3698794variorium Publishing Byzantium, Latin Romania and The Mediterranean (2001) PDF

Taxation, Warfare, and the Early Fourteenth Century 'Crisis' in the North: Cumberland Lay
Subsidies, 1332-1348
Author(s): Chris Briggs
Source: The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Nov., 2005), pp. 639-672
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Economic History Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3698794
Accessed: 07-07-2015 12:16 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and Economic History Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Economic
History Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 197.37.79.163 on Tue, 07 Jul 2015 12:16:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Economic History Review, LVIII, 4 (2005), pp. 639-672
the
Taxation, warfare, and
early
in
the
'crisis'
fourteenth century
north:
Cumberland lay
subsidies,
1332-13481
By CHRIS BRIGGS
in
and symptoms of England's economic problems

the first
Thehalfcauses
of the fourteenth century were unusually varied and complex. It
is generally agreed that in the three or four decades preceding the Black
Death of 1348-9, roughly two centuries of demographic and economic
growth came to an end. Yet in seeking to chart trends before the plague
more closely, and to identify their key determinants, commentators have
found it much harder to reach consensus. The effects of population pressure, 'feudal' social relations, and environmental disaster have been among
the issues given greatest emphasis.2 War, however, stands out as a root cause
of many features of the 'crisis' of this period. Although in the later 1330s
and 1340s in particular the wider repercussions of war in Scotland and
France were profound, most English localities felt them only indirectly
through heavy taxation and the disruption of overseas trade. By contrast,
in the northern counties of Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland,
Durham, and, on occasion, Lancashire and Yorkshire, Anglo-Scottish warfare was also experienced at first hand as a direct 'shock' to the economy.
Clearly, the killing, destruction, and plunder involved in the characteristic
cross-border raiding of this conflict had the potential to act as prime mover
in economic dislocation across a large area of the kingdom. In the older
historiography of the fourteenth century borders, warfare did indeed tend
to feature as the cardinal fact in the fortunes of the region, its effects seen
as both geographically widespread and uniform over time.3 More recently,
however, work by Lomas and McNamee, building on an approach pioneered by Kershaw, has used the available local series of estate accounts to
undertake increasingly sophisticated explorations of the consequences of
' Research for this article was funded by
Trinity College, Cambridge, and the British Academy. I thank
Adam Green for his expert help, and Mark Bailey, John Hatcher, Leigh Shaw-Taylor, Paul Warde, and
anonymous referees for comments on earlier drafts. I am grateful to Philip Stickler, of the Cartographic
Unit, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, for drawing the maps. The author bears sole
responsibility for any errors.
2 Campbell, ed., Before the Black Death; Hatcher and Bailey, Modelling the middle ages.
3 For example, Bouch, Prelates and people, pp. 63-8; VCH Cumberland,II, pp. 254-68; Miller, Warin
the north.
? Economic History Society 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
640
CHRISBRIGGS
border warfare.4This work reaches revisionist conclusions, emphasizing the

narrowness of the active war zone, and the importance of developments
unconnected with warfare. In particular, it makes efforts to disentangle the
impact of the agrarian crisis of 1315-22 from the results of contemporary
Scottish depredations. It also seeks to distinguish the long- and short-term
effects of raiding, pointing to the speedy recovery achieved in many places.
The estate accounts detailing changes in rents and tithes used by Lomas
and McNamee to argue for the complexities of the border situation are
thinly scattered, however, and relate almost exclusively to Durham Priory
lands located in northeastern England. Like their predecessors, therefore,
recent historians of border warfare have been obliged to rely most heavily
on the records of English central government. Perhaps because of their more
even geographical coverage, the central records continue to form the major
part of the foundation for explorations of the relationship between warfare
and economic catastrophe in the region.
In particular, the crown's practice of allowing the northern counties
exemptions and concessions with respect to lay taxation because of Scottish
attacks remains a very widely cited indicator of the areas affected by war
and the seriousness of its impact. It is true that in his account of raids
between 1306 and 1328, McNamee was largely able to sideline taxation
evidence in favour of estate documentation that permits the effects of war
to be examined under the microscope.Yet for periods and parts of the north
where such local estate evidence is unavailable, some reliance on evidence
of success or failure in paying tax is inevitable when the economic impact
of warfare is under consideration. It is not surprising, for example, that
taxation material figures so prominently in Summerson's account of Carlisle
and the western part of the border region in the 1330s and 1340s.5 Yet in
view of the weight that has traditionally (and understandably) been placed
on the taxation evidence, it is striking that there has not been more critical
research specifically focused on the negotiations and processes involved in
levying subsidies in the north in the reigns of the three Edwards. A short
paper published almost a century ago by the author of the classic work on
the medieval lay subsidies remains the most substantial treatment of the
subject.6 Most historians have been content to use taxation data after noting
simply that claims of inability to contribute to royal levies are likely to be
exaggerated, but without probing further into the taxation process itself.
This study carries out such an investigation into the process of taxing the
north as part of a consideration of an unusually rich series of Cumberland
4 McNamee, Warsof the Bruces, pp. 72-165; Lomas, North-East England, pp. 54-74; Lomas, 'Impact
of border warfare'; Kershaw, Bolton Priory; Kershaw, 'A note'; see also Tuck, 'War and society'.
5 Summerson, Medieval Carlisle,I,
pp. 263-95; for taxation evidence on the impact of later fourteenth
century warfare, see Macdonald, Borderbloodshed,pp. 95, 114-15, 142; Winchester, Landscape,pp. 44-7,
and Kershaw, 'A note', use taxation evidence in addition to estate records to assess the impact of warfare;
Campbell, 'North-South dichotomies', pp. 157, 161, largely attributes the decline between 1334 and
1524-5 in the northern counties' share of national taxable wealth to the ongoing effects of warfare.
6
Willard, 'Scotch raids'.
? EconomicHistory Society 2005
CUMBERLAND LAY SUBSIDIES, 1332-1348
641
taxation records survivingfor the period 1332-48, materialwhich at first

glance appearsto hold out the prospect of providingvaluableinsights into
the economic impact of warfare.The article asks how far the pattern of
exemptionssecuredand paymentsmade by the county and its communities
at this time can be regardedas a faithful reflection of the destruction of
movablepropertyby raidingparties.7
In assessing the Cumberlandtaxation evidence, it is necessary to take
account of the argumentsof the 'revisionists'referredto above,which stress
that levels of taxablewealth were determinednot only by the direct effects
of war but also by its indirect consequences, such as depopulationstimulated by fear of attack, and by other economic difficultiesshared with the
rest of England. Populationand economic resourcesare naturallyof great
importancein determiningtaxationrevenue,and in spite of the difficulties
they pose, it is clearlyappropriateto turn to taxationsourceswhen attempting to gauge changesin a region affectedby war,especiallywhen little other
evidence is available.However,taxationwas also an invariablycontentious
politicalissue in late medievalEngland,and this was perhapsespeciallytrue
in the fourteenth century border counties. As Macdonald has argued, an
importantaspect of the 'alienation'that has been seen as characteristicof
fourteenthcenturybordersociety was resentmentof interferenceby central
governmentin the region. One focus of this hostility to central authority
lay in concerns about the legitimacy of taxing a war zone while failing to
provide adequatelyfor the defence of the kingdom.When evaluatingthe
process of taxationin Cumberlandand the recordsit generated,therefore,
it is also necessaryto considerthe role of local attitudesto the fiscal claims
of a distant government.8
I
The county of Cumberlandwas amongthe most heavilyaffectedby Scottish
incursions in the first half of the fourteenth century.The series of major
raids launchedby King Robert I, especiallyduringhis ascendancyafterthe
battle of Bannockburn (1314), resulted in the complete exemption of
the county from each of the six lay subsidies levied from 1313 to 1327.9
The decision to exempt Cumberlandand other counties from taxation in
this period is traditionallyseen as recognition of their impoverishment
following Scottish attacks.1"During that phase of the war, which was
and clerical taxes,
7 This article is restricted to lay subsidies (taxes on movables). Lay taxes in kind,
are ignored.
8 For resentment of failure to defend the north during Edward II's reign, see McNamee, 'Robert
Bruce', p. 83, and McNamee, Wars of the Bruces, p. 123; for 'alienation' and taxation in the later
fourteenth century, Macdonald, Borderbloodshed,pp. 196-241.
Robert's
9 Willard, Parliamentarytaxes, pp. 122-5; Jenks, 'Lay subsidies', pp. 31-9; for the impact of
campaigns, see McNamee, Warsof the Bruces, and Scammell, 'Robert I'.
"0For example, Willard, 'Scotch raids', pp. 238-9; Willard, 'Taxes upon movables', p. 318; Miller,
Warin the north, p. 6; Hadwin, 'Lay subsidies', p. 208, n. 50.
? Economic
HistorySociety2005
642
CHRISBRIGGS
brought to a close by the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton (1328), the

last raid to affect Cumberland occurred in 1327." This article focuses on
the period between the recommencement of Anglo-Scottish hostilities in
1332 and the battle of Neville's Cross of October 1346. Raiding was less
intense in these years than it had been under Edward II, and the government
sought to draw Cumberland and the other northern counties back into the
lay taxation system. This policy generated a series of different strategies
designed to cope with the problem of taxing movables in a county where
crops, livestock, and other goods were periodically removed or destroyed
by invaders. As a result of this experimentation, taxation documentation
survives from this period in relative abundance, providing an opportunity
to study changing wealth levels across an entire county.
Table 1 shows the taxation assessment payable by Cumberland to lay
subsidies between 1332 and 1340, the year in which the third instalment
of the triennial subsidy of 1337 was collected. (In this article the three years
of the 1337 subsidy are referred to as 1337 (1), 1337 (2), and 1337 (3),
and the first and second years of the biennial subsidies of 1344 and 1346
are referred to as 1344 (1), 1344 (2), 1346 (1), and 1346 (2).) Table 1 also
shows the contributions of each of the county's nine taxation divisions
(wards and liberties) towards the total assessments. The 'county rolls' that
give the assessments are discussed fully in section II below. However, the
assessments represent only what the government hoped to collect in each
tax, not the actual sums raised.12To obtain figures on yield it is necessary
to consult the enrolled lay subsidy accounts, which detail the net sums
received from the Cumberland chief taxers and collectors after due allowances had been made to them for their expenses and for other purposes.13
Figures from the enrolled accounts are also included in table 1. As table 1
shows, 1332 was the only year showing any significant debt of uncollected
tax outstanding at the point when the taxers and collectors presented their
final account before the exchequer.14
Clearly, however, the taxation revenue produced by Cumberland declined
substantially in this period, as the yield from 1337 (3) represented only 45
per cent of that of 1336, which was the maximum in these years. If one
adopts the view that developments in taxation of the border counties are
first and foremost a reflection of the direct impact of war, then table 1 is
likely to be interpreted as evidence of the ongoing effects of raids severe
enough to be capable of reducing the county's taxable wealth by more than
half in around four years. Certainly Willard, the only historian to date to
consider the drop in Cumberland's tax assessment in the later 1330s, viewed
the evidence solely in terms of the destruction of property through war.This
"
McNamee, Warsof the Bruces, pp. 112, 241.

