Chapter 8

(W. Hu.)

ENGLEFIELD, SIR FRANCIS(c. 1520-1596), English Roman Catholic politician, born probably about 1520, was the eldest son of Sir Thomas Englefield of Englefield, Berkshire, justice of the common pleas. His mother was Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Robert Throckmorton, one of the well-known Catholic family of Coughton, Warwickshire. Francis, who succeeded his father in 1537, was too young to have taken any part in the opposition to the abolition of the Roman jurisdiction and dissolution of the monasteries; and he acquiesced in these measures to the extent of taking the oath of royal supremacy, serving as sheriff of Berkshire and Oxfordshire in 1546-1547, and accepting in 1545 a grant of the manor of Tilehurst, which had belonged to Reading Abbey. He was even knighted at the coronation of Edward VI. in February 1547. But the progress of the Reformation during that reign alienated him, and he attached his fortunes to the cause of the princess Mary, whose service he entered before 1551. In August of that year he was sent to the Tower for permitting Mass to be celebrated in Mary’s household. He was released in the following March, and permitted to resume his duties in Mary’s service. But in February 1553 he was again summoned before the privy council, and may have been in confinement at the crisis of July; perhaps he was only released on Mary’s triumph, for his name does not appear among those who exerted themselves on her behalf before the middle of August. He was then sworn a member of the privy council like many others who owed their promotion to their loyalty rather than to their political abilities. Their numbers swelled the privy council and sadly impaired its efficiency; but Mary resisted the various attempts to get rid of them because she liked staunch friends, and regarded them as a salutary check upon the abler but less scrupulous members who had served Edward VI. as well as herself. Englefield sat as M.P. for Berkshire in all Mary’s parliaments except that of April 1554, but received no higher political office than the lucrative mastership of the court of wards.

He was an ardent believer in persecution, was present at Hooper’s trial, sought Ascham’s ruin, and naturally lost his office and his seat on the privy council at Elizabeth’s succession. He retired to the continent before May 1559, and from that time until his death was an active participant in all schemes for the restoration of Roman Catholicism. At first his ideas took such comparatively mild forms as inducing the pope to send a legate to persuade Elizabeth to return to the fold; but gradually they grew more violent and treasonable, until Englefield became the close confidant of Cardinal Allen, Parsons and the “jesuited” Catholics, who advocated forcible intervention by Spain and the succession of the infanta; in 1585 Englefield thought that Mary’s succession, peaceful or other, would not be satisfactory unless it were owing to Spanish support and she were dependent on Philip. Englefield lived first at Rome, then in the Low Countries, and finally at Valladolid. He was blind for the last twenty years of his life, and received a pension of six hundred crowns from Philip. He had been outlawed in 1564 and his estates sequestered, but they were not forfeited until 1585, when an act of attainder was passed against Englefield. Even then some legal difficulties stood in the way of their appropriation by the crown, for Englefield, obviously with an eye to this contingency, had conditionally settled them on his nephew Francis. The long arguments on the point are given in Coke’sReports, and a further act was passed in 1592 confirming the forfeiture to the crown. The nephew, however, eventually recovered some of the family estates, and was created a baronet in 1612. His uncle was alive in September 1596, but apparently died at Valladolid about the end of that year. His tomb there used to be shown to visitors as that of an eminent man.

SeeDict. of Nat. Biog.xvii. 372-374; but additional light has been thrown on Englefield’s career since the date of that article by the publication of the Spanish and Venetian Calendars, the Hatfield MSS., the Acts of the Privy Council, and the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII.

(A. F. P.)

ENGLEHEART, GEORGE(1752-1829), English miniature painter, the great rival of Richard Cosway, was born at Kew in October 1752, and received his artistic training first under George Barret, R.A., and then under Sir Joshua Reynolds. He started on his own account in 1773, and exhibited in that year at the Royal Academy. He continued the active pursuit of his profession down to 1813, when he retired, and his fee-book, still in existence, records the names of his sitters, and the amount paid for each portrait, proving that he painted 4853 miniatures during that period of thirty-nine years, and that his professional income for many years exceeded £1200 a year. During the greater part of his life he resided in Hertford Street, Mayfair, where he lived till he retired. He died at Blackheath in 1829, and was buried at Kew.

