Contents
Context
In 1621 the king (James I) needed to raise additional funds because his income from taxes based on the value of assets was no longer meeting his needs. The value of assets had been determined in 1334; subsequent attempts to create an updated list of assets owned by individuals had been resisted.
As a result, it was left to local commissioners to identify persons able to make an additional contribution to the royal exchequer – this was done subjectively. The table below lists the “subsidies” payable; further contributions were “requested” which were variously referred to as voluntary contributions, benevolences or forced-loans.
The tables for other local villages include comments about the ability of their residents to make such additional contributions. The following examples give an indication of the way taxes were being assessed:-
- Carlton Fowerhoo:
- Steven Gooche: a hundred pounds in lands per ann’ and doth no good, and may well lend 20 pounds;
- Hyngham:
- John Haynes esqre cessor : a greate estate and may well land 40 pounds;
- Amy Brooke vid: verie ritche, a. great usurer: and may well lend 20 pounds;
- John Longe gen: he is worthe at tho leaste 40tie thowsande poundes: for him to lend but a hundred poundes is to lytle;
- Wicklewoode
- Edmund Bale:
- a sole man neyther wife nor child a great estate and an usurer: and may well land 40 pounds;
- Barneham Broome
- Richard Austen: very riche: and miserable he may well lend 30 pounds.
William Hudson1 comments on the taxation process as follows:-
Persons of all but very moderate incomes were assessed partly on the value of their lands at 4s. in the pound, or of their goods at 2s. 8d. in the pound. This was called a subsidy. Persons who paid on the subsidy were free from the tenths and fifteenths, so that, in practice, the better class of tax—payers paid on their lands and goods, while the poorer (or as low down as were taxed at all) paid the old tax of 1334.
The data for Deopham:-
In view of the arbitrary nature by which taxation was assessed at this time, the main use of this data is to identify who was living in Deopham in 1621.
| Person | Comments | Taxation | li=£pounds s=shillings | Shillings | Rate of taxation |
| Landes | 4s in pound = 20% | ||||
| John Amyes | gen | iij | li | 60 | |
| Margarett Wrighte vid | removed out of the countie | xxx | s | 30 | |
| Richard Wrighte | xx | s | 20 | ||
| Fraunces Amyas | gen | xx | s | 20 | |
| John Cock | gen | xx | s | 20 | |
| Robt James | xx | s | 20 | ||
| Richard James | xx | s | 20 | ||
| Bartholmewe Stone | xl | s | 40 | ||
| Robt Parkines | xx | s | 20 | ||
| Willm Bydwell | xx | s | 20 | ||
| John Okeley | xx | s | 20 | ||
| Willm Pament | xx | s | 20 | ||
| Walter Smythe | xx | s | 20 | ||
| Willm Noobes | xx | s | 20 | ||
| Richard Smythe | xx | s | 20 | ||
| Goods | 2s 8d in pound =10.28% | ||||
| The wydowe Cann & John her son decayed | iij | li | 60 | ||
| Total | 430 =£21:10s |
The first four columns are taken from the table as transcribed. The fifth column shows the total tax in shillings to simplify comparison.
The abbreviation “vid” is short for the latin “vidua” and means “widow”.
Footnotes
- Hudson, W. Assessment of the Hundred of Forehoe, Norfolk, 1621: A sidelight on the difficulties of National Taxation. Norfolk Archaeology, 1922, Vol 21, pp. 285-309. ↩︎
Navigation
| Date | Change |
|---|---|
| 16/1/23 | Published |
Deopham History 