Ormrod, 'Crown and the English economy', pp. 151-2.
13 National Archives (hereafter NA), E 359/14, mm. 19d, 21d, 22d, 24, 26d, 29d-30, 32, 33, 34d, 36d.
14Taxers' debts outstanding at the time of the enrolled account were transferred to the pipe roll; no
attempt has been made to follow up debts in that source.
12
i
Table 1.
F;?
t.
Taxationdivisions
(wards and liberties)
1336
(W'minstergrant)
1332
Leath w
Cumberland w
Eskdale w
Allerdale w
Cockermouth L
Egremont L
L of prior of Carlisle
L of bishop of Carlisle
Penrith L
98
85
54
120
20
39
6
"35
77
14
13
5
5
7
10
18
5
13
Total assessment
538
14
Yield ('in the treasury')

Taxers' expenses
Debt outstanding
Excess payment
Cumberlandlay subsidy assessmentsand yields, 1332-1
500
13
0
6
0
b26
1336
(Nott'ham grant)
1
13
12
5
7
10
11
12
13
53/4
23/4
01/4
101/2
23/4
53/4
91/4
100
85
54
120
20
39
7
48
77
1'/2
91/4
100
85
54
120
20
39
7
48
77
1
13
12
5
7
10
11
12
13
554
63/4
554
13/4
2'/2
21/2
101/2
63/4
11'/4
0
8
13
-
555
10
C11
63/4
111/4
63/4
0
0
0
0
-
91/4
527
10
0
-
3
0
13
-
1337 (1)
53/4
75
44
32
79
20
39
6
63/4
1'/2
d31
91/4
42
0
3
11
11
0
10
3
11
1
63/4
370
13
13/4
2
0
360
10
13
0
2
0
23/4
01/4
10'/2
63/4
111/4
11/4
53/4
33/4
81/4
0
111/4
01/4
41/4
2'/2
71/4
01/4
Notes:a assessmentfor Caldecotesillegiblein E 179/90/2, 1336 figureused to reachtotalfor liberty.b includes13s. 4d. owingfromtax
to the accountfor 1336 Nottinghamsubsidy;includes 13s. 4d. creditedto the taxersbecausethe hospitalof St Nicholas,Carlislewa
libertyin E 179/90/6,but a combinedfigurefor all taxationunits taxed at a tenth can be derivedfrom E 359/14 m. 26d, which allo
the libertytaxedat a fifteenth).e datain E 179/90/7incomplete,wardassessmentestimatedas the differencebetweentotal of otherd
22 incomplete,libertyassessmentestimatedas the differencebetweentotal of other divisionsand countytotal.
Sources:1332: NA, E 179/90/2 (Steel, ed., Cumberland
lay subsidy);1336: E 179/90/3 and E 179/90/4 (Glasscock,Lay subsidy
E 179/90/7;1337 (3): E 179/90/10 and E 179/90/22;NA, E 359/14 mm. 19d, 21d, 22d, 24, 26d, 29d-30.
644
CHRISBRIGGS
approach was in tune with the historiography of the border economy current
at the time."
In what follows, the relationship between cross-border conflict and the
ability to pay tax is subjected to closer scrutiny. This is done, first, by
establishing the sequence of events in the re-incorporation of Cumberland
into the lay taxation system between 1332 and 1346 (section II). Then, in
sections III to V, attention is focused on the records of the triennial subsidy
of 1337. In section III, consideration is given to the 'fit' between, on one
hand, the changing taxation yields of different parts of the county over the
three years of the subsidy, and, on the other, what is known of the timing
of Scottish raids and the areas they affected. Section IV analyses the character and patterns of the tax charges imposed on the county's taxation units
(the taxpaying settlements within each taxation division), and in section V,
attention is given to the patterns of tax charges on individual taxpayers.
Section VI concentrates on the taxation evidence for raids in 1345 and 1346.
II
Prior to 1334, the system used to tax the movable property of English
laypeople involved the valuation of livestock, grain, and other movable
goods by local men (subtaxers) working under the direction of chief taxers
appointed for each county. The tax charge paid by each household head
represented a specified fraction of that person's total wealth valuation; the
proportion taken as tax changed from one subsidy to the next. From 1294,
rural areas were commonly taxed at a different rate from urban areas and
ancient demesne.16 In most subsidies, exemption was permitted for those
with goods below a minimum threshold, and certain basic items necessary
for livelihood were formally excluded from the valuations.
In carrying out their work, the subtaxers produced 'local rolls' listing and
valuing the movable property from which individuals' tax charges were
derived, and from these the chief taxers drew up 'county rolls' in which the
names of taxpayers, their valuations, and charges were summarized. As
research by the many historians of these valuable records demonstrates,
there was considerable local variation in the conscientiousness with which
the subtaxers worked. By permitting undervaluation, conventional valuation, and ignoring sections of the taxpaying population, the subtaxers, to
differing degrees, created a body of evidence whose reliability and usefulness
continues to be debated." The subtaxers' work also gave rise to contemporary charges of corruption, and it was largely as a result of these that in
"5Willard, 'Scotch raids', pp. 241-2 (Willard did not compare assessment and yield).
16All the Cumberland subsidies discussed here were fifteenths and tenths. Fifteen taxation units (all
within the liberty of the bishop of Carlisle and Penrith liberty) were taxed at a tenth, out of a county
total of around 180 units.
17 Stanley, 'Tax returns'; Franklin, 'Gloucestershire's medieval taxpayers'; Cromarty and Cromarty,
eds., Wealthof Shrewsbury,pp. 20-27, Crowley, ed., Wiltshiretax list, pp. xvi-xviii.
C EconomicHistory Society 2005
645
1334 a crucial change took place in the administration of the lay subsidies.'
Rather than overseeing the usual process of assessment, the chief taxers
appointed to collect the fifteenth and tenth of 1334 were instructed to
collect the same sums from each taxation unit as had been levied in 1332.
The sums collected in 1334 became fixed quotas paid thereafter by every
taxation unit towards each new grant of subsidy. The task of determining
the individual taxpayer contributions came to be settled within the communities themselves, and, as a consequence, very few tax lists providing personal names and individual payments survive after 1334.
However, not all places paid exactly the same amounts towards each grant
of a fifteenth and tenth after 1334 as they had in that year, and reductions
and remissions were granted from time to time in response to economic
hardships.'9 In the period following the adoption of the quota system special
arrangements were made regarding the lay subsidy contributions of
Cumberland in response to reports of the damaging effects of cross-border
raids.
As already noted, Cumberland contributed nothing to the subsidies levied
from 1313 to 1327. In 1332, however, Cumberland was successfully taxed
on the same basis as other counties. A detailed county roll survives, giving
taxpayers' names, overall valuations of their goods and tax charges.20
However, Cumberland was exempted from the fifteenth and tenth
granted in September 1334, and although initially chief taxers were
appointed for the county, their names were later removed from the patent
rolls.21 It is not entirely clear why it was decided that Cumberland was not
required to make a payment in 1334. No evidence survives of a major raid
deep into Cumberland in the years 1332-4, and it seems unlikely that the
attack of March 1333 affected more than a relatively small portion of the
county, or that substantial recovery from this raid had not taken place by
the time parliament granted the subsidy around 18 months later (for evidence of all known raids 1332-46, see table 2). Although the reason for this
suspension of payments is uncertain, it seems most likely that in 1334 a
policy of total exemption for Cumberland was employed in a situation where
at most only part of the county was incapable of making a contribution
because of depredations. This policy was a continuation of the practice
current under Edward II, whereby the government's response to reports of
war damage was the simple solution of exemption of the entire county from
taxation, the difference being of course that the sufferings of the county as
a result of raids were clearly much greater in the earlier period than was the
case in 1332-4.
Willard, Parliamentary taxes, pp. 11-13; Glasscock, Lay subsidy of 1334, pp. xv-xvii.
Jurkowski, Smith, and Crook, Lay taxes, p. xxxiv.
20 NA, E 179/90/2, printed but omitting all fractions of a
penny and the individual tax charges in
Steel, ed., Cumberlandlay subsidy;for a discussion of this roll, see Fraser, 'Cumberland and Westmorland
lay subsidies'.
21 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1334-8, pp. 38-40.
18
19
C Economic
HistorySociety2005
646
CHRISBRIGGS
Table 2.
Scottish raids affecting Cumberland,1332-46

Area affected,duration
Date
1
2
1333 March 23
1337 August
3
4
1337 mid-October
1338
1340
1345 October-November
7
8
9
1346 Easter
1346 July 24
1346 October 7
Gilsland (Eskdale ward) via Carlisle; returning following day

Arthuret (Eskdale ward) and eastwards, burning 'about twenty
villages, taking prisoners and an immense number of cattle'; three
days. Met with resistance from men-at-arms
Rose via Carlisle, then Allerdale and Copeland (see text); three days
Allerdale, Cumberland, and Eskdale wards, plus Carlisle city with its
parishes of St Mary and St Cuthbert
Cumberland and Eskdale wards, plus Carlisle city with its parishes of
St Mary and St Cuthbert
Gilsland and Penrith with adjoining villages via Carlisle; inquisition
suggests two separate raids, the second lasting six days
Carlisle
Cumberland, the 'hills of Derwent and the moor of Alston'
Liddel and Lanercost Priory (Eskdale ward); inquisition says four
days
Notes:for wardsand liberties,see map 1.
Sources: Maxwell, ed., Lanercost,pp. 277 (1), 305 (2), 307-8 (3), 325-6 (6), 326 (8), 330-2 (9); NA, E 179/90/9 (4
and 5); Cal. Inqu. Miscellaneous,II p. 515 (6, 8 and 9); Nicholson, Scotland, p. 145 (7). See also Rogers, Warcruel and
sharp, pp. 61-2 (1); Summerson, Medieval Carlisle, I, pp. 267-8 (4 and 5), 272-3 (6), 278 (7) (suggests a small-scale
strike only), 278-9 (8); Hewitt, Organisation, pp. 126-9 (6); Winchester, Landscape, pp. 45-6 (6 and 8); Rogers,
'Scottish invasion', p. 56 (9). All figures in parentheses refer to number of raid in table 2.
The treatment of Cumberland in relation to the next two grants of a

fifteenth and tenth, those made at Westminster in March 1336 and at
Nottingham in September 1336, shows a switching between several different strategies for coping with the problem of war damage. Following the
first grant of this year, a separate commission and form of taxation
was issued to the chief taxers of Cumberland, Northumberland, and
Westmorland, which was different from the instructions to other counties.
The special form directed subtaxers to be selected from the towns (the
taxation units) to assess and levy the tax, while the chief taxers would check
their work and cause rolls of taxation (that is, county rolls) to be made based
on the subtaxers' local rolls.22This, in other words, was the general form of
taxation in use throughout the country from 1297 to 1332, until it was
abandoned in 1334 with the change to a quota system. The issuing of
separate instructions for Cumberland, Northumberland, and Westmorland
may in part have been a result of their exemption from the 1334 tax, which
meant that in 1336 no rolls were available to their chief taxers showing
quotas under the previous grant.
However, these special instructions were quickly overturned by an order
simply to levy the first subsidy of 1336 on the basis of the 1332 returns,
and the sums paid towards the subsidies of 1332 and 1336 were largely
identical.23 Like their counterparts elsewhere, the chief taxers of
22
Cal. Fine Rolls, 1327-37, p. 487 (24 May 1336).