He painted George III. twenty-five times, and had a very extensive circle of patrons, comprising nearly all the important persons connected with the court. He made careful copies in miniature of many of the famous paintings executed by Sir Joshua Reynolds, and in some cases these constitute the only information we possess respecting portraits by Sir Joshua that are now missing. His fee-book, colours, appliances and a large collection of his miniatures still remain in the possession of his descendants.

His nephew,John Cox Dillman Engleheart(1784-1862), also a miniature painter, entered George Engleheart’s studio when he was but fourteen years of age. He first exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1801, and sent in altogether 157 works. He was a man of substantial means, and in his time a very popular painter, but his health broke down when he was forty-four years old, and he had to relinquish the pursuit of his profession. He lived at Tunbridge Wells for some years and died there in 1862.

SeeGeorge Engleheart, by G. C. Williamson and H. L. D. Engleheart (1902).

(G. C. W.)

ENGLEWOOD,a city of Bergen county, New Jersey, U.S.A., near the Hudson river, 14 m. N. by E. of Jersey City. Pop. (1900) 6253, of whom 1548 were foreign-born and 386 negroes; (1905) 7922; (1910) 9924. It is served by a branch of the Erie railway, and by an electric line connecting with a ferry (at Fort Lee) to New York. Englewood is primarily a residential suburb of New York. The site rises terrace above terrace from the marshes in the valley of the Hackensack to the top of the palisades overlooking the Hudson, from which Englewood is separated by the borough of Englewood Cliffs (pop. in 1905, 266). There are several fine residences, a hospital, a public library and the Dwight school for girls (1859). The site of Englewood was for a long time a part of “English Neighbourhood,” and was known as Liberty Pole; but until 1859, when the place was laid out, there were only a few houses here, one of which was the “Liberty Pole Tavern.” In 1871 Englewood was set off from the township of Hackensack and was incorporated as a separate township, and in 1896 it was chartered as a city; but the act under which it was chartered was declared unconstitutional, and in 1899 Englewood was rechartered as a city by a special act of the state legislature.

ENGLISH CHANNEL(commonly called “The Channel”; Fr.La Manche, “the sleeve”), the narrow sea separating England from France. If its entrance be taken to lie between Ushant and the Scilly Isles, its extreme breadth (between those points) is about 100 m., and its length about 350. At the Strait of Dover, its breadth decreases to 20 m. Along both coasts of the Channel, cliffs and lowland alternate, and the geological affinities between successive opposite stretches are well marked, as between the Devonian and granitic rocks of Cornwall and Brittany, the Jurassic of Portland and Calvados, and the Cretaceous of the Pays de Caux and the Isle of Wight and the Sussex coast, as well as either shore of the Strait of Dover. The English Channel is of comparatively recent geological formation. The land-connexion between England and the continent was not finally severed until the latter part of the Pleistocene period. The Channel covers what was previously a wide valley, and may be described now as a headless gulf. The action of waves and currents, both destructive and constructive, is well seen at many points; thus Shakespeare Cliff at Dover is said to have been cut back more than a mile during the Christian era, and the cliffs of Grisnez have similarly receded. Of the opposite process notable examples are the building of the pebbly beaches of Chesil Bank and near Tréguier in Côtes du Nord, and the promontory of Dungeness. The total drainage area of the English rivers flowing into the Channel is about 8000 sq. m.; of the French rivers, including as they do the Seine, it is about 41,000 sq. m.

