История английской финансовой системы от англосаксов до начала XX века.

the historical taxation and spending policies from Anglo Saxon times to the early 20th century

The history of the English fiscal system affords the best known example of continuous financial development in terms of both institutions and methods. Although periods of great upheaval occurred from the time of the Norman Conquest to the beginning of the 20th century, the line of connection is almost entirely unbroken. Perhaps, the most revolutionary changes occurred in the 17th century as a result of the Civil War and, later, the Glorious Revolution of 1688; though even then there was no real breach of continuity. The primitive financial institutions of early England centred round the king's household. In other words, the royal preceded the national economy in importance. Revenue dues collected by the king's agents, rents, or rather returns of produce from land, and special levies for emergencies formed the main elements of the royal income which gradually acquired greater regularity and consistency. There is, however, little or no evidence of what modern governments recognise as financial organisation until the 11th century. The influence exercised from Normandy, which so powerfully affected the English rulers at this time, tended towards the creation of records of revenue claims as well as a central treasury. Following the Glorious Revolution, control of finance passed more and more to Parliament, which together with the decline of the importance of land rents as a source of income from about the time of the Wars of the Roses led to different forms of taxation.

With the union of England and Normandy under William the Conqueror, the idea of settled administrative methods became fixed and of special importance in the financial sphere. The systematizing spirit, so characteristic of both the Norman and Angevin kings, produced the great institution of the Exchequer with its judicial and administrative sections and its elaborate forms of account and control. But even before this, the Domesday Book, now recognized as having a purely fiscal object (in Maitland's words a tax book, a geld book), shows the movement towards careful observation of all sources of revenue. It is clear that William I of England initiated a policy which was followed by his successors despite the serious difficulties during the anarchy that subsisted during Stephen's reign. The obscure question as to the real origin of the special contrivances employed by the Exchequer is, strictly speaking, irrelevant to the financial inquirer, who may be content to hold that, other than the existence of a few Old English analogies, the system, as it appears in the 12th century, is a product peculiar to the conceptions of fiscal organization formed by Norman subtlety. Indeed, its importance lies in the manner in which the institution held together, focussing as it did on the revenues and expenditure of the kingdom. The picture presented by the Dialogue of the Exchequer (c. 1176) is that of a comprehensive system which secured the receipt of royal income by providing a thorough audit of accounts, employing processes adapted to the circumstances of the time. It is, in fact, through the description of financial institutions that it is possible to ascertain the forms of revenue held by the crown. Thus, the ingenuity expended on the Exchequer's administrative machinery had as its aim the increase of the king's resources, a subject in which all politically involved churchmen and lawyers were deeply involved. The history of the English fiscal system affords the best known example of continuous financial development in terms of both institutions and methods. Although periods of great upheaval occurred from the time of the Norman Conquest to the beginning of the 20th century, the line of connection is almost entirely unbroken. Perhaps the most revolutionary changes occurred in the 17th century as a result of the Civil War and, later, the Glorious Revolution of 1688; though even then there was no real breach of continuity.

In order to understand the character of English finance in the Middle Ages, it is essential to constantly bear in mind the identification of the king with the state. Although feudalism was, in one aspect, a powerful instrument for the division of political authority, the particular form in which the Conqueror introduced it to England nevertheless enabled the fiscal rights of the crown to be established more strictly than was possible under previous conditions. First, the actual property of the crown was better administered as each royal manor became subject to the new system of accounting. Secondly, the king's various claims or dues took on a more decidedly feudal character, thus receiving stricter legal definition and, thirdly, the higher judicial organizations assisted the expansion of court fees while, above all, the increased authority of the state made the casual receipts (for such they were) from trade more profitable.