Ibid., 1327-37, p. 502 (28 May 1336); NA, E 179/90/3 and E 179/90/4, used by Glasscock, Lay
subsidy of 1334, pp. 36-41, give the sums paid towards the two 1336 subsidies.
23
647
Cumberland in 1336 simply used the last available tax list to make the new
assessments. The fact that the county assessment was approximately ?16
higher in 1336 than in 1332 is largely down to the re-introduction of the
city of Carlisle, which was not taxed in the earlier year.24
Yet as well as issuing and subsequently withdrawing a special form of
taxation, the government also contemplated permitting a temporary delay
in Cumberland's payments in the summer of 1336. It is clear that the county
was pressing at this time for a lightening of its lay subsidy burden. In response
to a request of the people of Cumberland that the king consider the depression of their state and the damage they had suffered by the frequent invasions
of the Scots, in July 1336 a royal order was made to supersede the levying
of the Westminster subsidy in Cumberland until Michaelmas next.25 It is
not unreasonable to speculate that this was a compromise position, and that
the county had been aiming for a complete exemption like that secured in
1334. However, the concession made in July was quickly revoked in August
in an order stating that the taxation of the county should go ahead without
delay.26In spite of its claims of poverty, the county successfully contributed
to the two subsidies of 1336, even yielding a small surplus over and above
the assessment total towards the Westminster subsidy.
The triennial subsidy of 1337 marked a further shift in the approach to
levying taxes on movables in Cumberland. In late 1337, after the grant of
the triennial subsidy of that year, the county petitioned that a major incursion by the Scots meant it was unable to contribute as much as it might
have done beforehand (for the raid, see table 2). In response to this, the
county's chief taxers were ordered in March 1338 to carry out a reassessment under the special form of taxation abandoned in 1336, a process that
was repeated for the remaining years of the 1337 subsidy.27The second and
third reassessments may have been necessary because of further raids in
1338 and 1340, although, as will be suggested below, there is doubt about
the reliability of the evidence for those raids. The special treatment of
Cumberland in the 1337 subsidy resulted in the survival of three detailed
county rolls containing taxpayers' names and charges rather than simply the
quotas from each taxation unit, a rarity after 1334.28 Instead of resorting to
total exemption for the county in response to economic damage that may
24 NA, E 359/14, m. 19d. Summerson, Medieval Carlisle, I, pp. 265, 268 suggests the city of Carlisle
was also pardoned from the 1336 Westminster subsidy, but the lack of any reference to this in the
enrolled account, plus Carlisle's inclusion in E 179/90/3, indicates this was not the case.
25 Cal. Close Rolls, 1333-7, p. 692 (12 July 1336).
26 Ibid., 1333-7, pp. 604-5 (20 August 1336).
27 Commission of October 1337: Cal. Fine Rolls, 1337-47, pp. 50-2; instructions of 4 March 1338
requiring chief taxers to make fresh assessments in Cumberland according to the form of 1336: ibid.,
1337-47, p. 69 and Willard, 'Scotch raids', pp. 241-2; similar instructions of 5 October 1338 and 20
October 1339 to reassess in 1337 (2) and 1337 (3): Cal. Fine Rolls, 1337-47, pp. 95, 148.
28NA, E 179/90/6, E 179/90/7 and E 179/90/22, relating to 1337 (1), 1337 (2) and 1337 (3)
respectively. I am grateful to Robin Glasscock for drawing my attention to these documents. At least
one membrane is missing from E 179/90/6; parts of E 179/90/22 are illegible. Assessments for Eskdale
ward in 1337 (2) are located in E 179/90/22 m.5.
648
CHRIS BRIGGS
have been geographically restricted, it appears that in the 1337 subsidy the
aim of the crown was to secure a sum, albeit reduced, from the county.
However, as sections IV and V argue, although this process of reassessment
was probably intended to provide sensitivity to variations in damage caused
by raids, it was as vulnerable to manipulation at the local level as the system
abandoned for most of the country in 1334 had been.
Probably as a result of this, when the next lay subsidy was granted in
1344 the practice of issuing a separate form of taxation to Cumberland's
chief taxers was abandoned. For the 1344 subsidy, the county was taxed in
the same way as other counties, that is, on the basis of the last fifteenth and
tenth granted.29 In 1344, Cumberland was assessed for the same sum as it
had been in 1337 (3): ?249 4s. 5'/4d.30The sum collected towards the 1344
subsidy formed the county quota due thereafter whenever a fifteenth and
tenth was granted.3' Cumberland had now fallen into line with most other
counties by adopting fixed charges on the county as a whole and on each
of its taxation units. From 1344, when a raid took place, inquisitions were
appointed to establish which communities had been affected and could
justifiably be excused payment. Petitions for relief were made by the county
in response to the raids of October 1345, July 1346, and October 1346.
Inquisitions were ordered to assess the damage from these attacks, resulting
in numerous towns and villages gaining pardon from 1344 (2) and both
years of the 1346 subsidy.32
Between 1332 and 1346, therefore, several different approaches were
pursued in the drive to secure lay subsidy revenue from Cumberland. There
were two distinct phases in this effort. In the first phase, lasting from 1332
to 1340 (the year in which the assessment and collection of 1337 (3) was
completed), wholesale exemption followed by reassessment of the entire
county was employed in order to allow for the consequences of war damage.
By contrast, in the second phase (1344-8) a fixed county quota was
accepted, and individual taxation units were exempted whenever damage
from attacks was deemed to justify it. A brief discussion of these localized
exemptions from a fixed tax quota, and their value as evidence for the direct
economic impact of war, is reserved for section VI below.
At this stage, however, some verdict is required regarding the evolution
of strategies for taxing the county between 1332 and 1340. Clearly, the
obstacles encountered in re-introducing lay subsidies to Cumberland had a
great deal to do with actual and threatened attacks and their economic
repercussions. On the other hand, it is clear that few, if any, of the incursions
of 1332-46 were on the same scale as those experienced during Edward II's
reign. The period 1332-40 can also be seen as one in which the taxpayers
of Cumberland sought to take advantage of the government's predicament
29
Cal. Fine Rolls, 1337-47, pp. 391-3.

Scribal changes to the heading of NA, E 179/90/10, the duplicate county roll for 1337 (3), show
that it was used to assess 1344 (1). Several membranes are missing from E 179/90/10.
31 Willard, 'Scotch raids', p. 242.
32
Section VI below.
30
649
as it tried to accommodate the twin aims of securing tax revenue from the
county while making some allowance for the plight of a region situated in
a war zone. It is clear the county achieved some notable victories towards
this end. By 1344, Cumberland's tax burden under the fifteenths and tenths
had become permanently set at less than half its 1336 level. Also, a complete
exemption from taxation had been secured in 1334. The reduction in the
county quota reflects, at least in part, the government's acceptance that it
was more realistic to settle for a relatively small payment that could be
reliably collected, rather than trying simultaneously to provide sensitivity to
the effects of raids and to maximize revenue using repeated reassessment.
The latter strategy had failed, because of the reluctance of local people to
implement the reassessment properly in the 1337 subsidy, a development
described in sections IV and V below. In 1334, the county was able to obtain
a wholesale exemption of a type that had been routine in Edward II's reign,
even though the raiding activity justifying it in 1334 was relatively small
scale. In 1336, the crown came close to agreeing to a delay in payment; that
the county's claims of poverty were overstated at this time is suggested by
the successful collection of the two 1336 subsidies.
III
The second stage in evaluating the effects of border warfare on contributions to lay taxation involves studying the payments made between 1332
and 1340 by different parts of the county alongside information about the
timing and spatial extent of raiding activity.The aim is to establish whether
or not there was a correlation between changes in an area's taxation contributions and the degree to which it suffered under attacks from the north.
This question can only be addressed in a rough and ready fashion, because
of a shortage of independent information about the reach, duration,
and effects of raids. Nonetheless, the findings are revealing as they show
that the 'fit' between a locality's success in paying tax and its experience
of raiding was not always close. This suggests that the reasons behind
Cumberland's dwindling importance as a source of lay subsidy revenue were
complex, involving factors other than the destruction or removal of property
through warfare.
The first incursion to be considered, and probably the most significant
of the period 1332-40, is the attack of October 1337 that occurred soon
after the granting of the triennial subsidy. One is forced to treat the Lanercost chronicler's description of this raid as a reliable account against which
to compare the taxation data.33The raid lasted only three days, and proceeded first due south and then southwest across the Solway plain. The
raiders skirted the eastern side of Carlisle, and on the first day headed for
the bishop of Carlisle's manor of Rose about ten miles south of the city; as
the chronicler describes it, 'they destroyed that place, and everything else
33 Maxwell,ed., Lanercost,pp.
307-8.
650
CHRIS BRIGGS
i~U
War
S Keswick
a
0
oAera
o
CeCockerrmouth
o
0 0ooo o
o 0 0 00
Emo
o0
*Carlise
o
o*
Xo
, Penn-
Lb
O
routeof
Approximate
raidof October1337
EgremontOO
xt0l
0nO~CoO
Allerdale Ward
Cockermouth
Ward
Cumberland
Liberty
O0
O EgremontLiberty
0 EskdaleWard
0
O
Ward
* Leath
A Libertyof theBishopof Carlisle
Libertyof the Priorof Carlisle
A Libertyof Penrith
0
20
15
10
IA
km
Map 1. Cumberlandlay subsidytaxation units and approximaterouteof raid of

October1337
Sources: NA, E 179/90/6; Glasscock, Lay subsidy;Maxwell, ed., Lanercost,pp. 307-8.
on their march, with fire'. On the next day, 'the Scots burnt the villages
throughout Allerdale, and detached part of their force against Copeland to
lift cattle'. On the third day, lords Percy and Neville and their retinues came
to the relief of the district, and the Scots appear to have fled.34The approximate route of the raid is suggested in map 1, along with the location of all
identifiable taxation units in the nine taxation divisions.
34 The
raiders' return route is unclear.

651
Two further raids of this period must also be considered, the sole evidence
for which lies in returns to a government inquisition of 1341. In this year,
local jurors throughout England were charged with giving reasons for the
unexpectedly low assessments towards an innovative tax in kind granted by
parliament in 1340, under which taxpayers had to render the ninth part of
their corn, wool, and sheep. The jurors' responses, known as the Nonarum
Inquisitiones,constitute a valuable yet treacherous source for historians of
the early fourteenth century crisis.35 Some of the Cumberland returns to
the Nonarum Inquisitionescite Scottish raids in 1338 and 1340 as an explanation for the low value of the ninth.36 One may be sceptical about any
suggestion that these were serious long-range incursions, as major raids at
this time would presumably also have attracted the attention of chroniclers,
which does not seem to have been the case. However, although evidence of
these raids is limited to the bare references in the Nonarum Inquisitiones,
account must be taken of their possible impact on lay subsidy payments.
The Nonarum Inquisitionesare based on ecclesiastical parishes, which were
not always equivalent to the taxation units used for lay subsidies. Nonetheless, inquisitions concerning eight groupings of ecclesiastical parishes are
recorded in the Cumberland Nonarum Inquisitiones,and in most cases these
are the same as the wards and liberties employed for lay taxation. The six
largest groupings of ecclesiastical parishes are Cockermouth liberty, Egremont liberty, Cumberland ward, Allerdale ward, Eskdale ward, and Leath
ward.37The last of these incorporates those parishes falling within Penrith
liberty for the lay subsidies. The other two groupings comprise, first, the
parishes of Crosby and Stanwix, and second the 'Carlisle grouping' (the
parishes of St Mary and St Cuthbert, plus the city of Carlisle itself). Attacks
by the Scots are cited in the inquisitions for Allerdale ward (an attack in
1338 only), and those for Cumberland ward, Eskdale ward, and the Carlisle
grouping (attacks in 1338 and 1340).38
If raiding was the prime factor impairing taxpaying ability, then the effects
of the October 1337 raid ought to be clearly visible in the 1337 (1) assessments, made in spring and summer 1338. In particular, one would expect
a relatively large fall in tax yield from the four divisions hardest hit as the
raiding party approached Rose from Carlisle and then moved south and
west towards Copeland. These were Cumberland ward and Allerdale ward,
plus the liberties of the prior and bishop; most of the taxation units in the
latter two divisions were in vulnerable positions around Carlisle and just to
its south.39 One would also perhaps anticipate some loss in yield from
" Nonarum
Inquisitionesprints many (but not all) returns; Livingstone, 'The Nonae'.