From the Strait of Dover the bottom slopes fairly regularly down to the western entrance of the Channel, the average depths ranging from 20 to 30 fathoms in the Strait to 60 fathoms at the entrance. An exception to this condition, however, is found in Hurd’s Deep, a narrow depression about 70 m. long, lying north and north-west of the Channel Islands, and at its nearest point to them only 5 m. distant from their outlying rocks, the Casquets. Towards its eastern end Hurd’s Deep has an extreme depth of 94 fathoms, and in it are found steeper slopes from shoal to deep water than elsewhere within the Channel. Nearing the entrance to the Channel from the Atlantic, the 100 fathoms line may be taken to mark the edge of soundings. Beyond this depth the bottom falls away rapidly. The 100 fathoms line is laid down about 180 m. W. to 120 m. S.W. of the Scilly Isles, and 80 m. W. of Ushant. Within it there are considerable irregularities of the bottom; thus a succession of narrow ridges running N.E. and S.W. occurs west of the Scillies, while only 4 m. N.W. of Ushant there is a small depression in which a depth of 105 fathoms has been found. As a general rule the slope from the English coast to the deepest parts of the Channel is more regular than that from the French coast, and for that reason, and in consideration of the greater dangers to navigation towards the French shore, the fairway is taken to lie between 12 and 24 m. from the principal promontories of the English shore, as far up-channel as Beachy Head. These promontories (the Lizard, Start Point, Portland Bill, St Alban’s Head, St Catherine’s Point of the Isle of Wight, Selsey Bill, Beachy Head, Dungeness, the South Foreland) demarcate a series of bays roughly of sickle-shape, the shores of which run north and south, or nearly so, at their western sides, turn eastward somewhat abruptly at their heads, and then trend more gently towards the south-east. On the French coast the arrangement is similar but reversed; Capes Grisnez, Antifer and La Hague, and the Pointe du Sillon demarcating a series of bays (larger than those on the English coast) whose shores run north and south on the eastern side, and have a gentler trend westward from the head.

The configuration of the coasts is perhaps the chief cause of the peculiarities of tides in the Channel. From the entrance as far as Portland Bill the time of high water is found to be progressively later in passing from west to east, being influenced by the oceanic tidal stream from the west under conditions which are on the whole normal. But eastward of a line between Portland Bill and the Gulf of St Malo these conditions are changed and great irregularities are observed. On the English coast between Portland Bill and Selsey a double tide is found. At Portland this double tide corresponds approximately with the time of low water in the regular tidal progression, and the result is the occurrence of two periods of low water, separated by a slight rise known locally as “gulder.” But farther east the double tide corresponds more nearly with the time of high water, and in consequence either the effect is produced of a prolonged period of high water, or there are actually two periods of high water, as at Southampton. Various causes apparently contribute to this phenomenon. The configuration of the coast line is such as to present at intervals barriers to the regular movement of the tidal wave (west to east), so that reflex waves (east to west) are set up. In the extreme case at Southampton the tidal effect is carried from the outer Channel first by way ofthe Solent, the strait west of the Isle of Wight, and later by way of Spithead, the eastern strait. Finally the effect of the tidal stream entering the Channel through the Strait of Dover from the North Sea must be considered. The set of this stream towards the Strait of Dover from the east corresponds in time with that of the Channel stream (i.e.the stream within an area defined by Start Point, the Casquets, Beachy Head and the mouth of the Somme) towards the strait from the west; the set of the two streams away from the strait also corresponds, and consequently they alternately meet and separate. The area in which the meeting and separation take place lies between Beachy Head and the North Foreland, the mouth of the Somme and Dunkirk. Within this area, therefore, a stream is formed, known as the intermediate stream, which, running at first with the Channel stream and then with the North Sea stream, changes its direction throughout its length almost simultaneously, and is never slack. Under these conditions, the time of high water eastward of Selsey Bill as far as Dover is almost the same at all points, though somewhat earlier at the east than at the west of this stretch of coast. The configuration of the French coast causes a very strong tidal flow in the Gulf of St Malo, with an extreme range at spring tides of 42 ft. at St Germain, compared with a range of 12 ft. at Exmouth and 7 ft. at Portland. In the neighbourhood of Beer Head and Portland and Weymouth Roads the streams are found to form vortices with only a slight movement. On the eastern (Selsey-Dover) section of the English coast themaximumrange of tide is found at Hastings, with a decrease both eastward and westward of this point.

