dated 30 May, but the assess-

ment was not to be made until the coming Michaelmas.? In order to anticipate in part the labors of the chief taxers, the crown resorted to the expedient of asking the cities and boroughs to compound for the twelfth.

Letters close under the great seal, dated 8 June, were issued to the treasurer and barons of the exchequer ordering them to appoint, under the seal of the exchequer, various men to solicit fines from such cities and boroughs as were found willing to agree to them. The men so appointed were to be given full information as to the fines agreed upon by these places in the past and any other items of knowledge that would aid them. Of the men selected to go into the country I have been able to identify but three. Robert of Nottingham, a remembrancer of the exchequer, was sent to the counties of Nottingham, Derby, Shropshire, and Stafford; Richard de Wotton, king’s clerk, was sent to Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, and Worcestershire; and John de Ockham, a baron of the exchequer, went to Somerset and probably elsewhere.* These men negotiated with the cities and boroughs and reported the results to the treasurer and barons.’ Records of some of the fines that were agreed upon were entered on both of the memoranda rolls under the heading, ‘Fines made for the twelfth granted the king by the communities of the cities and boroughs in the year XII.’ The list is, however, very short and is incomplete.’ The plan adopted in 1334 was simple and all-embracing. The regularly appointed assessors and collectors were directed to treat with the men of the cities, boroughs, vills, ancient demesne, and others for fines or sums of money for the fifteenth and tenth. They were to report the outcome of their labors to the exchequer. To assist them in determining the amounts to be reached by agreement, they were given abstracts of 1C.P.R. 1292-1801, 614. 2 O.P.R. 1817-1821, 347-849. 3 C.C.R. 1318-1828, 79.

4L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, m. 34. The official positions of Wotton and Ockham are named in this record. For Robert of Nottingham see Tout, Place of Edward IT, 348. 5 L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, m. 34. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, m. 34, and K.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 107. 7 On it are the following towns and compositions: Derby, 40 marks; Cirencester, £20; Taunton, 25 marks; Bristol £75. References to other towns and their fines are found in orders to pay issued by the exchequer. These are Shrewsbury, £53 13s. 4d.; Stafford, £20 6s. 8d.; Bridgnorth, £22 9s. (K.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 145). 8 Rot. Parl., 1, 447-448; C.P.R. 1334-1838, 38-40.

134 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 the county rolls, except for Kent, of the taxation of 1332, which was also a fifteenth and tenth. The complete rolls of 1832 were handed over to the chief taxers in Kent for their information.? The method of negotia-

tion was to be abandoned in favor of that of direct assessment if the people of any district refused to come to terms, but the first plan seems to have been found to be feasible in most instances. On the indented rolls handed in at the exchequer there are a number of references to the sums reached by agreement, and on several the old taxation, that of 1332, is noted and contrasted with the new taxation, that of 1334.3 The money due was collected by one of the men appointed and by him paid in at the exchequer. Such a wide-spread use of a plan of taxation by agreement, instead of by direct assessment of personal property, set aside all the precedents laid down during previous generations. Alongside of the above instances of official and general solicitation of fines by officers appointed by the crown for the purpose, there are several examples of fines agreed to by individual boroughs and religious bodies without obvious official initiation. In other words, so far as the records of the transactions show, these communities were not requested to compound for taxes; no writs or other instruments have been discovered in

which officers were directed to solicit the fines that were agreed to. Though on the surface such compositions appear to be due to the initiative of the boroughs and other bodies, it is very probable that in some

instances at least there lies behind this apparently voluntary action a suggestion from the central government. In 1306, for example, it is recorded that the mayor and all the aldermen of the city of London appeared at the exchequer and granted the king £2,000 to have pardon of the twentieth of the same year.* This may have been a voluntary move on their part, but the proximity of the city to Westminster, the seat of the exchequer, and the frequently repeated demands upon London for loans and gifts, leads me to suspect prodding of some sort. AsI have found no means of gaining a more intimate knowledge of what went on behind the scenes in this and other cases, I must leave the matter where 1Qne of these abstracts may be seen. It is attached to the Warwickshire return of 1334 (Lay Subsidy, 192/6). See also the similar ‘Nomina Villarum’ for Berkshire (Lay Subsidy, 73/9). 2K.R.M.R., No. 111, m. 131d. It is stated that the rolls were delivered by order of the council on 12 November to Thomas Bacoun, and that they were returned 31 January following in full exchequer. 3 This statement is based upon a study of the indented rolls handed in by the taxers and collectors.

See the back of the writ bound up with the Wiltshire roll (Lay Subsidy, 196/10). Robert de Brok, writing in the first person, refers to the fines made before him and the abbot of Malmesbury, as well as to the results of assessments. See also Lay Subsidy, 200/83 (Worcestershire), the heading of the

indenture. The latter roll is an interesting example of the contrast of the old and new taxation. London compounded at the rate of 1,100 marks (C.C.R. 1333-1337, 484; C.P.R. 1334-1388, 128-129).

*L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 22. The payments of the fine are recorded. On m. 56d. there is a statement of assignments made on this London fine.

Special Exemptions and Compositions 135 it stands, with the conjecture that at times there may have been a preliminary move on the part of the crown, and at other times negotiations voluntarily started by the communities. Whatever the reason for their action, a small number of boroughs and religious bodies compounded for taxes when there were no general and openly official requests for the same. In a few instances we are told how the negotiations were carried on. The mayor and aldermen of London, as has been noted, appeared before the exchequer in 1306 and agreed to a fine of £2,000.1 In the same year Brother William de la More, Master

of the Knights Templar in England, came to the exchequer and, for himself and the brothers of the order, agreed to a fine of 700 marks for the thirtieth of their goods and the goods of their villeins.2 At the same time, he agreed to the payment of the amount of the fine in equal parts at Purification, the octaves of Trinity, and the morrow of All Souls. The same procedure was followed by the prior of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem in England.’ The record of the composition of the vill of Wigston, Leicestershire, in 1332, states that Thomas de Walton and four other men who are named came before Robert de Ayleston, the treasurer, on 26 November and agreed to pay a fine of £8 on behalf of themselves and the men of the vill for the fifteenth.4 Certain men of the town of Melton Mowbray in the same county did the same, agreeing to a fine of £13 10s. When the men of Wigston did not pay, the sheriff of Leicester was ordered to levy upon the lands and chattels of Thomas de Walton

and his four colleagues for the amount. When in the same year the mayor of Bristol, Hugh de Langebrigg, negotiated a fine of £200 in lieu of the tenth on movable goods on behalf of the burgesses, it is not stated

that he went to the exchequer; I conjecture, however, that he went to

that department and that the amount of the fine was settled there. What is recorded is that he acknowledged in chancery that he owed £200

for himself and the men of Bristol to have relief of the tenth, and also that that amount was to be levied on his goods and chattels in default of payment.’ A formal release from taxation on account of the tenth was 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 22. For the dispute between the government and the city over the question of the applicability of Queen’s Gold to this fine see Cal. Letter-Books, London, F, 69-70. 2 L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 22. Cf. C.C.R. 1802-1307, 418. 8 L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 22.

4K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 120d. 5 Ind. 6 Ind. Cf. mm. 294, 299, for similar fines in other counties. 7C.C.R. 1830-1338, 601; C.P.R. 1830-1834, 337; L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 29. See also Receipt Roll, No. 308 (7 Edward III, Mich.), 8 March, where the payment of £100 is noted and reference to the acknowledgment in chancery made. K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 294, records the sending out of a writ of fiert facias for £100.

136 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 thereupon issued to the men of Bristol. Similar acknowledgment in chancery was made by Richard de Emeldon, mayor of Newcastle-uponTyne, and William de Emeldon, parson of the church of Bothal, on behalf of the men of Newcastle. Like the mayor of Bristol, they assumed the responsibility for a fine of 200 marks.! The assessors and collectors of the fifteenth and tenth were directed to cease from taxing their goods.?

In addition to the cases of fines in connection with which there is a more or less satisfactory statement of the procedure, there are a few concerning which nothing more is said than that they were ‘made with the king.’ While this phrase may mean little or much, it might easily mean with exchequer officers or with the assembled financial department. It

is noted that the abbot of St Edmund’s fined with the king for 1,000 marks for the fifteenth, the tax of 1290, and that the prior of Barnwell and the Cistercian order did the same for £20 and 2,000 marks respectively, but nothing more of moment 1s said save that these entries were vacated because they were elsewhere on the roll of fines for the fifteenth.*®

In a royal writ transcribed on the same roll it is stated that the abbot and convent of St Edmund’s had prayed to be relieved of the fifteenth, but that adds only one item to our information.‘ There is also a letter to the mayor of Lynn which states that John de Marlowe and John de Spaldingg, attorneys for the town, had made fine in 1,000 marks for the fifteenth and that this sum should be levied and collected by four men

of the town.’ After 1290 the only religious organizations that compounded for taxes over a period of years were the Templars and Hospitallers.6 In 1301 in letters patent under the great seal,’ both these orders were pardoned payment of the fifteenth, because of the compositions. The number of fines, as will have been noticed, was never large, even

when the government sent out agents to request them. This result, it would seem, was due largely to the restraining influence of the central administrative departments which preferred regular to irregular methods of carrying on the business of the crown. Compositions might have been 1C.C.R. 1833-1837, 81; C.P.R. 1830-1834, 395. 2 C.P.R. 1830-1884, 395. 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, mm. 5, 6. 4 Tind., m. 7.

5 Iind., m. 40. The receipt roll noting the payment of the above fines records also payments made

by the Order of Sempringham, the abbot of Glastonbury, the prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, and others (Receipt Roll (taxes), No. 1612, Easter, 19 Edward I). 6 K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 73d. (1294, 500 marks each); zbid., No. 69, m. 65d. (1295, 600 marks each);

ibid., No. 71, m. 79 (1297, 700 marks each); C.P.R. 1292-1301, 598, 600; C.C.R. 1296-1302, 471 (1801, 700 marks each); L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 22 (1306, 700 marks each). 7 C.P.R. 1292-1801, 598, 600. Cf. C.C.R. 1296-1302, 471.

Special Exemptions and Compositions 137 insisted upon and many more might easily have been gained had the issue been forced; but it was not forced. All of which would seem to show, since fines were after all irregular expedients, that officialdom, favoring orderly methods, was in the ascendant.

CHAPTER VII SIDE LIGHTS ON THE ASSESSMENT TE subjects reserved for treatment in the present chapter, though somewhat related, have little direct connection with the development of the machinery of taxation. Since, however, they all have some bearing upon the methods of assessment, they have been grouped under

the rather vague title that appears at the top of this page. The matter of the remuneration of the assessors and of more or less corrupt practice in the valuation of property have been reserved for later discussion; the division between assessment and collection can hardly be observed in relation to either of these topics. 1. CONVENTIONAL VALUATION

One of the most perplexing problems facing modern governments is that of ascertaining the true value of real and personal property and income for purposes of taxation. ‘The same problem was present during the

Middle Ages. Property holders then, as now, objected to taxation and local assessors then, as now, were not averse to keeping valuations at a minimum. While itis hardly possible to determine with exactitude the extent of low assessments in the past, one usage is clear enough, that which has been called conventional valuation. We have before us, in the local assessment rolls, various values given to cows, oxen, pigs, and other animals, as well as to quarters of wheat and

other kinds of grain. The problem to be solved is the extent to which these represent or approximate the real value of such property. The best method of approach would naturally be to compare the assessed value of a cow or ox with the market price of the same beast prevailing

at the same time and in the same place. Unfortunately, it has been found impracticable to pursue this simple course, for no manorial records have been discovered which correspond in time and place to the records

of local assessments. On the other hand, some extensive studies of prices in England during the Middle Ages have been made, and on the basis of these and the returns made by the sub-assessors the case for undervaluation has been based. It will be recognized that the larger animals—oxen, horses, and cows—

found in the possession of the villagers would vary in market value according to their age and strength. The examination of any series of manorial records will confirm this. It is because this is so obvious that 188

Side Inghts on the Assessment 139 the greater beasts have been selected to take the first place in the investigation of the practice of the assessors of taxes.

When we proceed to look into the valuation for taxation purposes of the almost indispensable domestic animals, we immediately discover an interesting state of affairs. In certain localities the returns exhibit an

attempt to vary the assessment with the condition of the animals, in others there is a contrasting uniformity of valuation. The roll of the vill of Renhold and its hamlets in the hundred of Barford, Bedfordshire, in 1297, lists a number of the larger animals.! The oxen were valued at 6s. 8d., apparently an approximation, for the values of the other animals do not exhibit the same uniformity. Cows were valued at either 4s. 6d. or 5s. The draft animals (affrz) were valued at Is. 6d., 2s., 2s. 6d., 3s., 5s. and 6s. A similar state of affairs is found in Harthill, Yorkshire, in 1297.2, Oxen were valued there at 5s., 6s., and 6s. 6d., affers at Qs. 6d., 3s., and 4s., and cows at 4s. and 5s. In Yorkshire at the same time, and

in other parts of the country in different years, the results are often in

striking contrast to these. In Thorn, Yorkshire, there were eleven property holders. Each of the nine cows held by them was valued at 4s. and each of the eleven oxen at 5s. In Horton oxen were uniformly valued at 4s. 6d., in Waddeworth at 4s. 6d., and in Rawmarsh at 5s.4 The twelve property holders of Conigburg possessed fifteen oxen, each ox valued at 5s., thirteen affers at 4s., and two cows at 4s.5 The eighteen men listed on the roll of Bishop Monkton were assessed for twenty-two oxen, twenty cows, and fifteen affers. The oxen were valued at 4s., the cows at 3s. 4d., and the affers at 5s.6 The variations from township to township in the assessed value placed upon cows in Yorkshire bear upon

the same point. Each of the forty-three cows in Anstwick was valued at 4s., the thirty-four in Burton at 3s. 6d., and the thirty-six in Bentham at 3s. 6d.”?. These three vills were in the wapentake of Buckrose and near

neighbors. On this account it can hardly be held that all of the cows in Anstwick were more valuable than those of both Burton and Bentham, and yet that is what the tax returns would lead us to conclude if they were taken at their face value.

The same uniformity that has been discovered in various vills of 1 Lay Subsidy, 71/2. See also Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, vu, 119-125. This paper by Mrs Hilary Jenkinson, entitled ‘Some Bedfordshire Assessments for the Taxation of a Ninth (1297),’

contains much valuable material. 2 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, Xv1, 44—45.

3 Ibid., 42-43.

4 Tiid., 6-8 (Horton), 52 (Waddeworth), 52-53 (Rawmarsh). 5 Tbid., 43-44. ® Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, Xvi, 34-86.

7 Ibid., 4-6, 1-4, 12-14.

140 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 Yorkshire is found in Nasing, Essex, on the roll of the tax of 1309, though in that place the valuations were higher. ‘Twenty cows were valued at 10s. each, seven oxen at 13s. 4d., ten affers at 10s.:. In other townships where this uniformity did not prevail there are examples of much lower valuations. On the roll of the hundred of Spelhoe, Northamptonshire, for the tax of 1297, affers are assessed at ls. 6d., ls. 8d., and 2s.2. Cows were rated at 5s., an ox at 6s. 8d., and soon. In Wendon, Essex, whereas oxen were valued at 10s., cows were rated at 5s., 5s. 6d., and 6s. On the roll of the subsidy of 1327 in Dunton, Bucks, we find cows rated at 5s., affers at 4s., 5s., and 6s., and oxen at 6s., 6s. 8d., and 8s.4 On the one side, therefore, there is uniformity in the assessment of the larger animals which may well be suspected, on the other varying

values attached to the same animals. There remains the question whether either kind of valuation represents even approximately the real worth of the oxen and cows that are listed on the local assessment rolls. Whatever may be the faults of Thorold Rogers’ price lists, they give

us a fair idea of market prices at different periods. If these prices are compared with the valuations for taxes that have been cited, they prove almost uniformly to be above the latter. In Rogers’ table of decennial averages, oxen are rated from 1291 to 1300 at 10s. '7d., cows at 8s. 144d., and affers at 10s. 614d. In comparison with the valuations given above for Renhold, Harthill, the Yorkshire vills, and the hundred of Spelhoe, these are very high. The Bedfordshire assessments for the tax of 1297,

which have been analyzed by Mrs. Jenkinson, are noted as being far below those quoted by Rogers for the same year.‘ The returns made by the assessors in Wendon and Dunton for the taxes of 1307 and 1327 are also far from the market prices.’ The Nasing valuations of 1309 alone are on a parity with the market prices noted by Rogers.

There is also a great discrepancy between the values attached to quarters of grain on the assessment rolls and the prices recorded by Rogers and Beveridge.’ In Nasing, the exceptional township in respect to cattle, the valuation of wheat was 6s. 8d. a quarter, below the price of Rogers for the year 1309, which is a little over 7s. 9d.°. Oats were valued 1 Lay Subsidy, 242/13. 2 Lay Subsidy, 238/119 a. 3 Lay Subsidy, 242/12 (1307). 4 Lay Subsidy, 242/35. 5 Rogers, Agriculture and Prices, 1, 361. 8 Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, vu, 125. 7 See also the valuations on the rolls of Skyren (sic), Norfolk, in 1332 (Lay Subsidy, 149/10). 8 Rogers, Agriculture and Prices, 1, 228 ff.; Sir W. H. Beveridge, “The Yield and Price of Corn in the Middle Ages,’ Economic Journal (supplement), May, 1927, 155-167. ® Lay Subsidy, 242/13; Rogers, Agriculture and Prices, 1, 228.

Side Inghts on the Assessment 141 at 2s., whereas the market price average was 3s. 3d. Elsewhere the valuations on the rolls of the vills examined are always below, often far below, the market prices. An excellent example of this condition 1s found in the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1297. Throughout that district the average value of a quarter of wheat was 2s. 10d., and of a quarter of oats almost VV6d.1 The highest value attached to oats was 15d. Rogers records the average price of a quarter of wheat in the same year as 5s. 216d., and of a quarter of oats as 2s. 434d.2_ Beveridge’s average for wheat during the period 1250-1299 is 5.52s. and for oats 2.35s. On other assessment rolls

examined the valuations of wheat and oats are not so low as those of Yorkshire, but they very rarely approach the market prices.‘ The conclusions to be drawn from the statistical survey of assessed and market valuations are not necessarily condemnatory. Conventional valuation has presumably been practised as long as taxation has existed;

it is practised to-day. Undervaluation is frequently coupled with this practice. The mediaeval assessors utilized both methods of lightening their labors and of meeting the approval of their fellow villagers. How far this evasion of the precept of the instructions may be regarded as strictly dishonest is a question for a moralist; there is no doubt that it was human, and that continued heavy taxation would give it popular sanction. 2. THe NaTURE OF THE Tax-CHARGES

When the county rolls of the tax-charges are examined with care, certain characteristics at once stand out. On many there are vills and boroughs within which the charges run out to halfpence and farthings. In other vills, though the charges are in both odd and even sums, such as eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen pence, there are neither halfpence nor farthings. In still other vills all the charges are sums that are

multiples of either three, four, or even twelve pence. Though these phenomena add variety to otherwise bare lists of names and sums of money, they are worth studying on their own account. But before describing in greater detail these features of the rolls and attempting to explain them, I must discuss certain other matters. In the first place, as has been shown, the tax-charges were the result 1The Yorkshire figures are those of William Brown in Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, Xvt, Pp. XXVI-XXVil.

2 Rogers, Agriculture and Prices, 1, 228. ’ Beveridge, op. cit., 163.

4K. g., Lay Subsidies, 142/10, Skyren, 1882, wheat 4s., oats 2s.; 242/35, Dunton, 1832, wheat 2s. 6d., oats 1s. 4d.; 242/22, Wendon, 1807, wheat 4s., oats 2s. 6d. (in this year Rogers records the average of oats as 2s. 414d.); 202/16, Erghes, oats 2s.; Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, vit, 1238,

wheat 3s. 4d., oats 1s. 6d.

142 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834 of a division of the total amount of the valuation of the goods of each property holder by the rate of the tax. Ifa man held property valued at 45s. and the tax was a fifteenth, the tax-charge would be 3s.; for a tenth the charge would be 4s. 6d. In the second place, it may be assumed that division, in contrast to addition, was a mathematical process requiring some skill. Even with the abacus at hand it would be no easy task. It may, however, be conjectured that some of the sub-taxers or the clerks assisting them might know how to divide, and that those who did not know could rely upon the clerks of the chief taxers for assistance. The form this assistance might take will be discussed later in this section. In the third place, it may be assumed that the great majority of the men who calculated the tax-charges tried to be accurate. If they were dishonest, as some undoubtedly were, the fraud would be committed while the goods of the people were being valued. Once that bridge was crossed, there would be little need of further action, for the aversion of the

villagers or townsfolk to taxation would have been at least partly appeased. The most upright of men might, however, make mistakes in adding up the taxed values of cows and grain, and in the process of division. When, therefore, errors are found, it must not be concluded that the sub-taxers or others were guilty of fraud. It may have happened that in some instances minor errors were due to a desire to benefit the people of the locality, but these may just as well have been due to honest inability to calculate the charges with accuracy.

With these considerations in mind we may now turn to the rolls of taxation and see what we find there. The Sussex roll of the twentieth of 1327 contains examples of the three types of tax-charges mentioned at the opening of this section. In the hundred of Burbeach there are listed one hundred and eleven taxpayers.! Of these four were sub-taxers, each charged the conventional sum of one shilling. Of the one hundred and seven remaining, all but forty-six are charged sums that run out to farthings and halfpence. Close at hand on the roll is the half-hundred of Windham.? Qn its list there are sixty-two taxpayers, not including the

sub-taxers. These property holders are charged the following sums: Is. 9d., 1s. 10d., 1s. 1d., 2s. 6d., sums for which no common divisor can be

found. In not a single instance in this half-hundred, however, is a sum 1 Sussex Record Society, x, 163-165.

2 Sussex Record Society, x, 166-167. It may be noted that the number of vills without fractional endings greatly increased from 1296 to 1832. On the rolls within this volume of the Sussex Record Society I have noted but seven instances of vills without such sums in 1296, whereas in 1332 there were at least fifty-seven vills and five boroughs wherein the tax-charges were not extended to halfpence and farthings. There are also many vills in 1832 with only one charge so extended.

Side Inghts on the Assessment 143 extended to a fraction of a penny. The hundred of Buttinghill shows both these tendencies at work.! In the first assessment unit on the roll of that hundred there are thirty-nine taxpayers, exclusive of the subtaxers; all but seven are charged sums extended to halfpence or farthings. In two other units to which groups of sub-taxers were assigned there are, again excluding the sub-taxers, eighty-seven property holders, only four

of whom are charged sums containing fractions of a penny. In sharp contrast with the returns thus far examined are those for the city of Chichester.?2, Sub-taxers and all, there are forty-eight names on its list; all are charged sums that are divisible by two. The results of the assessment of the subsidy of 1332 in Chichester open up a new line of thought, for all the charges are divisible by one shilling.*

Turn from Essex to other counties, and results similar to those noted are found. In Staffordshire, in 1327, alongside the vills in which the charges contain fractions of a penny, or are sums not having a common divisor, there are fifteen vills in which the charges are divisible by threepence, and twenty-five in which all the charges are divisible by sixpence.* The roll of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 in the same county contains a number of vills in which all charges are multiples of two or four pence.®

The Leicestershire roll of the twentieth of 1327 has on it vills in which the tax-charges are multiples of two, three, four, and sixpence, and of one shilling.6 The borough of Leicester with one hundred and five taxpayers has only one man charged with a sum that is not divisible by sixpence.’

Phenomena similar to those discovered in Staffordshire and Leicestershire may be found on the Warwickshire roll of 1332, the Worcestershire roll of 1327,° the Suffolk roll of 1327,!° and almost any roll of the latter part of our period that may be examined." The roll of Cambridge1 Ibid., 176-178.

2 Ihid., 109. Compare the vill of Boxgrave, ibid., 126. In the vill of Kingston the common divisor is three, as it is in other vills in the vicinity (¢bzd., 141-149). 3 Sussex Record Society, x, 225.

4Wm. Salt Archaeol. Soc., vu, 197-225. For examples of vills where the charges are multiples of threepence see pp. 198, 200, 200-201, 201, and of sixpence, pp. 197, 202, 203. 6 Ind., x, 95, 96, 114, 116, 126-127, 127, etc. (fourpence); 93, 122-123, 123 (twopence). 6 Assoc. Archit. Soc. Reports and Papers, xrx. For the hundred of Framland see zbzd., x1x. 211 ff The results are as follows, the numbers in parentheses being the multiples: 213 (3), 214 (6), 216-217 (1s.), 217 (6), 218, 219, 220 (6), 220-221 (1s.), 223 (4), 223 (2), ete. 7 Assoc. Archit. Soc., Reports and Papers, x1x, 232-234. The exceptional sum is 9d. 8 Dugdale Society, v1, 18, 19, 2%, 22-23, 24, 38-39, ete.

° Wore. Hist. Soc., A.D. 1895, 7, 11-12, 12, etc. In Droitwich, which had a goodly number of property holders, all the sums charged were multiples of 6d. (zbid., 15-16). 10 Suffolk Green Books, 1x (multiples of 2d. on 2, 4, 5, 6, 13-14; multiples of 3d. on 9, 10; multiples of 6d. on 1, 5, 8, 9, 14-15, etc.). 11K. g., Shropshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., Trans., 2nd Series, 1, 148, 152, 173; 1v, 76-77 (Ludlow), 100-101, etc. (1327); Lancashire and Cheshire Society, Record Series, a.p. 1896, 1-2 (2d.),

144 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834 shire for the twentieth of 1327 stands out because of the prevalence of

vills in which the tax-charges are extended to fractions of a penny; only thirteen units of assessment have been found in the entire county that have not such sums set over against the names of their propertyholding inhabitants.! The charges on the rolls of the earlier years of our period that have been examined are more like those of Cambridgeshire than like those of the other counties described.2 No generalizations may, however, be deduced from this fact, because of the relatively few documents of the sort that have been preserved. If we turn from the county rolls of tax-charges to the local assessment rolls, we are enabled not only to check the accuracy of those who calculated the amount each person was to pay, but also to gain an insight into some of the phenomena described above. This is made possible by the fact that most of the local rolls contain a description of the kind and

value of the property held by the inhabitants of the vill or town, the total of these separate items, and a statement of the amount each man was charged to the tax. We may, therefore, check the skill of the calculators who added the assessed values of the goods assessed and at the

same time see how carefully they divided in order to reach the taxcharge. We may also try to discover why it was that fractions were joined to the tax-charges in some districts while they were entirely omitted in others. As examples of what happened, I have selected the returns found on the local rolls of the ninth of 1297 in a part of the West Riding of Yorkshire.’

In the great majority of instances the task of addition was performed satisfactorily. There are one hundred and thirty individuals listed in the part of the county under consideration, sub-taxers excluded. In all but ten cases the assessed valuations of the different kinds of goods held

by an individual are added correctly; the percentage of accuracy is therefore over ninety-two. In six of the ten the total as added is too high, in four too low. The greatest mistake made was in connection with the property of William Clarel in Rawmarsh.‘ His property was valued 2-3 (1s.), 3 (4d.), 4 (4d.), 5 (1s.), 5-6 (4d.), 6 (4d.), 8 (3d.), 9 (4d.), ete. (1832); Somerset Record Society, 11, 85, (3d.), 86-87 (3d.), 91 (6d.), 98 (6d.), 99 (6d.), etc. (1827). The London roll of the fifteenth of 1332 is an excellent example of the tendency. It is found in G. Unwin, Finance and

Trade under Edward III (Manchester, 1918), 61-92, as an appendix to the article of Margaret Curtis entitled “The London Lay Subsidy of 1332.’ 1 Fast Anghan, 38rd Series, X, XI, XII.

2 The two Yorkshire rolls of the subsidies of 1297 and 1801 are typical: see Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, Xv1, p. XXi.

8 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xvi, 48-63. 4 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xvi, 52.

Side Lights on the Assessment 145 on the roll at 27s. 8d. and his tax-charge was set down as 3s. ld. The correct addition of the items after his name results in the sum of 24s. 8d., and a charge of 2s. 9d. Elsewhere in the district the errors in the totals vary from 3d. to ls. 6d., either above or below the correct sum. When it came to dividing the total value of the property by nine, the rate of the tax, far more mistakes were made. On every page of the section of the printed roll under examination there are one or more slight mistakes. Some of the charges are too high, others too low, but with the exception of three cases, two being 11d. and 4d. too high and one 3d. too low, the errors do not exceed a penny and are usually of a fraction of a penny. What is more, these mistakes are not even fairly consistently in

favor of either the peasant or the crown. Throughout the rolls preserved for the county, as well as in the district examined, there are vills in which many, or most, of the charges are extended to farthings and halfpence, while in others there are few or no fractions.1. The omission of fractional endings from the tax-charges was attained in Dalton by cutting off the fractions, thus lowering the charge, while in Sandale the same result was reached by raising the amount to a penny.? Presumably one or the other method was followed elsewhere. The Yorkshire results are not unlike those found in other districts and

in other years. Normally the errors are not so numerous as in the northern county, but they are of the same sort. The Stratford-uponAvon calculators of the charges due to the fifteenth of 1313 were accurate

as a general rule.? Unfortunately, it is possible to check only their powers of division, for the roll contains statements of the total value of the property held by an individual and the tax-charge, but no description of the kinds of property held or the value of the separate items. Though normally accurate, the men who divided charged one man eight and a half pence too little, and another one shilling too much.‘ The other errors are few and are confined to the addition or omission of fractions of a penny. The latter procedure added considerably to the number of charges lacking fractional endings. The man who went over the roll of the fifteenth of 1301 in the hundred of Somerden, Kent, simplified the matter of fractions by raising three farthings to a penny 10 a number of 1 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xvi. The vills in which many tax-charges are extended to fractions need no references. For cases of few or none see pp. 121, 126, 188 (Kilham), 139 (Rudston), 150-151 (Beverley). 2 Ihnd., 59-60, 63.

3’ Wheler Papers, 1, 3 (Stratford-upon-Avon). I am indebted to Frederick C. Wellstood, of Stratford, for a transcript of this roll. 4 Wheler Papers, 1, 3 (Stratford-upon-Avon). William de Cyleby’s property was valued 3s. 4d. and charged 174d. The charge should have been Qs. 2d. William Mollyng’s property was valued £4 8d. and charged 6s. 414d. The charge should have been 5s. 414d.

146 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 cases where that fractional amount appeared on the first draft of the results of the assessment.!. He crossed out the three farthings and sub-

stituted a penny. In other districts odd and even numbers appear, fractions are at times omitted, slight mistakes are made; in other words, the practice of the Yorkshire and Stratford calculators 1s found whenever we have complete local rolls at our disposal for investigation.? The roll of the vill of Waltham Cross, Essex, contains no errors of division and only four fractional endings to the tax charges.’ It is also an interesting example of the use of the mark as a means of valuing property. There remain to be investigated the vills in which all the tax-charges

are multiples of some such sums as three or two pence. As has been stated, these are fairly numerous in connection with the subsidies of 1327

and 1332, the first tax being a twentieth and the second a fifteenth and tenth. If we take the twentieth of 13827 and examine the tax-charges in the vills falling within the category of what may be called multiple vills, the results are at least curious. In some of these vills the common divisor of all tax-charges is three. Multiply such charges by twenty, the rate of

the tax, and the result is the value of the property assessed. If the charge is sixpence, the value of the property is ten shillings, if ninepence,

fifteen shillings, and if twelve pence, twenty shillings. An interval of threepence in the charges means, therefore, an interval of five shillings in

the value of the holdings of property. This may be made clear by a table: Assessed value of property Tax-charge

10 shillings (120d.) 6 pence

15 “ (180d.) 9 « 25 “¢ “ (300d.) Ib «“ 30 (360d.) 1 35 “ (420d.) a1 « 20 “¢ (240d. ) 12 *“

If the interval in the column of assessed values of goods be changed to ten shillings, the tax-charges in the right-hand column become multiples of sixpence. 1 Lay Subsidy, 123/6. A man who was charged 1034d. had the charge raised to 11d. There are several examples of this method on the roll.

2Lay Subsidy, 242/35 (Dunton, Berks, 1327), contains several errors of the types mentioned; 942/12 (Wenden, Essex, 1307) contains but two mistakes; 242/13 (Nasing, Essex, 1309) is remarkably free from error; on the other hand, 202/16 (Erghes, E. R. York, 1332) has four erroneous charges out of a possible six. For a careful set of calculations of charges on a roll in print see H. Hall, A Formula Book of English Official Historical Documents, Part II, Ministerial and Judicial Records (Cambridge, 1909), 46-47. 3 Lay Subsidy, 107/14.

Side Inghts on the Assessment 147 When all the tax-charges in a vill are multiples of twopence, the table already made up will not help us. It is necessary, therefore, to construct another, based on a quarter of a mark:

Assessed value of property Tax-charge

10 shillings (120d.) 6 pence

13 “ 4 pence (160d.) 8 “ 1 2“ = «68 “ (200d.) 10“

20 124 ““ 23 “*&(240d.) “ (980d.)

9 8“ «868 “ (320d.) 16 « 30 ms (360d.) 18 “ 33 “« & “ (400d.) 20 « The returns of the fifteenth of 1332 on examination reveal many vills in which all the charges are divisible by two or four pence. Employing the method already used, it is possible to make up still another table:

Assessed value of property Tax-charge

10 shillings (120d.) 8 pence 12 “ 6 pence (150d.) 10 “*

b “ (180d.) 12 “ 7 “ 6 “ = (210d.) 4 «

20 “¢6(240d.) 22 “§ “ (270d.)16 ig ““

25 ) 2022=“« av ““¢6 (300d. “ (380d.) 30 =“ (360d.) 24 “ There is obviously something artificial in the several series of taxcharges illustrated by the tables. While it is quite possible that the assessed values of the separate items of property held by any individual might add up to fifteen or twenty shillings, it is highly improbable that in a large vill all the totals would fit into the scheme of 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 shillings, with resulting tax-charges for a twentieth of movables

of 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 21 pence. What normally took place may be illustrated by a few extracts from the local roll of Wenden, Essex, of the twentieth of 1307.!_ William Chobayle had a cow worth 5s. 6d., two sheep

worth 2s., and a quarter of wheat worth 4s. The sum of these items was 11s. 6d., and the tax-charge sevenpence. Next on the list of property holders is William Reynold, who had twenty sheep valued at 20s., three quarters of wheat valued at 12s., one quarter of barley valued at 3s. 4d.,

and two quarters of oats valued at 5s. The total was 40s. 4d., and the charge 2s. 144d. Stephen Bercarius had a cow worth 5s., ten sheep worth

10s., one quarter of wheat worth 4s., and one quarter of barley worth 1 Lay Subsidy, 242/12.

148 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834 8s. 4d. The total was 22s. 4d., and the tax-charge 14/44d. As it was in this vill so it was in others. I do not, therefore, regard it as possible to find any number of vills in which the actual holdings of property would be separated by intervals of 5 or 10 shillings or a quarter or half a mark. While it would be the easiest way out of the difficulty of explaining the characteristics of the charges in the multiple vills to accuse either the assessors of property or those who calculated the charges of manipulating the returns, 1t seems to be hardly necessary to do so. It may be that the abacus could be so used as to make the returns possible; if this is true, the treatises on that ready-reckoning device fail to explain how it could

be done with ease. I venture, therefore, to conjecture that, instead of the abacus, simple tables such as have been formulated in preceding paragraphs were employed by some of the men on whom rested the task of computing what the people had to pay. With such tables at hand, the charge could be estimated with a fair degree of accuracy and would pro-

duce the described results. When the tax was a fifteenth, property valued at 11s. might result in a charge of eightpence, when it was 14s. the charge might be twelvepence, and when it was 17s. the charge might be either fourteen or sixteen pence.! Reduce the interval between the valuations, and the results would be more accurate. With either table a careful and experienced clerk might readily extend the charges to halfpence or even farthings. So the use of tables, though usually resulting in multiple figures, might result in the other types of charges found. No tables, such as it has been conjectured were used by the clerks of the fourteenth century, have been found and none are likely to be found. The foregoing hypothesis is therefore presented for what it is worth. The mediaeval mathematician’s task was no easy one; with tables he could approach the calculation of tax-charges with a light heart. If, as is possible, the abacus or some similar device was employed to produce the nicely rounded returns that we find in connection with the taxes of the early years of Edward III, the artificiality of the charges in the multiple

vills would not be lessened in any respect. It has been my purpose to make clear this characteristic and not to uphold any one explanation of the method by which it was attained. 3. SomE Mistakes Mapk BY THE ASSESSORS

The addition of mistakes made by the assessors of taxes to the faults already mentioned may seem to load one end of the balance unduly, yet it is necessary to note them if the writs and rolls of the period are to be 1 In my examination of the accuracy of the results on the rolls, I have made constant use of tables

such as have been described. With a little experience it has been possible by means of them to calculate the charges to fractions of a penny.

Side Lights on the Assessment 149 understood. Some of the mistakes have been referred to in earlier chapters, but without special emphasis; these with others will be dealt with in this section. The task of the taxers and collectors was far from simple. After they had been selected, they repaired to the exchequer to receive their commissions and the written instructions for their guidance in the assessment. At the same time, they doubtless were told about some of the special exemptions described in the previous chapter, for the greater number of these grants of immunity were observed without additional

written orders. From the exchequer they went to their counties and selected or caused to be selected the sub-taxers. The latter then went to work on the basis of the instructions given them by the chief taxers. In due time the valuations they made were inspected by the same chief taxers. The errors discovered during this review were corrected by the

chief taxers. Since many of these have been described in an earlier chapter,! they may be quickly dismissed. Names were found to have been omitted, faulty valuations were discovered, and men or groups who

should have been excused were found to be charged for taxes. Yet a number of other errors escaped the notice of the chief taxers and had to be remedied by writs of the chancery or exchequer directed to the principal taxers and collectors. The mediaeval system, though working far more smoothly than some modern folk deem to be possible, undoubtedly left something to be desired. One of its weak points was the failure to communicate enough information about exemption to the assessors and collectors of taxes. Grants of exemption in general terms were made, as already seen, in the forms of the taxation, while special exemptions were embodied in

letters patent under the great seal. With respect to the former there would seem to be little chance of misconception, for the instructions were

clearly phrased and were written. It seems doubtful whether the chief taxers were always as definitely informed about special exemptions. There was, however, a check upon their actions, for those receiving the letters patent could, and presumably would, exhibit such letters to the

assessors who appeared in their district. When the chief taxers had received no oral or other instructions in connection with some of the cases of exemption, the presentation of a royal letter would normally settle the matter of liability. But rich men and wealthy religious houses held property in different parts of the country and it might easily happen that, though a resident bailiff or reeve knew in a general way of the grant of immunity, he would not have the letters patent at his command. It 1 Chapter III, Section 4.

150 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 might even happen that he had no definite information of any sort. In either event, mistakes might be made and no one would be to blame, save perhaps the exchequer officers who had not fully instructed the chief taxers. Blunders resulting from faulty instructions, misunderstanding, simple ignorance, or malicious wilfulness, could be remedied by orders to the

chief taxers to correct them. These orders might be issued either as letters close under the great seal or as writs under the seal of the exchequer; they were equally effective in either form. If the error was discovered after the county roll was made up, but before its delivery to the exchequer, the correction made by the chief taxers would be entered upon the roll. For information, however, regarding cases in which the roll was delivered before discovery, it 1s necessary to turn to the writs commanding the emendation and to the statements found in the records of the accounting of the taxers and collectors. Mistakes in the assessment arising from any of the causes referred to were most numerous in connection with personal property found on land belonging to the clergy, and to religious bodies in particular. So far as this property was concerned, there were two general types of error. The first was the taxing of property that had already been assessed, or that was liable to be assessed, for subsidies granted by the clergy. The second was the assessment of clerical property ordinarily subject to lay taxation, but either temporarily or permanently freed from that burden by special grant. Each of these will be given consideration.

What happened in 1295-1296 may be cited as an early illustration of the first type of mistake. The errors made by the assessors were, it appears, largely due to the wording of the commissions issued in 1295. In these the chief taxers were told to tax all movables except those

excused from the tenth of the previous year.! In 1294 the goods of clerks, which were not annexed to their churches and for which the clerical subsidy was not paid, had been taxed.? Despite this, the procedure

to be observed in 1295 was evidently none too clearly understood, for it was necessary to issue a series of writs in January, 1296, commanding the taxers and collectors of the eleventh not to tax the goods of a large number of religious houses because the latter had granted the king a

tenth. The situation in Rutland is illuminating in this respect. We have the roll of the assessment in that county for the tax of 1295.4 To it 1 Parl. Writs, 1, 465.

2 Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 182.

3K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 69. 4 Lay Subsidy, 165/1. The roll is in fine condition and ought to be edited and published. The number of entries cancelled by writ is long, and includes more property owners than those mentioned

in the writs attached to the roll.

Side Lnghts on the Assessment 151 are attached a series of writs, dated in February of the year 1296, directed

to the chief taxers. In these the latter are ordered not to collect anything from the goods of the prior of Newstead near Stamford, the bishop of Lincoln, the abbot of Peterborough, and the prioress of St. Michael. The goods of these clerics had already been valued, and they had been

charged in all £26 9s. 11d. to the eleventh. This sum was therefore subtracted from the sum total charged against the men of the county, leaving £380 11s. 434d. to be collected. The initial error made by the Sussex assessors of the same subsidy in the hundred of Eastbourne was of a different sort.1 They did not value the goods of the prior of Sele, presumably because they lacked knowledge

of the status of his property. His name was added and he was charged 11s. 1114d. because he did not pay a tenth for his property.? It was then discovered that he was liable to the clerical tenth and the entry was cancelled.’

During the period of Edward IT, when the forms of the taxation noted

clearly that the temporal goods of the clergy which were taxed with their spiritualities to clerical grants were not to be valued when lay taxes were levied, mistakes continued to be made. It was evidently difficult always to be certain of the status of the goods held by the clergy,

so difficult in fact that on occasion inquisitions were held to determine the liability of clerical goods for lay taxes. Granting the difficulty, one may imagine that the assessors of taxes would be quite willing to value the goods of religious houses if there was any reasonable doubt about their status; they might even suspect that the bailiff of the manor was

lying about temporalities annexed to spiritualities in order that the abbey might escape lay taxation. The errors into which the chief taxers fell during the reign of Edward II had nothing in them to distinguish them from those of earlier days.

The case of the chaplains of Stoke is typical. They stated that they held a messuage and four virgates of land in Stoke-sub-Hamden in frank-

almoin annexed to their church of Stoke. The goods on this land were taxed as of spiritualities. Nevertheless, they complained, the assessors of the twentieth and fifteenth had assessed their personal property on 1 Sussex Record Society, x, 20.

2 “De priore de Sela XIs. I1}4d. quia non dat inde decimam.’ 3 For other early examples of mistakes see L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 39d. (co. York, 1297); Archaeo-

logia Aeliana, 3rd Series, x111 (1916), 188 (co. Northumberland, 1295); Pipe Roll, No. 1438, m. 82 (co. Oxford, 1297, the case of the prior of Wallingford); C.C.R. 1296-1302, 188 (co. Lincoln, 1297,

the abbot of Bardney); Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 215 (Lancashire, 1297, the abbot of Croxton); C.C.R. 1296-1302, 571 (Middlesex, 1801, prior, dean, and chapter of St Paul’s); C.C.R. 1802-1307, 528 (tax of 1306, co. York, the abbot of Selby). 40.0.R. 1818-1818, 158.

152 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 the land contrary to the grant and to the ordinance made by the king and council. In answer, the king ordered the chief taxers in Somerset, by writ dated 10 February, 1315, not to molest the chaplains because of

such goods. When there was great difficulty in the settlement of a case arising out of a complaint, the investigators had at times to refer to

local jurors. This happened when the abbot of Thornton objected to the levy upon the temporalities annexed to his spiritualities.. There was at times a woeful lack of knowledge of local conditions displayed by

both the exchequer and the chief taxers.? When, during the early days of Edward III, the clause directing the release of temporalities annexed to spiritualities was dropped from the form of the taxation, we find that the chief taxers, though at times in error, were hardly more so than in the preceding reign.* More mistakes can be found than in the past because of the greater number of county rolls that have been preserved, and not because of any greater inefficiency.

Mistakes due to the failure to observe the special exemption of some

groups of the clergy from lay taxation belong to a different category from that in which the errors already described have been placed. The

property of the master and brethren of the Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem in England was freed from all lay taxes by royal grant. Despite this, in the year 1332, the taxers and collectors in the counties of Leicester,

Middlesex, and Norfolk valued goods found on the lands of hospitals belonging to the order.’ ‘The treasurer and barons were notified in 1333 that the master and brethren were not to be held liable for any lay taxes. In 1319 the chaplains of St Peter, Kirby Bellars, in the county of Leicester, were granted immunity from all lay and clerical taxes,’ yet in 1332 the assessors valued the goods of the chapel of Kirby and the error had to be rectified by writ.’ As it is my intention to illustrate the 1K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 120. See above, pp. 103-104. 2For other examples of mistakes made under Edward II see Lay Subsidy, 120/9 (co. Hertford, Y Edward II; a list, noted at the end as well as in the body of the roll, of clerics whose charges had been cancelled because they had paid the clerical tenth); Lay Subsidy 107/10 (Essex, 1319; list of corrections on the same ground). 3K. g., Lay Subsidy, 149/9 (Norfolk, 1833); K.R.M.R., No. 108, m. 237 (1827, co. Warwick, the prior of Ware). Cf. L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 16d., for a statement in the Warwick account; Pipe Roll, No. 180, m. 2d. (Item Norf., Suff., prior of Holy Trinity, Ipswich 1332); Lay Subsidy, 149/9 (Norfolk, 1832), mm. 43, 76, 76d., etc. 4 See C.C.R. 1318-1328, 71.

5 Pipe Roll, No. 178, m. 19d.; L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, nt. 17; K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 120. The latter is the record of an inquiry into the matter by the treasurer and barons. 6 C.C.R. 13338-1337, 44. See also the earlier notification of the same sort in C.C.R. 1830-1883, 187 (28 January, 1331). 7 O.P.R. 1817-1321, 340.

8 [..T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 17 (co. Leicester). A number of errors are referred to in this account.

Side Laghts on the Assessment 153 types of mistakes, and not to accumulate cases, the examples given will suffice.

Laymen who had received grants of exemption from taxation also suffered at times from the mistaken zeal of the assessors. Of the several examples of such errors that have been found, the case of John de Lentur, citizen of London, is the most interesting. On 26 August, 1295, John was granted exemption ‘from all tallages, aids, watches, and contributions whatsoever which might be exacted from him by the king or his ministers, by reason of the said John’s lands, tenements, rents or other things, or merchandise within the said city [London] or without.’! This would seem to be sufficiently comprehensive and explicit. Im 1296 and 1297, however, he had to be released from charges to the sixth and the eighth of movables.? In the latter year his goods had been seized into the king’s hands to enforce payment.? In 1309, after the accession of Edward II, the formal grant of immunity for life was renewed and that seems to have settled the matter.* In the same year, 1309, several citizens of London received grants of exemption for life from taxes. Among them were John de Selling, William Trent, and John Vanne.’ These grants were issued several months before the date on the commissions issued to the assessors of the twenty-fifth of movables in London, 1 April, 1310.6 Though the

valuation was in the hands of their fellow citizens, who would have known about the exemption if they had been properly instructed, all of the above men, as well as others similarly situated, were incorrectly charged various sums for the twenty-fifth.? Among the others who received life immunity from all taxes during the reign of Edward II may be mentioned John Triple, Robert Person, Henry de Melton, Simon de

Swanlond, and Francis Bachinus.2 All but Francis Bachinus were designated as citizens of London. But Triple was charged for the subsidy of 1313 in Hertfordshire, Person for that of 1315 in Gloucestershire,

Melton for that of 1322 in Lincolnshire, Swanlond for that of 1327 in Hertfordshire, and Bachinus for that of 1332 in Essex. In every case the error was corrected and the man released from the charge. 1 C.P.R. 1292-1301, 144. 2 C.C.R. 1296-1302, 2, 52. 8 Jind., 34. 4 C.P.R. 1807-1818, 152. 5 Ihnd., 179 (Selling); 188 (Trent); 1538 (Vanne). See also 194, 204. 8 Itid., 221; Cal. Letter-Books, London, D, 223.

7L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 8d. 8 C.P.R. 1307-1318, 270, 274, 204, 235, 459. * Lay Subsidy, 120/9 (a schedule attached, in which the exemption of Triple is referred to); L.T.R.

Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 8d. (Glouc.), m. 14 (Lincoln), m. 16d. (Herts); m. 16 (the account of the taxers and collectors in Essex for the fifteenth and tenth). Swanlond was also wrongly taxed for the sixteenth of 1316 in Hertfordshire (Lay Subsidy, 120/10). The entry of the charge against

154 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 The fact that the various citizens of London that have been named were charged outside that city for movables owned by them leads to the

discussion of another phase of the subject of erroneous assessment. Many of the citizens were, in addition to being landed proprietors elsewhere, merchants whose goods might not be in the city at the time of the assessment. There was no difficulty about the assessment of goods issuing from lands outside the city and its suburbs; they were taxed in the

vills in which they were found. The travelling merchant or his agent was, however, not a resident of the village; he was a visitor on the day set for the assessment and in a day or so would be miles away. To meet this difficulty it was arranged that merchandise should be charged to its owner, the London citizen, in London.

The latter principle was clear-cut enough, but there was at times confusion in the method of its application. It would seem, for example, that the taxers and collectors of the fifteenth of 1290 in Norfolk had at least started to value the goods of the citizens and merchants of London

in their county. They were told in a writ of the exchequer, dated 11 December, 1290, to proceed with the valuation and to send the results of their labors, together with the names of the citizens and merchants, to the exchequer.! But they were not to levy anything upon the men on account of such goods. In 1294 and 1295 writs of the exchequer throw more light upon the procedure. In the first year a writ was directed to the taxers and collectors of the tenth in Oxfordshire.? It recites the fact that the citizens of London had granted a sixth of their movable goods and merchandise wherever found on land or sea, except the goods on their foreign lands and tenements. Foreign, in this connection, meant outside London. Despite the form of the grant, it had been learned that

goods of a certain John found in Henley had been taxed to the tenth.

Other writs issued at the same time call attention to similar acts.’

Writs dated 15 March, 1296, recite the same provisions as connected with the grant made in 1295 by London, and order the chief taxers in Cambridgeshire and Essex to cease from levying upon Stephen de Rokesle

for his goods, presumably merchandise, found in those counties. The form of 1319 for the levy of the sixth in London repeats the formulae about the various types of goods, but at greater length. The men of London were to be put on their oath that they would ‘loyally confess Simon in the vill of North Mimms is cancelled per breve; attached to the roll at the same place is a writ of the king dated 2 December, 10 Edward I], recording the exemption. 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 39. 2K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 75. 3K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 75. 4K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 66d.

Side Lights on the Assessment 155 what goods and chattels they have within their house and without, as well on the sea as elsewhere, in merchandise, in debts clear, and in jewels of gold and silver, or other property, save only their chattels arising from

their foreign lands and tenements and appertaining to the same.”! As no provision was made for the valuation in London and by London assessors of goods issuing from or found upon foreign lands and tenements,

it is apparent that they were to be taxed outside the city by the village or town sub-taxers. The taxation of the goods of Henry de Cherringg in two places shows what might happen to a merchant who did much of his trading in London, but did not reside there. The situation is described in an exchequer writ,

dated 16 July, 1310.2 Henry stated that he was a merchant and that though he carried on business in London and Middlesex, he resided con-

tinually in the latter county. As a result of his trading activities in the

city, the London taxers valued his goods for the twenty-fifth. The Middlesex taxers, because of his residence, valued the same goods. Henry complained, and it was decided that the London taxers should cease from

troubling him. All of his property was to be taxed in Middlesex, ‘for it is not right that goods and chattels should be taxed in two counties.” To conclude this section on types of mistakes made by the assessors I shall describe some of the entries on the roll of the twelfth of 1319 in London.‘ They illustrate the difficulties of the assessors as well as their minor blunders. There are several instances of names on the list of taxpayers being crossed out because, as it is stated, the men were paupers.® Evidently the names were entered on the roll before it was discovered

that the men who bore them did not have enough property to be included. In a few cases names and tax-charges were cancelled because the men had been charged for their property in a different ward of the city.® The entry of a charge against one man was cancelled because he was not free of the town.’ Other cancellations were made in favor of clerks, or of foreigners.2 And some names were crossed off because the men were exempt from taxation.° 1 Cal. Letter-Books, London, KE, 123. In 1816, the same Letter-Book, 72, records that Hamo Godchep

‘had been lately taxed for the last fifteenth on all his goods movable within the realm, except goods issuing from his foreign lands.’

2..T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 62d. §T have slightly paraphrased the words found in the writ. 4 Lay Subsidy, 144/8. See also L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 11. 5 Iiid., mm. 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 24. 8 L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 4, 7, 15, 24. 7 Ibd., m. 7. 8 Iind., mm. 8, 24. ° Ihid., mm. 1, 3, ete.

156 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 4. Rotits RETURNED TO BE EMENDED

In the investigation of the great majority of the cases of minor errors described in the preceding section, the initiative was taken by the individuals or groups affected. They brought their grievances to the attention of the exchequer and that body caused the mistake to be rectified. But we must not picture the trained administrators who made up the exchequer as awaiting the appearance of complaints before taking action.

The fact is, that, with more or less sporadic energy, the exchequer examined the county rolls brought in by the chief taxers, and often found, or suspected, that something was the matter with the returns. It is not contended that this investigation was always thorough or that it was based upon adequate knowledge, but it is clear that it was made and that it frequently led to action. The records relating to the earliest tax of our period, that of 1299, note that the county rolls were examined by officers of the exchequer. The issue rolls record payments made to six clerks who did this. The results of their investigations are found on the memoranda rolls. It is stated in one memorandum that, though the chief taxers in the county of Buckingham charged themselves at their accounting with £2,504 3s. 34d., the total of the items on the county roll was found on examination to be £2,509 16s. 2d.2 It was also found that the Lincolnshire chief taxers had omitted the vill of Louth from their roll. They later delivered a roll of the taxation of that vill. No record was found on the rolls of Gloucestershire of the names of the sub-assessors, the juratz, in several hundreds, and the total of the items on the roll was discovered to be greater than that for which the chief taxers had first accounted.‘ All the details of the assessment in Gloucestershire were evidently suspected, for the chief taxers were ordered to go from hundred to hundred and from vill to vill to inquire into the taxation and to revalue whenever it seemed necessary.°®

Suspicion at times ruled the exchequer in after years. The rolls of Hertfordshire of the tax of 1306 were returned to be emended after they had been examined, because they were declared to be insufficient; that 1s,

the amount of the tax-charges was not up to what was expected on the basis of past levies.6 After the Norfolk taxers of the subsidy of 1315 reached Westminster, but before they had handed in their rolls, they 1¥ssue Roll, No. 82, m. 2.

2K.R.M.R., No. 66, m. 61. 3 Iind.

4JThid. Cf. m. 61, Northumberland. 5 L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 18d. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 35d.

Side Inghts on the Assessment 157 were directed to go to the greater vills of the county and see to it that the valuation had been correctly made.! On a later visit of the same men to the exchequer, they were commanded to go to Lynn and Thetford where, so it was said, the valuation was insufficient, to revalue the property, and to collect the additional proceeds.? In one instance, the chief taxers of 1315 were themselves suspicious of the returns entered upon the rolls that they handed in at the exchequer. It is recorded that the Devonshire taxers and collectors, as a result of examinations made, suspected that their sub-taxers had not well and sufficiently taxed the

goods found in their districts. As they had not had enough time to correct all errors before handing in their rolls, they asked the exchequer officers to be allowed to look into the matter more fully and to make any necessary changes. Their commissions and rolls were thereupon returned to them and they were told to go ahead. The activity of the exchequer with respect to the scrutiny of the tax

rolls reached its greatest height during the months when the chief taxers of the sixteenth and fifteenth of 1316 were appearing at Westminster. The background of this activity was reforming zeal along many lines under the pressure of the Ordainers. In the parliament at Lincoln, held early in 1316, a fifteenth of movables in cities, boroughs, and ancient demesne was granted.‘ This tax was to run, so reads the record of the grant, not only in such districts as were in the king’s hands, but also in those that were in the hands of others for life with reversion to the king. In a number of counties this resulted in a notable increase in the list of ancient demesne vills that were held to be liable for the urban

rate of taxation. A second grant, applying to the rural districts, was made at the same time in parliament.® It was of an armed footman from every vill to serve in the war. To make it possible to enforce this service all the sheriffs of England were ordered to bring to the exchequer a list of all the hundreds within their counties and also of the cities, boroughs, and vills within the hundreds.’ In each case they were to note the name

of the lord of the district. The returns made by the sheriff are well known under the title Nomina Villarum,® and form an invaluable source 1..T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 244. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 42. The Suffolk chief taxers were directed to go in person to the greater vills and to emend what they found needed emendation (L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 244d.). 3 L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 194. 4 Rot. Parl., 1, 351.

5K. g., L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 10 (Sussex), m. 10 (co. Northampton), m. 10d. (co. Gloucester). The returns for the tax of 1816 should be compared with those of earlier years on the same roll. 6 Rot. Parl., 1, 351. 7 C.C.R. 1813-1818, $27.

8 Such of the returns as have been found are printed in Inguisitions and Assessments Relating to

158 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 of information for local topography as well as for the names of feudal lords. The same year saw orders issued for the forcible imposition of knighthood upon those who held fifty pounds in lands or rent or a whole knight’s fee of that value,! for a thorough perambulation of the forests,? for the resumption into the king’s hands of lands given away by him to his detriment,’ and for the payment of the revenue from the custom on wool, hides, and wool fells into the exchequer. How far these reforms were carried out does not concern us here;° the only matter of immediate interest is that the exchequer staff seems to have been aroused by the move-

ment to a commendable activity, and that it went to work to examine carefully the rolls handed in by the chief taxers. The recorded results of the examination of the county rolls made by the exchequer are rather startling.£ During the Michaelmas and Easter

terms, 1316-1317, the chief taxers assigned to thirty-six districts to assess and levy the sixteenth of movables, the rural tax granted after the grant of an armed man had been recalled,’ appeared before the exchequer.’ They represented thirty-three counties and the three ridings of Yorkshire—all of England that was subject to the levy. The counties

of Cumberland, Northumberland, and Westmorland were charged nothing because of the poverty caused by the raids of the Scots. No rolls were presented at the time for Lancashire and Wiltshire; in the latter case it is noted that the failure to present them was due to the fact that Richard de Abyndon, assigned to supervise the taxation in Wilt-

shire, had not corrected the rolls. The rolls made up by fifteen of the remaining thirty-four groups of chief taxers were returned to be emended because they were found to be insufficient; the total of the tax-charges

did not satisfy the exchequer. In addition, eight rolls were returned because certain vills had not been included, either because of the failure of the local taxers to hand in their returns or because of opposition encountered at the time of the assessment. The rolls of the assessment in Feudal Aids, 6 vols. (London, 1899-1920). See Vol. 1 of this series, 17-22 (co. Bedford); 47-54 (Berks), etc. 1C.C.R. 1318-1818, 327 (28 February, 1316). 2 Ihnd., 272-274 (20 February, 1316). 2 C.F.R. 1307-1319, 275 (26 April, 1316). ‘ Ibid., 277 (12 April, 1316). 6 Anyone interested in the matter of the reforms may find an excellent summary in Davies, Baronzal Opposition, 414-424.

6 The results are embodied in the records of the views of account. ’ C.P.R. 1818-1317, 529. 8 L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, mm. 174-177d. §L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, mm. 175, 176.

10'The Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire chief taxers reported opposition, the first in the liberty of the earl of Lancaster and the second in the liberty of the earl of Pembroke (zbid., m. 177).

Sede Inghts on the Assessment 159 Dorset were returned because they recorded hundreds and not vills.! Only ten rolls were accepted in the form in which they were first presented. In due time the chief taxers whose rolls had been called into question

returned to Westminster with emended editions. The men serving in five counties maintained that no change could be made and their reports were accepted, though the Middlesex group was sent back to the county

a second time before its statement was received with favor.? In the other counties the totals of the sums on the rolls were raised. In Berkshire the increase amounted to but £2 11s. 1d. At the other end of the scale were Sussex, with an increase of over £97, Northamptonshire, with

a little over £40, and Devonshire, with £33 12s. 3d.4. The latter were considerable sums in the fourteenth century, and amply rewarded the

exchequer for its industry. But what may be said in favor of such assessors as those of Sussex, who by a more careful valuation had raised the quota due from the property holders of their county nearly nine per cent? Their belated care can hardly excuse their earlier negligence. The taxers and collectors of the urban fifteenth whose commissions are dated 8 June, 1316,5 met with the same reception at the exchequer.® The county rolls that were presented were carefully examined, and many

were returned to be corrected.? The case of Edmund de Hemnegrave and John de Boyland, chief taxers in Suffolk, is an example of an unusually long drawn out process connected with the examination of taxation

returns. They first appeared during the Michaelmas term of the year 1316 and proffered rolls of which the total was £70 8s. 314d. This amount appeared to the exchequer as insufficient, and in addition the chief taxers acknowledged that they had not valued various ships at Ipswich, Dunwich, and Orford. So the rolls were returned to be emended and the men were enjoined to go to the places named and to tax the ships and other goods and chattels according to the ‘form’ delivered to them. They were given a day, 20 January, 1317, to deliver the corrected rolls. 1 Tind., m. 174d.

2 The counties were Buckingham, Huntingdon, Middlesex, Rutland, and Somerset. $L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 174. The first sum was £991 6s. 9d., the second £993 17s. 10d. ‘ Iind., rum. 175, 175d., 174d. The Sussex figures were £1,110 and £1,163 8s. 7d. This total was

raised to £1,207 9s. 134d. at the final accounting, through the addition of the rape of Hastings (L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 9d.). The Northamptonshire figures were £1,129 8s. 444d. and £1,169 13s. 834d. Those for Devonshire were £663 19s. 814d. and £697 11s. 114d. 5 O.P.R. 1318-1317, 473-474. 8 L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, mm. 178 ff.

7 Among those returned may be cited those for Hereford, Rutland, Somerset, and Dorset. The chief taxers in Warwickshire and Leicestershire did not deliver their rolls at first. The Middlesex roll was examined and accepted. 8’ L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 179.

160 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 As they did not appear by that time, the sheriff was ordered to distrain them by their lands and tenements to appear on 16 February.! After

this action Edmund came in with rolls totalling £86 5s. 04d. This sum was still deemed insufficient, and the rolls were returned. Again a day was set, the quinzaine of Easter, on which day Edmund reappeared

to state that he and his colleague had not taxed the ships. The rolls were returned, it was ordered that the ships be valued, and the chief taxers were directed to reappear on 25 June. Since neither Edmund nor his colleague came on that day, the sheriff was commanded to act, in order that they might be forced to appear on 21 July. As often happened elsewhere, the sheriff did not return the writ, and, as usual, another writ was issued, sicut alias, to him, and another day set, 30 September. The record abruptly ends at this point with a note, in another ink, that the men came and accounted during the Easter term of the year 1318. During the years following the energetic action of 1316 we read of rolls returned because they were insufficient or defective in some other way.2. There is nothing new in all this. In connection with the examination of the rolls of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332, however, a distinctly new

note was struck. It is stated on the memoranda roll that the rolls of taxation were inspected and that it was found in Wiltshire and a few other

counties that not only were the returns inadequate in amount, but also that the fifteenth had been levied in many vills that should have paid the tenth with the boroughs and royal demesne.’ ‘This indicates a detailed investigation of the rolls of the chief taxers such as has not been found before. Among the records of the accounting of the chief taxers of the same tax there is an unusual memorandum which reveals how the rolls were checked up at the exchequer. The chief taxers in the county of Huntingdon appeared before the exchequer on 4 February, 1333, and delivered their rolls of the tenth and fifteenth in the same county.* The 1 This is noted in the record. An order for their distraint, to force their first appearance on 18 November, had been issued by the exchequer under the date 4 November, 1316 (L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 153d.). 2 The Norfolk roll of the tenth and sixth of 1822 was returned because it appeared to the exchequer

that the sum total was not sufficient, and the chief taxers were told to return to the county and correct the default (L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 94). In connection with the roll of Hampshire of the same tax, there is an unusual form of record, a note in the Recorda of the return of the roll (K.R.M.R., no. 96, m. 81). A record of the appearance of the chief taxers in Buckinghamshire of 1332 and of the return of their rolls, because insufficient, is found among the dies dati of 7 Edward III (K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 218d.). 3K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 213. The other counties noted are Cambridge, m. 212d., Hertford, m. 213, and Nottingham, m. 214. The records are in the form of memoranda under the general heading Presentaciones, attornati, dies dati, et respectus’—all of them being, naturally, dies datz because the collectors were directed to come again to finish accounting after the errors had been rectified. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 160. This is a record of the appearance of the taxers and collectors

and of what happened thereafter.

Side Inghts on the Assessment 161 rolls, which totalled £407 3s. 1014d., were placed in the custody of the king’s remembrancer. The collectors paid £203 11s. 1ld. So ends one

part of the memorandum. An added note states that when the rolls were examined and compared with those of other taxations, with the twentieths and fifteenths and the twenty-fifth, all of the reign of Edward II, it was found that the totals of these earlier taxes exceeded £500. So

the court decided that the amount charged against the county at the moment was insufficient. The rolls were thereupon handed back to the taxers and collectors to be emended. There the record ends. While the contention of the exchequer that the earlier taxes exceeded £500 can be substantiated,! its intervention accomplished nothing. When the accounts of the chief taxers were audited, the sum of £407 3s. 8d. was charged against them.? So much has been said in this and the preceding sections about the mistakes of the taxers and collectors that a description of what seems to have been a serious blunder on the part of the exchequer may not be out

of place. The form of the taxation issued to the chief taxers of the thirtieth and twentieth in July, 1306, contained no clause exempting from taxation property valued at less than a fixed minimum.? With the exception of the year 1301, such an arrangement had been consistently made in the past and its omission in 1306 was almost sure to arouse dis-

content. Whatever the cause, a change was made. Writs dated 15 November, 1306, were issued by the exchequer to all the chief taxers, in which it was stated that the king had graciously conceded that individual

holdings of property not reaching ten shillings in value should be excused from taxation.4 The taxers were to supersede the taxation of

such goods and restore any money already levied on that account. But between the date of issue of the commissions and forms in July and

the date of the writs just mentioned, the chief taxers and their subordinates had been at work. In some instances they had gone so far as to enrol the tax-charges against the poorer folk, and it is possible that some money had been gathered. When the chief taxers came to their accounting before the exchequer, several asked for deductions on account of sums charged on the roll against property holdings below the minimum.

In Cambridgeshire the amount was £14 17s. 434d., in Gloucestershire £9 1s. 2144d., and in Devonshire £4 5s. 444d.5 Other county taxes’ and 1 As a matter of fact the totals of most of the subsidies of the reign of Edward II exceeded £500 (E.H.R., xxrx (1914), 319-321, and the paper by Sir James Ramsay, ibid., xx1v (1909), 319). 2L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 8, m. @. 3 Parl. Writs, 1, 179. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 81d. The writs are tested by W. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, the treasurer. 5 L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, mm. 89, 89d.