Almost at the beginning of the age of parliamentary taxation, one of the older sources of revenue ceased, popular opinion having forced King Edward I to issue in 1290 the Edict of Expulsion which required the Jews to leave the kingdom. It is probable however that owing to the exactions practised on them, Jewish usurers had become progressively less profitable to the Exchequer. Certainly, the kingdom's general resources had so increased that their contribution became less important. The first effects of parliamentary influence on the fiscal system were the abandonment of tallages on towns and the decline of scutage. Taxes on movables were assessed more systematically so that instead of using varying charges, ranging from one fourth to one fortieth, on different classes of goods, the tax was imposed at fixed rates of one fifteenth on counties and one tenth on towns (the "fifteenth and tenth" tax). Commissioners were appointed for each county to ensure stricter assessment and were supplied with special instructions as to taxable and exempt goods. This tax remained in force from 1290 to 1334, albeit the proportions imposed varied over time (e. g. an eighth and a fifth were granted to the king by parliament in 1297, and a tenth and a sixth in 1322). A more general influence was the growing national economy which led to greater activity on the part of the king as administrator which, in turn, increased the state's need for revenue. Although constitutionally the king was expected to live off his revenues, the force of events made this increasingly impracticable. Therefore, from being uncertain and indirect, taxation, especially that on movables, became certain and direct, absorbing older forms over time. Under medieval conditions, the collection of a general property tax presented serious difficulties in that, unsurprisingly, each local and borough authority tried to keep assessments as low as possible. England in the 14th century was not ripe for a system that was found hard to make effective even in more advanced societies. Hence, from 1334 onward, the following method of apportionment was employed, i. e. a fifteenth and tenth was taken as affording a definite sum measured by the yield on the ancient valuation. As this gave between £38,000 and £39,000 in the aggregate, the fifteenth and tenth became for the future practically a fiscal expression for a sum of about £39,000, the total to be divided or apportioned between the several counties, cities and boroughs according to their former payments. This settlement, which remained in force for centuries and affected all later direct taxes, had the great advantages of certainty and adaptability. The inhabitants of any particular town knew their total liability and could distribute it amongst themselves in the manner most convenient to themselves. From the royal standpoint, the arrangement was also satisfactory, for the fifteenth and tenth could be multiplied (e. g. in 1352 three tenths and fifteenths were voted for three years), and supplied a stable revenue for the service of the kingdom. Moreover, the power of regulating the policy of the crown by the bestowal or refusal of grants was naturally agreeable to parliament. Thus, all sections of the nation united in support of the system established in 1334, just before the opening of the Hundred Years' War, in connection with which it was particularly serviceable.

Akin to the above—at any rate in its nature as a direct impost—was the poll or capitation tax. Financial pressure at the close of Edward III's reign (1377) led to the adoption of a tax of fourpence per head on all persons in the kingdom, with mendicants and persons under fourteen years being exempt. This "tallage of groats", which seems to be derived by analogy from the hearth money for Peter's Pence, was followed by the graduated poll taxes of 1379 and 1380, the former ranging in scale from ten marks (£6 13s. 4d.) imposed on royal dukes and viscounts, to six marks on earls, bishops and abbots down to three on barons and to the groat or fourpence on all other persons over sixteen years of age. It proved to be unproductive, only half the estimated yield of £50,000 being obtained. Indeed, the tax of 1380 varied within narrower limits—from twenty shillings to fourpence (or sixty groats to three), with the proviso that the strong should aid the weak. However, this particular tax is chiefly memorable as the occasion that may have been the real causes of the great Peasants' Revolt of 1381. This unlucky association sealed the fate of the poll tax as a fiscal expedient. It was abandoned, with one exception, for nearly three hundred years, its occasional employment in the 17th century not resulting in its permanent revival. Apart from special circumstances, it is plain that the fifteenth and tenth was better suited than the poll tax for the purpose of English finance. The machinery for collection was ready for the former, while special agents had to gather the latter, even from the poorest classes. In fact, the episode of the poll taxes may be regarded as a fortunately unsuccessful attempt to relieve the propertied classes at the expense of the peasants and poorer burghers. Failure in this respect helped in the maintenance of the settlement of direct taxation devised in 1334.

