The Reforms at the Exchequer, 1250-1270
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RICHARD CASSIDY The Reforms at the Exchequer, 1250-1270 February 2012 iBooks Author Introduction This is a slightly expanded version of a paper I presented at the European History 1150-1550 seminar at the Institute of Historical Research in London, on 17 November 2011. I have added references as endnotes, and a glossary of the more technical terms (shown in bold type). It presents some new financial information, derived from unpublished records, particularly pipe rolls and memoranda rolls, to argue that: Henry III’s financial position, on the eve of the baronial coup of 1258, was healthier than is often assumed; Henry’s financial problems were largely of his own making, particularly his absurd commitment to the Sicilian venture; and the baronial reform regime of 1258-61 achieved some success in improving the administration of the Exchequer, and maintaining the flow of government income. Richard Cassidy, King’s College London 1 iBooks Author The Reforms at the Exchequer, 1250-1270 Richard Cassidy February 2012 2 iBooks Author In 1927, Mabel Mills published a ground-breaking paper, ‘The reforms at the Exchequer (1232-1242)’.[1] Miss Mills was a pioneer in the study of the workings of the Exchequer, and her studies blazed a trail – a trail which very few have since followed. In particular, there has been little detailed study of government finances in the period of baronial reform and rebellion, in the 1250s and 1260s. Perhaps this is due to the fact that so few of the relevant records have been published, despite the survival of a wide range of Exchequer documents. The dates in my title are really just nice round numbers, but 1250 makes a good starting point. In that year, Henry III addressed the sheriffs at the Exchequer; he told them to protect the tenants of the magnates, to prevent the unjust farming of hundreds, and to preserve the king’s rights.[2] Which is really my subject: the treatment of the people who provided the king’s revenue, and the attempts to raise more revenue and to administer it more efficiently. Henry III, from a series of images of English kings, from about 1280-1300. 3 iBooks Author Total government receipts 60,000 50,000 Local expenditure Cash 40,000 30,000 £ 20,000 10,000 0 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1259 Year ending Michaelmas To begin with the big picture, we can go back to the early 1240s, as of the Exchequer being run by John of Crakehall, the reformers’ our baseline. Robert Stacey showed that total government revenue treasurer. (Adrian Jobson recently drew attention to Crakehall’s was then around £33,000 a year. I have used his figures for the important role in the reform administration).[4] 1241-45 columns in the chart above.[3] I used the pipe rolls to calculate total revenue for the final column, 1258-59, the first year of government by the reforming council. It was also the first year 4 iBooks Author Revenue for the year to Michaelmas 1259 was about £25,000, clearly rather less than in the 1240s. Incidentally, those figures help to indicate the meaning of the sums of money in this paper: in the 1250s, a labourer might earn 1½d. a day; £15 a year was enough for a knight. So, although we are now used to government budgets measured in billions of pounds, we have to think in terms of total revenues in the range from £20,000 to £50,000 a year. Such figures also demonstrate just how absurd it was for Henry III to contemplate financing the invasion of Sicily. The Sicilian project would have been an impossible commitment – the Pope was asking for £90,000 even before Henry began to pay for the proposed campaign. Stacey believed that Crown finance was in a state of collapse by 1258: Between 1236 and 1245, the king’s finances were fundamentally sound. It was only the coincidence of rising expenses and declining revenues from the late 1240s on, combined of course with the utter lunacy of the Sicilian obligations, which brought Crown finance to its 1258 state of collapse.[5] Similarly, Nick Barratt suggested that the reformers achieved little by way of improving the situation: But did John de Crakehall and the baronial reformers actually regenerate state finance? The short answer is no, and it could Westminster Abbey, as depicted by Matthew Paris – be argued that this made the situation far worse.[6] Henry III spent an average of some £3,000 a year on building projects, particularly the abbey. 