162 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 collectors’ accounts contain a bare reference to the exemption, stating

that the rolls did not contain any tax-charges against the property excused by writ of the king.: The Northumberland chief taxers stated that their rolls contained the taxation of the goods of those whose holdings fell below ten shillings and that they had levied the sums due because they had not received the writ calling for the superseding of the assessment and levy.” 5. Toe PEopLe WuHosze Goops WERE ASSESSED

The taxes upon movable goods reached all classes of the English people during the later Middle Ages. The king and his immediate family, who were above all class grouping, were not liable for taxes on account of their personal property, and the poor escaped because of the exemption clause in the form of taxation, not because of any social classification. Beyond these, the highest and lowest of mediaeval folk, no one was free from the payment of taxes unless he had been granted the privilege of exemption.

Concerning the liability of goods on the demesne land of manors belonging to the king, the queen and the Prince of Wales enough has been said in an earlier section.? Such property was not valued by the assessors of taxes. The tenants of royal personages in manor and borough, however, did not enjoy a like privileged position; they were held for taxes with the rest of the population. The liability of the clergy has also been discussed 1n previous sections

of this work. Though individual members of the class and even religious orders were excused for various reasons, the great majority enjoyed no special privileges with respect to taxation. Those who escaped parliamentary taxation did so because of the separate grants of taxes

made by their assembled leaders and representatives. Clerical subsidies alone made it possible for those who gave them to enjoy freedom from the taxes upon movables granted in parliament. If members of the clergy held lands which were not annexed to their spiritualities, the goods on such lands were assessed with the goods of laymen. We therefore

find on the lists of property holders who were charged for lay taxes bishops, archdeacons, deans, abbots, priors, and simple parish priests. The goods of great feudal nobles in the hands of the bailiffs and reeves of their scattered manors were valued for ninths or fifteenths in the same fashion as were the goods of their lowly tenants. Run through the lists 1K. g., ad., mm. 90 (Berkshire), 90d. (Staffordshire). 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 117. 3 Chapter VI, Section 9. 4 Chapter V, Sections 3, 4, 5.

Side Inghts on the Assessment 163 of property holders on almost any county roll of the taxes upon movables

and you will find the names of some of the greater men of the realm. On the Suffolk roll of the twentieth of 1327, to name no other, there are the Earl Marshal, who was the Earl of Norfolk, the Earl of Oxford, and the Earl of Kent.!. The widows of other great men appear: the Countess of Pembroke, and Isabella, the wife of the late John, Lord Hastings.’ When during the reign of Edward I the war in Gascony was undertaken,

the list of the great nobles who received respites or exemption from taxation on account of their service abroad reads like a description of the baronage of England.’

The country gentry, lords of one or several manors, were likewise charged with the payment of taxes. Frederick Bradshaw, in a careful analysis of the roll of the eleventh and seventh of 1295 in Northumberland, has noted the appearance of the names of the historic families of the county.4 The Fitz-Rogers, the Delavals, the Herons, the Umfravilles, the Vescys, the Swinburnes, and many others are there listed alongside

the humble folk of the countryside. The notes added to the printed edition of the Shropshire roll of 1327 give even more information about the lords of manors whose names appear.’ The Earl of March, of the greater barons, is listed without his title,* and a whole host of mesne tenants appear. To curb any tendency towards the exaggeration of the contrast between the taxable property of a manorial lord and that of the tenants in any one of his manors, it is only necessary to turn to the county rolls.

Without raising the question of the relation of the goods assessed to the property in the hands of any person, it is possible to state that in

most parts of the country the totals of the tax-charges against the tenants greatly exceeded that against the lord. Over and over again this is true. The people who were not wealthy paid the taxes of England in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries just as they do today. A few examples will illustrate the statement that has just been made. On the roll of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 in the county of Warwick, Thomas de Asteley is named at the head of the list of property holders

in three vills.? In one he was charged with about one-fourth, in the 1 Suffolk Green Books, 1x, pp. xu—xill.

2 Ibid. The editor of the roll has listed the baronial property holders whose names appear. 8 See Chapter VI, Section 2, and my references. 4 Archaeologia Aeliana, 3rd Series, xu (1916), 226-244. 6 Shropshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., Trans., 2nd Series, 1, 134-200; 1v, 287-338; v, 343-362; vil, 44-60; x, 113-144; x1, 347-390, etc. 8 Tbid., 2nd Series, Iv, 291 (in Stanton Lacy). 7 Dugdale Society, v1, 36, 56, 64. I have used these examples in a review of the volume in History, XII (1927), 255.

164 Parhiamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834

second about one-tenth, and in the third about one-sixth of the total amount to be levied upon all the people of the vill. William de Clinton was charged in four vills sums ranging from one-fourth to nearly onethirteenth of the total.!. Roger Mortimer was charged 5s. 6d. in the manor of Stanton Lacy when the twentieth of 1327 was being assessed in Shropshire.? As the total amount to be levied from the vill was 75s. 3d., he would, when the collectors appear, pay about one-fifteenth of the

total. Similar results may be found in other counties.’ In contrast to these returns there are other vills in which the lord held assessable property amounting to a half or a third of the valuation of all the goods

taxed. The general tendency, however, was decidedly in the other direction. Next below the gentry in the social scale may be placed the burgesses.

Concerning their responsibility whenever taxes upon movables were granted nothing more need be said than that it was never questioned. It was the same with the men of the market towns.

At the base of the social pyramid whose apex was the king, stood the great mass of the free and servile population of the rural districts. These villagers, like their superiors in rank and wealth, were subject to the taxes upon personal property as long as they possessed taxable goods

valued at the minimum amount laid down in the instructions to the chief taxers. While the serfs are rarely mentioned on the rolls as such, they were always there. Though the liability of villeins to pay taxes for their goods was not

questioned, there were a few occasions during the early part of our period when an older idea of responsibility was followed. This leads us back for a moment to the reign of Henry III. Several times in his reign the lord of the manor, either layman or higher ecclesiastic, was placed between the tenant and the regularly selected assessors and collectors. That is to say, either the assessment or collection of taxes, or both, was placed in the hands of men chosen by the barons and bishops who held

the Jand.6 While the money gathered was handed over to the royal 1 Dugdale Society, v1, 32, 46, 75, 77.

2 Shropshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., Trans., 2nd Series, 1v, 291. 3 Assoc. Archit. Soc., Reports and Papers, x1x (co. Leicester, 1327), 252 (Billesden), 253 (Galby),

262 (Orton), 276 (Whetstone); ibid., xx, 133 (Seale), 186 (Kegworth), etc. Suffolk Green Books, Ix, 8 (Stanton), 13 (Offetone and Willaysham), 14-15 Stonham Antegam), 17 (Nettlistede), etc. There is no necessity of multiplying such references, for similar returns may be found almost everywhere.

4h. g. Assoc. Archit. Soc., Reports and Papers, x1x (co. Leicester, 1327), 241 (Noseley), 245 (Stockerston and Cranoe), 251 (Shangton); ibid., xx, 147 (Dalby). 5S. K. Mitchell, Studies in Taxation under John and Henry III (New Haven, 1914), 164-167 (1225).

See also Patent Rolls . . . Henry ITI, 1, 560-561. For the tax of 1232 see Close Rolls . . . Henry III, 1231-1234, 155-156, and Mitchell, Studies in Taxation, 203-204. The records of the tax

Side Lights on the Assessment 165 officers sent to the counties and not paid into the exchequer by any baronial or other agent, the tenants concerned were regarded as a class

apart; their personal responsibility for taxes was clear enough, but between them and the royal agents stood the agent of the archbishop, bishop, abbot, or baron. This plan may be described as feudal in essence, but, whatever adjective is used, the crown through its tax-gatherers did not come into direct contact with some of the inhabitants of the country. Under Edward I and his successors there were only a few remains of

this older system and they are to be found during the years when the government of Edward I was revising the system of taxation. Normally, as we have seen in earlier chapters, the royal chief taxers and the subordinates selected by them or under their direction dealt immediately with the people whose goods were taxed. The exceptions to this rule are interesting examples of the survival of feudalism, or, if you please, of the rights of manorial lords; their disappearance may be taken as evidence

of a further decay of feudalism or of the beginning of a decline in the power of the lord of the manor. A brief statement of what happened will, I hope, make clear the soundness of these general remarks. When the subsidies of 1294 and 1295 were granted by the laymen of the kingdom, the clergy also granted two taxes, first a moiety and then

a tenth of the value of their movables listed in the valuation of Pope Nicholas IV.!. The instructions issued in 1294 to the chief taxers of the parliamentary grant therefore, provided that the goods of the clergy on lands annexed to their churches, for which they gave the king a moiety, should not be taxed for the lay tenth and sixth.? Then follows the sentence

in which we are especially interested. Its substance is: the villeins of prelates, men of religion, and other clerks on lands of their churches were

not to be taxed. The relation of the villeins of the clergy to the lay tax of 1294 was made even clearer by a writ of 4 October, directed to the chief taxers in the county of Hertford, which reads as follows: ‘Order to supersede entirely the taxation and levying of the goods of the villeins of

Richard, bishop of London, by reason of the tenth aforesaid in that county, as the king granted to the prelates in the concession of the subsidy lately made to him by the prelates and clergy of the realm that the goods of their villeins should not be taxed by reason of the tenth

aforesaid, and that the tenth should not be levied from such goods.’ of 1237 are excellent on the especial position of the clergy (Close Rolls . . . Henry III, 12341237, 548-545 and Mitchell, Studies in Taxation, 216-217). The separate grant of a twentieth made by the clergy in 1270 covered the goods of their villeins (Vincent, D.Z.S., 1, 98-94). 1 Stubbs, C.H.E., 1, 256; Lunt, Valuation of Norwich, 72, n. 6; C.P.R. 1292-1301, 172. 2 The instructions may be found in Vincent, D.L.S., 1, 182. 8 C.C.R. 1288-1296, 457. Like writs were sent to the chief taxers in other counties: cf. 505.

166 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 In a later writ issued by the exchequer the chief taxers in Hereford were told to desist from taxing the goods of the free tenants of the bishop of Hereford within the city of Hereford until they received further instructions.!

What happened to the goods of villeins released from the levy of the parliamentary tax is not certain. I have found no evidence that bears directly upon the subject. It is clear, however, that the unfree tenants of the clergy who paid clerical taxes were separated from other unfree tenants. The latter paid their taxes directly to the lay sub-taxers, in the same manner as did their fellow villagers, the freemen. I conjecture, as I have already said, that the former situation was due to the survival of an older idea of the responsibility of the lord of a manor for his unfree tenants. The situation in 1296 was at first complicated by the fact that while parliament granted the king a twelfth and eighth, the clergy refused to aid the king.? It was therefore set down in the form of the taxation that the temporal goods of the clergy were to be subjected to the tax granted by the laymen. The goods of their villeins were also to be levied upon unless individual members of the clergy should compound for the sub-

sidy. At the crucial moment the clergy granted a fifth of temporalities

and spiritualities on the basis of the taxation of Pope Nicholas IV. This changed the aspect of affairs to what it had been in 1294 and 1295, but no return was made to the plan of grouping the villeins of the clergy with their lords. When writs dated 2 March, 1297, were issued to the principal assessors and collectors of the twelfth, it was expressly noted that whereas clerical temporal property annexed to spiritualities was not to be taxed, ‘the goods of the prior’s [abbot’s, bishop’s, etc.] villeins shall be taxed in the same manner as other goods of the laymen.’ The plan of 1297 was adopted in subsequent years. Thereafter, the goods of villeins on the lands of the clergy were valued at the same time

and in the same fashion as those of other unfree tenants and the subtaxers of the parliamentary subsidies collected what was due from their owners.‘

For some ten years after this settlement was reached, the older plan 1K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 75d. Another writ on the same day, 22 February, 1295, contains like instructions with respect to the free tenants of the dean and chapter of Hereford. The reason for these writs is not clear to me. For a good illustration of the separation of villeins of the clergy from other property holders see Lay Subsidy, 120/3 (co. Hertford). 2 A more detailed account of the situation in 1296 is found above and in Chapter V, Section 4. 3C. Var. Chan. R. 1277-1326, 22. 4 The instructions to the chief taxers from 1807 to 13819 directed that the goods of villeins of prelates, men of religion, and other clerks were to be taxed for the lay subsidies (Rot. Parl., 1, 443, 446, 452; Parl. Writs, u, 11, 118, 212).

Side Laghts on the Assessment 167 was followed when the Templars and Hospitallers compounded for the taxes granted in parliament. Both the military orders regularly fined for such subsidies up to and including that of 1306.1 In every instance the fine covered the goods of the villeins of the orders as well as their own property. After 1306 the Templars and Hospitallers ceased to compound and their villeins joined the ranks of the taxpayers at large. The system of grouping the taxation of the property of villeins with that of their lords was also used to a certain extent when the tenants-inchief went to war in Gascony and Wales in 1294 and the immediately following years.2, When respites from the levy upon their goods of the taxes of 1294 and 1295 were granted to barons because they were in the army of the king, it was customary to include the goods of their villeins. Of this sort were the writs under the seal of the exchequer issued in favor of Gilbert de Clare and others during the early months of 1295,? and to John de St John and a long list of men in January, 1296.4 But when the same barons were pardoned the taxes, that grace was usually confined to the amount due for their own goods and did not cover the goods of their villeins.’ In fact, in some instances it is stated in other records that the villeins paid.6 As an exception to the statement that the villeins gained no benefit from the pardons, there may be cited the case of Roger Mortimer. Of ‘special favor’ the crown directed the treasurer and barons of the exchequer to acquit Roger Mortimer ‘and his men and their villeins’

of payment towards the tenth of 1294.7 In a number of instances, however, the villeins probably gained an unofficial release from the bur-

den of taxation when their lords, the barons in the army, despite the lack of letters of pardon, did not pay the tax.® Among the villagers, free and unfree, who were charged with taxes on

the rolls, there are found a number who have trade names, while the names of others are equally descriptive. John the Smith, William the Fuller, Adam the Tailor, William the Miller, and John the Weaver are found alongside John the Carter, William the Shepherd, and Adam the 1K.R.M.R., No. 71, m. 79 (1297); C.P.R. 1292-13801, 598 (1801); C.C.R. 1302-1807, 418 (1806). 2 The treatment of the men serving in Gascony and Wales is discussed in Chapter VI, Section 2. 3 There are several of these writs in Lay Subsidy, 120/4 (co. Hertford). 4K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 67. The writs are tested by Philip de Willoughby, ‘tenente locum Thes.’ Some of the results may be seen in Sussex Record Society, x, 102-105. 5 There are records of numerous pardons on the enrolled account of the subsidy of 1294. See Pipe Roll, No. 151, mm. 41a (co. Gloucester), 44 (co. Hertford). There is a list of pardons from the burden of the subsidy of 1295 in Parl. Writs, 1, 391-392. 6 EK. g., Lay Subsidy, 120/4 (the documents referring to Robert Fitz-Walter). 7 C.C.R. 1288-1296, 422.

8 See above, Chapter VI, Section 2. On the exchequer rolls of the audit of the accounts of the collectors, the statement is made that the delinquent barons owed for themselves and their villeins; e. g., Pipe Roll, 151, mm. 40d. (co. Oxford), 44 (co. Hertford).

168 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 Reeve. Some of these names may have been inherited, but they may, equally well, be descriptions of the business in life of their holders. A student of economic history could profitably spend not a little time in an examination of the lists of property holders on the rolls of taxation.* Villeins are rarely described as such, save in 1332, and then the description is applied to a group and not to individuals separately listed on the roll.2. Curiously enough, socage tenants are in several instances grouped on the roll of the tax of 1332 in Cumberland under a heading describing them as such.? On the same roll there are a few instances of the description of the property holders in a vill as tenants of an abbot or prior.‘ The number of women who appear on the tax rolls as property holders varies from district to district, being lowest in the more sparsely settled

border counties and largest in the counties of the interior and of the eastern coast. The smallest number of names of women that has been found is on the roll of Lancashire for the tax of 1332;° they form about one per cent of the total number of taxpayers. The results of an examination of the 1327 roll for Cumberland are somewhat better. In the ward of Eskdale the percentage of women is a little over four, and in the ward of Leath and a part of the ward of Cumberland a little less then four. In the liberty of Cockermouth, on the other hand, the percentage of women is a little less than two.? Two hundreds in Shropshire, which was also a border county, show more women present than in Cumberland—the first, Ford, with over five per cent, and the second, Pimhill, with a little over sl1x per cent.®

When we leave the border counties women usually figure more prominently on the rolls of taxation. In a number of Somerset vills containing in all 1060 names, there were 97 women, or about nine per cent of the

total.? In one small vill in the same district there were eight women whose goods were taxed and only four men.’ The editor of the Worces1 Names such as described may be found by examining the index of any printed roll. For the results in a town see Margaret Curtis, “The London Lay Subsidy of 1332,’ in Unwin, Finance and Trade Under Edward III, 61-92; Dugdale Society, v1, 44-45. 2E. g., Surrey Record Society, xvi, 43-44, 49, 52, 538. 3 Cumberland Lay Subsidy, 65-66. 4 Ibid., 28, 34, 62.

6 J. P. Rylands, The Exchequer Lay Subsidy Roll . . . inthe County of Lancaster, A. D. 1382 (London, 1896).

6 Cumberland Lay Subsidy, 30-41 (Eskdale), 1-20 (Leath and Cumberland). I have found 23 women in a population of 566 in Eskdale, and 41 among 1,045 in the other districts. 7 Ibid., 52-56.

8 Shropshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc. Trans., 2nd Series, x, 125-144 (Ford); 8rd Series, V,

55-80 (Pimhill). In the case of Ford the percentage is 5.38%, in the case of Pimhill 6.2%, the number of women is 30 among 479 and 17 among 317 respectively. ® Somerset Record Society, 11, 180-151. 10 Jhid., 131 (Lade).

Side Inghts on the Assessment 169 tershire roll of 1327, F. J. Eld, states that ‘of the first 2,061 names on the

1327 roll, 212 are those of women.’! They, therefore, formed ten per

cent of the taxpaying population. In a considerable portion of the county of Warwick, which lay well away from the border, the percentage of women runs as low as five and seven-tenths per cent,? although there are small vills in other sections of the same county where the number of women ascends to between fifteen and twenty per cent.’

Suffolk and Sussex on the eastern and southern coasts yield results that were to be expected. The hundred of Hartsmere, Suffolk, with 887 taxpayers in 1327, had on its list about eight per cent of women, the hundred of Bosemere about nine per cent, and Beccles, a smaller dis-

trict, about fourteen and a half per cent. Twenty-four pages of the printed roll of the subsidy of 1332 in Sussex contain 1,547 names.’ Of

these 138 are names of women, nearly nine per cent of the total. In several vills lying outside the section of the county covered by this count, the percentage of women runs well over nine per cent.® Some of the women whose names appear on the rolls were great ladies

like Isabella de Hastings in Suffolk and Margaret de Stafford in Warwickshire,’ but more belonged to humble families of the peasant class. The latter are often described on the roll as widows. Others of the same peasant class have occupation names that would imply either that their dead husbands had followed the business described in the name or that they pursued the occupation themselves. On the Warwickshire roll of 1332, for example, are found Edith le Mason, Agnes le Corviser, Amicia le Taillur, Juliana la Dyere, Sibilla le Webbe, Alice le Carpenter, Eva le

Smyth, Edith le Chapman, and Emma le Cocus.2 The Worcestershire roll of 1327 records, among other similar names, Agnes le Gardiner, Agnes le Smythe, Agnes le Sheperdes, and Matilda le Taillour.2 There are equally interesting names on other county rolls. One would lke to know if such names were always retrospective. I see no especial reason for constantly separating the two sexes when such questions arise. If John the Weaver may be said to have worked with a loom, why was 1Worc. Hist. Soc., A.D. 1895, XI. 2 Dugdale Society, v1, 52-70. There are 73 women on the list of 1266 names. 8 Ind., v1, 7-8 (Wellesburn Montfort), 13 (IImyndon Foxcote), 19-20 (Ochsulne). 4 Suffolk Green Books, rx, 24-39 (Hartsmere), 11-21 (Bosemere), 81-84 (Beccles). 6 Sussex Record Society, x, 280-308. 6 Sussex Record Society, x, 233 (four vills, 18%), 251 (four vills, 17%), 273-274 (two vills, 13.4%).

On the roll of 1327 in the same volume the percentages are at times even higher; e. g., 110-114 (Aldsworth, 30.7%), 119 (West Ashling, 21%), 123 (Thedacre, 283%), 150( . . . , 25%). ’ Suffolk Green Books, rx, 131, 209, 211; Dugdale Society, v1, 20, 88.

8 Ibid., 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 53, 54, 62, 64. ° Worc. Hist. Soc., A.D. 1895, 3, 7.

170 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834 Matilda the Weaver necessarily the widow or daughter of a weaver? When William the Smith worked at his forge he must often have had helpers; why should not Agnes the Smith have the same in her smithy? The study of the occupations revealed by the rolls of taxation has been somewhat neglected by those who are interested in the activities of women in the Middle Ages. 6. PopuLaR OPPOSITION TO THE ASSESSMENT AND DILATORY SuB-TAXERS

The difficulties the chief taxers and their subordinates had to face, aside from those connected with the valuation of goods and the observ-

ance of exemptions, may only be partly known to us. They moved among a rude people accustomed to rough and ready ways of expressing discontent and it is hard to believe that they were allowed to assess the property of such folk without occasional opposition. Resistance to the assessment would, however, be dealt with on the spot, in the ordinary

course of events, by the sub-taxers or their superior officers. If the attempted evasion or overt resistance grew serious, the sheriffs could always be called upon for assistance. It was only rarely that the troubles of the assessors with the people were of sufficient importance to find a place in the records of the exchequer or chancery. On the other hand, the difficulties of the chief taxers with the sub-taxers were more frequently

aired. In their attempts to excuse faulty rolls or late appearance before the exchequer, the former at times cast the blame upon the lesser men. How far these allegations of fault were true is quite another matter, and one that may not be tested save by keeping in mind the very human habit of placing blame upon other shoulders.

Twice during our period it was alleged that the opposition of the people to the assessment and collection of taxes reached generous pro-

portions. ‘The two instances fall within the period of Edward II’s troubles with the Ordainers and were seemingly connected with and a part of the discontent with the royal government.

It is stated in 1315 that there was resistance to taxation in three

counties far removed from Westminster. In two of these, Staffordshire and Shropshire, the men who opposed the levy of the twentieth in the rural districts based their action upon the alleged failure of the king to fulfill the promises he had made in the parliament meeting from January

to March at Westminster.! At that time Edward II had confirmed Magna Carta, the Charter of the Forests, and the Ordinances, and had promised a careful perambulation of the forests. On that basis a twen1 For a discussion of the actions of this parliament see Davies, Baronial Opposition, 400.

Side Inghts on the Assessment 171 tieth and fifteenth had been granted. Letters for the assessment and collection of the twentieth were dated 15 March,! and, at about the same time, orders for the carrying out of reforms were issued.2 The commissions for the perambulation of the forests were, however, not issued before 10 May, the date recorded on the patent rolls.? Of the five groups of men so commissioned, one was to serve in the counties of Worcester, Warwick,

Hereford, and Gloucester, as well as in Staffordshire and Shropshire. They may well have begun their work in the counties nearest to Westminster and probably had not reached the last two counties named in May or early in June. It is very likely, therefore, that the ‘divers men’ who are said in a letter of 8 June to have impeded the work of the assessors

and collectors had good ground for their complaint that whereas ‘the

aid had been granted upon certain conditions . . . the king had not observed such conditions.”* They would hardly know of the other reforms; what they would know was that the promised perambulations had not been completed, even if by the barest chance they had been started. In the case of Yorkshire, the other of the three counties, there is no statement of the cause of the resistance. All that appears is that the king’s bailiffs and the bailiffs of others had resisted the taxers and collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth “by refusing to make the men of their bailiwicks, by whom the taxation ought to be made, to come before the taxers, or to execute other things which pertain to their office according to the mandate of the taxers made to them on the king’s behalf, and also that the said bailiffs frequently caused divers distraints made by

the said taxers and their men . . . to be delivered up.” It is

probable that the Yorkshire difficulties were simply another phase of the

opposition to the rule of Edward II. The Yorkshire bailiffs renewed their opposition when the attempt was made to assess and collect the next taxes, the fifteenth and the sixteenth of 1316, and they were joined by men in other counties. The commissions for the chief taxers of the fifteenth are dated 8 June, and of

the sixteenth, 5 August.6 Early in September an order was issued to those in charge of the first-named tax in Yorkshire to arrest the bailiffs who were refusing to help and advise them, and to certify their names 1K .R.M.R., No. 88, m. 144. These have not been found on the patent rolls, though they are on Originalia Roll, No. 75, m. 29. The letters for the assessment and collection of the fifteenth are dated 10 May, 1815, and are to be found on the same roll. 2 Davies, Baronial Opposition, 401-404. 3 C.P.R. 18138-1817, 296. Commissions of the same date were issued for the assessment and collection of the fifteenth (Originalia Roll, No. '75, m. 30). 4C.P.R. 13138-13817, 324-825. See also C.C.R. 13813-13818, 224. 5 C.P.R. 1818-1817, 424.

® C.P.R. 1818-1817, 47, 529.

172 Parlhiamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334

to the king.! Later in the month a like order was issued to the chief taxers of the sixteenth in the East Riding of Yorkshire.? Thereafter either the resistance of the people or the suspicions of the crown grew in volume. The taxers and collectors in all the counties of England and in the three ridings of Yorkshire were commanded by writs, dated 20 February, 1317, to certify to the king the names of those who opposed the col-

lection of the sixteenth from themselves or their tenants. To complete the story it may be added that commissions dated 17 June were issued to groups of men to investigate the misdeeds of the chief taxers and their subordinates in Devon and Cornwall.‘

The other examples of resistance that have been found were more local in character. The chief taxers of the sixteenth of 1316 in the county of Buckingham complained that the royal bailiffs in Langley Marish and Wyrardisbury, then in the king’s hands, would not permit them to make distraints for the tax in those vills.5 The opposition of the bailiff of Edmund, the king’s brother, in the liberty of Stamford, to the assessment of the subsidy of 1290, and of the bailiffs of the Earl of Lancaster in his liberty in Derbyshire, to the taxation of 1319, is stated in

definite terms.* In addition, though the bailiffs are not mentioned, it was probably they who opposed the assessment of the tax of 1290 in the

lands of the earls of Mortimer and Arundel, and the assessment of the tax of 1316 in the liberties of the earls of Lancaster and Pembroke in the counties of Derby and Nottingham.’ Occasionally local opposition to the assessment of property took a violent turn. Such cases, as noted at the opening of this section, would not come to the surface unless for some reason they could not be handled by the resident officers of the crown. In 1328, however, commissioners of oyer and terminer were sent out to investigate a complaint of John de Ormesby, one of the chief taxers of the twentieth of 1327 in the county

of Norfolk.2 John stated that when he entered Great Yarmouth to

select sub-assessors and collectors, a number of men assaulted him and carried off his goods. Violence of another sort is said to have been used 1C.C.R. 1818-1818, 363. The writ is dated 1 September. 2 Iind., 365. The writ is dated 25 September. 3 Iind., 453. 4 C.F.R. 1807-1819, 332.

6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 189.

6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 63, m. 37; K.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 141. Two bailiffs in Lancashire are said to have impeded the chief taxers of the fifteenth of 1290 (L.T.R.M.R., No. 63, m. 37). 7L.T.R.M.R., No. 65, m. 90; L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 177, Two men of the hundred of Crondale, Hampshire, are said to have impeded the tazatores of the thirtieth and twentieth of 1306 (L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 38). 8 C.P.R. 1827-1830, 286.

Side Lnghts on the Assessment 173 in Lancashire when one of the chief taxers was trying to assess and collect

the tax of 1322. It was stated by Thurstan de Northlegh, the chief taxer, that William de Bradeshagh and a multitude of armed men followed him from vill to vill and from place to place threatening him, so that he was unable to perform the task assigned to him.! The difficulties of the chief taxers with their subordinates are in a different class from those that have been described. Occasionally, they tendered as an excuse for their failure to complete their labors on time the statement either that certain vills had not been taxed,’ or that the rolls of the assessment had not been received from the sub-taxers. In 1306 the explanation offered by several groups of chief taxers for their failure to account in full for the tax-charge against their counties was that they had not completed the taxation of the goods of the people.* This did not shift the blame to other shoulders. The chief taxers in Kent were a little more specific when they stated that they could not report fully because of the brevity of time allowed them.’ In contrast there is the statement made by the Staffordshire group to the effect that their delay was due to the fact that the sub-taxers had not valued the property of the people in several hundreds.* It is highly probable that the reason for the delay was the same in each of these several instances, though the wording of the explanations offered is different. Several of the difficulties that the chief taxers might have to face are

illustrated in a small schedule sewed to a membrane of the L.T.R. Memoranda Roll of 19 Edward 1.’ It is a record of attachments by the sheriff of Dorset on account of transgressions connected with the assessment of the fifteenth of the year 1290. William de Witefeld would not take the oath as one of the jurors of the hundred of St George and absented himself so that he might not be forced by the chief taxers to serve. Philip Maubank and five others, jurors in the hundred of Yetmuinster, would not tax the goods of the men of the hundred nor make up the rolls,

so that the work of the chief taxers was retarded. Jordan Polayn, bailiff of the same hundred, consented to their action. Thomas de Barden,

bailiff of the Earl of Gloucester at Portland and Wyke, would not per1L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 24. 2K. g., L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 244d. (Suffolk). 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 120 (co. Oxford); L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 115 (co. Lincoln); L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 176d. (co. Northampton). Certain sub-taxers in Gloucestershire of the subsidy of 1315 were said to be disobedient (L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 244). 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, mm. 35, 55d. (counties of Cambridge, Gloucester, Hereford, Oxford, Wilts, etc.).

5 CTRMR. No. 77, m. 35. 6 Ibid., m. 36.

7L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 44, schedule annexed.

174 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 mit the principal taxers of the county of Dorset to enter Portland to tax the goods of the sub-taxers in the hundreds of Portland and Wyke Regis. And finally John de Carswal, of the county of Devon, is said to have entered Dorset, to have taxed Gregory de Lym, and to have collected a

fourth part of the fifteenth from him despite the prohibition of the chief taxers of Dorset.! 7. POPULATION AND THE Tax Ro.uts

In this section it is proposed to abandon the discussion of the faults, mistakes, and troubles of the assessors in order to discuss a question that arises from time to time, that of the relat?onship of the lists of names on the rolls of taxation to the population of the districts covered by the same rolls. There are, as will be seen, many obstacles in the path of the investigator who ventures into this field. One of the first difficulties to be overcome is that of determining the

number of people who did not possess enough taxable property to be listed on the rolls. Some of these may have been extremely poor, but others may have had goods valued at many times the minimum amount of property to be taxed and yet, because their goods were not for sale or were otherwise excused, would not appear among the listed property holders. We are not necessarily dealing with paupers when we consider the people whose goods were not taxed. In fact, when we enter the rural districts we may be dealing with men who had a fair share of worldly goods. It is quite possible that a man might possess a cow, an ox, a pig, a cart, farming utensils, household goods, ample clothing, a hive or so of bees,

a quantity of cheese, and many bushels of grain, peas, and beans still in the larder, and not be grouped with those who held ten shillings’ worth of personal property. Of the goods described only the ox, cow, and pig were taxable, and if these were undervalued in the usual fashion, he would escape taxation. A similar case might be made out for men in towns. This being the situation, it would seem a reasonable assumption that the untaxed class formed a fair proportion of the population. How

large this proportion was is another story. It will be well, therefore, to examine rather closely some statistics that have come down to us. In the year 1332 a fifteenth of movables was levied upon the rural

districts of Lancashire.2 Thirty-four years later, in 1366, with two visitations of the plague intervening to keep down population, a list was

made up of the people in a rural district who ‘promised to subscribe | 1 The case of Carswell (or Carswal) received further attention on the rolls (L.T.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 38; L.T.R.M.R., No. 65, m. 82). 2 J.P. Rylands, The Exchequer Lay Subsidy Roll . . . inthe County of Lancashire, A. D. 1382, 1-102.

Side Lnghts on the Assessment 175 to the stipend of the priest at the altar of Our Lady at Ormskirk.’! The roll of the fifteenth contains the names of those whose personal property was valued at at least ten shillings, whereas the list of subscribers enrolled anyone who wished to contribute, without reference to his ownership of goods. There is no evidence that the subscription list included other members of a family than its head, for there are not many women named and the description of a man as son of another is no more frequent than is usual on tax rolls. Yet in Scarisbrick with Hurlton 14 people are

listed on the roll of 1332, while the subscribers in 1366 number 84; in Bickerstaff 9 persons appear on the first list and 54 on the second, and in Skelmersdale 12 on the first and 35 on the second.? If, as seems very probable, the difference between the two lists was based upon wealth and not upon an increase in population, it is clear that in this part of Lancashire a very large number of people escaped taxation. But no one would dare in advance to conjecture that for every man named on a tax roll there might be from two to five persons, presumably adults, not so named. Another type of evidence is afforded by the returns made by the taxers

and collectors of the fifteenth of 1301 in Colchester and in the North Riding of Yorkshire. As there was no clause in the instructions of that year exempting holdings of property from taxation that were valued at

less than ten shillings or any other sum, the rolls ought to contain a con- : siderable number of charges below eightpence. Eightpence was the lowest charge that would have been present if there had been a tenshilling minimum clause. The Colchester roll yields interesting results, for about one-third, to be exact 128, of the taxpaying population of 389, were charged less than eightpence.* When, however, we turn to the rural districts of Yorkshire the results are at variance with this, and are somewhat disconcerting in view of the hypothesis of large numbers of

property holdings below the ten-shilling line. Im the wapentake of Halikeld there were only 35 charges out of 524 below eightpence, this

being only a little over six and a half per cent of the total.‘ In the wapentake of Gilling the percentage was a little higher, nearly eight per cent for 111 persons were charged less than eightpence on the list of 1,405

property holders.2 Langborough hundred, with 238 property holders charged less than eightpence, out of a total of 1,510, has the highest total, over fifteen and a half per cent.6 Turn these latter figures as one 1 Iiid., 109. The roll of the subscribers covers pages 109-121. 2 Ibid , 5, 15, 111-113, 114-115, 120-121. 3 Rot. Parl., 1, 243-265. 4 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xxi, 1-8. 8 Ihid., 8-26. 6 Ibid., 26-45.

176 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 may, they give no evidence of any large number of property holdings below the minimum. It may be that the minimum clause was fairly generally observed despite the imstructions, or that there were many men, like the one whose goods have been described in an earlier paragraph, who held property that was unaffected by the withdrawal of the minimum clause. Whatever the reason, the figures are widely different not only from the Colchester results, but also from those in the Ormskirk district of Lancashire. The Surrey roll of the tenth and fifteenth of 1332 makes it possible to approach the problem from still another angle.!_ The assessors who made

the valuation for the fifteenth in the rural districts proceeded in the usual manner to excuse all holdings of taxable property worth less than ten shillings. The resulting local assessment rolls would, on that account, have on them only the usual proportion, whatever it was, of the popula-

tion of the countryside. Before the county roll was made up, it was discovered that a mistake had been made in several districts: the assessors

had included among the goods of villeins of the abbots of Westminster and Chertsey the rents in kind due from these villeins to their manorial lord. The error was corrected. Unfortunately for the villeins, though fortunately for us, the assessors ignored the minimum clause in making the revision; they simply subtracted from the original charge the amount due to the erroneous inclusion of rents. In consequence of this second mistake a number of the villeins were charged less than eightpence, some of them as low as a farthing and halfpenny. The new sums were thereupon entered upon the county roll. Out of 154 villeins whose goods were reassessed, 65 were held hable for charges under eightpence. As the total number of property holders listed in the affected vills was 348, including the villeins, there had been an addition of twenty-three per

cent to the taxpaying population through the mistaken zeal of the assessors. When it is kept in mind that it is very likely that the assessors had already excused from taxation a number of people, not villeins of the abbots, as well as other villeins of the religious, who held less than ten shillings’ worth of taxable goods, the twenty-three per cent increase becomes more significant than when standing alone; it probably covered only a part of the lesser folk. These indications that a number of people did not own enough property

to appear on the tax lists are strengthened by yet another type of evidence. In the archives of the borough of Leicester are to be found records of taxes other than those upon personal property granted in parliament. 1 Surrey Record Society, xvi. A part of the roll of the tax of 1832. The groups of villeins referred to in this paragraph are found on pages 43-44, 49, 51-52, 53, 53-54, 54-55, 55, 58, 59, 60.

Side Lights on the Assessment 177 The rolls of these local taxes are especially full and enlightening. As early as 1274, when a local tallage was levied in the borough to wipe out certain debts, 361 people are named on the roll.! A local tallage roll of 1276 contains 428, one of 1280, 334 names, one of 1286, 408 names, and one of 1307, 278 names. These figures were maintained during the reign

of Edward II, for there are local tallage lists having on them 242, 348, and 461 names. When, in 1334-1335, during the reign of Edward IIT, a tallage was levied for the king’s marshal and for gifts, there were 460 names enrolled. Contrast these figures with those connected with the assessment of royal taxes. In 1307 there were 190 names on the roll of the taxation of the fifteenth, in 1327, 105 on the roll of the twentieth, and

in 1332, 73 names on the roll of the tenth.2 At the time the three lastnamed taxes were levied, each man was supposed to pay a fixed proportion of the value of his property, and the assessment and collection were under the control of royal chief taxers. In the case of the tenth of 1332, the amount raised by this process was £25. In 1336 another tenth was raised in Leicester, but the procedure in its assessment and collection was

entirely different from that of 1332.3 The government no longer demanded that each property holder pay according to the value of what he owned; it required £26 13s. 4d. from the borough, and that sum could be

raised as the borough officers saw fit. The sum was therefore apportioned by local men among all capable of paying taxes. The result was that 445 names appear on the tax roll. 73 property holders in 1332, 445

in 1336, form a contrast that may check any tendency to give undue weight to royal taxation returns in estimating the population of Leicester. Bristol, Cambridge, and Bridport, to cite no other urban communities, offer examples of similar discrepancies arising out of different classes of records. A royal tallage on movables and rents was imposed on the men of Bristol in 1312.4 On the roll of those taxed because of their movables

there are 960 names.’ The rent roll is damaged, but 171 names have been found on it by E. A. Fuller, the editor, that were not on the roll of the taxation of goods. So there were at least 1131 persons in Bristol 1 References to the local tallages noted in this paragraph are found in M. Bateson, Records of the Borough of Leicester, 1 (Cambridge, 1899-1905), 148 (1274), 150 (1276), 184 (1280), 208-212 (1286), 254-255 (1307), 272-274 (1811), 288 (1314), 310-313 (1818); 1, 22 (1834-1335).

2 Ihid., 1, 255-257 (1307); Assoc. Archit. Soc., Reports and Papers, x1x, 232-284 (1827); Lay Subsidy, 1383/2 (1832). 3 Bateson, Records of the Borough of Leicester, 11, 34-39. When the tallage for the wool subsidy was

levied in 1341, there were 508 names on the tax roll (¢hid., u, 51).

4 Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Transactions, x1x (1895), 171-278. E. A. Fuller has discussed the tallage at length in this article and has described the subsidy of 1 Edward III. 5 Ibid., 200. 6 Ibid., 221.

178 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 in 1312 taxed for some reason. In 1327 a twentieth of movables was laid upon the men of Bristol who owned personal property. The record of the property holders contains 347 names.!' As there was no clause in the instructions of 1312 relating to the exemption of holdings of property below a stated value, while in 1327 there was a minimum of ten shillings, the difference between 960 and 347 may have been partly due

to that provision. The contrast between the returns on the Cambridge rolls of the same taxes is not so great as this. There are 579 names on the

tallage roll and 276 on the roll of the twentieth.2, There are many religious houses named on the tallage roll. This complicates the situation still further, for some of these, such as the Hospital of St John the Baptist,

probably had more inmates than the usual family of a property owner. The Bridport contrast is based upon two documents of the year 1319.3 A view of arms of the tenants of the king in Bridport was held in that

year; they numbered about 180. In the same year a twelfth of personal property was laid upon the inhabitants of the town; the number of persons taxed was 67. It may be added that, when the sixth of 1322 was imposed upon Bridport, the number of persons taxed rose to about 80.4 Enough figures have been given to show that there were many people in both rural and urban districts whose names rarely if ever appeared

upon the rolls of parliamentary taxes. Rolls of local taxes and local surveys of other kinds reveal far more people than the county rolls, and, if there were enough of them, would form a much better basis for estimates of population. Even though few in number, they would have their value, if their figures bore any fairly constant relationship to those on the

county rolls. But this is not the case. What is more, even the county rolls would form a very uncertain basis of comparison, for the taxpaying population listed on them is far from stationary. F. J. Eld, editor of the Worcestershire roll of the twentieth of 1327, has computed the taxpaying population of that county in 1275 and 1327.5 For the first subsidy, when the value of the minimum amount of property to be taxed was fifteen shillings, there were 7,373 property owners listed, whereas in 1327, when the minimum was ten shillings, there were but 4,642 names on the roll. Even if the population had remained stationary, the lowering of the miminum should have caused a considerable increase 1 Ibid., 202.

2 Lay Subsidies, 242/76, 81/6. I have included the religious who are charged to the taxes. 3 Hist. MSS. Com., Sixth Report, Appendix, Part 1, 491-492. 4A. Stewart Brown, The Inhabitants of Inverpool from the 14th to the 18th Century (Liverpool, 1930),

has gathered some interesting statistics. There were 15 names on the tax roll of 1327, 19 on the roll of 1332, and 162 on a burgess roll of 1346. 5 Wore. Hist. Soc., A. D. 1895, Introd., iv.

Side Lights on the Assessment 179 in the number of contributors. Eld has also shown a falling off in the number of names listed in several boroughs, Worcester from 314 to 96, Kidderminster from 143 to 66, Evesham from 91 to 54.1 There were, however, slight increases in Droitwich and Dudley.? Similar phenomena

are encountered elsewhere. The hundred of Blackbourne had 1,393 property owners on its roll of the tax of 1283, and 803 on the roll of the twentieth of 1327.3 Even the passing of the five years between 1327 and

1332 witnessed some notable decreases. Stafford had 77 taxpayers enrolled for the twentieth of the first year and only 56 for the fifteenth of the second year; Horsham, 35 and 26; Leicester, 105 and 73; Arundel, 53 and 34.4: On the other hand, certain of the returns of property owners show an increase between the two taxes; e. g., York with 817 names enrolled in 1327 and 849 in 1332.5 Though I have noted a general tendency

towards a reduction of the taxpaying population during our period, a reduction that would seem to be largely due to an increased evasion of parliamentary taxes, there are a number of exceptions that may not be neglected. All of which makes it difficult to establish a standard property-holding and taxed population upon which any superstructure may be erected. The difficulties of any one attempting to estimate the population of a

district on the basis of the tax rolls are increased by another kind of obstacle: our ignorance of the number of people who, because of their removal from the ordinary life of the village or borough, would rarely if ever meet a tax-assessor in his official capacity. Among these folk may

be classed the dwellers within a monastic close, the inhabitants of a hospital, the servants who lived within a baronial castle, and those wanderers, the friars, the beggars along a country road, the itinerant laborers, and the others who had little or no personal property and often no permanent dwelling place.

Turn for the moment to the number of men known to have been

living in Glastonbury abbey in 1322.6 There were at that time 59 pro1 Jhid., vi.

2 Droitwich from 87 to 90, and Dudley from 41 to 43.

3E. Powell, A Suffolk Hundred in the Year 1288, xxxi; Suffolk Green Books, 1x, p. xi. The minimum amount of property to be taxed was in 1283, 6s, 8d. and in 1827 10 shillings. The decrease was, however, greater than the raising of the minimum would warrant. 4 Stafford, Wm. Salt Archaeol. Soc., vu, 214, x, 81; Horsham and Arundel, Sussex Record Society, X, 153, 134, 228, 226; Leicester, Assoc. Archit. Soc., Reports and Papers, xx, 232-234; Lay Subsidy, 133/2. Lichfield had 108 in 1327 and only 57 in 13832 (Wm. Salt Archaeol. Soc., vir, 235-236, x, 83). Many other examples could be cited. A comparison of the Sussex rolls of 1296 and 1832 in Sussex Record Society, x, gives results that are at times almost startling. 5 Lay Subsidies, 2177/3, 21'7/5.

6 The statements that follow are based upon documents found by me and published by Sir Henry Maxwell-Lyte in Somerset Record Society, Collectanea, 1 (1925), 1-34.

180 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 fessed monks, 19 corrody men, 20 lay brothers, and 60 servants, 158 persons in all, who were in receipt of either stipends or wages from Nicholas de Wedergrave, the custodian of the temporalities of the abbey. It is probable that there were others within the close who are not mentioned in the accounts of Nicholas, for one of the corrody men, John de la Fosse, is stated to have received maintenance for himself and two grooms, while another, Robert Lengynour, had a horse, and still another, Henry atte Oke, received allowances that were unusually large for one man. Glastonbury abbey lay within the hundred of Glaston-Twelve-Hides,

in the county of Somerset. When the twentieth of 1327 was levied in that district, the names of 117 men and women were placed on the tax roll.! I have found none of the names of the inhabitants of the monastic close listed on this roll of the property owners of the district. There were, therefore, at least 158 people living within the hundred who would not in ordinary circumstances be counted by anyone estimating population. There must have been a somewhat similar situation in other rural districts and towns where monasteries were situated, though the Glastonbury numbers were, of course, larger than those in other and less wealthy

establishments. R.H. Snape has recently brought together a considerable amount of information about the ratio of servants to the monks.? In 1380 the abbey of Gloucester had within it 50 monks and 200 officers and servants; in Bury St Edmund’s during Edward I’s reign “there were apparently 111 servants resident in the abbey, together with 80 monks and 11 chaplains,’? and in 1393 in the monastery at Meaux, Yorkshire,

at least 40 domestic servants for 26 monks. The other contrasting figures he gives are less extreme than these, but in every instance the number of servants is large. When reckoning the number of people to be added to the population of a locality wherein a monastery was located, it would appear to be safe to estimate at least one servant for each monk; unfortunately, we have far too little knowledge of the number of monks at any one time to proceed very far along that line.

Once we leave the monasteries it is doubly difficult to find statistics

of the number of people living within other walls. For the hospitals that housed lepers, other infirm persons, and the poor there are some 1 Somerset Record Society, 111, 204-206.

2 English Monastic Finances in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1926). See also Sacrist Rolls of Ely, edited by F. R. Chapman, 1 (Cambridge, 1907), 13-15, which shows a very considerable number of servants assisting that officer. In the obedientiary rolls of St Swithin’s, Winchester, there are numerous payments to the same class of men (G. W. Kitchen, Compotus Rolls of the Obedientiaries of St Swithin’s Priory, Winchester (London, 1892). Cf. also Snape, pp. 29-31, 64.

Snape, Monastic Finances, 14.

Side Lights on the Assessment 181 figures available. We read in Miss Clay’s The Mediaeval Hospitals of England,' of houses with provision for the accommodation of from 13 to 100 persons, with masters, chaplains, and domestic servants to attend

to the needs of the establishment.? London in the early part of the fourteenth century had about one dozen hospitals, York about eight, Bristol about seven, and other large towns in proportion to their size and wealth. There were hundreds of hospitals in England at the time, in villages as well as in towns. The presence of one or more of these houses within a district adds to the troubles of the investigator seeking to enumerate population, for in the great majority of instances it is not possible to know the number of inmates in any given year. When we turn to cathedral closes and to castles sheltering perhaps few, perhaps many people whose goods would not be taxed, there is even less opportunity of gaining satisfactory information. And what was the population of Oxford and Cambridge in the early fourteenth century, if we attempt to add to the townspeople the students of their universities? Cambridge had some 470 property owners on the roll of the tax of 1315 and 273 on that of 1327;4 the number of masters and students would assuredly greatly exceed either of these figures, whatever one may think of the probable size of the university. After many attempts to discover a method of estimating population on the basis of the rolls of the taxation of movables, I have given up the search. In my opinion, the greatest difficulty, that of determining the number of people whose taxable property was worth less than the minimum provided, is insurmountable.’ In comparison, the other difficulties are of minor importance.® It is evident, however, that the names of a very large number of the people never appeared on the rolls of a fifteenth

and tenth and that any estimates of the total population based on such rolls may be regarded as purely conjectural and probably erroneous. The preceding paragraphs have dealt with statistics of adults who were,

to a large extent, heads of families. Since they have failed to bring us nearer to our goal, it would seem to be useless to attempt to estimate 1 London, 1909. 2 Clay, Mediaeval Hospitals, 24, 26, 80, 144-146, 152-156.

3 See the tables in Clay, Mediaeval Hospitals, Appendix B. 4M. Bateson, Cambridge Gild Records (Cambridge, 1903), Appendix II, 155 ff.; Lay Subsidy, 81/6.

5 Margaret Curtis in her paper, “The London Lay Subsidy of 1332’, in Finance and Trade under Edward III, George Unwin, ed. (Manchester, 1918) 43-44, is rightly puzzled over the matter of population statistics based on the tax roll. Using the Colchester returns of 1301 as characteristic, she has advanced the theory that those omitted ‘may perhaps be reckoned as 50 per cent.’ This I consider untenable. § | have investigated such documents as manorial extents and surveys, chance lists of tenants, and the results of the inquisitions post-mortem, and have found them to be almost equally useless.

182 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 the size of the families surrounding a mediaeval peasant or townsman. The hardy person who attacks the problem of population may add this item to the other difficulties to be surmounted. The task of estimating the population of mediaeval England is very alluring, yet accurate results may not be hoped for. No competent modern historian would care to use figures given by mediaeval chroniclers or annalists, even if by chance such writers should indulge in estimates. The records of the taxes upon movables and poll-taxes, which might

appear to be adequate for the purpose, are far from being so. Local records of various kinds, while often useful for local estimates, are too few and too scattered for national statistics. The historian is, therefore, left with the alternatives of discreet silence or vague and general statements of little value.

CHAPTER VIII THE COLLECTION OF THE TAXES Af ER the goods of the property owners in the rural and urban districts had been valued by the local assessors and this valuation had been reviewed by the chief taxers, the time arrived for the collection of the tax. I propose, therefore, in this chapter to continue to follow the orderly sequence of events, describing, as far as it is possible, the gathering of the tax, and dealing with such other matters as are closely connected with that process. 1. THe MacHINERY oF COLLECTION

The commissions and instructions under the great seal given to the principal taxers and collectors of the various taxes upon movables bade them, with rare exceptions, assess and tax the goods of the people and collect and levy the fifteenth, twentieth, or other part of the value of such goods.!_ It is possible, as will be seen later, that the two or more chief taxers and collectors arranged among themselves for a division of labor, but the essential fact remains that both the assessment and the collection of taxes were normally placed in the hands of the same persons. Beyond this the commissions and instructions say nothing about the

manner in which the money was to be gathered. That matter was left to the principal collectors to decide and it may be supposed that any local arrangements they should make would be satisfactory to the exchequer. Though the sheriff of the county was told to assist them, he had no official standing in the machinery either of assessment or collection, save in the year 1297 when all such officers were named in the commissions as taxers and collectors of the ninth.’ While the general rule was that those who had charge of the supervision of the assessment should also collect the tax, there were some exceptions. The most important of these is found in the year 1334, at the close of our period, when an attempt was being made to prevent corrupt practice. At that time one of the assessors, who was usually the head of a religious house, was directed to collect the fifteenth on the basis of assessment rolls made up by him and his colleague.? But, after 1TIn the commissions of 1290 the phrase reads, ‘assidendam et taxandam . . . Jevandam et colligendam’ (Parl. Writs, 1, 24). With minor variations the same phraseology is used in later commissions. See Parl. Writs, 11, 1, 14 (1307), u, 1, 278 (1322); Rot. Parl., 1, 425 (1327). 2 Parl. Writs, 1, 63-64. 3 C.P.R. 1834-1838, 38-39. 183

184 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 all, this departure from the normal only appeared at the very end of the period we are studying, and was coupled with a method of assessment that was quite as abnormal. Earlier years yield very few examples of exceptions. In 1316, after two sets of chief taxers had been appointed to act in Lincolnshire and Rutland, two men of the former group were commanded to collect the tax.! London offers several variations from

the usual plan. After three men had been commissioned on 1 April, 1310, to assess and collect the twenty-fifth of 1309 in that city with the assistance of the two citizens, a writ of the exchequer was directed to the sheriff on 19 June telling him to collect the tax.? It was afterwards suggested to the barons that the collection could not be expeditiously made

without the assistance of the mayor and aldermen. The latter were thereupon directed by another writ of the exchequer, dated 25 June, to lend their aid to the extent of gathering the tax in the various wards. As was so often the case with mediaeval tax collectors, they were slow, were amerced at the exchequer for their tardiness, and were later pardoned the amercements. The commissions of 1313 commanded that the men appointed should assess the tax in London, but said nothing of its collection;? presumably the sheriff was to assume the latter task. On the other hand, after a group of men had been told to assess and collect the fifteenth of 1316 in the city,‘ the order was set aside and they were

directed to assess the tax and the sheriff was told to collect it.2 The orders of 1319 and 1322 were reasonably clear. In the former year, four men were appointed to assess the twelfth, and the mayor and aldermen were to collect the same with the assistance of the sheriff.° The sixth of movables of the latter year was to be assessed and collected

by the officers of the city.’ The only specific demand made of the principal collectors in their commissions, so far as the levy of the tax was concerned, was that they bring the money they had gathered to the exchequer at certain times. Once, in 1297, there was the additional demand that they accept the

money of the king by count and not by weight. The requirements 1 O.P.R. 1318-1817, 474.

2C.P.R. 1307-1818, 221; L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, mm. 69 and 92d. The whole story is told on the memoranda roll. 3 Parl. Writs, u, u, 119; Cal. Letter-Books, London, E, 24. Cf. C.P.R. 1313-1817, 49. 4 Parl. Writs, u, 11, 163. 5 C.C.R. 1318-1818, 355.

6 C.P.R. 1817-13821, 383; Cal. Letter-Books, London, E, 106, 109. But see the writ of 20 October, 1319, ordering the sheriff to collect the tax. The writ to the mayor and aldermen is dated 28 October, 1319, so would supersede that of 20 October. 7 Cal. Letter-Books, London, E, 176. 8 The latter provision reads (Parl. Writs, 1, 63); ‘E q les chiefs taxours preignent la moneye le Roy par counte saunz peiser tiele come court en le Reaume.’

The Collection of the Taxes 185 concerning the terms of payment varied during our period. With the exception of the taxes granted in 1290, 1301, and 1306, provision was made for payment on two days; on each of these, half the money was due, and on the first the rolls of the taxation were also to be handed in at the exchequer. The plan of 1290 was tried but once. According to the commissions, the collectors were to pay one quarter of the money due at the feasts of Easter and Michaelmas of the years 1291 and 1292.1 In 1301 and 1306 the commissions called for three equal payments.’ When the council selected the days for the payment into the treasury of the money gathered by the chief taxers and collectors, it rather consistently ignored the feasts which are usually thought of in connection with exchequer accounting. Michaelmas and Easter only appear in the commissions of 1290, and Hilary and Trinity are in even a worse situation. As the commissions were usually issued in the months from August to November, the payment of a half or third of the money at Michaelmas would be clearly impossible. While there was, as will be seen later, no

exactly calculated connection between the date of the letters patent issued to the chief taxers and that of the first payment, an attempt was

made in rough fashion to give the chief taxers time to complete the assessment and to gather half the tax. The interval between the day set for the handing in of the first half and that selected for the second varied

considerably. I have been unable to find any sound reason for these variations. Whatever the cause, the days chosen did not fit into the nicely worked out scheme of exchequer terms. It is possible that the council wished to avoid a congestion of accountants on the great days, and this consideration may lie behind the apparent lack of a definite plan. The government started off well after abandoning the curious plan of payment that had been adopted in 1290. In 1294, 1295, and 1296, whereas the dates on the commissions were 12 November, 4 December, and 29 November, the time of the first payment was in each case to be

about the Purification, 2 February, and that of the second about the feast of Pentecost.2 This plan was in its turn superseded. Among the days selected for the first appearance of the collectors were the morrow of St Nicholas, the morrow of Hilary, the twenty-sixth of March, the fourteenth of January, and again, towards the close of the 1 Parl. Writs, 1,24. There was a slight modification of the plan set forth in a writ of the exchequer dated 10 December, 1290, but this did not affect the payment over the long period (L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 38d.). 2 Parl. Writs, 1, 106. 178. In 1806 the commissions were dated 27 July and the days of payment were 3 February, 5 June, and 3 November, 1307. 3 Parl. Writs, 1, 27, 45, 51. Palgrave has printed a writ for the tax of 1296 which is dated 16 December. On the memoranda roll the date of the type writ and others is as given above (K.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 87). The same date is also found on L.T.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 18d.

186 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 period, the morrow of the feast of the Purification, that is 3 February.! The interval between the date of the commissions to the chief taxers and that set for first payment varied from less than one month for certain of the counties in 1301,2 to two months, and over four months in later

years. It has already been made clear in an earlier chapter that the dates on the commissions were often quite different from those on which the principal taxers received them, but it is evident that the government

had it in mind in later years to allow a greater amount of time for the assessment and collection. The new policy does not, however, seem to have helped materially in the solution of the problem of reforming the dilatory ways of the tax-gatherers. In a later section I shall discuss this matter in some detail; at the present moment it will be sufficient to point out that the chief taxers were to all appearance just as apt to come

in late when a liberal amount of time was allowed them as they were when time was short. The exchequer officers, who knew human nature, exhibited many signs of annoyance in the form of writs of distraint and the like, but usually dealt leniently with delinquents when they appeared, an action which did not help to remedy the situation. Throughout the period from 1290 to 1334 the duties of tax assessment and collection in the local districts, under the direction of the chief taxers and collectors, were assigned to the same persons. In 1297 and 1301 this was specifically stated in the form of the taxation.* It was then directed that the sub-assessors should value the goods of the people and then make up a roll embodying the results of their labors. This roll, under their seals, was to be given to the chief taxers, and a transcript, under the seals of the chief taxers, was to be retained by them for the levy of the tax.5 The other forms of the period do not mention the collection of the tax by the local assessors, but the transcript of the roll was to be retained by them, unquestionably for that purpose. The evidence of other records supports the statement that the subassessors were also the sub-collectors, if indeed it needs any support. A few examples out of many will suffice to remove any doubts about the

soundness of the generalization. In 1307 a commission of oyer and terminer was issued to Jobn de Insula and Adam de Middleton on peti1 Parl. Writs, 1, 63 (1297), 11, u, 14 (1307), 38 (1809); Rot. Parl., u, 425 (1327); K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 105 (1332). 2 Parl. Writs, 1, 106, and Vincent, U.L.S., 1, 237. It seems almost impossible that the assessment

and collection could be made in such a short time. 3 The interval in 1295 was from 4 December, 1295, to 2 February, 1296 (Parl. Writs, 1, 45). In 1827 the interval is given as from 23 September to 3 February, 1328 (C.P.R. 1327-1330, 178). 4 Parl. Writs, 1, 62, 105.

5 Parl. Writs, 1, 62, 105: ‘E cel roulle desouz lour seaux livrent as chief taxours et retiegnent le transcrit devers eaux les seaux des chief taxours pur lever les deners.’

The Collection of the Taxes 187 tion of William de Hastinge of York.! William stated in his petition that he had been chosen as one of the twelve taxers of the thirtieth of 1306 and

then went on to complain that the remainder of the twelve had made a secret assessment and collection for themselves. Another charge of corrupt practice of a later date also brings the sub-taxers into the limelight. When the local assessors of the tenth of 1332 in the soke of Winchester were charged by John de Midhurst with concealing a part of the money they had gathered, a schedule was produced in which were set down the sums which these subtaxatores were said to have kept for themselves.’ Even a local assessment roll may add its testimony. On the back of the little roll of the assessment of the tenth of 1332 in Skyren, Norfolk, it is written that Simon de Pokethorp, one of the sub-taxers, delivered it and said that the taxatores had collected 35s. 6d. Martin de Skyren, the other sub-taxer, had the acquittance for that sum. And it may be noted that the bailiffs of Cuxham and Cheddington, manors of Merton College, rather consistently described both the men to whom they gave money for expenses or as gifts to have their favor, and those to whom they paid the sums due on account of the taxes, as taxatores (1. e., assessors). The expense account of the bailiff of Cheddington for the year 1313-1314 con-

tains these items: “In expenses of the taxers of the twentieth who taxed

the goods in the manor, 6d. In a gift to the same 2s. Item paid the same tazatores in full for the taxation of the goods in the manor 24s. 4d.”4 Though the title sub-collector is occasionally found in the records,’ I have

not found an instance of a division of labor; on investigation the subcollectors were found to be the sub-assessors.°®

Though a more detailed investigation of local records may reveal exceptions that I have not found, there can be no doubt that in general the machinery that was used for the assessment of taxes was also utilized for their collection. 1C.P.R. 1801-1807, 582. When certain of the sub-taxers of the fifteenth of 1290 were charged with concealment, it was stated that they assessed and collected the tax (K.R.M.R., No. 67, m. 32). For a similar case see L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 23, where three men are called sub-taxers and subcollectors. 2K.R.M.R., No. 112, mm. 159, 160.

8 Lay Subsidy, 149/10. The entry reads: ‘Simon de Pokethorp qui fuit alter subtaxator liberavit Indenturam istam et dicit quod Taxatores levaverunt XXXV s. VI d. infrascuptos et Martinus de Skyren qui fuit subtaxator ibidem cum ipso est in partibus Norffolcie et habent acquietanciam inde.’ 4 Merton College MSS., 5544. A corresponding series of payments is found on the Cuxham roll of 1332-1333 (Merton College MSS., 5857; cf. 5545, 5546, 5564).

5 They are mentioned, for example, in the records of the charges of corruption made against those connected with the taxation and collection of the tax of 1822 (Quorndon Records, Supplement, 10; Dugdale Society, v1, 96-99; Assize Roll, No. 598, m. 1).

6 Compare Lay Subsidy, 242/64, m. 7 (Bucks, Horton), with Lay Subsidy, 242/4, m. 48 (Bucks, Horton). In the first roll it is stated that John Brown and his colleague levied the tax, in the second that Brown and another assessed the goods in Horton.

188 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 2. Tue MACHINERY IN OPERATION

Since the chief taxers and collectors received no instructions as to the

methods they should pursue in the collection of taxes, it is necessary to turn for information to documents preserved at the exchequer. There are a number of statements in these documents which make it possible to picture what happened in more than one district. In the first place, it is evident that in some counties the principal collectors did not always work together when they were gathering the tax. Unfortunately, however, the references are infrequent. In rare instances, the collectors stated to the exchequer that one had gathered more money

than the other, which would indicate a division of labor. There were, for example, two collectors of the twenty-fifth of 1309 in Cumberland.! They still owed £31 17s. 2d. when the time arrived for an audit of their

account.2. One of them, Alexander de Bastenthwayt, asserted that he had received that amount, and that his colleague, William de Molecaster,

or Mulcastre, had had nothing to do with its collection. A similar division of labor seems to have occurred in Kesteven, Lincolnshire, in 1333, though it may have been only temporary. William Michel, one of the chief taxers, reached the exchequer on 3 February and said that Brian de Hertheby, the other taxer and collector, did not come because he had remained in Kesteven to assess the vills not yet assessed.? Presumably Brian continued the assessment during the absence of his colleague and started collecting the tax as soon as he was ready, whether Michel had returned or not. When views of account, which were preliminary accountings, were held, it often happened that only one of the chief taxers appeared with money and the rolls of taxation.*’ I surmise that the collector who remained in the county, being a man of common sense, went on with the work of collection during the period of his colleague’s absence

at Westminster. Occasionally, other indications of a partial division of labor appear, as when one of the Oxfordshire collectors of the subsidy of 1301 was allowed £14 1s. 914d. for his expenses, while his two co-workers

received together a lump sum, twenty marks,’ and when it was asserted that the executors of one of the chief taxers of the tax of 1322 held the 1 Four are named in the commission dated 26 August, 1309 (C.P.R. 1307-1313, 183). Of these only William de Molecaster and Alexander de Bastenthwayt were sworn in and served (L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 16d.). 2K.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 114d. 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, m. 26. 4 The records of the views of the chief taxers of the twentieth and fifteenth of 1315 show that for

about half the counties only one man appeared (L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, mm. 243-244d.). Other years yield similar results. 5 Pipe Roll, 152 B, m. 27. See also the Norfolk entry which shows a similar division.

The Collection of the Taxes 189 rolls and memoranda of the taxation and collection, thus making it impossible to emend certain defects.! The difficulty of determining what happened in the counties is well illustrated by the results of an examination of some of the records connected with the levy of the subsidy of 1332 in the East Riding of Yorkshire.? The receipts given to the sub-collectors for money handed over by them to the chief taxers ran in the names of Anketin Salvayn and Thomas

de Boulton, the men appointed by the crown to act in that district.’ It would therefore appear, if we knew nothing more about the situation, that the chief taxers worked together. When, however, charges of concealment were brought against these officers, Anketin said that he in no way interfered with the assessment and collection of the said tenth and fifteenth, but that the said Thomas levied and accounted for the whole sum. Thomas accepted the responsibility and was tried for his offence. How many instances of the same precedure lie behind the formal records of the assessment and collection of taxes it is impossible to determine. For another phase of the activities of the chief taxers and collectors the evidence is more satisfactory than for that which has been discussed. It is possible to state with greater confidence that, after the review of the assessment had been made, the chief taxers and collectors did not return

to each of the rural villages to gather the money levied by the subcollectors. What they did was to designate a time and place for the payment of the money by their subordinates. In this connection I shall first discuss the places where the money was to be assembled, and then the days set for its payment. The local assessment rolls from time to time give information about the

assembling points. In several instances a memorandum is found on the back of these rolls in which both the place and time of payment are noted. In the case of Wenden, Essex, it is stated that half the money of the tax of 1307 was to be paid at Colchester.’ The Nasing, Essex, sub-collectors of the subsidy of 1309 were to take what they had gathered to Chelms-

ford.6 The ninth of 1297 collected in three little vills in the hundred of Strafford, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, was paid in the city of York, 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 94 (Norfolk). Cf. L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 66d. (Berks) for a somewhat different situation in connection with the death of a collector. 2'The receipts to be mentioned are in Lay Subsidy, 202/16, whereas the trial of the chief taxers is found in K.R.M.R., No. 112, mm. 143 ff. 3 C.P.R. 1880-13384, 357.

4T owe this summary to the manuscript calendar of the memoranda rolls in the Public Record Office.

5 Lay Subsidy, 242/12. The memorandum reads: ‘Examinatur et probatur apud Pelham coram G. le Gros. Et habent diem de mediatate solvenda apud Colecestriam die Sabbati proxima post festum Sancti Mathie Apostoli proximo sequens sub pena XL s.’ 6 Lay Subsidy, 242/13.

190 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 which was in the East Riding. The tax of 1313 in Stratford-on-Avon was to be taken to Coventry, and that of 1332 to Warwick.? The chief taxers, however, went to a large town such as Leicester to receive the money gathered by the local collectors.’

The receipts given to the sub-collectors by the principal taxers and collectors of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 in the East Riding of Yorkshire and brought to the exchequer at the time of the trial of the same chief taxers, often give full information about the places to which the money was taken.‘ The towns to which the local collectors journeyed to pay what they had gathered were usually prominent and conveniently

situated. In the southern part of the riding, Beverley, Howden, and Kingston-upon-Hull were utilized for the surrounding districts. To the west, the city of York was the chief center, with Pocklington of secondary

importance. In the north, New Malton and Winteringham were assembling points. It is not possible to discover all the places where the proceeds of the subsidy were assembled, for many of the receipts bear no record of the towns in which they were sealed. Those named will, however, serve as illustrations of the practice of the chief taxers. In most instances, the Yorkshire sub-collectors did not have to travel

far with their precious burden. To Beverley came, among others, the local collectors of Cottingham, Faxfleet, and Middleton. The men of North Duffield and Woodhall travelled to Pocklington. To New Malton came the sub-collectors of Leppington, Langton, and Towthorp.