Parallel with the evolution of direct taxation, but decidedly lagging behind, is the progress of indirect taxation. As already mentioned, the right of levying dues on goods entering or leaving English ports belonged from very early times to the king. Whether this power was, in its origin, due to the protection afforded to traders and thus a kind of insurance, or the result of the royal prerogative of pre emption is immaterial for finance. What is established is that the prisage of wine or levy of one cask in ten, and the taking of one fifteenth or one tenth of other commodities was in force. Attempts to impose additional dues were forbidden by Article 41 of Magna Carta which recognized the ancient and just customs. One of the earliest effects of parliamentary influence is manifested in the establishment of duties on wool, woolfells and leather by the first parliament of Edward I. After efforts by the king to gather increased duties, the Confirmation of the Charter (1297) forbade any increases on the amounts fixed in 1275, which were henceforth known as the ancient customs. Another attempt was made to obtain a higher scale of duties by arrangement with merchants. Foreign traders consented to the royal proposals, which comprised duties on wine, wool, hides and wax, plus a general tax of 11/4% on all imports and exports. Thus, in addition to the old custom of half a mark (6s. 8d.) per sack of wool and each three hundred woolfells, as well as one mark (13s. 4d.) per last or load of leather, foreign merchants paid an extra duty (or surtax) of 50% and also 2s. per tun of wine, the so called butlerage. The privileges laid down in the Carta Mercatoria (1303) were probably granted conditionally on the acceptance of these enhanced dues. English merchants, however, successfully resisted them so that the old prisage of wine remained unchanged, at least for them. Despite parliamentary opposition on the ground that they amounted to an infringement of the Great Charter, the new customs remained in force. After being suspended in 1311, they were revived in 1322, confirmed by royal authority in 1328, and finally sanctioned by parliament in the Statute of the Staple (1353). They therefore formed part of the permanent crown revenues from the ports and, together with other, older, customs, became the basis for further development. Just as the old direct taxes were supplemented by, and then absorbed into, the general taxation on movables, so customs, in the strict sense, were followed by subsidies or parliamentary grants. One great source of English wealth in the 14th century was the export of a peculiarly fine wool. Thus, the political circumstances of Edward III's time suggested its manipulation for purposes of both policy and revenue. Sometimes in order to influence the towns of Flanders, the export of wool was absolutely prohibited; at others, varying export duties were imposed not only on wool, but also skins and leather. In the reign's early years, these were settled in agreement with merchant classes. These subsidies were first imposed in 1340, being henceforward granted despite frequent complaints. Thus, in 1348, Parliament objected to an export duty of £2 per sack on wool on the ground that it was in fact a tax on landowners who, as a consequence, received lower prices for their wool. Bargains between the king and merchants were forbidden and were therefore brought under parliamentary control by statutes passed in 1362 and 1371. In 1347, besides special duties on wool, imposts on wine and general goods were increased by agreement at a charge of 2s. per tun on the former and 21/2% on the latter. Indeed, between 1371 and 1376, these were established as grants under the names Tunnage and Poundage, older dues being left intact.

The clergy occupied a peculiar position in that it still claimed the privilege of self taxation so that convocation rather than Parliament voted the tenths imposed on its property. In some instances, far heavier charges (e. g. one third in 1296) were decreed by the king, despite which such taxation became less productive during the 14th century. However, by the close of the reign of Richard II, the results of the transition from feudalism to a parliamentary constitution were almost complete. As regards finance, the most important of these were:
The disappearance or reduction of unimportant feudal dues. The fact that this change occurred at a relatively early date is of special significance for English development. The royal demesne, though it had not yet suffered the losses that later grants were to inflict, had also lost some of its value. In compensation, direct taxation on property became a ready means of supplying the growing requirements of the administration, the mode of levy being reduced to a well recognized form, unsatisfactory experiments such as the poll tax having been withdrawn. The growth of import and export duties through the old and new customs plus subsidies furnished a large part of the requisite funds. In fact, in a little over three hundred years and without violence, the constituent parts of public income had been completely altered in relative value and organization.

