ANALYSIS OF SOME MEDIEVAL TAX ASSESSMENTS: ONGAR 



HUNDRED 



The tables below bring together certain statistics derived from medieval fiscal records. They aim 

 at showing how the places in Ongar hundred compared in wealth and density of settlement with one 

 another and how the whole hundred compared in those respects with other parts of Essex and of 

 England. 



Taxes on Movables 



By the last quarter of the 13th century Englishmen had grown accustomed to tax assessments 

 based upon the value of movables, a fraction of the assessed value of each eligible taxpayer being 

 taken in tax. Until 1332 a different fraction was taken whenever Parliament granted a tax and a 

 new assessment was made on the occasion of each grant. In and after 1334, however, it became the 

 rule to take a fifteenth in country villages and a tenth in boroughs and on ancient demesne of the 

 Crown.' 



The assessment of 1320 (summarized below. Table i) shows the form of these assessments up to 

 1332. In the original roll each place has a boldly written heading beneath which appear the names of 

 the inhabitants who are liable to tax. The assessment of the movables of the inhabitants is given, 

 followed by the sum representing the fifteenth part of this value, the individual's tax liability. A total 

 {summa) for each place is given. Totals for the hundred and for the county also appear.^ 



In 1334 (see Table i) the whole appearance of the rolls changes. In place of lists of names there 

 are only lists of villages. This change mirrors the change in the basis of taxation. The Exchequer was 

 now content to collect the tax on the basis of a single payment from the whole vill. So long as this 

 payment reached at least the sum of individual villagers' payments in 1 332 the Exchequer did not 

 intervene. The appropriate sum for each vill was left to be fixed by local negotiation between the 

 representatives of vills and the royal officials. 



There is no suggestion that Edward III intended this arrangement to become permanent, but in 

 fact the sums allotted to each village in 1 334 continued to form the basis of their assessment until the 

 reign of Charles I. If the Commons granted a sum greater than a fifteenth would have brought in, 

 then some additional money was raised from a new form of tax (such as the poll tax of 1377, see 

 below); or else more than one-fifteenth was granted,^ so that each village made a payment of two or 

 three times the sum allotted to it in 1334. This sum, for brevity, will be referred to as 'the basic 

 village quota'. The difference between 1332+ and 1334^ may be illustrated from Lambourne. The 

 summa of individual assessments in 1332 was 53^. \od. The basic village quota fixed in 1334 was 57X. 

 For the whole hundred of Ongar the total in 1332 was ^^62 lys. qd. In 1334 it was £bb 6s. T,d. 



Since they give the names of the principal property-owners the tax-lists up to and including 1332 

 have long been used by genealogists. Economic historians have also found them interesting as a rough 

 indication of the varying levels of prosperity to be found in different places. A village like Theydon 

 Bois which collected 33.r. $^d. from 23 taxpayers in 1320 is clearly different from a village like 

 Theydon Mount where approximately the same sum (in fact, 35^. i \d.) came from only 7 taxpayers.* 

 In the rather different social and agricultural conditions of the North Riding of Yorkshire, it has been 

 suggested that a vill with one outstandingly large taxpayer probably had a lord working his own 

 demesnes, while a number of roughly equal assessments indicate a vill with a weakened manorial struc- 

 ture and a fair number of tenants occupying part of the demesne.' 



Interesting as are the questions they raise, these pre-1334 assessments are only of limited value in 

 redetermining the relative wealth of Essex villages and of little, if any, value in determining their 

 populations. There are several reasons for this. Some types of movable property were not assessable 

 to tax, while some persons were too poor to be taxable at all. There was probably also a good deal of 

 evasion and under-assessment. It is as though we were allowed to inspect the top of an iceberg but 



' For details of the methods of assessment and col- ■♦ AH 1332 data are from E 179/ 107/ 17, which is 



lection see J. F. Willard, Pari. Taxes on Personal Pro- wrongly dated in the P.R.O. Typescript calendar as 



ferty i2go-i334; Surr. Tax. Reins. (Surr. Rec. Soc. 1334. 



xi), v-lxxvi. s All 1334 data are from E179/107/41 which has 



^ The totals for Essex in the various years have been been checked in E 164/7, a 1 5th-cent. engrossment of 



brought together by J. F. Willard: E.H.R. xxviii, the whole country. 



519-21, xxix, 319-21, rxx, 72-73. For the period * All 1320 data are from E179/107/1 lo-ll. 



after 1334 the totals will be found enrolled in E3 59. ' T. A. M. Bishop, 'Distribution of Manorial 



3 e.g. 1404, two loths and i5ths; 14 19, one and Demesne in the Vale of Yorkshire' {E.H.R. xlix), 



one-third loth and 15th. 386-406. 



296 