The amount of money that the sub-collectors were to bring to the assembling points, was, so it would appear, determined by the chief taxers on the basis of the demands made upon them by the government. In most of the years of our period the chief taxers were directed to hand in the money due from the counties in two equal instalments; they passed

on this requirement to their subordinates. I have found no means of determining what happened when the government demanded payment in three or four instalments. While it is quite possible that special ar-

rangements were made at times, and that, owing to zeal or dilatory methods, the sub-collectors might bring in more or less than the required amount, the greater part of evidence that has been found points definitely 1 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xvi, 39, 64, 69. 2 Dugdale Society, v1, 94, 96. 3 Bateson, Records of the Borough of Leicester, 11, 16.

4 Lay Subsidy, 202/16. As an example of the most complete type of receipt I note the following: ‘Memorandum quod Nos Thomas de Boultone et Anketinus Salvayn taxatores et collectores Xme et XVme in Estrithing in comitatu Eboraci recepimus de Erghes XXIII s. III d. ob. qu? in persolutione XVme predicte de anno regni regis E iii a conquestu, VI®°. In cuius rei testimonium presenti

bille sigillum officii nostri est appensum. Datum apud Beverlacum [die] veneris proxima post festum sancti Math’ Apostoli anno regni regis Eiusdem septimo.’

The Collection of the Taxes 191 towards a demand upon the local tax-gatherers for payment in two equal parts on days set by the chief taxers.

Information concerning the payments made or to be made by the local collectors of taxes is contained in notes added to the local assessment rolls. I have also found a unique document which appears to be the account book of the collector of the tax of 1334 in Shropshire. Each of these sources will be considered in turn. A few of the local assessment rolls bear notes concerning the amount that the subcollectors were to pay on certain days and at a certain place. In every instance when such information is given, provision was made for payment in two equal parts.!. On the other hand, notes are added to other rolls, rolls having on them no memoranda of required payments, in which

it is stated that the whole of the amount due from the vill was handed over on one day.? It is impossible to state whether the latter procedure was due to a command issued by the chief taxers or to the desire of the sub-collectors to avoid two journeys to the place of payment. There are examples of every type of payment on what I have called the account book of the Shropshire collector of the tax of 1334.3 The entries on the roll take the following form: first there is set down the sum owing, then the name of the vill, and after the name one or more items indicating

receipts from the sub-collectors. They read: “xis. mid. Bylington sol.

vis. post vuis. uid. T.; xs. vid. Riston sol. vs. m1rd. post vs. mtd. T.; By xd. viq’. Salop sol. xxmli post xxxili post vili post vimli .. . . TV The letter T at the close of an account denotes that all the money due had been paid. Payments in two equal or nearly equal portions are prominent throughout the roll and may be considered as standard. In the case of Shrewsbury, however, and in several other places, many payments are recorded. In some instances the account winds up with a statement of a sum still due, while in others there is one payment covering the total indebtedness and extinguishing it. It would seem that the sub-collectors had been told to pay what was due in two instalments, but that they at times failed to do so. 1 Lay Subsidies, 242/12 (Wenden, Essex), 242/13 (Nasing, Essex), 202/16 (Merton, Fosham, and Carleton, Yorkshire); Dugdale Society, vi, 94, 96. 2 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xvi, 39, 64, 69. The form of the entry on the roll, made after the total amount had been calculated, is, ‘Solucio fiat apud Ebor: die Mercurii post festum S.

Nicholai’ (p. 64). The tax was the ninth of 1297. Some of the Yorkshire receipts of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 are attached to local assessment rolls. These at times show that all or nearly all the total amount due from the vills was handed over in one payment (Lay Subsidy, 202/16; see Erghes, Oustwyk, Pilton, etc.). At times, as in 1314-1315 in Cheddington, the bailiffs paid one half the amount due from a manor to the sub-collectors (Merton College MSS., 5545). At other times they paid the full amount. 3 Lay Subsidy, 242/32, mm. 1, 2, 3.

192 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 When the local collectors handed over the money they had gathered, they were given acquittances by the chief taxers. Though these receipts are very infrequently referred to in the records, 1t would appear that the nature of the transaction made them necessary. They took the form of formal written documents in the East Riding of Yorkshire in 1332-1333, some of which give full information as to the place and date of the receipt of the money, while others give neither place nor date... The Skyren, Norfolk, local assessment roll of the tax of 1332 notes that one of the subcollectors had an acquittance in his possession.2. When the principal collectors of the tenth and sixth of 1294 in Somerset were brought to trial for robbing the king of a part of the tax, the exchequer called for the local assessment rolls and the acquittances given to the twelve sworn assessors and collectors, in order to check up the returns made to it.? One entry in a memoranda roll opens a possibility different from the written receipts of the Yorkshire type. John Stephene appeared before the exchequer during the Michaelmas term of the year 3 Edward II to accuse Nicholas de Kirkham, one of the principal collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth of 1307 in Devon, of having levied more money in that county than he had handed in to the treasury.4 Asked how he could verify this charge, John answered that he would be able to do so by the indentures, which were the local assessment rolls, and by the bills and

tallies given by Nicholas to the sub-taxers and collectors. This is the only reference I have found to the use of tallies as receipts in connection with the transactions between the chief and sub-collectors, but it is quite

possible that John was correct. On the other hand, it may be that, because John knew how generally tallies were used as receipts, he pre-

supposed their employment by the chief taxers of the twentieth and fifteenth. A few documents give some information as to what was done with the

money gathered by the chief taxers until they were ready to take it to the exchequer. Occasionally orders were issued by the exchequer to heads of religious houses to provide a safe place where such money could be deposited until it was needed. Such was the writ issued on 16 November, 1291, to the abbot of St Mary’s, York, commanding him to provide 1 Lay Subsidies, 202/16, 202/19. A transcript of the fuller form is found above, p. 190 n. 4. The shorter form reads: ‘Memorandum quod Nos Thomas de Boultone et Anketinus Salvayn taxatores et collectores Xme et XVme in Estrithing in comitatu Eboraci recepimus de Mertone Fosham et Carletone XXVIIs. VIId. ob. in persolutionem XVme predicte de anno regni regis E. ili a conquestu VI°. In cuius rei testimonium presenti bille sigillum officii nostri est appensum.’ (Taken from 202/16). 2 Lay Subsidy, 149/10.

3L.T.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 38d. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 18.

The Collection of the Taxes 193 a place in his house for the safe keeping of the fifteenth collected within the county.!. At the request of the chief taxers and collectors in Suffolk of the tenth of 1294, a similar writ was sent to the prior and convent of St Edmund’s.?. The prior and convent of Norwich were on 16 February, 1323, directed to provide a safe place within the close of the priory in

which the collectors of the tenth and sixth could place the money as they gathered it.® In contrast with these provisions made for the safe keeping of the cash collected in one county, were those made on a wide scale in times of real

or expected danger or of especial need. By writs dated 22 May, 1315, the taxers and collectors in Yorkshire, Nottingham, Derby, and Lancaster were ordered to take all the money collected by them to St Mary’s church, York, to be kept on deposit there.* On the same day the Lincolnshire collectors were directed to take their money to the priory of St. Katherine’s without Lincoln. This order does not seem to have been enforced, perhaps because the threatened danger from the Scots passed. In June, 1323, when no danger threatened, for peace had been concluded with the Scots, preparations were being made to remove the exchequer from York to Westminster.’ On this account, all the chief taxers were told to place the proceeds of the tax in some safe place until they received further orders.°®

The references to the placing of the money gathered by the chief taxers

in safe custody raises another question: whether it was not customary for them to assemble it in one place which was considered safe before taking it to Westminster. There is a very enlightening series of entries relating to the expenses of the chief taxers and collectors of the tax of 1297, which, though unique of its kind, may indicate a frequent practice. In the enrolment of the final accounting of the chief taxers of Cambridgeshire it is stated that they were allowed £6 13s. 4d. for their expenses in

the assessment and collection of the ninth, and for the carriage of the money from Cambridge to Westminster.’ In other counties, important towns are mentioned from which the ninth was transported to the same place. The places of departure were in Berks, Reading; in Bucks, Newport Pagnell and Aylesbury; in Essex, Chelmsford; in Gloucestershire, Gloucester; in Hertfordshire, Hertford; in Oxfordshire, Oxford; in Stafford 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, m. 37d. 2K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 74d. The writ is dated 13 January, 1295. 3 L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 66. 4C.C.R. 1318-1318, 180. 5 See the article (with references) by Dorothy M. Broome entitled ‘Exchequer Migrations to York,’ in Essays in Mediaeval History Presented to Thomas Frederick Tout, 292.

6 K.R.M.R., No. 96, m. 157. The writs are dated 2 June. 7 Pipe Roll, No. 143, m. 32.

194 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 shire, Stafford; in Suffolk, St Edmund’s; and in Wiltshire, Salisbury.!

It will be noticed that in most of these counties the county town is named as the place from which the money was taken. It is not very hazardous to conjecture that there were storage rooms for money in those towns in 1297, and that, in other years, the chief taxers and collectors often assembled the money as they gathered it within the precincts of an abbey, a priory, or other secure place in the same or different towns, until they were ready to go to Westminster. It is recorded that the chief taxers of the tenth and sixth of 1322 in the part of Lincolnshire called Lindsey reported to the exchequer through their attorneys that they had £600 of the tax stored in the city of Lincoln, but that they were

unable to send it in because of the dangers of the road.? The city of Lincoln was the chief town of Lindsey and the county town of Lincolnshire.

Receivers of taxes of the type so frequently appointed before 1290 are not found during our period.’ The nearest approach to the older plan was

that used in the year 1333, when the abbot of St Mary’s, York, was named on 27 January as receiver of the fifteenth and tenth gathered in the counties of Lincoln, York, Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmor-

land, Lancaster, Nottingham, and Derby, and in the city of York.‘ On the same day letters patent were directed to the chief taxers and collectors in those counties and in the city of York, commanding them to turn over what they collected to the abbot and not to the exchequer.® The arrangement was a war measure, for the king was preparing for an

expedition against the Scots. Soon after the abbot was appointed as receiver of taxes, there came orders for the assembling of troops and for the gathering of provisions for the army that was to proceed into Scot-

land. Because of the need of ready cash in the north, the abbot had been made the head of what was virtually a sub-treasury at York. In 1 Tbid., mm. 32-33. The remaining counties give the following results: Bedford, Bedford; Cornwall,

Bodmin; Cumberland, Appleby; Derby, Derby; Devon, Exeter; Dorset, Sherborne; Hampshire, Southampton; Hereford, Hereford; Huntingdon, Huntingdon; Kent, Canterbury; Leicester, Leicester; Lincoln, Lincoln; Middlesex, Stanwell; Norfolk, Norwich; Northampton, Northampton; Nottingham, Nottingham; Rutland, Oakham; Shropshire, Shrewsbury; Surrey, Guildford; Somerset, Taunton and Somerton; Sussex, Chichester; Warwick, Warwick and Coventry; Worcester, Worcester. The money gathered in Lancashire was taken to Carlisle and not to Westminster. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 94, m. 167d. 3 For the plans used during the reigns of Henry III and the early years of Edward I, see my paper ‘An Exchequer Reform Under Edward I,’ in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro, especially pp. 231, 233. 40.P.R. 1330-1334, 395. I have discussed the situation in 1333-1334 in an article entitled “The Crown and its Creditors, 1327-1333,’ in E.H.R. xii (1927), 12-19. 5 C.P.R. 13830-1334, 395.

6 C.C.R. 1333-1337, 82, 99, 107; C.P.R. 1330-1334, 400-401, 412, 415, 416.

The Collection of the Taxes 195 February and the following months drafts in favor of various individuals were issued upon the money that he was supposed to have in hand.! The plan of using the abbot of St Mary’s as the head of a sub-treasury in the north was merely a temporary expedient, for within a few weeks directions were issued for the transfer of the exchequer to York. Orders

dated 20 February, 1333, were sent to the treasurer and barons and to the chamberlains to cause the transfer to be made, so that the exchequer could open for business on the morrow of Trinity, 31 May.? The rolls and other necessary documents started on their way from Westminster in carts on 19 May, were carried on the Great North Road towards York,

and arrived there 28 May.’ After the exchequer reopened in York, the receivership was no longer necessary and was brought to aclose. In

August the abbot was granted the small amount of ten marks for his expenses and in May of the following year the treasurer and barons were told to account with him for the sums he had received.‘ In all, the abbot had received £2,800 of the fifteenth and tenth, and £6,028 6s. 8d. from the aid for the marriage of the king’s sister and other sources.® 3. DIFFICULTIES OF THE COLLECTORS

Since the chief taxers had sufficient authority to deal with the minor obstructions of their work, there is no reason why anyone should expect more than occasional reference to their difficulties. As a matter of fact, a survey of the more obvious sources of information yields little evidence

of serious opposition to the collection or of other troubles. All kinds of petty annoyances and even more serious matters may be concealed in the background, yet there is no known method of discovering them. The

types of difficulties about to be described must, therefore, be taken merely as illustrations of what may have happened and not as in any way comprehensive. The few references to overt opposition to the levy of a tax may be dismissed quickly. Baiuliffs of liberties, as already noted elsewhere, at times 1 C.C.R. 1883-1837, 20, 21, 24, 37, 38, 44, 44-45, 47, etc. 2 Ibid., 18-19.

8’ Exchequer Accounts (K.R.), Bundle 333, No. 9. For this and other exchequer sessions in York see Dorothy M. Broome, ‘Exchequer Migrations to York in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries,’ in Essays in Mediaeval History Presented to Thomas Frederick Tout, 291-300.

4C.C.R. 18338-1887, 72, 224. When the taxers and collectors in the northern counties of the fifteenth and tenth came before the exchequer to account, they reported large sums handed over to the

abbot, and presented receipts from him (L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 16-17). Cf. E.H.R., xu (1927), ‘The Crown and its Creditors, 1327-1333,’ 15, 17, 18. The chief taxers in Lancashire had handed over £100, those in Nottingham, £300, those in the East Riding of Yorkshire, £600. 5 Pipe Roll, No. 177, m. 52. This is the enrolment of the account of the abbot.

196 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 resisted the assessment and collection of a tax.1 There would always be

small and great men who refused to pay taxes on time.? The chief taxers could distrain the goods of such men, or could call upon the sheriff for assistance.? During the years 1315 and 1316 there was widespread resistance to the levy of taxes in the counties of Stafford and York, and the central government stepped in to assist the local authorities.‘ A similar state of affairs on a larger scale in 1317 also called for the intervention of the central government.®

Instances of assault upon the taxers and collectors or of similar unlawful acts are rare. In 1309, the bishop of Worcester, who was master of the hospital of St Leonard, York, complained that the late mayor of York and others had attacked the men sent by him into the liberty of the hospital to collect the king’s fifteenth. This was evidently not an attack upon the collectors as such, but upon the agents of a person claiming a liberty within the city. John de Ormesby, a chief taxer of the twentieth of 1327, was set upon when he went to Great Yarmouth to select sub-

assessors and sub-collectors.? William le Carter, sub-collector of the tenth of 1332, distrained the goods of Robert Heved for the tax. Robert rescued his goods and was in prison at the time the writ containing this information was issued. So far as the records having to do with the taxes are concerned, the dangers of the road were hardly so great as they have been imagined by some modern writers. In spite of the care which would naturally be taken when coin was transported to Westminster, the opportunities for bands of bold highwaymen, if such existed, would have been numerous. Yet, though hundreds of memoranda of the accounting of the collectors have been examined, not one mention of highway robbery has been found

in them. The allegation in a royal letter of 1302 that certain persons robbed and killed a sub-collector in Hampshire forms a sharp contrast to 1 Chapter I, Section 4. In Yorkshire in 1315-1316 royal] bailiffs joined the bailiffs of liberties in resisting the levy of a tax (C.P.R. 1813-1817, 424; C.C.R. 1313-1318, 363). There is a case of impeding the taxers and collectors that may or may not have been connected with the bailiff in L.T.R. M.R., No. 77, m. 38 (hundred of Crondal, Hampshire). 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 94. 3 C.P.R. 13813-1317, 424; C.C.R. 1833-1337, 108; Cal. Letter-Books, London, D, 217-218; L.T.R M.R., No. 80, m. 62d. (writ relating to Henry de Cherringg); L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, m. 147d. One of the collectors of the tax of 1322 in Lancashire complained that William de Bradeshagh and a multitude of armed men followed him from vill to vill so that he was unable to levy the tax (L.T.R. M.R., No. 93, m. 24). 4C.P.R. 1813-1317, 324-235, 424; C.C.R. 1313-1318, 363, 365. 5 C.C.R. 1313-1318, 453. 6 C.P.R. 1307-1813, 129-130. 7 C.P.R. 1327-1330, 286. 8 C.C.R. 1333-1337, 108.

The Collection of the Taxes 197 this widespread silence.! Fear of robbers, however, caused the Lincolnshire collectors of 1322 to delay the sending of £600 to the treasury in the south.?

The impression produced by the investigation of chancery writs and exchequer records is that there was little serious opposition to the collection of taxes save in a few troubled years and that the other difficulties of the collectors rarely reached serious proportions. ‘This impression is probably correct, though it might have to be somewhat modified if we had more information about abusive peasants or recalcitrant townsmen. 4. ALLOWANCE TO THE CHIEF T'AXERS FOR EXPENSES

When the chief taxers and collectors had completed or nearly com pleted their labors — to be exact, at the time of the audit of their account at the exchequer — they were granted a sum of money by the excheque to cover such expenses as they might have incurred. Neither at this no

at any other time was there any intimation of the payment of salaries. It is evident that the men would have been put to considerable expense before they reached Westminster. They would have to provide food,

drink, and lodgings for themselves and their attendants while they travelled from town to town in the country. There would be several trips to Westminster. The wages and expenses of the clerk and others who assisted them may have amounted to a fair sum. Taking all these items into account, the exchequer allowances for expenses were, it would seem, none too large. In fact, they run so low in many counties that we

are thrown back upon the conjecture that the exchequer expected the chief taxers to receive some sort of additional recompense from the people of the county. The possibility of these local fees will be discussed in the next section of this chapter.

Statements of the sums of money allowed the principal taxers and collectors by the exchequer are usually found in the records of their final accounting. ‘The enrolment of this stage of their accounting was made

on what are known as the enrolled accounts. At times the less formal memoranda of the same accounting found in the memoranda rolls give the same information. The wording of the entries on the rolls varies. The usual phrase was:

‘Et eisdem pro misis et expensis suis. This simple statement of the reason for the allowance is often expanded to read somewhat as follows: 1 C.P.R. 1301-1307, 84. 2.L.T.R.M.R., No. 94, m. 167d. 3 For examples in print see Surrey Record Society, Xvi, p. L; Vincent, L.L.S., 1,187. See also L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 8, mm. 1, 1d. (N.R. York, Derby, Essex, etc.), m. 2 (Kent, Sussex, etc.),. The latter refer to the taxes of 1827 and 13832.

198 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 ‘Et eisdem pro misis et expensis quas fecerunt circa taxacionem et col-

lectionem predictarum x1° et vu’.”! Infrequently, save during the reign of Edward I, were there descriptions in more specific terms of the activities of the chief taxers and collectors that caused the expenditure of money. The record of the allowance made the collectors of the fifteenth of 1290 in Lancashire reads: “Et eisdem taxatoribus et collectoribus pro expensis quas fecerunt circa taxacionem et collectionem quintedecime predicte et pro carlagio denariorum elusdem de Com. predicte usque

London.’? In 1297, as has been noticed in the preceding section, the place from which the money was brought to Westminster was usually stated in the entry on the enrolled account.? At times the number of journeys made to Westminster or elsewhere is noted, as in the following Lancashire entry in connection with the ninth of 1297: “Et eisdem Johanni et Hugoni pro misis et expensis quas fecerunt circa collectionem predicte

None et denariis inde provenientibus cariandis usque Karliolum per duas vices.”4

In all the rolls and memoranda examined I have found but one order to the chief taxers and collectors to certify the details of their expendi-

tures to the treasurer and barons. The Somerset chief taxers of the fifteenth of 1290 were told to do so and were later allowed £20.5 This

certification may have been a part of the procedure at other times, though the resulting allowances seem to show, as in the case of Somerset,

that the attitude of the exchequer towards exact estimates was rather perfunctory. Allowances for expenses in favor of the two or more chief taxers were

normally made in the form of a lump sum substracted from the total amount that was due from them at the exchequer. The record of the final accounting as placed on the enrolled accounts noted first the sum of money that the taxers and collectors owed, this sum being that set forth on the county rolls handed in on a previous appearance at Westminster. Then the amounts that had been paid into the treasury were 1K. g., Pipe Roll, No. 151, m. 35d. (1295, Surrey); Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 238 (1297, co. Lancaster); Surrey Record Society, xvut, p. xlix (1382, Surrey). 2 Vincent, D.L.S., 1, 179, 180; see also 196-197. 3 See above, pp. 198-194. 4 Vincent, L.L.S., 1, 216. The entry as to the expenses of the collectors of 1295 in the same county

ends ‘et denar cariand’ usque Lond’ et Scociam per vices’; (ibid., 190). The ending ‘per plures vices’ appears in the Devonshire audit of the fifteenth of 1290 (Pipe Roll, No. 140, m. 24). For the same ending see Surrey Record Society, xvu, p. xlviii. Another form, ‘per diversis vices,’ is found in the record of the audit of Wilts, of the tax of 1294: (Pipe Roll, No. 151, m. 40). The Cornish collectors of 1815 made ‘frequent’ journeys to London (L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 7). 6 K.R.M.R., No. 66, m. 62d. A somewhat similar case is that of the Devonshire collectors of 1290 m. 63). 6 Beellent examples of the forms of these records may be found in Vincent, L.L.S., in the sections devoted to the several taxes, and in Surrey Record Society, xvuu, pp. xlvii-li.

The Collection of the Taxes 199 recorded. After this, allowances of various sorts were noted, among them a sum for the expenses of assessment and collection. The record of the accounting closed with the statement that the chief taxers were quit,

or that they owed a small sum, the so-called remainder of account. If the amount allowed for expenses had for any reason to be divided, the task of estimating individual shares was usually left to the collectors. The instances of a division at the exchequer are rare, yet they do occur. In connection with the tax of 1301, one of the Oxfordshire collectors was granted more than either of his two colleagues, one of the Norfolk collectors was allowed much less than either of the two others, and all three Sussex collectors were specifically allowed the same sum.! While the great majority of the collectors appear to have been reimbursed for their expenses at the time of the winding up of their accounts and out of the cash they had gathered, there are a few cases of a curiously different sort. Collectors were at times allowed the remainders of account,

that is, the sums they still owed in order to balance their accounts.’ These remainders frequently represented amounts as yet uncollected from the owners of taxable property. Though collectable in most instances, a part might be difficult to levy. There was, however, nothing theoretically unjust in the proceeding for the collectors were responsible

for the whole sum due from their county. In the cases noted, they had to face the possibility of losing altogether a part of the money they had spent on food and drink. Those thus treated may have complained if they knew anything about another procedure, by which the exchequer at times turned over the task of gathering difficult debts to the sheriff.’

The amount of the allowances granted by the exchequer for the expenses of the assessment and collection usually varied, as might be expected, with the size of the counties and with their distance from Westminster. Gloucestershire was a larger county than Surrey, much farther from Westminster, and its inhabitants consistently paid more to the taxes upon movable goods.‘ The sums allowed to the collectors in 1 Pipe Roll, No. 152 B, mm. 27, 27d. One of the Oxfordshire collectors received £14 2114d.; the others jointly 20 marks; one of the Norfolk collectors received £10, the others jointly £60; each of the Sussex collectors received £10. 21. g., Pipe Roll, No. 151, m. 41 (co. Gloucester), when the collectors of 1294 were allowed £27 8s. 914d. and then discharged. The collectors of the same subsidy in Wiltshire were allowed £15 4s. 1)4d. and discharged (Pipe Roll, No. 151, m. 40). See also Pipe Roll, No. 151, m. 32 (co. Nottingham, 1296); Pipe Roll, No. 152 B, m. 82d. (co. Cambridge, 1306). 3 Miss Mabel Mills furnished me with the reference to Exchequer, L.T.R. Miscellaneous Rolls, 7/8, which is a record of debts to be collected by the sheriff of Essex and Herts and his answers. On this are a number of debts owed by clerics and laymen for earlier taxes. The documents come from 18 Edward II. Cf. C.C.R. 1813-1318, 6. 4 Jor the total amounts due from the counties see my tables in E.H.R., xxvurr (1913), 517-521; XXIx (1914), 317-321; xxx (1915), 69-74.

200 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 Gloucestershire were, as a natural result, normally larger than those granted to those in Surrey. For one tax, however — that of 1296 — the Surrey collectors received a larger allowance than that granted to the

collectors in the more distant and greater county, and in 1309 the amounts were equal.! It is possible that the Surrey collectors were subjected to extraordinary expense in gathering the taxes of those years.

While the statement made about the relation of the allowances for expenses to size and distance is true in a general way, there are a number of phenomena that cast doubt upon the accuracy of the exchequer in estimating the sums due to the collectors. Other considerations than those of actual expense evidently entered in. In the first place may be noted the tendency towards stereotyping in

round numbers the allowances granted during the reign of Edward II. The chief taxers for Wiltshire from 1306 to 1322 — that 1s, for the final

tax of the reign of Edward I and for each of the taxes of the reign of Edward II — were granted £20 for their expenses.” Surely a wet autumn

and winter, or difficulties of other kinds, would cause fluctuations in expense accounts not consistent with such a method of reckoning. For the tax of 1327 the Wiltshire allowance was £11 and for that of 1332 £16.

The counties of Oxford, Surrey, and Northampton illustrate similarly, though not so perfectly, the same tendency. They make it evident that no attempt was being made to calculate expenses exactly. The Lancashire allowances are of a similar kind. The chief taxers selected for that county were granted £10 in connection with the taxes of 1294, 1309, 1313, and 1322, and £5 in connection with the taxes of 1295, 1296, 1297, 1307,

and 1327. In both 1290 and 1306 they were allowed 20 marks, and in 1332, 10 marks. In the second place, additional labor laid upon the taxers and collectors

or difficulties encountered by them in the performance of their duties did not always materially affect the amount of the allowances. The Gloucestershire chief taxers appointed in 1315 reported at their view of account that the sub-taxers were disobedient and that they had been unable, because of that fact, to complete the assessment.’ While there is the chance that the excuse was rhetorical, the exchequer took it seriously enough to direct them to cause the bodies of the rebels to be attached; yet the sum granted for expenses, £20, was lower than that for the tax of 1313, £22.4. The men commissioned to assess and collect the 1See Pipe Roll, No. 151, mm. 32 ff., for 1296, at which time the allowance of the collectors of Gloucestershire was £10 and that of the Surrey collectors, £13 6s. 8d. Both received £13 6s. 8d. in 1309 (L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 3, 4). 2 For the statements made in this paragraph see the table on p. 205. 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 244. 4 See the table on p. 205.

The Collection of the Taxes 201 tax of 1322 in Norfolk were told by the exchequer, at their view of account, to return to the county and to correct the assessment made, especially in the greater vills, cities, boroughs, and market towns.! More difficulties later ensued. Nevertheless, the men were granted £30, the same amount that had been allowed the taxers and collectors of 1319.? One more example will suffice. The taxers and collectors of the subsidy of 1306 in the county of Hertford were, lke those of Norfolk, sent back to the county to revise with care the rolls of the assessment.’ Despite the extra labor imposed upon them, they were granted but £10 for expenses, this being below the amounts allowed for the taxes of 1307 and 1309 and the same as the allowance for the taxes of 1313, 1319, and 1322.4

In the third place, though the size of a county and its distance from Westminster appreciably affected most of the allowances granted, there are examples of variations that are not easily explained. Somerset is

more than twice as large as the county of Worcester. It also had at least double the number of taxpayers on its county roll. There is, however, no great difference in the distances of the two counties from Westminster. On the basis of greater size and population, there ought to have been a marked contrast between the allowances granted to the two sets of taxers and collectors. That was what happened. The sums allowed the collectors in Somerset and Worcestershire were in the ratio of four to one in connection with the taxes of 1309 and 1313, and less than two to one in

connection with the tax of 1307.5 On the other hand, the Oxfordshire taxers and collectors of about half of the taxes that have been studied in detail received larger allowances for expenses than those serving in Gloucestershire, a very much larger county and one farther away from the treasury at Westminster.®

Finally, there were the variations due to changes in policy at the exchequer. At times the officers of that department apparently attempted to work out the allowances with at least some regard to expense. At other times liberality, parsimony, or simple adherence to precedent

seems to have ruled. As the exchequer has left no record of why the 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 94. 2 The expenses of gathering the tax of 1822 are noted in L.T.R.M.R., No. 94, m. 182, and those of 1319 in L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 11d. 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 35d. 4L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 1, 8, 5d., 11d., 18d. The allowance in 1807 and 1809 was 20 marks. 6 For the allowances of 1309 and 1313 see L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. $d., 4, 5d., 6.

40 marks were allowed to the Somerset collectors in both cases and 10 marks to the collectors in Worcestershire. In 1307 the Somerset allowance was £20 and the Worcestershire 20 marks (L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 1). 6 See the table on p. 205.

202 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 sums were raised or lowered throughout the country, its policy has to be

inferred from the returns. The exchequer evidently worked with some care in estimating the amounts due to the several collectors of the taxes from 1290 to 1296 for

their expenses. The allowances varied from year to year, they were usually not in round numbers, and they did not rise and fall in unison throughout England.! In 1297 there was an abrupt change. The exchequer seems to have resolved upon a policy of strict economy; the sums granted the collectors were scaled down on every hand.? In each county of the group including Berks, Bucks, Essex, Herts, Lancaster, Oxford, and Stafford, the amount allowed for expenses was £5, and in Cambridge,

Suffolk, and Wilts it was 10 marks. The amount set aside for the expenses of the collectors in the large and distant county of Gloucester was only £4 2s. 644d.3 In most instances the allowances were much smaller than they had been in previous years or than they were to be in years to come. A change as sudden as that of 1297, but in the opposite direction, 1s found when the allowances for the expenses of the collectors of the fif-

teenth of 1301 are examined. ‘The chief taxers and collectors of that year were chosen by the people of the county. In most counties three men, instead of the two of earlier taxes, were finally commissioned to serve. As the exchequer was at York many of the collectors would have to make longer journeys than their predecessors in order to deliver into

the treasury the money they gathered. The addition of the extra collector and the occasional longer trips will not, however, account for the

very great increase in the amount of the allowances in a number of counties.» That granted to the Berkshire collectors jumped from £5 in 1297 to £30 in 1301, that to the Oxfordshire collectors from £5 to £27 8s. 514d., and that to the Lancashire collectors, in a county much nearer York than Westminster, from £5 to £11 5s. 334d.° The amounts set aside for the expenses of the collectors of the thirtieth and twentieth of 1306 were not so large as those for the tax of 1301 and yet not as small as those for the tax of 1297.7 The reduction from the 1 Pipe Roll, No. 140, mm. 24, 25 (1290); Pipe Roll, No. 151, mm. 40-41 (1294), 35-86 (1295), 32-34 1296).

2 Pine Roll, No. 148, mm. 82, 33. 3 The Gloucestershire collectors were simply allowed the amount they still owed at the close of their accounting. 4C.P.R. 1292-1301, 611-613. ’ Pipe Roll, No. 152 B, mm. 27, 28. See also the duplicate record in Pipe Roll, No. 152 A, formerly called Foreign Accounts, No. 2. § The returns for Lancashire are in print (Vincent, L.D.S., 1, 215-216, 238-239). 7 Pipe Roll, No. 152 B, mm. 32, 33.

The Collection of the Taxes 203 heights of 1301 was probably due to the fact that the exchequer had returned to Westminster and that the number of collectors chosen to serve in most counties had been reduced to the usual number, two.! Though the allowances were moderate throughout the reign of Edward II, there was a tendency to stereotype them in round numbers.? This has been noted in an earlier paragraph. The allowances granted the principal taxers and collectors of the three taxes of the reign of Edward III that fall within our period may be dismissed quickly. In a number of counties there was a marked falling off in the amounts set aside for expenses in connection with the twentieth of 1327, as compared with those for the tax of 1322.3 The general level rose again in connection with the fifteenths and tenths of 1332 and 1334.4 The sum total of all the allowances set aside by the exchequer for the expenses of the groups of the taxers and collectors of any one subsidy was never large in comparison with the amount charged against the taxers and

collectors in the county rolls. In order to illustrate this statement, rough estimates have been made of the expenses and of the total of the tax-charges for five taxes, those of 1307, 1309, 1327, 1332, and 1334.5 There is a considerable difference between the sum total of the allowances set aside for the collection of the twentieth and fifteenth of 1307 and that

of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332. In the first year, excluding Westmorland and London, for which no expenses are mentioned, the allowance

amounted to about £620. The total of the tax-charges, excluding the districts named, was about £36,400. The amount allowed for expenses was, therefore, about one and seven-tenths per cent of the sum due the crown from the people of the country. The fifteenth and tenth of 1332 was not levied in Northumberland and no statement of expenses is found for the county of Somerset or the city of London. For the remaining counties, the allowances amounted to £406 Is. and the tax-charges

to about £32,228. The amount set aside for expenses therefore came to about one and two-tenths per cent of the sum due the crown. Curiously enough, the percentage of the expense of collecting each of the taxes under which one rate was imposed upon both the rural and urban districts was a little higher than that already estimated for the other

taxes of the same period. For the twenty-fifth of 1309, London and 1 C.P.R. 1301-1307, 456-457.

2 The several taxes of the reign of Edward II are found in L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 1-15. 3L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 8, m. 1. 4 [bid., mm. 2, 3. 5 For the allowances see L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 1-2 (1307), 3-4 (1809); L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 8, m. 1 (1327), 2-8 (1332), 4 ff. (1834). The tax totals are printed in my articles in E.H.R., xx1x (1914), 319-321; xxx (1915), 72-73.

204 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834

Yorkshire omitted, the allowances totalled about £580 and the taxcharges about £29,130. Thus, two per cent roughly represents the amount set aside in the allowances, while in 1307 the percentage had been about one and seven-tenths. The people of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmorland were not subjected to the twentieth of 1327, and the expenses of the collectors in Leicestershire and London are not mentioned in the enrolled account. With this part of England

excluded, the allowances totalled £336 7s. 634d. and the tax about £24,668, the percentage being, therefore, about one and three-tenths. The expenses of the assessment and collection of the fifteenth and tenth

of 1334 were divided between the royal clerks, who had assisted in the assessment alone, and the heads of religious houses, who had taken part in the assessment and had been in full charge of the collection of the tax.!

The former were allowed about £285. There is no record of the allowances for the religious who served in Berkshire, Dorset, Hampshire, Holland (Lincolnshire), Middlesex, and Norfolk. The remaining collectors were allowed £203 5s. 1d. for their expenses. If we allow the moderate amount of £50 for the expenses of the six groups, the total

amount set aside for expenses would be about £538. As the total amount charged against the collectors was £37,429 18s. 14d., the expenses amounted to a little over one and four-tenths per cent.

Though the above estimates are only approximate, because of the omission of various counties, they give an idea of the direct cost to the government of the assessment and collection of a tax. On the basis of the estimates the cost was quite low. But this cost did not cover all administrative expenses; there were also those small sums, soon to be described, that were paid by the men of the vills and towns to the asses-

sors of taxes, high and low. These, while individually insignificant, would in the aggregate be of considerable importance. As, however, they were never reported to the exchequer or indeed to any officer of the

crown, their total must remain unknown. It is the existence of these presents and fees in the background that makes it impossible to compare the results of our inquiry with the cost of assessing and collecting taxes

in the twentieth century. In addition, the general administrative expenses, as will be seen, can hardly be calculated. 1 Only the expenses of the collectors are noted in the enrolled accounts of the tax. For the expenses of the departmental and other clerks who assisted them in the assessment see Issue Rolls, Nos. 279, 282, 285.

The Collection of the Taxes 205 TABLE OF SOME ALLOWANCES FOR EXPENSES!

Year| Berkshire CloucesterLancashire | Oxfordshire Surrey Wiltshire solr

£. s. d. 1£. s. d. lf. s. di. f£. s. di. f£. s. d. {£. s. d. 1290 110. 0. O |13. 6. 8 |13. 6.8 5. 19. 6 8. 0. O |15. 0. 90 1294 18.14. 714127. 3. 914]10. 0.0 no data |21. 19. 1134 |15. 4. 1114 1295 |15. 6. 634 no data 5. 0.0 |12. 14.3 |18. 6. 8 |16. 18. O 129610. 9.10 |10. 0. 0 | 5. 0.0 12. 0.0 |13. 6. 8 11.11. 93%

1297| 5. 0. 0 4. 2 64%|5. 0.0 5. 0.0 5. 0. 0 6.13. 4 1301 130. 0. O |20. 0. O fll. 5. 334 127. 8. 544/19. 15. 8 |30. 0. 0 1306 |15. O. O [25.15.1144 |18. 6.8 }10. 0.0 {13. 6. 8 |20. 0. 0

1307 |10. 0. 0 (25. 10.11%] 5. 0.0 |20. 0.0 |13. 6. 8 |20. 0. 0 1309 }15. 0. O 418. 6. 8 |10. 0.0 (|20. 0.0 |13. 6. 8 |20. 0. 90 1313 }20. 0. O |@2. 0. O 310. 0.0 j20. 0.0 310. 0. O 420. 0. O 1315 }22. 0. O {20. 0. O no data (22. 0.0 |10. 0. O |20. 0. O 1316 |30. 0. O |25. 0. O 7.13.4 |23. 6.8 |13. 0. O |25. 0. O 1319 |24. 0. O |13. 6. 8 incomplete |10. 0.0 {10. 0. O (|20. 0. 0 1322 |20. 0. O 16.13. 4 j10. 0.0 (|20. 0.0 {10. 0. O {20. 0. 90 1327 |10. 0. O |10. 0. 90 5. 0.0 {12. 0.0 6.138. 4 |12. 0. 0

1332 }12. 0. O |16. 0. 0 6.13.4 13. 6.8 8. 0. O |16. 0. O

1334 | incomplete 127. 13.10 |11.13.4 |21. 6.8 |10. 0. 0 incomplete 5. ADDITIONAL REMUNERATION AND CorRuUPT PRACTICE

As has been stated in a preceding section, no provision was made in

either the commissions or the forms of taxation for the payment of salaries to the chief taxers and collectors and their subordinates. One form only, that of 1306,2 mentions the granting of allowances for expenses; but, as has been shown, such grants were regularly made by the exchequer. Since the sums allowed were never large enough to cover both personal expenses and a reasonable salary, the impression produced by them is not one of satisfaction with the returns. Anyone acquainted with mediaeval practice will feel this dissatisfaction and will know that most mediaeval officers expected to be paid for their labors beyond the

allowance for actual personal expenditures. An investigation of other sources of information speedily shows that this point of view is correct and that the collectors of taxes, like many another class of officers, had sources of remuneration that were not down in the books of the mediaeval

exchequer. Some were customary and respectable, some lay in a shadowy borderland, and others clearly belonged to the category of extortion and concealment, frowned upon by taxpayers and exchequer alike. It is with these various means of filling the pockets of the taxers and collectors that this section will deal. 1 J insert on this page the table referred to in earlier notes. It is intended to illustrate the several statements made in the text. Where there are no figures given, I have either found no expenses noted or have not been able to discover a complete record. 2 Parl. Writs, 1, 179.

206 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 One kind of remuneration that is not mentioned in the commissions or forms was customary and recognized by the government as legitimate. When the chief taxers and their clerks took an oath not to accept anything for this or that service, one exception was made — they might receive food and drink.1 Presumably the sub-assessors and collectors could demand the same. When, therefore, references are found in local

records to the payment of the expenses of taxers and collectors by manorial officers or others, or to presents of food and drink, there is no reason to suspect bribery and corruption at once. Among the items of expenditure noted on the Cuxham manor roll of the year 1301-1302 is this: ‘In expenses of the taxers of the fifteenth, 7s. 534d.’ On the roll of 1332-1333 a similar statement reads: ‘In expenses of the taxers of the lord king who came for several days, 2s." The Cheddington rolls record the same kind of payment for 1313-1314, 1314-1315, 1316-1317, and 1332-1333.4 Among the items describing the issues of the grange during the year 1332-1333 there is also this on the Cheddington roll: ‘Item, in a gift to Peter atte Welle, taxer of the fifteenth granted to the lord king, four bushels of wheat to have his favor.’> Though this present of food may have been quite innocuous, the wording of the roll makes it appear to have been otherwise. The mayor of Leicester, however, accounted at times for seemingly harmless expenditures on food and drink. In 1327

his accounts mention bread and wine sent to Hugh de Prestwold and Roger de Belgrave, chief taxers in the county of Leicester. The statement of the mayor’s expenses in 1332-1333 includes: ‘Sent to Roger de Belgrave and his fellow, assessors of the lord king’s tenth, then sitting at

the Friars Minor, in wine and spicery, Is. 2d."7 And in 1334, when everything was so arranged that there was practically no chance of corrupt practice, we find: ‘In expenses of the king’s clerk coming to Leicester to collect the lord king’s tenth, of William de Cloune, Richard of Donington, and others in their company dining and supping with the mayor (in

bread, wine, beer, hens, etc.) . . . in one pair of hose given to the said clerk, 2s. 6d., to his clerk 1 pair of hose price ls. 4d. — 11s. 6d.’8 Finally in this connection may be added the complaint of jurors in the county of Derby when they appeared before commissions of inquiry in November, 1323, that the sub-assessors and collectors of the tenth and 1 Parl. Writs, 1, 55, 63, 105. 2 Merton College MSS., No. 5819. 3 Merton College MSS., No. 5857. 4 Merton College MSS., Nos. 5544, 5545, 5546, 5564. 5 Merton College MSS., No. 5564. 6 Bateson, Records of the Borough of Leicester, un, 8.

7 Ihd., 11. 8 Iind., 16.

The Collection of the Taxes 207 sixth had demanded twopence a day from the men of each vill while they were at work.! Alongside these payments for expenses and presents of food and drink

was another type of reimbursement which was just as customary, but was never mentioned in the instructions and other similar documents sent out by the exchequer or chancery. I refer to the nominal valuation of the property of the men who were serving the crown as sub-taxers. According to the instructions issued to the chief taxers, they were to value the personal property of the sub-taxers, with such local assistance as they might call for. The resulting tax-charges were noted at times on the local assessment rolls and always on the county rolls. Occasionally the latter rolls indicate the men who had served as sub-taxers. In a very few instances two county rolls of the latter sort have been preserved for consecutive taxes; this makes it possible to compare the charges against

men who are named as sub-taxers in one year with the charges against them when they were not so acting. The outcome is enlightening. The results of a comparison of the tax-charges against the sub-taxers of 1332 in Sussex with the sums charged against the same men in 1327 may be taken as typical.2. The names of 98 men designated as rural subtaxers on the county roll of the tax of 1332 have been found on the roll of the tax of 1327. Of this number 42 were serving in a like capacity in 1327, which does not help us. There remain 56 who were not connected with the assessment of the tax of 1327. 42 of the 56, or 75 per cent, were charged larger amounts on the tax roll of the earlier year, when they were not sub-taxers, than they were in 1332, when they weresoemployed. 4 of the remaining 14 were charged the same amount on both rolls, and 10 were charged less in 1327 than in 1332. If it may be taken for granted that the amount of personal property held by these men had not changed materially in five years, there is obviously something the matter with these returns, for the tax of 1332, a fifteenth, was one third higher than the twentieth of 1327. If the valuation of goods had been real and not nominal, the great majority of the men named as sub-taxers in 1332

should have been charged with much larger sums than those levied against them in 1327.

If we begin with the men called sub-taxers on the roll of 1327 for Sussex the results are much the same. The names of 25 men who were sub-taxers in 1327 but not in 1332, named in one section of the roll of 1327, have also been identified on the roll of 1332.3 The latter tax was one-third higher than the first, so there should have been at least that 1 Assize Roll, No. 1889, m. Id. 2 Sussex Record Society, x, 109 ff. 3 Sussex Record Society, xX, 183-173; 244-287.

208 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 much increase in the tax-charges. In every case but one the charges rose, and they were double and even treble the amount levied upon the men when they were not acting as local assessors.1_ In other words, the rise was far beyond anything demanded by the somewhat higher rate of taxation. A second type of evidence pointing towards a nominal rating of the

local assessors is found on isolated rolls of taxation. On these there is such a striking similarity in the charges that the returns may be justly held to be the result of a customary undervaluation of the property of the

men thus temporarily serving the crown. On the county rolls of the tax of 1297 in Yorkshire and of 1327 in Shropshire, Suffolk, and Sussex, to name no others, the sub-taxers are frequently designated as such at the end of the list of property-holders in the several units of taxation.? In both years there were two or three, sometimes more, assessors serving in each local unit. The roll of the ninth of movables of 1297 for a part of Yorkshire names the several groups of local assessors in a separate section at the end of the description of the tax-charges in each wapentake. This was contrary to custom elsewhere, but it saves the time and energy of the modern student. In the wapentake of Buckrose there were 44 sub-divisions to which subassessors were assigned.? In 4 of these small units one man was deemed to be able to do the work; in 40 units two or more men were assigned. The members of 22 of the 40 groups serving in these small districts were

charged exactly the same amount. This amount might be the ls. charged each of the four men named as sub-taxers in the vill of Sledmere

(Sleddemer), or the ls. 6d. charged against each of the two acting in Sherburn. The number of sub-divisions for taxation purposes of the wapentake of Holderness was 86.4: In 17 of these one man served, leaving

69 to which groups were assigned. The members of 38 of these groups were charged the same amount for the ninth. In both the wapentakes, therefore, the chief taxers valued the property of the several members of over half the groups at exactly the same amount; if one sub-taxer in such a group was charged Is., his fellows were charged the same sum, if 1 Tn a few instances, such as Humfro Quynton (123, 244) and John de Bradebrugg (145, 267), the increase was greater than that stated. John was charged 6d. in 1327, when he was a local assessor, and 4s. in 1332, when he was not serving.

2It may be noted that the clerks who made up some of the county rolls did not take sufficient interest in the matter to give any indication of the men who served as sub-taxers. Even when this happened, it is highly probable that the last two names on the lists of property holders in most vills are those of the sub-taxers. The charges against their names bear a striking resemblance, in their uniformity, to those that are found on the lists which name the sub-taxers. See Dugdale Society, vi. 3 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series. xvi, 148-149. 4 Ibid., 131-134.

The Collection of the Taxes 209 one was charged Is. 6d., the others were to pay a like sum. If such a rating had appeared in a few districts, no comment would be necessary. However, the appearance of this practice in so large a proportion of the local units in two wapentakes invites criticism, more especially as the tax-charges against those who were not sub-taxers have nothing like the same degree of uniformity. There is another interesting characteristic of the tax-charges against

the sub-taxers in the wapentakes of Holderness and Buckrose. In Holderness the number of sub-taxers was 178. Of these 107 were charged Is. each. Of the 90 taxatores in Buckrose, 52 were charged the same sum.

As the subsidy of 1297 was a ninth and as the minimum amount of property to be taxed was 9s., the lowest possible tax-charge was Is. About 60 per cent of the local assessors in Holderness and nearly 58 per cent of those in Buckrose were charged exactly that convenient amount. On the other hand, the same sum, Is., was charged against only 8 per cent of the property owners who were not tax-assessors.} As it was with Yorkshire when the tax of 1297 was assessed, so it was with other counties in connection with the twentieth of 1327. Since the value of the smallest holding of property to be taxed in the latter year was 10s., the minimum individual tax-charge was 6d. There were in all 375 sub-taxers designated as serving in the rural districts of Shropshire on the roll of the twentieth.2. Of these 128 were charged Is.; 120, 10d.;

and 50, 8d. In other words, over 76 per cent were charged very convenient round sums. ‘Though there are a number of instances of the taxation of the two or more members of groups at the same amount, this

phenomenon is not as striking as that found on the Yorkshire roll of 1297.

The clerk who made up the Suffolk roll of the twentieth soon grew weary of distinguishing the local assessors from the other holders of property. Before he stopped he had, however, indicated them for the vills of the hundred of Samford and a part of the hundred of Bosmere.®

There are in all 27 pairs of sub-taxers named as such, and in every instance both the men were charged the same amount. For 17 of the 1 Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., Record Series, xv1, 144-148. The wapentake of Dickering gives similar results. There were listed 437 property holders, exclusive of the sub-taxers. Of these 60, or about 13 per cent, were charged Is. Of the 129 sub-taxers, 67, or about 52 per cent, were charged the same sum (134-143). 2 Shropshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., Trans., 2nd Series, 1 ff. 3 Suffolk Green Books, 1x, 1-18. While the sub-taxers are not designated as such on the remainder

of the roll, there are examples on most of the following pages of two men at the end of the vill lists

charged the same sum. There are also a number of departures from this plan. I think, however, that it would be fairly safe to assume that the two names at the end of the vill lists are those of the sub-taxers.

210 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834 groups the tax-charge was ls., and for 3, 1s. 6d. The largest sum to be levied upon a tax-assessor was 2s., whereas there are several score of instances of larger amounts noted opposite the names of other property holders in the same district. The Sussex roll of the same year gives approximately the same results.!' It contains the names of the members of 97 groups of local assessors. In 70 instances all the members of a group were charged identical sums. The sum in 50 of the 70 groups was 1s. Despite the fact that the minimum official tax-charge was 6d., the very convenient sum of 1s. was levied upon about 54 per cent of all the groups of sub-taxers, while the minimum was charged only two men acting as local assessors in the vill of Slinfold.? It is obvious that the chief taxers who were responsible for the above

tax-charges went about their task in a rather perfunctory fashion. There would be of course variations in practice. Some chief taxers, like

those of Surrey in 1332, appear at times to have paid some attention to the relative wealth of the local assessors included in one group and to have charged them accordingly.? Yet even they charged 1s. against each of the six assessors in the hundred of Woking.‘ The other chief taxers whose rolls I have examined appear to have been content with nominal charges; the results of their valuations bear the earmarks of artificiality. I infer from the comparison made of the two Sussex rolls that the amount of these other charges was lower than an exact valuation would have warranted. And on the basis of the two types of evidence rests the conclusion that one method, a widely prevalent one, of rewarding the subtaxers was that of a reduction in the amount of the tax they had to pay. Though not a payment in cash or kind, this was a very effective means of compensating these lesser folk for their labors. With the above deductions from the returns on the tax rolls we leave the realm of accepted means of remuneration and enter the dim border-

land that lies between honest and corrupt practice. It is difficult to know just what happened in the borderland, for while the acts of the assessors and collectors may have been innocent of guile, they may have been quite the contrary; it is often like that in borderlands. First to be considered is the statement of the Worcestershire collectors 1 Sussex Record Society, x. I have omitted the city of Chichester, but have taken all other units from page 110 to the end of the roll. 2 Ihid., 145.

8 Surrey Record Society, xvi. Four different sums were charged against the six taxatores in King-

ston, but these do not indicate much taxable property (p. 4). The taxatores in Southwark were charged more, but five of the six were charged the same sum (p. 7). For other instances of variations see pp. 16, 31, 35, 64. For instances in which all the sub-taxers were charged the same sum see pp. 5, 7, 51, 52. 4 Surrey Record Society, xviu, 51.

The Collection of the Taxes 211 of the tax of 1332. They were brought to book by the exchequer during the Michaelmas and Easter terms of 9 Edward III for various alleged acts of corruption.! Their trial was continued during the following year.’ They then acknowledged certain concealments, but denied extortion, stating that they had received nothing beyond what they had answered for, save 12d., 18d., or 2s. given them by the townships out of courtesy

(curtalitate). This they offered to prove. The exchequer did not take them to task because they had received these sums from the people of the townships, but immediately proceeded against them in order to recover the money they had concealed. What may be inferred from the tolerance

of the exchequer in regard to the small sums? Must it be concluded that they were simply customary compositions for expenses? Or, were they additional and customary payments made to the chief taxers beyond the small presents for expenses? Other records must be examined before an attempt is made to answer these questions. The Cuxham and Cheddington manorial accounts, among other records,

contain descriptions of payments to the chief taxers and their subordinates that need interpretation. The Cuxham account for the year 1332 reads in full: ‘In expenses of the taxers of the lord king coming for

several days, 2s. In a gift to the same taxers, 3s. 3d. Paid to the same taxers for the fifteenth part of goods, 20s.’ Here we have a gift as well as the payment of expenses. The Cheddington roll of 1313-1314 notes: ‘Item, in expenses of the taxers of the twentieth who taxed the goods in the manor of Cheddington, 6d. Item, in a gift to the same, 2s. Item, paid to the same taxers in full for the taxation of goods in the same manor, 24s. 4d.’4 The following year the roll records: ‘Item, in expenses of the taxers of the twentieth, 12d. Item, given the same taxers out of courtesy

(curvalitate), 2s. Item, paid the same taxers for one-half of the taxation of the said twentieth, 10s. 6144d.’5 The same three types of payment are recorded on the roll of 1332—-1333,6 while on the earlier roll of 1296-1297

there 1s simply the statement: “Item, given the taxers, 2s.’"7 The warden of the hospital of St John, Winchester, made payments described as gifts. After accounting for various expenses in Wordy, there are these notes in 1315-1316: “Paid to the lord the king for the twentieth granted to him,

2s. 2d. A gift to the taxers of the same twentieth, 2s." The next year 1K.R.M.R., No. 111, mm. 133. Cf. K.R.M.R., No. 110, m. 146. 2K.R.M.R., No. 112, m. 104. 3 Merton College MSS., No. 5857. 4 Merton College MSS., No. 5544. 5 Merton College MSS., No. 5545. § Merton College MSS., No. 5564. 7 Merton College MSS., No. 5531.

8 Hist. MSS. Com., Sixth Report, Appendix, Part 1, 597. See the similar statement in the account of Micheldevere.

212 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 there is a record of a present to the taxers of 2s.!_ All these payments appear to have been made to the local assessors and collectors. The notes found on the back of two local assessment rolls bring the agents of the chief taxers into view. The Wendon roll of the twentieth of 1307 notes that it was examined and proved at Pelham by G. le Gros and that there was given for the assessment 3s. and to the clerks, 2s.2_ The clerks in this instance were probably those who wrote the roll, not the

clerk of the chief taxers. As William le Gros was one of the county assessors and collectors in Essex,’ it is more than likely that G. le Gros was a relative and assistant. The other local roll, that of Nasing, Essex,

of the twenty-fifth of 1309, records that there was given to Thomas Ulting, clerk, the sum of 2s. ‘to receive the rolls of the twenty-fifth.’ An entirely different kind of record, the assize rolls, offers a good deal of data, which is sometimes confusing, upon the subject of payments to

the several taxers and collectors. In 1323 and 1324, as the result of a well-grounded suspicion that officers of the crown — sheriffs, escheators, and others, including the assessors and collectors of the tenth and sixth and earlier taxes — were misbehaving, groups of justices were sent to a number of counties to look into the matter.’ The results of their investi-

gations are found in a series of assize rolls. On these are enrolled the charges of concealment and of other evil acts that were in many cases proved against the taxers and collectors. These will be described later. At present attention will be called to certain statements made by jurors who were brought before the justices. There is a large degree of uniformity in the statements of the borough

and hundred juries, though occasionally the monotony is broken by a very human touch. The chief taxers in Worcestershire of the tenth and sixth were charged with accepting a great sum from the sub-taxers and

collectors for receiving their rolls.6 The Leicester chief taxers were charged by the jurors of many hundreds with having ‘received from many

of the towns of the said county large sums of money for admitting the

taxation and accepting the sums in the said rolls.” The jurors of the hundred of Brothercros (sic), Norfolk, presented that Adam de Goldwynne, sub-collector of the tenth in the vill of Brunham Westgate, and his fellow, had given a clerk 2s. for making the local rolls and had also 1 Ibid., 597. 2 Lay Subsidy, 242/12. 3C.P.R. 1807-1313, 23. It is, of course, possible that the G may be the initial letter of Guillelmus. 4 Lay Subsidy, 242/13. 5 C.F.R., ut, 225-226, 226-227. 6 Assize Roll, No. 1036, m. 3. 7 Assize Roll, No. 1389, m. 24. The above quotation is taken from C. Johnson’s translation of the document in Quorndon Records, Supplement, 10.

The Collection of the Taxes 213 given the clerk of the principal taxers 2s. for receiving the same rolls.} William Clarel and Walter de Harum, principal taxers of the tenth and sixth in a part of Yorkshire, were said by a group of jurors to have received 10s. from the sub-taxers of Sherburn in order that the latter might be quickly freed, presumably from their duties.?, Alongside these fairly intelligible statements are descriptions of a large number of small sums received from the townships by the chief taxers and pocketed to their own

use. The Lancashire group, for example, were said to have taken ten marks by extortion.’ This rather large sum was made up of small payments such as Is. and Is. 6d. paid them, so it was alleged, by men of the

vills. A similar charge was brought against the Staffordshire chief taxers.‘

The payments alleged to have been made to the chief taxers of the tenth and sixth bear a close resemblance to those described in earlier paragraphs. The assize rolls tell no essentially new story. Once more we read of payments for receiving rolls and for admitting the taxation. In 1323-1324, as in 1336 when the Worcestershire collectors spoke, there are statements that the chief taxers and collectors received small sums from

the vills for their own use. It is clear that a considerable amount of money passed into the hands of the collectors beyond the amount they gathered from the people for the crown, but hardly so clear how the payments should be classified. Any or all of these payments might be described as extortion by groups of jurors summoned to appear before justices looking for evidence of malpractice, but a less sinister interpretation 1s possible. The line that separates customary fees, such as modern tips, from extortion is not clearly defined; so much depends upon the point of view. This I believe to be the situation in the early fourteenth century. ‘Take, for example, the payment made for receiving the local assessment rolls to which direct reference has been found, and under

which heading a number of the other small payments made out of courtesy would probably have to be listed. The chief taxers might regard such a payment as a customary and legitimate fee, while the men of

the vill, disliking all taxes and their accompaniments, would regard them as a great nuisance and, perhaps, as illegal. When the chief taxers or their agents appeared in the township in 1323 the men would pay a shilling as they had done before; the appearance of the justices would give them an opportunity to air a grievance. The instructions of 1327 1 Assize Roll, No. 598, m. 1. 2 Assize Roll, No. 1117, m. 3. 3 Assize Roll, No. 425, m. 7.

4 Assize Roll, No. 1389, m. 9. For a still more doubtful case see the description of the situation in Suffolk (Assize Roll, No. 853, m. 1).

214 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 bear out this interpretation, for they, for the first time, prohibit the collectors from taking anything for receiving rolls (‘ne pur roules recivre’ )+

Was not this new clause the result of a changed attitude, brought about by the outcome of the investigations of 1323, towards a hitherto common though perhaps regrettable practice?? While I should hesitate to attempt to absolve the mediaeval assessors and collectors of taxes from all blame — there is too much evidence of their willingness to defraud the government to make that expedient — it is possible that most of the small sums they received were simply customary fees. Anyone who has delved deep into mediaeval records will know that other officers besides our collectors received such fees, and a student of modern history will hardly forget the presents received by the judges of Tudor and Stuart days. After the dim light of the borderland, the cases of alleged and proved corrupt practice seem fully illuminated. There can be no hesitancy in stating that the assessors and collectors were guilty of concealment, of

deliberate undervaluation, of receiving bribes, and of misconduct in general. The accusations made by the government and local people were too often sustained to leave any room open for doubt. The most common charge brought against the principal collectors, as

well as against the sub-taxers, was that of concealment. They had, so it was said, levied a certain sum upon the people for a tenth or twentieth and had then so made up either county or local rolls that they were responsible to the crown for a smaller amount. The difference between the two sums was pocketed. This accusation appears again and again, not only in 1323, when it was general,’ but as early as 1292 and 1294,* when it was brought against some local assessors of the tax of 1290, and as late as 1335,5 when it was made against the collectors of the tax of 1332. Unfortunately for the fair fame of our tax-gatherers, they were all too often found to be guilty, often guilty on their own acknowledgment.° One instance of an accusation of concealment deserves special attention because the documents that were brought to the exchequer to prove its 1 Rot. Parl., u, 427. 2 Jt may be noted that even one of the supposedly incorruptible assessors of 1834, John de Langetoft, in Hertford, was accused of receiving one shilling for a receipt, as well as concealing ten shillings (Assize Roll, No. 337, ma. 4). 3 See the accusation on Assize Rolls, Nos. 291, 853, 1036, 1117, 1389, etc.

4L.T.R.M.R., No. 65, mm. 35 (sub-collectors, Bucks). 68 (sub-collectors, Surrey); K.R.M.R., No. 65, m. 25d (sub-collector, Surrey); K.R.M.R., No. 67, m. 32 (sub-collectors, Warwick). 5 C.P.R. 1334-1338, 201-202. 6 This acknowledgment usually took the form of a willingness to agree to a fine, after condemning evidence had been produced. See K.R.M.R., No. 112, mm. 104, 143, 143d., 146; L.T.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 38d.

The Collection of the Taxes Q15 truth are still in existence. Thomas de Boulton, one of the chief taxers of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332, was tried for concealment early in the year 1336.1. His misdeeds had been discovered by the assessors and collectors of the tax of 1334, who had reported to the exchequer that they

found discrepancies between the official schedule of the vill charges furnished them and the receipts given by Thomas to the sub-collectors in divers townships. The exchequer ordered these receipts to be produced. They were brought in, placed in the keeping of the king’s remembrancer, and are now at the Public Record Office, where they are included in the class of Lay Subsidies.2, The county roll, from which the schedule of vill

charges was extracted, has also been preserved. A comparison of the totals on the receipts with those on the county roll substantiates the accusation of concealment. Thomas gave a receipt to the sub-collectors in Sandholme for 12s. 234d., and then charged himself on the county roll with 11s. 884d. The Howden receipt records the payment of £7 9s. 1d.,

and the county roll records for the same place £6 Id. During the trial, the total amount pocketed in the riding was found to be £80 19s. 834d., whereas the total on the county roll was £841 11s. 34d.4. Thomas had therefore stolen approximately nine per cent of what he had gathered.®

The sums concealed by other collectors cannot usually be determined with the same definiteness, though there are a few examples of fairly precise results. The Worcestershire collectors of 1332 admitted that they had concealed £13 4s. 11d.6 This was a relatively modest sum, for the total of the charges on the county roll they handed in was £441 14s.’

In contrast with this unpretentious stealing is the action of Nicholas de Kirkham, a Devonshire collector of the tax of 1307. He pocketed £89 16s. 3144d.,8 and handed in a roll of which the total was £515 16s. 1034d.° An inquisition held by the sheriff concerning the defaults of the principal collectors of the tenth and sixth of 1294 in Somerset resulted in

an accusation that they had stolen £392.!° As the roll they handed in totalled £2,071 14s. 1114d., this was a large percentage of what they had gathered. They denied the charge, but one was finally convicted of con1K.R.M.R., No. 112, mm. 143, 143d. See also m. 146. 2 Lay Subsidies, 202/16, 202/19. 3 Lay Subsidy, 202/18. 4 W.H.R., xxx (1915), 72; L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 8, m. 3d. 5 The investigation of the misdeeds of Thomas was continued until 1347 (K.R.M.R., No. 112, mm. 144-145). 6 K.R.M.R., No. 112, m. 104. 7 F.A.R., Xxx (1915), 72.

8 L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 18. See also m. 25. 9 K.H.R., xx1x (1914), 319. 10 L.T.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 38d.

216 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 cealing £64 5s. 414d., only to be pardoned his trespass in time.! It was, therefore, possible to conceal fairly large sums of money? and to trust to good fortune for immunity from detection. Other accusations naming definite sums concealed were fairly frequent.

They were brought against both chief and subordinate collectors. The assize rolls of 1323 are quite explicit at times. The jurors in the town of Derby stated that the chief taxers of the fifteenth of 1316 had taken £5 and their clerk £1, that the chief taxers of the twelfth of 1319 had concealed 6 marks, and that the chief taxers of the sixth of 1322 had pocketed £4.3 The collectors agreed to a heavy fine, but this does not mean that the statements of the jurors were literally true. It is evident that the collectors had taken some money and, desiring to avoid further trouble, had submitted to the imposition of a fine. The amount of the alleged peculation of the Staffordshire collectors of the tenth and sixth is not mentioned.4 However, one agreed to a fine of £40 and the other to one of 50 marks; the sum that they pocketed must therefore have been rather large. Sub-collectors, early and late, were also charged with concealment. It is interesting to find that some of those who gathered the tax of 1290 were accused of doctoring the local rolls and of pocketing money.® In other years the charges are at times definite. A sub-collector of the tax of 1301 in the vill of Swineshead, Lincolnshire, was said to have taken £6 8s.9d.° Sub-collectors in a part of Norfolk are accused later of stealing £52 19s. 7d.”7. The assize rolls of 1323 add their quota of charges against the subordinate collectors, but there is no need of amplifying the statements already made.® The fate of William de Hastinge of York is an example of what might

happen to a sub-assessor who objected to the type of transaction that has been described. In 1309 a commission of oyer and terminer was issued to two men on behalf of William, who stated that he had been 1C.C.R. 1296-1802, 531; C.C.R. 1802-1307, 138. Richard Tilly, mayor of Bristol at the time of the levy of the twelfth of 1319, was charged with taking £20 and did not deny his guilt (Assize Roll, No. 291, m. 1). 2 The form of the taxation of 1319 makes public the charge that the assessors and collectors had concealed a third or more of what they had gathered (Parl. Writs, u, 11, 212). 3 Assize Roll, No. 1389, m. 1d. 4 Ihid., m. 9. 5 y,.T.R.M.R., No. 65, mm. 35 (Bucks, concealment), 68 (Surrey, the transgressions not specified) ;

K.R.M.R., No. 65, m. 25d. (Surrey, a definite charge of concealment, naming the methods used); K.R.M.R., No. 67, m. 32 (Warwick, concealment). 6L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 58d. Cf. L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 23 (Kent). 7C.C.R. 1318-1323, 654. See also the testimony of jurors in the soke of Leystone, Suffolk, of uncertain date, in which the sums taken are specified (Lay Subsidy, 180/31). 8 See the general statements on the rolls printed in Dugdale Society, v1, 96-99; Quorndon Records, Supplement, 10. There are descriptions of definite sums concealed by the sub-collectors of Wakefield, Yorkshire, and other vills in Assize Roll, No. 1117, mm. 8, 4.

The Collection of the Taxes Q17 selected by the chief taxers as one of the twelve taxers of the thirtieth of 1306 in the wapentake of Langborough.! His complaint was that ‘the rest of the twelve made a secret taxation and collection for themselves and the said principal collectors, and afterwards the latter beat him because he would not consent to the fraud.’ A bare-faced method of concealment was to gather the tax from the men of a vill and then to omit that vill with its property holders from the county roll. The Worcestershire collectors of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 are said to have levied from the vills of Piplynton and Pyndenen 50s., and from the vills of Merton and Hosyntre 22s. 7d., “which towns

are in the hundred of Pershore, but arenotcontainedinthe . . . rolls of particulars.’? The county roll, which is in print, records neither the vills nor their tax-charges.? Richard de Boselingethorp and John de Hoylaund, taxers and collectors of the fifteenth of 1290 in Lincolnshire,

are definitely stated to have ‘concealed’ the returns from the town of Louth when they handed in their rolls at the exchequer.‘ Later they handed in a special roll of the taxation in that town. Beyond the use of the word ‘concealed,’ which normally referred to malpractice, the mem-

oranda roll throws no light upon the matter. The infrequency of the accusation bears witness to the general accuracy of the returns; assessors and collectors who desired to peculate had other and less obvious methods at their disposal.