The Lancastrian era, extending over two thirds of the 15th century (1399–1471), is noticeable for introducing new forms of direct taxation. The standard tax, the fifteenth and tenth, was failing to meet changing conditions in that, as towns decayed, further allowances had to be given amounting to over 15% (£6,000), which, with other deductions, lowered the yield from fifteenths and tenths to £31,000. To supplement this, a 5% land tax affecting only large land owners was introduced in 1404, a lower rate of 12/3% being applied to the less wealthy in 1411. A house tax made its appearance in 1428 while taxes on knights' fees and other freeholds were also tried. In 1435 and 1450, a graduated income tax was employed. The minimum rate, 21/2%, applied to incomes under £100 (or under £20 in the tax of 1450) rising to 10% on higher incomes, thus evidencing the need for greater revenue. At this time, such methods showed a disposition to adopt foreign models, particularly those of France and Italy. As to indirect taxation, receipts at first seemed to decline so that subsidies were granted for specified fixed terms, albeit that the victory of Agincourt gained a life grant for Henry V. After the enthronement of Edward IV, however, the tenth was literally taken up and voted (1472) by Parliament as a special military provision only. However, it failed to raise the necessary revenue, thus forcing the King to fall back on older forms of grant. Extra taxes on aliens were levied under both Lancastrian and Yorkist rulers but with little profit. The most original contribution of Edward IV's reign to fiscal policy was that of benevolences or payments by wealthy subjects of sums requested by the king. Voluntary in form, these were, in fact, compulsory, and later became one of the great grievances against which Parliament had to struggle. Broader financial issues marked the Tudor period as the era of national monarchies arrived, necessitating the maintenance of greater military and naval forces, as well as more costly machineries of administration. Both external and fiscal policy were affected by the set of ideas that developed into mercantilism while the state of finance reflected the monarch's personal character, particularly in the 16th century, so that decided contrasts could be found. For example, Henry VII carried his desire to replenish the royal treasury depleted by the Wars of the Roses to the point of establishing a "reign of fiscal terror", through the rigid enforcement of feudal incidents rather than appeals for parliamentary aids, and the establishment of a system of "Chamber Finance" run by the staff of his Privy Chamber mirroring the functioning of the slow and inefficient Exchequer. He was followed by the lavish prodigality of Henry VIII while Elizabeth's financial policy was very different from that of either. In addition, the desire for a vigorous foreign policy, the hope of encouraging native industry and the sentiment of retaliation against the trade regulations of other countries interfered with the strict aim of earlier times, namely the obtaining of the largest possible yields. The whole public economy was regarded as existing only for the furtherance of national power. It is this more complex policy together with new influences such as the discovery of America, the Renaissance and the Reformation that gives special interest to the financial problems of the sixteenth century. The first head of public income at the disposal of the sovereign was that of the crown lands. Although these were diminished over time by grants to the King's relatives and favourites, they were simultaneously built up via resumptions and forfeitures. On the whole, though, losses and gains were thought to be in balance by the close of the 14th century. Crown lands were, however, an inelastic form of revenue, and their great impoverishment—begun in the 15th century by the Lancastrian kings, (in particular, Henry VI)—was caused through expenditure pressures, profligacy and wholesale plunder by officials. Edward IV failed to capitalise on the many forfeited estates reverting to the crown during the Wars of the Roses of the 15th century, so that the main opportunity for aggrandizement was afforded by the dissolution of the monasteries and guilds under Henry VIII. As a result, the great mass of property passing into royal possession was in part assigned to nobles and officials, the remainder being distributed during his children's reigns. Thus, the dwindling importance of land and rents to the public revenue continued. Similarly, feudal dues also became subordinate notwithstanding occasional attempts rigorously to enforce them. The degree of personal monarchy exercised by the Tudors, depending as it did on popular support, therefore tended to encourage the collection of dues other than taxation. Similarly restrained was the use of the old right of purveyance, finally abolished in 1660. In the 16th century, the obtaining of additional revenue from crown lands and the royal prerogative was exploited to the full. These were now, however, far less profitable, the prevailing political and social conditions increasingly pointing to the need for direct taxation to become the principal source of revenue raising. Among the many calls for further revenue, the chief included the need to maintain the ever expanding machinery of state and price rises caused by growing supplies of precious metals, the effects of which extended into the 17th century. One form of direct taxation remained from Edward III's reign. Fifteenths and tenths continued to be voted in while attempts to introduce new methods