128 ENFORCEMENT GF THE STATUTES OF LABOURERS 



in the Isle of Wight, London, Newcastle-on-Tyne and the 

 city of York ; for each of these there were, of course, three 

 collections, so that the penalties should appear in 135 in- 

 stances. The facts are as follows: in 13 cases, there is no 

 mention whatever of penalties; in 8 cases, varying excuses 

 such as "no sessions" or "no apportionment;" in 46 cases, 

 "no estreats;" but in 68 cases, just half, a definite sum is re- 

 ported; of these, in two cases the sum was only just enough 

 for the justices' salaries, and in two others not even enough 

 for this purpose, leaving 64 cases where the communities 

 received their quota of the penalties. With the exception 

 of London, Northumiberland, Rutland, Shropshire, Sussex, 

 Vv^estmoreland and York, all the districts benefited by these 

 allowances. The total of the tax for the three 3Aears is 

 £114,767 5s. 2d., and the total of the penalties £7,747 14s. 2d. 

 ob. q.,^ so that the net gains of the whole body of taxpayers 

 amounted to only about 6% of their total burden. The pres- 

 sure on the wage-earners, however, must be estimated at a 

 somewhat higher figure, while the relation between tax and 

 allowances, county by county, proves to be much more 

 significant than the relation between totals. As to the first 

 point, it is to be remembered that before the apportion- 

 ments could be made, about £20 ^ annually were paid as 

 salaries to the justices of labourers in each county; a rough 

 estimate would make the total of such payments about £800 ; 

 further there are the arrears which can scarcely be reckoned 

 as much less than a third of the total allowances, possibly 

 in round numbers £2000; therefore something over £10,000 



'For a single year the tax is ;^38,2S5 15s. ob. Cf. Stubbs, Const. 

 Hist., ii, 579-580: " Of the produce of a vote of tenths and fifteenths 

 we have no computation after the reign of Henry III that is trust- 

 worthy." He goes on to name ^^40,000 as the sum of the lay tenth 

 and fifteenth under Edward HI. 



'See pt. I, ch. i, s. 6. 