Undervaluation of property, failure to tax justly the movables of friends, and taxation wrongly imposed are also listed among the misdeeds

of the assessors and collectors. Accusations of these misdeeds would normally come to the surface only when local men were placed on juries

to tell royal justices what they knew. The attitude of the average property holder towards undervaluation would be that of tolerance. He would resent taxes of all kinds and would sympathize with the Londoner of 1306 who acknowledged saying, ‘let those who thus assessed him be cursed and hanged by the devil.’® For sub-assessors to lower the valuation of the goods of their friends or to fail to assess the property of a well-to-do neighbor was another matter, and might be heard of when the justices appeared. Most of the charges of undervaluation were vague in character. In 1311, for example, it was alleged in a royal letter that the king had been 1 C.P.R. 1301-1807, 532.

2K.R.M.R., No. 112, m. 104. I have not been able to discover the modern names of these vills. 3 Wore. Hist. Soc., A. D. 1899.

4K.R.M.R., No. 66, m. 61. 5 A. H. Thomas, ed., Calendar of Early Mayors’ Court Rolls of the City of London, A. D. 1298-1307 (Cambridge, 1924), 247. For other examples of resentment regarding assessment see 219, 255, 258.

218 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 ‘much deceived’ in the taxation of the twenty-fifth in the city of York.'! The chief taxers in Devonshire of the twentieth and fifteenth of 1315 were hardly more explicit when they told the exchequer that they suspected that the sub-taxers in some districts had not well and adequately taxed the people.2. The sub-assessors of the tax of 1322 in Leicestershire had not, so it was said, taxed some men ‘at the true value of their goods and

chattels.” Rarely do we find such a definite statement as that of William de Badecok, sub-assessor in Tamworth, Warwickshire, who acknowledged that the sixth of his goods amounted to 8s. 5d., but that he had been charged 2s. 6d.4

Allegations of undervaluation of the goods of friends of the subassessors and of the omission from the assessment of the property of neighbors and friends appear in the assize rolls of 1323 and 1324. Jurors in Derbyshire declared that the sub-taxers had not taxed the property of

their friends at its true value.’ Worcestershire jurors alleged that the same subordinates had not taxed the goods of their neighbors properly and had failed to tax any goods of certain taxable folk. The Leicestershire jurors ‘of divers hundreds’ presented that the sub-taxers and subcollectors had ‘dispensed to tax many who should have been taxed,” and one group of Warwickshire sub-taxers, answering a similar general accusation, acknowledged that they had not assessed the property of various men in the vill whose names are given.? At times the jurors were specific in their testimony. Those of a hundred in Suffolk said that the sub-taxers had not taxed 160 sheep of Walter de Burgate, and another

group in the same county stated that other sub-taxers had not taxed Walter de Fundelane, who had goods to the value of 10s.° Such definite accusations are rare. The taxation of the property of the non-taxable was a different kind of misbehavior, because it laid the burden upon the shoulders of those who were officially exempt. Nevertheless, when the jurors of the liberty of St Ethelreda, Suffolk, were summoned before justices early in 1325, they declared that the sub-collectors of the tax of 1322 in Alderton had taken 1C.P.R. 1307-1318, 418.

2L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 194. 3 Quorndon Records, Supplement, 10; Assize Roll, No. 1389. 4 Dugdale Society, vi, 97.

6 Assize Roll, No. 1389, m. 1d. Similar allegations on m. 2. 6 Assize Roll, No. 1036, m. 3. The Hereford jurors made a sweeping accusation of undervaluation (Assize Roll, No. 316, m. 3). 7 Quorndon Records, Supplement, 10. A long list of sub-taxers and collectors of the twentieth of 1306 in the city of Lincoln were attached to answer why they had not taxed the goods and chattels of various named persons (L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 35). 8 Dugdale Society, v1, 97.

9 Assize Roll, No. 853, mm. 2d. (Burgate), 3 (Fundelane).

The Collection of the Taxes 219 small sums of 4d., 5d., and the like, from 18 non-taxable men and women.!

The same accusation was brought against sub-collectors in other parts of the same county.’ With the description of another type of transgression this long catalogue of the evil ways of assessors and collectors may be brought to a close. The instructions of 1322 provided as usual for the valuation of movables at their true value on a day named.? Yet the chief taxers in the counties of Derby, Leicester, Oxford, and Nottingham were accused of attempting to tax the people on the basis of the rolls of older taxations.‘ 6. INVESTIGATION OF CorRUPT PRACTICE AND TRIAL OF OFFENDERS

That the central government always feared that the chief taxers and

their subordinates might resort to extortion or to the acceptance of money from vills or individuals to favor them is shown by certain clauses

in the forms of taxation and in the oaths taken by those officers. They were forbidden to receive anything for love or favor, to take anything for making tallies or for receiving writings, and so on.5 Nevertheless, accusations of concealment and the like were rife from the beginning of our period and hardly a tax was levied without definite complaints of some sort against one or more groups of taxers and collectors. The air of the exchequer chambers gradually became charged with suspicion, and from 1311 one group of commissioners after another was sent into the counties to investigate rumors of corrupt practice. Trials at Westminster and trials in the country resulted from the complaints and in-

vestigations, until the student of mediaeval administrative practice begins to suspect, as did the exchequer, far too many assessors and collectors. The appointment of a special kind of assessor and collector in 1334 to guard against corrupt practice was the outcome of over forty years’ experience with alleged and proved fraud.

In handling the rather voluminous material that bears upon this phase of the subject of the assessment and collection of the taxes upon movables, I am going to deal first with the commissions issued to justices in 1311 and later years to investigate charges and to try offenders. I am

conscious of the fact that, by so doing, the cumulative effect upon the 1 Tind., m. 3.

2 Ibid., mm. 3, 4.

3 Parl. Writs, u, 1, 279. 4 C.C.R. 1318-1323, 627, 629. 5 Parl. Writs, 1, 24; 11, 11, 15, 212, 279-280. The rolls of the tax of 1290 were carefully examined by

several clerks at the exchequer, presumably to prevent fraud as well as to add the items (Issue Roll, No. 82 (Mich., 21-22 Edward I), m. 2, left-hand column). Supervisors of the same tax had been appointed; their expenses were fairly heavy (Issue Roll, No. 67 (Easter, 19 Edward I), m. 1, right-hand column).

220 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 central government of earlier complaints will not be brought out. I trust, however, that the preceding section of this chapter will have rendered any further emphasis upon the grounds for suspicion unnecessary. The first widespread inquiry into the misdeeds of the assessors and collectors that has been found was that of 1311. Writs under the seal of the exchequer dated 23 February were issued to groups of men to go into the counties and to make inquiry concerning the excesses of the taxers and collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth of 1307 and of the

twenty-fifth of 1309. The sheriffs were told to assist them in their work.}

The next investigation on a large scale of the transgressions of the taxers and collectors was started by commissions dated 20 July, 1314. Letters patent under that date were issued to groups of men (each group being assigned to two or more counties, with the exception of Yorkshire), to investigate ‘the trespasses of the principal taxers, collectors, and subcollectors of the twentieth and fifteenth [of 1307] and the twenty-fifth [of 1309], granted of late to the king, and of the twentieth and fifteenth granted in 7 Edward II [1313] in twenty-one counties of England.? The justices so appointed were to hold inquisitions, to hear and determine cases, and to receive fines and ransoms from collectors found guilty of fraud.? Thirty-five men in all were sent out. They were divided into ten

groups. The list of their names testifies to the importance attached to the investigation. Almost all the chief officers of the exchequer were selected — five barons, one chamberlain, both the remembrancers, four auditors of foreign accounts, and the controller of the great roll. There was at least one exchequer officer in eight of the ten groups of commis-

sioners. The judicial element was represented by three justices of the Common Bench and by at least nine men who had served or were serving

as justices of oyer and terminer or of assize. Even John de Mutford, ‘narrator’ of the Common Bench, was appointed. The array of men who had experience in administrative and judicial matters is imposing. More information about the same commissions is forthcoming. The treasurer’s memoranda roll of 7 Edward II notes that the commissions with certain writs were handed at the exchequer to various men on 29

July.6 The documents directing the investigation in the counties of 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 81, mm. 5, 5d. The form they were to use is on m. 6d. 2 C.F.R., 1, 203-204. For a later investigation of the trespasses of the collectors in the counties of Nottingham and Kent see C.F.R., 11, 277, 283 (May and June, 1316). 3 The names of the men sent out are repeated, with some additions, in L.T.R.M.R., No. 84, m. 30, schedule attached. 4T have used the indexes to the calendars of the patent, close and fine rolls, and also the lists in Tout, Place of Edward II, Appendix JI. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 84, m. 30, schedule attached.

The Collection of the Taxes 221 Gloucester, Hereford, and Worcester were given to Master Richard de Abyndon, baron of the exchequer and a member of the group selected to act in those counties. The barons who had been selected to serve with others in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk and in Oxford, Berks and Wilts also received the commissions and writs.!. Two auditors of foreign accounts, Edmund de Dynyngton and William de Corton, were given the documents for their groups. The remaining sets of commissions and writs were handed over for delivery to men whose status is not usually described. The same memoranda roll also notes that any three out of

four or two out of three of the men appointed would suffice for the conduct of business. The suspicions of the government do not seem to have been aroused by any acts of the chief taxers of 1315, but a commission dated 17 June, 1317, was given to two men to look into the defaults of the collectors of the tax of 1316 in Devon and Cornwall. They were to inquire ‘touching

the trespasses, which as the king is given to understand, the principal taxers and collectors and sub-collectors of the sixteenth and fifteenth last granted to the king in those counties, and their clerks and other ministers, have committed contrary to the form provided therefore by the council

and delivered to the same principal taxers, and to hear and determine such trespasses and to take fines and ransoms from those convicted thereof before them.” The distrust of the assessors and collectors grew stronger two years later. The instructions issued in that year, 1319, told the chief taxers not to select as sub-assessor any person ‘who had acted as such before or had

been accused of malpractices in relation to former taxations.” It is interesting to note that, though there was to be a clean sweep of experienced local assessors, the government did not pursue the same policy

with respect to the chief taxers and collectors. Of the men appointed in 1319 about 45 per cent had served at least once before in a like capacity, and nearly 28 per cent were re-appointments from 1316.‘

Despite the precaution embodied in the instructions of 1319, there were rumors of transgressions. Commissions dated 12 December, 1320, and 1 February, 1321, called upon groups of justices to investigate, hear, 1 The barons were Walter de Norwich and John de Everdon. The expenses of William de Ormesby,

sent to Norfolk and Suffolk, amounted to £20 (Issue Roll, No. 174, m. 13, left-hand column). John de Thorp, auditor of foreign accounts, who was sent to Devon and Cornwall, was allowed 20 marks (cbid., m. 13). The writ of liberate in favor of Ormesby is found in Liberate Roll, No. 91, m. 3. 2 C.F .R., u, 332. 3 C.P.R. 1317-1821, 349; Parl. Writs, u, 11, 211-212.

4 Compare the lists in C.P.R. 1813-1817, 473-475, 529-531, with that in C.P.R. 1317-1821, 347-349. I have gone through the earlier lists of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, save that of 1315, for the statement relating to experience in earlier years.

2292 Parliamentary Taxesson Personal Property 1290 to 13834 and determine the trespasses of the principal taxers and collectors and the sub-collectors of the eighteenth and twelfth in fourteen counties.! It is noteworthy that the men selected to act as chief taxers in the counties to which justices were sent had for the most part served in the same capacity in earlier years. Both the chief taxers sent to Essex and Gloucestershire in 1319 had served in 1316. Only those serving in the counties of

Bucks and Dorset were without experience. If the charges of transgression were true, neither experience nor inexperience prevented misdoing.

The tide of suspicion rose to a new high level before the tenth and sixth

of 1322 had been fully paid into the treasury.? Letters patent dated 18 July, 1323, directed groups of justices to inquire into the misconduct of sheriffs and other royal officers, and of ‘the principal taxers and collectors of the sixth and tenth granted of late to the king and of other such grants made hitherto by the commonalty of the realm and by citizens and burgesses and men of the king’s demesnes.”"? The justices sent to three of the twenty-one counties mentioned in the commissions, namely in Cumberland, Westmorland, and Northumberland, could hardly have investigated transgressions of tax-collectors, since none had been selected for these counties in 1322. In November and December justices were sent to six counties in the western part of England,‘ and in 1324 more commissions were issued empowering groups of justices to investigate and punish offenders in several counties mentioned in earlier letters.5 The results of the investigations of the justices appointed in 1323 and 1324 appear in a number of assize rolls.6 The method adopted by the justices will be described later. We already know from the preceding section’ that they found corrupt practice on every side; only the Norfok collectors came out of the inquiry with a reasonably clean record.’ In other words, the suspicions of the central government were fully justified. There was a lull in the agitation of the government in 1327, but, after the tax of 1332 had been assessed and collected, the complaints of misconduct were so widespread that it was felt to be expedient to change the LC F.R., ui, 42, 48. 2 The money was to be paid into the treasury 3 April, 1323, and 1 July, 1323 (Parl. Writs, u, 1, 278). The records of the audits held during the Michaelmas term of 1323 show that payments were still being made in October and later (L.T.R.M.R., No. 94, mm. 166-173, passim). 3C.F.R., 11, 226-227. I have taken the wording from the letter sent to the treasurer dated 10 July, 1323 (zbid., 225-226). 4 Ibid., 247-248. 5 Ibid., 270; C.C.R. 1323-1827, 14-75. 8 Assize Rolls, Nos. 291 (Bristol), 316 (co. Hereford), 425 (Lancashire), 598 (Norfolk), 853 (Suffolk), 1036 (co. Worcester), 1117 (Yorkshire), 1389 (cos. Derby, Stafford, Warwick, Leicester). 7 See above, pp. 212 ff. 8 Assize Roll, No. 598.

The Collection of the Tazes 223 methods of gathering the fifteenth and tenth of 1334.1! Action against those who were alleged to have been guilty of fraud was, however, delayed until July, 1335. Letters patent, dated on the tenth of that month, were issued to five groups of men ‘to take information’ in twenty-eight counties ‘as secretly as they can without making inquisition, how the chief taxers and collectors of the tenth and fifteenth granted to the king in the sixth year of his reign, and their clerks, have executed their offices,

what sums they have received for the king from townships, and individuals, and what part of such sums they have retained in their own hands.’ Such taxers and collectors as were willing to do so were to be permitted to fine at once for their defaults. Others, who would not compound for their misdeeds, were to be sent to the exchequer for a hearing of their cases. The trials of taxers and collectors accused of transgressions were held either before the treasurer and barons sitting as a court or before justices sent into the country. Specific charges or rumors of misbehavior might

reach the exchequer in any one of several ways. Upon the receipt of charges, the exchequer would decide upon the form of the subsequent proceedings. It might summon the alleged guilty officers to appear before it for trial, or, as in the years already noted, it might cause commissions to be issued for their trial in their home counties. The former method was commonly resorted to when the charges of misbehavior were specific, while the latter was usually employed when there were merely rumors, especially rumors of more or less wide-spread corrupt practice.

The exchequer acting as a court used quite simple methods of procedure. In the records on the memoranda rolls the process opens with an accusation of malpractice directed against either principal or subtaxers. Those who suffered might send in a petition,’ or one of their number might appear to present their complaints. A sub-taxer might turn informer.’ Some cases of alleged fraud were discovered by subsequent collectors or other officers who reported their findings.* The news

of malpractice might reach the treasurer and barons through unmentioned channels.’ 1 Rot. Parl., 11, 447.

2 C.P.R. 1334-1338, 201-202.

3 L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 18, a petition to the treasurer and barons; C.P.R. 1301-1307, 532, a petition to the king and council; Cal. Letter-Books, London, E, 111, a petition to the king.

4K.R.M.R., No. 112, m. 159. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 23 (Kent). 6 K.R.M.R., No. 112, m. 104 (Worcester), reported by a later collector; zbid., m. 143 (Yorkshire), reported by a later collector; L.T.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 38d. (Somerset), reported by the sheriff who had superintended the levy; L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 90 (Essex), reported by justices. 7L.T.R.M.R., No. 65, m. 35 (Bucks).

224 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 Three examples of the opening of a trial will suffice. John de Stephene appeared before the exchequer in 1309 with a petition addressed ‘to the treasurer and barons of the exchequer of our lord king.’!. The document

recited that Nicholas de Kirkham, late collector of the twentieth and fifteenth in the county of Devon, had levied and received from the men

of the county 200 marks sterling beyond the sum with which he had charged himself before the treasurer and barons. John, who brought in the petition, stated that he was ready to prove this. The opening of the trial of the chief taxers of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 in the East Riding of Yorkshire was of a different character.? It is stated that the prior of Warter and Thomas de Brayton, chief assessors in 1334, had discovered evidence of fraud while they were at work. They reported what they found and were commanded to appear before the exchequer with all the evidence. They did this, and upon the basis of what they presented the trial of the earlier chief taxers began. The third example of the opening of a trial has also to do with collectors of the tax of 1332.%

It is recorded that John de Midhurst appeared before the barons on 15 July, 1334. He told the court that William de Andeure and John de Bolyngton, late sub-taxers of the tenth in the Soke of Winchester, had

concealed £10 10s. 4d. of the amount they had gathered. To substantiate his accusation he handed in two schedules, which are sewed to the memoranda roll. After the charge against the assessors and collectors had been made, the exchequer caused the accused to be attached to answer on a certain day. When they appeared, they were questioned, and might confess or

deny the alleged transgression. The chief taxers in Worcestershire of the subsidy of 1332, when faced with a detailed statement of concealment produced by Henry de Stratford, one of the assessors of 1334, confessed the concealment, but denied extortion.’ One of the chief taxers of the same tax in the East Riding of Yorkshire, who was accused of con-

cealment, adopted a different plan of action. The man referred to, Thomas de Boulton, was confronted with a number of original receipts given by him to the men of the vills, as well as with the rolls handed in at 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 18. 2K.R.M.R., No. 112, m. 143. 8 Ihnd., m. 159, schedule attached.

4L.T.R.M.R., No. 63, m. 38 (Dorset, tax of 1290, sub-taxer); L.T.R.M.R., No. 65, m. 35 (co. Buckingham, tax of 1290, sub-taxer), 68 (Surrey, tax of 1290, sub-taxers); L.T.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 88d. (Somerset, tax of 1294, chief taxer); K.R.M.R., No. 111, m. 133 (co. Worcester, tax of 1332, chief taxers); K.R.M.R., No. 112, m. 104 (co. Worcester, tax of 1332, chief taxers), m. 143 (Yorkshire, tax of 1332, chief taxers). 5 K.R.M.R., No. 112, m. 104.

The Collection of the Taxes 225 the exchequer.!. Thomas evidently knew of this evidence before he came

before the treasurer and barons, for when he appeared he presented a letter under the great seal pardoning him of all transgressions “on condi-

tion that he answer for all sums concealed.’? He promptly paid £60 18s. 2d. of the sum concealed, but difficulties arose over what he still had to pay. The exchequer was of the opinion that nothing further could be

done without a special royal mandate. In anticipation of this order, further evidence was sought in the riding. Finally the exchequer received another writ under the great seal and the process was continued. When, as frequently happened, the accused denied the charge of fraud,

the exchequer sought for evidence in the district to which he had been assigned. It sent out one or more men to seek for documentary evidence or to gain information from juries. After John de Stephene of Devonshire had presented the petition of 1309 he was asked how he could back up his accusation. He answered that he could do so by the bills, indentures, and tallies made between the sub-taxers and the accused chief taxer, Nicholas de Kirkham.‘ Nicholas, having been attached, appeared and denied that he had concealed anything.’ Upon this the exchequer sent William Martyn and others to Devonshire to seek for the bills and other documents mentioned by John. Their search was fruitless. John,

once again in court, argued that they had covered only a part of the county, and named various hundreds and boroughs that they had not visited. A second inquest was ordered and this resulted in the discovery of ample evidence of the kind described by John. Thereupon Nicholas was placed in prison until he capitulated, found mainpernors, and agreed to repay what he had stolen. The use of local juries for the purpose of gaining information is so well-

known that it need only be referred to here. From the time when assessors and collectors of the tax of 1290 denied their guilt to the end of our period, such juries were empanelled for the purpose of giving evidence in the matter of transgressions.’ Their verdicts played a large part in many of the trials of the county and local assessors. 1The acquittances may be seen in Lay Subsidies, 202/16 and 202/19. The county roll is Lay Subsidy, 202/18. 2C.P.R. 1834-1338, 175.

’ Documentary evidence was also sought and found by the sheriff of Somerset in the case of the chief taxers of 1294, and was used against them (L.T.R.M.R., no. 70, m. 38d.). 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 18.

6 It may be noted that Nicholas was an experienced chief taxer. He had served in that capacity in 1301 and 1306 (C.P.R. 1292-1301, 613; C.P.R. 1301-1307, 457).

§ It is interesting to note that the local people kept the various documents. They were, in this instance, found nearly two years after they had been handed over to the men of the townships. The Yorkshire receipts referred to had been preserved even longer.

7 The use of juries in connection with the tax of 1290 is referred to in K.R.M.R., No. 67, m. 32

226 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 The penalties imposed upon the guilty collector were not excessive. The main concern of the exchequer was to secure the restitution of the money that had been taken. This was insisted upon. Even Thomas de Boulton, whose writ of pardon has already been referred to, was compelled to restore the money he had concealed.!| The court could also bring pressure to bear to force the guilty officer to compound for his trespass, or In other words to agree to a fine.?- It went no further. Sending a man to jail was only a means of bringing him to terms. Thus far we have dealt with trials at the exchequer; but in the great majority of instances accused assessors and collectors were brought to trial before justices sent to the locality where the fraud was alleged to have been committed. The number and extent of the investigations of complaints of transgressions have been already described. The justices sent out were to inquire, to hear and determine cases of fraud, and to take

fines and ransoms from such men as were found to be guilty.? In most instances the commissions seem to have been issued on the basis of in-

definite complaints. Commissions of this type contain such vague statements of the cause of action as the following: ‘as the king is given to

understand,’4 ‘on information that,’® ‘it being alleged that.’ At other times detailed and specific charges are mentioned, but, because the evidence upon which a trial] at the exchequer could be based was lacking,

it was ordered that the search for proof and the trial should be held in the country.’ The notes of warranty on a number of the letters patent under the great seal containing the orders to the justices throw light upon the (Warwick); L.T.R.M.R., No. 62, mm. 44-44d. (Dorset); K.R.M.R., No. 65, m. 25d. (Surrey). Cf. Surrey Record Society, Xvi, pp. xxx—xxxiv. For their later use see L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 58d. Twelve men of a hundred were summoned to Westminster in 1323 to give testimony on oath (L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 23). The findings of a jury, of uncertain date, are recorded in Lay Subsidy, 180/31 (Suffolk).

1C.P.R. 1834-1338, 175. Cf. C.C.R. 1296-1302, 531; C.C.R. 1302-1807, 138. Nicholas de Kirkham agreed to repay what he had taken (L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 18). See also L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 90 (Essex), where the collectors restored the money and paid a fine as well; C.F.R., 11, 257, refers to the same case. 2 The Worcestershire chief taxers of 1332 fined for their transgressions after the court had adjudged

that they should restore the money concealed (K.R.M.R., No. 112, m. 104). The jurors in thirteen hundreds and four large vills and boroughs of Surrey were forced to compound for their transgressions in connection with the levy of 1290 (Surrey Record Society, xvi1l, pp. xxx-xxxiv). See also, K.R.M.R.,

No. 67, m. 32 (Warwick); Pipe Roll, No. 158, m. 17. Occasionally the receipt rolls record the payment of fines, as in Receipt Roll, No. 218 (Easter, 9 Edward IT), 20 April (Dorset). SE. g., C.P.R. 1307-1318, 418; C.F.R., 11, 203-204, 332; C.F.R., ur, 270. 4CLF.R., u, 332; C.F.R., wi, 42, 270. 5 CLF.R., 111, 225-226.

© C.P.R. 1307-1313, 418.

7 C.P.R. 1301-1307, 532; C.P.R. 1321-1324, 379.

The Collection of the Taxes Q27 department of the government that caused action to be taken. That department presumably also received the complaints. It is enlightening, therefore, to find the council recorded as having been behind most of the letters patent.!. This raises the question of the identity of this council. Owing to the character of the complaints, to the primary interest of the exchequer in financial matters, and to the lack of distinction between the exchequer acting as the council and the other types of meeting to which the term is applied, it may be concluded that the warrant was sent to the chancery by the exchequer acting as the council. The rolls describing the work of the justices appointed in 1323 and 1324

give a fairly complete picture of their activities. They would be sent to

one of the chief towns of the county, where they would meet the assembled juries summoned by the sheriff. The Derbyshire assize roll states that the sheriff had been directed to call in 24 men, knights and others, from each wapentake, and 4 men and the reeve from each villata.?

From the first group were selected the juries that presented the complaints of the wapentake; the men of the second group presumably gave

local information, that they alone would possess, to the juries and justices. The places selected for the meetings, which must at times have been rather large, were usually of importance. The Yorkshire justices held their sessions at York and Pickering, the Herefordshire group at Hereford, the Worcestershire group at Worcester, and the Lancashire group at Clitheroe and Preston. The juries of the hundreds or wapentakes accused the chief taxers and sub-taxers of various transgressions,

and the latter were summoned by the sheriffs to answer the charges against them. When they appeared they commonly confessed that they had transgressed and hastened to compound for their trespasses. If they proved recalcitrant, they might be sent to prison‘ to bring them toa different frame of mind, or they might be tried by jury.® The justices sent into the counties, like the officers of the exchequer, accepted or forced agreement to compositions for transgressions. It is noted occasionally that the money concealed was to be restored, but the fines were frequently so large that they may well have covered that sum and have given the crown something beyond it. Two methods of fining are noted, the individual and the collective. In some counties, notably 1C.P.R. 18384-1388, 201-202, ‘Council’; C.F.R., m1, 42, 225-226, 247-248, ‘King and Council’; C.P.R. 1827-1830, 286, ‘by petition of Council.’ 2 Assize Roll, No. 1389, m. 1. 3 Assize Rolls, Nos. 1117, mm. 1, 6 (Yorkshire), 316, m. 1 (co. Hereford), 1036, m. 3 (Worcestershire), 425, mm. 7, 9.

4 There are many examples of recalcitrant sub-taxers who were sent to prison on the Suffolk roll (Assize Roll, 853). 5 KE. g., Assize Roll, No. 1117, m. 5. The sub-taxer places himself ‘upon the country.’

228 = Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 in Derby, Stafford, Suffolk, and York, there are many examples of small fines agreed to by sub-taxers of anything from Is. upward.! These were frequently coupled with a restitution of the money concealed.?, When the fine was more than a modest @s. or 3s., or even then, the guilty man might

be compelled to furnish pledges for its payment. The Staffordshire record of the proceedings of the justices is rather quaint.’ It tells us that the chief taxers, after being accused of concealment, were allowed to fine for their transgressions, one to the tune of £40 and the other to the

tune of 50 marks. Both produced pledges. And ‘instantly,’ so the record states, before anything more had been done, ‘came Richard de Podemore, William de Thickenesse, sub-taxers of the tenth in the township of Audeley in the hundred of Pirehill, and all other sub-taxers and collectors of the tenth and sixth in the county aforesaid and with one voice asked that they might be admitted to make a fine with the king for their transgressions.” They were allowed to compound individually for their misdeeds. Collective or group composition was allowed in the counties of Leices-

ter, Gloucester, Warwick, and Worcester.‘ In Worcestershire a large group of assessors and collectors of several taxes, principals and subordinates, agreed to a fine of £500. Later another and smaller group came in

and compounded; their fine was 80 marks. In Warwickshire also there were two large fines amounting in all to 800 marks. The Leicestershire

assize roll tells a slightly different story. All the members of a very large group of assessors and collectors are said to have asked that they might “make a fine with the lord the king for all the principal taxers, collectors, sub-taxers, and sub-collectors of the grants aforesaid [the taxes of 1319 and 1322] of the whole county of Leicester, except the subtaxers and sub-collectors of the town of Leicester, for all trespasses done in their taxation.and to become principal debtors of the same fine to the lord the king.’> They were admitted to a fine of 800 marks. The records do not tell us about the pressure that was used to bring about this result.

It has not been found possible to determine the proportion of these fines that was paid. It is stated in a writ dated 13 October, 1331, that the men of Warwickshire had paid 680 of the 800 marks fine. In direct 1 Assize Rolls, Nos. 1389, 853, 1117. 2 Assize Roll, No. 853, m. 1, contains several examples. 2 Assize Roll, No. 1389, m. 9.

4 Ihnd., mm. 24-24d. (co. Leicester). This has been translated in Quorndon Records, Supplement, 10. For Gloucester I have only a later record (K.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 121), where the sum is stated to have been £484 6s. 8d. The Warwickshire proceedings are to be found in Dugdale Society, v1, 96-99, as taken from Assize Roll, No. 1389, m. 20. Added comment on this record may be found in C.C_R. 1330-1333, 268. The Worcestershire returns are found in Assize Roll, No. 1036, m. 3. 5 Assize Roll, No. 1389, m. 24. 6 C'.C.R. 1330-1333, 268.

The Collection of the Taxes 229 contrast with this happy outcome is the claim made that the Gloucestershire group had not paid the £484 6s. 8d. which they owed the king for a similar fine.1 A few scattered entries on the receipt rolls tell of the payment of fines, but they do not represent even a small part of the large sums

mentioned in the assize rolls.2, I am not prepared to offer any explanation of the apparent failure of the records to enlighten us. 1K.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 121. 2H. g., Receipt Rolls, Nos. 245 (20 October, Derby), 248 (7 May, Derby and Kent), 251 (16 Octo-

ber, Derby; 29 October, York and Kent). The number of entries is astonishingly small. But fines are often mentioned many years after the date of the tax. In Receipt Roll, No. 270 (Easter, 1 Edward III), there are several references to fines: 23 May, co. Hereford, 10th and 6th of 1322, fine £3 6s. 8d.; 19 May, co. Stafford, 10th of 1322, £5 ‘for transgressions and concealments’; 15 June, co. Lancaster, 11th and 7th of 1295, 10s.

CHAPTER IX DRAFTS UPON THE TAXERS AND COLLECTORS 1. GENERAL MATTERS

wre the chief taxers and collectors thereceived task of assessing and levying the taxes were due toengaged the king,in they many supplementary orders from the government. They were told to do this or that by writs issued under the seals of the exchequer, chancery, or wardrobe. The most numerous of these writs had to do with drafts — assignments — upon the money they had gathered.! Because of these, the collectors often reached Westminster with very little cash and with numerous receipts for money delivered to the men in whose favor the assignments had been issued. The assignment system developed considerably during our period, but before proceeding to a description of the several types of writs I am going to deal with certain matters which are essential for an understanding of them. The exchequer has always loomed large in all discussions of financial administration during the Middle Ages, but it is well to remember, with respect to the taxes upon personal property, that it was for the most part

before 1290 simply a final accounting board.? The money gathered by the taxers and collectors did not usually flow into the treasury at Westminster, but into the hands of specially appointed receivers. The proceeds of these taxes seem to have been regarded as a separate fund to be disposed of as the king and his council willed. Though the collectors in most instances traveled to Westminster for an audit of their accounts, the exchequer had little or no control over their activities before that time. In these circumstances, while the plan of assignment might be utilized

occasionally in connection with money in divers hands, the exchequer had no part in it, so far as has been discovered, in connection with the taxes upon movables. In fact, as the meager number of writs copied on the memoranda rolls under the heading Brevia pro Rege testifies, that 17 have already briefly described the system of assignment in the following places: ‘An Early Exchequer Tally,’ Bulletin of the John Rylands Inbrary, vir (1923), 269-278; Surrey Record Society,

xvi, Introduction; “The Crown and its Creditors,’ #.H.R., xt (1927), 12-20. Hilary Jenkinson has contributed to our knowledge of the subject in his ‘Mediaeval Tallies, Public and Private,’ Archaeologia, LxxIv (1925), 303-306, as has Miss M. Mills in Surrey Record Society, xx1 (1924), x—xi.

2 The subject of the relation of the exchequer to the taxes upon movables and other extraordinary levies, both before and after 1290, is dealt with at length in my paper ‘An Exchequer Reform Under Edward I,’ in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro, 225-244. 230

Drafis upon the Taxers and Collectors 231 department had little to do with any form of assignment. The activity of the chancery was in striking contrast with this state of affairs. The enrolments on the patent rolls of numerous drafts on the money collected

by the merchants of Lucca during the early years of Edward I are in themselves sufficient proof that the system of assignment was well known.?

The situation was materially changed after 1290. From the time of the appointment of William de Marchia as treasurer of the exchequer on 6 April, 1290,2 the department of which he was the head took charge of

all the processes connected with the taxes upon movables. Thereafter the money gathered by the taxers and collectors was to be paid into the treasury at Westminster. Since the receipt and disbursement of the king’s income was cared for at the receipt of the exchequer, the lower exchequer, the new plan materially enhanced the importance of that department. The effect of the change upon the control of the activities of the taxers and collectors was immediate in some directions, but not so in regard to

assignments. I have been unable to find any orders to pay, directed to the chief taxers of the fifteenth of 1290, on the memoranda rolls of the exchequer of account, the upper exchequer.’ That body, which was none too familiar with the system, would seem to have issued no drafts upon the cash in the hands of the collectors. It is possible, however, that the treasurer and barons did not cause such writs to be enrolled, for the issue rolls record the payment by the collectors of various sums for which they

proffered receipts of Walter de Langton, keeper of the wardrobe.* As no writs are mentioned in the entries on the issue rolls relating to the fifteenth of movables, this interpretation is open to doubt. The rolls of chancery are as silent as the memoranda rolls in the matter of drafts upon the taxers and collectors.

There are a few drafts on the memoranda roll under the seal of the exchequer on the collectors of the tax of 12945. They appear more frequently thereafter,® but it was not until after the opening of the fourteenth century, especially during the reign of Edward II, that they became really numerous. They anticipated an increasingly large share of the income from the taxes upon personal property of the years 1316 and 10.P.R. 1272-1281, Index, under Lucca. 2 C.P.R. 1281-1292, $49. 3 The following rolls were examined with care: L.T.R.M.R., Nos. 63, 64, 65; K.R.M.R., Nos. 65, 66.

4 Issue Roll, No. 1312 (Easter, 19 Edward I), May 17, 21, 23, etc. 6 K.R.M.R., No. 68, mm. 75, 75d.

6 Examples of orders on the collectors of later taxes may be found: K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 67d. (tax of 1295); L.T.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 96 (tax of 1296); L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 26d., 29d., 78d. (tax of 1297); K.R.M.R., No. 75, m. 70 (tax of 1301).

232 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834 1319! and later. It was much the same with the drafts under the great seal emanating from the chancery; their fuller development awaited the reign of Edward II. It would seem, therefore, that it was not until the exchequer -vas well seated in the saddle as controller of the taxes upon movables tliat drafts upon the collectors, under either of the seals named, were issued on a fairly large scale. Writs of assignment could be sent out under any one of the three seals

in common use at the time. Those under the seal of the exchequer and great seal have been mentioned. The privy seal was used at times for

the same purpose. Drafts under the exchequer seal — writs of the exchequer — were by far the most numerous. Letters close issued by the chancery under the great seal were the next in importance. These letters

were usually called writs (brevia) in the records of the day. The third source of orders to the collectors to pay out money was at first the ward-

robe and somewhat later the department in charge of the privy seal. The controller of the wardrobe had charge of the privy seal during the early decades of our period; later it was placed in the custody of the keeper

of the privy seal, a new sub-departmental head with a group of clerks working under him.? The office of the privy seal was, however, so closely

connected with the wardrobe during our period that its seal was still essentially the seal of the wardrobe. The number of drafts upon the collectors of our taxes issued under this seal seems to have been small. Two matters remain to be considered before I take up the description

of the characteristics of the writs that contained orders to pay. Both have to do with possible misconceptions of the results of the system of assignment. It must be kept in mind by anyone studying the system that it merely deferred the payment of cash to the creditor until he reached the collectors upon whom the draft had been drawn. It may have been a hardship upon many individuals to be compelled to wait weeks, even months, before they received the money due to them, but they were paid coin of the realm in time. Some of the creditors who were

given writs may have had to travel far before they caught up with a particular group of collectors, but it must be emphasized once more that when they found them the money was forthcoming — if the collectors were able to honor the draft. What is more, the receipts from taxes flowed just as surely into the treasury when drafts were used as when they appeared in the form of

cash. When an order to a collector of taxes was issued in favor of a 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, mm. 141 ff.; K.R.M.R., No. 93, mm. 145-149; L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, mm. 123-126. The number of writs of assignment on the K.R. roll is greater than that on the L.T.R. roll. 2 Tout, Chapters, 11, 282 ff., ‘The Privy Seal Under Edward II.’ Roger de Northburgh is said to have been the first independent keeper of the privy seal. He was appointed in 1312.

Drafts upon the Taxers and Collectors 233 creditor, the latter was directed to hand over a receipt to the former for

what he received. The collector would appear in due time at the exchequer with his vouchers, the writ and the receipt. He would then receive credit on the receipt roll for money paid in. If he happened to bring in cash as well, the entry on the receipt roll giving him credit in nowise differed in form from the former. We may assume that the treasurer and barons would be equally satisfied with the receipt of either cash or vouchers, unless those officers are to be pictured as desirous of handling coined silver. A corrective of any such impression is the fact

hat the exchequer issued by far the greater number of drafts and thus paved the way for the coming in of a large number of vouchers. Indeed, I regard the whole plan of assignment as essentially an exchequer device.

While the deferred receipt of cash probably annoyed many a creditor, it is difficult to see how the plan could have aroused any feeling in the minds of the treasurer and his subordinates. As I have shown in another place, the volume of assignments or cash might vary from year to year, the contrasts being due to the needs of the moment.! A war might necessitate large payments in cash, whereas the government might resolve, in time of peace, that its creditors should receive drafts. The difference was merely a matter of form. An Englishman of the twentieth century pays some debts in cash, and others in cheques payable only to the persons to whom they are made out. The English government in the fourteenth century did somewhat the same thing.’ As we are not concerned in this study with the ultimate effect upon the

creditors, the government, or finance, of the use of a system of drafts, discussion of this mediaeval device may be dropped at this point in favor of a more detailed description of the several kinds of drafts. 2. ASSIGNMENTS UNDER THE SEAL OF THE EXCHEQUER

The writs of assignment issued by the exchequer during our period were simple in form.’ The taxers and collectors were formally addressed.

Then, in most instances, the writ goes on to tell the reason for the 1 .H.R., xu (1927), 12-20, ‘The Crown and its Creditors, 1327—1333. 2 The contention that tallies of assignment could be passed from hand to hand appears to me to be unsupported by any evidence emanating from the early fourteenth century. I know nothing of the situation in later years. So far as I have been able to discover, tallies were always accompanied by writs ordering the collector of taxes to pay, and neither was negotiable separately. For a contrary opinion see H. Jenkinson in Archaeologia, Lx1r (1911), 367-380; Tout, Chapters, un, 99-101; Salzman, English Trade in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1931), 28. Both Tout and Salzman have accepted Jenkinson’s theory. § The standard types of writs of assignment are printed in Surrey Record Society, xv, Appendix, xli-xliv.

234 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 assignment: the king owed the Bardi for sums spent by them, wardrobe officers had purchased supplies, the keeper of the king’s horses was to be

recompensed. This information was not set down for the use of the collectors, but in order that the exchequer might identify the debt to be repaid when the writ was returned by the collector. A recent study of the practice of the chancery has made it clear that the warrants upon the basis of which writs were issued by that body were largely reproduced in the writs themselves.!_ It would seem that the same procedure obtained at the exchequer. Following the description of the reason for sending out the writ came the order to pay certain named men or certain officers such as escheators, sheriffs, and the like. The exchequer was careful that there should be no

doubt about this matter. There was no such uniform definiteness about the sum that was to be

paid. In by far the larger number of writs the collectors were told to pay a specified sum out of the proceeds of the tax. In others, especially when the money was to be advanced to officers who were to spend it in the king’s behalf, no sum might be mentioned. In 1297, for example, Walter de Agmondesham, king’s clerk and receiver of the king’s money

in the north, was gathering supplies in the northern counties. The collectors of the ninth of that year in Northumberland and in the ridings of Yorkshire were thereupon told to hand over to Walter all the proceeds of that tax that they had in hand.? Like orders were issued to the collectors in Cumberland, Westmorland, and Lancashire in favor of Richard of Abingdon, another receiver.? Similar clauses appear at times in writs of later days, though, when the system of assignment was in full sway in connection with the tax of 1327, not a single example has been found in the orders directed to the taxers and collectors from Michaelmas, 1327, to the close of the Trinity term of the exchequer in 1328.‘ The final clause in the writ contains the directions concerning the form of the acknowledgment which the collectors were to receive from the man or men to whom money had been given. These varied considerably during the period, but are all based upon the principle that the collector must bring to the exchequer tangible evidence of having delivered part or all of the sum assigned to the person named in the writ. The most common wording of the final clause used in the writs before the year 1300 was to the effect that the collectors were to receive from 1 Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Great Seal, Chapter 1x, 223 ff.

21.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 26d. 3 Ibid. The money in all the northern counties was to be spent for munitions for the army. 4K.R.M.R., No. 104, mm. 227-237d. The orders are found in the section Brema trretornabilia. There were, however, drafts of the indefinite type directed to others (iid., mm. 228, 228d., etc.).

Drafts upon the Tazxers and Collectors 235 the payee his or their letters patent testifying to the receipt of the money. Then a note follows: ‘And we will cause you to be allowed for the same in your account at the exchequer,’! or more simply, ‘in your account’ without the words ‘at the exchequer.’? In one instance I have found, the writ

omits the directions as to the receipt of letters patent, though the collectors are promised allowance for the payment to be made.? This was probably due to a clerical error. On no account would the collectors be released from the obligation to bring some sort of voucher to the exchequer.

The use of letters patent as a means of acknowledging the receipt of money delivered to the payee by the collectors of taxes continued to the end of our period. But as the years passed the wording of the clause relating to the form of the allowance at the exchequer was changed. The collectors were, as earlier, directed to receive letters patent distinctly and clearly testifying to the receipt of the money. Then came the new form of assurance; for the money thus paid a tally of the exchequer would be made.‘ A variant upon the wording of the latter clause which is often found during the years towards the close of the period describes with greater accuracy the procedure at the exchequer. It notes that for the receipt and this mandate (that is, the exchequer writ), a tally of the exchequer would be made and allowed the collectors in their account at the exchequer.’ In other words, the collectors were to present at the exchequer (in this case the lower exchequer) the letter patent and the writ of assignment. Thereupon they would be credited on the receipt

roll with the amount noted in the letter and writ. A tally would be issued to them by the officers of the lower exchequer. With the tally in hand they could proceed to the upper exchequer and receive allowance on their account for the sum of money represented by it. This is what had happened under the assignment system of earlier days, and all that may be deduced from the insertion of the new clause is that the officers of the exchequer had decided to word their writs with greater care. This they continued to do. 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 29d. (Salop): ‘Recipientes ad eodem Johanne litteras suas patentes, recepcionem dictorum denariorum testificantes. Et nos vobis in compoto vestro ad Scaccarium nostram apud Westmonasterium debitam allocacionem inde fieri faciemus.’ 2K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 75 (Norfolk). Cf. K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 67d. (Cornwall). $5 K.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 75 (Norfolk).

4L.T.R.M.R., No. 85 (8 Edward II), m. 202: ‘Recipientes inde litteras ipsius Nicholai patentes, recepcionem dicte pecunie testificantes. Et Rex inde talliam de Scaccario sub nominibus predictorum collectorum levari faciet et eis in compoto suo hic de xx" predicta allocandam.’ 5 Ibid., m. 203d. (Gloucester): ‘Recipientes inde ab eisdem Mercatoribus vel uno eorum litteras suas patentes, recepcionem pecunie quam sic liberaveritis testificantes, quarum et huius nostri mandati pretextu, talliam de predicte scaccario nostri fieri faciemus, vobis in compoto vestro ad idem scaccarium allocandam.’ The issue rolls of the reign of Edward III consistently note that allowance was granted on the basis of the writ and the letters patent of receipt.

236 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 Under the system described, it was customary to grant the collectors

allowance for sums paid on the basis of the writs and letters patent without the production of additional evidence. Occasionally, however,

they were directed to bring in other vouchers. What was done in the case of Ralph de Nevill will suffice as an illustration of this statement.'

In 1327 Ralph presented a bill of the wardrobe at the exchequer in which it was testified that there was due to him £264 6s. 4d. for his wages

and those of his men in the castle of Warkworth. He also presented a writ of privy seal directed to the treasurer and chamberlains instructing them to pay him that sum.? Instead of paying him cash, the exchequer gave him a draft upon the collectors of the twentieth of movables in

Lancashire. Then comes the interesting part of the story. At this stage the exchequer usually retained such bills as he presented as evidence that the writ was properly issued. This time it did not do so. It retained the writ of privy seal as a warrant and told Ralph to take the bill with him along with the writ. In the latter document, the collectors

in Lancashire were directed to receive from him both the bill and a letter patent of receipt. When both of these were brought to the exchequer, a tally would be made and the sum allowed the collectors at

their accounting. As has been stated, the writ and letter patent plan was in common use until the close of the period. It functioned alongside the writ and tally

system, about to be described, despite the greater simplicity of the newer method. Even during the early years of Edward III the amount of money drawn upon by means of writs of the older type far exceeded that involved in the writ and tally plan. On the King’s Remembrancer’s Memoranda Roll of 2 Edward III (1327-1328), there are copies of approximately 75 orders to pay directed to the taxers and collectors of the twentieth of movables.? The total amount of these drafts is a little over

£18,000. The writs embodying the letters patent clause number 38 and total close to £13,000. Writs directed to holders of king’s money other than the collectors of the taxes upon movables number about 130, of which number at least 70 are of the older type.’ The King’s Remembrancer’s Memoranda Roll of 7 Edward III contains very few writs of assignment on the taxers and collectors of the fifteenth and tenth. On that roll there are only 8 such writs that were honored; of these 5 are 1K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 227d. For similar cases see m. 232d. (co. Gloucester); K.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 147 (city of York); m. 148 (N. R. York), m. 149 (E. R. York), etc. 2 It is pure assumption on my part that he ‘presented’ the writ of privy seal. I assume that, because of his need, he solicited the writ and took it to the exchequer. It is, of course, possible that the writ was sent by messenger. 3K.R.M.R., No. 104, mm. 227—237d. 4 Iind., mm. 226-238.

Drafts upon the Taxers and Collectors 237 of the older type.!. But the writs of the newer type contain orders to pay £940, out of a total in all the writs of a little over £1,450.”

Early in the fourteenth century an administrative genius devised a form of assignment that was both simple and efficient. I have called it the writ and tally system, for want of a better title. It was a modification of the plan already described, but one that marked a distinct step in advance. About the year 1300 a clause had been inserted in the writs to the effect that when the collectors of taxes appeared at the exchequer

with the writs sent to them and with their letters patent from royal creditors testifying to the receipt of money, tallies would be struck at the exchequer. The collectors therefore reached Westminster before they received their tallies, which were, in normal dealings with such administrative officers, the only vouchers recognized by the exchequer of account. The new plan was to send out the exchequer tally with the writ. The taxcollectors were told to pay a man so many pounds and to receive from

him a tally of the exchequer in their names containing the same sum. For this tally allowance would be granted them at the exchequer.’

Assignment by writ and tally differed in no important respect from

that by writ and letter patent except in the simplication of the procedure. As before, the exchequer was moved to act by a mandate under

the great or privy seal ordering payment of a debt, or by a bill of the wardrobe or other evidence of indebtedness of sufficient authority. It could then issue a writ under the exchequer seal ordering the taxers and

collectors to hand over to the creditor the amount owed him. If the sum was large, it could split it and draw upon one group of collectors for

a part and upon others for the remainder. The collectors would be ordered to pay a given sum and receive from the man named in the writ a tally of the exchequer inscribed in their names and noting the same amount of money. The date of the writ was usually the same as that of an entry on the receipt roll crediting the tax-collectors with the payment into the exchequer of the sum in question.* Before the collectors were credited with the sum on the roll it was, I think, customary to cut a tally, the official receipt. On it were found the words later entered on the receipt

roll and, in addition, a note of the term and year.’ At the time of the 1K.R.M.R., No. 109, mm. 281, 281d., 284, 284d., 285d., 287, 287d. 2 The generalization in my paper ‘An Early Exchequer Tally,’ Bulletin of the John Rylands Library,

vit (1923), 274, was based on insufficient data.

3 ‘The clause reads: ‘Recipientes ab eodem . . ._ talliam de scaccario nostro sub nominibus vestris levatam dictam summam continentam quam vobis in compoto vestro ad dictam scaccarium

nostram . . .. allocari faciemus’ (K.R.M.R., No. 112, m. 263). 4'The two dates were not invariably, though normally, the same. The matter will be discussed in the next chapter. 6H. Jenkinson, ‘Exchequer Tallies,’ Archaeologia, Lx11 (1911), 373, 375.

238 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 entry on the receipt roll a record of the other side of the transaction was

made on the issue roll, which recorded disbursements.! It noted that the creditor had been paid the sum in question by a tally upon the collectors, by warrant of a writ under the privy seal or great seal. The creditor left Westminster with the writ and tally and journeyed to the county in which the collectors were at work. When he found them he handed to them the writ ordering them to pay, and, when they had paid the sum, gave them the tally. The latter, under the new plan, was at once a receipt from the payee and a receipt from the exchequer. The collector now had in his possession exactly the same kind of acknowledgment of payment that he would have received had he gone to Westminster and paid in cash or proffered other types of vouchers. The new system, if consistently used, would have greatly simplified the

procedure at the exchequer. When a collector came to Westminster with his writ and tally, it would appear that there was no necessity of a visit to the exchequer of receipt. The barons who took charge of his accounting would scrutinize his tally, match it with the foil, and perhaps ask one of the remembrancers to check the writ he produced with the copy on the memoranda roll. The saving of the time and energy of both the collector of taxes and the officers of the exchequer would be considerable. But, unfortunately, the old system continued alongside the new,

and many, if not most, of the collectors within our period came to Westminster with writs and letters patent of receipt, which required validation at the lower exchequer. Until the writ and tally system gained general acceptance, its value as a time-saving device would not be so great. The first definite evidence that I have found of the use of the plan of assignment by writ and tally is connected with the subsidy of 1306. The mayor and aldermen of London were commanded to pay William Trent, the king’s butler, 1000 marks and to receive from him a tally of the ex-

chequer in their names.? Thereafter for a few years I have found few 1On 16 May, 1328, the collectors of the twentieth in Essex were ordered to pay John de Bousser £10 (K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 234d.). On the same day this entry appears on the receipt roll of Easter, 2 Edward IIT: ‘Essexia — De Thoma Gobyoun, Radulpho Giffard’ et Nicholao Sterteford’ taxatoribus et collectoribus xx™® Regi concesse; x li de eadem xx*.’ The issue roll of the same year and term records under the day 16 May: ‘J. de Bouser — Johannus de Bousser uni justiciariorum domini E. nuper Regis Anglii patris Regis huius ad assisas in diversis comitatibus Anglie capiendas assignato per breve suum de liberate continens x li sibi liberandas pro eo quod ei aretro est pro termino Sancti Michaelis anno patris Regis nunc predicti vicesimo de annuo feodo suo viginti librarum quod per-

cipit in officio supradicte, cuius brevis datum est apud Ebor’ xvr° die Februarii proximo preterito et est inter mandata de hoc termino et persolvitur. In una tallia facta isto die Thome Gobyoun, Radulpho Giffard et Nicholas de Sterteford taxatoribus et collectoribus xx™° Regi concesse in comitatu Essexie continente x li de eadem xx* et eidem Johanni liberata in persolucionem brevis supradicti — x li. 2 L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 56d. Though the writ is not here, the account of the transaction is clear.

Drafts upon the Taxers and Collectors 239 references to the use of tallies with writs of the exchequer,! but my search of the Brevia irretornabilia in the memoranda rolls has not been very detailed. From 1319 references become more numerous.? There is a curious item in an exchequer writ of the letter patent type sent to the collectors of the sixteenth of 1316 in the county of Hereford that would seem to indicate that tallies as a means of acknowledging the

receipt of money given creditors were at least familiar to some taxgatherers. The Herefordshire group were told to pay the merchants of the Bardi £200, receiving from them letters patent testifying to the receipt of that sum. It was added that the collectors were to pay the money notwithstanding the fact that no tally of the exchequer was sent them. As, however, most of the writs of assignment issued in 1317 were of the ordinary and older type, too much emphasis must not be placed upon the circumstances of this one case. In 1328, however, there was a

similar tale to tell. The merchants of the Bardi were given a writ of assignment for £400 on the collectors of the twentieth in Kesteven, Lincolnshire, the writ containing the clause relating to letters patent.‘ The writ is dated 13 February. On 19 April the merchants complained at the exchequer that the collectors had paid only £380 and did not care to pay the remainder until a tally was brought them. The officers of the exchequer were firm, and commanded the Kesteven collectors to pay and

to receive letters patent as directed. The same complaint was made by the Bardi against other groups of collectors.§ It may appear that the reluctance of the collectors arose from the fact

that the Bardi were involved in both the above transactions. But the same trouble arose in connection with drafts in favor of Richard de la Pole in 1328. Letters close, under the great seal dated 20 March, were directed to the collectors of the twentieth in the West Riding of Yorkshire and other districts ordering them to pay Richard various sums of money.°® Difficulties arose. On 30 April the treasurer and chamberlains, officers of

the lower exchequer, were commanded to cause tallies to be made and delivered to Richard since ‘the collectors have deferred paying him the above sums because he did not bring to them tallies of the receipt of the exchequer for the money.” The issue roll, under the date 16 May, notes 1K.R.M.R., No. 83 (3 Edward II), m. 95, Lincolnshire. The reference is in a view of account, L.T.R.M.R., No. 86 (9 Edward II), mm. 162d., 164 (Lincoln, Lyndsey), 162 (Norfolk).

2L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, mm. 123-125; K.R.M.R., No. 93, mm. 145-149 (both 18 Edward II); K.R.M.R., No. 96, mm. 138-146 (16 Edward IJ); K.R.M.R., No. 104, mm. 227-237d. (2 Edward ITI).

3L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 141 (25 February, 1317). 4K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 230d. 5 K.R.M.R., No. 104, mm. 230d. (Essex), 231 (Hertford and Cambridge). 6 C.C.R. 1827-1830, 269. The writ refers to the three ridings of Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and the prior of Thurgarton. The latter was one of the collectors of a clerical tenth in the diocese of York. Tbid., 277.

240 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 that eight tallies had been issued as a result of the writ of 30 April,! and on the same day the several sums were credited on the receipt roll to the

collectors of the twentieth in the ridings of Yorkshire and in Derby.’ When these collectors came in for their accounting, they brought with them the tallies of 16 May and were granted allowance for them.’ The reluctance of the collectors in Yorkshire and Derbyshire to honor assignments unless accompanied by tallies may have been due to more

than one cause, among which may have been ignorance. Not one of them had served in a like capacity before and, when appointed, none may have had a first-hand acquaintance with the system of assignment. They

would be familiar with the use of tallies as receipts, for private tallies were In common use. After they entered upon their duties as tax-collectors, their first acquaintance with writs of assignment was with writs under the seal of the exchequer.‘ Writs under the latter seal, dated 11 December, were issued to the collectors in the three ridings of Yorkshire ordering them to pay large sums and to receive tallies of the exchequer. Other writs dated 13 February were sent to the same collectors ordering

them to pay still more; one of these was of the writ and letter patent type, the other two were of the newer writ and tally type. No writs under the great seal were issued to the collectors in Yorkshire before 20 March. The Derbyshire collectors had not, so far as can be discovered, been sent any writs of assignment before the latter date. So there were three groups of collectors in Yorkshire that presumably knew exchequer writs of the writ and tally type, one in the same county that had received a writ under the exchequer seal of the older type, one in Derbyshire that had not been called upon to hand over money, and none in either county that had received letters close under the great seal directing them to pay. At some time in March or early April each of the groups received writs under the great seal of the older type, ordering them to pay Richard de la Pole. The cause of their hesitation is reasonably clear.® In concluding this section on orders to pay under the seal of the ex-

chequer it may be noted that the Brevia trretornabilia, of which they formed a part, were to a large extent enrolled in duplicate by the two remembrancers of the exchequer until the time of Stapleton’s reforms. 1 Issue Roll, No. 237 (Easter, 2 Edward III). The tallies were sent out with writs of the exchequer dated 17 May, one day later than the entry on the receipt roll (K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 235). 2 Receipt Roll, No. 278 (Easter, 2 Edward ITI). 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, mm. 26, 99. 4K.R.M.R., No. 104, mm. 227, 229. 5 Ind., m. 230. 6 The collectors in the East Riding seem later to have raised no objection to two writs of the older type issued 13 May under the seal of the exchequer (IK.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 235). See also what happened in the case of the collectors described below on page 242.

Drafts upon the Taxers and Collectors Q41 After 1323 the record of such writs kept by the king’s remembrancer was much more complete and far more informing in added notes than that of his colleague, the treasurer’s remembrancer.! 3. DRAFTS UNDER THE GREAT SEAL

A second source of assignment upon the taxers and collectors was the

chancery. It issued its orders to pay in the form of letters close under the great seal. So far as has been discovered, this rule was departed from on only one occasion. Letters patent under the great seal dated 18 December, 1301, were issued to the collectors of the fifteenth in seventeen counties.? In

these they were commanded to pay for corn granted by men in those counties for the expedition to Scotland and delivered, or to be delivered.

A search of the patent roll of the previous regnal year has brought to light no other mandates of this kind,’ while on the close roll there are a number of orders to other than tax-collectors to pay money to various men, as well as commands directing the payment of timber and other goods.* The situation was the same during the year following the date of the writs. The only assignment of the usual type recorded on the patent roll of this latter year, that of 9 February on the abbot of Malmesbury, was repeated on the close roll, its proper place.’ On the close rolls

there is not only an assignment on the collectors of the fifteenth, but several others directed to other officers.6 Though it is certain from a later entry on the close roll that the orders of 18 December were, and were meant to be, letters patent,’ it would also seem clear that by issuing them in that form the chancery was pursuing an unusual course. Letters close sent to the collectors ordering payments out of the pro-

ceeds of the taxes were never numerous. In all I have found only 99 such writs during our period.’ This is a very small number in comparison

with those issued under the seal of the exchequer. Only one draft has 1 See my paper “The Memoranda Rolls and the Remembrancers,’ in Essays in Mediaeval History Presented to Thomas Frederick Tout, 224, 228. 2 C.P.R. 1301-1307, 5-6. 3 C.P.R. 1292-1301, 556 ff.

4C.C.R. 1296-1302, 416, 441, 452, 457, 477 (to pay money); 425, 432, 434, 446, 451, 468 (to pay wood or other goods). 5 C.P.R. 1801-1307, 14 (on an attached schedule); C.C.R. 1296-1802, 514. There are two orders

on the receivers of the clerical tenth granted by the pope which perhaps ought to be added. From the position of the mandates below the grants, I conjecture that both were letters close. 6 C.C.R. 1296-1302, 507 (on the collectors of the fifteenth), 511, 514, 524, 542, 545, 559. All these

ordered payments in money. 7C.C.R. 1302-1307, 52.

8 Some writs may have been overlooked. I am, however, reasonably certain that the number would not be greatly increased by further search.

242 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 been found on the collectors of the tax of 1301 in addition to those on the

patent rolls.1 In later years the number was larger. ‘There were 19 on the collectors of the tax of 1313,? 18 on those of 1315, 18 on those of 1316,4

and then only one on those of 1319.5 The banner year for assignments under the great seal was 1328. During that year there were 29 letters close sent to the collectors of the twentieth, the total of the separate sums

running to a little over £4,800. Compared with the 75 writs under the seal of the exchequer issued during the same year and with the total of the items of those writs, a little over £18,000, this was not a very imposing

output.’ Yet it is the greatest that I have found. An interesting piece of information is found in the 23 writs directed to

the collectors of the twentieth on 20 August, 1328. After an order to pay the merchants of the Bardi various sums and to receive from the merchants tallies of the receipt of the exchequer the following statement is added: ‘As the exchequer is closed in the present season so that writs under the exchequer seal cannot be made concerning the premises, the king, to avoid the damages that may arise to him by delay in payment,

orders the collectors to pay the aforesaid . . . without delay, laying aside all excuse, to the said merchants, or to their attorney bringing this writ, out of the money collected or to be collected from the twentieth, recelving from them the tallies aforesaid.’ Therefore, though the exchequer was closed, tallies could be and were issued at the lower exchequer.

An examination of the receipt roll gives results that throw light upon this

point.? On 18 August, two days before the date of the writs, the collectors of the twentieth in the counties of Oxford and Warwick were credited with the amount named in their writs; in Berks the collectors were credited with £320 out of £400. The dating of entries on the receipt roll ends on 18 August. There follows a number of entries, enrolled after the exchequer closed. These account for most, though not all, of the tallies issued with the drafts of 20 August.

The other part of the story is even more interesting. The letters close ordered the collectors to pay, notwithstanding the fact that writs under the exchequer seal were not sent them. This must mean that the col10.C.R. 1296-1302, 507. 2 C.F.R., u, 190, 192, 197. 3 0.C.R. 1313-1818, 171, 176, 181, 245, 246, 248-249, 249, 257, 269. ‘C.C.R. 1813-1318, 360, 362, 376, 378, 379, 389, 391, 393, 409; C.F.R., 1, 328. 7 orders to pay a chamberlain of the exchequer (p. 391), have not been counted in the total given above. 5 C.C.R. 1818-1828, 165. 6 C.C.R. 1827-13830, 195, 269, 311-312. 7 See Section 2. 8 C.C.R. 1827-1830, 811.

9 Receipt Roll, No. 280 (Easter, 2 Edward ITI).

Drafts upon the Taxers and Collectors 243 lectors were credited with greater familiarity with drafts issued by the exchequer. The chancery, indeed, had every reason for this diagnosis of the situation. Only 7 chancery writs of assignment had been sent out to the collectors of the twentieth before 20 August,! whereas some 75 had been issued under the seal of the exchequer.? Each of the groups of taxers and collectors named on the twentieth of August had received at least one exchequer draft and 8 had received more than one, even to the 5 sent the groups in both Berks and Oxfordshire. The chancery officers, knowing of the greater use of exchequer writs, were simply guarding against a possible reluctance to honor a relatively unfamiliar kind of

draft. It is quite probable that the troubles of Richard de la Pole, discussed in the preceding section, affected the wording of the chancery writs. Of the 99 letters close sent to the collectors of taxes ordering them to pay, 72 specified the exact sum that was to be delivered. These sums, as

was also the case with those noted in the writs under the seal of the exchequer, were usually in round numbers and frequently above £100.‘ In 27 of the writs under the great seal no definite amount was noted. In 5 of these the amount to be paid was restricted. The collectors of the sixteenth of 1316 in Wiltshire were told to pay the keeper of the manor of Clarendon up to 100 marks in aid of the repair of the buildings in that manor.’ In 1315 the collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth in the parts of Lincolnshire were directed to pay into the wardrobe, for the expenses of the household, ‘all money collected and to be collected by them .. .

according to the directions of Walter of Norwich, the treasurer. A similar assignment was issued upon the collectors in Norfolk.’ The clauses in the remaining writs were more indefinite in character. At times they read that the collectors were to pay ‘all money collected’ or ‘all money in hand.’® This was a limitation of asort. Another reads that ‘all the money received or to be received’ was to be handed over to the persons named in the writ. As might be expected, neither of the latter 10.C.R. 1327-1330, 195, 269.

2K.R.M.R., No. 104, mm. 227-237. 3] fear that Tout, Chapters, 11, 17, and 17, note 3, has misunderstood the situation. There is here no question of a chancery writ overriding an exchequer writ. As there was need of money and the exchequer was closed, the chancery issued the group of writs with a command that they be honored despite the obvious fact that they did not come from the exchequer. ‘E. g., C.C.R. 1818-1818, 391; C.C.R. 1827-1830, 269, 311-312. 5 C.C.R. 1813-1818, 384. But see 389, where reference is made to the payment of a definite sum of 100 marks. ® C.C.R. 1313-1318, 245.

7 dbid., 246. In this writ the phrase reads: ‘As Walter of Norwich, the king’s treasurer, shall tell them by his letters patent.’ 8E. g., ibid., 181, 269; C.F.R., u, 328; C.C.R. 1333-1337, 21-22. 9 O.C.R. 1827-1330, 195.

244 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 types of assignments was used indiscriminately. They were issued in favor of the chancellor and the keeper of the wardrobe, and of such trusted agents as the Bardi or Nicholas de Welleburn, who was gathering money to pay men in the king’s service.!

In all but 14 of the 99 letters close the purpose for which the money was assigned was described. In most of the larger number the money was to be used for service that was being performed or that was about

to be performed. Henry de Beaumont was in Scotland in the king’s service in 1301, and was granted 200 marks for his maintenance;? William,

poulterer of the household, was to be paid £100 so that he might purchase the things he needed ;? John de Felton, constable of Alnwick Castle,

needed money for the support of the garrison, and was given an assignment of £100;* Richard de la Pole, king’s butler, was given orders for various sums in order that he might purchase wine for the royal house-

hold. In contrast to these there were other assignments for debts arising from past service. Of this sort was the writ sent to the collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth of 1315 in the North Riding of Yorkshire in which they were commanded to pay Ralph Fitz William 100 marks

‘in part payment of 240 marks due to him for the time when he was keeper of the town of Berwick, for which he had bills under the seal of the chamberlain of Scotland, which he had lost.’* The collectors of the

sixteenth of 1316 in the same riding were ordered to pay Andrew de Harkla £82 10s. 10d. in part satisfaction of a large sum owed him for the wages of himself and men-at-arms lately garrisoning Carlisle castle.’ The collectors in a number of counties were, by writs dated 20 August,

1328, directed to pay what was in the aggregate a very large sum of money to the Bardi in repayment of a loan made by that company to the king.®

When the description of the specific service that had been or was to be rendered was omitted from the writs, it was usual to insert a phrase of a

general character to take its place. The assignments already referred to, in which all money in hand or received and to be received was to be 1C.C.R. 13818-13818, 181 (chancellor), 362 (keeper of the wardrobe), 376 (keeper of the wardrobe); C.C.R. 1833-1337, 21-22 (keeper of the wardrobe); C.C.R. 1327-13830, 195 (Bardi); C.F.R., 1, 328

(Nicholas). In 1316 the collectors in cos. Worcester and Hereford were told to pay ‘all money in hand and that can be levied’ to the sheriffs in those counties for the wages of foot-soldiers (C.C.R. 1313-1318, 269). 2C.C.R. 1296-1302, 507. 8 C.F.R., u1, 192.

40.C.R. 1318-1318, 171. 5 C.C.R. 1327-1330, 269. 6 C.C.R. 1313-1318, 257. 7 C.C.R. 1313-1318, 378. ®C.C.R. 1327-1330, 311-312.