36NA, E 179/90/9; see Summerson, Medieval Carlisle, I, pp. 267-8; Winchester, Landscape,
pp. 45, 47; Livingstone, 'The Nonae', pp. 229-30, 345-54.
37 The inquisitions are endorsed 'Leath', 'Allerdale', and so on.
38 Table 2. The Carlisle grouping is ignored in this discussion because it is not obvious how closely it
corresponds to any single lay taxation division. The Crosby and Stanwix grouping also mentions Scottish
depredations, but no date is given and the reference could be to much earlier raids.
39The liberties of the prior and bishop each included one southern outlier (Little Salkeld and Ousby
respectively).
652
Table 3.
CHRISBRIGGS
Cumberlandlay subsidy assessmenttotals 1336-40 expressedas a

percentageof total in previous subsidy
Taxationdivisions
(wards and liberties)
Subsidy
1336
1337 (1)
1337 (2)
1337 (3)
Leath w
Cumberland w
Eskdale w
Allerdale w
Cockermouth L
Egremont L
L of prior of Carlisle
L of bishop of Carlisle
Penrith L
(1)
101
100
101
100
100
100
110
138
100
(2)
75
52
60
66
98
100
81
65
54
(3)
71
73
64
74
100
89
68
80
86
(4)
88
85
93
85
79
91
96
83
90
County total
103
67
77
87
Sources: 1336: E 179/90/3 and E 179/90/4 (Glasscock, Lay subsidy of 1334); 1337 (1): E 179/90/6; 1337 (2):
E 179/90/7; 1337 (3): E 179/90/10 and E 179/90/22; NA, E 359/14 mm. 19d, 21d, 22d, 24, 26d, 29d-30.
Egremont and Cockermouth liberties. These areas comprised Copeland,

which marked the southernmost extent of the raid. By contrast, in eastern
parts of the county, especially those furthest from the border in Leath ward
and Penrith liberty, depletion of taxable wealth through attack ought to have
been minimal, since as far as one can tell this raid affected at most the
fringes of these areas.
Examination of the figures expressing the 1337 (1) payments from each
taxation division as a percentage of the 1336 payments confirms some of
these predictions but confounds others (table 3 column 2). Reductions in
yields from Cumberland ward, Allerdale ward, and the liberty of the bishop
were indeed among the most marked, falling to around half to around twothirds of 1336 levels. Tax yield from the liberty of the prior also fell, albeit
by a smaller margin. Egremont liberty and Cockermouth liberty-the
Copeland taxation divisions-were able to maintain their contributions at
the 1336 level or thereabouts. This perhaps indicates that the October 1337
raid had lost its impetus by the time it reached Copeland, allowing rapid
recovery.
However, it is puzzling that areas in eastern Cumberland that do not
appear to have been the main targets of this particular raid paid substantially
less in 1337 (1) than in 1336. That Eskdale ward yielded only 60 per cent
of its 1336 total is perhaps unsurprising, since this especially vulnerable
border area of the county had been raided somewhat earlier in August 1337.
It is also possible that the October 1337 raiders targeted some Eskdale ward
taxation units as they approached Carlisle, although the Lanercost chronicle
is not explicit about where the raiders entered the county. Yet further south,
Leath ward also achieved only 75 per cent of its 1336 total, and Penrith
liberty only 54 per cent. It is true that Penrith liberty included the outlying
Table 4.
653
Penrith liberty lay subsidy assessmentsin 1337 (1) expressedas a

percentageof 1336 assessments
Subsidy
1336
Taxationunits
Penrith
Carlatton
Scotby
Carleton
Langwathby
Great Salkeld
Castle Sowerby
39
1
2
1
15
6
11
16
5
3
8
1
0
18
Penrith L total
77
13
1337 (1)
d
1337 (1)
as % 1336
31/2
01/2
5'/4
20
1
0
1
5
5
8
5
1
17
16
0
0
0
9
0
81/2
9
0
0
0
51
83
40
128
33
83
67
91/4
42
21/2
54
2
101/4
71/4
41/2
Sources: 1336, NA, E 179/90/3 and E 179/90/4 (Glasscock, Lay subsidy of 1334); 1337 (1), NA, E 179/90/6.
taxation unit of Scotby, positioned much closer to the raiders' path than
the other units in the liberty, but although Scotby's contribution dropped
sharply, it was not the only one in the liberty to do so. In Penrith itself, for
instance, tax paid fell from just under ?40 in 1336 to just over ?20 in
1337 (1) (table 4).
Furthermore, a community's taxpaying capacity was not inevitably
impaired, even when it lay close to the invaders' path. Map 2 shows in
more detail the taxation units nearest the raiders' probable route from
Carlisle to Rose and the start of their route onward into Allerdale. These,
presumably, were the communities most at risk of attack during this
incursion. Consequently, it is not surprising that most of them paid
much less towards the subsidy in 1337 (1) than they did in 1336
(table 5).40 For example, Scotby and Raughton yielded only 40 per cent of
their 1336 totals, and Carleton and East and West Curthwaite each paid
just 50 per cent. However, four of the remaining taxation units closest to
the raiders' probable route-Cumwhinton and Botcherby, Brisco, Wreay,
and Sebergham-equalled or exceeded their 1336 contributions. The fact
that some of the places most accessible to the October 1337 raiders were
able to maintain their payments at the 1336 level is striking, given that
many communities situated much further away from the route of this
raid-in Leath ward, Penrith liberty, and the southern parts of Eskdale
ward-failed to do so. It suggests that the explanations for the declining
taxation yield in the latter areas are complex and do not simply reflect
destruction wrought by the incursion.
Some of the surprising patterns in the 1337 (1) payments are more readily
explicable in terms of the effects of Scottish depredations if one considers
the possibility that they show the effects of not only the October 1337 raid
40Table 5 excludes the taxation units of the liberty of the bishop, as data are missing.
654
CHRIS BRIGGS
*Houghton
OLinstock
StanwixO
CARLISLE[]
CaldecotesO
OBotcherby
BotchergScotby
OScotby
Upperby@
Carleton
Cumwinton
*
OBrisco
ODalston
.Blackhall
Park
East& West
Curthwaite
OWreay
Raughton
ROSE
routeof
Approximate
raidof October1337
0 Langholm
km
OSebergham
Map 2. Approximateroute of raid of October1337 betweenCarlisle and Rose

showing nearest taxation units
Sources: NA, E 179/90/6; Glasscock, Lay subsidy of 1334; Maxwell, ed., Lanercost,pp. 307-8.
but also of the 1338 raid. It is not known when the 1338 attack cited in the
Nonarum Inquisitionesoccurred, but it is altogether possible that it preceded
or was contemporary with the assessment of 1337 (1) during spring and
summer 1338. The decrease in yield from Leath ward and Penrith liberty
in 1337 (1) cannot be explained by reference to the 1338 raid, however,
since no such Scottish attack on these areas was cited in the Nonarum
Inquisitiones.
C Economic
HistorySociety2005
Table 5.
655
Lay subsidy assessmentsin 1337 (1) expressedas a percentageof

1336 assessments:selectedCumberlandtaxation units
Subsidy
1336
Taxationunits and divisions

Houghton
Cumwhinton & Botcherby
Blackhall Park
E & W Curthwaite
Langholm
Raughton
Botchergate
Carleton
Brisco
Wreay
Sebergham
Scotby
Eskdale w
Cumberland w
Cumberland w
Cumberland w
Cumberland w
Cumberland w
L Pr of Carlisle
L Pr of Carlisle
L Pr of Carlisle
L Pr of Carlisle
L Pr of Carlisle
Penrith L
0
0
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
0
2
11
14
16
4
14
15
3
12
4
0
18
3
1337 (1)
d
51/2
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
6
14
13
12
5
10
10
16
5
0
18
17
81/2
71/2
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
8
03/4
71/2
71/2
6
1/4
8
21/2
0
111/2
0
03/4
10'/2
1337 (1)
as % 1336
8'/2
59
100
59
50
73
40
69
50
100
103
100
40
Note: for locationsof all units, see map 2

Sources: 1336, NA, E 179/90/3 and E 179/90/4 (Glasscock, Lay subsidy of 1334); 1337 (1), NA, E 179/90/6.
The assessment towards 1337 (2) took place between October 1338 and
January 1339.41 If any raid had a major impact on the capacity to contribute
towards this subsidy it was probably that of 1338, since some recovery by
this point from the raid of October 1337 might be expected among places
not attacked subsequently. The returns for 1337 (2) must therefore be
examined in the light of what little is known about the geographical impact
of the 1338 raid. In many ways, the figures support the argument that
Cumberland taxation evidence primarily shows the direct impact of war on
taxable wealth. In particular, a drop in the 1337 (2) yield, when expressed
as a percentage of the 1337 (1) yield, was evident in all of the areas for
which reports of raids in 1338 were made in the Nonarum Inquisitiones:
Cumberland, Eskdale, and Allerdale wards (table 3 column 3). No 1338
raid was cited for Cockermouth liberty in 1341, which tallies with the
absence of any decline in yield there in 1337 (2).Yet other aspects of table 3
do not fit with what one would expect if taxation simply reflected war damage.
In particular, the decline in yield from Leath ward between 1337 (1) and
1337 (2) was relatively large, but as already noted, the Nonarum Inquisitiones
for that grouping of parishes make no mention of a raid in 1338.
Only three groupings of parishes were said to have suffered raids in 1340
(table 2). If these raids occurred very early that year, it is just possible that
their effects are reflected in the assessments for 1337 (3), which were made
between October 1339 and January 1340. However, as table 3 shows,
decline in payments towards 1337 (3) was apparent in all taxation divisions,
41 The October commissions to assess 1337 (2) and 1337 (3) both state that the chief taxers' first
payment was due on 2 February in the following year.
? Economic
HistorySociety2005
656
CHRIS BRIGGS
indicating that the 1340 raids cited in the Nonarum Inquisitioneswere not
the sole reason for the falling tax yield.
Between 1337 and 1340 there was only a partial 'fit' between a locality's
experience of raids and the pattern of its lay subsidy contributions. This, at
least in part, is presumably because determinants of movable wealth levels
other than raids are unlikely to have stayed constant in this period. The
Cumberland Nonarum Inquisitionesreturns cite three other main justifications for the low yield to the ninth that could further explain the declining
lay subsidy assessments. Perhaps most significantly, six of the inquisitions
state that part of the reason for the low value of the ninth was that communities had to provide hobelars (mounted warriors) and archers at their own
expense to serve in Scotland. This is a reminder that the direct impact of
war in border localities was not confined to enemy incursions, but was also
felt in the demand for personnel and supplies for English campaigns.42The
two other issues cited were sheep murrain, and the accumulated burden of
taxation, which was clearly a major factor in these years in Cumberland as
elsewhere.43 However, as the following section argues, Cumberland's contributions to the 1337 subsidy were shaped as much by the way the tax was
assessed as they were by the quantity and value of the property on which it
was based.
IV
The pre-1334 lay subsidy returns have been used in historical enquiries
ranging from the charting of national levels and distributions of wealth to
the reconstruction of social and economic hierarchies within villages, yet in
all cases investigators necessarily engage in a debate about the reliability of
the returns which consists in essence of a consideration of the subtaxers
and their techniques.44 Historians have tried to determine which goods the
subtaxers assessed, and which they disregarded. They have looked at the
undervaluation of taxable goods, and the practice of conventional valuation
(setting all oxen at the same one or two prices). Consideration has also
been given to evasion, and to the possibility that households at or near
the minimum wealth level for tax liability were customarily ignored. Most
important from the point of view of making comparisons across space has
been the question of local variation in such practices.
Those most sceptical about the reliability of the lay subsidy returns
have not only emphasized the prevalence of these short cuts in assessing
wealth, but have also questioned whether proper assessments were carried
out at all in some places. It has been suggested that the difficulties of
42 Edward III's
major Scottish campaigns of this phase of the war were restricted to the years
1332-6: Nicholson, Edward III; on provisioning Carlisle's garrison, see Summerson, Medieval Carlisle,
I, p. 275.
4 Maddicott, 'English peasantry'.
'Tax returns';
44 Hadwin, 'Lay subsidies'; Jenks, 'Lay subsidies'; Nightingale, 'Lay subsidies'; Stanley,
Cromarty and Cromarty, eds., Wealthof Shrewsbury;Franklin, 'Gloucestershire's medieval taxpayers'.
657
calculation involved in summing the valuationsof goods and then dividing the total to arriveat, say, a twelfth or fifteenth, combined with lack of
cooperation from taxpayers,tempted some subtaxers instead to decide
first upon an acceptable tax charge for the individual, and then to produce valuationsof livestockand goods which added up to the appropriate
total valuation.45Such ideas are encouraged by study of the lists of tax
charges on county rolls, which often bunch around convenient sums
which can easily be multipliedby 15, or whateverthe tax fractionmay be,
to give a valuation.46
Such discussions have concentratedon the tax charges on individuals,
but it is also necessaryto considerthe overallsum paid by the taxationunit
when investigatingthe possibility that the subtaxersfirst set charges and
then arrangedvaluations accordingly.If the charge payable by a whole
community was decided upon independently as the initial step, all the
individualtaxpayerassessmentsgeneratedto fit that figure must have been
more or less artificial.This would representa high level of manipulationof
the system of lay subsidyassessment.Accordingly,this section considersthe
chargesand valuationson Cumberlandtaxationunits in the 1337 subsidy.
How might one recognize a 'manipulated'taxationunit charge and valuation?In any assessmentcarriedout accordingto the officialinstructions,
the charge on the taxation unit representedone-fifteenth or one-tenth of
the total valuation,which in turn was made up of all the combined individual valuationsin the unit. If such meticulous assessmentwere carriedout
acrosstaxationunits, the lists of valuationsand chargesat taxationunit level
would consist of a wide range of differentsums, most ending in pence and
fractionsof pence. By contrast,'manipulated'taxation unit chargeswould
include, first, a large proportion of charges of a round shilling, since in
producing an overall valuation such charges could be multiplied more
quicklyand easily by 15 or 10 than those ending in pence, halfpennies,or
farthings.It might be even quickerand easierto concentrateon a relatively
small set of convenientcharges-multiples of round shillings-for which the
correspondingvaluationswould not even have to be calculated,but could
simply be rememberedor read off a table.47
Table 6 shows the incidence of round shilling charges and convenient
'multiple'chargeson Cumberlandtaxationunits.The multiplechargesused
in the table are, first,the round figuresof 5s. and 10s. plus multiplesof 10s.
up to 200s., and second, the common accountingunit of the marksterling
(13s. 4d.) and its divisions. These sums are arguably among the most
obviousfor subtaxersto select if they wished to simplifythe taxationprocess
by removingthe need for painstakingassessment.
The findings presented in table 6 are striking. In the 1336 subsidies,
which duplicated the 1332 quotas, evidence of manipulationis relatively
a useful discussion, see Cromarty and Cromarty, eds., Wealthof Shrewsbury,pp. 20-2.
Willard, Parliamentarytaxes, pp. 141-8.
45 For
46
47 For the idea that subtaxersmay have used tables,see ibid.,p.
148.
Table 6.
Tax chargeson taxation units, Cumberlandand Wilts