failed. In 1488 a military grant framed on the model of the abortive tax of 1472 yielded only a little over one third of the estimate (£27,000 out of £75,000), the unsatisfactory result preventing further experiments during Henry VII's reign. The foreign policy of Henry VIII, particularly his French expedition with its enormous outlay, accounts for the graduated capitation tax of 1513, which, despite anticipation, yielded even less than the tax of 1488 (£50,000 instead of £160,000). But these failures cleared the way for a more effective form of direct impost, a general tax (1514) on land and goods which was at first modest: 21/2%. However, it was soon raised to 4s. in the pound on land and 2s. 8d. in the pound on goods, a scale evidently devised with reference to the older fifteenth and tenth, which henceforth became subordinate. The subsidy became the established mode of grant under both Tudors and Stuarts, though by degrees it underwent a change similar to that of its predecessor. Under the taxing statutes, elaborate provisions were made for its assessment and collection in order to secure the greatest possible return. However, old habits proved too strong and the subsidy "slipped into the same groove as that of the fifteenth and tenth, in practice becoming a grant of about the same amount as the yield of the preceding subsidy" (Dowell). As a result, each subsidy was approximately £100,000 in the middle of the 16th century, but had fallen to only £80,000 by its close. The parallel vote of the clergy in convocation (which, after 1533, was confirmed by Parliament) amounted to £20,000. Usually, Parliament voted a number of fifteenths and tenths plus subsidies, e. g. Elizabeth's first Parliament voted her two fifteenths and tenths plus a subsidy, or, taking the usual values, £160,000. At times of war, such as the attempted invasion by the Spanish Armada, however, votes were enlarged by granting further fifteenths, tenths and subsidies. The history of the subsidy is instructive as regards its tendency to become inelastic over time, approximating to a fixed sum only. Thus, it followed the path of later medieval taxation forming the—albeit undesigned—model for subsequent land and property taxes. Under the Tudors, port duties—the subsidies on wool, hides and leather, plus tunnage at 3s., and poundage at 5%—were granted to each sovereign for life. These, together with the hereditary customs, supplied considerable revenue for crown's use and no better indication of the increased power and popularity of the monarchy can be found than during this era, the contrast with the suspicious, grudging attitudes of the Plantagenet and Lancastrian parliaments signifying a change in the national sentiment. However, increasing the duty on Malmsey wine (1490) had a retaliatory rather than a fiscal aim, being directed against the Venetians who had previously imposed restrictions on English trade. For the same reason, increases were later imposed on French wine in particular. Although restrictions on imports and exports as well as hostile measures against foreign merchants were matters of economic rather than financial policy, they had the indirect effect of increasing the control exercised at the ports. However, the loss of Calais (1558) dislocated the system of the staple by cutting off a vital centre of customs revenue. It may also have contributed to the changed method of valuing duty. Thus, in 1558, fixed valuations were, for the first time, substituted and set down in a book of rates. More stringent reforms and regulations followed, in particular against smuggling and fraud by corrupt officials. Despite such reforms, however, the cost of collection remained unduly high throughout the Tudor period. As in the 14th century, the subsidy had followed both old and new customs. Similarly in the 16th century, impositions levied by royal prerogative also supplemented the parliamentary subsidy, although their principal employment occurred during the following century. A further, significant indication of the future of indirect taxation was furnished by grants of monopolies to inventors, producers and traders. When these affected important commodities, they operated in the same way as taxes farmed out to collectors and, although crown profits therefrom were small, they effectively enhanced prices and excited discontent, promise of redress finally taking place after the hostile debate of 1601. It may fairly be said that one of the greatest struggles between the Stuart kings and Parliament centred round financial policy. It is beyond dispute that taxation was one sphere of conflict and, from the accession of James I (1603) to the start of the Civil War (1642), the legal basis of indirect taxation was tested for port duties in the Case of Impositions (the John Bates case), whilst that of direct taxation was considered in the even more famous Ship Money case, forever associated with John Hampden. Similarly, Parliament also debated impositions, monopolies, votes of subsidies and the proper application of funds therefrom as well as other related matters. Despite this, however, the overall system showed signs of expanding and adapting to the growing needs of the state. The direct grants of the parliaments of James I far exceeded those of earlier reigns—for example, in 1606 fifteenths and tenths, three lay and four clerical subsidies—although efforts to extend other sources of revenue by exercising the royal prerogative naturally reacted on this spirit of liberality. The last fifteenth and tenth was voted in 1624, from which date this old established form disappeared leaving the subsidy