Drafts upon the Taxers and Collectors Q45 paid to an important royal officer, were mostly of this type. So the collectors were to pay all the money they had in hand to the chancellor

‘for the furtherance of . . . the king’s affairs,’! to the keeper of the wardrobe ‘for the king’s benefit,’? and so on. On the other hand, they might be commanded, as they were in 1316, to hand over all the returns from the taxes to Roger de Northburgh, keeper of the wardrobe, without any reason being furnished.®

The summaries of the letters close found in the official Calendar published by the Stationery Office do not usually describe the form of the receipt to be given the collectors by the men whom they paid. This is not due to the fact that some such directions were not included, but to a lack of interest in such matters on the part of those who calendared the documents.‘ In the circumstances, no accurate estimate may be made

of the chancery practice with respect either to the writ and letter or writ and tally plans of assignment without reference to original enrolments on the close rolls. I have not soreferred. It may be mentioned, however, that both plans are found in use in the writs of which full summaries are given. Letters patent of receipt are noted in a group of writs dated 18 May, 1317, in which several collectors were ordered to pay all the money they had gathered to Nicholas de Welleburn.’ Two large groups of writs, dated 26 May, 1314, and 20 August, 1328, directed that tallies of the exchequer be accepted as receipts. An unusual type of receipt is named in a writ of 12 January, 1328, for in it the collectors were commanded to receive indentures from the Bardi for sums delivered to them.’ The same type of receipt is noted in 1317 and in 1323.8

As noted in the preceding section, difficulties arose in 1328 over the acceptance by the collectors of taxes of letters close unaccompanied by

tallies. ‘There is no need of repeating here the explanation of their reluctance. Other writs under the great seal ordering the treasurer and barons to cause tallies to be made and delivered to the collectors seem to 1 C.C.R. 1313-1818, 181. 2 C.C.R. 1383-1337, 21-22. 3 C.C.R. 1313-1318, 362, 376.

4On 6 October, 1315, a writ was issued to the taxers and collectors in Norfolk to pay £3800 to Master Roger de Acton, the king’s lardener. The summary in C.C.R. 1818-1318, 249, makes no mention of a receipt. The original writ, found in Exchequer of Receipt, Wardrobe Debentures, etc., E 404/501, contains a clause to the effect that the collectors were to receive from Roger his letter patent testifying to the receipt of the money. 5 C.F.R., 11, 328. See also the draft on the Welsh fifteenth in C.C.R. 1296-1302, 282. 6 C.F.R., u, 197; C.C.R. 1327-18380, 311-312. 7 C.C.R. 1327-1330, 195.

8 C.C.R. 1313-1318, 391; C.C.R. 1823-1327, 25. The latter is not a reference to a writ, but to the procedure followed when the taxers and collectors paid Gilbert of York, king’s clerk, money for corn provided for the Scotch war.

246 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 have had to do with another matter, the failure of the exchequer to accept vouchers brought in by the same collectors.! These will be dealt with in the succeeding chapter. 4. DRAFTS UNDER THE PRIVY SEAL

In May, 1328, the collectors of the twentieth in all counties were ordered to certify the treasurer and barons of the exchequer ‘of all the king’s orders sent to them by writs of the great seal or the exchequer seal or privy seal since Michaelmas last for making any payments.’ This order may fittingly introduce the consideration of the third class of assignments upon money in the hands of the tax-collectors—those issued under the privy seal. Writs of privy seal were issued by the wardrobe during the early part of our period; the privy seal was then the seal of the wardrobe and in the custody of its controller. Towards the close of the reign of Edward II the privy seal office gained an organization of its own, though it was still in the wardrobe. Tout states that the early years of the reign of Edward IIT witnessed a further development, for the office ‘gradually dissociated

itself from wardrobe and household, and became a restricted office of

state.’? But within our period the privy seal was still the seal of the wardrobe.

While such writs were used on a large scale as warrants for the issue of chancery and exchequer writs, they were only infrequently utilized as drafts upon the collectors of the taxes upon personal property. That is to say, while they could be and were sent to the chancellor, or to the treasurer and barons, commanding the payment of royal debts, they

were but rarely sent directly to the collectors ordering them to pay money to anyone. It may not be out of place to re-emphasize here the statement that the exchequer was regarded as the proper source of assign-

ment on the taxes on movable goods. To this may be added the fact that the general use of writs of privy seal would have unnecessarily com-

plicated what was at best a difficult situation. Unless an emergency gave rise to a special need, the officers who had charge of the privy seal could satisfy such creditors as appealed to them by sending a note to the chancery or exchequer directing the payment of the debt.‘ The year 1301 was one of war and the gathering of munitions of war. 1K. g., C.C.R. 1318-1318, 376-377; C.C.R. 1318-1323, 42. 2 C.C.R. 1827-1880, 390.

§ Tout, Chapters, m1, 54. On the earlier history of the privy seal see Tout, Place of Edward II, 164-168, and Chapters, m, 282-318. 4 Cal. Chan. War., 1, contains many such writs. See, for an analysis of the warrants, B. Wilkinson,

“The Authorisation of Chancery Writs under Edward III,’ Bulletin of John Rylands Inbrary, vu (1924), 107-139.

Drafts upon the Taxers and Collectors QA47 Tout has shown that the wardrobe had a prominent share in these activities of the latter days of Edward I, and his conclusions are re-enforced

by the records connected with taxes. One of the chief needs of the war was grain. ‘The people of the counties advanced considerable quantities of this commodity, for which the king promised payment out of the fifteenth granted in January, 1301.!_ The taxers and collectors, appointed

in October and November, 1301,? were told in letters close, dated 18 December, to pay for the grain provided under the direction of clerks sent into the counties.? On or about 7 January, 1303, additional instructions in a writ of privy seal were sent to the collectors in Norfolk and, presumably, in other counties. In this the collectors were told to pay immediately and to make indentures, giving quantities and sums in detail, between themselves, the clerk sent to them, and the sheriff of the county. They were to bring these indentures to the wardrobe together with the writ of privy seal and the letter they had received under the great seal. These would serve as the basis for their allowance. If the writs of privy seal had been confined to the matter just described,

that of instructing the collectors, there would be little need of referring to the events of the years following 1301. It happened, however, that the wardrobe, in some instances at least, went much farther than the issuing of bald instructions. This certainly happened in connection with Kent, for which county there are preserved among the modern class of Lay Subsidies, where clearly they do not belong, a number of vouchers, dated during the year 1302, brought to the exchequer by the collectors of the fifteenth. Among these are a writ of privy seal, several mandates of John de Drokenesford, keeper of the wardrobe, and receipts given by men who were paid in accordance with the writs and mandates. During the brief period covered by the writs sent to the collectors of Kent, they received at least one writ of assignment under the privy seal. It is dated 6 June, and commands them to pay Peter de Coldingham, carrier of the letter, all the money they had gathered of the fifteenth. No form of receipt is noted, but among the vouchers there is a letter patent under the privy seal dated 7 June, directed to the treasurer and chamberlains of the exchequer, testifying that the collectors had paid Peter £40.5 1 C.C.R. 1296-1302, 574. Cf. C.P.R. 1292-1301, 589; C.P.R. 1801-1807, 5. 2 Parl. Writs, 1, 106-107.

3 For this and the writ of privy seal see Hall, Formula Book of Legal Records, 51-52. He has given also a transcript of one of the indentures. For a reference to the writ of privy seal see C.C.R. 1802-1307, 52. 4 Lay Subsidy, 237/52.

5 Ibid. The Oxford collectors are said to have paid Walter Renaud, keeper of the wardrobe of Udward, son of the king, £60 ‘by writ of privy seal’ (Lay Subsidy, 161/6).

248 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 Direct evidence of the use of writs of privy seal in assignments upon the collectors of the taxes upon movables is, so far as can be discovered,

practically non-existent during the reign of Edward II.!. They have been found, however, in connection with other forms of royal revenue,’ and I conjecture that they were also utilized from time to time in connection with our taxes. What happened in the case of the bailiffs and men of Kingston-upon-Thames in May, 1318, may well have found its counterpart elsewhere.’ The bailiffs were ordered by writ of privy seal to pay John de Midenhale, king’s blacksmith, £25 14s. 6d. They did so, and later obtained from the wardrobe a formal acknowledgment that the amount had been paid to John. Upon their appearance at the exchequer on 11 June, they presented the wardrobe letter, which was called on the issue roll a letter patent of the keeper of the wardrobe, and were allowed the sum towards the payment of their ferm. Like the bailiffs of Kingston, the collectors of the taxes upon personal property occasionally appeared

at the exchequer with letters patent of the wardrobe testifying to the fact that they also had paid out money.‘ It is likely that mm some instances at least a similar transaction lay behind such letters. The records of the accounting of the collectors of the twentieth of 1327 before the exchequer bring to light some interesting items about writs of privy seal used as drafts. The Leicestershire collectors exhibited such a writ, dated at Oundle, 17 April, 1328, in which they were directed to take all the money they had levied to Northampton for the use of the wardrobe. As they produced no evidence of having paid anything into the

wardrobe, they were not granted allowance for any sum. Far more interesting is the suspicion of forgery directed against Henry de Pentelorne, one of the Berkshire collectors. When William de Pershore, his colleague, appeared before the upper exchequer, he showed certain tallies and also a letter ‘which he alleged to be a writ of privy seal, by

reason whereof he said that he had paid £40 to Robert de Berford, 1 The only case that I have found is in the accounting of the Lincolnshire collectors of 1306 in the year 1307 (K.R.M.R., No. 81, m. 90). 2 See the remarks of Davies, Baronial Opposition, 148, 149, and the writs in the Appendix, Nos. 48,

95. There are drafts under the privy seal on the collectors of the clerical tenth dated 3 Edward II (Exchequer of Receipt, Wardrobe Debentures, etc., E 404/485). 3 My description of the procedure is based on a letter of the wardrobe, dated 30 May, 1318, in Exchequer of Receipt, Wardrobe Debentures, etc., E 404/485, and upon the records on Receipt Roll, No. 224, and Issue Roll, No. 184, m. 4, under the date 2 June, when the voucher was honored at the exchequer.

4. g., L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, m. 142d. (W. R. York). Similar references appear on the issue rolls; e. g., Issue Roll, No. 189 (Mich., 18 Edward IT), 25 January, 5 February, etc.

§L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, m. 99. 6 K.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 109. My quotation is from the manuscript calendar of the memoranda rolls made in the Public Record Office.

Drafts upon the Taxers and Collectors 249 merchant. The treasurer and barons, having examined the letter, the impression of the seal, the method of sealing, and the writing, had a suspicion that it was a forgery. The said William, being asked how it came into his hands, alleged that the said Henry [his fellow collector], received it at Reading from a yeoman (valettus), who asserted that he was with the said Robert, and paid the yeoman the said £40. The said Henry delivered the letter to the said William to show in court.’ Henry was haled before the exchequer, and corroborated William’s statement. Though he was forced to find sureties for his presence from day to day, nothing further seems to have been done about the matter. Despite this lack of a complete record, the care with which the writ of privy seal was examined by the officers of the exchequer is well worthy of remark. A modern skilled student of documents could use no better methods.! It will, I fear, be impossible to estimate with any accuracy the volume of writs of privy seal used as assignments until the issue rolls are explored with great thoroughness. Meanwhile the other sources of information examined, as well as a number of these rolls, reveal very few of this class

of drafts. It seems to belong where it has been placed, lower in the scale of importance than either of the two other classes described. Writs of privy seal are found on every hand as warrants for chancery or exchequer writs, but that is quite another matter. 1 For an entry in the records of the accounting of the collectors of 1834 of a writ of privy seal that was honored at once because receipts accompanied it see K.R.M.R., No. 111, m. 274 (Cambridge).

CHAPTER X THE COLLECTORS AT THE RECEIPT OF THE EXCHEQUER Te activities of the collectors of taxes would in time culminate in two or more visits to the exchequer at Westminster with the county rolls of the assessment and some or all of the money due from the inhabitants of their counties. Once at Westminster, the collectors would in most cases go first to the receipt of the exchequer, the lower exchequer, to pay cash into the treasury or to have their vouchers validated. When they had been released by the receipt, they would go to the exchequer of account, the upper exchequer, to present to the treasurer and barons the

evidence of the work they had done, to answer questions, and to have their statements, their rolls, and their vouchers formally scrutinized by members of the accounting board. In the following description of what occurred at Westminster [I shall, as in earlier chapters, stick rather closely to the records dealing with the assessors and collectors of the taxes upon movables. I am not attempting to write a treatise on the fourteenth-century exchequer. I shall also, as before, describe the various stages of the procedure at Westminster in the

order in which they were expected to occur and so shall deal first with what happened at the receipt.!. To provide a background for the appearance of the collectors, it is, however, necessary to summarize some information about that body and its place in the system of financial administration. 1. Toe Receipt oF THE EXCHEQUER

The receipt of the exchequer was a sub-division, or sub-department, of the financial department of the central government, the exchequer. The official nomenclature, as well as the practice, of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries recognized two parts of the exchequer. The first in order, though not in standing, was the receipt of the exchequer, described in the Dialogus as the lower exchequer, and also known 1n our 1 It is of course quite obvious that all the stages as I describe them constantly overlapped. The assessment of property in one part of a county might easily be accompanied by collection in another part. While one collector was accounting at Westminster, his colleague might be gathering a part of

the tax. A collector might, in certain circumstances, go first to the exchequer of account only to return to the receipt. Nevertheless, assessment had to precede the collection of taxes, collection precede the payment of cash into the treasury, and appearance at the receipt precede the formal accounting before the upper exchequer. 250

The Collectors at the Receipt of the Exchequer 251 period as the exchequer of receipt, or, more simply, as the receipt. The other division was commonly called the exchequer of account, the great exchequer, or, more simply, the exchequer; in the Dialogus it is described as the upper exchequer.! Letters sent to the receipt were addressed to the treasurer and chamberlains, whereas those sent to the exchequer of account were normally directed to the treasurer and barons.? Into the receipt flowed the greater part of the king’s income in the form of cash or of evidence of money expended by revenue collectors. Money so delivered was said to be paid into the treasury, for by our period the old distinction between the exchequer and a separate treasury had long disappeared. ‘The receipt was also the channel through which the royal income was disbursed to governmental departments of expenditure and officers and to the many creditors of the crown. It kept a careful record of both receipts and disbursements. The exchequer of account, as its name implies, was an accounting board. Before it appeared periodically keepers of the wardrobe, sheriffs, escheators, collectors of customs, and others, as well as our tax-collectors, to present evidence of their receipts and expenditures, and to hear what the treasurer and barons had to say about the matter. It was also, as we have seen in the preceding chapters, a secretarial department with power to issue writs and letters, and an

administrative court which could try and punish tax-collectors for their misdeeds. The chief officer of the receipt, as well as of the exchequer as a whole,

was the treasurer, one of the great ministers of the crown, and a very busy man.? Under him were the two chamberlains upon whom rested the responsibility for carrying on the business entrusted to the receipt. Below them were a number of lesser officers, the clerk of the treasurer, the tellers, the usher, the weigher, and the cutter of tallies, whose duties do not concern us here. The most important records of the receipt were the receipt rolls and issue rolls. The first were generally referred to as ‘rolls of receipt.’ M. S. Giuseppi notes also the titles Pellis Introitus and Pellis Receptae.4 The

issue rolls were called Pellis Exitus, Rotult de Exitus, and, in crossreferences, pells of memoranda or pells.6 The receipt rolls recorded 1 For a discussion of the subject see Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, 71-72, 100. 2 See any volume of the Calendar of Close Rolls. 3 For a description of the officers of the receipt in early days see Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth

Century. Tout has briefly noted the later officers in his Place of Edward II, 48-49, 349-351. Several of the officers are named in the wage lists on the issue rolls; e. g., Issue Roll, No. 210 (Mich., 18 Edward II), m. 13; Issue Roll, No. 228 (Easter, 1 Edward IIT), m. 8. I have described the position and duties of one officer in my paper “The Treasurer’s Issue Roll and the Clerk of the Treasurer, Edward J-Edward III,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, vit (1931), 129~135. 4 Guide to the Manuscripts Preserved in the Public Record Office, 1 (London, 1923), 179. 6 Giuseppi, Guide, 1, 179, 184. The notes of warranty on exchequer records note the same and other

252 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 credits for sums of money theoretically or actually paid into the treasury.

The issue rolls noted disbursements out of the king’s income. Both series were kept in triplicate, two copies being in the name of the cham-

berlains, and the other in the name of the treasurer.! The latter was made up by, or under the direction of, the clerk of the treasurer.? Unfortunately, a number of both receipt and issue rolls have been lost during the course of the centuries, but during the period with which I am dealing at least one survives for all but a few terms of the exchequer.’ The inauguration in 1290 of the attempt to bring all the king’s income to the receipt resulted for a time in the multiplication of receipt and issue rolls. Separate series of rolls were made for the receipts from the taxes upon movables, from clerical subsidies, from tallages and aids, from clerical fines for protection, and from alien clergy. A few of the new series lasted well into the reign of Edward IJ. Thereafter receipts from all sources were enrolled upon what may be called the ordinary receipt rolls. Special issue rolls were also started in 19 Edward I to record the disbursement of the income from the lay and clerical taxes, but they only lasted for two years. Whereas the period from 1290 to 1334 witnessed no changes of any importance in the method or recording credits upon the receipt rolls, the same may not be said about the memoranda of disbursements on the

issue rolls. The first fact to be noted about the latter is that until Michaelmas, 33 Edward I, at least, it was usual to make up two distinct

series.© One, that may be referred to as the standard type, kept its records of disbursements in two columns; the other is merely a summary of certain items on the standard rolls, the most important being debits against the wardrobe account, and is made up in a single broad column

or panel. The first type is of paramount importance to a modern indescriptive terms; E. g., K.R.M.R., No. 104, mm. 233, 234, 237; No. 109, m. 287; Issue Rolls, Nos. 150, 159, 161, 219, 220, etc., entitled Pellts Memorandorum on the rolls themselves. 1 The earliest example of triplicate issue rolls known to me is the group, Issue Rolls, Nos. 86, 88, 89 (Easter, 22 Edward I). Compare Receipt Rolls, Nos. 129, 130, 131. 2 For a description of the archives of the receipt of the exchequer see H. Jenkinson, A Manual of Archive Administration (Oxford, 1922), Appendix v, 205-223.

8 There are no receipt rolls for the following terms: Mich., 26 Edward IJ; Easter, 28 Edward [; Mich., 30 Edward IJ, and Mich., 10 Edward IJ. No issue rolls are preserved for Easter, 25 Edward I; Mich., 25 Edward I; Mich., 26 Edward I; Mich., 27 Edward I; Mich., 29 Edward I; Mich., 30

Edward I, and Mich., 10 Edward II. ;

4See my paper, ‘An Exchequer Reform under Edward I,’,in The Crusades and Other Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro, especially 237-238, for the new classes of records.

6 The practice may have continued beyond 33 Edward I, since there are two single-column rolls of later date. No. 140 is without date, but late in the reign, and No. 148 (Easter, 2 Edward II) may belong to the same series even though it simply records payments to officers of the exchequer. I conjecture that it is hardly to be so classified.

The Collectors at the Recerpt of the Exchequer 253 vestigator, for it purports to record in detail what was drawn from the treasury. It was evidently held in the same esteem by the mediaeval exchequer; the entries on the second type became ever briefer and more perfunctory as the years passed until the series disappeared altogether.

It was not until the last years of the reign of Edward II that any radical change was made in the method of recording disbursements on the standard rolls. The early method was to record the credit granted to

a department officer, or other person, by writ of great or privy seal. This entry served as a heading for what followed. Under it the dates and amounts of the several debits were noted until the credit was exhausted. The entries were run on one after the other after the fashion of the sentences in this paragraph. A special section of the same kind was devoted to each credit and the drafts upon it. The result of this plan was that the issue rolls contain many excellent summaries of the expenditures of departments and officers. If, however, a modern student desires to know what happened on a day or during a week, or if he wishes to run down one item, he has to turn to each of these separate accounts

for information. The Easter roll of 19 Edward II witnessed the abandonment of the plan I have described.!. Then and thereafter no attempt was made to classify disbursements under credit headings. The memoranda of payments out of the treasury were recorded day by day in purely

chronological sequence, so that one finds on one day records of transactions with several departments and individuals. Under the circumstances, each entry had to be more or less self-contained, and had to note not only the person who had been paid, but also the warrant for the payment, be that warrant a large writ of liberate in favor of the wardrobe, or another writ ordering the payment of a small sum for wages or expenses

to a minor officer. The new plan was similar to that employed in the enrolment of entries on the receipt rolls. The other records of the receipt may be dismissed with a minimum of comment. The most important were the mandates directing its officers to pay someone, and the vouchers of various kinds that were brought to it either for credit on a collector’s account or for the purpose of serving as the basis of payment to the person who presented it. Many, perhaps all, of the mandates were recorded on the liberate rolls of the exchequer until 34 Edward I.2 Thereafter they were filed on parchment strings and re-

ferred to as writs and mandates or as writs of mandamus. The files of 1 Issue Roll, No. 218. The new system was foreshadowed by the occasional blocking out of entries. For examples, see Issue Rolls, Nos. 210, 211 (Mich., 18 Edward II), 216 (Mich., 19 Edward II). 2 Giuseppi, Gurde, 1, 184.

3B. g., Exchequer of Receipt, Warrants for Issue, E 404, files 15, 16, 17. In these are found many writs of liberate, as well as letters close and writs of privy seal. There is a writ of secret seal in file 17.

254 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 vouchers contained writs of assignment under the seal of the exchequer or the great seal, with their accompanying receipts, bills of the wardrobe, letters patent of the keeper of the wardrobe, chamber debentures, and

so on.t Some of these documents, notably the writs and attached receipts, were vouchers in the sense in which I have used that term in the

preceding chapter, that is, evidence upon the basis of which the taxcollectors would be granted allowance for sums paid by them to royal creditors. Others, such as the wardrobe debentures, though vouchers, were at the same time secondary warrants for issue. The term secondary

is used advisedly. The debenture witnessed that the holder had delivered goods to the wardrobe, for which goods he had not been paid. When he brought the debenture to the exchequer he could have reasonable expectation that he would be paid in some form, however unsatis-

factory to him that form might be. Yet the receipt would not have honored the debenture, if the rules of the day were observed, had not the

wardrobe already been granted a credit by a writ of liberate under the great seal. The latter I call a primary warrant, though, so far as I know, no such descriptive adjective was ever applied to such mandates at the time. The vouchers of all kinds were strung on parchment strings and were in the official custody of the chamberlains.2, Toward the close of our period it is noted that they were kept in a hanaper or chest.? Other more or less ephemeral series of records that were made up in the receipt have been described elsewhere. They have no direct bearing upon our study. The foregoing brief account of the officers and records of the receipt

has emphasized one side of its position in the system of financial administration, that which concerned the receipt and disbursement of the king’s income. The duties connected with these matters were of primary importance. There is, however, another side of its activities that needs to be noticed, its function as a clearing-house for the exchequer of account.

When the collectors of taxes reached the upper exchequer they normally presented tallies, not cash or vouchers, as evidence of what had been gathered by them during the preceding months. Occasionally they are stated to have proffered vouchers for the consideration of the treasurer

and barons, but such vouchers occupied a very minor place in their 1 At the time that I examined these vouchers, in the year 1925, there were two unbroken original files in Exchequer of Receipt, Wardrobe Debentures, etc., E 404/485. 2'The references to the chamberlains appear on the issue rolls; e. g., Issue Roll, No. 112 (30-31 Edward I), October 28, wardrobe account; cf. zbid., 16 October; Issue Roll, No. 188 (Easter, 35 Edward I) m. 2, wardrobe account. 3E. g., Issue Roll, No. 234 (Mich., 2 Edward III), 17 February, 5 March, etc.; Issue Roll, No. 236 (Easter, 2 Edward III), 18 May, 8 July, etc. See also K.R.M.R., No. 109, Brevia irretornabilia, the notes of warranty.

The Collectors at the Receipt of the Exchequer 255 accounting.! In other words, the receipt had attended to the validation of vouchers and had presented the collectors with tallies before those officers made their way into the presence of the accounting board. By doing this, the receipt relieved the exchequer of account of the work of examining in detail the evidence upon which rested the authenticity of vouchers, save when for some reason it was considered necessary to submit the matter to the upper exchequer. If it happened that the receipt passed on the validation of some vouchers

to the upper exchequer, that body might decide the matter at once in favor of the collector. He would thereupon return to the receipt and receive his tally. Should, however, the officers of the upper exchequer require further sanction for their decision, they might require the holder of the vouchers to go to the chancery for a writ under the great seal ordering them to grant him allowance or to pay him. If the same officers found it necessary to dismiss the holder without offering any solution of his difficulties, he might petition the council for an adjudication of his case. The treasurer and at least some of the barons would undoubtedly be present when the council met to pass upon the holder’s petition, but its decision would be on a higher plane than that of the exchequer acting simply in its own capacity. The evidence upon which the statements made in the preceding paragraphs are based is voluminous and could not be described at length in

this place without carrying us far from the subject in hand. I hope, therefore, to be pardoned if I resort to bare summaries of facts and opin-

ions. I have stated that the lower exchequer attended to the validation of vouchers except when it was in doubt. It has also been stated that the upper exchequer settled the latter group of cases, save those for which it required other and more formal sanction. Its reluctance would disappear with the appearance of a writ of great seal, at times without and at other times with the warrant of an order from the council. In support of the first contention I submit the following. In the first place there are the entries on the memoranda rolls relating to views and audits of account. The rolls were written in the upper exchequer. The memoranda mentioned tell us that on all but a relatively few occasions the collectors appeared for their accounting with tallies alone. When a collector presented writs and receipts, they note that he did so and also that he usually reappeared shortly after with tallies.2, By the time that 1T shall discuss the kind and number of vouchers presented at the exchequer of account in the following chapter.

2K.R.M.R., No. 66, m. 62 (W.R. co. York); K.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 85 (co. Lincoln); L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 243 (co. Hereford); L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 188d. (co. Bedford); L.T.R.M.R., No. 101, m. 117d. (city of Lincoln); L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 174 (Holland, co. Lincoln).

256 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 he reached the audit stage of his accounting, he almost invariably proffered tallies. This is one side of the story. An examination of the files of

vouchers reveals another side. They make it quite clear that many collectors arrived at Westminster with writs and receipts, whereas the memoranda rolls make it equally clear that they appeared at the upper exchequer with tallies.1_ It is obvious that they had meanwhile exchanged

their vouchers for tallies at the receipt.? In the second place, the entries on the issue rolls seem to support the same conclusion. These rolls record the name of the person who had been paid and the form of the payment. When payment had been made by a writ and letter assignment, it was customary to describe both the writ and the letter. The rolls tell us about such writs and receipts, but

they are usually silent about any action on the part of the upper exchequer. When, however, from time to time the officers of the upper exchequer did intervene, the issue rolls tell us that they did so.* So far as they are concerned, it was only in exceptional cases that the treasurer and barons had anything to do with the procedure leading up to the issuing of tallies to the men who presented vouchers. In the third place, and finally, the documentary material which would serve as a basis for the authenticating of vouchers was largely kept at the receipt. The mandates to the treasurer and chamberlains to deliver money to someone were there on file. There also were the issue rolls on which were the notes of warrants authorizing the enrolment of a disbursement. And there were the files of vouchers of all kinds brought in during earlier months and years by revenue collectors which, with their seals and their forms, would serve as models in checking up similar documents handed in. Other records, kept at the exchequer of account, might be found useful at times. The remembrancers, for example, kept

copies of the writs of assignment issued to collectors, but as the latter were bound to bring the originals of such writs with them when they 1 The vouchers are very frequently endorsed with a statement of the date on which the tally was levied. That is, they tell us that the receipt gave the collector a tally in exchange for his vouchers on such a day. See the numerous vouchers in Exchequer of Receipt, Warrants for Issue, E 404/500 — a box of unclassified material. 2 It may be mentioned that the amicis letters of the wardrobe were addressed to the treasurer and

chamberlains, officers of the lower exchequer, directing them to grant allowance to the minor officers named in the letters for the amount paid into the wardrobe or for the wardrobe. 3 Any issue roll will illustrate this practice. Several of the writs and receipts found in Exchequer

of Receipts, Wardrobe Debentures, etc., E 404/485, are noted on Issue Roll, No. 165 (Easter, 6 Edward II), e. g., 18 May (Littlebury), 9 May (Bardi), etc. 4 The receipt rolls occasionally give a little information. We find credit entries cancelied because the vouchers presented had been disallowed. In other words, the Receipt had accepted the vouchers, entered the credit, and issued tallies, and the upper exchequer had set aside the allowance; e. g., Receipt Rolls, Nos. 267, 27 February; 288, 24 February; 291, 18 May.

The Collectors at the Receipt of the Exchequer Q57 sought a tally for sums disbursed, the memoranda rolls would be examined only when doubts arose. I see no escape from the conclusion that the receipt, which issued tallies and recorded the transactions preceding their issue, had to pass upon the material brought to Westminster by the men who gathered the king’s revenue.

The statement that the receipt occasionally referred the validation of vouchers to the exchequer of account finds its verification in many entries on the memoranda and close rolls. There are a number of instances of collectors of the taxes upon movables appearing before the treasurer and barons with writs and receipts for which they craved allowance.! Many of these cases seem to have been settled at once. At other times the exchequer required the holder of vouchers to purchase, for it amounted to that, a writ of allowance under the great or privy seal before it would do anything further. Within this category of cases are a number that, because of their age or complicated character, may well have required the sanction of a writ of great or privy seal for their settle-

ment.2 A number of others seem so lacking in complications of any sort that the reason for this extra sanction is far from apparent.’ As a matter of fact, the ordinance of 1326 was passed because of the complaints of the action of the exchequer in connection with vouchers of this simple

character.‘ Still other cases, not settled by the exchequer, were taken to the council. Most of the illustrations of this type of reference to a higher tribunal are found in the years of Edward III covered by this study.® It would seem that, while old and complicated cases were rather rarely taken to the council before that time, 1t was usual to do so in 1327 and the following years. If the council passed favorably upon the appeal of the petitioner, it sent a note to the chancery, and that department issued a

writ to the treasurer and barons to grant allowance. The writ was warranted ‘by petition of council,’ ‘by king and council,’ or ‘by council.’ 1K.R.M.R., No. 76, m. 79 (co. Northampton); L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, mm. 193d. (co. Derby), 194 (Devon); L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, mm. 188d. (co. Bedford), 178 (Salop); L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, mm. 146 (co. Bedford), 142d. (W. R. co. York); L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, m. 99, (Berks), etc. 2C.C.R. 1296-1301, 420, 430, 432, 440, 453, 467; C.C.R. 1313-1318, 120, 142, 146, 153-154, 177, 182.

3C.C.R. 1323-1327, 281; C.P.R. 1317-1321, 157, and C.C.R. 1318-1323, 188, 267, 299; C.C.R. 1323-1827, 95, 230, 282, 405, 464, 617. 4 Red Book of the Exchequer, 111, 948-950.

5 I have based this statement on the notes of warranty found in the volumes of the Calendar of Close Rolls. In 8 Edward II only three of the letters close which were directed to the treasurer and barons to allow sums bear the warranty ‘by petition of council’ (C.C.R. 1813-1318, 159, 167, 184). 6 During the early months of the year 1327 48 writs of allowance were enrolled on the close rolls (C.C.R. 13827-1330, 1-86). Of these 33 bear the warranty ‘by petition of council,’ or, occasionally, “by king and council’ or ‘by council.’ These have to do, for the most part, with old or complicated cases.

258 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 Before concluding this section of general observations on the receipt in the period 1290-1334, I wish to emphasize one point: namely, that neither before or after 1290 did all the king’s income reach the lower exchequer; in the parlance of the mediaeval exchequer, not all of it was paid into the treasury.!_ Before 1290, the year of the beginning of change under William de Marchia, only the smaller portion of the royal revenue

was paid into the treasury. The greater portion was received by the wardrobe directly and without the intervention of the exchequer. The latter might be the supreme accounting board, but 1t was not the more important body im respect to the receipt of the crown revenue, even of the returns from the taxes upon movables. In 1290 a movement was started which gradually brought more and more kinds of taxes into the receipt. Our taxes and the concurrent clerical subsidies were at once brought into line. By the close of the reign of Edward II the process was nearly completed, but, as Tout has shown, there was some money paid

directly into the wardrobe during the early years of Edward III.2 A recognition of this situation is necessary for an understanding of the demands of the Ordainers and other reformers of the reign of Edward II. We must now take up once more the tale of the tax-collectors who had |

reached Westminster with rolls, money, and vouchers, and who were undoubtedly anxious to bring their troublesome, though necessary, dealings with the exchequer to a close. 2. PAYMENTS IN CASH AT THE RECEIPT

When a collector of taxes brought cash to Westminster his troubles were quickly over, for he had only to pay what he had gathered into the treasury and to receive a tally from the officers of the receipt. The money

that he brought, so far as has been discovered, was accepted by weight

and not subjected to the tests for fineness that are described in the Dialogus. The tally given him bore on it the words later copied on the receipt roll in order to credit him with payment into the treasury. The notches more or less deeply cut into the wood told an expert observer

how much money had been received by the lower exchequer.’ The counterpart of the tally, known as the foil or counter-tally, when placed against the tally, would match it in every essential detail; it was kept, so it would seem, by a minor officer of the upper exchequer. , 1 On this subject see my paper ‘An Exchequer Reform under Edward I,’ in The Crusades and Other Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro, 225-244. 2 Chapters, Iv, 85, 97-98.

3'The process of tally-cutting and the tallies themselves are described in the two articles by H. Jenkinson in Archaeologia, ux1r (1911), 367-380, Lxxiv (1925), 289-351.

4 The ‘keeper of the tallies and counter-tallies’ has been identified by Miss D. M. Broome in her unpublished doctoral dissertation presented to the University of Manchester.

The Collectors at the Recevpt of the Exchequer 259 Cash payments into the treasury were credited on the receipt roll in but few words and according to a simple formula that persisted throughout our period. An entry granting credit to two collectors of the twentieth of movables of the year 1327 reads as follows: ‘From Richard de Addebury and John de Meriet, collectors of the twentieth granted the king, £86 5s. of the same twentieth.’ A note referring to the county, in this case Oxford, was placed in the left-hand margin opposite the entry, and marginal annotations at intervals to the right of ‘xx*’ or ‘x” would

make taxation items easy to find.!. The dot found in the left-hand margin of one copy of the triplicate receipt rolls has nothing to do with the collectors or with their payments; it is only found on the treasurer’s roll and signifies that a tally had been issued to the men named on the receipt roll.

No consistent effort was made by the officers of the receipt to differentiate the entries on the receipt roll due to cash payments from those due to the acceptance of vouchers. During the reigns of Edward I and Edward II the marginal note Gard’ distinguishes credit entries resulting from evidence that the wardrobe had been paid something by the collectors in whose name the credit was entered.? Beyond this the receipt did not go, though it is obvious that other collectors must have presented many vouchers that had nothing to do with the wardrobe. Despite this lack of full information, there is a simple method of finding the difference

between the two types of credit entries. To establish the character of the entries on the receipt roll it is necessary to compare them with the entries on the issue roll of about the same dates.’ If at about the same date there is no entry on the issue roll referring in some way to the receipt

roll credit, it is, I think, certain that the latter had to do with a payment in cash. So far as my experience goes, there are no exceptions to this rule. Whenever the receipt roll records a credit due to vouchers accepted or to an assignment under the writ and tally plan, I have always found some sort of explanation of what happened on the issue roll. So closely complementary are the enrolments in the two series of records of the receipt, that anyone who relies upon the information given by one alone must of necessity overlook much if not most of what they, taken together, have to give. The amount of cash brought to the receipt by collectors of taxes could, 1 See the marginal notes on Receipt Roll, No. 215 (Easter, 8 Edward II). 2K. g., Receipt Roll, No. 160 (Easter, 33 Edward I); Receipt Roll, No. 168 (Easter, 835 Edward I);

Receipt Roll, No. 215 (Mich., 8 Edward I). 3 J have compared the items on Receipt Roll, No. 308 (Mich., 7 Edward III) and Issue Roll, No. 265, relating to the collectors of the fifteenth and tenth, and have looked up the accounting of the collectors on L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, mm. 160d. ff. I have cxamined many other rolls as well.

260 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 I think, be roughly estimated by anyone equipped with a prerequisite knowledge of forms and the patience to go through both the receipt and issue rolls. Any large measure of accuracy before the close of Edward II’s reign would, however, be difficult to attain. Granting the hazardous nature of an opinion, I conjecture that payments in cash into the treasury

tended to decrease in volume as the years passed and that the receipt handled ever more vouchers for money disbursed by the collectors before

they reached Westminster. In other words, it seems that the system of assignment grew in popularity as the decades passed. Even though the development may have been as suggested, there is no reason why it may not have been accelerated or reversed temporarily at any time. There is, for example, the high level reached by assignments during the Michaelmas term of the year 33 Edward I, at the time when, according to my conjecture, the system was merely on its way to preeminence. Tout has calculated the number of Gard’ entries on the receipt rolls of the Easter terms of 25 and 26 Edward I, and of the Michaelmas term of 27 Edward I.1. Gard’ entries were credits due to assignment. While there was a considerable use of the plan of assignment, the totals are in no case higher than might have been expected by anyone familiar with late thirteenth-century practice. During both the Michaelmas and Easter terms of 33 Edward I, however, the sums recorded in the entries annotated Gard’ amounted to well over half the entire receipts of the lower exchequer.2. This was, it would seem, due to the plan adopted for the financing of the war with Scotland, but it leads one to be careful of too definite statements about developments. The results of a detailed examination of the situation during two of the

early years of the reign of Edward III should check any tendency towards overstressing the hold that the assignment system had upon the

exchequer at the close of our period. The returns for the first year, Michaelmas, 1327, to the end of September, 1328, are overwhelmingly in favor of the preponderance of the assignment plan. Leaving to one side for the moment my concern with the collectors of taxes, I examined for that year all the writs of assignment issued under both the great seal and seal of the exchequer, no matter to whom they were directed. The total of such assignments, honored by those to whom they were sent, 1 Tout, Chapters, 11, 105-106: ‘In 1297, 25 Edward I, the new system is well at work. Out of a total of receipts in Easter term of that year, amounting to £39,566: 18: 7, I have calculated that “receipts” to the amount of £7,582: 9: 914 are noted as in garderoba.’ Unfortunately, Tout misunderstood the nature of the Gard’ entrics. 2 Tout, Chapters, 11, 106.

3 For a full discussion of the matters dealt with in this and the following paragraphs see my paper, “The Crown and its Creditors, 1327-1333,’ E.H.R., xu (1927), 12-19.

The Collectors at the Recerpt of the Exchequer 261 amounted to between £31,000 and £32,000. When this sum is compared with the sum total of the credit entries on the receipt rolls, about £34,000,! very little margin is left for payments of cash into the treasury; most of the money in the hands of all kinds of revenue collectors had been drawn upon before they approached the receipt. The result would seem to confirm in a decisive manner the conjectural development. What happened in the other year selected for scrutiny, Michaelmas, 1332, to the end of September, 1333, is an excellent example of the possibility of a reversal

in policy. The year was one of preparation for war and of an armed expedition against Scotland. Those in charge of the war seem to have consciously adopted a plan of financing the war in the north largely on a

cash basis. Though I have only looked carefully into the records for information concerning the collectors of the fifteenth and tenth granted in the autumn of 1332, the receipt rolls, checked by other sources, show that the collectors brought in during the Michaelmas and Easter terms of the exchequer close to £23,000 in cash. On the other hand, the drafts upon the same collectors that are set forth on the close and memoranda rolls during the year amounted only to about £5,500. The receipt rolls for the two terms record a total of £54,001 1s. 3d. The credits for cash received from the collectors of but one kind of tax were, therefore, not far below half of all the credits enrolled. An investigation of the remain-

ing entries might increase this proportion to some extent. It would appear that those who directed the running of the English government during the early part of the fourteenth century might, on occasion, exhibit an elasticity that 1s sometimes considered modern. 3. PRESENTATION OF WRITS AND RECEIPTS BY THE COLLECTORS

The tax-collector who brought with him writs of assignment and receipts for money he had paid, if these were of the writ and letter type, would, like the man who brought cash, proceed in the first place to the receipt of the exchequer. If everything was found to be in order by the

chamberlains and their subordinates, a tally would be given him; if difficulties arose this action might be delayed for a time. The tale of the collectors who came with writs and tallies of the exchequer may be set to one side for the moment to be discussed in the following section of this chapter. There is, so far as has been discovered, no contemporary description

of what happened at the receipt when a collector appeared before its officers claiming allowance on the basis of assignment writs and written 1 Receipt Rolls, Nos. 274, 278, 279. There was also little margin for cash disbursements. The issue rolls of the same year total about £33,700 (Issue Rolls, Nos. 235, 236).

— - Q62-~—- Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834

vouchers. It would appear, however, that he had to present the writ under one of the king’s seals ordering him to pay someone, as well as

the receipt from the person named showing that he had paid all or part of the specified sum.!_ In a way this was bound to be so, for the receipt would not have copies of the writs of assignment under the great or privy seal, and even though the upper exchequer kept copies of writs issued under the seal of the exchequer, the original writ was far more authoritative than any copy as a basis for allowance. Yet the case for the statement made does not rest upon mere probability; the entries on the issue rolls relating to the allowance of vouchers frequently mention both the writ and the receipt, whatever the form of that receipt may have been. Additional and more convincing proof, is the treatment of the writs and receipts that were retained by the chamberlains in exchange for exchequer tallies. It has already been stated that the vouchers were filed, but this tells only one part of the story. The fact is that the writs of assignment and the accompanying receipts were filed together, and, further, to make

sure that they remained in that position, they were sewn together. Again and again among the vouchers of the receipt there may be found a writ with one or more receipts attached.?, There are instances, in the time of Edward II and of his son, of the attachment of three, four, five,

and even of seven receipts to the proper writs. There are also even more extreme cases. In one instance fifteen documents, writs, and receipts relating to the accounting of the collectors of customs in Southampton are sewn together.? In another instance, there is a letter close under the great seal ordering payment to which are attached six letters patent of the keeper of the wardrobe, another writ under the great seal, an ordinary receipt in the name of Oliver de Burdegala, and a wardrobe debenture.’

It may be mentioned here that a letter patent of the keeper of the wardrobe, a letter beginning with the word ‘Amicis,’ might serve in the place of the customary writ and receipt. Such a letter would frequently 1 The writs under the seal of the exchequer of the reign of Edward III which commanded the collectors to pay and to receive receipts from the men paid almost invariably state that, for the receipt and ‘this writ,’ a tally would be made and allowed them on their account. The fact that many of the writs of earlier days do not explain the procedure has led me to introduce other evidence.

2 Many examples of this practice may be found among the unsorted vouchers in Exchequer of Receipt, Wardrobe Debentures, etc., E 404/485, 404/501, and in Exchequer of Receipt, Warrants for Issues, E 404/500. 3 Found in Exchequer of Receipt, Wardrobe Debentures, etc., E 404/485, in the long unbroken original file.

4 Jbid., in another original file. See also C.C.R. 1818-1318, 378, 490, for the two writs under the great seal. 5 Such letters were addressed to the treasurer and chamberlains of the exchequer in the name of the keeper of the wardrobe. They state that the keeper had received into the wardrobe so much money

The Collectors at the Recerpt of the Exchequer 263 appear at the receipt, as in the case noted in the previous paragraph, in connection with a writ of assignment in favor of the keeper of the wardrobe. When this happened the amicis letter was in the same class as

letters patent of receipt handed over to the collectors by other folk. But the amicis letter might be presented for allowance without an accompanying writ of assignment. On 22 October, 1302, for example, the collectors in Somerset of the fifteenth of the previous year were granted

credit at the receipt for £380 on the basis of two letters patent of the keeper of the wardrobe.! No writ of assignment is mentioned. The same procedure is described on later receipt and issue rolls.?

What may have occurred in the above cases is illustrated by what happened to Robert Lovet in 8 Edward II. Robert was one of the collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth in Buckinghamshire. He appeared before the exchequer of account during the Trinity term with a tally for £60.3 This tally would appear to have been given him for cash handed in

at an earlier date than that of his present journey to Westminster; the receipt roll credit is dated 21 May.4 When he handed over the tally he stated that he had paid Simon de Swanlond 200 marks by writ of the king, which transaction Simon, then present, acknowledged. He also stated that he had paid John de Redingg £20 for the sustenance of the king’s horses, and exhibited a writ of the king and a letter patent of

receipt from John in support of his statement. Both writs may be identified, the first being an exchequer writ dated 14 May, 1315, and the second a writ under the great seal dated 10 May, 1315.5 It would seem that the upper exchequer had ample evidence upon which it could have

granted credit to Robert at once; but it did not do so. The remainder of the story is told by the receipt and issue rolls. On 5 June the receipt roll records the fact that there had been received from the collectors of the

twentieth in Bucks the sum of £153 6s. 8d.; that sum is the total of the two amounts already mentioned. The issue roll entry of the same date, in the section devoted to the wardrobe, reads in brief as follows: ‘In a from a person or persons named, and direct that the person named be allowed the sum and that the . same be charged to the wardrobe account. There are a number of these in the boxes referred to in the preceding notes. 1 Issue Roll, No. 112 (Mich., 30-31 Edward I), m. 3, wardrobe account; Receipt Roll, No. 1666, 22 October.

2 An excellent example is that of the men of Kingston-upon-Thames (Receipt Roll, No. 224 (Easter, 11 Edward IT), 2 June; Issue Roll, No. 184, 2 June). The amicis letter is in the box of wardrobe debentures E 404/485. 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 243. This gives the full description of the accounting. 4 Receipt Roll, No. 215 (Easter, 8 Edward 1), 21 May. 5 K.R.M.R., No. 88, m. 214d.; C.C.R. 1813-1818, 176. 6 Receipt Roll, No. 215, and Issue Roll, No. 174, under the date noted.

264 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 tally made the collectors of the twentieth by a letter patent of the said keeper testifying to the receipt of the money from the collectors which letter is dated at Westminster the third day of June the present eighth year and which letter remains in the custody of the chamberlains.’ The issue roll therefore does not mention the writs and receipts presented at

| the upper exchequer some days before; it only refers to the letter patent of the keeper of the wardrobe, and that letter was without question all

that the collector produced at the receipt. One may conjecture that, since the transactions with Simon and John fell within the cognizance of the wardrobe, Robert was sent to the office of that department in West-

minster. He went, presented his writs and receipt, received a letter patent of receipt from the wardrobe on 3 June, went to the receipt with the letter and received credit and a tally on 5 June. The letter patent of the wardrobe, therefore, could, as it did in this instance, suffice as a basis for credit at the receipt though unaccompanied by any kind of writ of assignment. After the vouchers presented by the collector had been examined and accepted by the officers of the receipt a record of the result of their action

was made on the receipt and issue rolls. The receipt roll entries were brief, and differed in no way, save occasionally in their marginalia, from

the entries of cash credits. There was no reason why they should be different, for both were credit entries and nothing more; by reference to the issue roll, the chamberlains could usually tell at a glance the nature of the transaction that lay behind the entries on the receipt roll. When, however, the wardrobe was involved, that is, when the collector had paid that department a part of what he had collected, the word Gard’ in the right-hand margin of the receipt roll marked the entry to which it was

attached as one involving assignment. Further than that nothing appears to guide us. Beyond the limits of our period, the officers of the lower exchequer were more obliging, and annotated entries on the receipt roll as sol,’ which, extended, is soluta, and indicated that cash had been paid into the treasury, or pro, which meant that the collector had proffered vouchers for money paid to someone.! The entries on the issue rolls complete the story told on the receipt rolls, by descriptions of the vouchers that had served as the foundation

of the credit granted to the collectors of taxes. They are at times far from easy to understand, frequently too brief to give us the information we desire, and apt always to depart from any form that the student may have come to regard as standardized. The issue rolls may be classed as

difficult documents. This, however, does not mean that they were 1 See the article by H. Jenkinson in Archaeologia, Lx11 (1911), 367-380.

The Collectors at the Receipt of the Exchequer 265 necessarily difficult to an expert mediaeval exchequer officer. He could,

as we are frequently unable to do, consult the files of vouchers when more information was needed than was given by the issue rolls. The modern investigator must therefore be thankful for the fuller forms of entry and not be too critical of the brief or seemingly misleading entries that tell him so little of the materials that served as a basis upon which credits were granted. For the first two years of the period beginning 19 Edward I there were

two series of issue rolls, one the standard series, the other, the roll of

issues from the tax upon movables. ‘The contrast between certain entries relating to the same transaction is rather marked. On 23 May, 19 Edward I, the collectors of the fifteenth in Nottingham were given credit on the receipt roll for £450.1 The standard issue roll, under the wardrobe heading, debited that department with £450 delivered ‘to the same in a tally made the taxers and collectors of the fifteenth in the county of Nottingham during the term of the Purification in the nineteenth year.’? The other roll records that the keeper of the wardrobe had received the same sum ‘by the hands of the taxers and collectors in the county of Nottingham delivered to him in the term of the Purification, for which they [the taxers and collectors] proffer a letter of the same

Walter, dated 23 May, testifying to the receipt of the money.’? These two records admirably illustrate the difference between uninforming and informing entries. The first gives us the information that the tally issued to the collectors was connected in some way with payment on a

wardrobe account, but it does not tell how they proved this to the satisfaction of the officers of the receipt. The second entry adds that they produced a letter of the keeper of the wardrobe bearing witness to the receipt of the money. As the date of the keeper’s letter, 23 May, is the same as that of the entry on the receipt roll, it may be conjectured that the collectors, like Robert Lovet already referred to, went to the wardrobe after their arrival at Westminster and there received the letter in return for less authoritative vouchers. Toward the close of the reign of Edward I the entries on the standard issue rolls of the double column type are often fuller than the second, noted above, relating to the collectors of Nottingham. On the receipt roll for Michaelmas, 30-21 Edward I, under the date 23 October, 1302, there is a credit to the collectors of the fifteenth in Hertfordshire for £400. In the margin is the catchword Gard’.4| The issue roll of the same 1 Receipt Roll (taxes), No. 1612 (Easter, 19 Edward I). 2 Issue Roll, No. 66 (Easter, 19 Edward I). 3 Issue Roll (taxes), No. 1312 (Easter, 19 Edward I). 4 Receipt Roll (taxes), No. 1666.

266 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 date charges £400 against the account of the wardrobe, and adds that this sum was delivered to the merchants of the Frescobaldi of Florence by writ of the exchequer in part payment of the debt owed them by the king.'

It goes on to say that a tally was issued to the collectors in Hertford in return for an exchequer writ and letters patent of the merchants testify-

ing to the receipt of the £400. This, therefore, is a fully satisfactory type of entry. The issue roll of the Easter term of the exchequer, 8 Edward II, con-

tains many entries that are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of a modern student, alongside others that give information about vouchers.’ There is this record, for example, on 31 May, 1315, under the heading

of the section devoted to the merchants of the Bardi: ‘£120 5s. 344d. delivered to the same the last day of May by the hands of (per manus) the collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth in the county of Oxford.’ It will be noticed that nothing is said about a tally being issued to the collectors, yet they produced only tallies when their accounts were audited at the upper exchequer,‘ and the receipt roll credits them with a sum on the same day, £400, that evidently covered several vouchers presented.’ Lest the omission of a reference to a tally and the use of the words per manus be taken as an indication of the use of the writ and tally system of assignment, it may be mentioned that both these phenomena are found in connection with the employment of the writ and letter plan. Under the date 28 May, 1315, one entry reads: ‘100 marks, delivered to

John . . . by the hands of . . .. collectors of the twentieth in Suffolk by writ of the exchequer directed to them.’® The record then notes that this writ and a letter of John testifying to the receipt of the money remained in the keeping of the chamberlains. While it is clear that the Oxford entry had its foundation in some kind of assignment, nothing more can be stated without a detailed examination of the files of vouchers at the receipt. By the side of the Oxford type there are found

others that read: ‘£100. Inatally made . . . , collectors of the twentieth in the county of . . . of the same twentieth, by a letter patent of the said keeper testifying to the receipt of the money from the

collectors, which letter is dated at . . . the present eighth year, and remains in the keeping of the chamberlains.”’ 1Tssue Roll, No. 112, m. 4. 2 Issue Roll, No. 174. 3 Tbid., m. 14.

4.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 7d. 5 Receipt Roll, No. 215, May 31. 6 Issue Roll, No. 174, May 28. 7 Issue Roll, No. 174, m. 5, left-hand column, 2 July

The Collectors at the Receipt of the Exchequer 267 There remain to be illustrated the entries on the single column issue rolls that came into being during the year 19 Edward II. As stated in the first section of this chapter, the new arrangement made it necessary so to expand the entries that they would be reasonably self-contained. The content of a long entry on 18 June, 1328, will show what happened.! It begins with the statement that Henry de Percy was sent to Scotland with others on the king’s behalf, receiving an allowance of 50s. a day. He had been paid £33 6s. 8d. on 29 February and more was due him. The entry continues: ‘In a tally made this day to Geoffrey de Sancto Quintino and Thomas de Boulton, taxers and collectors of the twentieth in the East Riding of the county of York, containing £66 13s. 4d. and delivered to William de Broklesby, attorney of the said collectors, for all the money owing to Henry, as appears by the accounting of Henry before the barons of the exchequer.’ The record ends with a statement of the vouchers produced by the attorney of the collectors and of the warrant that enabled the officers of the receipt to prove that the payment to Henry had been properly authorized. ‘The former include a letter patent of Henry testifying to the receipt of the money from the collectors and a writ under the seal of the exchequer ordering the same collectors to pay him.2 The warrant was a writ under the privy seal directed to the treasurer, barons, and chamberlains, and handed over to the receipt by the barons. No more information could be desired by the most exacting twentieth-century student.’ If all the entries on the issue rolls of the reign of Edward ITI were as complete as the one just described, the labors of the searcher would be light; but there are many that may not be interpreted without recourse to other exchequer records and even to the records of other departments. With an example taken from the roll for Michaelmas, 2 Edward III, I shall bring to an end the list of illustrations of issue roll enrolments. An attempt to discuss adequately more or less blind entries and technical phraseology would overburden this discussion of the presentation of vouchers with too great detail. The example, under the date 17 February, 1328, reads: ‘William de la Pole. Ina tally made this day to Geoffrey de Sancto Quintino and Thomas de Boulton, taxers and collectors of the twentieth granted to the king in the East Riding, containing £133 6s. 8d. 1Tssue Roll, No. 236, m. 5, 18 June.

2'The writ is enrolled in K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 285. It is dated 138 May, 1315, and orders the collectors to pay Henry de Percy 100 marks, and to receive from him his letter patent of receipt; for this writ and letter allowance would be granted them at the exchequer. The entry on the issue roll notes that both the writ and the letter patent were ‘in the hanaper of this term.’ 3 There are a number of entries of this clear-cut type relating to the taxers and collectors of the fifteenth and tenth in Issue Roll, No. 269 (Easter, 7 Edward III); e. g., 19 April, 9 June, 17 June, 8 July.

268 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 of the same twentieth, and delivered to the said William for all the money loaned the king on the first and third days of this month of February — £133 6s. 8d.’!_ This wording leaves the bewildered investigator in the dark, though anyone might at once conclude, because of the absence of any mention of vouchers and because of its form, that it had to do with a writ and tally type of assignment. In the path of such a conclusion lies an exchequer writ, dated 13 February, 1328, ordering the same collectors to pay William de la Pole £133 6s. 8d.2. They were to receive from him his letters patent of receipt ‘for which and this writ’ a tally of the exchequer for the same sum and in their names would be levied and allowed on their account. As the exchequer was then located in the city of York,

it would be possible to take the writ to the East Riding and have it cashed in time for its return, with the receipt, to the exchequer on 17 February. It is the form of the writ and the possibility mentioned that lead me to suspect that the scribe who made the record on the issue roll omitted to mention the voucher presented by the collectors. With this

illustration of the pitfalls that endanger hasty interpretations of the wording of the issue rolls the subject of typical entries may be abandoned. The vouchers presented by the collectors at the receipt, with or with-

out accompanying writs, belong for the most part to the types already

described. The most numerous class is that of the letters of receipt given to the collectors by private persons, officers of the wardrobe, and other crown officers. These would be accompanied by the writs sent to the collectors, and the two would form the basis for allowance. There are also many letters patent of the keeper of the wardrobe that served

as vouchers and as a basis for allowance without attendant writs. A much smaller class is that of the indentures of receipt. ‘These were handed over to the collectors when the writ commanded the latter to pay an indefinite sum to a royal officer or other person in the employ of the crown.? The utilization of an indenture would safeguard the transaction, but I do not know when or how the two parts were brought together in order to satisfy the careful officers of the lower exchequer. From time to time, as noted in the chapter on assignments, wardrobe debentures, which were commonly called bills of the wardrobe, were sent

out with the writ directed to the collectors. There is no apparent 1 Issue Roll, No. 232. The loans are recorded on Receipt Roll, No. 274, under the dates 1 and 3 February. A note is appended that William was ‘satisfied’ on 17 February following. 2 K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 231. 3 Though I have not found any examples of the original indentures of our collectors on the files kept by the receipt, their form may be studied on the basis of indentures between the collectors of customs and the persons they paid, as in Exchequer of Receipt, Wardrobe Debentures, etc., E 404/485. There are many in this box. 4 For examples of writs embodying information about such bills see K.R.M.R., No. 93 (13 Edward IT), mm. 148, 149; K.R.M.R., No. 104 (2 Edward IIT), mm. 227d., 232d.

The Collectors at the Receipt of the Exchequer 269 reason why this should have been done, though it may be that the creditor who held the bill hesitated to relinquish it before he was paid. The collectors would have paid without this additional evidence of the sum owed. Nevertheless the bill was sent and mentioned in the writ. The collectors would then have to produce, not only the usual letters patent of receipt and the writs, but also the bill. I have not found on the files of the receipt any examples of the three types of documents in connection with allowances granted to collectors of the taxes upon movables. They may, however, be found without great difficulty in connection with

allowances granted to other accountants. There is, to cite one instance, a letter close under the great seal of 3 August, 1317, directed to Robert Sapy, escheator this side Trent, ordering him to pay Oliver de Burdegala £42 14s. 1d.!. Oliver had presented a bill of the wardrobe to substantiate his claim for the payment of that sum. The writ directed that Robert should receive the bill from Oliver as well as the latter’s letter patent of receipt. The file of vouchers contains the letter close, the receipt given by Oliver — dated 30 August, 1317 — and the wardrobe debenture.’ The three documents are sewn together and on the back of the bill is a note to the effect that Robert was granted allowance for the sum on 26 May, 1318. The latter date was that on which Robert brought these and a number of other vouchers to the exchequer for an accounting. There may have been other types of bills sent out with writs directed to the collectors, but I have not discovered them. If, however, a chamber debenture could be mentioned in a writ of privy seal and sent with the

writ to a sheriff to be returned by him with the writ to the receipt,® there is no inherent reason why the same procedure could not be followed in the dealings with the collectors of our taxes.

In concluding this section on vouchers at the receipt it may be well to re-emphasize the fact that the opening words found in so many entries on the issue rolls, ‘by a tally issued this day’ or ‘by a tally delivered,’ do not of necessity refer to the use of the writ and tally system. As we have

seen, they were utilized to begin entries referring to various types of vouchers. In the following section the wording of entries relating to the writ and tally plan will be discussed at greater length. 4. Tuer Recerer aNnD THE WRIT AND TALLY SYSTEM

The collector of taxes who had been sent only a writ of assignment accompanied by a tally, and who had received the writ, paid the sum 1C.C.R. 13138-1318, 490. 2'The file may be found in Exchequer of Receipt, Wardrobe Debentures, etc., E 404/485. 3 Jn the box of Exchequer of Receipt, Wardrobe Debentures, E 404/485, there is, for example, a writ of privy seal dated 30 September, 11 Edward II, directed to the sheriff of York. To it are sewn

a chamber debenture and a normal receipt.

270 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 | mentioned in it, and had been given the tally, was relieved of one duty.! When he reached Westminster he would go to the exchequer of account without stepping to one side for an interview with the chamberlains at the lower exchequer. The interview would be unnecessary, for he had already in his possession his official receipt, a tally of the exchequer, and the lower exchequer had already given him credit on the receipt roll for the money he had paid to the person named in the writ. In order, however, to complete the description of the share of the receipt of the exchequer in the transactions connected with assignments, I am going to set forth and comment upon such of its records as concern themselves

with the writ and tally system. The entries on the receipt and issue rolls may be illustrated by those of the second year of the reign of Edward III, when the plan of assignment by writ and tally had lost most at least of its earlier novelty. There is nothing unique or peculiarly informing in the procedure during the year selected; it has been chosen because of the numerous exchequer

writs embodying the plan that are found on the memoranda rolls.? With the aid of these enrolments and the corresponding entries on the issue rolls, it is possible to determine what happened at the exchequer of receipt. One example of the procedure in a simple case will suffice to illustrate

the nature of the records kept by the receipt. By a writ dated 25 February, 1328, the collectors of the twentieth of movables in Lancashire were directed to pay Robert de Horneclif, constable of Bamburgh Castle, the sum of £100. They were to receive from him a tally of the exchequer in

their names for that amount. The writ is warranted ‘by the treasurer and a tally of the exchequer.’ Turn to the receipt roll and under the date 25 February we find ‘Lance’ — From Richard de Houghton, Gilbert de Sutheworth and William Laurence, taxers and collectors of the twen-

tieth granted the king, £100 of the said twentieth.’ This credit entry is worded in the same fashion as those due to the payment of cash into

the treasury and as those crediting the allowance of vouchers. The issue roll entry under the same day, 25 February, may be summarized as

follows:' Robert de Horneclif, constable of Bamburgh Castle — In money delivered to him for expenditures on the wages of men at arms 1 For a discussion of the writ and tally plan see chapter rx, section 2.

2 The writs are found in the section devoted to Brevia irretornalilia, on K.R.M.R., No. 104, mm. 226-238.

3 K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 231d. For anorder tothe treasurer and chamberlains to cause Robert to have satisfaction for a part of that sum, see C.C.R. 1827-1330, 173. The writ is dated 8 October, 1327.

4 Receipt Roll, No. 274. 5 Issue Roll, No. 232.

The Collectors at the Recevpt of the Exchequer Q71 and hobelars, as appears by two indentures in the possession of Robert and by a mandate of privy seal dated at Clipstone, 13 November, which writ is here among the writs and mandates of this term. In a tally made this day to Richard de Houghton, Gilbert de Sutheworth, and William Laurence, taxers and collectors of the twentieth in Lancashire, containing £100 of the said twentieth and delivered to the said Robert de Horneclif for the said £100 — £100. This completes, in substance, the contents of the entry. In other entries on the same issue roll the words, ‘in a tally,’ appear immediately after the name of the man in whose favor it was issued. Substantially, the several entries embodying the use of the writ and tally plan are the same.

The most significant feature of the entry on the issue roll that has been summarized is the absence of any mention of vouchers handed in by the collectors. The warrants for the payment of the money to Robert are noted — the two indentures and the writ of privy seal. These were

warrants for issue and not in the category of vouchers presented by collectors for allowance. The absence of mention of vouchers is not always conclusive proof of the use of the writ and tally plan of assignment, but, in 2 Edward III, it is almost always so. The introductory clause, ‘in a tally made this day,’ whether at the beginning or at the opening of what was virtually a second paragraph, is not distinctive; it was used when tallies were issued in order to allow collectors certain sums for writs and letters presented, as well as when the writ and tally plan was utilized. Another phrase, “in money delivered,’ is found at times, and is equally useless in differentiating between the two types of

assignment. So far as I know, the only sure method of identifying writ and tally assignment credits in the receipt rolls and in the accompanying entries on the issue rolls, is to go to the writ of assignment and watch for what it says about the form of the receipt to be accepted by the collector of taxes. Though not as reliable, the omission of any reference to writs and letters patent of receipt often serves as a rough and ready test. The entries relating to Robert de Horneclif reveal a simple procedure. He presented evidence that he had expended money on wages of soldiers in Bamburgh Castle. The exchequer of account thereupon gave him a writ of assignment on the collectors of the twentieth in Lancashire, and the lower exchequer gave him a tally. The writ and tally bore the same date, 25 February, 1328. When the collectors appeared later for their view of account, they showed the tally to the officers of the upper ex-

chequer and received credit for the same on their account.! If the 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 101, m. 117.

272 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834 records always told the same straightforward story the task of the student would be far less burdensome. The tracing of Robert de Horneclif’s transactions with the exchequer was made simple by the correspondence of the date on the writ of assign-

ment with that of the credit entry on the receipt roll. In many other instances there was the same correspondence. There are, however, a large number of examples of quite a different story in the same year, 2 Edward III. Some writs are dated before that of the entry on the receipt roll, others later. At times the dates on the two classes of documents are only one or two days apart; at other times they are separated by four or more days; in one instance there is an interval of eleven days.! Two concrete examples will show the nature of the problem raised by the differences in dates. The crown was indebted to the merchants of the Bardi to the tune of over £2,400. On July 2, 1328, the issue roll records that a tally for £200 in favor of the Bardi was made on that day in the names of the collectors of the twentieth in the parts of Holland, Lincolnshire. The receipt roll credits the same collectors with £200 on the same

day. But the writ which commanded the collectors to pay the Bardi £200 and which also told them to receive a tally of the exchequer, was dated 4 July, 1328, and bears as its warranty ‘by the treasurer and a tally of the exchequer.’? The latter was the tally made on 2 July. In direct contrast with this procedure is what happened in connection with an assignment upon the collectors of the twentieth in parts of Lindsey, Lincolnshire. By a writ dated 19 February, 1328, they were told to pay the Bardi £300 and to receive from the merchants two tallies of the exchequer. The warranty of the writ is ‘by the treasurer and two tallies of the exchequer.’ It was not, however, until 25 February that the receipt roll credited the collectors with two sums, one of £100 and the other of £200. The issue roll, under the date 25 February, states that the tallies were made ‘this day,’ but throws no light upon the difference in dates.® If, however, the statement that the two tallies were made on the twentyfifth is to be accepted at its face value, what are we to think of the statement added to the writ of the nineteenth that it was warranted by two tallies of the exchequer? 1 Compare the dates on Receipt Roll, No. 274, with those on the writs found in K.R.M.R., No. 104, mm. 226 ff. See, for example, collectors of customs, Sandwich, Receipt Roll, No. 274, 19 November,

and K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 227, where the writ is dated 24 November; collectors clerical tenth, Yorkshire, Receipt Roll, No. 274, 22 February, and K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 231d., writ dated 18 February; collectors clerical] tenth in Lincoln, Receipt Roll, No. 278, 23 June, and K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 237, writ dated 4 July.

2 For the writ and entries see K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 237; Issue Roll, No. 236, 2 July; Receipt Roll, No. 279, 2 July. 2 July was Saturday and 4 July Monday. 3 For the writ and entries see K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 231d.; Receipt Roll, No. 274, 25 February;. Issue Roll, No. 234, 25 February.