5 iBooks Author There has been little detailed study of finance in the last 25 years or Treasury – it provides an indication of the broad trends in so of Henry III’s reign. The chart below shows the Adventus government income. The chart shows the peaks in revenue payments recorded in the memoranda rolls – these are the cash associated with one-off events, such as the aid for knighting the payments brought to the Treasury twice a year by the sheriffs of king’s son in 1254. You can also see a tendency for revenue to fall the counties and the representatives of many boroughs.[7] So far as in the late 1250s, and to collapse in the mid-1260s, as you would I know, this is the only series of data yet calculated to cover the expect at a time of civil war, when the Exchequer briefly ceased whole period. Although the Adventus represented only a part of working. total revenue – perhaps 30 per cent of all the cash received by the Adventus cash payments from counties and boroughs 8,000 6,000 4,000 £ per year 2,000 0 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 Total for Adventus of Easter and Michaelmas each year 6 iBooks Author The fall in revenue in the 1250s, compared to the 1240s, may seem odd. Henry’s government was notoriously squeezing the people hard throughout this period. The squeeze can be seen in many Revenue from the eyres areas of government activity, particularly the eyres (the judicial visitations to the counties), the exploitation of the royal demesne, £18,698 and the activities of the sheriffs in the counties. £17,859 The eyres were used as a money-raising device, imposing heavy penalties, particularly the collective fines such as murdrum and beaupleder fines. The eyres contributed up to £7,000 in just one year, 1257.[8] The manors of the royal demesne were nearly all farmed out, mostly to their inhabitants, and there were repeated attempts to raise the level of the farm, with major surveys and revaluations in 1251 and 1255. In the 1251 survey by the abbot of Pershore, £10,153 fourteen manors and customary payments were assigned new values. The total farm, previously £670, was increased to £1,028, a substantial increase for the tenants of the royal manors to find.[9] The chart shows government revenue from the amercements imposed by the eyres, indicating the steep rise in their contribution to royal income (and thus in the amounts demanded from the of 1234-36 counties). 32 eyres, visitation 32 eyres, 33 eyres, visitation of 1245-49 33 eyres, visitation of 1252-58 34 eyres, Figures for the 1230s and 1240s were calculated by C.A.F. Meekings. I have calculated figures for the 1250s on the same basis, using the lump sum payments recorded in the pipe rolls. 1230s 1240s 1250s 7 iBooks Author Above all, there were continual increases in the revenue which sheriffs were expected to raise from the customary sources in the counties. This revenue might be labelled as farm, profit or Sheriffs’ profit targets increment, but it all came out of the same pot: the proceeds of 5,000 county and hundred courts, and the traditional impositions such £2,978 as view of frankpledge, hidage, wardpenny and sheriff’s aid. At £2,726 the beginning of the 1240s, after the demesne manors were farmed 4,000 out, the sheriffs were expected to produce £3,800 a year. By the £1,703 beginning of the 1250s, this had risen to £4,500. By 1257, just before the reform movement, it was £4,700.[10] 3,000 All this was bad enough for the people in the counties who had to Profit and attend the eyres and the county courts, and for the tenants of the £ increment demesne manors. In addition, it seems that some of the sheriffs, 2,000 bailiffs and other local officials were particularly cruel and £2,122 oppressive. The sheriffs were not only being pressed to deliver £1,727 £1,712 more to the Treasury; they were also enriching themselves. Net county 1,000 farm 0 1242 1251 1257 Year to Michaelmas The sheriffs were usually appointed as farmers – that is, they were expected to produce a fixed annual sum, the farm of the county, plus additional amounts called profit or increment. Over the years, the levels of profit rose markedly. The sheriffs kept for themselves any amounts they collected over and above the agreed levels of farm and profit. 8 iBooks Author Henry had expressed his good intentions to the sheriffs in 1250, and went through the ritual of confirming Magna Carta in 1253. He should have known about the situation in the counties. Henry’s wife, Eleanor of Provence, and brother, Richard of Cornwall, wrote to him in 1254: Many are complaining that the charters are not being observed by your sheriffs and other officials, as they should be observed.