only. In spite of Charles I's high handed policy, five subsidies were voted after the Petition of Right had been accepted, and even the Long Parliament made similar grants. At or near the outbreak of the Civil War, it also granted the king a graduated capitation tax. Other modes of direct taxation were used without parliamentary sanction. The collection of antiquated feudal dues was enforced through the special courts (particularly the Star Chamber) with a rigour long unknown. James had tried the French device of a tariff of honours and he and his son both employed the benevolence until the Petition of Right made such a levy illegal. But by far the most serious innovation was the collection of Ship Money, a course forced on Charles by his determination to rule without Parliament. These writs embodied the ultimate expression of the ingenuity of the King's advisers in the invention of means to enable him to do so. The first writs secured over £100,000, and were followed by five further issues (1634–1639) bringing in an average return of £200,000 or about three lay subsidies. Like the benevolence, Ship Money was declared to be illegal (1641). The contest respecting monopolies settled by Elizabeth's withdrawal was revived under James, finally being stopped by the Statute of Monopolies (1624) which declared such grants to be utterly void. Certain exceptions (as in the case of the soapboiles) permitted the raising of revenue by what was, in fact, a rudimentary excise and plans for a general excise were also discussed, especially as a substitute for feudal dues, though these were not reduced in practice. In the early part of the 17th century, customs steadily increased from £127,000 in 1604 to nearly £500,000 in 1641 due to the growth of English trade, the adoption of new books of rates—1608 and 1635—the fixing of higher valuations and also the inclusion of new commodities, in particular, wine, currants (the subject of controversy in Bates' case) tobacco and sugar. One development was the adoption of the farming system on a larger scale, an evident imitation from France. Distinctions were made between the great, the petty and the sugar farms, and opportunities for gain were afforded to the relevant officials. Constitutionally, the life grant of subsidies, voted in accordance with Tudor usage to James, was withheld from Charles by Parliament because of his overbearing policies. However, between 1628 and 1640, all customs revenue was raised by the use of the prerogative only, an avenue that was finally closed by The Tunnage and Poundage Act 1641 which made such extra parliamentary customs illegal. In short, financial progress from the Conquest to the crisis of the Great Rebellion was marked by an almost complete shift of revenue raising methods. The King had ceased to maintain himself and the royal demesne and the prerogative rights included in feudalism had become totally subordinate, being replaced by direct and indirect taxation.

A new departure in English financial history occurred during the Civil War and the Commonwealth when most feudal systems were abandoned. Thus, this period, together with the Interregnum (1649–1660) may be regarded as marking a new watershed. At the beginning of the struggle, both sides were forced to rely on voluntary contributions. Plate and ornaments were melted down whilst useful commodities were furnished by the adherents of both king and parliament respectively. However, despite the voting in of subsidies and a poll tax, imports were levied only with difficulty so that new methods of collection became necessary. Therefore, in marked contrast to the lax management of former subsidies, direct taxation was, from now on, assessed monthly at a rate fixed from time to time and gathered under strict regulations, thus becoming more systematic and equitable than previously. Despite its origin, this assessment became the model for a later property tax. Its yield for the whole period exceeded £32,000,000 thus proving its importance. Minor contrivances, e. g. the weekly meal tax, indicate various parliamentary difficulties, but were otherwise unimportant. Owing to its control of the sea and the principal ports, Parliament was also able to command customs revenue where it again remodelled duties, abolishing the wool subsidy and readjusting general customs by a new book of rates. A more extensive tariff was adopted in 1656, and various restrictions in harmony with mercantilist ideas of the time were enforced, French wines, silk and wool being exempted from 1649 to 1656. Far more revolutionary in its effects was the introduction of the excise or inland duties on goods, a step which Elizabeth, James I and Charles I had hesitated to take. Beginning (1643) with duties on ale, beer and spirits, it was soon extended to meat, salt and various textiles. Meat and domestic salt were relieved in 1647, and the taxation became definitely established under the administration of commissioners appointed for the purpose. Powers to allow collection by farmers were granted, a bid for both excise and customs amounting to £1,100,000 in 1657. Confiscations of church and royalist lands, feudal charges and special collections helped to make up the total of £83,000,000 raised during the nineteen years of the revolution. Another change was the removal of the Exchequer to Oxford, which nevertheless left the real fiscal machinery at the disposal of those committees that directed the affairs of Parliament. Under Cromwell the Exchequer was re established (1654) in a form suited for such financial change, the office of Treasurer being placed in the hands of commissioners.