The Collectors at the Receipt of the Exchequer 273 The explanation of these phenomena lies in the procedure at the receipt of the exchequer when assignments under the writ and tally system had

been decided upon. I am not concerned for the time being with the identification of the division of the exchequer which was responsible for

the selection of the type of writ of assignment that was to be used. I conjecture that, when the selection had been made in favor of a writ and

tally assignment during the year 2 Edward III, the tally was made at once. But, if the conjecture is correct, no entry was necessarily made at the same time on the receipt roll. The tally might be sent to the officers of the upper exchequer and the writ made, dated, and warranted by a tally or tallies of the exchequer, as in the second example noted in the preceding paragraph. After the lapse of one or several days the credit to the collectors would be entered upon the receipt roll. This will account for one type of divergence in dates, that in which the day of the entry on

the receipt roll is later than that on the writ. When this occurs, the phrase ‘in a tally made this day’ would be purely formal. On the contrary the tally might be made, a credit recorded on the receipt roll on the same day, and the tally sent to the upper exchequer to serve as a warrant

for a writ dated one or more days later. This procedure was probably followed in the first example cited, when the collectors in Holland were called upon to pay the Bardi. In that instance the receipt roll credit was entered on Saturday, while the writ bears the date of Monday, 4 July. If the tally was made before anything else was done, the subsequent proceedings would vary in accordance with convenience. When the exchequer was not too busy, the entry of a credit on the receipt roll and the task of writing the writ of assignment might be completed on the same day. When this happened both the entry and the writ would bear the same date. If, however, there was a pressure of business, or if other considerations entered in, there might be a postponement of either of the

secondary processes. ‘The entry on the receipt roll might be made on

Saturday, the writ made up and dated on Monday, or later. Or the entry on the receipt roll might be put off until after the writ was dated and ready to be issued. The conjecture that the making of the tally preceded the other acts described also helps towards an understanding of the warranty clauses appended to the various types of exchequer writs of assignment. When collectors were told to pay a man and to receive his letters patent testifying to the receipt of the money, the warranty was by writ of great seal, by writ of privy seal, by writ of liberate, by the treasurer, but never, in 2 Edward III, by a tally.!. Since no tally would be made until the col1K.R.M.R., No. 104, mm. 226-238.

274 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 lectors reached Westminster the reason for the omission is obvious. When a writ was issued for the repayment of a loan the receipt roll might be mentioned, for it would record the loan and so form a warrant for the repayment. The writs which ordered the collectors to pay and receive a tally of the exchequer bear quite different notes of warranty. The most frequent of the latter, in 2 Edward ITI, is ‘by the treasurer and a tally of the exchequer.’ Some read ‘by a writ of liberate and a tally,’ others ‘by the treasurer and the issue roll,’ ‘by a tally and the issue roll

at the receipt,’ and so on. The variety of wording is great, but in a large majority of instances a tally is mentioned. In other words, the notes of warranty record the preexistence of tallies. When tallies are not referred to, the issue roll is usually mentioned. Should it be objected that a tally was hardly a sufficient warrant for an exchequer writ, it may be pointed out that the reference to a tally would call attention not only to

the receipt roll, which would give little information, but also to the issue roll. On the latter were noted at length the warrants for the payment. There an inquiring officer would find references to the writ of great or privy seal, or the bill of the wardrobe, that formed the basis of the

transaction. The warranty ‘by the treasurer and the issue roll’ referred the officer to the issue roll at once.

It is not necessary to infer from what has been stated that the exchequer of receipt determined the form of the payment of the king’s debts. Though the making of tallies probably came before the making of the writ, the selection of the writ and tally or other plan of payment may have been made by the upper exchequer. The solution of what is for my purpose not an essential problem must be left to other investi-

gators. Certain facts, however, should be kept in mind. Writs under the great and privy seals ordering that a man be paid were almost uniformly directed to the treasurer and chamberlains of the exchequer.! When similar writs were sent to the treasurer and barons or to the treasurer, barons, and chamberlains, they were told ‘to cause’ the man to be

paid. The letters patent of the keeper of the wardrobe, his amzcis letters, directing that collectors of revenue be allowed for sums paid into

the wardrobe, were directed to the treasurer and chamberlains. Such writs and letters and others of the same sort were filed at the receipt. The records of payment were kept by the same division of the exchequer. I suggest, therefore, in view of these facts as well as in view of the probability that the making of tallies antedated the writs, that a part, perhaps 1See any of the volumes of the Calendar of Close Rolls. Writs of great seal addressed to the treasurer and barons had generally to do with the accounting process. The same is true of the writs of privy seal enrolled among the Brevia directa baronibus on K.R.M.R., no. 108 (6 Edward III), mm. 20-—156d.

The Collectors at the Receipt of the Exchequer Q75 the greater part, of the burden of selecting the form of payment rested upon the shoulders of the officers of the receipt, among whom, when he was needed, would be the treasurer. Anyone who examines the records of the views and audits of accounts of the collectors of revenue will dis-

cover that the upper exchequer frequently decided that what those collectors still owed should be assigned in part or whole to a royal creditor.

May not the lower exchequer have been left to its own devices upon

many another occasion? :

CHAPTER XI THE COLLECTORS AT THE UPPER EXCHEQUER: THE VIEW OF ACCOUNT 1. THE STAGES OF THE ACCOUNTING

A hows accounting of theout collectors taxes at the upper exchequer often a long drawn processofextending over several monthswas or

years. The government, however, had a shorter procedure in mind. The commissions issued to the chief taxers provided for two appearances

at the exchequer with a stated proportion of the money due from the counties. The forms of the taxation occasionally add the information that the same chief taxers were to bring in the rolls of the assessment at the time of the first payment; frequently these instructions say nothing

whatsoever about the matter. Whatever the commands, they were hardly obeyed with scrupulous care. It seems, indeed, that the dates set forth in the commissions were expected to be understood in a general sense, and that, if the collectors appeared within a reasonable time after the day set, the exchequer was satisfied with the result. On occasion, as will be seen, the exchequer laid stress upon the letter of the law, but this sporadic activity only serves to bring out more clearly the normally reasonable attitude of that department. When the records of the accounting of the collectors are examined, we find that there were two distinct stages in the accounting, the view

of account and the audit. Though the instructions and commissions issued to the chief taxers mention two payments into the treasury, they are silent about these stages in accounting. Those officers must, therefore,

have been told orally when they took their oaths that they were to be ready for a view of account when they made their first payment, and that when they came in again they must be prepared for an audit of account. The view was a preliminary accounting. The collectors were supposed to come in with their county rolls and with a half or a third, according to the provision made in their commissions, of the money due

from them. After the view the collectors returned to the countryside and were supposed to gather the remainder of the tax and to return in due time ready for an audit of their accounts. The audit, however, did not customarily end the connection between the collectors and the exchequer. In a number of instances the sentence ‘and they are quit’ is recorded after the statement of the result of the audit, but it is far more 276

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer Q77 usual to find a description of a sum still owing. This sum, the remainder of account, might not be paid for weeks or many months after the results of the audit and a few subsequent proceedings had been described on the memoranda rolls and summarized on the enrolled accounts. It is my purpose in this and the next chapter to describe in some detail the procedure at the exchequer of account in connection with the views and final accounting. Views will be treated first and at the same time those very frequent appearances which, though they were recorded and though they resulted in the payment of considerable sums into the treasury, were not, technically, views. I shall begin, as in earlier chapters, with a statement of what the collectors were commanded to do and shall proceed to tell what they did. In connection with accounting, as elsewhere, there was often a wide divergence between precept and practice; anyone familiar with the activities of human beings living in the fourteenth century would expect nothing else. 2. THe APPEARANCE OF THE COLLECTORS AT THE EXCHEQUER OF ACCOUNT

The formal instructions received by the collectors concerning their appearance at the exchequer were, as already noted, contained in their commissions and the accompanying form of the taxation. The contents of the commissions have already been described in part. These letters patent under the great seal usually had nothing to say about the process of collection and payment save that the collectors were to gather the tax and to pay it into the treasury on, or occasionally about, certain days.! The forms issued before the year 1297 add nothing to these instructions. In 1297 the taxers and collectors were told to cause two rolls of the assessment to be made and to deliver one of these to the treasurer and barons.’ This clause was omitted from the form of 1301, but the same procedure

is implied by the wording of the oath administered to the collectors. In 1306 the command reappears, with the additional instruction that they were to deliver the county rolls on the day on which they were to make their first payment, Candlemas.‘ The latter clause was inserted in subsequent forms with changes in time due to the varying dates of the grant of the taxes.®

The written instructions given the collectors are, therefore, far from comprehensive. Supplemented by directions given by word of mouth 1 Parl. Writs, 1, 24, 27, 45, 51, 63, 106, 178; 11, 11, 14, 144, 213, 278; Rot. Parl., 11, 425, 2 Parl. Writs, 1, 63-64. 3 Ibid., 1, 105. 4 Ibid., 1, 179. SE. g., Parl. Writs, 11, 1, 15, 218, 279-280, 426; Rot. Parl., 11, 447.

278 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 at the exchequer they would be sufficient. Even without such additional commands, they told the collectors when to appear at the exchequer and what to bring with them — quite enough detail for a formal document. The usual practice was to direct the chief taxers and collectors to appear at the exchequer twice, the first time with the county rolls and onehalf the money due from the county and the second time with the re-

mainder of the money. In 1290, 1301, and 1306 a different plan was adopted. The commissions of 1290 directed that one-half the money was to be paid at Easter and Michaelmas, 1291, and the other half at the same feasts during the year 1292.! In 1301 and 1306 it was ordered that the money be paid in three instalments, with the additional instruction in 1306 that the county rolls should be delivered on the day that the first payment was made.” It has been noted elsewhere that the days of payment were not, save in rare instances, Easter and Michaelmas. The

exchequer chambers would be quite crowded enough at those times without the addition of our collectors of taxes.

The time has now arrived in our discussion of the activities of the collectors for their first appearance at the exchequer of account. Their transactions at the receipt of the exchequer having been completed, so far as it was possible to complete them, they would go to the upper exchequer with the tallies they had received, with the county rolls of the

taxation, and with any unvalidated vouchers they might still have in hand. If their rolls were in proper order and they had gathered a sufficient amount of money, they were admitted to a view of account. Before

taking up the description of the nature of this view, it will be well to follow the natural order of events and to stop for a time in order to see how far the collectors obeyed the command that they should appear on a given day with money and rolls. The exact dating of the first appearance of the tax-collectors to Westminster is hardly possible during the early part of our period, because of the failure of the exchequer scribes to note the fact save on relatively few occasions. When no exact date is given it might be possible at times, by a laborious investigation of receipt and issue rolls and of the entries in the memoranda rolls, to remedy this defect, but the results would hardly be worth the time and trouble involved. In contrast to the meager returns of early years, the records of the taxes of 1327 and 1332 give many dates; the clerks of the remembrancers normally took pains to note when the collectors appeared. What is more, there was an interesting change in the method of re1 Parl. Writs, 1, @4. 2 Ibid., 1, 106, 178-179.

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer Q79 cording the dates. In connection with the accounting of the collectors of the tax of 1297, for example, whenever the day on which a collector appeared is set down, the scribes used movable feasts or saints’ days.! In 1315-1316, days of the month were used to a large extent.2 In 13271328 and 1332-1333, it was customary to date the appearance of the collectors by days of the month; the use of saints’ days and movable feasts had practically disappeared.®

An examination of the recorded dates of the first appearance of the collectors at the upper exchequer seems to make it clear that those officers paid quite as much attention to their own convenience as to the commands of the government. It is even clearer that the exchequer took

no great pains to enforce strict observance of the day set for the first coming of the collectors. The officers of the exchequer might be mildly exasperated, but, as they did not adopt drastic measures save when the government was in immediate need of cash, it was quite usual for the collectors to escape without pains or penalties when they came in late. The situation in 1297 and early in 1298 may be cited as one when the collectors did not appear on time, despite the anxiety of the treasurer and barons to enforce early payment of the ninth granted on the tenth of October. It would seem that, in this instance, they hardly had time todoso. They were told to appear with their rolls and one-half the money of the ninth of movables on 7 December.' Before that day came around they were ordered by writs dated 20 November to bring in the first half of the money on the thirtieth of the same month.* Supervisors, who were

to assist in expediting the levy, had been appointed by writs dated 6 November.’ Nevertheless, only the Oxfordshire group of collectors

reached the exchequer before 1 January. During that month the collectors serving in the counties of Gloucester, Leicester, Lincoln, and

Worcester, and in London appeared. The Derbyshire, Shropshire, Sussex, and Warwickshire collectors appeared in February.’ Only one group of the collectors mentioned, that serving in Gloucestershire, was

ready for a view of account, and it was also the only group that had 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 40-41d. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, mm. 243-244d. 3 L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, mm. 26-26d., 99-106d. (tax of 1327); L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, mm. 160-162 (tax of 1332). 4 Stubbs, C.H.E., m, 147. 5 Parl. Writs, 1, 63. § K.R.M.R., No. 71, m. 122.

7L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 89d. 8 Ind., m. 40. 9 Ibid., mm. 40 ff, passim.

280 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 brought in the rolls of the assessment.!. The others, as will be seen later, were more or less severely dealt with by the exchequer, this being due to the fact that the government was in great need of money. So far as the appearance of the collectors was concerned, the situation in 1315 was much the same. The date of the first payment of the twentieth as given in the commissions dated 15 March, was a fortnight after Trinity, 31 May.? The day on which some of the collectors appeared is

noted: Lincolnshire, 21 June; Oxfordshire, 25 June; Devonshire, 24 July; Gloucestershire, 2 August; Middlesex, 4 August; Suffolk, 8 August;

and Cambridgeshire, 6 September.* A number of other collectors for whom no date is noted, also appeared during the Trinity term of the exchequer. Only those who appeared late in the term brought in their rolls. Yet no references are found on the memoranda rolls, as far as they have been examined, to any punishment of the collectors, despite this general tardiness. The records of the twentieth of 1327 give ample information about the time when the collectors came to Westminster. In the first place, there are the memoranda in the records of appearances and of views of account of the days when they appeared,‘ and, in the second place, there is the record of the results of an examination held in July, 1328, into the status of the accounts of the collectors. These, together with the notes on the county rolls recording the time of their receipt at the exchequer, make it

possible to construct a fairly complete picture of the manner in which the collectors obeyed their instructions. In the commissions dated 23 September, 1327, and shortly afterwards,

which were given to the collectors of the twentieth together with the form of the taxation, they were told to bring in one-half the money due and the county rolls on 3 February, 1328, and the remainder of the money on 25 June.® Only a few of the men came in, however, during the month of February, amongst them one or more of those assigned to the counties

of Dorset, Hertford, and Middlesex, and to the city of Lincoln. In March and the succeeding months more straggled in. The examination held in July revealed a curious state of affairs.’?7 Only five groups of collectors, those serving in the North Riding of Yorkshire, in Holland and in Kesteven, Lincolnshire, in Oxfordshire, and in Wiltshire, had wound up 1 Not one of the groups of taxers of the thirtieth and twentieth of 1806 presented their rolls during the Hilary term of 1807 (L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, mm. 35-35d.). 2K.R.M.R., No. 88, m. 144. 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, mm. 243-244d. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, mm. 26—26d., 99, 99d. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, mm. 1-2. 6 Rot. Parl., 11, 425; C.P.R. 1327-13830, 172-173.

7L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, mm. 1-2.

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 281 their accounts. The remainder were more or less behindhand. Those assigned to the counties of Cornwall, Dorset, and Rutland were within sight of the end; those to Berkshire, Leicestershire, and Lindsey, Lincolnshire, had passed through their view of account; but the rolls of at least fifteen groups were not as yet in the possession of the exchequer, though some of the collectors had made substantial payments into the treasury. Thereafter the rolls, due on 3 February, came in slowly. The dates of receipt noted on the back of some of these rolls are as follows: Suffolk, 5 May, 1329; Sussex, 15 February, 1329; Staffordshire, 9 May, 1329; Shropshire, 9 May, 1329; Essex, 8 November, 1330.! A considerable improvement in the situation is revealed by the records

of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332. The first payment was to be made and the county rolls were to be brought in on 3 February, 1333.2 The commission containing this command was dated 16 September, 1332. It was re-enforced by an exchequer writ, dated 7 January, 1333, directing

the collectors to bring in rolls and one-half the money on 3 February. This action produced excellent results in one respect. Twenty-six groups of collectors, either in person or by deputy, appeared rather promptly at

the exchequer. The groups serving in two counties, Buckingham and

Dorset, appeared on 19 and 29 January respectively, about twenty groups appeared in February, and four in March. The showing is rather remarkable, even though it is somewhat modified by the fact that of all those who appeared during the Hilary term only the chief taxers in Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire, and Wiltshire brought in

their rolls at the time of their first coming. The exchequer promptly showed its displeasure with those who did not appear. ‘Take the case of the Dorset group. Two clerks of the collectors appeared on 29 January, proffered two tallies amounting to £600, and said that this sum was more

than half the money due from the county.’ They did not bring in the county rolls, and were told to see that the chief taxers did this in the near future under a penalty of £100. Then it is recorded that the sheriff of Dorset was directed, by a writ dated 5 February, to distrain the collectors to bring in their rolls.« The Bedfordshire case bears witness to the same desire for haste. The memoranda roll states that Nigel Salford and Roger le Mareschal came in on 8 February and paid £260 of the tax 1 Suffolk Green Books, rx, 222; Sussex Record Society, x, 222; Wm. Salt Archaeol. Soc., vu, 255; Shropshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., 2nd Series, 1, 24, end of final section; Lay Subsidy, 107/13.

2K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 105. Attention may be called to the mistake in date given in the form printed in Rot. Parl, 11, 447, where (line 59) it is given as ‘la Cluse de Pasch.’

K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 298. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, mm. 160-162. See also K.R.M.R., No. 109, mm. 212-213. °L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 160. §K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 298.

282 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 by a tally levied the same day, and that they had not completed their rolls... A writ bearing the same date directs the sheriff of the county to distrain them to deliver their rolls and to pay.? It is possible that the date of the writ is simply that of the memorandum of the exchequer, but it is quite likely that the desire for quick results lay behind the immediate sending out of the order to the sheriff. Whatever may be the significance

of the dates on writs of distraint, there are thirty-five such writs, including the above, dated 8 February, enrolled on the memoranda roll.* In these it is alleged that the collectors were delinquent in some respect. These writs were in some instances followed by others threatening the

collectors with a penalty of £40 if they did not obey. That the first series, the one dated 8 February, was issued with due regard to what the collectors had done seems to be proved by the fact that the list of writs of distraint makes no mention of the counties of Huntingdon and Somerset. The groups serving in those counties had appeared on 4 February and had evidently satisfied the exchequer. The spasm of energy shown by the exchequer in 1333 was, though not unique, so well illustrated by the records that it has been described at some length. The vigorous action of the exchequer had produced gratifying results. Nevertheless, one may sympathize with the collectors in Norfolk and Suffolk. A memorandum notes that the Norfolk group did not appear until 11 March, ‘in contempt of the king, etc."*> They were at mercy and amerced 100s. each. The same punishment was imposed upon

the Suffolk group who appeared on 12 March.® It is not difficult to imagine the dismay of the Suffolk collectors. One of them, John de Tendryng, had served in 1327, and had appeared for his view of account

during the Easter term of the year 1329, about one year late.” He had not been punished. Neither of the Norfolk collectors had served in 1327,

but either may have learned of the past laxity of their class and of the forbearance of the exchequer. The diligence of the exchequer in 1333 appears, however, to have been

ineffectual in some cases. The Somerset collectors, for example, ap1U.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 160d. 2K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 293d. 3 Ihnd., ram. 293-294. In addition there are two dated 5 February (Dorset and Shropshire), one 7% February (Lincoln, Kesteven), and one 3 February (co. Leicester).

‘L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 160. The Huntingdon collectors had brought in their rolls and had paid in by a tally one-half the money due. The Somerset collectors did not bring in their rolls, stating that the assessment had not been completed. They did, however, produce a tally for a large sum of money. 5 Jiid., m. 162, tells part of the story. A better statement is found on K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 127. § Ind. 7C.P.R., 1827-1330, 172; L.T.R.M.R., No. 101, m. 125d.

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 283 peared for the first time on 4 February, but their rolls were not handed in until 3 May.! The two dates for Sussex were 5 February and 7 May,? and for Berkshire 18 February and 12 May.? On the other hand, the group acting in the county of Huntingdon appeared on 4 February with their rolls;4 and the rolls of the Dorset collectors, who first appeared on 29 January, were received by the exchequer on 19 February.® With the above observations on the ways of the tax-collectors we may

leave the subject for another, that of the number and status of the men

who journeyed to the exchequer for what I have called the first appearance. It will be understood that these men might or might not be ready at the time for a view of account. There was no requirement that all the collectors assigned to a county should come to Westminster with rolls and money at the time of their first payment. One at least was, however, necessary before a view could be held. The other technical requirements that guarded a view will be discussed in the following section. Meanwhile it may be noted that the groups of collectors were frequently represented at their first appearance by one of their number and at times by deputies of various sorts. The memoranda of the first dealings of the exchequer with the col-

lectors of the ninth of 1297 cover thirty-two counties and London.® Both the collectors are stated to have appeared in sixteen instances and one collector in twelve instances. In four instances none of the collectors

came in; they sent in deputies. The group assigned to Rutland was represented by John de Wakerle, seemingly a relative of Peter de Wakerle,

one of the collectors. The Cornish group sent two men, one of them the son of a collector. The Hertfordshire collectors sent their clerk, and the Worcestershire group William de Evesham, their valletus. In only one instance, Gloucestershire, did any of the above collectors bring in both tallies and rolls and enter upon a view of account. The records of the first appearance of the collectors of the thirtieth and twentieth of 1306 during the early months of 1307 are rather vague in part, but it seems apparent that in a majority of cases both the collectors came to Westminster.’ The memoranda of what occurred in connection with the chief taxers of the twentieth and fifteenth of 1315 and the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 160; Lay Subsidy, 169/6. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 160d.; Sussex Record Society, x, 334. §L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 161d.; Lay Subsidy 73/7. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 160; K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 243. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 160; Lay Subsidy, 103/5. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 40-41d. 7L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, mm. 35-36.

284 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 are more informing.! During the Trinity term of the year 1315 both members of twelve groups appeared with either tallies or rolls. Fifteen groups were represented by one of their number, and five groups sent in deputies. Of the latter, two, sent in by the collectors in the counties of Oxford and Warwick, are described as clerks, while the man sent by the three groups of Lincolnshire collectors is simply named. The collectors in Berkshire and Rutland first appeared in person, and later sent in their rolls by the hands of clerks. There are twenty-seven counties or parts of counties listed among the memoranda of the Hilary term, 1333. Both collectors are described as appearing in eighteen instances, one in four instances, and deputies in five instances. The two sons of the Shropshire collectors appeared in their behalf on 4 February with a tally for £200, two clerks came in for the Dorsetshire group, and men without a described status for the Hereford, Kesteven, and Warwickshire groups. In not one instance in any of the years examined in detail were the men who acted ds deputies described as attorneys, though mention of the latter

is made in other years. This formality does not seem to have been considered necessary unless those who were sent in were to take part in a view of account.? The detailed examination of the status of the men who appeared before

the officers of the exchequer for the first time has yielded no startling results. It is, however, not quite clear why one of the collectors did not appear more frequently instead of the whole group. It seems that the bringing in of money or tallies as well as excuses for their inability to enter upon a view of account might have been entrusted to one of the collectors.

During his absence from the county the other chief taxer could have continued the work of assessment and collection to their mutual advan-

tage. The records, if they do anything, throw light upon either the literal-minded consciensciousness of many of the collectors, or upon the

respect in which these same groups held the exchequer. Inasmuch as in the majority of cases they were unready for their view of account, it may

have been considered expedient that they both appear before the treasurer and barons with their excuses. Since it has been stated that most of the collectors who came to Westminster for the first time were not prepared for a view of account, it 1s high time that we turned to an investigation of the meaning of that term,

and to a description of what the men brought with them when they reached the exchequer of account. 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, mm. 243-244d. (the tax of 1315); L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, mm. 160-162 (the tax of 1332). 2 See below, p. 285.

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 285 3. THe View or AccouNT A view of account was the first stage in the accounting of the collectors

of taxes at the upper exchequer. Though not given a name or even indirectly referred to in the commissions and forms of taxation, it was supposed to take place when the collectors appeared on the first of the days mentioned in the commissions. At that time, it will be remembered, they were to bring in the rolls of the assessment and a certain part of the money due from the people of the county. If the collectors did what they were told to do the resultant proceedings were known in the exchequer as a view of account.

What then were the conditions antecedent to a view of account? Though never, so far as I know, is a view defined in so many words, there

are so many examples of early transactions with the exchequer which are not called views, alongside others which are, that it is easy to determine the conditions sought for by means of contrasting the two kinds of entries. The first point of contrast is that between the persons who took part in the two types of transactions. There was always, so it appears,

at least one of the collectors present at a view. In other words, the clerks, sons, and others mentioned in the previous section were not in a position to take part in a view of account. Attorneys, who were legally as well as morally responsible agents, could participate in a view. In the second place, every record of a view notes that the completed rolls of the assessment had been delivered. Finally, the transactions described as views were concerned with money; the collectors handed in evidence in the form of tallies or other kinds of vouchers witnessing that they had paid either into the treasury or to a properly authorized person approximately one-half the sum of their county rolls. The rolls might be handed

in unaccompanied by payments into the treasury and the exchequer clerks would not record the holding of a view; or a large sum of money might be paid into the treasury when no rolls were handed in, and the clerks likewise would make no record of a view. The most essential conditions for holding a view were the presence of

one or more collectors and the deposit of completed rolls. The exact amount of money collected and paid in was not so serious a matter. The collectors might present evidence of having handed over to the receipt of the exchequer a little less than half the total shown on the rolls, and yet be allowed to proceed to a view. What is more, there was no insistence upon the validation of all vouchers and their exchange for tallies of the receipt before a view was held. The collectors, on occasion, presented writs and receipts, indentures, and even the word of the men they had paid, and received immediate or temporary allowance for the

286 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 sums these represented. Being sensible men, the treasurer and barons did not insist upon a meticulous observance of the law when they received evidence from the collectors in connection with the money to be handed in, though they did hold fast to the requirements that the rolls should be in their hands and that the persons who appeared for the view should be legally capable of taking part in it. Since a view was held to establish what the collectors owed as well as to ascertain what they had paid into the treasury, the conditions enforced were reasonable. The evidence which has served as the basis of the foregoing generalizations is found on the memoranda rolls in the section devoted to states

and views of account, Status et visus compotorum. In that place are assembled not only the records of views, but also of the other dealings with the collectors that could not be called by that name. The clerks who entered the memoranda on the rolls were normally careful to dis-

tinguish between the two types of transaction, though the opening words of the record of a view were not always the same. On rare occasions the names of the collectors are given first, and they are stated to have come and to have made their view.!_ Usually the memoranda begin at once with ‘Facto visu,’ or with ‘Facto visu comp’.’? Occasionally the statement that a view had been held appears after several sentences had been written.? As might be expected, there are a few memoranda that appear to tell the wrong story. A group of collectors might come before the exchequer apparently ready to enter immediately upon a view. The clerk might, in the circumstances, enter the words ‘Facto visu’ and add some other data before it was discovered that for some reason no proper view was possible. He did not erase or cancel the opening words and it is left to us to correct the impression produced by those words.‘ On the other hand, a seemingly bad situation might turn out well after the collectors had corrected their rolls or brought in more money. When this happened the note that a view had been held would appear in the body or at the end of the statement.’ These contingencies have to be borne 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 41d. (co. Gloucester, tax of 1297); L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 244d. (co. Leicester). 2 These openings appear over and over again throughout the period. For examples of ‘Facto visu’

see K.R.M.R., No. 66, m. 63 (tax of 1290); L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, mm. 89-90 (tax of 1306); L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 128d. (tax of 1807); L.T.R.M.R., No. 98, m. 95 (tax of 1822). ‘Facto visu comp’’ seems to be the more usual and more correct opening: L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 117 (tax of 1306); K.R.M.R., No. 83, m. 95 (tax of 1309); L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, mm. 99, 99d., 106d. (tax of 1327).

3 There are many such in the records of the first appearance of the collectors of 1806 (L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, mm. 35-36).

4E. g., L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 89d. (Devonshire), a clear case. I think that some of the entries on the rolls of 3 Edward III belong to this class; e. g., L.T.R.M.R., No. 101, mm. 117 (Lancashire), 125d. (Suffolk).

5 There are some examples of the first memoranda ending with a reference to a later view in the

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 287 in mind when examining the states and views of account. I shall first describe the records that are called views and then turn to others not so designated.

The usual method of opening an entry relating to a view was, as stated above, to write the words ‘facto visu’ or ‘facto visu comp’.’ These were followed immediately by the names of the collectors, a brief description of the tax which they had been appointed to assess and collect, and the name of the county to which they had been assigned. Another type of opening might read ‘On the morrow of All Souls in the ninth year [1316] William de Nevill and Robert Burdet, taxers and collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth in the county of Leicester, came and made their view.’! There was no fixed form for what followed either of these openings, though the contents of what ensued were almost always the same.

It was usual to state that the taxers and collectors charged themselves by their rolls with so much, or that they had handed in the rolls of the taxation of the county, the total of which was so much. The amount due having been established, the next statement, or series of statements, described the tallies or unvalidated vouchers the collectors presented in part satisfaction of this debt. These, when allowed, were totalled and a note made of the amount still owing. This ended the view of account. The collectors were then usually given a day on which to reappear for their final payment and accounting. Many of the records proceed to tell about subsequent appearances and payments up to, though not including,

this final reckoning. ‘These added notes had obviously nothing to do with the view; they were placed after the record of the view because the remembrancers of the exchequer had no other convenient or proper place for them. The record of the view of the Devonshire taxers and collectors of the fifteenth of 1290 is typical. It reads: ‘View of account (Facto visu)’ of Robert de Wotton for himself and John de Punchardon, now dead, taxers and collectors of the fifteenth in the county of Devon, who charge themselves by their rolls with £1,837 9s. 2d. for the fifteenth in the county of Devon. Of this sum they have delivered into the exchequer £1,790 9s.

2d. by six tallies. And they owe £47. For the payment of this sum Robert was given a day, a fortnight after Michaelmas, on which day he records of the tax of 1315; e. g., L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, mm. 243 (Wiltshire), 244 (co. Derby). An excellent example of a long process ending in a view is that of the Devonshire collectors of 1306 (L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 35). 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 244d. 2K.R.M.R., No. 66, m. 63. 8 I have adopted the translation ‘view of account,’ which is not technically correct, in order to make the translation of the whole account run more smoothly. J have taken similar liberties with other parts of the Devonshire record and with those that follow.

288 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834 should render account of the fifteenth and certify the amount. of the fifteenth of the goods of the Earl of Gloucester and Richard Fitz-John. At that time he should have with him rolls, writs, memoranda of particulars, and all other things necessary for the accounting. And the sheriff was commanded to venire factas here on the same day William de Charnes and Isabella his wife executors of the will of John Punchardon

and Henry de Raleghe and Mabilla wife of John . . . The succeeding notes have to do with the appearances of these folk and the attempts made to force them to come in for their final accounting.

The above form with minor variations was observed in later years. In 1328, for example, there is this record, with added notes, of the view of a group of collectors of the twentieth granted in 1327:! “View of account

of Peter de Lorenz and Henry de la Legh, taxers and collectors of the twentieth in the county of Bedford, who have charged themselves by their rolls, delivered here on the eleventh day of July this year by Simon de Lorenz, with £482 7s. 44d. Of which they have paid by three tallies, the last of which was levied the same eleventh day of July, £400. And

they owe £82 7s. 6d. For the payment of this sum they have a day, the octaves of Michaelmas, since that sum, so they say, still remains to be collected from divers villata in the county. On the same day they are

to account. Later they paid £46 by a tally levied the eighteenth of August. £24 was assigned to the merchants of the Bardi, in part payment of debts owed them by the king, and a tally was levied on the same

eighteenth of August. And they owe £12 7s. 46d. For this sum they were granted a respite for their expenses until they should come on the

octaves of Hilary to account. On which day the said taxers did not come to account. They were therefore distrained at the suit of the king’s remembrancer, which matter does not concern this remembrancer.”? Both groups of collectors whose transactions with the exchequer have been described were admitted to a view of account; both presented their rolls, and both paid considerably more than half the money due from them. In contrast to these memoranda are many others in which the taxers and collectors were unready for a view. These must now be considered in their turn. First of all will be given the memoranda relating to a group of collectors who came in the first time without their rolls and so were unprepared for a view, but who returned later with their rolls and completed the transaction.? Among the states and views of the Easter term 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, m. 106d. 2 For the audit of this account see L.T.R.M.R., No. 101, m. 125d. § Such memoranda are very numerous and are uniformly without the opening words ‘facto visu.’ A few references will, however, meet our needs: L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 41d. (co. Derby), 40d.

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 289 of the year 1308 there is found the following:! “Giles de Insula and Roger de Englefeld, taxers and collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth in the county of Oxford, came and paid £297 by one tally. They were given a

day as above. Later, a fortnight after the Nativity of St John the Baptist, they came here and paid £235 by one tally. The sum of the aforesaid payments — £532. But they did not present their rolls because, so they said, they had not received them from the sub-taxers. They were given a day, the octaves of St Peter ad Vincula, to present their rolls and to pay whatever might be in arrears. Afterwards they came and delivered their rolls and made a view of account, the record of which is found among the states of account of the Michaelmas term in the memoranda of the following year.’ ZThe memoranda roll of 2 Edward II in the section devoted to the states and views of the Michaelmas term records:? ‘View of account of Giles de Insula and Roger de Englefeld, taxers and collectors in the county of Oxford. They charge themselves by their rolls, which they have delivered into the treasury, with £950 2s. 614d., produced by the twentieth and fifteenth in the county aforesaid.

Of this sum they have paid £532 by two tallies levied the Easter and

Trinity terms last past. And they owe £318 2s. 614d. Thereupon Giles pledged the marshal that he would be here a fortnight after Easter to render final account of the twentieth and fifteenth aforesaid and then to satisfy the king about all other matters. Meanwhile he has respite for

the debt.’ It is worthy of record that the audit was held during the Easter term of the year 1309, though the payment of the balance then calculated to be due was long delayed. The delivery of rolls that were defective also resulted in the adjournment of a view of account, even though approximately half the money apparently due from the county had been paid into the treasury. “On the fourth day of February, 1333, William de Moigne and John de Waldeshef, taxers and collectors of the tenth and fifteenth in the county of Huntingdon, appeared at the exchequer and delivered their rolls of the particulars

of the tenth and fifteenth of which the sum total is £407 3s. 10/4d. as appears fully in the same rolls, which are in the keeping of the other remembrancer. Of this sum they paid the king at the exchequer £203 lls. 11d. by one tally levied the fourth day of February. Which sum extends to one-half of the sum total.’ As, however, a scrutiny of the (co. Hertford); L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 120 (co. Oxford); L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 243 (Bucks); L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, m. 146 (co. Derby); L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 160d. (co. Bedford). 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 120. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 128d. 3 Tbid., m. 135. A marginal reference to the Pipe Roll of 7 Edward II, Item Oxon., indicates the delay referred to. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 160.

290 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834 rolls revealed the fact that the total did not compare favorably with the returns from the taxes of the reign of Edward II, the exchequer decided not to accept them. They were therefore given back to the collectors to be emended.! The record is not described as a view of account and could

not be. It is interesting on another ground, for it makes clear the fact that the officers of the exchequer examined the rolls with care before accepting them.’ Memoranda which note the receipt of rolls accompanied by less than

the amount of money due at the time are not described as records of views. There is the bare chance that carelessness may have intervened in some of the cases of this character, though the principle seems clear enough. Certain entries on the memoranda rolls are like the following, which has to do with the twentieth and fifteenth of 1315:3 ‘Walter Crepyn, one of the taxers and collectors m Middlesex, came here the fourth day of August and delivered the rolls of the taxation of the twentieth and fifteenth of which the sum total is £396 19s. 10!/4d. Of which he paid by one tally £96, £48 by another tally, and £5 by a third tally. Later, during the Michaelmas term, he paid £60 by onetally. And there remains to be paid £187 19s. 10144d.’ The amount paid in early was clearly much less than half of £396 and it is on this account that, despite the fact that the rolls had been delivered, the record says nothing about a view of account. At least that is the most probable interpreta-

tion of this and similar entries upon the memoranda rolls, though I recognize that this may be placing too much emphasis upon those aspects of the view of account which concerned payment. In still another category is the entry on the memoranda roll recording

the appearance of a group of collectors of the twentieth of 1327.4 It reads: ‘Roger de Baskervill and Robert Bryoun, taxers and collectors of

the twentieth in the county of Hereford, came here the second day of March this year by John Broun and delivered here the rolls of the aforesaid tax whose sum is — [no figures given]. Of which he paid by a tally levied the first day of March this year — £132.’ Since the rolls were in and the sum paid, £132, was so nearly one-half the total of the items on

the county roll —this being £280 19s. 134d.5— it appears that the reason for not calling this a view was that neither of the collectors was 1 A somewhat different wording of what was essentially the same record may be found among the dies datt in K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 211. 2 See Chapter VII, Section 4. For other examples of defective rolls postponing a view of account

see L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, mm. 244 (Devonshire), 244d. (Suffolk); L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, mm. 179 (Rutland), 177 (Shropshire). 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, mm. 244, 255. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, m. 26d. 6 H.H.R., xxx (1915), 72.

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 291 present in person or represented by an attorney. The entry relating to the transactions with the Somerset collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth of 1315 illustrates the other side of this story of personal appearance.! One of them, John de Clyveden, came in first without rolls, but

with a tally for £478. A fortnight after the feast of St Martin an attorney appeared in his place and delivered rolls totalling £1,379 17s. 6d. and two tallies amounting to £666 13s. 4d. The balance due was £235 4s. 2d. John was to appear about the morrow of Hilary to account. He

did so, for in that term there is the memorandum of the audit of the account of the collectors in Somerset, who are declared to be quit.? Neither of the memoranda states that a view was held. Obviously the first could not open with ‘facto visu,’ for John had not brought in the rolls. When his attorney did this, and at the same time raised the amount of the payments well above the required half, a view was undoubtedly

held, despite the silence of the entry in the memoranda roll. The next stage in the proceedings, as recorded in the second memorandum, was the audit. So, notwithstanding the fact that only an attorney was present, a view could be, and was, held. While several examples have been given of the causes that prevented a view being held when the collectors of taxes appeared before the ex-

chequer on their first trip to Westminster, these must not obscure the fact that the usual cause was the non-delivery of the county rolls of the assessment. A detailed examination of the memoranda reveals how general a practice it was to appear for the first time, when rolls and money

were both due, with money but without rolls. During the first half of the year 1298 thirty-two groups of collectors of the tax of 1297 appeared in person or by deputy before the upper exchequer. On their first coming only one, the Gloucestershire group, presented their rolls and were ready for a view of account.? There are records of the appearance of twentytwo groups of chief taxers or their deputies during the Hilary term of the year 1307 with tallies or other vouchers. Not one of these collectors of

the thirtieth and twentieth is said to have brought in the county rolls. The story of what occurred in 1315 is somewhat better, for, although the rolls of the assessment for twenty-one counties were not delivered when

the collectors appeared, eleven were brought in.5 The memoranda of the first appearance of the collectors of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 during the Hilary term, 1333, state that of the twenty-seven groups who 1U.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 243. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 193. 3 L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 40-41d. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, mm. 35-36. 5 L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, mm. 243-244d.

292 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 came in, only four presented their rolls as well as tallies. In the light of this evidence one may marvel that the government continued year after year to demand that the rolls be brought in at the time when the first payment was due. 4, WuHaT THE COLLECTORS PROFFERED AT THE EXCHEQUER

In the normal course of events the chief taxers and collectors who ap-

peared at the upper exchequer for a view of account or an untitled reckoning presented tallies of the receipt as evidence of money paid into the treasury. Considering what has been stated in the previous chapter about the activities of the receipt of the exchequer this is what should

have happened. Occasionally, however, the same men presented un-

validated vouchers as well as tallies. These were examined by the officers of the exchequer, and usually allowed. Thereupon the collectors returned sooner or later with the tallies for which the vouchers had been

exchanged at the receipt. The fact that they had to present the county rolls before a view could be held has been sufficiently discussed in the preceding section and need not be referred to again in this place. The above generalizations are the result of a detailed examination of all the entries describing the appearance before the audit of the collectors of the taxes of 1297, 1315, 1327, and 1332 that are found in certain sec-

tions of the memoranda rolls. In other words, no attempt has been made to separate the records of views from the other statements of the coming in of groups of collectors, or to treat separately the continuation of the memoranda of payments that were made after the view was over. The records that antedated the audit, when found in one place, have been massed without distinction in order to determine what the collectors offered for credit to the treasurer and barons. The memoranda roll covering the year from Michaelmas 1297, to 28 September, 1298, contains a review by the exchequer of the payments and appearances of the collectors of the ninth of 1297 during what appears to be the first part of the year 1298.2 The notes describing the

several appearances of one group often cover several months. This review gives an excellent idea of what the collectors brought to the upper

exchequer. Thirty-two counties are referred to, and all the groups of collectors save one are definitely stated to have presented tallies. The exception, the group serving in Rutland, is stated to have brought in a tally first and then later paid £115, without mention of a tally. Without doubt, however, the customary form of evidence for money paid out was presented in this instance just as it was in the others. 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, mm. 160-162. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 40-41d.

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 293 The proffers during the Trinity term of the year 1315, when the chief taxers of the twentieth and fifteenth granted the same year were appear-

ing before the exchequer, were largely of the same sort. ‘There are entries relating to twenty-eight counties in behalf of which the collectors presented some sort of evidence of money paid by them either directly

into the treasury or to a properly accredited person.! With the exception of three counties, tallies alone are described as having been exhibited for credit. There are, in addition, two rather curious records of payments

that need to be noticed. The three groups of collectors who brought other vouchers as well as tallies to the exchequer were those assigned to the counties of Buckingham, Gloucester, and Hereford.? The first group stated that they had paid Simon de Swanlond 200 marks, as Simon then present recognized, and John de Redingg £20, for which payment they showed a writ of the king and John’s letter of receipt. Tallies were later brought in for these payments. The Gloucestershire collectors offered a writ of the king testifying that the men of Bristol had paid £110 for

the fifteenth. The third group placed in view £97 4s. 4d. which they had delivered to the sheriff of the county for the wages of foot-soldiers going towards Wales, and exhibited a writ of the king and two indentures of receipt as evidence of the payment. The two curious entries are found among the Herefordshire and Wiltshire memoranda.’ The first tells that Roger de Chaundos, one of the collectors, proffered 100 marks in money, and that he later presented a tally for £80 covering the same 100 marks and other monies of the twentieth. The Wiltshire record opens with the

statement that the two collectors appeared, did not deliver their rolls, and proffered in money the sum of £520. Later, it continues, they paid this sum by two tallies, one containing 60s. It would appear that in both these instances the collectors came into the presence of the upper exchequer with cash, and were then sent to the receipt in order to pay it into the treasury and receive tallies in exchange. Why they had not gone to the receipt in the first place is not explained. There are many memoranda telling of the coming of the collectors of

the twentieth to the exchequer on and after 3 February, 1328. Definite information is given about the payments made by fourteen groups.‘ All brought in tallies for credit, but the groups assigned to Derby and Nottingham produced in addition writs of the king and letters patent of receipt. For the latter, it is noted in each instance, tallies remained to be made. At the views and other transactions which were neither views 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, mm. 243-244. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, mm. 243 (co. Buckingham), 244 (co. Gloucester), 243 (co. Hereford). 3 Ihid., m. 243 (co. Hereford and Wiltshire). 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, mm. 26-26d.

294 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 nor audits, held during the Easter and Trinity terms of the year 1328, the proffer of tallies was customary.! The chief taxers in the counties of Bed-

ford, Berks, Derby, Devon, Leicester, and Warwick, and in the North Riding of Yorkshire, presented also royal writs and letters patent of receipt.?

The memoranda of the advent of the chief taxers and collectors of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 during the Hilary term of the year 1333 lack variety.’ In all there are short or long records concerning twenty-seven counties or parts of counties on behalf of which the collectors appeared

in person or by deputy. In every instance these are said to have presented tallies for allowance. In other years not scrutinized with the same care tallies appear to have been the normal form of evidence brought to the exchequer of

account for credit. Now and then letters patent of receipt appear, accompanying writs sealed with the great, exchequer, or privy seals, but

they were never numerous.‘ Indentures of receipt, if the occasion demanded them, were from time to time accepted by the collectors and

later presented at the exchequer.’ After all, the great majority of vouchers would have been exchanged for tallies at the receipt of the exchequer hours or days before the collectors proceeded to the exchequer

of account, and it was only those vouchers that required additional examination that would in the usual course of events be seen by the treasurer and barons. The statistics that have been given serve materially to reinforce the hypothesis that the receipt served as a clearinghouse for the upper exchequer, for they picture the greater number of collectors coming before the treasurer and barons with only tallies in their hands. 5. Tarpy Taxers AND COLLECTORS

It has been stated that the collectors of taxes were frequently late in appearing before the exchequer, that when they did appear they more often than otherwise did not bring in their rolls or the amount of money due, and that they offered excuses of various kinds for their failure to obey instructions. Some did not reappear when told to do so, and others 1 Ibid., mm. 99, 99d., 102, 102d., 106d. 2 These writs and letters were later exchanged for tallies, for the enrolled accounts of the twentieth record tallies as evidence of money paid into the treasury by the same collectors: L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 15-16. > L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, mm. 160-162.

‘E. g.. K.R.M.R., No. 66, m. 63 (Westmorland, a letter patent of the keeper of the wardrobe); L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 177 (Shropshire, letters patent and writs); L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, m. 146d. (Warwick, letters patent and writs). 5K. g., L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, mm. 174 (co. Bedford), 176 (Hampshire).

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 295 never came in the first place until they were subjected to pressure. It is now in order to describe the action of the exchequer either when the collectors came in unprepared for a view of account or when they did not

appear at all. There was no set of rules laid down by or for the exchequer providing for a specified form of action for each of the several forms of disobedience. Its officers judged each case on its merits, sometimes excusing without

penalty, at other times punishing offenders. We are dealing with a department that had wide discretionary powers, as well as ample authority to enforce its commands. No reason for the tardiness or other faults of the collectors is to be found in most of the entries on the memoranda rolls. This, however, cannot be taken as final proof that none was offered, since the records are frequently so abbreviated that it is impossible to base sound conclusions upon their silence. When reasons do appear they seem plausible enough. In 1307 several

of the groups appointed to assess and collect the tax granted in 1306 alleged either that they had not had enough time or, what amounted to the same thing, that they had not completed the assessment.! Some of the collectors of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 stated that they had not been able to complete their rolls because of divers writs under the great seal directed to them at the suit of abbots and other religious, in which writs they were told not to tax the rents and services of villeins that were

due to houses of religion.2 As their instructions had not told them to exempt such rents the excuse was valid and was accepted without question by the exchequer. The chief taxers of 1306 in Staffordshire,® of 1309 in the county of Lincoln,‘ and of 1315 in Gloucestershire,5 blamed the sub-taxers for their failure to deliver the county rolls on time. Lack of assistance or opposition offered by local officers was given as the

cause of delay by the collectors in Derbyshire and Norfolk of 1319.° The Lincolnshire collectors of the tenth and sixth of 1322 alleged at their

audit that, though they had £600 on deposit at Lincoln, they dared not attempt to bring it in because of the perils of the road.’ Lack of time to complete their work was implied by the Holland, Lincolnshire, chief 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 85 (Kent, Nottingham, Surrey, etc.). 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, mm. 160d. (co. Bedford), 161 (Surrey), 160d. (Sussex). $’L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 86. 4K.R.M.R., No. 83, m. 95. 5 L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 244. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, mm. 146, 147. 7L.T.R.M.R., No. 94, m. 171d.

296 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 taxers of 1313! and by the Bedfordshire chief taxers of 1316,? when they failed to bring in their rolls.’

In the several instances noted above no action was taken by the exchequer. Instead, the chief taxers and collectors were set a day upon which to bring in their rolls and pay. If they did not come on the day set, the exchequer might consider them to be disobedient and punish them. A description of what it then did is deferred for the moment. To bring to terms those who had not appeared the exchequer might resort to writs directing them to make haste or might use any one of the several forms of direct action embodied in such writs as those of distraint

or attachment. The object of such proceedings was to bring about the appearance of the collectors at the exchequer with rolls and money.

Mandates to collectors to hasten to the exchequer on days set, with their rolls and either the money due or the portion that had been gathered, were generally directed to a number of groups at one time. Since the greater part of the collectors were normally late, this was a natural result of the prevailing conditions. Individual cases of disobedience were usually dealt with in other ways. When a number of collectors had not appeared on the day set for their first payment or when it was felt to be especially necessary that they bring in the money on that day, the exchequer could, as stated above, issue writs commanding haste. Writs issued to the collectors of the taxes of 1301, 1307, 1315, 1319, and 1322 deal with the first type of

cases, that of disobedience. It was found necessary to anticipate the almost certain tardiness of the collectors of the taxes of 1297, 1316, and 1332 by issuing writs of a somewhat different kind. It is quite possible that other orders in either of these categories were sent out at other times, for not all the memoranda rolls of our period have been examined with equal care. The writs enjoining collectors who had not appeared on time to make haste were dated within a few days of the day on which those officers

should have come in with their rolls and money. The commissions to the collectors of the tax of 1307, for example, directed them to bring in one-half of the money on 26 March, 1308.4. The writ ordering haste, which was sent to practically all the collectors, was dated 29 March.® The interval between the two dates in connection with the tax of 1322 1K.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 190. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 174. $ The above list of excuses is not intended to do more than illustrate what might be said. 4 Parl. Writs, u, um, 14.

6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 97.

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 297 was twelve days.! The great majority of the chief taxers were affected in every case; in 1315 the number of groups sent writs was thirty-eight,’ in 1320 thirty-six,? and in 1323 thirty-five,‘ an enlightening commentary, if any is needed, upon the slowness of the tax-gatherers or upon the

unwise rules of the government concerning payment. While I am fairly sure that the government asked too much of the tax-collectors, I am certain that those officers were slow. In conformity with the practice of the day, the writs gave the reasons why haste was necessary. The writs sent out from the exchequer in 1298, which will be dealt with in the next paragraph, open with a solemn but brief statement of the urgent needs of the king and of the necessity of saving the kingdom.® Those issued under the date 27 January, 1302, are a bit hysterical in their description of the need caused by the war.* Each set of writs sent out during the reign of Edward II save the first, mentions war or other trouble with the Scots as the cause of the financial strain.’ The series issued early in 1333, also to be treated later, is unique in that it does not explain why there was urgent need.?®

The other type of writ, that sent out before the chief taxers and collectors were due at the exchequer, bears witness to an attempt to overcome the tendency toward late arrival. The first half of the sixteenth of movables, granted in 1316, was due on 3 November of the same year.® A writ of the exchequer dated 6 October, 1316, directed the collectors to come in on the day set in the commission, with all the money collected and to be collected at that time.!° The expedition against the Scots, so

it is stated, made obedience urgent. A mandate of 7 January, 1333, re-enforced the instruction given in the commissions to the collectors of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 by insisting that they should be present in

person on the day set, 3 February."! In 1297 the immediate financial need was so great that a somewhat different method was adopted to over1 Parl. Writs, u, 11, 278; L.T.R.M.R., No. 98, m. 75d. The commission stated that the first half of the money should be in on 3 April, 1328, and the writ ordering haste is dated 15 April, 1323. 2 L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 226. §L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, m. 129.

‘L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 75d. 5 L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 111. ‘K.R.M.R., No. 75, m. 71. ’ The first set of writs of 1808, dated 29 March, was followed by another dated 18 June and directed to the collectors in thirty-two counties. In it war with Scotland is mentioned (L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 98d.). The other writs mention war: L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 226 (tax of 1815); L.T.R. M.R., No. 90, m. 129 (tax of 1819); L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 75d. (tax of 1822). § K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 293. *K.R.M.R., No. 89, m. 106. 10 L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 151d. 11 K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 293.

298 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1384 come the inertia of the collectors. The commissions issued to the collectors, dated 14 October, 1297, directed that one-half the money should be

paid on 7 December and the other half on 3 February.! By exchequer writs dated 20 November the time for the first payment was changed to 30 November.? This attempt to hasten the process of payment failed, as it was almost bound to do, and writs dated 24 January, 1298, were sent to thirty-one groups of collectors ordering them to appear with money and rolls on 16 February.’ The success of these general writs was not, so far as has been discovered, very great. The record of what happened in 1333 as a result of a strongly

worded mandate is fairly typical. Of the forty-one groups of collectors to whom writs were sent, at least twenty did not come in on the day set, 3 February.‘ A long list of writs of distraint, dated 8 February, 1333, testifies to the lack of immediate response to the writ of 7 January.® The exchequer, though it used the plan of the general writ, could and

did supplement it by much more direct methods. In other words, it could call upon the sheriff, or, if he could not or would not act, upon the

coroner, to assist it in bringing the collectors to Westminster. It had at its command both mild and serious forms of action embodied in writs of distraint, attachment, venire facias, fiert facias, and the like. What is more, it could issue any of these writs to the sheriff at any stage in the proceedings. ‘There was no iron-clad rule of sequence. It could act as it saw best when the collectors did not appear on time, when they ignored the general writs already mentioned, when they ignored the day set for their reappearance, when, in short, they failed to do anything that they had been told to do.

Of the types of writs just mentioned the one that was relied upon above all others was that of distraint. Its obvious aim was simple enough, that of forcing the taxers and collectors to bring or send in money or rolls, or to appear with evidence that they had done whatever they had been commanded to do. This writ might take one of several forms, the variations being due to the inclusion or omission of certain clauses. One, which may be called, for lack of knowledge of the proper legal description, the writ of simple distraint, directed the sheriff to distrain a collector by his lands and goods to appear at the exchequer on a day named. Such was the type of writ issued in July, 1315, to force the 1 Parl. Writs, 1, 63; L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 38, 38d. 2K.R.M.R., No. 71, m. 122. The date of the grant is mentioned in the writ. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 111. 4 See the notes appended to the writs in K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 293, and the record of appearances in L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, mm. 160-162. 5K.R.M.R., No. 109, mm. 293-294.

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 299 collectors in some fifteen counties to appear with rolls and money,! and on many another occasion.? The writ of distraint might and frequently did contain additional clauses. One of these, which appears very often, was to the effect that the sheriff should have the body of the collector at the exchequer on a day.® Still another clause might tell the sheriff to distrain by issues.‘ A series of writs dated 25 January, 1320, having to do

with the collectors of the eighteenth and twelfth, contains all three clauses. The sheriffs were to distrain the collectors by all their lands and chattels in their bailiwicks. They were also to answer for the issues of the same. And they were to have the bodies of the collectors before the king and council at Westminster on a certain day, with the rolls of taxation, tallies, and money in their possession. Other clauses of minor significance need not be mentioned in this place.® In the records of the exchequer that deal with our collectors of taxes,

the writ of attachment was commonly reserved for cases of a more serious character, when money and rolls were long overdue, when the writ of distraint had proved imeffective, or when for some reason the exchequer especially desired to have the men in person before it. This writ was used in July, 1296, to force the appearance of the collectors of the

tax of 1294 in Lancashire who had not satisfied the king for the greater

part of the money due from them, and who had not brought in their rolls.?. In 1315 the Devonshire collectors of the tax of the same year had

brought in neither rolls nor money when told to do so. They were, therefore, charged with contempt, and the sheriff was told to attach their

bodies, and to seize their lands and tenements, goods and chattels, in order to force them to appear with rolls and money and to hear what the court might have to say about their contempt.? The date on a number of writs of attachment, 11 November, 1316, only six days after the date on which the first half of the money was due, seems premature,’ but, as has been stated, there were no rules binding the exchequer. The writ fiert factas was still more serious in character. It directed the 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 225. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 96 (Northumberland); K.R.M.R., No. 104, m. 245d. (Yorkshire and others). 3 rey Subsidies, 240/294, contains a number of the original writs dated 25 January, 1820. See also L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, mm. 130d., 183 (tax of 1819); L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 83d. (tax of 1806). 4K. g., L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 60d. (Norfolk); L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 153d. 5 Lay Subsidies, 240/294. 6 J have paid no attention to writs of venire facias or scire facias, though both are found.

7K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 70d. 8 L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 224. °L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 155. In most instances it is noted that the collectors came and made their view of account. The writs of distraint, dated in February, 1388, were frequently followed by writs of attachment (K.R.M.R., No. 109, mm. 293-294).

300 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 sheriff to take from the lands, tenements, goods, and chattels of a collector enough to satisfy a debt to the crown, and to answer to the exchequer for the money thus obtained. Its obvious purpose was to raise the money due from the collectors who did not appear to pay. On this account it would be used when there was a definite sum in question and not when it was simply desired to force the collectors to appear; though, it may be added, it generally resulted in the collectors appearing at once with what they owed. This being the nature of the writ, we should not

expect it to be utilized until the accounts of the collectors had been audited and their debt definitely established. When, however, as in 1332, the men of several towns and vills compounded separately for the fifteenth and tenth, the sums due from them were known from the start. When they did not appear promptly with the first half of the money, there was no question of distraint; the logical method and the one certain

to bring results was the use of the writ fierz facias. Such writs were utilized in a number of cases,! and the dates on them are so close to the

time when payment should have been made that it is clear that the __ exchequer was impatient. The sheriffs who received any of the above writs were supposed to act promptly and to send a statement of what they had done to the exchequer. That they did not do so is patent to anyone who has examined mediaeval

English records. Again and again the memoranda of exchequer transactions run on — the sheriff 1s commanded to distrain; the sheriff did not return the writ; the sheriff 1s commanded, sicut alias; the sheriff did not return the writ; the sheriff is commanded, sicut pluries.2 One wearies of the reiterated commands to the sheriff to distrain, to attach, or to carry out the writ of fiera faczas. When the collectors were brought in by any of the methods referred to, or when they appeared voluntarily but very late with insufficient money and without their rolls, they had to face a ‘court’ which at times was very impatient with erring officers. Much or little, usually little, might happen at the early stages of the accounting process; everything depended

upon the temper of the ‘court’ at that particular moment. Severe penalties, of the sort that might have been inflicted, were, however, normally reserved for the final stages of accounting and especially for those who failed to pay the balance due after the audit. When, as in 1297 and early in 1298, the exchequer, and presumably the central government as a whole, was in a panic, anything might happen. 1K.R.M.R., No. 109, mm. 294 (Wilts, Bristol), 299 (Hampshire, Wilts, Berks). 2 Anyone interested in this reiteration of commands that were not obeyed may refer to the case of the Hereford collectors of 1315 (L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 178).

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 301 On 10 October, parliament granted the king a ninth of movables and the cities and boroughs are said to have granted a like proportion of their goods a few days later.1 The money was needed for the war with France, Edward I having gone to Flanders a month before the grant was made in order to attend to this war. The situation was soon made very serious by the Scots who, having beaten the English army at Sterling Bridge, invaded northern England. The exchequer, at least, seems to have lost

its head. Its attempts to expedite the payment of the ninth, as well as their failure, have already been referred to.2 Only one group of collectors, that assigned to the county of Oxford, seems to have appeared as required in November and they came with no money.’ When they reap-

peared within a short time they brought less than half the amount required. The others began to drift in during the month of January, in itself an unusually early act of obedience.* The exchequer then prodded

the collectors in many counties by means of a general writ ordering haste.’ This writ, dated 24 January, 1298, referred to the urgent needs of the kingdom and threatened the collectors with the forfeiture of all they were able to forfeit if they were not present in person at the exchequer on 16 February with the rolls of the taxation and the arrears of the ninth. The collectors, however, continued to wander in during the month of February and later, and only one, the Gloucestershire group, was ready for a view of account. The exchequer, concerned about the matter of war and revenue, was to all appearance greatly annoyed with the leisurely ways of the collectors

of the ninth. The evidence of this lies at hand. One of the Lincolnshire collectors, who happened to be the sheriff of the same county} came in on

14 January, 1298, without money and with no rolls. He was asked why

he and his fellows had not obeyed instructions. He made the conventional, but probably truthful, answer that they had not been given enough time. Nevertheless he was promptly committed to prison for his disobedience and a similar fate is stated to have awaited his associates.’ When released from prison, he agreed to a fine of £5 for his transgres-

sions and was told to have in £500 before 27 January at the latest. A day was also set for the payment of the remainder. Somewhat later the other collectors appeared with a tally for £1,220, yet they were promptly 1 Stubbs, C.H.E., 11, 143. The subsequent grant of London and other towns is mentioned in the writ to the cities and boroughs (L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 38d.).

2 See above, p. 279.

$L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 40. 4 Ibid. The records of appearances are on this and the following membranes. 5 Iind., m. 111.

6L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 41. 7 Ibid.

302 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 committed to prison. They were given a day to makea fine. The wrath of the court was soon mollified by the payment of another large sum, and the treasurer forgave their transgression and the proposed fine. Most of the other groups of collectors of the ninth came in fairly early in the year 1298 with some money, though not with rolls, and seem to have satisfied the treasurer and barons of their good intentions.!_ There were a few exceptions to the normal policy of gentle treatment. One of the two collectors in the county of Nottingham came with a tally for £200, but was nevertheless committed to prison and made to agree to a fine of £2 for his contempt. His colleague was recorded as at judgment. The Leicestershire collectors appeared on 14 February with £140, were committed to prison, and given a day to make a fine. The Derbyshire group fetched £190 but no rolls, and were committed to the custody of the marshal. Later the treasurer, of his grace, gave this group a day to reappear, and they were released from the marshal’s care. The Hampshire group brought neither money nor rolls, were delivered to the mar-

shal, and entered upon a troubled career. Even after these vigorous efforts to enforce early payment, it was necessary in a number of instances to resort to distraint and attachment and, finally, to the writ fier facias, to enforce the payment of the sums owing after the accounts of the collectors had been audited.

Fines preceded by imprisonment or delivery to the marshal were, however, of rare occurrence in other years during the early stages of accounting. The upper exchequer used all the means at Its command to force the collectors to come to Westminster with their rolls and money; when they came, it was usually lenient towards them. The Norfolk and Suffolk collectors of the tax of 1332 who appeared respectively on 12 and 15 March, 1333, instead of on 3 February, and were each amerced 100s.,

were harshly treated.2, On their second appearance, when they came with defective rolls, the Rutland collectors of the fifteenth of 1316 were threatened with a penalty of £40 if they did not return at a certain time with corrected rolls and more money.? A heavy penalty was threatened the Dorset collectors of 1332 if they did not bring in both rolls and money promptly.4 According to a writ of April, 1323, forfeiture of lands and goods was to be the penalty imposed upon the collectors of 1322 if they

did not appear at York on a day with the first half of the tax and the rolls.5 The notes appended to this series of writs do not state that this 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 40-41d. These membranes contain all the facts referred to in this paragraph. 2K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 127. ’L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 179. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 160. 5 L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 75d. Most of the collectors did not appear on time despite the threat.

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 303 penalty was enforced. And finally, the collectors of the tax of 1306, whose third payment was due 3 November, 1307, were threatened by a writ dated 12 November with a penalty of £40 if they failed to pay all that was due by 30 November.! Despite these examples of threats and punishments, the treatment of the collectors during the crisis of 12971298 was exceptional.

I have already explained? that when the collectors came before the exchequer without the proper amount of money and without rolls, but with a more or less adequate excuse, a day was set for them to return with more money, with their rolls, or with other evidence of having done what

they were then told to do. A description of the procedure in the matter of granting of days has been reserved for the next section. 6. Days GIvEN AND RESPITES

The proceedings at the exchequer of account, at the time of a view or any of the incomplete transactions already described, usually reached a temporary close with the naming of a day by the treasurer and barons for the completion of a task. Respites, which were in similar vein, will be given brief notice at the end of this section; our first concern is with the days given, dies datz. If, after a view had been completed, a day was set for the return of the collectors to go through their final accounting, the day was all too often not the one named in the commissions. The collectors by their almost uniform tardiness made that impossible. When

the first coming did not result in a view, the collectors were told to reappear at a time when it seemed probable that they would have done what they had been commanded to do. Dies dati are noted in two places on the memoranda rolls, in the sections devoted to Status et visus compotorum and to Presentaciones, attornati, dies dati, et respectus. The better place in which to find reference to

them is at all times among the memoranda under the first heading. After the exchequer and the collectors had done all that could be done for the time being, it is stated that a day was given — the morrow of the Purification, the morrow of Michaelmas — for the collectors to bring in their rolls, to pay what they should have paid, or to account. A formal record of the day, together with a statment of what was expected of the collectors, was also at times enrolled under the second heading Presentaciones, etc. At no time have I found all the dies datz referred to in the memoranda of states and views enrolled m this second place. In some years only a few were dealt with in this more formal fashion; no reason 1K.R.M.R., No. 81, m. 83. 2See above, pp. 288 ff.

304 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 has been discovered for this preferential treatment. When dies dati are so marked off, it was customary until 1323 for both remembrancers to

record them. In 1323 the duty of enrolment was given to the king’s remembrancer.! The effect of the ordinance 1s found in the fact that in the Trinity term of that year that officer alone kept a record of days given to the collectors of the tax of 1322, in the special section of his roll devoted

to such matters. Thereafter it 1s necessary to go to his roll for those for-

mal memoranda of the days. In these later years the informal memoranda of views kept by the treasurer’s remembrancer at times refer to days given ex parte the king’s remembrancer.

It is probable that until the king’s remembrancer was entrusted in 1323 with various tasks antecedent to the auditing of the accounts of the collectors the informal method of referring to dies datz in the record of views and appearances was considered sufficient for all ordinary needs.

The formal and longer entries were therefore very scattered and quite incomplete. After the year mentioned, it became necessary that the king’s remembrancer should have his own record of what went on after a day had been given. He did not keep an original record of views and appearances. So in 1332 and the next year he was far more careful about enrolling dzes datz than any of his predecessors had been.? And more than this, he kept for his own information a fairly complete set of notes of the transactions after a day had been given. The informal references to dies datz inserted in the records of states and views of account were usually short and covered only the most essential

matters to be remembered. These were the day and what was to be done on that day. A group of collectors might present their rolls, pay a large sum of money, and emerge from their view of account with credit to themselves; a day would be given them to pay what remained of the money due, as well as to account.? They might, however, bring money but no rolls, or only a part of the rolls; a day would be given them to bring in the rolls and more money.‘ They might bring in rolls that were on examination found to be defective; a day would then be given on 1See a discussion of this point in my paper, “The Memoranda Rolls and the Remembrancers, 1282-1350,’ in Essays an Mediaeval History Presented to Thomas Frederick Tout, 227-228.

2K.R.M.R., No. 109, mm. 211-214d. 8 E. g., K.R.M.R., No. 66, m. 63 (Devon, tax of 1290); L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 193d. (co. Derby, tax of 1315); L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, mm. 106d. (co. Bedford), 99 (Berks); L.T.R.M.R., No. 101, m. 117 (Lancashire).

4L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 41d. (co. Derby, tax of 1297); L.T.R.M.R., No. 77, m. 35d. (Berks, tax of 1306) — see also ibid., m. 35 (Devon), for an interesting set of memoranda concerning dies datz; L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 178 (Somerset, tax of 1316); L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 160 (Dorset, tax of 1332),

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 305 which they were to return with corrected rolls.!_ Since all this information was to be found in the records of the states and views, it is easy to see how it may have met most if not all of the needs of the treasurer and barons. The other and more formal type of record is a little more comprehensive, for in addition to the matter that is found in the informal notes it adds a few details of interest. The essentials are the same in both cases — the names of the person to whom a day had been granted, the day on which he was to appear, and a statement of what he was to be prepared to do when he returned. The formal records frequently add the name of the officer of the exchequer who was responsible for giving the day. On rare occasions the date of the grant of a day is also noted. The memoranda of the formal type that antedate the reign of Edward III open with the words ‘Datus est dies.”2 The words ‘by the treasurer’ may follow this opening, though the name of the officer who granted the

day may appear at the end of the record. In most of the entries of dies datt where the grantor is mentioned, the treasurer 1s named as responsible, though on occasion his place was taken by one of the barons.