Cumberlandsubsidies
1337 (1)
1336
Charge ends l/4d., 1/2d.,3/4d.
Charge of round shilling
'Multiple' charges with corresponding valuations:
3s. 4d.
(15" of ?2 1Os. Od., 10thof ?1 13s. 4d.)
6s. 8d.
tof ?3 6s. 8d.)
(15th of ?5 Os. Od., 10"
5s. Od.
(15" of ?3 15s. Od., 10thof ?2 1Os. Od.)
1Os. Od.
(15" of ?7 1Os. Od., 10thof ?5 Os. Od.)
13s. 4d.
(15" of ?10 Os. Od., 10" of ?6 13s. 4d.)
20s. Od.
(15" of ?15 Os. Od., 10th of ?10 Os. Od.)
30s. Od.
(15" of ?22 1Os. Od., 10thof ?15 Os. Od.)
40s. Od.
(15th of ?30 Os. Od., 10' of ?20 Os. Od.)
60s. Od.
(15"' of ?45 Os. Od., 10 h of ?30 Os. Od.)
80s. Od.
(15h of ?60 Os. Od., 10h of ?40 Os. Od.)
(15" of ?75 Os. Od., 10h of ?50 Os. Od.)
1OOs.Od.
120s. Od.
(15" of ?90 Os. Od., 10" of ?60 Os. Od.)
140s. Od.
(15" of ?105 Os. Od., 10thof ?70 Os. Od.)
160s. Od.
(15" of ?120 Os Od., 10" of ?80 Os. Od.)
180s. Od.
(15"thof?135 Os. Od., 10h of ?90 Os. Od.)
200s. Od.
(15" of ?150 Os. Od., 10" of ?100 Os. Od.)
Total 'multiple' charges
Total units
1337 (2)
92
24
(51.1)
(13.3)
26
58
(16.7)
(37.2)
22
73
(12.5)
(41.5)
0
1
0
1
2
3
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
14
(0.0)
(0.6)
(0.0)
(0.6)
(1.1)
(1.7)
(2.2)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.6)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.0)
(7.8)
2
1
1
8
3
3
6
3
1
5
2
1
1
1
0
0
38
(1.3)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(5.1)
(1.9)
(1.9)
(3.8)
(1.9)
(0.6)
(3.2)
(1.3)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(24.4)
1
6
4
9
7
8
6
8
2
2
1
0
0
1
0
1
56
(0.6)
(3.4)
(2.3)
(5.1)
(4.0)
(4.5)
(3.4)
(4.5)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(0.6)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.6)
(0.0)
(0.6)
(31.8)
180
(100.0)
156
(100.0)
176
(100.0)
Note: Figuresin parenthesesrepresentno. of taxationunits in row as percentageof total units
Sources: 1336: NA, E 179/90/3 and E 179/90/4 (Glasscock, Lay subsidy of 1334); 1337 (1): E 179/90/6; 1337 (2): E 179/90/7;
E 179/90/12; Crowley, ed., Wiltshiretax list.
VF
t-
659
scarce. Only 13.3 per cent of tax charges were a round shilling, the remainder ending in pence or fractions of pence. Also, only 7.8 per cent of charges
were convenient 'multiples'. The three years of the 1337 subsidy, however,
present a growing contrast to 1336. The percentages of round shilling
and convenient 'multiple' tax charges increased, so that by 1337 (3) almost
58 per cent of the charges were round shillings, and 41 per cent of the total
were drawn from a small group of 11 convenient charges. Of course, there
was nothing to prevent a subtaxer who wished to proceed by first fixing the
charge on the taxation unit from selecting a figure ending in pence or
fractions of pence, rather than a convenient sum based on the round shilling.
Manipulation could still have occurred, in other words, even if the taxation
unit charges are diverse. However, it is difficult to claim that the substantial
concentrations of rounded and convenient charges shown in table 6 are
compatible with a meticulous valuation of goods, since that would have
produced a much more diverse set of unit totals.
As already intimated, the 'bunching' of tax charges around a convenient
figure has been noticed in returns from various parts of the country. The
phenomenon is thought to be especially prominent in the last two subsidies
before the 1334 shift to a quota system. Indeed, the practices it represents
probably provoked some of the accusations of maladministration and
corruption that preceded that policy change. In the 1337 subsidy the
Cumberland subtaxers were of course supposedly following the assessment
system abandoned in most counties in 1334. Some comparison is required
in order to determine whether their propensity to select round and convenient tax charges was any greater than that evident elsewhere before 1334.
For this reason, data from the Wiltshire county roll pertaining to the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 is included in table 6.48 Clearly, the incidence of
round and convenient charges on the taxation unit was very much smaller
in Wiltshire than in Cumberland.
The evidence presented in this section suggests that over the three years
of the 1337 subsidy, there was a growing tendency for subtaxers to decide
upon a charge for the community as a whole as the first step in levying the
tax. The number of charges on the taxation unit that can reasonably be
considered to have arisen from a genuine assessment of goods declined
substantially by 1337 (3).There was nothing in particular about destruction
of goods through warfare to give rise to these practices; meticulous
assessment of despoiled property could still have been carried out throughout the county, had the will to do so been present. When manipulation of
the taxation system reached the level it did in Cumberland at this time, the
relationship between the valuations given in the rolls and the real value of
property must be assumed to have been exceptionally loose.
Lastly, it is worth noting that there is also at least one instance of
manipulation of the assessment procedure at the level of the taxation divi48Crowley, ed., Wiltshiretax list.
660
Table 7.
CHRISBRIGGS
Egremontlibertylay subsidy assessmentsin 1337 (1) expressedas a

percentageof 1336 assessments
Subsidy
1336
Taxationunits
Birkby
Bolton
Bootle
Calder
Cleator
Distington
Drigg
Egremont
Frizington
Gosforth
Haile"
Harrington
Kelton
Kirksanton
Lamplugh
Millom
Muncaster
Murton
Newton
Silecroft
Seaton
Santon
St Bees
s.
d.
s.
d.
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
7
1
1
10
1
8
18
12
16
6
10
3
2
0
6
83/4
41/4
0
4
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
0
2
16
5
10
11
16
0
15
15
6
8
15
13
18
8
7
12
17
11
15
16
10
6
4
12
13
15
7
13
5
10
4
6
16
2
14
17
7
10
13
0
4
8
8
8
8
4
0
0
8
0
8
0
8
8
4
4
4
0
8
4
0
71/4
31/4
4'/2
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
7
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
2
0
1
b39
10
111/4
39
10
--
Wiltona
Workington
Egremont L total
1337 (1)
11'/2
43/4
63/4
5
-2
0
31/4
01/4
41/4
91/4
53/4
3
81/4
1
21/2
11'/4
0
0
110/4
1337 (1)
as % 1336
90
150
131
64
131
102
113
97
102
146
97
108
111
83
83
117
131
105
85
122
105
65
68
100
Notes:a Haile taxedwithWiltonin 1336 and separatelyin 1337 (1). bTotalas given in roll;actualsum of taxation
unit chargesis ?39 10s. 91/2d.
Sources:1336: NA, E 179/90/3 and E 179/90/4 (Glasscock,Lay subsidyof 1334); 1337 (1): NA, E 179/90/6;
Winchester, 'Medieval viii'.
sion. In Egremont liberty, the total assessments in 1336 and 1337 (1) were
identical down to the last farthing (table 1). It is impossible that this could
have arisen had the reassessment ordered in 1338 been faithfully carried
out. Instead, the assessors apparently viewed the 1336 contribution as a
quota that it was expedient to match but not to exceed in 1337 (1). The
Egremont liberty taxation units and their contributions appear in table 7,
which shows that nine units paid less in 1337 (1) than in 1336.49 The
contributions of the remaining taxation units were increased just enough to
allow the 'quota' to be reached. Yet it is unlikely that the local taxers acted
arbitrarilyin deciding which communities should pay less and which could
pay more. Instead, the manipulation of taxation unit charges that took place
49 Excludes
Wilton and Haile (see table 7, notes).

661
was probably informed by economic conditions in the region. For example,

the sheep murrain cited in the Egremont liberty Nonarum Inquisitiones
returns presumably had a more detrimental impact on wealth levels in
the pastoral uplands than in the coastal arable zone, and this may explain
why five of the nine units with reduced contributions (Calder, St Bees,
Lamplugh, Millom, and Birkby) contained substantial upland territory,
while the units experiencing the greatest increase in their contributions
(Bolton, Gosforth, Murton, Bootle, Cleator, and Seaton) were all predominantly lowland communities."s
V
This section concentrates on the tax charges imposed upon individuals in
Cumberland ward and Egremont liberty in the 1337 subsidy. These divisions are selected primarily because, unlike some others, they have few
missing or illegible charges.These divisions were taxed entirely at a fifteenth.
The minimum threshold of liability was 10Os.
in goods, so the lowest possible
individual tax charge was 8d."' In attempting to determine how each household's contribution was decided upon, it should be remembered that one
is restricted to the bare lists of tax charges upon individuals in the county
rolls, plus the individual valuations given for 1337 (1) only. No local rolls
listing taxpayers' goods survive for Cumberland.
Examination of the individual tax charges reveals further signs of the
absence of proper assessment. Tables 8 and 9 focus on the numbers of
Table 8.
Taxpayerspaying 10 common charges,Cumberlandward

No. taxpayers
Tax charge
1337 (1)
1337 (3)
1337 (2)
12d.
16d.
20d.
24d.
28d.
32d.
36d.
40d.
44d.
48d.
Total
74
37
11
69
2
32
18
25
0
26
294
(17.3)
(8.7)
(2.6)
(16.2)
(0.5)
(7.5)
(4.2)
(5.9)
(0.0)
(6.1)
(68.9)
55
4
4
9
2
3
0
3
3
0
83
(15.7)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(2.6)
(0.6)
(0.9)
(0.0)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(0.0)
(23.6)
40
6
1
11
4
0
2
4
1
3
72
(13.0)
(1.9)
(0.3)
(3.6)
(1.3)
(0.0)
(0.6)
(1.3)
(0.3)
(1.0)
(23.4)
Total no. taxpayers
427a
(100.0)
351
(100.0)
308
(100.0)
Notes:Figuresin parenthesesrepresentno. of taxpayersin row as percentageof total taxpayers.a includesHigh Head

taxationunit, taxedin Leathwardin 1337 (2) and thereafter.
Sources:1337 (1): NA, E 179/90/6;1337 (2): E 179/90/7;1337 (3): E 179/90/22and E 179/90/10.
50oThis assumes the St Bees taxation unit incorporated the upland Copeland forest. Winchester,
'Medieval vill', p. 63 attempts a mapping of the Egremont liberty units.
1 Cal. Fine Rolls, 1327-37, p. 487.
662
CHRISBRIGGS
Table 9.
Taxpayerspaying 10 common charges,Egremontliberty