Westerly winds are most prevalent in the Channel. The total number of gales recorded in the period 1871-1885 was 190, of which 104 were south-westerly. Gales are most frequent from October to January (November during the above period had more than any other month, with an average of 2.1), and most rare from May to July. It appears that gales are generally more violent and prolonged when coincident with spring tides than with neaps. The winds have naturally a powerful effect on the tidal streams and currents, the latter being in these seas simply movements of the water set up by gales, which may themselves be far distant. Thus under the influence of westerly winds prevailing west of the Iberian Peninsula a current may be set up from the Bay of Biscay across the entrance of the Channel; this is called Rennell’s current. Fogs and thick weather are common in the Channel, and occur at all seasons of the year. Observations during the period 1876-1890 at Dover, Hurst Castle and the Scilly Isles showed that at the two first stations fogs most frequently accompany anticyclonic conditions in winter, but at the Scilly Isles they are much more common in summer than in winter, and accompany winds of moderate strength more frequently than in the case of the up-Channel stations.

(O. J. R. H.)

Salinity and Temperature.—The waters of the English Channel are derived partly from the west and partly from the English and French rivers, and all observations tend to show that there is a slow and almost continuous current through it from west to east. The western supply comes from two sources, one of which, the more important, is the relatively salt and warm water of the Bay of Biscay, which enters from the south-west and has a salinity sometimes reaching 35.6 pro mille (parts of salt per thousand by weight); the other consists of a southerly current from the Irish Channel, and is colder and has a salinity of 35.0 to 35.2 pro mille. As the water passes eastwards it mixes with the fresher coastal water, so that the salinities generally rise from the shore to the central line, and from east to west, though south of Scilly Islands there is often a fall due to the influence of the Irish Channel. The mean annual salinity decreases from between 35.4 and 35.5 pro mille in the western entrance to 35.2 pro mille at the Strait of Dover on the central axis, and to about 34.7 pro mille under the Isle of Wight and off the Bay of the Seine. The English Channel may be divided into two areas by a line drawn from Start Point to Guernsey and the Gulf of St Malo. In the eastern area the water is thoroughly mixed owing to the action of the strong tidal currents and its comparatively small depth, and salinities and temperatures are therefore generally the same from surface to bottom; while westward of this line there is often a strongly marked division into layers of different salinity and temperature, especially in summer and autumn, when the fresher water of the Irish Channel is found overlying the salt water of the Bay of Biscay. The salinity of the English Channel undergoes an annual change, being highest in winter and spring and lowest in summer, and this change is better marked in the eastern area, where the mean deviation from the annual mean reaches 0.3 pro mille, than it is farther west with a mean deviation of 0.1 pro mille. There is also reason to believe that there is a regular change with a two-year period, years of high maximum and low minimum alternating with years of low maximum and high minimum. Variations of long period or unperiodic also occur, which are probably, and in one case (1905) almost certainly, due to changes taking place some months earlier far out in the Atlantic Ocean.

The mean annualsurfacetemperature increases from between 11° C. and 11.5° C. at the Strait of Dover to over 12° C. at the western entrance.1The yearly range in the eastern area is considerable, reaching 11° C. off the Isle of Wight and 10° C. in the Strait of Dover; westward it gradually decreases to 5° C. a short distance north-west of Ushant. The mean maximum temperature, over 16° C., is found under the English coast from Start Point to the Strait of Dover about the 1st of September and off the French coast eastward of Cape la Hague about eleven days later. In the western area the maximum temperature is about 15° C. and occurs between September 1 and 11. The mean minimum surface temperature is between 5° C. and 6° C. at the eastern end, and increases to over 9° C. off the coast of Brittany. Owing to the thorough mixing of the water in the eastern area the temperatures are here generally the same at all depths, and the description of the surface conditions applies equally to the bottom. In the western entrance, on the other hand, the bottom temperature is often much lower than on the surface; the range here is also much less, about 3° C., and the maximum is not reached till about the 1st of October, or from three weeks to a month later than on the surface.