A number of memoranda make no reference to the person granting the day. After the opening clause we find the material mentioned in connection with the informal notes. From time to time information was added as to what the collector did or did not do on the day, including, when he did not come in, memoranda of distraints and attachments. These additional notes have, strictly speaking, nothing whatever to do with dies dati; they were placed after the record of the grant purely for convenience.

The simplest and shortest form of these early enrolments may be illustrated by that relating to the collectors of the tax of 1306 in Durham: ‘A day is given to Henry de Guldeford and Thomas de Shefeld, collectors of the thirtieth and twentieth lately granted to the father of the present king in the liberty of Durham, on the octaves of Michaelmas, to render

account to the king for the aforesaid thirtieth and twentieth. By the locum tenens of the treasurer, at the instance of R. de Clifford.’ A somewhat more comprehensive memorandum reads: ‘A day is given Edmund de Hemegrave and Thomas de Grey, taxers and collectors of the twentieth [of 1315] in the county of Suffolk, through Thomas atte Ash, their 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 178 (co. Hereford, tax of 1316); L.T.R.M.R., No. 98, m. 94 (Norfolk and Suffolk, tax of 1322). 2 For examples of enrolments see L.T.R.M.R., No. 64, m. 5 (co. Leicester, tax of 1290); L.T.R.M.R.,

No. 69, m. 66 (Wiltshire, tax of 1294); L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 76 (Northumberland, tax of 1806); L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, mm. 40, 40d. (Bucks and Surrey, tax of 1815); K.R.M.R., No. 93, mm. 117d., 120d., 122 (co. Worcester, London, co.Cambridge, E. R. York, tax of 1819). $L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 76.

306 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 valletus, on the morrow of St Margaret. They are then to deliver their rolls of the twentieth, to pay all the money they have levied and not paid out, and all that they are able to levy.”! A note is added that they came on that day and delivered their rolls, ‘as is contained elsewhere in these memoranda among the views of account of the taxers, etc.’ An even longer entry may be due simply to the necessity of including more detailed information about the situation. The Norfolk collectors of 1315 came in, so it is stated, on the octaves of St Martin.? It was then found that their rolls were insufficient. Their commissions and the form of the taxation were returned to them and they were enjoined to go without delay to Lynn and Thetford in order to reassess the goods there found and to levy the money due on that account. They were then given a day, the morrow of Hilary, to bring in the emended rolls and the money. Afterwards, so it is noted, one of the collectors came and accounted.

The enrolments of the days given the collectors of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332, as kept by the king’s remembrancer, are very different in content from those of earlier days. They resemble in many respects the records of views of account and the like kept by the treasurer’s remembrancer. The coming of the collectors is recorded, as are also the amount

that they paid into the treasury and their failure to bring in rolls or enough money. Then the day given is stated, and the subsequent proceedings. This enlargement of the record of dies dati, as already noted, was in all likelihood due to the new duties of the king’s remembrancer as laid down in the ordinance of 1323. Why this kind of record was almost entirely abandoned when days were given the collectors of the tax of 1334 is not clear.* The return to the shorter form may have been due to a desire to avoid what was virtually a duplication of information, but if that was the reason the king’s remembrancer would be forced to make frequent use of the records of his colleague.

Almost parallel with dies datt were the mandates to the collectors to reappear at a certain time with tasks completed. Occasionally when the collectors came unprepared for a view they were ‘told’ or ‘enjoined’ to return to their counties and to come back on a day with their work completed. The Oxfordshire collectors of the tax of 1297 were ‘told’ to cause the ninth to be levied ‘omitting all delay and excuse’ and to send the money to the exchequer day by day.* After the North Riding collectors 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 167. A note among the informal memoranda tells of their coming (m. 244d.).

2L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 42. 3K.R.M.R., No. 109, mm. 211-214. 4K.R.M.R., No. 111, mm. 240-240d. The entry relating to the county of Gloucester is of the long kind of 1383 (m. 240d.). 'L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 40.

The Collectors at the Upper Exchequer 307 of 1319 had confessed that they had not assessed the goods of the people in several vills, they were ‘enjoined’ to carry through the assessment with ‘all celerity’ and to return.! Such commands were noted on the memo-

randa rolls in the entries relating to the appearance of the collectors; never, so far as has been seen, were they separately and more formally enrolled.?

Respites were in a somewhat different category. They generally represented a suspension of action on the part of the exchequer until certain matters had been more fully investigated. Though frequent mention is made of them during or after the audit stage of accounting, they seem to be very rare during earlier stages. The Suffolk collectors of the tax of 1315 were granted a respite, at the time of their view, for 41s. '7d., the charge against the moneyers of St Edmund’s, because they said that these moneyers had a royal writ of swpersedeas in their favor.’ The respite granted to the collectors of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 in Holland, Lincolnshire, was of another kind. They claimed that they had paid royal purveyors £200, and exhibited letters of receipt and a writ, but instead of a formal allowance they were granted a respite for that sum.‘ Respites are so very infrequently mentioned in the records of views and

early appearances that it may be conjectured that often they were not mentioned when granted. The theory that the current use of dies datz

made them unnecessary is invalidated by the fact that in the later stages of accounting there are numerous examples of the use of respites along with dies datz. 1..T.R.M.R., No. 90, m. 143. 2 For other examples see L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 40d. (Bucks), 40 (Suffolk); L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 178 (Somerset and Dorset). 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 244d. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, m. 174.

CHAPTER XII THE FINAL ACCOUNTING 1. THe STEPS IN THE FinaL ACCOUNTING

W BEN the collectors had completed view of account they returned to their counties to collecttheir the remaining portion of the tax due the crown, in preparation for their final accounting on the day set. In theory though not always in fact, their accounts were wound up on the latter date and they were then released from any further responsibility to the government. If all went as expected, their discharge was formally symbolized by the return of their commissions to the officers of the exchequer; once these were out of their hands their connection with the assessment and collection of any one of the taxes upon movables was definitely at an end. The collectors may, for the moment, be pictured as hurrying to West-

minster with vouchers and money. When they reached that town they would, if it were necessary, go to the receipt, hand in vouchers that required validation, receive tallies of the receipt, and proceed as soon as possible to the exchequer of account. At this point all that they presented would, presumably, be handed over to auditors for careful examination. The latter would have in their hands the rolls of the assessment and collection, for these had to be in the treasury before the debit side of the transaction could be calculated. The auditors would also estimate the amount of the credits, and might, if no difficulties were involved, review the allowances claimed by the collectors for unvalidated vouchers.

The two sides of the account, debit and credit, would then be set over against each other and a balance struck. The result would be reported to the treasurer and barons.! Relieved of the necessity of the detailed examination of documents in full exchequer, the treasurer and barons could deal with the collectors in

a relatively short time. The collectors would present to them any questions still unsettled (including matters relating to vouchers still in dispute), would receive formal allowance for the money these represented

and for other sums represented by tallies of the receipt, and would receive like formal allowance for their expenses. They would then pay 1 This brief description of what happened is based largely upon an Oxfordshire compotus of 1301 (Lay Subsidy 161/6), the memoranda on the rolls of the exchequer, and later compoti. These will be

dealt with in detail later. 308

The Final Accounting 309 what they still owed or hear what the treasurer and barons had to say about the remainder of account. If they paid all they owed, they were quit; if they did not pay at the moment, the account might run on for months or even years. We ruoust now retrace our steps, and take up the various stages in the final accounting in order, at the same time describing some of the many variations from the simple procedure already described. 2. APPEARANCE IN PERSON OR BY ATTORNEY

When the collectors of taxes sent in their rolls, money, or vouchers, they might and did make use of their clerks or of other men who were on their way to Westminster; but when the time came for their final accounting they were supposed to appear in person. It was usual for both to come at that time. If one came and the other did not, the one absent might, if the situation demanded it, be forced to make his appearance to complete his share of the transaction. If, however, illness or other tasks interfered, the Cowick ordinance of 1323 provided that attorneys could

be sent in place of either or both of the collectors.:. The practice of sending attorneys, so designated, can be traced back to the year 1300 at least.2) When a collector died, someone had to come in his place, but the heirs or executors who appeared before 1300 were not called attorneys. The Cowick ordinance also directed that a record be made on the memo-

randa roll of the reason why the right to be represented by an attorney was granted.? Enrolments of the grant to a tax-collector to be represented by an attorney go back to at least the year 1309.4 At that time and thereafter it was customary to note at the end of the enrolment the name of the officer who authorized the selection of an attorney or the writ upon which action was based. It was quite unusual to refer to the reason why an attorney was necessary. The form of the enrolment on the memoranda rolls was the same throughout our period.®

It has been stated that ‘the collectors of taxes usually appeared in person for their final accounting. ‘This may be illustrated by what happened in connection with the twentieth and fifteenth granted in the 1 Red Book of the Exchequer, 111, 892-894; cf. 948.

2 No references to attorneys of the collectors of taxes upon movables have been found before 32 Edward I (Pipe Roll, No. 151, m. 35 (Wiltshire). K.R.M.R., No. 70 (1296-1297), seems to contain no references to such attorneys. 8 Red Book of the Exchequer, 111, 894; cf. 949. It was the duty of the treasurer’s remembrancer to keep these records. ‘K.R.M.R., No. 82, m. 77 (Devon).

5 Compare the following: K.R.M.R., No. 82, m. 77; L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 127; K.R.M.R., No. 98, mm. 120-120d.; L.T.R.M.R., No. 101, mm. 78, 75; K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 220d.; K.R.M.R., No. 111, mm. 240-242d.

310 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 year 1315. Thirty-eight groups of collectors accounted, and the results of the audit and subsequent proceedings were set down in the enrolled account of the tax.! Thirty of the thirty-eight groups are stated to have appeared in person; that is to say, all the collectors assigned to those counties came to Westminster. In three instances one collector appeared, accompanied by an attorney representing his colleague. In two instances the one collector who appeared acted for himself and his colleague. In one instance one attorney represented two men, and in two others two attorneys came in, each of these taking the place of one of the collectors. An investigation of the appearance of the collectors of the tax of 1327 for

their final accounting gives similar results.2. The enrolled accounts of the tax name forty-one groups of collectors of the twentieth. Of these only twenty-three appeared in person. One collector appeared for himself and his fellows in eight instances, with no attorney mentioned. One collector and one attorney appeared in six instances.? There is one case of one attorney for one collector, the other not being represented, and three of an attorney for each of the two collectors. In other years, for which no such tabulations have been made, there are a number of instances of attorneys and others acting in the place of the collectors at their final accounting. Even before attorneys are noted there are references to heirs and executors taking the place of dead collectors. The memorandum of the audit of the fifteenth of 1290 in Devonshire notes that one of the collectors appeared accompanied by William de Charles, executor of the will of John de Punchardon, deceased, the other collector. When one of the Staffordshire collectors of the tax of 1294 died, his son and heir took his place; a deceased Hampshire collector

was represented by a relative, his heir. John de Sore, one of the collectors of the eleventh and seventh of 1295 in Gloucestershire, died before the accounts of the tax were audited. He was represented at the final accounting by his five daughters, who were his heirs; four of these ladies, being married, were accompanied by their husbands.* A similar story is told by the records of taxes after attorneys were enrolled. Both the collectors of the tax of 1306 in the county of Nottingham died before they accounted. One was represented by two men, the executors of his will, and the other by Sibille, his wife and executrix, who, however, sent 1L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 7-8d. 2L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 15-16. 3 In one of these, Sussex, the executor of the will of a dead collector acted in his place. He is not called an attorney, though his function was practically the same. 4K.R.M.R., No. 66, m. 638. Cf. Pipe Roll, No. 140, m. 24, for the enrolled account of the same audit. 5 Pipe Roll, No. 151, m. 40. 8 Pipe Roll, No. 151, m. 38.

The Final Accounting 311 two attorneys to take her place at the accounting held during the latter

part of the year 1312.1 Katherine, the wife and executrix of Robert Giffard, a collector of the same tax in Cornwall, is said to have appeared in person to take her husband’s place.’ Since attorneys are mentioned in almost every series of enrolled accounts of our taxes after the year 1300, they need no extended treatment

here. A curious case is recorded in connection with the tax of 1316. Two men appeared at the final accounting for the county of Gloucester

and were allowed to account; the third collector, as John de Foxle, a baron of the exchequer testified, was infirm and imbecile.’ Only rarely is it stated, as it is with regard to John de Hammesfeld, a collector of the tax of 1307 in Lancashire, that an attorney was admitted because the collector was unable to come to the accounting.‘ The form of the enrolment of a grant of the right to be represented by an attorney was simple, and, as stated above, unchanged from the early years of Edward IT to the close of our period. One example of this form will therefore suffice. It reads: ‘Devon, Nicholas de Kirkham, a collector

of the fifteenth granted to Edward, father of the present king, in the parliament at Lincoln, the twenty-ninth year [1301], puts in his place Richard de Cornwall to render account to the king of the aforesaid fifteenth. By Master J. de Everdon.’® The warranty clause added to the entry that has been translated tells

who granted the right to the collector to put an attorney in his place. In the section of the same memoranda roll devoted to attorneys and like matters, other clauses mention as grantors, though not to our collectors, the following: Master John de Everdon, Master Richard de Abyndon,

W. de Carleton, and the barons in the exchequer. Still others state that the right was granted ‘in full exchequer.’* One entry, relating to a collector of the tax of 1306, has the warranty ‘by a bill, under the seal of John de Insula, directed to the barons super hoc.”” The reference to the 1 Pipe Roll, No. 152 B, m. 38d. The same man acted as collector of the tax of 1807, and Sibille is said to have appeared at the audit (L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 133). 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 183. 8 L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 11d. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 98, m. 86. Roger de Blacolvesle, a collector of the 15th and 10th of 1832 in Cornwall, was allowed to send an attorney in his place ‘since the said Roger is not able to absent

himself from the parts of Cornwall because he is controller of the coinage of the stannary’ (K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 220d.). He was appointed controller in January, 1831 (C.P.R. 1380-1334, 54),

KRMX., No. 82 (2 Edward II), m. 77. References to other forms may be found on p. 309, n. 5. 6 K.R.M.R., No. 82 (2 Edward II), m. 77. The use of the word ‘pleno’ when applied to the exchequer can hardly mean anything but full, in the sense of the department as a whole as contrasted with the one man of other clauses. ” Ibid., m. 79.

312 Parlkiamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 bill of John as contrasted with the normal reference to barons of the exchequer calls to mind the Westminster ordinance of 1326, which states that if the treasurer and barons were satisfied that a man could not come,

he was to be allowed an attorney without mandate of the king.! It may be taken for granted that John’s bill explained the situation and that, in this as in all the enrolments examined in other years, the absence of any mention of royal mandates was due to the fact that they were found to be unnecessary.

The years that followed simply repeat the story already told. Only once has a distinct departure from the form of enrolment been found. In connection with the taxers of the sixteenth of 1316 in the county of Northampton the entry begins ‘Concessum est per Thesaurarium,’ and states that they are to account by one of their number, Theobald de

Bray.2 He is not called an attorney in the body of the entry, but a marginal note records that he was so regarded. The memoranda of those who granted the right to have an attorney

usually name barons of the exchequer or the treasurer.’ In a few instances, as in connection with the tax of 1334, men who were not barons

gave the right by license of the barons. It may be noted that most of the abbots and priors who served as collectors of the fifteenth and tenth of 1334 sent attorneys to take their place at the final accounting.’ Ina few instances the note relating to the grantor is replaced by a memorandum of a returnable writ sent out in connection with the selection of an attorney.’ No explanation of this procedure has been found. No information is given in the enrolments as to the method or time of

the request for the right to account through an attorney. It may be conjectured that the attorney appeared in person for the final accounting with proper credentials, and, perhaps, with the supporting testimony of

the remaining collector of taxes in the same county. If this is what happened, his status would not be known until he reached Westminster, and the enrolment of his name would be made at the time of the accounting. 1 Red Book of the Exchequer, ut, 948.

2L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 79. It reads, ‘Concessum est per Thesaurarium quod Johannes de Wyleby, Eustachius de Burneby et Theobaldus de Bray, Taxatores xvi° in Comitatu Norht, computent de eadem sextadecima per ipsum Theobaldum.’ 3 There may be mentioned H. de Staunton, chancellor of the exchequer (L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 37); J. de Foxle, who was a baron (zbid., m. 37d.); W. de Norwich, a baron (K.R.M.R., No. 93, mm. 120, 120d.); W. de Everdon, a baron (K.R.M.R., No. 101, mm. 73, 75); Thos. de Blaston, a baron

(K.R.M.R., No. 111, m. 240d.). 4 William de Brocklesby was the king’s remembrancer at the time he granted the right and William de Stowe an engrosser. Their names appear in K.R.M.R., No. 111, m. 240. 5’ K.R.M.R., No. 111, mm. 240—242d.

6. g., L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 127 (N. R. York); K.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 118 (Lancashire); K.R. M.R., No. 96, m. 97.

The Final Accounting 313 The means utilized to enforce the appearance of delinquent collectors

for their final accounting were practically the same as those used to bring them to Westminster for a view of account. Indeed, it is often difficult to distinguish between the procedure relating to a view, properly

so called, and that having to do with an audit of account.1 This results from the fact that long overdue collectors might not bring in their rolls

until they were ready to account for all that they had done in their counties. When the exchequer wished to hasten the coming of collectors,

it might send them writs to appear at a certain time. When those to whom such writs were directed had been very dilatory, it at times threatened them with rather extravagant penalties, such as £40 or 100

marks.2 If they did not appear either on the day mentioned in the writs or on the day given at the view, the sheriff might be told to distrain their goods to enforce their coming, or to attach their bodies.* In other

words, the exchequer had recourse to the usual method of enforcing obedience to its commands. There is, therefore, no need of repeating here what has already been described in the preceding chapter. When those who had failed to appear on time finally reached Westminster, the weary officers of the exchequer might force them to fine for their transgressions or they might amerce them.‘ The officers usually did neither, for the collectors were present and, until they showed themselves either unable or unwilling to pay what they owed, it might be inexpedient to resort to harsh measures. 3. Tur ReEcorpDs OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTING

Before attempting to tell the detailed story of what happened at the final accounting of the collectors of taxes, I am going to describe the records upon which that story will be based. This procedure will, it 1s hoped, help to make clearer what follows. It has been stated that, when a group of collectors appeared at the exchequer for their final accounting, their first dealings were with certain auditors. Who these expert accountants were is not clear until the reign

of Edward II, and what they did is not to be determined with any accuracy, save in one instance, until the reign of Edward III. The one 1 The collectors of the ninth of 1297 in Gloucestershire are said to have come in on the octaves of Hilary, 26 Edward IJ, to have paid £620 by one tally, to have delivered their rolls, and to have made

their view of account. But the sum so delivered satisfied for all save £6 of their debt and they asked for that sum for their expenses (L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 41d.). 2K. g., K.R.M.R., No. 81, m. 83; L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, mm. 115 (81 counties), 121 (London); L.T.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 98d. 3’ L.T.R.M.R., No. 68, m. 39d.; L.T.R.M.R., No. 65, m. 83d.; K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 70d.; K.R. M.R., No. 71, m. 116; L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 118; L.T.R.M.R., No. 107, m. 34d. 4 For several fines and amercements see L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, mm. 60d., 66d.

314 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 exception is, however, of great importance, for it shows that as early as the tax of 1301 the procedure was to a large extent the same, barring the question of the official position of the auditors, as that of 1334. What is more, the details attended to by the unnamed auditors of the Oxfordshire account of the tax of 1301 are just those that, from the nature of the records on the memoranda rolls beginning with the words ‘audito compoto,’ we should expect the officers to review before the accounts of the collectors could be passed upon in full exchequer. We may, therefore, turn to the compotus of 1301 and the many compoti of the tax of 1334

with some confidence. They show us the preliminary work that was undertaken by the auditors. The compotus of the collectors of the fifteenth of 1301 in Oxfordshire gives very detailed information.! It begins: ‘Compotus Thomas de Gardinis, William de Schalebrok, and John de Brouton, taxers of the fifteenth granted the lord king in the county of Oxford in the thirtieth year.’ It then lists the hundreds of the county and records the amount of the tax due from each. These items are totalled and the sum, £1,106 11s. 114d., set down. Thus far the record has dealt with the debit side of the transaction. There follows a statement of the items on the credit side. This begins: ‘Of which sum there is in the treasury £431 16s. by three

tallies contra Thomas de Gardinis and his associates.’ Other tallies

contra Thomas, William, and Nicholas de Pershute, sheriff, follow. With

the above mentioned sum they amounted to £488 16s. The tallies contra the collectors were the foils of the stocks that had been issued to the collectors at the receipt of the exchequer. The compotus then takes up the story of various allowances craved by the collectors for tallies, for sums paid out because of writs, and for sums not collected because of the receipt of writs of supersedeas. The total of payments and allow-

ances is set down as £1,022 12s., and the balance due is recorded as £83 19s. 144d. It is not stated who was responsible for this detailed statement of sums due and sums paid in; but whoever he was, he had reviewed the material presented by the collectors with thoroughness. The rolls of the taxation in Oxfordshire had been summarized. The foils of tallies had been examined and, presumably, placed alongside the stocks held by the collectors. Other vouchers had been scrutinized and

provisionally allowed the collectors. And finally a note was added stating the responsibility of William for £35 3s. 2d. and of John for £21 18s. 5d. of the balance noted above. 1 Lay Subsidy, 161/6. This document may be compared with the enrolment of the final accounting in Pipe Roll, No. 152B, m. 27. Such a comparison will bring out the fact that the enrolment was not copied from the compotus.

The Final Accounting 315 During the reign of Edward IT, as is known from other sources of in-

formation,! special clerks were appointed to audit foreign accounts. Among such foreign accounts were those of the collectors of the taxes upon personal property. These minor officers of the upper exchequer, under the direction of one of the barons, attended to the detailed ex-

amination of the material brought in by the collectors. Their reports to the treasurer and barons were evidently of the same sort as those of their predecessors, for the entries on the memoranda rolls and on the en-

rolled accounts do not change either in form or content as a result of their appointment. The reforming ordinances of the latter part of Edward II’s reign add slightly to our knowledge. The Westminster ordinance of 1326 directs that foreign accounts ‘be heard and rendered in another house adjoining this,’ and adds: “Let the allowances to be made by writs and tallies at the close of such accounts be made in full exchequer.’? Later on in the same ordinance there is the statement: ‘And that every auditor set his

name to every account which he shall have heard, and at the end of every term let the work which each of the aforesaid auditors and clerks shall have completed be viewed by the treasurer and barons.’? With the exception of the provisions relating to ‘another house’ and the placing of the names of the auditors on the accounts, the rules formulated in 1326 appear to have recorded already existing practice. The records of the tax of the year 1334 usher in a new era in connection

with the compot:. There appear among the class of Lay Subsidies then and thereafter a host of summaries of the findings of the auditors, bearing

the names of the auditors in accordance with the ordinance of 1326.4 These formal compoti make it quite certain who the auditors were and, up to a certain point, what they did. As far as the new compoitz were written in one hand and ink they contain the same kinds of information. In one corner of the sheet of parchment, usually the upper left hand corner, are the names of ‘the auditors

of this account,’ a baron and a clerk.’ After the names there normally appears a note ‘delivered to the engrosser’ with the date of such delivery.®

The body of the document contains, in the first paragraph, the name of the collector and the date and nature of the grant. A second paragraph 1 See E.H.R., xxxvut (1923), 63-71; xxxrx (1924), 482.

2 Red Book of the Exchequer, u1, 983. } 8 Red Book of the Exchequer, 111, 969.

‘E. g., Lay Subsidies, 71/14 (co. Bedford), 77/3 (Bucks), 81/11 (co. Cambridge), 91/8 (co. Derby),

107/19 (Essex). These have to do with the fifteenth and tenth of 1834. See also, for the taxes of 10 and 11 Edward III, Lay Subsidies, 73/13, 77/5, 87/14, 107/25, etc. 5K. g., Lay Subsidies, 77/3, 91/8, 107/19, 117/5, 128/16, 155/4, 159/6. 6 The compoit listed in the preceding note contain this reference to delivery.

316 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 records that the collector had accounted for a certain sum received of the fifteenth of movables of the earls, barons, and so on, and for a different

sum of the tenth of movables of the burgesses in the boroughs (named) and of the inhabitants of the ancient demesne of the crown. In a third paragraph the two sums are totalled after the words ‘summa’ or ‘summa recepta.’ At this point the compotus ends in most of the examples that are preserved. In other words, all that the auditors caused to be placed

upon parchment in this document, in the first place at least, was the charge against the collector for the sum he was supposed to have gathered

in his county. This was, after all, what should be inscribed under their direction, for the final allowance to a collector for sums paid into the treasury and for other matters, was reserved to the treasurer and barons. The story of the accounting of the collectors 1s carried a step or so further on some compoti in a different ink and in what appears at times to be a different handwriting.! After the record of the summa an added note may read: ‘In the treasury £530 im 4 tallies. And he [the collector] owes £50.’ It is very probable that these added notes embodied information transmitted orally or in a more informal type of document to the treasurer and barons and confirmed by the latter officers.2 We know that auditors of the later Middle Ages dealt with the credit as well as the debit side of financial transactions, and we may be well assured that those who reviewed the accounts of our collectors did the same. What is more, in the particular years with which we are for the moment concerned, 1334 and 1335, it is clear from the records of the final accounting on the memoranda roll, that barons supervising the work of the auditing

clerks had gone over with the collectors the matter of allowances and other details. We find that one collector was granted a respite by the treasurer for money still owed but uncollected on the information of Thomas de Blaston, who had been concerned with the audits, and that

other collectors were granted allowances by the treasurer for their expenses on the information of Blaston and other barons connected with the same audits.* This bears on the contention that the auditors did not

finally allow all payments; such final allowance was reserved, in the cases noted, to the treasurer. The same memoranda roll notes respites or allowances for vouchers granted by the exchequer of account.‘ 1¥. g., Lay Subsidies, 117/5 (co. Hereford), 159/6 (co. Nottingham), 200/4 (co. Worcester). 2'The added items on the Cambridgeshire compotus were copied in full on the enrolled account (Lay Subsidy, 81/11; L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 18). The enrolled account is in one hand and ink as far as the copying from the compotus goes.

3L.T.R.M.R., No. 107, mm. 171 (co. Cambridge), 174d. (E. R. York), 175 (cos. Derby and Warwick).

4 ee. the respites for or allowance of such vouchers in L.T.R.M.R., No. 107, m. 171 (co. Cambridge), 177 (Shropshire); K.R.M.R., No. 111, m. 278 (co. Oxford).

The Final Accounting 317 The next series of records to be examined is that found on the memoranda rolls of the treasurer’s remembrancer,! the series noting the results of the final accounting of the collectors. There is very little substantial

change in the form of these records during our period, though, as is always the case with exchequer memoranda, some may be quite long and

informing and others very brief. Real changes may, however, be concealed by adherence to a form; illustrations of such unrevealed changes will occur to anyone familiar with administrative records of the Middle Ages or modern times.

The memoranda relating to the final accounting of the collectors of the fifteenth of 1290 are in several instances quite different in form from those of after years, and they all begin with the words ‘facta summa’

and not with the ‘audito compoto’ of later days. After the opening words, the names of the taxers and collectors of the fifteenth and the county in which they served are given, to be followed by a statement of the amount they owed. There is then a detailed description of subsequent appearances, of sums paid in, and of allowances granted. Then it is noted that they owed the difference between these payments and allowances and the amount set down at the beginning of the memorandum. In several instances all the writing after the first sentence, from the statement of the sum then owed to and including the description of the balance, is cancelled, and the latter sum is inserted in the place of the first.2. The preliminary statement would seem to embody the result of an

audit and the inserted sum the remainder of account. If the latter

conjecture is correct, the remainder was determined only after several weeks, or even months, had passed. I have found no satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon.? Other entries on the memoranda rolls relating to the collectors of the same tax are brief and like later records, though starting with the words ‘facta summa’.! With the memoranda of the final accounting of the collectors of the tenth and sixth of the year 1294 we enter upon an era, lasting to the close of our period, during which the entries open with the words ‘audito 1 For my account of how the king’s remembrancer copied the entries relating to both views and audits on the treasurer’s remembrancer’s rolls see Essays in Mediaeval History Presented to Thomas Frederick Tout, 221-223.

2K.R.M.R., No. 66, mm. 62 (Berks and Cumberland), 63 (Devon), 62d. (Somerset), 62 (W. R. York). 3 One difficulty in the way is the incompleteness of the records of the accounting of the collectors

of the fifteenth. The officers of the exchequer had not learned how to handle such records, and did not, as a matter of fact, keep fairly complete memoranda until the tax of 1297 was being accounted for.

4K.R.M.R., No. 66, mm. 64 (cos. Hereford, Hertford), 62 (co. Lancaster), 64 (Shropshire), 68 (Surrey).

318 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 compoto,’ an audit of account having been made. Following these words

are the names of the collectors, a brief description of the tax, and a statement of the amount owed. The memorandum of the accounting of the collectors of the tax of 1294 in Somerset is typical.1 It reads: ‘An audit having been made of the account of William de Staunton and John de Blakeford, taxers and collectors of the tenth and sixth in the county of Somerset, they owe £40 15s. and 1 farthing. For the payment

of which sum they have a day, the morrow of Palm Sunday. Later William de Staunton paid £20 7s. 614d. by 2 tallies. And they owe £20 Ys. 6d.’ Entries similar in form appear In connection with every succeeding tax until and including that of 1334. Many give more information, others less; neither type gives any information about the auditing process, though, handled carefully, each tells us something about what went on at the exchequer. After the audit had been completed and its results reported, and after the treasurer and barons had granted allowances for expenses and for various writs and receipts, the status of which were until then unsettled, a final balance was struck. If there was still money owing this was called

a remainder of account. At or about this stage in the proceedings a formal and summarized version of the several transactions was entered upon the enrolled account of the tax. This series of records carries us one step further in our investigation of the documents dealing with the accounting of the collectors of taxes. The records of the enrolled accounts of taxes were kept separate from any of the others thus far described. Under a heading descriptive of the tax they listed all the counties for which collectors had accounted at the exchequer. ‘Two or three long membranes of parchment of pipe roll size

usually sufficed for the engrossing of the summarized statements relating to the counties and separately administered cities and boroughs. These membranes were sewn together and set aside as long as they were needed for constant reference. This, at least, was surely the practice in the days of Edward I. In the reign of that king, when their immediate usefulness was over, they were attached to a pipe roll. The date of the pipe roll had, however, no necessary connection either with the time of the grant of the tax or with anything save convenience. The records of the taxes of 1294, 1295, and 1296 were, for example, attached to the pipe roll of 1306.2, From 1 Edward II to the close of our period the enrolled 1K.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 85. 2 Pipe Roll, No. 151 (34 Edward I). The enrolled accounts of the tax of 1290 are found in Pipe Roll, No. 140 (23 Edward I), those of 1297 in Pipe Roll, No. 143 (26 Edward I), and those of 1301 and 1306 in Pipe Roll, No. 152B (35 Edward I, part 2). The records of 1301, however, were formerly unattached and were known as Foreign Accounts, No. 2. They were added to the Pipe Roll in the twentieth century.

The Final Accounting 319 accounts were sewn together in a separate roll, now known officially as L.T.R. Enrolled Accounts, Subsidies.! It is hardly possible to tell when the record of a new. tax was attached to the roll. The enrolled accounts were kept in duplicate, at least after the accession of Edward II. There was comparatively little variation in either the form or content of the entries in the enrolled accounts during our period. Those that had to do with the taxes of 1290, 1294, and 1295 are often long and full of

detail relating to allowances and other matters.?, On the other hand, those concerned with the taxes of 1296? and the remaining years of our period are likely to be rather brief. Whether extended or compressed, the information they contain is much the same in character and arranged in the same fashion.

There were three rather distinct sub-divisions of the material contained in the record of the accounting of the collectors serving in a county

or other division of the kingdom. These were usually separated by the adoption of the paragraph form of entry. In the first section we find the names of the taxers and collectors in full, a description of the tax they had assessed and collected, and the name of the county or district to which

they had been assigned. The second section notes that the collectors rendered account of so much money of the fifteenth or other proportion of the movable goods of the earls, barons, and other men in the county according to the rolls of particulars, the county rolls, delivered into the treasury. The same section often notes those who had been excused from taxation by the instructions or general writs. Its invariable content 1s, however, a statement of the sums for which the collectors were responsible. The third section has to do with the credit side of the accounting. Whenever in the reign of Edward I a two-rate tax was being dealt with

and thereafter in every instance, this section opens with the words “summa recepta,’ or more simply ‘summa,’ and a statement of the amount

with which the collectors were charged.’ It continues with a description

of the payment of that sum into the treasury. There comes first, in most records, a statement: ‘In the treasury so much, in so many tallies,

and they owe . . . . Then appear more payments witnessed by tallies and also notes of allowance because of writs of swpersedeas, and 1..T.R.Enr. Accts, Subsidies, Nos. 8 and 14, cover the taxes of the latter part of our period. 2 Pipe Roll, No. 140, mm. 24 ff; Pipe Roll, No. 151, mm. 35 ff, 39 ff. 3 Pipe Roll, No. 151, mm. 32 ff. ‘L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. I ff. § The third section of the enrolled accounts of the fifteenth of 1290 and of the ninth of 1297, both single-rate taxes, opens with the words ‘In the treasury’ and not with a statement of the amount owed.

As the second section records the amount due there was no need of repetition. When the sums due from the two parts of one tax were stated in the second section, the third section totalled them after the words ‘summa recepta.’

320 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1384 because of writs and receipts as yet unconverted into tallies. Allowances for expenses appear in the same place. Once more the collectors are said

to owe so much, this sum being the remainder of account. If the collectors paid this remainder fairly promptly the enrolled account may contain a reference to such subsequent transactions. In a large number of cases, however, the enrolled account ends with a reference to the ‘great roll’ of a later year of the king’s reign. If further mformation 1s desired we must turn, as did the officers of the exchequer, to the pipe roll of that year. The departures from the general plan just described are relatively unimportant and far from numerous. The paragraph formation may be consciously or carelessly neglected and the material run together so as form what is an almost continuous record.! The first section may contain a reference to the letters patent by which the taxers and collectors

had been appointed, or it may omit the reference.?. The third section may include, as it does in the years immediately following 1290, a host of detail, and so run to great length, or it may contain practically no detailed information.’ Other variations that are found are of no moment and were probably due to oversight or special care. The enrolled statement of the results of the final accounting of one group of collectors was normally written in one hand and ink. This indicates that the engrosser was supplied either with a set of informal notes which he fitted into a prescribed form or with a more carefully compiled description, which he copied. The first hypothesis is probably,

in part at least, the correct one. Whatever was the case, the contrast between the uncorrected, well spaced, and well written enrolments of most of the accounts and the all-too-frequent untidy records on the treasurer’s remembrancer’s memoranda rolls is rather striking. The disappearance of the material utilized by the engrosser before 1334, with the exception of the Oxfordshire compotus of the tax of 1301,‘ is unfor-

tunate, but easily understandable; when the engrosser had completed his task this material would be cast aside as useless. The compott of 1334

and after years were, for some unknown reason, preserved in large numbers. They were, as stated, incomplete records of what happened at the final accounting, for they only carry us as far as the statement of 1K. g., Pipe Roll, No. 140, m. 25 (Berkshire, 18 Edward I); Pipe Roll, No. 143, m. 32 (cos. Cambridge, Hertford, 25 Edward I); Pipe Roll, No. 152B, m. 27 (cos. Lancaster, Derby, etc., 29 Edward

I). 7 Cf. the entries on Pipe Roll, No. 152B, mm. 32, 32d., especially for Devonshire and the others. 3 Cf. the average length of the entries in Pipe Roll, No. 140, mm. 24, 24d. (the 9th of 1290) with that of those in L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 3-4 (the 25th of 3 Edward II). 4 Lay Subsidy, 161/6.

The Final Accounting 321 the total of the receipts. Up to that point, however, they were copied in full by the engrosser of the enrolled accounts.}

The transference of the record of the close of the accounting of a group of collectors to a pipe roll brings us to a new set of records and to the end of our present story. A note at the close of the enrolled account

serves as a guide. It tells us that the collectors answered on the great roll of a later year of the reign, in item Ebor’, or adhuc item Kanc’. The entry on the pipe roll can usually be found without difficulty, but when we reach it we often discover that it is necessary to pursue the search for

a final payment through several succeeding rolls. In other words, the first entry on a pipe roll may be simply the beginning of a long drawn out tale. The enrolled account of the collectors of the fifteenth and twentieth of 1315 in Cambridgeshire, to take but one example, ends with the note,

‘they answer in Roll 9 in Cambridge.’? Turning to the pipe roll of 9 Edward II, we find a note of the sum still due from the collectors, £4 7s. 544d.,° but there is a blank space where the words indicating payment

should have appeared. A scribe had, therefore, formally enrolled the statement of indebtedness, without, we may readily imagine, undue optimism concerning a settlement of the account. As the collectors did not appear, the same entry, also in blank, reappears on the pipe roll of 10 Edward II,‘ and would continue to reappear until the remainder of account was paid or the exchequer made some other arrangement. If the collectors appeared promptly and paid, this repetition on the pipe roll would naturally be unnecessary.

4. Tur Finat AccountTING

The collectors whose appearances at the exchequer of account have been described in an earlier section of this chapter may now be considered

as ready for their final accounting. At this stage, at least from the days of Edward II, they and their documents were handed over to a baron and a clerk for an audit of their accounts. The two auditors, especially the clerk, acted as expert accountants. ‘They reviewed the facts presented to them, struck a provisional balance between the credit and debit sides of the account, and reported the result of their investigations to the treasurer and barons. It was not within their province to pass finally upon vouchers presented or upon items of personal expense; that task 1 Cf. Lay Subsidies 91/8, 107/19, 155/4, with the entries relating to the same counties in L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 18-19. 2L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 7.

3 Pipe Roll, No. 161, m. 40d. Compare also the enrolled account of the Cornish collectors in L.T.R. Enr. Accts, No. 14, m. 7, with the entry in Pipe Roll, No. 161, m. 41d. * Pipe Roll, No. 162, m. 5d.

322 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1834 devolved upon the treasurer and barons, who completed the audit by a review of the work of the auditors. Once this second stage was over, an entry was made on the memoranda roll stating that the audit had been made.

When the collectors owed nothing at the close of the audit their commissions were reclaimed by the officers of the exchequer and they were

discharged. It usually happened, however, that there was a small or large sum still due the crown. This might be due to the fact that the collectors had in their possession vouchers which the auditors had been unwilling, even provisionally, to approve; or, as was more common, the same collectors had not been able to collect and bring to Westminster all they owed. In either case the collectors could not leave ‘court’ until

the treasurer and barons had come to an agreement with them about the matter. Vouchers of the doubtful class would be scrutinized with care by the exchequer officers to be accepted or rejected. Arrangements would be made for the payment of the sums still owing, the remainders of account. The collectors could then return to their county to complete their work. These several transactions immediately subsequent

to the audit and up to the time that the collectors left Westminster have been included with the audit, under the heading of “The Final Accounting.’

Many of the statements made thus far about the final accounting rest upon inference from records that fail to tell a connected story. On this account I shall review in detail the several steps in the procedure from

the time that the collectors of taxes appeared at the upper exchequer ready for an audit of their financial activities. The documentary evidence that formed the basis of the final accounting was simple in character and far from extensive in amount. The collectors

of taxes had assessed the property of the inhabitants of a county, had handed in the county roll of this taxation, and were responsible for the sum total of the items set forth on this roll. The records of the views and subsequent appearances of the collectors show that the checking of these rolls by exchequer officers had often, perhaps always, been done before the audit stage was reached.! The establishment of the debit side of the accounting would, therefore, require little time or trouble, even if the rolls had to be rechecked. The calculations on the credit side could not have

been, in most instances, very arduous. The disbursements of the collectors, aside from those for purely personal expenses, had been made upon order from the government. As stated in the section on assignments, such orders usually called for the payment of fairly large sums in 1See Chapter VII, Section 4.

The Final Accounting 323 round numbers. What is more, the assignments upon the funds in the hands of one group of collectors were never numerous, and they directed that either tallies of the exchequer or letters patent of receipt be received

in exchange for the money paid. The collectors would have the tallies given them by assignees and also other tallies received directly from the receipt of the exchequer in exchange for most of the letters patent and orders to pay. The unvalidated vouchers which they had in hand when they came up for their final accounting would be few in number. They might have also writs of swpersedeas or the like, commanding them to refrain from levying a sum mentioned in the county roll upon an exempt

abbot, to restore a sum collected from a layman, or to rectify other obvious mistakes; these would require consideration, though the greater number of such matters were probably dealt with before the time of the final accounting. Unlike many another royal officer, our tax-collectors were not required by the nature of their office to repair buildings, provide victuals for castles or houses, or meet a list of minor expenses without direct orders from the crown. They had to provide for the expenses of a few subordinates, for the care of the money they gathered, and for their

own food, drink, and transportation, but, so far as I have been able to discover, they were not accustomed to hand in itemized statements of these expenditures.!_ In short, in contrast to the long, detailed, and often rather complicated statements of receipts, with accompanying documents, handed in by an escheator or a constable of a castle, the reports of the collectors could easily be reviewed by the officers of the exchequer.

It is not my intention to attempt to solve the problems of the status or personnel of the officers who audited the evidence presented by the collectors of their receipts and expenditures. It is probable that in the days of Edward I barons individually, by a division of labor, relieved the

full exchequer of the detailed examination of accounts.2 During the reigns of Edward II and Edward III clerks, the ‘auditors of foreign accounts,’ were assigned, under the supervision of a baron, to care for the drudgery of auditing all except sheriffs’ accounts.’ In the case of the tax of 1334, as already noted,‘ it is possible to know with certainty the

names of these clerks and barons. For my purpose it is sufficient to know that the accounts were audited; this is proved by the statements 1See Chapter VIII, Section 3. 2 At the end of an entry relating to the early accounting of the Somerset collectors of the ninth of 1297 it is noted, ‘Afterwards they accounted, as Peter de Leyec’ auditor of accounts has recorded’ (L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 40d.). 8 See Miss D. M. Broome’s article and subsequent addendum, ‘Auditors of the Foreign Accounts of the Exchequer, 1310-1327,’ in E.H.R., xxxvur (1923), 68-71; xxxrx (1924), 482. Cf. also Tout, Chapters, 111, 19-20.

* See above, p. 315.

324 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834 of hundreds of entries on the memoranda rolls such as have been described in the preceding section on records. The nature of this audit comes within the province of this book, and is a matter that concerns all who deal in any detail with the records of the exchequer. The description of the audit which is to follow is, as may be stated at once, hypothetical, and confined solely to the transactions with the col-

lectors of taxes upon personal property. Nowhere have I found any adequate contemporary or modern explanation of what happened. I have had, therefore, to rely upon inference from a more or less uninform-

ing mass of evidence. On the basis of this evidence I have come to the following conclusions, which I submit for the consideration of those who

deal with mediaeval exchequer records. A, that the audit was divided into two parts or stages, the first of which was devoted to a survey of the details of receipts and disbursements, and the calculation of a provisional balance due; the second was concerned with a more or less perfunctory review of certain of the results of the detailed examination, with some

matters reserved for final decision at this stage, and with the final determination of a balance. B, that the first stage was in charge of the auditors, whoever they may have been, and the second in charge of the full exchequer. C, that the enrolled accounts furnish evidence of the two stages, and that the entries on the memoranda rolls record the outcome of all the transactions that took place during the two stages. The evidence for these hypotheses is abundant but usually not directly informing. There can, however, be no question about either the holding of an audit or the presence of auditors; these are fundamental facts.! For our knowledge of what the auditors did there is some direct information at the close of our period. The compoti of the tax of 1334 make it clear that at that time the auditors reckoned up what the collectors owed, using the county rolls as the basis of their calculations. They set forth

the results of their inquiry in the first two parts of the compotus. In some instances notes were added, by them or by someone instructed by them, to the effect that of the total sum owed there was ‘in the treasury’ so many pounds, shillings, and pence in two, three, or more tallies.2. At times these notes are extended to include a statement of the balance then due.* If we go back several years, the Oxfordshire compotus of the tax of 1301 gives a little more information.‘ It not only describes the result of 1 Memoranda of the results of the audits, starting ‘audito compoto’ may be found on many memoranda rolls. It will suffice to give a few references: L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 138-139; L.T.R. M.R., No. 86, mm. 189-200; L.T.R.M.R., No. 101, mm. 116d. ff.; L.T.R.M.R., No. 107, mm. 171, 174d., 175, 175d., 177, 178, ff. 2 Lay Subsidies, 81/11, 117/5, 1833/3, 159/6, 192/64, 200/4.

3. g., Lay Subsidies, 159/6, 200/4. ‘ Lay Subsidy, 161/6. See above, p. 314.

The Final Accounting 325 the examination of the county roll, the debit side, but goes on to tell about tallies scrutinized, claims for allowance reviewed, and the total amount of these credit items. It then balances debits and credits and records the sum still due from the collectors. Turning to the enrolled accounts of the tax of 1334, we find that the first two parts of the compott were copied in full in those records and that the same is true whenever the reports were

extended to include the additional notes.! That is to say, the auditors’ reports are embodied in full in the enrolled accounts, though the latter usually go on to describe other credits that were allowed after the audit. The enrolled account of the Oxfordshire collectors of 1301, after describing the tax and the basis of the credit side of accounting, states the sum due as £1,106 lls. 144d.2. It then notes ‘in the treasury £451 16s. in four tallies.’ The compotus records this sum as having been paid in by tallies in the names of the collectors of the fifteenth. The enrolled account next records: ‘Item, in the treasury £27 by Nicholas de Pershute, sheriff, in four tallies. Item in the treasury £10 by William de Scalebrok.’

Thus far the enrolled account has followed, though not copied, the statements of the compotus about tallies allowed for credit. When the compotus takes up the allowances craved by the collectors, the enrolled account simply records tallies presented and makes no mention of allowances as such. The entries on the memoranda rolls relating to the audits

of the accounts of the collectors of 1334 do not help us to any further progress, for although they follow the form laid down in earlier years, the methods of recording the results of the audit on the enrolled accounts

do not allow a fair comparison. The memoranda of the audit of the collectors of the fifteenth of 1301 in the county of Oxford have not been found on the rolls. Despite their faults, the compot of 1301 and 1334 give several clues to the auditing process. In both years the first matter attended to in them was that of setting down the sum due from the collectors. In 1301 the credits were then described in two categories, one of tallies presented, and the other of allowances craved but, so 1t appears, not yet granted. The entry on the enrolled account follows this procedure without mentioning the fact that allowances were craved; it notes credits for tallies only. It may be concluded, therefore, that between the time of making the compotus and the time of the entry on the enrolled account formal

allowance was granted in respect to the second category of material noted on the compotus. ‘The compoét of 1334 also aid in the interpretation 1 Compare the entries in L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 18-19, with the compoti mentioned in note 2, p. 324. 2 Pipe Roll, No. 152 B, m. 27.

326 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 of what happened by their occasional additional notes referring to the sums of money that were in the treasury in so many tallies. As has been stated, these notes make no reference to an allowance of any sort, either craved or granted, beyond the brief description ‘in the treasury . . .

in. . .. tallies.’ If it be kept in mind that the compotus of 1301 was probably an informal report — it was surely not meant to be copied — while the compoti of 1334 were certainly formal in character and probably

accompanied by informal reports in writing or by word of mouth, the discussion that follows will be much more intelligible.

Before taking up the entries on the memoranda rolls and enrolled accounts relating to taxers other than those of 1301 and 1334, I must refer once more to one of the provisions of the ordinance of 1326, and also to certain other matters. The ordinance reads: ‘Let the allowances to be made by writs and tallies at the close of such accounts [the foreign

accounts] be made in full exchequer.’! The reference to the final accounting of the collectors is clear, but needs some comment in this place.

It has been shown elsewhere that the receipt of the exchequer gave tallies for most vouchers without receiving formal authorization to do so from the upper exchequer.? Final allowance of these tallies may have been deferred until the collectors reached the exchequer board, but the action of the latter body must have been of the most perfunctory sort. Vouchers that were questionable in character, and so not exchanged for tallies at the receipt, were, however, carefully examined in full exchequer at views and subsequent appearances of collectors long before 1326, as well as after that year.? There is no reason, therefore, to conclude either that the ordinance introduced anything that was new into the proceedings

of the exchequer, or that writs and tallies or any kind of voucher that did not conform to the rules were ever finally allowed by anyone save

the treasurer and barons. It is now possible to turn to the entries mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph with a greater degree of confidence.

The memorandum on the roll of the treasurer’s remembrancer relating to the collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth of 1315 in Devonshire is like many others.4 It reads: ‘An audit having been made of the account of Robert de Stokkeye and John de Bikkebury, taxers and collectors of

the twentieth and fifteenth granted in the eighth year, they owe £199 1 Red Book of the Exchequer, ut, 983.

2See Chapter XI, Section 5. 3E. g., K.R.M.R., No. 66, m. 62 (W. R. York, tax of 1290); K.R.M.R., No. 76, m. 79 (co. Northampton, tax of 1294, letters of receipt not allowed because memoranda in London); L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 237 (co. Hereford). ‘L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 194.

The Final Accounting 327 14s. 4d. Of which sum they have respite until the coming of the treasurer for £184 15s. 4d. which they say they paid by writ of the king to merchants of the Bardi of Florence, by the hands of Thomasyn de Coronaro, an attorney of the said merchants, in part payment of debts owed them

by the king, for which payment they show a letter patent of receipt said to be made by the same attorney. It is, however, not known to the court whether he was or was not an attorney. And they owe £14 19s., for which they were deliveredto . . . themarshal on the eleventh day of February. Later in the same day they were released and have a day

topay. . . .! Theenrolled account of the transactions with the same collectors, after the usual description of the tax and the receipts, reads:? ‘Summa, £891 18s. 3d. In the treasury £562 3s. 11d. in 4 tallies. And

to the same for their expenses £20. And to William de Duyn, king’s clerk, keeper of the king’s mines in the county of Devon, for the operation

of the mines during the eighth year, £110, by two writs directed to the collectors and by two letters patent of the said William testifying to the

receipt of the money. For this £110 William owes answer. And he answers in his account of the issues of the mines for the year eight in roll 9, Roll of Accounts. And they [the collectors] owe £199 14s. 4d. [The ink changes.] And they answer in roll 9 in Devon.’ It will be noted that the memorandum of the sum reached at the com-

pletion of the Devonshire audit was £199 14s. 4d., but that the same sum was not reached on the enrolled account until the latter had described the amount in the treasury by four tallies, £562 3s. 11d., the allowance, for expenses, £20, and the two writs and two receipts representing £110 paid by the collectors to William de Duyn. In the interpretation of this contrast lies the key to what occurred during the auditing of the account. The continuation of the record on the memoranda roll after the audit stage is also of great interest. Though the collectors had

presented what was in appearance a valid receipt for money paid the attorney of the Bardi, final allowance for the payment was deferred until the return of the treasurer, because the court was in doubt about the status of the attorney. The voucher, therefore, belonged to the very doubtful class. The important matter for the moment is, however, not this prolongation of the record, but the silence of the memoranda roll in regard to the tallies, the grant for expenses, and the writs and receipts described by the enrolled account. The points that I wish to emphasize are these: that writs and receipts unexchanged for tallies before the audit, even of the seemingly unex1 The dots in the above rough translation, save the last, are in the original. 2..T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 8.

328 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 ceptional type represented by the two sets presented by the Devonshire collectors for money paid to William de Duyn, had finally to be passed upon in full exchequer, and that allowance for expenses was probably

reserved for the same consideration.! On the other hand, the tallies proffered represented transactions that had already been investigated during the first stage of the audit and so would need no serious considera-

tion in full exchequer; any expert officer could match stocks and foils. Should any question arise out of the checking of the stocks and foils the matter would be referred to the exchequer board.? If, as happened to the Norfolk collectors of the fifteenth of 1316, the stock was not presented, though the foil was in the hands of the exchequer, no allowance could be

granted until it was produced.? The situation with respect to writs of supersedeas, of pardon, and of other writs of similar import is not clear.

The county rolls of the assessment note the the cancellation of taxcharges because of such writs, and these rolls were normally in the hands

of the exchequer for some time before the audit began. On the other hand, the enrolled accounts occasionally note allowances on account of writs of supersedeas or pardon. It would appear that the latter allowances, when needed, were made in full exchequer during the audit; but the same records do not include references to all the cancellations arising from writs that appear on the county rolls.® Most of the entries on the enrolled accounts make no mention of writs and accompanying receipts, or of writs of supersedeas or pardon; they mention only allowances for expenses and, perhaps, a second instalment of tallies.« If my hypothesis is correct, all that this silence means is that the collectors in these cases brought nothing but tallies and claims for allowance for their expenses when they appeared at the upper exchequer ready for the audit of their accounts. This is exactly what might have been expected. The picture of the work done during the two stages of the audit may be made reasonably definite. During the first stage, which was in charge 1 For examples of entries on the enrolled accounts similar to that for Devonshire see Pipe Roll, No. 143, m. 33 (co. Stafford); L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 8d. (co. Gloucester), 14d.

(co. Lincoln, Lindsey), 16d. (co. Hertford), 17 (Lancashire). There is some evidence that the allowances for expenses were at least occasionally taken up in full exchequer: L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 135 (Devonshire); L.T.R.M.R., No. 80, m. 115 (Berks and co. Oxford). 2 Cases of alleged forged tallies were taken up in the full exchequer in the reign of Edward III (K.R.M.R., No. 110, m. 122; K.R.M.R., No. 114, m. 150). 3’ L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 188. 4K. g., Pipe Roll, No. 1438, m. 82 (co. Cambridge); Pipe Roll, No. 152 B, m. 27d. (co. Gloucester) ; L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 7d. (Bucks), 7 (co. Cambridge), 8d. (co. Gloucester), 11d.

(co. Lincoln), 15 (Surrey), 16d. (co. Derby). 5 See the mistakes noted in Chapter VII, Section 3. 8K. g., L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. 9d. (cos. Bedford, Bucks), 10 (Middlesex).

The Final Accounting 329 of the auditors, the amount of money due from the collectors was cal-

culated with care. Then the auditors checked the tallies brought in with the foils that were in the exchequer. They then examined vouchers

and writs and talked over the matter of expenses. They probably divided the vouchers and other claims for allowance into two groups, those concerning which there was no doubt and so could be allowed provisionally at once, and those that were obviously doubtful in character and so could not be granted even a provisional allowance. Finally they balanced the accounts of each group of collectors and reported their

findings to the full exchequer. The second stage would then begin. The full exchequer would accept without question that part of the report

that dealt with the sum due and the tallies ‘in the treasury.’ It would take up, probably in a rather perfunctory way, the vouchers, writs, and allowances for expenses for which provisional allowance had been granted,

and would confirm the action of the auditors. It would accept, unless a serious doubt had intervened, the final statement of the remainder of account. At this point the scribe of the treasurer’s remembrancer would enter upon the memoranda roll ‘audito compoto;’ the audit was over. The treasurer and barons could then settle down to examine with care the few vouchers and other claims for allowance that had been rejected during the audit, and make arrangements with the collectors for the payment of the sums due from them. When these matters had been attended to the final accounting was at an end, though the officers of the exchequer might encounter many difficulties in their attempts to secure the payment of the remainder of account.

The claims for allowance that remained to be examined after the audit had been completed were never very numerous. As a matter of fact, the next step in the proceedings after the audit was usually to make some arrangement for the payment of the all-too-frequent remainders of

account. This procedure will be described in a later paragraph. The claims rejected during the audit are, however, of great interest, even though they be few in number, because of the light that they throw upon

the standards observed by the exchequer in the matter of allowance. The memoranda rolls tell the story. The collectors of the tax of 1294 in the county of Northampton craved allowance, after the audit, for divers writs and receipts which in appearance are quite valid, but it was stated that such allowance could not be granted because the memoranda required for their verification were in London, whereas the exchequer was at York.1 The Sussex collectors of the same tax asked to be allowed the sum of £10 9s., which had been charged on the county roll against certain 1K.R.M.R., No. 76, m. 79.

330 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1384 men of Pevensey but which they had been instructed by a writ of supersedeas not to levy.! It is noted that it was not possible to grant allowance at the moment because of the absence of the treasurer. The Gloucestershire collectors of the tax of 1295 had taxed the goods of certain men who were serving the king in Gascony, and had been directed to release the men from the levy.?. But the writs so directing them were burned and

their claim for allowance was temporarily shelved. The Devonshire collectors of the tax of 1315 had paid an attorney of the merchants of the Bardi a fair sum and had received a letter patent of receipt. They were given a respite by the treasurer for the sum until it could be ascertained whether the attorney was properly qualified. Another group of collectors of the next tax had assessed certain goods on lands found in manors temporarily in the king’s hands, which sums they could not levy because the bailiff of the king interfered.‘ The case of the Norfolk collectors of the tax of 1316 who could not produce the tally which testified to their payment of a sum of money, even though it is clear that the foil was in the exchequer, illustrates the rejection of an allowance on per-

fectly legal grounds.’ Of different character was the situation of the collectors of the twentieth of 1327 in the city of Lincoln.* They stated that they had paid £20 into the wardrobe of the king, but they received no allowance at the moment because the chamberlains of the receipt of the exchequer did not have a writ of liberate upon the basis of which the £20 could be charged to the wardrobe account. The allowance of definite sums for the personal expenses of the collec-

tors during the prolongation of the final accounting that immediately followed the audit, was rare, if indeed it ever occurred. When there was no settlement during the audit there was generally more work to be done, and the allowance was made days or weeks later. This was very clearly the situation as regards the tax of 1334. Several collectors reported that the greater part of the remainder of account was still to be received from owners of property.’ They were, therefore, given respite for the remainder, and the exact determination of expenses was deferred. 1K.R.M.R., No. 71, m. 97. The absence of the treasurer prevented allowance at other times: L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 194 (Devon); L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 188 (Bucks). On the latter membrane it is stated that the treasurer was in the parts of Nottingham with the king. 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 186d. 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 194. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 188 (Bucks). 5 Ibid.

¢L.T.R.M.R., No. 101, m. 117d. 7E. g.. K.R.M.R., No. 111, mm. 274, 278 (cos. Cambridge and Bucks); L.T.R.M.R., No. 107, m. 175 (cos. Derby and Huntingdon). For an earlier example of the postponement of the determination of expenses see L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 135 (Devon).

The Final Accounting 331 The situation after the completion of the audit was in most cases not complicated by the presence of doubtful vouchers. Usually the collectors owed so much and had nothing further to offer for allowance. Occasion-

ally the audit brought the accounting to a close, for the collectors had paid all that was due from them. When this happened, the record on the memoranda roll would read, as did the one relating to the collectors in the county of Buckingham of the tax of 1315: ‘An audit having been

made of the account of Reginald de Tyringham and Robert Lovet, collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth in the county of Buckingham, they are quit in the Roll (qutetz sunt in Rotulo).’! The roll referred to was

the enrolled account of the tax. The treatment of the groups who owed a remainder of account varied with the temper of the exchequer and the gravity of the case. In most instances and at most times the collectors were immediately given a day to pay what was due from them, or a respite so that they might clear up some matters that had to be attended to. At other times they were delivered into the custody of the marshal in order to force them to make some arrangement for payment. Whichever procedure was adopted, the subsequent payments might be arranged for on the instalment plan, divided between the collectors, or directed to be brought in a lump sum. The several processes having to do with the

collectors who owed money after the audit need a somewhat fuller description at this point; what happened after the arrangements had been made is reserved for treatment in the following section. When the collectors, without apparent coercion, were given a day to pay the balance due from them, the arrangements for payment might take one of two forms. When the balance was small they were normally directed to pay it all on one day and no security was required.2, When

the sum was fairly large two or at times more days were set on each of which they were to pay half, or some part, of the money due.’ It was

customary to require that sureties be given for the payment of such larger sums.‘ But the exchequer officers might refrain from using either of these plans, and assign the sum to a royal creditor.’ They would thus 17.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 198d. See also m. 198 (cos. Oxford, Somerset, Warwick). The form of the entry is stereotyped. 2K.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 85 (Somerset, 25 Edward I); K.R.M.R., No. 78, m. 73 (Lancashire, 28 Edward I); L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 138d., 139 (cos. Nottingham, Wilts, 26 Edward J); L.T.R.M.R. No. 79, m. 132d. (Wilts, 2 Edward IT), etc. 3K.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 85 (co. Lincoln, 25 Edward I); L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 183 (co. Nottingham, 2 Edward II, several payments); L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 197 (co. Bedford, 9 Edward II, after release from marshal). 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 98, m. 86 (Lancashire, 16 Edward II); L.T.R.M.R., No. 101, m. 127 (Norfolk, 8 Edward III). Mainpernors were more frequently demanded after the collectors had been released

from the custody of the marshal. 5 L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 138 (Cornwall, Somerset); L.T.R.M.R., No. 88, states and views, Hilary (Somerset); L.T.R.M.R., No. 101, mm. 116d. (co. Hereford), 127 (Norfolk).

332 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834 pass on the task of collecting the remainder of account to a man who

naturally would be most anxious to get it as soon as possible. The latter plan appears to be a rather shabby evasion by the exchequer of an

onerous task. The collectors, however, would probably find it more difficult to evade the importunities of an impatient creditor than to disregard later summonses of the exchequer, and the exchequer would have paid a creditor of the crown, although, perhaps, not in a way that would please him. Coercion, when used, had as its aim the bringing about of an agreement

between the collectors and the exchequer in the matter of the payment of the remainder of account. The plan was generally resorted to when the collectors had been late for their audit or when they owed a large sum

of money. Again and again, after the memorandum of the audit, there appears this sentence: “They were delivered tothe marshalonthe . . .

day of . . . .! Delivery to the marshal stopped just short of being real punishment, for when the situation was really serious the Fleet prison

was used. While in the custody of the marshal the collectors were ap-

parently allowed a considerable amount of liberty. During the one, two, or more days of such confinement they sought and found sureties, borrowed money, or otherwise arranged for the payment of the remainder of account.2. The exchequer had these results in mind when it handed them over to the marshal. At times, when the collectors were released from the custody of the marshal before they had completed the arrangements for payment, they were told not to leave the court without license until they had settled the matter;’ several of the collectors of the ninth of 1297 were told not to leave court without making arrangements for the payment of what they owed. Though no instance has been found of a collector running away while under the care of the marshal, there are a few examples of such officers leaving court after they had been specifically told not to do so.° Committment to prison was reserved for serious cases of tardiness or 1K.R.M.R., No. 66, m. 62d. (co. Lincoln, tax of 1290); L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 245d. (Cumberland, tax of 1307); L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 185 (co. Oxford, tax of 1807); L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, mm. 197 (co. Bedford, tax of 1315), 194 (Devon), 203 (co. Gloucester), 200 (co. Hertford); L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 188 (Bucks, tax of 1816); L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 86 (co. Stafford, tax of 1319), etc. 2 These results may be illustrated by the entries relating to the collectors of the tax of 1815 who were delivered to the marshal: L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, mm. 197 (co. Bedford, to pay on the instalment plan), 194 (Devon, given a day to pay the whole sum), 203 (co. Gloucester, paid money which they

evidently borrowed), 200 (co. Hertford, to pay on the instalment plan after they had brought in mainpernors). 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 135 (co. Oxford); L.T.R.M.R., No. 94, m. 169d. (Middlesex). 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 138 (co. Cambridge), 139 (Shropshire), 139 (co. Stafford). 6K. g., L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 138 (co. Cambridge).

The Final Accounting 333 disobedience. In a few instances collectors of the ninth who had flagrantly disobeyed their instructions were sent to prison and later released after they had agreed to a fine.!. One of the Oxfordshire collectors of 1307 was sent to the Fleet because he delayed over long in paying his

share of the remainder of account.? Collectors charged with corrupt practice were placed in prison and made to pay fines.? I have not, however, found a single instance of collectors being placed in the Fleet or

‘in prison’ immediately after their audit, as a method of compelling them to make arrangements for the payment of the balance due from them. Though imprisonment, even for a few days, in the Fleet carries with it the idea of severity, a complaint made in 1330 tends to modify this point of view. It was stated that Edmund de Cheigny, keeper of the Fleet prison, allowed the prisoners committed to his charge for debts and accounts due to the king or for other reasons, to wander outside at their will and often to go far away, whereby the accounts were more slowly rendered and the payment of the debts was much delayed.‘

The time that elapsed between the date of the appointment of the collectors and the date of their final accounting need not detain us long,

however important it may have been to the exchequer. As a rule the collectors came in within a year and a few months of the time that they set to work. Exceptions to the rule appear in connection with almost every tax, but they never amounted to more than a small proportion of the total number of counties involved. Of the thirty-three records of audits of the accounts of the collectors of the twentieth of 1327, nine appear on the memoranda roll of 2 Edward ITI, twenty-one on the roll of 3 Edward ITI, two on the roll of the fourth year, and one on the roll of

the fifteenth year.’ As the work of assessment could not have begun until November, 1327, the majority of the collectors accounted within the time limit that has been mentioned. Alongside the case of the London

collectors who accounted for the twentieth in 15 Edward III may be placed other instances of long deferred audits. The Gloucestershire collectors of the tax of 1295 are mentioned on the memoranda roll of 1317 as having had their accounts audited at that time,* the Cumberland collectors of 1307 on the roll of 1315,’ the Westmorland collectors of the 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 41 (cos. Leicester and Nottingham). 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 135. 8 This has been mentioned elsewhere and one example will now suffice: L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 90. In this instance the offenders were committed to the Tower. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 102, m. 43d. I owe this reference to Miss Dorothy M. Broome. 5 The records of the audits may be found among the records of the views and audits in L.T.R.M.R., Nos. 100, 101, 102. The London audit is in L.T.R.M.R., No. 113, Easter term, m. 7d. 6 L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 186d. 7L.T.R.M.R., No. 85, m. 246d.

334 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 same tax on the roll of 1316,1 and so on. The real reason for mentioning these instances of delay in coming to Westminster for a final accounting

is not that of illustrating the tardiness of the collectors, but rather to bring out the fact that the exchequer never lost sight of the debts of those officers, however little they may have owed.

The watchfulness of the exchequer may also be illustrated by the interesting case of the collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth of 1313 in Westmorland. Henry de Threlkeld and Robert Lengleys were appointed to collect the tax.2. They did not send in their rolls and did not account, and an exchequer writ, returnable on the morrow of Michaelmas,

1314, was sent to the sheriff to distrain them to do so.? The sheriff answered that the district was in the throes of war, and it was decided not to attempt to execute the writ until the trouble was over. The matter was taken up again in 1315, but this and other attempts failed to secure action. The exchequer seems to have allowed the chief taxers to go unmolested until the early part of the reign of Edward III. By that time both Henry and Robert were dead, but the executors and son of Henry and the son of Robert complained that though the tax was never levied because of the devastation of the county caused by Bruce’s army, the exchequer was trying to exact payment from them.’ The exchequer was told to investigate. Two men were appointed to inquire. They did so, and reported on the morrow of Michaelmas, 1332. Their report showed

that Bruce’s army had so disturbed and wasted Westmorland that Henry and Robert had been unable either to assess or collect the twen-

tieth and fifteenth. Thereupon the executors and sons were released from any further processes. It had taken eighteen years to reach this most satisfactory decision. In closing this long discussion of final accounting, I may briefly refer to the difficulties that might arise when one of the collectors died. The troubled situation arising from the death of one of the chief taxers and collectors of the tenth and sixth of 1295 will suffice.’ Richard de Wyndesore and William de Luton had been selected to assess and collect the

tax in Berkshire. There was evidently a delay, and Richard was attached to appear at the exchequer during Lent, 1298. He came and said that he could not account because William, his colleague, was dead. 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 190d. 2 C.P.R. 1818-1317, 50.