No. taxpayers
Tax charge
1337 (3)
1337 (2)
1337 (1)
12d.
16d.
20d.
24d.
28d.
32d.
36d.
40d.
44d.
48d.
Total
27
39
15
44
17
25
21
15
4
33
240
(9.0)
(13.0)
(5.0)
(14.7)
(5.7)
(8.3)
(7.0)
(5.0)
(1.3)
(11.0)
(80.0)
7
2
6
3
4
4
3
15
2
2
48
(3.1)
(0.9)
(2.6)
(1.3)
(1.8)
(1.8)
(1.3)
(6.6)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(21.1)
6
2
5
3
6
4
7
14
3
1
51
(2.9)
(1.0)
(2.4)
(1.5)
(2.9)
(1.9)
(3.4)
(6.8)
(1.5)
(0.5)
(24.8)
Total no. taxpayers
300
(100.0)
227
(100.0)
206
(100.0)
Note: Figures in parentheses represent number of taxpayers in row as percentage of total taxpayers.
Sources: 1337 (1): NA, E 179/90/6; 1337 (2): E 179/90/7; 1337 (3): E 179/90/22 and E 179/90/10.
people paying one of ten common charges, all of which are multiples of
4d. In 1337 (1) almost 70 per cent of the Cumberland ward charges and
80 per cent of those from Egremont liberty were drawn from this small
group. It is hard to see how a genuine assessment of movable property could
produce such bunching. One could perhaps argue that similar total valuations were all rounded off after division by 15 to give the same charge, so
that, for example, valuations of 14s. 10d. and 15s. 2d. would both translate
into tax charges of 12d.52 Yet the 1337 (1) county roll contradicts this
suggestion, since where the charge is 12d. the valuation is invariably 15s.,
and so on. It is more likely that, in the absence of a proper assessment, the
ten sums in tables 8 and 9 provided subtaxers with a scale of convenient
charges to use to distinguish taxpayers crudely according to their wealth
levels. Focusing on these ten charges also made it quicker and easier to
calculate the individual valuations that the subtaxers were required to enter
into their rolls.
Section IV argued that in the 1337 subsidy the Cumberland subtaxers
often selected a rounded or convenient charge for the taxation unit as the
starting point of the levy. The patterns shown in tables 8 and 9 must be
considered in the light of this argument, since it implies that the subtaxers
had to devise a strategy for setting the charges on individuals in the community so that they added up to the convenient vill totals.
To investigate this, closer examination was made of those units that had
charges of either a round shilling, or one of the 16 convenient 'multiple'
charges used in table 6. For 1337 (1), this showed that these units often
featured a preponderance of individual charges that were easy to multiply
(when there was more than one individual with the charge) and then to add
52
On this issue, see Willard, Parliamentarytaxes, pp. 146-8.

0 EconomicHistory Society 2005
663
up to produce the right taxation unit total without leaving odd pence over.
For example, the total to be met at Kirkbampton (Cumberland ward) was
40s. (480d.). Accordingly, seven persons paid 12d., and there were further
charges of 16d. (three), 20d. (one), 24d. (six), 32d. (three), 40d. (one) and
48d. (one).53 These, of course, are precisely those shown by tables 8 and 9
to have been so common in 1337 (1). The practice of dividing up taxation
unit totals into individual charges by concentrating on those figures that
were most straightforwardto multiply and sum therefore probably accounts
for much of the evidence of bunching of individual charges in 1337 (1).
However, in 1337 (2) and 1337 (3), by contrast with 1337 (1), the
charges on taxpayers were markedly less concentrated around those ten
charges that were most convenient to multiply and to sum (tables 8 and 9).
That taxpayer charges became more diverse in 1337 (2) and 1337 (3) could
be taken as evidence that in those years real assessments of individuals'
goods were duly made. Such a suggestion is not wholly convincing, however,
since it is incompatible with the evidence on taxation unit charges presented
in section IV, which indicates that manipulation of the assessment was
growing rather than declining in 1337 (2) and 1337 (3). Like their counterparts elsewhere in the county, in those years subtaxers in Cumberland
ward and Egremont liberty displayed an increasing tendency to choose a
rounded and convenient taxation unit charge as the first step in assessing
the subsidy. In those two divisions, the percentages of round shilling charges
and convenient 'multiple' charges at the taxation unit level were generally
higher than the percentages for the whole county shown in table 6. Only in
Egremont liberty in 1337 (3) were rounded and convenient taxation unit
charges rare or absent, which perhaps suggests that in the third year of the
subsidy a real assessment of movables was conducted in that taxation
division.54 In general, though, the county rolls for Cumberland ward and
Egremont liberty in 1337 (2) and 1337 (3) are notable for mixing rounded
and convenient taxation unit charges with diverse individual charges. For
instance, the total charge on Bowness on Solway (Cumberland ward) in
1337 (3) was 40s. In distributing this sum among the taxpayers, the Bowness subtaxers did not restrict themselves to the ten convenient charges
shown in tables 8 and 9, but included five charges ending in a fraction of a
penny and other 'awkward' sums such as 27d. and 31d. among the individual charges.55 Such evidence simply shows that the subtaxers varied the
techniques they used to divide up predetermined taxation unit charges,
perhaps even to make them seem more 'realistic'. It does not make it any
"3NA, E 179/90/6, m. 15d.
in
4 The only other example of the incidence of round shilling and 'convenient' charges (shown
table 6) in the two divisions being lower than in the county as a whole relates to 'convenient' charges
in Cumberland ward in 1337 (2). 'Convenient' charges, Egremont liberty: 1337 (2), 33 per cent;
1337 (3), none. 'Convenient' charges, Cumberland ward: 1337 (2), 21 per cent; 1337 (3), 54 per cent.
Round shilling charges, Egremont liberty: 1337 (2), 54 per cent; 1337 (3), 29 per cent. Round shilling
charges, Cumberland ward: 1337 (2), 43 per cent; 1337 (3), 64 per cent.
55 NA, E 179/90/10, m. 4.
664
CHRISBRIGGS
more likely that the many convenient and rounded charges at taxation unit
level are compatible with a generally meticulous assessment.
It may be asked how failure to carry out the 1337 subsidy reassessments
according to the official instructions could happen, since it was the job of
the county's two chief taxers to ensure the assessment and collection was
undertaken correctly. Yet the chief taxers had good reason to condone local
strategies for minimizing the impact of the lay subsidy.
Although at least two of the four persons appointed to oversee collection
of the 1337 subsidy were experienced royal servants who presumably were
trusted to uphold the interests of the crown, these chief taxers would not
necessarily have viewed it as prudent to press the demands of royal taxation
in Cumberland too hard.56In the 1370s and 1380s, chief collectors of both
lay and clerical subsidies in the northern counties claimed to have met with
physical danger, which made it impossible to collect taxes from several
areas." Although no evidence survives from the 1330s and 1340s of any
similar threat to the safety of the chief taxers in Cumberland, the circumstances which apparently gave rise to opposition to collectors later in the
century-that is, heavy taxation combined with inadequate royal provision
for border defence-were also present in the earlier period. The lay subsidies
collected from shires north of the Trent between 1337 and 1349 were
earmarked for the defence of the border, yet the actual and threatened raids
affecting Cumberland in this period demonstrated to the local population
that this money was not always being spent to good effect.58 Between 1332
and 1346, therefore, individuals and communities in Cumberland turned
to the same strategies for self-defence as they had during the campaigns of
Robert I. The first of these was the building of private fortifications. Royal
licences to crenellate, which give some indication of growth in small-scale
defences, continued to be granted in considerable numbers in the 1330s
and 1340s.59 The second strategy for self-defence inherited from the
earlier phase of the war was that of paying the Scots not to attack. This was
resorted to again on at least one occasion between 1332 and 1346, when
Cumberland purchased protection from the Scots during the invasion leading to Neville's Cross.60 It is quite possible that the Cumberland chief taxers
acquiesced in manipulation of the lay subsidy machinery not only because
of fear for their own safety, but also because they sympathized with the view
that as little wealth as possible should be allowed to leave the region and
56 Chief taxers: Clement de Skelton, 1337 (1); John de Hutton Roof, 1337 (2); Thomas de Skelton,
1337 (1), 1337 (2), 1337 (3); John de Orton, 1337 (3). For Clement de Skelton in royal service, see
Fraser, 'Cumberland and Westmorland lay subsidies', pp. 131-2; for John de Orton, see Graham, 'Great
Orton', pp. 41-2. Little evidence has been found to show Thomas de Skelton and John de Hutton Roof
acting on royal commissions in this period.
7 Macdonald, Border bloodshed,pp. 210-11; Tuck, 'War and society', p. 47.
58 Harriss, King, parliament and publicfinance, pp. 348-52.
9 VCH Cumberland,II, p. 256, n. 2; for the numerous fortified sites dateable to the fourteenth century,
see Perriam and Robinson, Fortifiedbuildings;for licences to crenellate in the earlier fourteenth century,
McNamee, Warsof the Bruces, p. 250.
60 Rogers, 'Scottish invasion', p. 56.
665
thereby compromise efforts at local self-defence. As landowners in the

county they were naturally concerned with the protection of their own
estates, and they perhaps knew from their families' experiences earlier in
the century that expenditure on protection money and fortifications was a
more reliable route to security than contribution to royal taxation.61
VI
As section II showed, between 1344 and 1348 the royal government
adopted a changed approach to making allowance for the effects of war
damage on taxation revenue from Cumberland. Rather than resorting to
the supersession of payments from the whole county, or repeated reassessment, the method now used was to investigate claims of impotence from
individual taxation units, and to permit affected places exemption from
contribution towards the fixed county quota. This section considers the use
of the lists of exempted vills as evidence of the spatial extent and economic
impact of raids.
In the past, these sources have typically been treated as reliable statements
of the places affected by raids and the level of damage inflicted. The
reputation of the raid of October 1345 as one of the most devastating attacks
of the fourteenth century, for example, is wholly based on the list of places
excused subsidy payment in the following spring.62Yet the process by which
individual localities came to be exempted from this and later levies has never
been closely investigated.
The chief taxers of Cumberland were due to hand over tax collected
towards the second year of the biennial subsidy of 1344 in moieties, the
first in November 1345 and the second in April 1346. But in October 1345,
a Scottish army invaded the county. Sometime later that year or early in
1346, the king received a petition requesting pardon from payment towards
1344 (2) on the grounds that the raid had left people in many places
possessing nothing with which to cultivate their lands or maintain themselves. In April 1346, Thomas de Lucy and John de Orton were ordered to
take an inquisition on the matter, which led in May to an instruction to the
chief taxers to exempt around 56 taxation units from the subsidy. These
places were described as 'totally burned and destroyed'.63 Further taxation
units-those comprising Penrith liberty-had already been excused payment in April because of burning by the Scots.64 As table 10 shows, the
collection of 1344 (2) yielded only around ?125 of the county quota. The
61 The Skeltons were lords of Armathwaite and places elsewhere in the county: Parker, 'Inglewood';
John de Hutton Roof was perhaps the contemporary lord of the manor of Hutton Roof of this name:
Nicholson and Burn, History, I, p. 249; John de Orton was lord of Great Orton: Graham, 'Great Orton'.
62Hewitt,
Organisation, pp. 126-9; Summerson, Medieval Carlisle, I, pp. 272-3; Winchester,
Landscape, p. 45.
63 Cal. Inqu. Miscellaneous, II, p. 496 (no. 1974, after March 1346); Cal. Close Rolls, 1346-9,
pp. 30-1 (10 May 1346).
64 Cal. Close Rolls,
1346-9, pp. 22, 301.
666
CHRISBRIGGS
Table 10.
Yield of the 1344 and 1346 biennial lay subsidiesfrom Cumberland

Subsidy
1344 (1)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Taxation quota
Yield:
i. 'in the treasury'
ii. paid to John de
Wodehousa
Sum in respect of which
taxers discharged
Taxers' expenses
Debt outstanding
Excess payment
Total assessment of
exempted taxation units
s.
d.
249
5'/4
200
10 0
39
1
---
1346 (1)
1344 (2)
0
9'/4
1346 (2)
s.
d.
s.
51/4
249
5'/4 249
15
0
5
0
21
100
4
0
0
130
0
12
0
1
14
11'/4
108
16
s.
d.
249
15
110
91
10
0
21 14
-----94 12
101/2
10
117
0
19
11/4 106
12
10'/2
0
1
63/4
10
-
0
106
d.
51/4
3
12
113/4
101/2
Notes:a King'sreceiverof subsidiesnorth of Trent.