A detailed account of the mean conditions in the English Channel will be found inRap. et procès-verbaux, vol. vi., andBulletin supplémentaire(1908) of the Conseil Permanent International pour l’Exploration de la Mer (Copenhagen).

(D. J. M.)

Cross-Channel Communication.—An immense amount of time and thought has been expended in the elaboration of schemes to provide unbroken railway communication between Great Britain and the continent of Europe and enable passengers and goods to be conveyed across the Channel without the delay and expense involved by transhipping them into and out of ordinary steamers. These schemes have taken three main forms: (1) tunnels, either made through the ground under the sea, or consisting of built-up structures resting upon the sea bed; (2) bridges, either elevated high above the sea-level so as to admit of the unimpeded passage of ships under them, or submerged below the surface; and (3) train ferries, or vessels capable of conveying a train of railway vehicles with their loads. A tunnel was first proposed at the very beginning of the 19th century by a French mining engineer named Mathieu, whose scheme was for a time favourably regarded by Napoleon, but it was first put on a practical basis more than fifty years later by J. A. Thomé de Gamond (1807-1876), whose plans were submitted to the French emperor in 1856. This engineer had begun to work at the problem of cross-Channel communication twenty years previously, and had considered the possibility of a submerged tunnel or tube resting on the sea-level, of steam ferries plying between huge piers thrown out from both coasts, and of a bridge, for which he prepared five different plans. He again brought forward his scheme for a tunnel, in a modified form, in 1867, and exhibited his plans in the Universal Exhibition of that year. About the same time an English engineer, William Lowe, of Wrexham, was also working at the idea of a tunnel. Geological investigation convinced him that between Fanhole, a point half amile west of the South Foreland light, and Sangatte on the French coast, 4 m. W. of Calais, the Dover grey chalk was continuous from side to side, and he considered that this stratum, owing to its comparative freedom from water and the general absence of cracks and fissures, offered exceptional advantages for a tunnel. He and Thomé de Gamond joined forces, and their plans were adopted by an international committee whose object was to popularize the idea of a tunnel both in England and France. Its engineers on the English side were Lowe, Sir James Brunlees and Sir John Hawkshaw, the last of whom in 1866 had made trial borings at St Margaret’s and near Sangatte; and on the French side Thomé de Gamond, Paulin Talabot and Michael Chevalier. In 1868 they reported that there was a reasonable prospect of completing the tunnel in ten or twelve years at a cost not exceeding ten millions sterling. They admitted, however, that there was some risk of an influx of the sea, but pointed out that this risk could be determined by driving preliminary driftways, as suggested by Lowe, and for this purpose asked for financial aid from the imperial treasury. A commission of inquiry then appointed by the French ministry of public works reported favourably on the plans, though it declined to, recommend a grant of money; but the further progress of the scheme was interrupted by the outbreak of the Franco-German war.