3L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 178. 4 The story is found in L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 178. 6 The remainder of the story is found in K.R.M.R., No. 108 (6 Edward III) m. 248d. 6 The presence of heirs and executors has been mentioned in the preceding section. 7 The following statements are based upon the record in L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 66d.

The Final Accounting 335 He further stated that William’s executor was not there because he had not been warned and that William’sclerk, who had cared for the assessment

and collection in his name, was gravely ill. Richard therefore asked for another day on which he and the executor might account. This day was given him and the sheriff was told, by a writ of venire facias, to compel

the attendance of Beatrice, the wife of William, and of William, the executor and son of William, on the same day.' 5. Tue CoLuEcTION oF ARREARS

Perhaps the most annoying task that faced the exchequer during its relations with the taxers and collectors was the enforcement of the payment of the balance owing after the completion of the final accounting. The amount to be paid was generally relatively small, the collectors, not being permanent officers of the crown, would be wearied of the details of their work, and the sum for which they were held might be difficult to

collect. Whatever the cause, the payment of arrears was frequently difficult to enforce. At times the exchequer cut the Gordian knot by allowing the collectors the remainder of account for their expenses,? but the usual procedure was to compel them to pay. Against the obedient collectors, of whom there were many, who paid their arrears when they had been told to pay them, the exchequer had, obviously, no cause for action. Some had been granted a respite after the audit in order to complete work still undone,’ to give the exchequer time to examine vouchers,‘ or to clear themselves of charges cancelled because of writs of the king;® others had been given a day to bring in what was still owing. Some may have been required to provide sureties for the payment of the money.’ Both respites and sureties were noted on the memoranda rolls after the statement of the results of the audit, and 1 What the sheriff might have to do when a collector died is well illustrated by the records of such a case in 24 Edward I (Sheriffs’ Accounts, 19/4). 2See Chapter VIII, Section 4.

8 L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 188 (Bucks); L.T.R.M.R., No. 90, m. 147d. (Norfolk); L.T.R.M.R., No. 107, m. 171 (co. Cambridge). 4K.R.M.R., No. 88, m. 193 (co. Hereford); K.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 78 (co. Lincoln); L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 194 (Devon); L.T.R.M.R., No. 87, m. 188 (co. Bedford).

’K.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 85 (Suffolk); K.R.M.R., No. 71, m. 97 (Sussex); L.T.R.M.R., No. 107, m. 171 (co. Cambridge). The most extreme case of a delayed writ of fiert facias that I have found is in L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, m. 88. This writ, issued in 1328, had to do with the Huntingdon collectors of the tax of 1283. § Notices of these are very numerous, and may be found in any series of records having to do with

audits of account. 7L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 86 (co. Lancaster); L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 133 (co. Nottingham); L.T.R. M.R., No. 86, m. 200 (co. Hertford); L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 86 (co. Stafford); L.T.R.M.R., No. 101, m. 127 (Norfolk).

336 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 at times were also recorded at length on the same rolls among the dtes dati, respectus, etc.!_ Either of these grants might be renewed if the collectors appeared and showed good reason why they could not satisfy the

exchequer at once.? It often happened that the sums they paid were small and that the payments were spread over a fairly long interval; but as long as they obeyed instructions, they and their property were safe from molestation. There were many such obedient collectors, yet one who examines the records of the exchequer is always struck, perhaps unduly, with the cases of the disobedient and with the means employed to force them to pay what they owed. Once at least in our period, in 1296, barons of the exchequer were sent to a number of counties to superintend the gathering of the arrears of the clerical tenth and the lay tenth and sixth of 1294. The sheriffs were told

to assist them. The results of this procedure are not described. The customary plan was to deal individually with tardy or otherwise disobedient groups of collectors through the sheriffs of their counties. When the collectors did not appear on the day set, either after they had

paid part of the money and had been given another day, or when they had not appeared or sent in the money on the first day, the exchequer had recourse to the sheriff, or, in his absence or disability, to his colleague

the coroner. Writs of distraint or of fiert facias, the latter with an accompanying injunction to attach, were sent to the sheriff. He was supposed to execute such writs at once. That this hope was not always realized was not the fault of the exchequer, but of the habits of the day.

The exchequer had to deal with sheriffs who often did not return the writs and to whom it had to send again and again, sicut alias, sicut pluries, other writs ordering them to distrain or to seize and sell the goods of the collectors of taxes. It will be remembered that the collectors owed definite sums of money

— the remainders of account — at the close of their accounting at the upper exchequer. This made it possible for the exchequer to deal with them in a manner that was quite different from that employed when its chief concern was to compel them to appear and to account. They now owed so much, and it was the task of the exchequer to see that they paid or that the sum was levied on their property. It therefore used one of the two forms of writs already mentioned. The writ of distraint was 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 65, m. 65 (co. Lincoln, manucaptores); L.T.R.M.R., No. 107, m. 79 (Rutland, respite); K.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 177 (cos. Worcester and W. R. York, manucaptores). I am certain that most respites and mainpernors were not recorded separately. 2 A good example of proroguing the settlement is that of Devonshire, the tax being that of 1315 (L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 194). 3 K.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 75.

The Final Accounting 337 intended to enforce their appearance with the money, though it often contained a clause directing the sheriffs to seize their issues — a precautionary measure. The writ of fiert facias was more drastic. By it the sheriff was empowered to take over and sell the goods of the collectors in order

to raise the money due from them. The latter writ normally, but not always, included an order to attach the bodies of the collectors so that they might be compelled to be present at the exchequer on a day. When this form of writ was issued the collectors were proceeded against in two ways: on the one hand their goods were taken into the king’s hands to satisfy the debt, and on the other they were forced to appear in person at the exchequer to listen to hard words, at least, from the treasurer and barons. The use of the writ of distraint, even with the clause ordering a seizure of issues, was uncommon after the audit save during the early years of our period. Issues were defined in 1285 in the statute of Westminster II as follows: ‘And let the sheriff know that rents, crops in the grange, and all movables (except horse-harness, clothing, and household utensils) are contained in the term issues.’! Writs dated 18 June, 1292, were sent to eighteen sheriffs.2, In these it was stated that the collectors in their counties had not paid the arrears of the fifteenth of 1290 at Easter, as they had been told to do. The sheriffs were directed to distrain the same collectors by their lands and chattels, for the issues of which property they, the sheriffs, were to answer, and to have their bodies at the exchequer on 8 July to answer the king as well for their transgressions as

for the arrears of the tax. This was a very complete form of writ of distraint. In the case of the Oxfordshire collectors it is noted that they came in and paid, and that the issues were restored, which would indicate that the command to answer for the issues was not mere verbiage. Sunilar writs were issued in 1293 with respect to other groups of collectors

of the fifteenth. The writ directed to the sheriff of Westmorland, dated 16 July, 1293, reveals that the collectors in that county still owed the remainder of account.4 The sheriff was told to seize all the lands and tenements, goods and chattels of one of the collectors into the king’s

hands, to attach his body wherever found, and to answer at the exchequer for the issues of his property. He later answered that he had seized goods and chattels to the value of a little over £89 and that the 1] owe this reference and the translation to G. H. Fowler, Rolls from the Office of the Sheriff of Beds. and Bucks., 1882-1884 (Quarto Memoirs of the Bedfordshire Historical Record Society), 11 1929), 17.

2 LTRMR, No. 63, m. 839d. 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 65, mm. 80d. (Westmorland), 83d. (co. Derby, Devon). 4 Jbid., m. 80d. For a later example see L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 190 (Cornwall).

338 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13384 collector had found mainpernors for his appearance. Despite all this activity the collector did not appear, and a marginal note on the memoranda roll refers us to the pipe roll of 6 Edward IT. A further stage in the proceedings against the disobedient collectors of the fifteenth of 1290 was reached when, on 3 February 1297, writs of fiert facias were issued against sixteen groups of collectors who still owed, in all, about £600.! The sheriffs were now told that ‘of the lands, tenements, goods and chattels’ of a group of collectors, wherever found in their bailiwicks, they were to cause to be made (fiera facias) so many pounds, shillings, and pence, the arrears of the fifteenth. The sheriffs were to have the money thus raised at the exchequer on 13 March. No mention is made in this writ of the attachment of the bodies of the collectors. The writ fierz factas containing the additional clause commanding the

sheriff to attach the bodies of the collectors was the favorite form of action throughout our period when the remainders of account had not been paid on time.? Distraint was, after all, a means of enforcing the appearance of a debtor with the money he owed. The writ fierz facias settled the matter out of hand by directing the seizure and sale of such of

the property of a debtor as would suffice to satisfy the debt. The attachment clause was included so that the debtor might be forced to appear to answer for his default. The method was usually effective in a way that might have been expected. The appearance of a sheriff or his deputy armed with such a writ was sufficient in most instances to compel obedience to the earlier demands of the exchequer, for the next note on the memoranda roll after the reference to the writ to the sheriff is norm-

ally one recording the payment of a part or the whole of the debt.? Another type of entry or series of entries in the same place need only be mentioned here. It tells that the sheriff did not return the writ. The situation in the year following the grant of the fifteenth and tenth of 1334 was complicated by the fact that the collectors were for the most part dignified heads of religious establishments who had been singled out to assess and levy the tax in a way unknown in the past. Theirs was a very special kind of task and they were a very unusual type of assessor

and collector. Under the circumstances the abbots and priors were 1K.R.M.R., No. 70, mm. 104-104d. 2K.R.M.R., No. 66, m. 63 (Westmorland, tax of 1290); L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, mm. 116 (Kent and co. Warwick, tax of 1297), 139 (Wilts, tax of 1297); K.R.M.R., No. 82, m. 101 (Wilts, Sussex, co.

Hereford, Somerset, co. Worcester, tax of 1307); L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 12% (Suffolk, co. Worcester, Kent, tax of 1307); L.T.R.M.R., No. 100, m. 76 (Lancashire, tax of 1319); L.T.R.M.R., No. 101, mm. 125d. (co. Leicester, tax of 1827), 126 (Somerset, tax of 1827); L.T.R.M.R., No. 109, m. 108d. (Dorset, tax of 1334). 3 The references cited in the preceding note will give examples of this result.

The Final Accounting 339 allowed much leeway. Many respites were granted to tardy collectors, mandates were issued to them individually to pay, and the sheriffs were ordered to take security for the payment of the money due, before resort

was had to the customary writ fiert facias.. The memoranda roll is usually silent about the results of the sending forth of the writ, but in one instance at least it does disclose the outcome. The abbot of Shrews-

bury owed £112 12s. 144d.2. The sheriff of Shropshire was sent the writ of fiert facias. In due time he answered that he had seized goods and

chattels of the abbot to the value of £40, for which he had not found buyers, and that he had not for the moment found more goods. He was told to sell the goods and bring in the money. The abbot was commanded

to bring in the residue, £62 12s. 14d., and to answer for his contempt. In addition the sheriff was directed to take security for the appearance of the abbot. The abbot did not appear, but the sheriff paid in the £40. More writs followed, and the sheriff seized and sold more property until only £4 13s. 4d. remained to be paid. Again the writ of fiers factas was issued, and there the record ends for the time being. Ultimately the disobedient collectors would appear to pay or would

send in the money they had gathered. When they came without the required sum, they might, though it was far from a common practice, be delivered to the marshal in order to ensure payment,’ or even be placed in prison.4 The normal procedure was to let them off without additional pressure or penalty, presumably because they had tendered satisfactory or at least acceptable explanations of their erring ways. The record of the writs sent to the sheriffs of the various appearances or non-appearances of the collectors, and of the payments made, was kept on the memoranda rolls in the section devoted to views and audits

of account. A greatly abbreviated record of the same proceedings, a record that describes payments alone, was set forth in the enrolled accounts following the description of the results of the audit. When the collectors had paid what was forthcoming they were noted as quit. Sooner or later, when the coercive measures and payments were prolonged, both the memoranda rolls and the enrolled accounts ceased to chronicle what occurred. The latter would then note that the collectors answered on the ‘Great Roll,’ which we know as the pipe roll, of a given 1The record of the accounting of the prior of Ely who served in co. Cambridge illustrates the statements made (L.T.R.M.R., No. 107, m. 171). Another excellent example of a similar process is the record of the abbot of Darley, who served in co. Derby (zbid., m. 175). 2L.T.R.M.R., No. 107, m. 177. 3K.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 85 (co. Lincoln, tax of 1294); L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 71d. (Kent, tax of 1297). Cf., K.R.M.R., No. 71, m. 82 (cos. Hertford and Hampshire). 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 185 (co. Oxford).

340 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 13834 year.!. This does not mean that the collectors were released from responsibility; it simply means that the book-keeping was transferred to another series of records. The procedure is therefore of no particular importance in connection with this study. In closing this section on arrears I have selected as illustrations of the different processes four short records and a few notes on longer accounts found on the memoranda rolls. The first short record has to do with the

tax of 1297. It reads: ‘An audit having been made of the account of Thomas de Twinestede, a collector of the ninth granted the king by laymen in the county of Essex, who appeared for himself and Henry Grapynel, the other collector, who is dead, they owe £13 lds. 344d. Later they paid and are quit on the great roll.’? The second is taken from the memoranda of the audits of the tax of 1315. It reads: ‘An audit having been made of the account of William Maunsel and Richard de la Ryvere, taxers and collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth granted the

eighth year in the county of Gloucester, they owe £27 3s. 214d. for which the aforesaid William was delivered to the marshal on 28 June. Later, the thirtieth of the same month, he paid by one tally of his remainder of account, £27 3s. 2d., and was released from the custody of the marshal.’ The third example is taken from the memoranda of the tax of 1332. It reads: ‘An audit having been made of the account of Roger de Belgrave and William Owyn, taxers and collectors of the fifteenth in the county of Leicester, they owe £52 246d., for which they were granted a respite by the treasurer until the morrow of St Lawrence. Later they paid of this sum, by a tally made 12 August, £29. And they owe £23 21éd., for which they were granted respite until the morrow of Michaelmas next coming, because the monies aforesaid are in the hands of divers men and, as they say, not yet levied. Later they paid £23 5s. of the fifteenth and tenth aforesaid by a tally of 26 October, the eighth

year. And so after the allowance of this tally they have a surplus of 4s. 916d.’4 For my fourth illustration of a short record I return to the tax of 1297. The memoranda relating to the Lancashire collectors read: ‘An audit having been made of the account of John de Gentil and Hugh de Cliderhou, collectors of the ninth granted to the king in the county of Lancaster, they owe £12 12s. 834d. For the payment of which they have 1 Pipe Roll, No. 140, mm. 25 (Berks), 24 (Devon), 24 (Kent), all of the tax of 1290; L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, mm. ] (Wilts), 1d. (co. Oxford), 16 (Berks), 16d. (co. Leicester).

2L.T.R.M.R., No. 69, m. 189. Compare the enrolled account in Pipe Roll, No. 143, m. 33. My translations in the above as well as in the cases that follow do not pretend to be exact. I have translated freely in order to make the records reasonably intelligible. 3L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 203. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 105, 174d.

The Final Accounting 341 a day, the morrow of Ascension Day. On which day they did not pay. So the sheriff is commanded that of the lands and chattels he fiert facias. Ita ete., on the octaves of Holy Trinity. Later they were allowed 100s.

for expenses and paid by one tally £7 12s. 9d. And so they are quit.’! Though brief records of a kind similar to those described are the rule, one meets occasionally with descriptions of long drawn out or complicated transactions. It would be impossible to give these in full without taking up more space than their contents warrant. On this account I have elected to summarize a few such memoranda in order to show what might cause delay in the payment of arrears. The record of the accounting of the Lincolnshire collectors of the tenth

and fifteenth of 1294 contains some interesting details.2. After their accounts had been audited during the Michaelmas term of the year 1296, the responsibility for the payment of the balance was divided between the two collectors, John de Hoylaund and Richard de Buselingthorp. Richard was to pay one-half his debt a fortnight after Easter, 1297, and the other half on the morrow of Ascension Day next following. The sheriff was directed to receive security from him for these payments and to take

his lands and chattels into the king’s hands. Later Richard returned to the exchequer without having found sureties and with no money. He was delivered to the marshal on 29 May, 1297. Then the story turns to

John. John paid nothing of his debt and the sheriff was directed to seize him and to lead him by day and night to the exchequer. In due time, presumably when he had been brought in, he was granted the right to pay half of what he owed at Michaelmas, 29 September, 1297, and the other half at the feast of St Andrew, 30 November. To clinch the arrangement, the sheriff was told to take security for his appearance. While this was happening, Richard is said to have paid a large sum by four tallies,

and later the sheriff brought in a smaller sum for him. Allowance was made both men still later for a small sum, and Richard thereupon paid 30s. 814d. by one tally, and was quit. Nothing is said about John’s payments; he was probably dealt with later.’ The memoranda of the accounting of Robert de Lathum and John de Hammesfield, who served in Lancashire when the twentieth and fifteenth of 1307 was being assessed and levied, tell a different story.‘ After their

audit, which Robert attended in person and at which John was represented by his attorney, Robert de Chisenhale, they owed £83 3s. 11)4d. 1K.R.M.R., No. 73, m. 73. 2K.R.M.R., No. 70, m. 85. 3 For a somewhat similar case of division of responsibility see L.T.R.M.R., No. 79, m. 135; L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 1d. 4L.T.R.M.R., No. 93, m. 86.

342 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 The audit took place during the Hilary term of the year 1323. The collectors were given a respite until Easter for the payment of the balance. One mainpernor from Yorkshire and seven from Lancashire, present in

court on 5 February, went surety for the payment of the money by Richard at Easter and at such other time as should then be determined

by the court. Richard came at Easter and said that the Scots had so devastated the district that it was not possible to pay what he owed. Again respite was granted by the treasurer and barons, and, because of the poverty caused by the incursions of the Scots, it was granted that the money owed should be paid in instalments, £23 3s. 11)4d. on 8 July

and £10 annually thereafter. A certain John, present in court, went surety for the first payment. Robert paid the first sum by a tally some-

what later, and this record, like the one relating to the Lincolnshire collectors, ends without telling the remainder of the tale.

The third and final example of a prolonged accounting has some peculiar features. The collectors were those serving in Devonshire and the tax was the twentieth and fifteenth of 1315.1. At the close of the audit, held during the Hilary term of the year 1316, they owed £199 14s. 4d. They were granted a respite, until the return of the treasurer, for £184 15s. 4d. which they said they had paid Thomasyn de Cornaro, an attorney of the Bardi. Though they had receipts for the money and a writ of the king telling them to pay it, there was some doubt about the

status of the alleged attorney. For the debt that remained, £14 19s., they were delivered to the marshal on 11 February and released on the same day. They were given a day, after their release, to pay the money. Before that day, Ash Wednesday, arrived, they came and paid a small sum and were told to pay the remainder on the morrow of Ash Wednesday. During the interval covered by these proceedings the collectors asserted that they had reason to suspect the assessment made by the sub-taxers. They asked for and were granted time to investigate and to remedy any defects. They were told to return to Devonshire, to remedy the defects, and to come back to the exchequer on the morrow of the close of Easter with the corrected rolls ready to account. At the same time their commissions, which they had surrendered, were returned to them so that they might have proper credentials for a reassessment. On the morrow of Ash Wednesday they paid £10 by one tally and were granted an extension of time, to 8 July, to pay the remainder. This was done at the instance of the bishop of Exeter. They did not appear on that day, and the sheriff was told to distrain their property to force them 1L.T.R.M.R., No. 86, m. 194. The enrolment of the account adds nothing to this story (L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 14, m. 8).

The Final Accounting 343 to appear on 30 September. The sheriff did not return the writ, so another was issued, stcut alias, to force their appearance during the Hilary term of 1317. Nothing more is said about the matter on the | memoranda roll of 9 Edward II; its record of the proceedings had, as a matter of fact, run over to the tenth year.! With these examples of the difficulties that might be encountered by the exchequer, I bring my long description of the activities of the collectors of the taxes upon movable goods to a close. There remains to be considered, and that briefly, the question of the net income to the crown from the several taxes upon movables granted and levied from 1290 to

1334. ,

6. THe INCOME FROM THE TAXES

In estimating the income derived by the crown from any one of the taxes upon personal property, it is hardly sufficient to add the items of the charges against the counties on the enrolled accounts. That method merely gives the amount that the collectors were bound to levy upon the people of the country. Before the value of a tax can be even roughly calculated, it is necessary to deduct the expenses incurred by the collectors and the central government, as well as allowances granted the collectors because of their mistakes or because of changes made by the government in the plan of assessment and collection. ‘These items of expense and allowance, especially the former, are so scattered and at times intangible that it is extremely difficult to determine with any degree of accuracy how much the crown gained in revenue when a ninth or a fifteenth and tenth was levied. The addition of the tax-charges only involves a simple, though at times painful, arithmetical process.

The most striking phenomenon in connection with the totals of the several taxes upon movables during the years with which we are dealing

is their decline. Starting with the truly remarkable figures, £116,346 12s. 1144d.,? the total of the fifteenth of 1290, we find that the fifteenth

and tenth of 1334 amounted only to £38,245 lls. 244d. The descent from the first figure was rapid during the days of Edward I. Though there was a slight recovery in his later years and during the years that followed, none of these later taxes brought in a revenue that compares favorably with that of 1290.

The statistics of the decline reveal a curious state of affairs. The 1 Other long records with interesting features are L.T.R.M.R., No. 94, mm. 171d. (co. Lincoln),

186 (Norfolk). :

2 These and the subsequent figures relating to the taxes may be found in the following places: E.H.R., xx1v (1909), 319 (taxes of 1809 and 1819); xxvim (1913), 519-521 (taxes of the reign of Edward I); xxrx (1914), 319-821 (taxes of the reign of Edward II except of 1809 and 1319); xxx (1915), 72-78 (taxes of 1827, 1382, 1384).

344 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 fifteenth of 1290, levied upon the goods of both clergy and laymen, amounted to £116,346 12s. 1144d. The next tax, that of 1294, was a tenth and sixth and was not levied upon any goods of the clergy except

those found on lands not annexed to their churches. Since it was a much heavier tax than the fifteenth there should have been no great decline in its returns; its total, however, was £81,838 9s. 434d. The next two taxes, those of 1295 and 1296, were not imposed upon the property of the clergy. The first, an eleventh and seventh, totalled £52,870 2s. 634d. and the second, a twelfth and eighth, £38,485 18s. léd. The government then tried to check the rapid decrease in its income by imposing a heavier rate of taxation. It first asked for an eighth, but had

to abandon this project. It then induced parliament to grant a ninth, the heaviest tax of our period, without, however, gaining the consent of the clergy to the levy. The result of the attempt to gain more revenue was disastrous, for the total, £34,419 2s. 2144d., was markedly below that of the lighter tax of 1296. The goods of the clergy on their temporalities were valued for the taxes of 1301 and 1306, and the instructions of 1301 contained no clause exempting a minimum amount of personal property.

The fifteenth of 1301 showed a total of £49,755 7s. 344d., and the thirtieth and twentieth of 1306, the lightest tax of the reign, a total of £34,777 13s. 834d. The taxes of the reigns of Edward II and Edward III were never levied upon the goods of the clergy found on lands annexed to their spirituali-

ties. What is more, during the major part of that period the three northern counties, Cumberland, Northumberland, and Westmorland, did not contribute to any of the taxes because of the devastation wrought

by the Scots. They had been assessed at £5,889 16s. 7d. to the tax of 1290, at £2,125 12s. 534d. to the tax of 1294, and at £1,702 4s. 434d. to the tax of 1307. Their inability to pay taxes, therefore, caused a not inconsiderable lessening of the crown revenue. Add to these reasons for expecting no increase in the volume of revenue the fact that the taxes of the period were not levied at a high rate, except, perhaps, the tenth and

sixth of 1322, and the fifteenth and tenths of 1332 and 1334, and the returns of the ten taxes levied afford, to a modern student, an agreeable surprise. The totals of the seven taxes granted and collected during the reign of Edward II were as follows: 1307, £38,364 19s. 444d.; 1309, £33,910 Is.

9d.; 1313, £38,453 15s. 344d.; 1315, £37,210 16s. 2d.; 1316, £39,313 12s. 144d.; 1319, £36,396 1s. 1d.; 1322, £42,394 5s. 10d. The rates of these taxes were, in the same order, a twentieth and fifteenth, a twentyfifth, a twentieth and fifteenth, a twentieth and fifteenth, a sixteenth and

The Final Accounting 345 fifteenth, an eighteenth and twelfth, and a tenth and sixth. All these rates were lower than the ninth of 1297, yet their returns show a very commendable increase over the yield of that unfortunate levy. The remaining taxes of our period were the twentieth of 1327, and the fifteenths and tenths of 1332 and 1334. The total of the first was £25,438 Qs. 3146d., of the second, £34,295 17s. 244d., and of the third, £37,429 18s. Yd. The crucial epoch in the history of the taxes upon movables was therefore that lying between the years 1294 and 1297, during which they were levied annually. Some of the causes of the rapid decline that then took place lie on the surface, though it is quite possible that other forces were

at work concerning which I know nothing. One cause, which would appear to be obvious, was that a hitherto occasional levy was turned into

an annual tax just at the time when England was at war with France, Scotland, and Wales. It was the need of supporting these wars that brought about the frequency of the levies, but it was also their frequency

that had much to do with the decrease in the returns from taxation. Taxes upon personal property had been imposed only four times during the long reign of Henry III. Edward I followed suit in his early years, for similar taxes were imposed, at fairly long intervals, in 1275, 1283, and 1290. The assessment and collection of the latter was officially spread over two years, but took longer; then came in rapid succession the four taxes referred to. For a people who had been required to pay such taxes only at infrequent intervals this was a rather large dose, especially as the resources of the kingdom were being marshalled for war. While the people of the Middle Ages are not credited by many modern writers with any large degree of flexibility in their habits of life, I am of the opinion that the marked decline in taxation was due to more than a mere depletion of capital. As has been shown in earlier chapters, there is evidence of conventional valuation, of undervaluation, and of corrupt practice by the collectors at the time of the levy of the four taxes. When taxes are heavy and frequently imposed, holders of property the world

over and at all times have suffered a diminution of capital, but at the same time they have sought means of lessening the burden of taxation upon what remained. I conjecture that the latter is what the Englishmen of the time of Edward I tried to do. Once methods of evasion were learned they would continue, if successful, to be practised until the administrative system was changed to meet the situation. In the years that followed 1297 there is abundant evidence of all kinds

of practices looking toward an alleviation of the weight of taxation. There is, so far as I know, no reason to believe that, save in the northern

846 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 counties, there was any decline in either wealth or population, yet the tax returns continued at a level far below those of 1294 and 1295, and, as noted elsewhere, there was a marked falling off in the number of property holders listed for taxation purposes in many districts. Yet the administrative machinery remained as before. ‘The appointment of supervisors, the numerous investigations into the ways of the collectors, the trials of collectors suspected of stealing, and the checking of the decline during the reigns of Edward II and Edward III testify to the watchfulness of the exchequer as well as to a recovery from the drain caused by

too much warfare, but they do not indicate that anyone had as yet devised a better system of assessment and collection. The failure of the returns to rise to a reasonably high level is, to my mind, testimony in favor of the prevalence and efficiency of methods of evasion which the exchequer had no effective means of combating. It is very likely that the despair caused by the failure of its sporadic and rather feeble attempts to better the situation induced the government to accept the standardized

system that followed the tax of 1334. Then at least it was certain that there would be no further decline and that corrupt practice, if it continued, would not affect the amount of the royal income. Another problem that faces anyone interested in the taxes upon personal property is that of finding some means of estimating, even in the

roughest fashion, the net return to the government from such taxes. It will not, of course, do to accept the totals that have been given as descriptions of income. One item may be deducted at once from the totals, the allowance granted by the exchequer to the collectors for their

personal expenses. This item never reached a high percentage of the charges against the collectors and one may accept as an outside limit approximately two per cent.!_ Allowances due to pardons, writs of supersedeas, mistakes, and changes in orders that were granted after the charges against the collectors had been calculated, varied in amount from year to

year. Many great men were pardoned the tax of 1294 because of their service in the army. When this happened, the amount due from certain counties might be reduced by two or even three per cent.?. The total of the allowances granted to the collectors of the twentieth of 1327 for mis-

takes and the like amounted in all to about £12 8s., a small fraction of one per cent.2 While no average of such figures would be worth anything,

it is safe to assume that in most years allowances of the sort would not amount to one per cent of the amount due. Uncollected remainders of 1 See above, Chapter VIII, Section 3. 2K. g., Pipe Roll, No. 151, mm. 40 (co. Gloucester), 43 (co. Hertford). ’L.T.R. Enr. Accts, Subsidies, No. 8, m. 1.

The Final Accounting B47 account would never reach a high figure. Some of them would not be collected for years, and might be wiped out at the end by the grant of an allowance. One-half of one per cent deducted from the total due would surely cover all such grants and would probably far exceed the normal amount. There remains to be subtracted from the total of the tax-charges on the county rolls the amount of the expense to which the government was put in arranging for and enforcing the assessment and collection of any tax. There is, so far as I can see, no method by which this item can be even approximately estimated. To present the problem in concrete form — what share of the running expenses of the council, chancery, and exchequer, to mention no other departments, should be charged against the taxes? It is, I think, impossible to answer this question. And other

items would have to be added to make the story complete. Special messengers were sent out with writs;! sheriffs spent time in assisting the collectors and in executing writs of distraint or of fiert facias; exchequer barons and others were sent into the country to oversee the work of the collectors or to investigate charges of injustice; special groups of commissioners went into the county to try offending chief and sub-assessors. All these men incurred expenses. Though much time and energy might be expended upon an attempted calculation of the total of these several items of expense, I am quite certain that the result would be inaccurate

and not worth the trouble involved. It is perhaps superfluous to state that I have wasted neither time nor energy upon the subject. With this statement of the difficulties facing anyone who tries to carry

through a story of mediaeval taxation and administration to its conclusion, I bring to an end my description of the grant, assessment, collection, and handling of the taxes upon movables granted and levied from the year 1290 to the year 1334. 1 See the items on Issue Roll, No. 279 (Mich., 9 Edward III), under the dates 16, 25, 28 November, and 1 December, 1834.

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES Abyndon, Richard de, 132, 158, 221, 284, $11. Berford, Robert de, 248.

Addebury, Richard de, 259. Berkeley, Robert de, 37. Agmondesham, Walter de, 234. Berks, county of, 59, 128, 159, 198, 202, 204, 221,

Alderton (co. Suffolk), 218. 242, 243, 248, 281, 288, 284, 204, 384. Alnwick (co. Northumberland), castle, 244. Berneholte, Edward de, 67.

Andeure, John de, 224. Berwick (co. Northumberland), 244. Anglesey (N. Wales), 29. Beveridge, Sir William H., 140, 141. Aquitaine, duchy of, 114. Beverley (co. York), 40, 190.

Arnald, Gilbert, 76. Bickerstaff (co. Lancaster), 175.

Arundel (co. Sussex), 179. Bigod, Roger, 27.

Arundel, earl of, 18 (Edmund), $2 (Richard), Bikkebury, Robert de, 326.

172. Bishop, Monkton (co. York), 74.

Ashe, Thomas atte, 305. Bishopton (co. York), 74.

Asteley, Thomas de, 163. Blackbourne (co. Suffolk), hundred of, 179. Audeley (co. Stafford), 228. Blackheath (co. Kent), hundred of, 63. Aylesbury (co. Buckingham), 198. Blakeford, John de, 318.

Ayleston, Robert de, 135. Blaston, Thomas de, $16. Austwick (co. York), 189. Blound, John le, 180. (co. Northumberland), hospital of, 98, Bachinus, Francis, 1538.Bolton 126.

Badecok, William de, 218. Bolyngton, John de, 224.

Balliol, Edward, 22. Bomound, Ralph de, 44.

Bamburgh (co. Northumberland), castle, 270, Boniface VIII, pope, 98, 100.

271. Boselingthorp, Richard de, 217.

Bannockburn, battle of, 21. Bosmere (co. Suffolk), hundred of, 169, 209. Barden, Thomas de, 178. Boulton, Thomas de, 189, 215, 224, 225, 226, 267. Bardi, merchants of, 234, 289, 242, 244, 245, 266, Boyland, John de, 159.

272, 278, 288, 327, 330, 342. Bradeshagh, William de, 173.

Bardok, Hugh, 118. Bradshaw, Frederick, 163. Barford (co. Bedford), hundred of, 189. Bray, Theobald de, 312.

Barkeston (co. Leicester), 91. Brayton, Thomas de, 224. Barnwell (co. Cambridge), prior of, 96, 136. Bregg, Richard, 68. Barton-upon-Humber (co. Lincoln), 24. Bridport (co. Dorset), 76, 177, 178.

Baskervill, Roger de, 290. Bristol (co. Gloucester), 64, 86, 185, 186, 177, Basset, John, 44. 178, 181, 293. Bastenthwayt, Alexander de, 188. Broklesby, William de, 267. Bath and Wells (co. Somerset), bishop of, 96. Bronwode, Godwine, 67.

Bath, William of, 53. Brothercros (co. Norfolk), hundred of, 212. Baumburgh, Thomas de, 93, 126. Broun, John, 290.

Bedford, county of, 58, 61, 62, 66, 74, 81, 100, | Brouton, John de, 314.

128, 189, 140, 281, 288, 294, 296. Bruce, Robert, 20, 334.

Beaumont, Henry de, 244. Brunham Westgate (co. Norfolk), 212. Beccles (co. Suffolk), 169. Bruton (co. Somerset), hundred of, 90. Belgrave, Roger de, 206, 340. Bryoun, Robert, 290. Bellardi, merchants of Lucca, 122. Buckingham, county of, 44, 45, 62, 81, 127, 140,

Bentham (co. York), 139. 156, 172, 193, 202, 222, 263, 281, 293, 331. Bercarius, Stephen, 147. Buckrose (co. York), wapentake of, 139, 208,

Berewyk, John de, 132. 209. 349

350 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 Burbeach (co. Sussex), hundred of, 142. Cistercian order, 96, 186. Burdegala, Oliver de, 121, 122, 262, 269. Clare, Gilbert de, 25, 27, 112, 167.

Burdet, Robert, 287. Clare], William, 144, 213.

Burgate (Canterbury), 109. Clarendon (co. Wilts), 243.

Burgate, Walter de, 218. Clericis laicos, bull, 98. Burghersh, Robert de, 115. Clay, Miss R. M., 181.

Burghill (co. Hereford), liberty of, 60. Cliderhou, Hugh de, 340. Burgo, Richard de, earl of Ulster, 28. Clifford, R. de, 3065.

Burton (co. York), 189. Clinton, William de, 164. Burton in Kendale (co. Westmorland), parson Clitheroe (co. Lancaster), 227.

of, 44. Cloune, William de, 206.

Bury St Edmund’s (co. Suffolk), 31, 182, 180. Clyveden, John de, 291.

Buslingthorp, Richard de, $41. Cobeham, Henry de, 115. Buttinghill (co. Sussex), 148. Cockermouth (co. Cumberland), liberty of, 31,

Bylington (co. Salop), 191. 168.

Cocus, Emma le, 169.

Calwe, John, 69. Coggeshall parva (co. Essex), 69.

Cambridge, 64, 105, 177, 178, 181. Colchester (co. Essex), 61, 67, 75, 105, 175, 176, Cambridge, county of, 44, 62, 100, 148, 144, 154, 189.

161, 198, 202, 280, $21. Coldingham, Peter de, 247. Canterbury, archbishop of, 16, 78, 98, 101. Cold Overton (co. Leicester), 91. Canterbury (co. Kent), 58, 64, 108, 117, 126. Conigburg (co. York), 189.

Canterbury, province of, 12, 104. Cook, John, 76, 77.

Cantok, Thomas, 28. Cook, Robert, 82.

Carleton, William de, 47, 182, $11. Coronaro, Thomasyn de, 327, 342. Carlisle (co. Cumberland), 125, 198. Cornwall, county of, 63, 118, 119, 172, 221, 281,

Carlisle, bishop of, 48. 283, $11.

Carlisle Castle, 244. Cornwall, earl of, 25.

Carlisle, liberty of prior of, 31. Cornwall, Richard de, 311.

Carlisle, Robert de, 121. Corviser, Agnes le, 169.

Carnarvon (N. Wales), 29. Corton, William de, 221. Carpenter, Alice le, 169. Cottingham (co. York), 190. Carswal, John de, 174. Coventry (co. Warwick), 190.

Carter, William le, 196. Coventry, prior of, 49. Carthusian order, 125. Coventry, Master William de, 46, 48, 49. Channel Islands, 26. Cowick (co. York), ordinance, 309. Chapman, Edith le, 169. Crek, John de, 44. Charles, William de, 310. Crepyn, Walter, 290.

Charnes, William de, 288. Crowland (co. Lincoln), abbot of, 44.

Charter, Great, 19. Crump, C. G., 6.

Chaundeler, John le, 112, 113. Cumberland, county of, 31, 62, 123, 124, 132,

Chaundos, Roger de, 293. 158, 168, 188, 194, 204, 2292, 234, 333, Cheddington (co. Buckingham), 187, 206, 211. 344,

Cheigny, Edmund de, 333. Cumberland, ward of, 168. Chelmsford (co. Essex), 189, 193. Cuxham (co. Oxford), 68, 187, 206, 211. Cheringg, Henry de, 65, 155.

Chertsey (co. Surrey), abbot of, 78, 89, 176. Delavals, family of, 163. Cheshunt (co. Hertford), prioress of, 126. Dalton (co. York), 145.

Chester, Edward, earl of, 129. Dartford (co. Kent), 61, 76. Chester, palatinate of, 29. Daubernon (d’Abernon), John, 44, 78. Chichester (co. Sussex), 63, 143. Deerhurst (co. Gloucester), priory of, 126.

Chinnor, rector of, 45. Derby, 126, 216.

Chisenhale, Robert de, 341, 342. Derby, county of, 24, 32, 51, 129, 188, 172, 193,

Chobayle, William, 147. 194, 206, 218, 219, 227, 228, 240, 279, 293,

Christ Church, Canterbury, prior of, 96, 108. 294, 295, 302.

Index of Names and Places 351 Devon, county of, 63, 118, 119, 157, 159, 161,172, | Essex, county of, 28, 53, 69, '70, 81, 82, 105, 140,

174, 192, 215, 218, 221, 225, 280, 287, 294, 143, 146, 147, 153, 154, 189, 198, 202, 222,

299, 310, 311, 326, 327, 328, 880, 342. 281, 340.

Dialogus, 250, 251, 258. Everdon, Master J. de, 811.

Donington, Richard of, 206. Evesham (co. Worcester), 179.

Dorking (co. Surrey), 90. Evesham, William de, 283.

Dorset, county of, 53, 159, 178, 174, 204, 222, | Ewcross (co. York), wapentake of, 70,

280, 281, 283, 284, 302. Exeter, bishop of, 342.

Dover (co. Kent), 114, 126.

Dover Castle, 115. Faucon, William de, 49.

Dowell, Stephen, 7. Faversham (co. Kent), 114.

Drokensford, John de, 28, 24, 35, 182, 247. Faxfleet (co. York), 190.

Droitwich (co. Worcester), 179. Felton, John de, 244. Dudley (co. Worcester), 179. Fermbaud, Nicholas, 182. Dunton (co. Bucks), 81, 140. Fitz-John, Richard, 288. Dunwich (co. Suffolk), 159. Fitz-Rogers, family of, 163. Durham, bishopric and liberties, 29, 30, 40, Fitz-Walter, Robert, 112.

805. Fitz-~William, Ralph, 244.

Duyn, William de, 327, 328. Five Ports, 40, 58, 59, 114, 115, 116, 118,

Dyere, Juliana la, 169. Flanders, 19, 301. Dymmok, John, 49. Fleet prison, 332, 338. Dynyngton, Edmund de, 221. Flint, county of, 27.

Ford (co. Salop), hundred of, 168.

Eastbourne (co. Sussex), hundred of, 151. Forest, Charter of the, 19, 170. East Bradenham (co. Norfolk), 105, 107. Forncett (co. Norfolk), 83.

Edmund, earl of Arundel, 18. Fosse, John de, 180.

Edmund, the king’s brother, earl of Lancaster, Foxle, John de, 311.

$2, 128, 172. Frameland (co. Leicester), hundred of, 91.

Edward I, 8, 9, 10, 18, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, France, 16, 19, 26, 114, 845. 27, 32, 58, 95, 111, 126, 128, 168, 165, 178, France, King of, 114. 180, 198, 200, 231, 247, 252, 253, 259, 260, Frescobaldi, merchants of Florence, 122, 266.

265, 301, 311, 318, 319, 323, 343, 345. Friars Minor (Leicester), house of, 206. Edward II, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, | Frome (co. Somerset), hundred of, 90. 36, 43, 93, 95, 102, 108, 104, 105, 118, 117, Fuller, E. A., 86, 177. 118, 120, 122, 123, 124, 128, 151, 153, 161, Fundelane, Walter de, 218. 170, 171, 177, 192, 200, 2038, 220, 231, 232,

246, 248, 252, 253, 258, 259, 260, 262, 268, Gardiner, Agnes le, 169. 266, 267, 289, 290, 297, 311, 318, 315, 818, | Gardinis, Thomas de, 314.

819, 321, 323, 338, 344, 346. Gascony, 19, 110, 111, 112, 118, 128, 163, 167, Edward III, 11, 14, 18, 21, 22, 43, 98, 102, 103, 330. 115, 122, 124, 128, 152, 177, 208, 211, 286, | Gaveston, Peter de, earl of Cornwall, 25. 246, 257, 258, 260, 267, 270, 271, 272, 278, Gedding (co. Suffolk), 107. 274, 305, 318, 323, 333, 384, 848, 344, 8346. Gentil, John de, 340.

Edward, earl of Chester, 129. Giffard, Robert, 311.

Effingham (co. Surrey), hundred of, 60. Giffard, Katherine, $11. Egremont (co. Cumberland), liberty of, $1. Gilling (co. York), wapentake of, 175.

Eld, F. J., 169, 178, 179. Glasgow, 24, 35.

Eleanor, mother Edward I, 128. Glaston-Twelve-Hides (co. Somerset), 91, 180. Ely (co. Cambridge), bishop of, 100, 107. Glastonbury (co. Somerset), abbey of, 96, 179,

Embleton (co. Northumberland), liberty of, $1. 180.

Emeldon, Richard de, 136. Gloucester, 64, 193. Emeldon, William de, 136. Gloucester, abbey of, 180.

Englefeld, Roger de, 289. Gloucester, county of, 37, 133, 153, 156, 161, 171, Eskdale (co. Cumberland), ward of, 168. 193, 199, 200, 201, 202, 221, 222, 228, 229,

852 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 279, 280, 288, 291, 298, 295, $01, $10,811, Heved, Robert, 196.

$80, 338, 340. Hexham (co. Northumberland), liberty of, 29,

Gloucester, earl of, 121, 178, 288. See also 30, 31, 40.

Clare, Gilbert de. Hindon (co. Wilts), 58.

Gloucester and Hertford, earl of, 25. See also Holderness (co. York), wapentake of, 104, 208,

Clare, Gilbert de. 209.

God’s House, Dover (co. Kent), hospital of, 126. Holme (co. Bedford), 74.

Goldwynne, Adam de, 212. Holy Land, 99. Goodrich (co. Hereford), liberty of, $2. Holy Trinity, Ipswich (co. Suffolk), prior of, 107. Grapynel, Henry, 340. Horsham (co. Sussex), 179. Gras, N.S. B., 83. Horethorne (co. Somerset), hundred of, 90. Grey, Reginald de, 29. Horton (co. York), 139. Grey, Thomas de, 305. Horneclif, Robert de, 270, 271, 272. Gros, G. le, 212. Hospitallers, 24, 100, 125, 180, 186, 167. See Gros, William le, 212. also St John of Jerusalem, Hospital of.

Guildford (co. Surrey), 60. Hosyntre (co. Worcester), 217. Guldeford, Henry de, 805. Houghton, Richard de, 270, 271.

Giuseppi, M. S., 261. Howden (co. York), 190, 215. Hoylaund, John de, 217, 341. Halidon Hill, battle of, 22. Hughes, A., 6. Halikeld (co. York), wapentake of, 175. Huntingdon, 41.

Hammesfeld (Hammesfield), John de, $11, 841. | Huntingdon, county of, 160, 281, 282, 288, 289. Hampshire, county of, 129, 196, 204, 281, 302, | Hurlton (co. Lancaster), 175.

$10. Husbandry, 83.

Harkla, Andrew de, 244.

Hartcliffe (co. Somerset), hundred of, 91. Inge, William, 128.

Harthill (co. York), 189, 140. Ingelton (co. York), 81. Hartsmere (co. Suffolk), 169. Insula, Giles de, 289. Harum, Walter de, 2153. Insula, John de, 24, 182, 186, $11, $12.

Hastings (co. Sussex), 114, 115. Ipswich (co. Suffolk), 159.

Hastings, Isabella de, 169. Ireland, 26, 27, 28.

Hastings, John, lord, 163. Isabella, Queen, 121, 128, 129. Havering, John de, 28. Isabella, wife of John, lord Hastings, 163. Hazelshaw, Robert de, 45.

Hegham, Roger de, 132. James I, 12. Hemmegrave, Edmund de, 159, 160, 305. Jenkinson, Hilary, 140. Henley (co. Oxford), 65. Jews, 20.

Henry II, 3. Jobn, King, 38.

Henry III, 3, 9, 126, 164, 345. John, lord Hastings, 163.

Henry, son of Robert Lengleys, 334. John XXII, pope, 104. Henton (co. Somerset), priory of, 125. John the Cook, 49, 50.

Hereford, 166, 227. John le Plummer, 76.

Hereford, bishop of, 96, 166. John the Smith, 74. Hereford, county of, 32, 44, 59, 133, 166, 171, Johnson, Charles, 6. 221, 227, 239, 284, 290, 293.

Hereford, dean of, 44. Kent, county of, 47, 50, 58, 61, 63, 68, 70, 72, 74,

Hereford, earl of, 27. 115, 116, 118, 126, 184, 145, 173, 247. Herons, family of, 163. Kent, earl of, 168. Hertford, 193. Kidderminster (co. Worcester), 179.

Hertford, county of, 42, 59, 70, 105, 112, 126, King’s Clipstone (co. Nottingham), 34, 37, 271. 127, 153, 156, 165, 193, 201, 202, 265, 266, | Kingston-upon-Hull (co. York), 24, 190.

280, 281, 283. Kingston-on-Thames (co. Surrey), 91, 248.

Hestinge, William de, 187, 216. Kirkeby, John de, 182. Hertheby, Brian de, 188. Kirkham, Nicholas de, 192, 215, 224, 225, 311.

Index of Names and Places 353 Lacy, Henry de, earl of Lincoln, 25. London, bishop of, Richard, 165. Lancaster, county of, 16, 123, 124, 158, 168, 178, | Longbridge (co. Sussex), hundred of, 68. 174, 175, 176, 198, 194, 198, 200, 202, 218, Lorenz, Peter de, 288. 227, 234, 236, 270, 271, 299, 311, 340, 841, Lorenz, Simon de, 288.

$42. Louth (co. Lincoln), 156, 217.

Lancaster, earl of, $2, 128 (Edmund), 172. See Lovet, Robert, 263, 264, 265, 331.

also Edmund, the king’s brother. Lucca, merchants of, 122, 231. Langborough (co. York), wapentake of, 175, Ludgershall (co. Wilts), 58.

217. Luton, William de, 334, $35.

Langebrigg, Hugh de, 135. Lym, Gregory de, 174.

Langedon (co. Stafford), 90. Lynn (co. Norfolk), 186, 157, 306. Langley Marish (co. Buckingham), 127, 172.

Langley, John de, 37. Madox, Thomas, 6.

Langton (co. York), 190. Magna Carta, 80, 170.

Langton, Walter de, 231. Malmesbury (co. Wilts), abbot of, 241.

Lapsley, G. T., 29. Manydown (co. Hampshire), 88. Lathum, Robert de, 341. March, earl of, 163. Laurence, William, 270, 271. Marcher lords, 27.

Leath (co. Cumberland), ward of, 168. Marchia, William de, 4, 231, 258.

Legh, Henry de la, 288. Mareschal, Roger le, 281.

Leicester, 148, 176, 177, 179, 190, 206, 228. Marlowe, John de, 136. Leicester, county of, 24, 62, 91, 125, 185, 148, | Martock (co. Somerset), 91. 152, 204, 206, 212, 218, 219, 228, 248, 279, Martyn, William, 225.

281, 287, 294, 302, 340. Mason, Edith le, 169.

Leicester, Peter of, 182. Maubank, Philip, 173.

Leighton (co. Bedford), 81. Maunsel, William, 340. Lengleys, Robert, 334. Meaux (co. York), monastery of, 180. Lengynour, Robert, 180. Melton Mowbray (co. Leicester), 135. Lentur, John de, 120, 153. Melton, Henry de, 122, 158. Leppington (co. York), 190. Melton, William de, 122.

Lewes (co. Sussex), 63. Meriet, John de, 259.

Leycestre, William de, 45. Merioneth (Wales), county of, 29. Lichfield (co. Stafford), 90. Merton (co. Worcester), 217. Lincoln, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 24, 157, 194, 280, 295, | Merton, scholars of, 105.

$11, 330. Messig, Henry de, 49.

Lincoln, bishop of, 98, 151. Michel, William, 188.

Lincoln, county of, 24, 89, 40, 51, 59, 60, 61, 66, | Michelney, Island of (co. Somerset), 64. 182, 153, 156, 184, 193, 194, 197, 216, 217, | Middlesex, county of, 58, 65, 152, 155, 159, 204,

239, 248, 279, 280, 281, 284, 295, 801, 307, 280, 290.

$41, $42. Middleton (co. York), 190. Holland, parts of co. Lincoln, 40, 204, Middleton, Adam de, 186.

272, 273, 280, 295, 307. Midenhale, John de, 248. Kesteven, parts of co. Lincoln, 40, 188, | Midhurst, John de, 187, 224.

239, 280, 284. Mitchell, S. K., 6.

Lindsey, parts of co. Lincoln, 40, 194, Moigne, William le, 289.

272, 281. Molecaster (Mulcastre), William de, 188. Lincoln, John of, 122. Monte Acuto, William de, 127.

Lincoln, earl of, 25, 121. Monks Kirby (co. Warwick), prior of, 107.

Little Hormead (co. Hertford), 112. More, Brother William de la, 135.

Littlethorpe (co. York), 74. Mortimer, Edmund, 32.

London, 9, 10, 15, 16, 23, 41, 45, 56, 64, 65, 71, Mortimer, earl of, 172. 88, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 130, 131, 134, | Mortimer, Roger, 164, 167. 135, 153, 154, 155, 181, 184, 198, 203, 204, | Muston (co. Leicester), 91.

217, 288, 279, 283, 329. Mutford, John de, 220.

354 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 Nasing (co. Essex), 82, 140, 189, 212. 284, 289, 301, 306, 314, 320, 324, $25, $26, Nevill, Ralph de, 286. 838, 387.

Nevill, William de, 287. Compotos of 1801, 314, 420, 324, 325, 94, 35, 41, 136. Oxford, earl of, 128 (Robert de Vere), 163.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne (co. Northumberland), 826. New Malton (co. York), 190.

Newport Pagnell (co. Buckingham), 198. Palgrave, Francis, 7.

New Shoreham (co. Sussex), 90. Pale, Irish, 28.

Newstead (co. Rutland), prior of, 98, 151. Palmer, Alice la, 121 Nicholas IV, pope, Taxation of, 5, 94, 95, 97,98, Pelham (co. Essex), 212.

103, 165, 166. Pembroke, countess of, 163.

Norfolk, county of, 48, 51, 62, 82, 108, 182, 152, | Pembroke, earl of, 27, 32, 172. See Valence, 154, 156, 172, 199, 201, 204, 216, 221, 222, William de. 248, 247, 282, 295, 302, 306, $28, $30. Penrith (co. Cumberland), liberty of, 31.

Norfolk, ear] of, Earl Marshal, 168. Pentelorne, Henry de, 248, 249.

Normanton (co. Leicester), 91. Percy, Henry de, 267. Northampton, 24, 131, 248. Pershore (co. Worcester), hundred of, 217. Northampton, county of, 159, 200, $12, 329. Pershore, William de, 248, 249.

Northburgh, Roger, 121, 246. Pershute, Nicholas de, 314, $25. North Curry (co. Somerset), hundred of, 91. Person, Robert, 153.

North Duffield (co. York), 190. Pessaigne, Anthony, 122.

North Erpingham (co. Norfolk), 62. Pessaigne, Leonard, 122.

Northlegh, Thurstan de, 173. Pessaigne, Manuel, 122. North Road, Great, 195. Peterborough (co. Northampton), abbot of, 98,

Northumberland, county of, 16, 29, 80, $1, 32, 151. .

49, 50, 59, 98, 123, 124, 126, 158, 162, 168, | Pevensey (co. Sussex), 114, 115, $30.

194, 208, 204, 222, 234, 344. Pickering (co. York), 227.

Nortone, Matilda de, 67. Pimhill (co. Salop), hundred of, 168. Norwich (co. Norfolk), 64. Piplynton (co. Worcester), 217.

Norwich, bishop of, 44, 106. Pirehill (co. Stafford), hundred of, 228. Norwich, prior and convent of, 198. Pissebury (co. Hertford), 127.

Norwich, Valuation of, 94, 96. Plugarth (co. Leicester), 91.

Norwich, Walter of, 243. Pocklington (co. York), 190.

Nottingham, 121. Podemore, Richard de, 228. Nottingham, county of, 16, 34, 138, 172, 193, Pokethorp, Simon de, 187.

194, 219, 265, 293, 302, 310. Polayn, John, 173. Nottingham, Hugh de, 132. Pole, Richard de la, 239, 240, 248, 244. Nottingham, Robert of, 133. Pole, William de la, 267, 268. Poole, R. L., 6.

Ockham, John de, 133. Portland (co. Dorset), hundred of, 178, 174.

Oke, Henry atte, 180. Premonstratensian Order, 126.

Ordainers, Lords, 157, 170, 258. Preston (co. Lancaster), 227.

Ordinances, 170. Preston in Holderness (co. York), 104.

Ordinance of Westminster (1326), 312. Prestwold, Hugh de, 206. Ormskirk (co. Lancaster), altar of Our Lady at, Pyrford (co. Surrey), 89.

175, 176. Punchardon, John de, 287, 288, 310.

Ormesby, John de, 172, 196. Pyndenen (co. Worcester), 217. Orford (co. Suffolk), 159,

Ospringe (co. Kent), hospital of, 126. Raleghe, Henry de, 288. Oundle (co. Northampton), 248. Ramsey (co. Huntingdon), abbot of, 44.

Owyn, William, 340. Raskel, Richard, 76.

Oxford, 23, 64, 131, 181, 193. Rawmarsh (co. York), 139, 144. Oxford, county of, 65, 126, 154, 188, 193, 199, Reading (co. Berks), 193, 249. 200, 202, 219, 221, 242, 243, 259, 266, 280, | Redesdale (co. Northumberland), liberty of, $1.

Index of Names and Places 355 Redingg, John de, 268, 264, 293. Salford, Nigel, 281. Renhold (co. Bedford), 189, 140. Salisbury (co. Wilts), 58, 194.

Reynold, William, 147. Salvayn, Anketin, 189. Richard I, 8. Samford (co. Suffolk), hundred of, 209. Richard IY, 102. Sancto Quintino, Geoffrey de, 267. Richard, bishop of London, 165. Sandholme (co. York), 215. Ripon (co. York), liberty of, 31. Sandon (co. Stafford), 90.

Riston (co. Salop), 191. Sandwich (co. Kent), 114. Rogers, J. E. T., 140, 141. Sapy, Robert, 269. Rokesle, Stephen de, 154. Say, William de, 113. Rokeslee (co. Kent), hundred of, 74. Scalebrok, William, 314, 325. Romney (co. Kent), 114. Scarborough (co. York), 24.

Ronhale (co. Bedford), 81, 82. Scarisbrick with Hurlton (co. Lancaster), 175. Rutland, county of, 39, 42, 44, 53, 59, 98, 150, Scotland, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 28, 101, 114, 194,

184, 281, 288, 284, 292, 302. 241, 244, 260, 261, 267, 345. Rye (co. Sussex), 114, 115. Scots, 19, 21, 28, 28, 122, 158, 194, 297, 801, 842,

Ryvere, Richard de la, $40. $44.

Selby (co. York), abbot of, 102. St Bartholomew (co. Hertford ?), priory of, 105. Sele (co. Sussex), prior of, 151.

St Bartholomew, Smithfield, hospital of, 125. Selling, John de, 153.

St Botolph (co. Essex), prior of, 105. Sewer (co. Leicester), 125.

St Denis (France), cell of, 126. Shefeld, Thomas de, 305.

St Edmund (Cambridge), prior of chapel of, 105. | Sheperdes, Agnes le, 169. St Edmund’s (co. Suffolk), abbey of, 31, $2, 96, | Sherburn (co. York), 208, 218.

108, 180, 186, 198, 194, 307. Shrewsbury (co. Salop), 67, 76, 105, 191. St Ethelreda (co. Suffolk), liberty of, 218. Shrewsbury, abbot of, $39. St George (co. Dorset), hundred of, 178. Salop, county of, 82, 46, 49, 62, 188, 168, 164,

St Giles (co. Hertford), prioress of, 105. 168, 170, 191, 208, 209, 279, 281, 339.

St John (Colchester), abbot of, 105. Sinclair, John, 6.

St John (Shrewsbury), hospital of, 1065. Skelmersdale (co. Lancaster), 175. St John (Winchester), hospital of, 211. Skyren (co. Norfolk), 82, 187, 192. St John of Jerusalem, hospital of, 96, 97, 108, Skyren, Martin de, 187.

185. See also Hospitallers. Sledmere, Sleddemer (co. York), 208. St John’s Beverley (co. York), provost of, 44. Slinfold (co. Suffolk), 210. St John the Baptist (Cambridge), hospital of, Smithfield (London), 125.

105, 178. Smyth, Eva le, 169. of, 126. Snaith, church of, 102.

St John without the East Gate (Oxford), hospital Smythe, Agnes le, 169.

St John, John de, 167. Snape, R. H., 180.

St Katherine’s without Lincoln, priory of, 198. Somerden (co. Kent), hundred of, 70, 74, 145. St Lazarus of Jerusalem, order of, 92, 152. Somerset, county of, 58, 64, 90, 91, 127, 188, 152,

St Leonard (York), hospital of, 196. 168, 180, 192, 198, 201, 203, 215, 268, 282,

St Leonard’s (Derby), hospital of, 126. 291, 318. St Margaret (co. Hertford), 105. Sore, John de, 310.

St Martin le Grand (London), dean of, 45. Southampton, county of, 129. See Hampshire.

St Mary (co. Suffolk), chapel of, 125. Southwark (co. Surrey), 91. St Mary’s (York), abbot of, 44, 192, 198, 194, Spaldingg, John de, 136.

195. Spelhoe (co. Northampton), hundred of, 140.

St Michael (co. Rutland), prioress of, 98, 151. Stafford, 181, 179, 194.

St Osyth (co. Sussex), abbot of, 105. Stafford, county of, 58, 90, 183, 148, 170, 198, St Peter, Kirby Bellars (co. Leicester), chapel of, 196, 202, 213, 216, 228, 281, 295.

104, 125, 152. Stafford, Margaret de, 169.

St Radegund (Cambridge), prioress of, 105. Stamford (co. Lincoln), 25. St Radegund (near Canterbury), prioress of, 126. Stamford (co. York), liberty of, 82, 172.

356 Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property 1290 to 1334 Stanton Lacy (co. Salop), 164. Triple, John, 153. Stapleton, Walter de, 240. Twinestede, Thomas de, 340. Staunton, William de, 318. Tyndale (co. Northumberland), liberty of, 29,

Stephene, John, 192, 224, 225. 80, 31, 40. Stevens, John, 7. Tynemouth (co. Northumberland), liberty of,

Stirling (Scotland), 24. $1.

Stirling Bridge, battle of, 301. Tyringham, Reginald de, 331. Stoke (co. Somerset), chaplains of, 151. Tyringham, Roger de, 44. Stokkeye, Robert de, 326.

Strafford (co. York), hundred of, 189. Ulting, Thomas, 212.

Stratford, Henry de, 224. Unmfravilles, family of, 163. Stratford-upon-Avon (co. Warwick), 68, 146,

146, 190. Valence, William de, earl of Pembroke, 27, 32,

Sturmy, John, 121. 111, 112, 113, 172.

Suffolk, county of, $31, $2, 44, 62, 106, 107, 125, Vanne, John, 121, 122, 153. 132, 143, 159, 163, 169, 193, 194, 202, 208, | Vere, Robert de, earl of Oxford, 128. 209, 218, 221, 228, 266, 280, 281, 282, 302, Vescy, William de, 27.

305, 307. Vescys, family of, 163.

Surrey, county of, 44, 60, 63, 70, 78, 89, 90, 176, Vincent, J. A. C., 7. 199, 200, 210.

Surrey, earl of, 27. Waddeworth (co. York), 139. Surrey and Richmond, ear! of, 121. Wakerle, John de, 283.

Sussex, county of, 46, 58, 59, 63, 70, 89, 90, 91, | Wakerle, Peter de, 283. 115, 142, 151, 159, 169, 199, 207, 208, 210, | Waldeshef, John de, 289.

279, 281, 283, 329. Wales, 26, 27, 35, 37, 111, 112, 167, 293, 345.

Sutheworth, Gilbert de, 270, 271. March of, 27.

Swanlond, Simon de, 158, 263, 264, 293. North, 28, 29.

Swinburnes, family of, 163. South, 29.

Swineshead (co. Lincoln), 216. Prince of, 24, 128, 162. Waltham (co. Hertford), abbot of, 96.

Taillour, Matilda le, 169. Waltham (co. Leicester), 91.

Taillur, Amicia le, 169. Waltham Holy Cross (co. Essex), 68, 146.

Tait, James, 80. Walton, Thomas de, 135.

Tamworth (co. Warwick), 218. Walton-on-Trent (co. Derby), 129. Taunton (co. Somerset), 131. Wanborough (co. Wilts), 113.

Taverner, John the, 86. Ware (co. Hertford), prior of, 106, 107. Templariorum, vicus, at Bristol, 64. Warkworth (co. Northumberland), castle of,

Temple, order of, 24, 96, 97, 100, 125, 130, 136, 236.

167. Warley, Ingelard de, 122.

Tendryng, Jobn de, 282. Warley, John de, 122.

Tewkesbury (co. Gloucester), abbot of, 44. Warter (co. York), prior of, 224.

Thetford (co. Norfolk), 157, 306. Warwick, 190.

Thickenesee, William de, 228. Warwick, county of, 24, 36, 46, 49, 53, 62, 70,

Thorn (co. York), 139. 143, 163, 169, 171, 218, 228, 242, 279, 284,

Thornton (co. Lincoln), abbot of, 103, 104, 106, 294.

152. Warwick, earl of, 36.

Threlkeld, Henry de, 334. Warwick, Nicholas de, 132. Thurston, Juliana de, 108. Webbe, Sibilla le, 169.

Tillot, John, 107. Wedergrave, Nicholas de, 180. Toulouse, William de, 121. Welle, Peter atte, 206.

Tout, T. F., 247, 258, 260. Welleburn, Nicholas de, 244, 245. Towthorp (co. York), 190. Wells (co. Somerset), provost of, 45. Trent River, 121, 269. Wenden, Wendon (co. Essex), 70, 81, 140, 147,

Trent, William de, 122, 153, 238. 189, 212.

Index of Names and Places 357 Westbourne (co. Sussex), hundred of, 91. Woodhall (co. York), 190. Westminster, abbot of, 78, 89, 96, 107, 126, 176. | Worcester, 179, 227. Westminster, exchequer at, 4, 27, 34, 37, 38, 49, | Worcester, bishop of, 96, 196. 50, 51, 67, 134, 156, 157, 159, 170, 188, | Worcester, county of, 36, 62, 133, 143, 168, 169, 1938, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 171, 178, 201, 210, 212, 218, 215, 21'7, 218,

203, 219, 230, 231, 287, 238, 250, 256, 257, 221, 224, 297, 228, 279, 283. 258, 260, 263, 264, 265, 270, 274, 278, 280, Wordy, 211. 283, 284, 291, 298, 299, 302, 308, 309, 310, | Wotton, Robert de, 287.

312, 313, 322, 334. Wotton, Richard de, 133. parliament at, 9, 12, 19, 25, 26, 96, 101. Wye River, 32.

Westminster II, Statute of, 337. Wyke (co. Dorset), hundred of, 173, 174. Westminster Ordinance (1326), $15. Wyndesore, Richard de, 334, 335. Westmorland, county of, 16, 44, 48, 123, 124, | Wyrandisbury, Wyrardisbury (co. Bucking132, 158, 194, 208, 204, 222, 233, 234, 837, ham), 127, 172. $44.

Weston, John de, 123. Yarmouth, Great (co. Norfolk), 114, 172, 196. Weston, William de, 78. Yarmouth, Little (co. Norfolk), 114. Whalesbone (co. Sussex), hundred of, 90. Yetminster (co. Dorset), hundred of, 173. Whalley (co. Lancaster), abbot of, 48. York, 24, 25, 41, 64, 76, 77, 131, 179, 181, 187,

Wigston (co. Leicester), 135. 189, 190, 198, 194, 195, 202, 218, 227, 268, William, son of William de Luton, 335. 802, 329. Wilts, county of, 58, 66, '72, 118, 158, 160, 194, | York, county of, and its ridings, 16, 36, 40, 44,

200, 202, 221, 243, 280, 281, 293. 61, 65, 66, 70, 74, 81, 89, 101, 102, 123,

Wimbledon (co. Surrey), 78. 124, 139, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 158, 171,

Winchelsea (co. Sussex), 114, 115. 172, 180, 192, 193, 194, 196, 204, 208, 209, Winchester (co. Hampshire), soke of, 187, 224. 218, 216, 220, 227, 228, 234, 240, 342.

Winchester, bishop of, 96. East Riding, 60, 125, 1'72, 189, 190, 192, 224,

Windelsham (co. Surrey), 90. 267, 268. Winteringham (co. York), 190. 806. Wistowe (co. Huntingdon), 83. West Riding, 60, 66, 74, 81, 100, 124, 141, Witefeld, William de, 173. 144, 189, 239.

Windham (co. Sussex), half-hundred of, 142. North Riding, 124, 125, 175, 244, 280, 294,

Witham (co. Somerset), priory of, 125. York, liberty of archbishop of, $1, 40.

Wogan, John, 28. Zouche, Alan la, 113.

Woking (co. Surrey), hundred of, 210.

Errata P. 70, 1. 24: for hundred of Eweross read wapen- _‘P.. 148, 1. 13: for Essex read Sussex.

take of Ewcross. P. 289, 1. 29: for William de Moigne read WilP. 121, |. 22: for Alice de Palmer vead Alice la liam le Moigne.

Palmer. P. 342, ll. 5-6: for Richard read Robert.

P. 139, 1]. 27, 31: for Anstwick read Austwick.