Sources:rows 1-7: NA, E 359/14 mm. 32, 33, 34d, 36d; row 8: NA, E 179/90/12, Cal. Close Rolls, 1346-9,
pp. 30-1, 448-9.
taxers were discharged of their burden in respect of a further sum of just

under ?92. Although the enrolled account does not explicitly state that this
allowance was made because of Scottish depredations, it is clear the sum
represents the combined total of quotas from the exempted taxation units,
because adding up those quotas using the vill by vill assessment produces
a very similar figure (table 10, row 8).
In 1346, there were two further Scottish attacks, in July and October.
Again a petition for remission of subsidy payments was received, and again
the claims of the county were investigated through a commission, appointed
this time in January 1347. The commissioners apparently took into account
the effects of all three raids of 1345-6, and their inquisition produced a list
of around 86 taxation units to be exempted from the 1346 subsidy. The
order to exempt these places stated that they were totally burned and
destroyed by the Scots, and the men there plundered of their goods and
chattels.65 It is fairly clear that these taxation units were excused from both
years of the 1346 subsidy. It can be calculated that the quotas of all 86
places added together totalled just over ?106 (table 10). In the enrolled
account for 1346 (1), the taxers were left in debt to the not dissimilar sum
of just under ?118. This was probably the money not collected from the
exempted vills. It appears to have been entered as a debt in this account
because the taxers had not received the appropriate royal writ entitling them
to make exemptions. In April 1348, however, the necessary order to supersede payment from the 86 taxation units was issued, and in the account for
65Cal. Inqu. Miscellaneous,II, p. 515 (no. 2051, March 1347; the commissioners were Peter Tillioll,
Clement de Skelton, and William de Langwathby); Cal. Close Rolls, 1346-9, pp. 448-9 (18 April 1348).
C Economic
HistorySociety2005
667
1346 (2) the taxers were accordingly discharged of their obligations in

respect of ?108 16s. 4d.66
The fact that exemption of a large number of taxation units was secured
in 1346 (2) as well as 1346 (1) represents a significant concession, since in
spring 1348 it had been almost two years since the last raid to affect
substantial areas of the county, that of July 1346. As already noted,
Cumberland paid the Scots not to attack during the invasion of October
1346, which meant that that incursion was limited to the fringes of the
county. Another noteworthy feature is that the 1348 order to supersede
payments demanded that the inhabitants of the exempted taxation units
should nonetheless answer for-that is, presumably, pay tax on-any goods
and chattels that they had at other places in the county, and for property
saved from destruction. As in the 1330s, the crown perhaps sensed at this
time that Cumberland was overstating its difficulties, and that more taxation
revenue could be squeezed from the county than its inhabitants cared to
admit. As the enrolled accounts show, however, the chief taxers secured
nothing from the 86 exempted vills.
Can one be certain that the raids affected all the exempted places to an
equal degree, and does 'totally burned and destroyed' accurately reflect the
severity of the raids?To answer this fully is impossible, as it would require
independent local evidence for every excused place. The Lanercost chronicle provides a short description of the attack of October 1345, which allows
comparison with the geographical distribution of the exempted vills. It states
that the Scots burnt Gilsland and Penrith, with the adjoining villages,
which certainly fits with the exemption of Penrith liberty in April 1346 and
the large number of places in Eskdale ward, Leath ward, and eastern
Cumberland ward excused from the subsidy in May. Yet given that the
taxation inquisition evidence gives such a strong impression of the severity
of this raid, it is surprising that Lanercost goes on to say that 'as [the Scots]
suffered from hunger, they returned without any gain to themselves or much
loss to us'.67The chronicler's description of the areas affected by the July
raid, which refers to 'the hills of Derwent and the moor of Alston', is
unfortunately too vague to allow comparison with the distribution of the 86
exempted taxation units.
Ultimately, the value of the lists of exempted taxation units as evidence
of the reach and repercussions of warfare depends on how the inquisitions
gathered their information and decided which places to excuse.68 As
Macdonald observes, the central government was naturally keen to certify
the nature of war damage as accurately as possible.69 But in doing so it was
66 The petition of the people of Cumberland printed in Fraser, ed., Northern petitions, pp. 106-7
(no. 73), seems to have been issued in 1347 after that year's inquisition had completed its work. It
requests that the king take account of the inquisition's findings and order remission of the 1346 biennial
tax.
67 Maxwell, ed., Lanercost,
pp. 325-6.
68 On the difficulties of interpreting inquisition evidence, see Hunnisett, 'Reliability of inquisitions'.
69 Macdonald, Borderbloodshed,pp. 114-15.
668
CHRISBRIGGS
dependent on the county's leading knights as commissioners, whose interests in local politics presumably meant they were under pressure to grant
exemptions to individual vills, even where conditions did not entirely justify
it. Unfortunately, the surviving sources do not allow one to reconstruct the
negotiations involved in the inquisitions of 1346 and 1347. However, lists
of Yorkshire vills excused from the 1319 lay subsidy after the raid of that
year reveal how individual lords petitioned on behalf of particular vills.
Supplementary evidence for some of these places leads to the conclusion
that the influence a vill's lord could exercise was as important as the actual
damage sustained in determining whether or not it was exempted from
taxation.70 It is probable that an analogous process of petitioning underlay
the later Cumberland inquisitions. Lesser lords of individual vills able to
secure exemptions from the commissioners stood to gain by preserving
resources for self-defence and perhaps earning the support of tenants. The
argument that influence and petitioning was crucial cannot be pushed too
far, though, since the 'burned and destroyed' vills are concentrated together
spatially and there is no sign that exemptions were obtained in places
obviously outside the raiding zone of 1345-6. Nonetheless, like the taxation
records produced by the reassessments of 1337-40, those arising from the
inquisitions of 1346 and 1347 have every sign of being shaped by the
politically contentious nature of royal taxation. They cannot simply be read
as straightforward indicators of the impact of war on wealth levels.
VII
The impact of Anglo-Scottish conflict on the northern economy is an issue
that demands attention if the overall standing of warfare as a cause of crises
and contraction within the pre-plague economy is to receive proper evaluation. Traditionally, the evidence generated by royal taxation has played a
central role in generalizations about war's effects. However, this article has
argued that taxation data is an insufficiently precise instrument for measuring the economic impact of war, other than in a very approximate fashion.
This is the case even where the taxation documents used are abundant and
appear to offer the possibility of charting the repercussions of war across an
entire county over consecutive years, as is the case for Cumberland between
1332 and 1348.
The obstacles to the use of taxation data in carrying out detailed probing
of the impact of warfare are twofold. First, it is hard to differentiate between
the destruction caused by enemy attacks on one hand, and separate influences that could diminish taxable wealth on the other. These influences
include the direct impact of war in the form of local provision of soldiers
and supplies for English campaigns; the indirect repercussions of war,
especially out-migration and the costs of buying off the Scots; and developments unconnected with warfare, such as livestock disease. As section III
70
McNamee, Warsof the Bruces, p. 91; Kershaw, 'A note', p. 232.

669
above indicated, even areas that lay distant from the path of the October
1337 raid registered a decline in tax yield. However, the reasons for this
must remain a matter for speculation without an examination of such
alternative local sources as survive.
The second reason for the difficulties of using taxation evidence to study
the effects of war carries wider implications about the limits to medieval
royal governance at a distance from the centre. This article encourages the
argument that Cumberland was only partially integrated into the system of
lay subsidies in the first half of the fourteenth century. McNamee's study
of the period up to 1328 strongly implies that it was not only poverty caused
by war that made it impossible to tax Cumberland, Westmorland, and
Northumberland between 1313 and 1327, but also the royal government's
lack of authority. Levies in the northern counties continued to be organized
in those years, but the money raised was used to provide tribute to
King Robert rather than subsidies to the king of England.71 By 1327,
Cumberland's non-contribution to English lay taxation must have been
viewed locally as a natural state of affairs, justifiable by the claim that paying
taxes to the English monarch was unlikely to bring security on the border.
It is therefore not surprising that successful non-violent resistance to levies
by the English crown continued when efforts began to be made under
Edward III to re-incorporate the northern counties into the lay subsidy
system.
Tax yields from Cumberland in the 1330s and 1340s were thus determined not only by an inability to pay but also by cooperation at high levels
of county society with ordinary taxpayers' unwillingness to pay, a situation
that was probably stimulated by resentment of royal demands that were not
reciprocated by adequate border defence. As section II suggested, on various occasions between 1332 and 1340 Cumberland did experience genuine
suffering from raids that undoubtedly merited taxation concessions.
However, to minimize the demands of the crown, even at times when the
intensity of raiding activity was fairly low, the county also sought to capitalize on its distance from the seat of government and on the difficulties of
getting reliable information about conditions in the district. The drive to
keep contributions to a minimum also led to the production of returns in
the subsidy of 1337 that were exceptionally manipulated by comparison
with equivalent contemporary returns produced elsewhere in England. The
purpose of this manipulation can only have been to keep the county's
taxation contributions below the level they would have reached had a
meticulous assessment of taxable property been carried out.
This article therefore offers two main challenges to historians of taxation,
warfare, and economic development. The first of these is to develop research
on the impact of warfare in northern England through use of the available
local estate documents, since this investigation of Cumberland suggests that
71 McNamee, Warsof the Bruces, especially pp. 130-40.
670
CHRIS BRIGGS
the potential advantages of using taxation material alone for these purposes
are outweighed by the pitfalls. In particular, McNamee's approach to the
period 1306-28 should ideally be applied to the 1330s and 1340s also, and
extended to as wide a geographical area as possible, though the limited
quantity of surviving sources does of course pose a formidable obstacle to
such an enterprise.72
The second challenge is to discover whether success in keeping the
taxation demands of the crown at arm's length was a general characteristic
of northern England in the later middle ages, rather than a phenomenon
specific to Cumberland before the Black Death. The comparative history of
the rise of the European 'fiscal state' has traditionally stressed the contrasts
between the centralized English state and other countries such as France,
remarking upon the success with which extraordinary revenue was extracted
across the entire English realm at a time when localism defeated attempts
by the French crown to secure taxation from territory nominally under its
authority.73 This picture of contrasts in the territorial extent of fiscal control
in England and France might require some revision, however, if the
Cumberland evidence presented here proves representative of the north as
a whole. Significantly, one study has already shown that in Lancashire and
Yorkshirein 1524-5 largely fictitious lay subsidy returns were produced that
share many features with the Cumberland lists from the 1337 subsidy, and
appear to have been the product of a similar atmosphere of local opposition
towards a thorough assessment of the tax."74
The discovery of further such
examples of resistance and manipulation would have potentially significant
implications for our understanding of the machinery of late medieval taxation, and its ability to assess wealth uniformly across the kingdom."
CambridgeGroupfor the History of Populationand Social Structure
Firstsubmitted
Revisedversionsubmitted
Accepted
9 September
2004
7 February2005
15 February2005
72Evidence from inquisitionespost mortemextents (IPMs) on conditions in the north is summarized in

Campbell and Bartley, Eve of the Black Death. Particularly striking are the numerous reports of no
tenants or lack of tenants in northern IPMs, which is suggestive of widespread out-migration under
threat of attack. However, the IPM data appears to support the argument that economic difficulties in
the north were complex and not a result solely of the direct impact of warfare, since only a minority of
the IPMs from Cumberland, Westmorland, and Northumberland reporting the reduced value or destruction of demesne land or assets make specific reference to the Scots. I am grateful to Professor Campbell
for allowing me to consult this material in advance of publication.
"7This argument has been applied most closely to the later thirteenth century and first half of the
fourteenth century: Ormrod, 'West European monarchies', pp. 129-44; Ormrod, 'England'; Henneman,
'France', pp. 110-12; Henneman, Royal taxation, pp. 320-9.
74 Hoyle, 'Resistance'.
7 It is possible that fruitful comparisons could be made between the Cumberland evidence and NA,
E 179/158/7, a Northumberland county roll produced according to the special form of taxation of 1336
described in section II.
671
Footnote references
Bouch, C. M. L., Prelatesand people of the Lake Counties (Kendal, 1948).
Campbell, B. M. S., ed., Before the Black Death: studies in the 'crisis' of the early fourteenth century
(Manchester, 1991).
Campbell, B. M. S., 'North-South dichotomies, 1066-1550', in A. R. H. Baker and M. Billinge, eds,
Geographiesof England. The North-South divide, material and imagined (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 145-74.
Campbell, B. M. S., and Bartley, K., England on the eve of the Black Death: an atlas of lay lordship,land
and wealth, 1300-49 (forthcoming).
Cromarty, D., and Cromarty, R., eds., The wealth of Shrewsburyin the early fourteenth century:six local
subsidy rolls 1297 to 1322: text and commentary (Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society,
1993).
Crowley, D. A., ed., The Wiltshiretax list of 1332 (Wiltshire Record Society, XLV, 1989).
Franklin, P., 'Gloucestershire's medieval taxpayers', Local Population Studies, 54 (1995), pp. 16-27.
Fraser, C. M., 'The Cumberland andWestmorland lay subsidies for 1332', Transactionsof the Cumberland
and Westmorland
Antiquarian and ArchaeologicalSociety, LXVI (1966), pp. 131-58.
Fraser, C. M., ed., Northern petitions illustrativeof life in Cumbria, Berwick and Durham in thefourteenth
century (Surtees Society, CXCIV, 1981).
Glasscock, R. E., The lay subsidy of 1334 (British Academy Records of Social and Economic History,
new ser., II, 1975).
Graham, T. H. B., 'Great Orton', Transactionsof the Cumberland and WestmorlandAntiquarian and
ArchaeologicalSociety, XXXII (1932), pp. 38-44.
Hadwin, J. F., 'The medieval lay subsidies and economic history', Economic History Review, XXXVI
(1983), pp. 200-17.
Harriss, G. L., King, parliament and publicfinance in medieval England to 1369 (Oxford, 1975).
Hatcher, J., and Bailey, M., Modelling the middle ages: the history and theory of England's economic
development(Oxford, 2001).
Henneman, J. B., Royal taxation in fourteenthcentury France: the developmentof war financing 1322-1356
(Princeton, NJ, 1971).
Henneman, J. B., 'France in the middle ages', in R. Bonney, ed., The rise of the fiscal state in Europe
c.1200-1815 (Oxford, 1999), pp. 101-22.
Hewitt, H. J., The organisationof war underEdward III, 1338-62 (Manchester, 1966).
Hoyle, R. W., 'Resistance and manipulation in early Tudor taxation: some evidence from the north',
Archives, XX (1993), pp. 158-76.
Hunnisett, R. F., 'The reliability of inquisitions as historical evidence', in D. A. Bullough and
R. L. Storey, eds., The study of medieval records:essays in honour of Kathleen Major (Oxford, 1971),
pp. 206-35.
Jenks, S., 'The lay subsidies and the state of the English economy', Vierteljahrschrift
fifr Sozial- und
85 (1998), pp. 1-39.
Wirtschaftsgeshichte,
Jurkowski, M., Smith, C. L., and Crook, D., Lay taxes in England and Wales,1188-1688 (PRO Handbook
31, 1998).
Kershaw, I., Bolton Priory: the economyof a northernmonastery,1286-1325 (Oxford, 1973).
Kershaw, I., 'A note on the Scots in the West Riding, 1318-1319', Northern History, XVII (1981),
pp. 231-9.
Livingstone, M. R., 'The Nonae: the records of the taxation of the ninth in England 1340-41' (unpub.
Ph.D. thesis, Queen's Univ. Belfast, 2003).
Lomas, R., North East England in the middle ages (Edinburgh, 1992).
Lomas, R., 'The impact of border warfare: the Scots and South Tweedside, c.1290-c.1520', Scottish
Historical Review, LXXV (1996), pp. 143-67.
Macdonald, A. J., Borderbloodshed:Scotland and England at war, 1369-1403 (East Linton, 2000).
Maddicott, J. R., 'The English peasantry and the demands of the crown 1294-1341', Past & Present
Supplement,I (1975).
Maxwell, H., ed., The chronicleof Lanercost(Glasgow, 1913).
McNamee, C., 'Buying off Robert Bruce: an account of monies paid to the Scots by Cumberland
communities in 1313-14', Transactionsof the Cumberlandand Westmorland
Antiquarian andArchaeological Society, XCII (1992), pp. 77-89.
McNamee, C., The wars of the Bruces:Scotland, England and Ireland, 1306-1328 (East Linton, 1997).
Miller, E., Warin the north:the Anglo-Scottish wars of the middleages (Hull, 1960).
Nicholson, J., and Burn, R., The history and antiquities of the counties of Westmorlandand Cumberland,
2 vols. (1777).
Nicholson, R., EdwardIII and the Scots:theformativeyears of a military career,1327-1335 (Oxford, 1965).
Nicholson, R., Scotland: the later middle ages (Edinburgh, 1974).
672
CHRISBRIGGS
Nightingale, P., 'The lay subsidies and the distribution of wealth in medieval England, 1275-1334',
EconomicHistory Review, LVII (2004), pp. 1-32.
Ormrod, W. M., 'The crown and the English economy, 1290-1348', in B. M. S. Campbell, ed., Before
the Black Death: studies in the 'crisis'of the earlyfourteenthcentury (Manchester, 1991), pp. 149-83.
Ormrod, W. M., 'The west European monarchies in the later middle ages', in R. Bonney, ed., Economic
systemsand statefinance (Oxford, 1995), pp. 123-60.
Ormrod, W. M., 'England in the middle ages', in R. Bonney, ed., The rise of the fiscal state in Europe
c.1200-1815 (Oxford, 1999), pp. 19-52.
Parker, F. H. M., 'The development of Inglewood, and an account of the Skeltons of Armathwaite and
the Restwolds of High Head', Transactionsof the Cumberlandand Westmorland
Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, XII (1912), pp. 1-28.
Perriam, D. R., and Robinson, J., The medievalfortified buildingsof Cumbria:an illustratedgazetteer and
researchguide (Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Extra Series,
XXIX, 1998).
Rogers, C. J., 'The Scottish invasion of 1346', Northern History, XXXIV (1998), pp. 51-81.
Rogers, C. J., Warcruel and sharp:English strategy under Edward III, 1327-1360 (Woodbridge, 2000).
Scammell, J., 'Robert I and the north of England', English Historical Review, LXXIII (1958),
pp. 385-403.
Stanley, M. J., 'Medieval tax returns as source material', in T. E. Slater and P. J. Jarvis, eds., Field and
forest:an historicalgeographyof Warwickshireand Worcestershire
(Norwich, 1982), pp. 231-56.
Steel, J. P., ed., Cumberlandlay subsidy:being an account of a fifteenth and tenth collected6th Edward III
(Kendal, 1912).
Summerson, H., Medieval Carlisle:the city and the bordersfrom the late eleventhto the mid-sixteenthcentury,
2 vols. (Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Extra Series, XXV,
1993).
Tuck, J. A., 'War and society in the medieval north', Northern History, XXI (1985), pp. 33-52.
The Victoriahistory of the countiesof England: Cumberland,II (1905).
Willard, J. F., 'The Scotch raids and the fourteenth century taxation of northern England', University
of ColoradoStudies, V (1908), pp. 237-42.
Willard, J. F., 'The taxes upon movables of the reign of Edward II', English Historical Review, XXIX
(1914), pp. 317-21.
Willard, J. F., Parliamentary taxes on personalproperty,1290-1334: a study in mediaeval Englishfinancial
administration(Cambridge, Mass., 1934).
Winchester, A. J. L., 'The medieval vill in the western Lake District: some problems of definition',
Transactionsof the Cumberlandand WestmorlandAntiquarian
andArchaeologicalSociety, LXXVIII (1978),
pp. 55-67.
Winchester, A. J. L., Landscape and society in medieval Cumbria (Edinburgh, 1987).
Officialpublications
Calendar of Close Rolls, 1333-7 (1898); 1346-9 (1905).

Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1327-37 (1913); 1337-47 (1915).
Calendar of InquisitionsMiscellaneous,II, 1307-1349 (1916).
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1334-8 (1895).
Nonarum Inquisitionesin Curia Scaccarii (1807).

3698794variorium Publishing Byzantium, Latin Romania and The Mediterranean (2001) PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

3698794variorium Publishing Byzantium, Latin Romania and The Mediterranean (2001) PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Taxation, Warfare, and the Early Fourteenth Century 'Crisis' in the North: Cumberland Lay

Economic History Review, LVIII, 4 (2005), pp. 639-672

and symptoms of England's economic problems

border warfare.4This work reaches revisionist conclusions, emphasizing the

? EconomicHistory Society 2005

CUMBERLAND LAY SUBSIDIES, 1332-1348

taxation records survivingfor the period 1332-48, materialwhich at first

brought to a close by the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton (1328), the

McNamee, Warsof the Bruces, pp. 112, 241.

? EconomicHistory Society 2005

Yield ('in the treasury')

Cumberlandlay subsidy assessmentsand yields, 1332-1

CUMBERLAND LAY SUBSIDIES, 1332-1348

Scottish raids affecting Cumberland,1332-46

Gilsland (Eskdale ward) via Carlisle; returning following day

Notes:for wardsand liberties,see map 1.

The treatment of Cumberland in relation to the next two grants of a

Cal. Fine Rolls, 1327-37, p. 487 (24 May 1336).

? EconomicHistory Society 2005

CUMBERLAND LAY SUBSIDIES, 1332-1348

C EconomicHistory Society 2005

Cal. Fine Rolls, 1337-47, pp. 391-3.

? EconomicHistory Society 2005

CUMBERLAND LAY SUBSIDIES, 1332-1348

C EconomicHistory Society 2005

Map 1. Cumberlandlay subsidytaxation units and approximaterouteof raid of

raiders' return route is unclear.

CUMBERLAND LAY SUBSIDIES, 1332-1348

Inquisitionesprints many (but not all) returns; Livingstone, 'The Nonae'.

Cumberlandlay subsidy assessmenttotals 1336-40 expressedas a

Egremont and Cockermouth liberties. These areas comprised Copeland,

CUMBERLAND LAY SUBSIDIES, 1332-1348

Penrith liberty lay subsidy assessmentsin 1337 (1) expressedas a

Map 2. Approximateroute of raid of October1337 betweenCarlisle and Rose

CUMBERLAND LAY SUBSIDIES, 1332-1348

Lay subsidy assessmentsin 1337 (1) expressedas a percentageof

Taxationunits and divisions

Note: for locationsof all units, see map 2

? EconomicHistory Society 2005

CUMBERLAND LAY SUBSIDIES, 1332-1348

47 For the idea that subtaxersmay have used tables,see ibid.,p.

C EconomicHistory Society 2005

Tax chargeson taxation units, Cumberlandand Wilts

Note: Figuresin parenthesesrepresentno. of taxationunits in row as percentageof total units

CUMBERLAND LAY SUBSIDIES, 1332-1348

Egremontlibertylay subsidy assessmentsin 1337 (1) expressedas a

Wilton and Haile (see table 7, notes).

CUMBERLAND LAY SUBSIDIES, 1332-1348

was probably informed by economic conditions in the region. For example,

Taxpayerspaying 10 common charges,Cumberlandward

Total no. taxpayers

Notes:Figuresin parenthesesrepresentno. of taxpayersin row as percentageof total taxpayers.a includesHigh Head

Taxpayerspaying 10 common charges,Egremontliberty

Total no. taxpayers

On this issue, see Willard, Parliamentarytaxes, pp. 146-8.

CUMBERLAND LAY SUBSIDIES, 1332-1348

? EconomicHistory Society 2005

CUMBERLAND LAY SUBSIDIES, 1332-1348

thereby compromise efforts at local self-defence. As landowners in the

? EconomicHistory Society 2005

Yield of the 1344 and 1346 biennial lay subsidiesfrom Cumberland

Notes:a King'sreceiverof subsidiesnorth of Trent.

taxers were discharged of their burden in respect of a further sum of just