The tunnel was by no means the only plan in evidence at this period for securing continuous railway communication between England and France. An iron tube, resting on the bottom of the sea, had been proposed by Tessier de Mottray in 1803, and had again been considered by Thomé de Gamond in 1833; but after 1850 projects of this kind might almost be counted by the dozen. Some of the structures were to be of iron, others of concrete or masonry, and some were to be floated a moderate distance below the surface. One of the most carefully worked out plans was that of J. F. Bateman and J. Revy, who proposed to construct a continuous tube, 13 ft. in internal diameter, of iron rings each 10 ft. long, each ring being built out from the completed portion of the tube by means of a horizontal chamber or bell, which slid telescopically over the last few rings previously put in place, and was moved forward by hydraulic power. About the same time Zerah Colburn produced plans for a tube constructed of 1000 ft. sections, which were to be built in dry dock and then successively attached by a ball and socket joint to the completed portion, the whole being raised from the bottom and dragged out to sea, by the aid of a large number of ships, as each section was attached and launched. Thomas Page, again, the builder of Westminster Bridge, proposed to place eight conical steel shafts at intervals across the Strait of Dover, and to connect them by long sections of tube lowered from the surface, the whole structure being covered with concrete when finished. No attempt was made to put any of these plans into execution, and the same was true of several bridge schemes propounded about the same time; in one of these, spans one-half or three-quarters of a mile in length were contemplated, while another required 190 towers, 500 ft. apart and rising 500 ft. above the water-level, which obviously would have constituted an intolerable nuisance to navigation. The case, however, was different with a train ferry which was vigorously advocated by Sir John Fowler. His proposal was to employ steamers 450 ft. long, with a beam of 57 ft. and a speed of 20 knots, having railway lines laid down on their decks on and off which railway vehicles could be run directly at each side of the strait. Dover was to be the English port, while on the French coast a new harbour was to be formed at Audresselles, between Calais and Boulogne. This plan in 1872 received the sanction of the House of Commons, but was rejected in the House of Lords by the casting vote of the chairman of the committee. According to another similar ferry scheme, which was worked out by Admiral Dupuy de Lôme in 1870, a new maritime station was to be constructed at Calais, so far off the shore that it would command deep water at every state of the tide, and connected with the French railways by a bridge.

After the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian War, negotiations concerning the tunnel were resumed between the French and British governments, and in 1872 the latter intimated that it had “no objection in principle.” After some further communications between the two governments in 1874, settling the basis on which the enterprise should be allowed to proceed, a joint commission was appointed to arrange details relating to jurisdiction, the right of blocking the tunnel, &c., and this commission’s report was accepted as a basis of agreement between the governments. In 1875 the Channel Tunnel Company obtained an act authorizing it to undertake certain preliminary works at St Margaret’s Bay. In the same year the French Submarine Railway Company obtained a concession, with the obligation to spend a minimum of 2,000,000 francs in making investigations; in fact it took over 3000 samples from the bottom of the sea in the strait, and made over 7000 soundings, and also sunk a shaft at Sangatte and started a heading. The English company did not do so much, for it failed to raise the money it required and its powers expired in 1880. Moreover, it was not the only company in the field, and its programme was not universally accepted as the best possible. Some authorities, such as Sir Joseph Prestwich, doubted whether the tunnel should be attempted in the chalk because of the likelihood of fissures being encountered while others who thought the chalk suitable were dissatisfied With the actual plans and formed a rival “Anglo-French Submarine Railway Company.” In 1882 another tunnel company made its appearance. In 1874 the South Eastern Railway Company had obtained powers to sink experimental shafts on its property between Dover and Folkestone, and in 1881 to acquire lands, including the beach and foreshore, in that area in connexion with a Channel tunnel. These powers resulted, in 1882, in the formation of the Submarine Continental Railway Company which in that year sought parliamentary sanction for a tunnel, starting from a point west of Dover, at Shakespeare’s Cliff; and at the same time the resuscitated Channel Tunnel Company applied for powers to make one from Fanhole, instead of St Margaret’s Bay as in its former scheme. The whole question of the tunnel was then widely discussed and considered by various committees, the last of which—a joint select committee of the Lords and Commons—in 1883 expressed the opinion by a majority that it was “inexpedient that parliamentary sanction should be given to a submarine communication between England and France.” This decision for the time being disposed of the question of making a tunnel, and though Sir Edward Watkin, one of its most prominent advocates, brought bill after bill before parliament to authorize experimental works in connexion with it, all were rejected. In 1882 the government interfered with the operations then in progress, and they were ultimately discontinued. They included a driftway 7 ft. in diameter which was driven for a distance of about 2300 yds. eastwards under the sea at an inclination of 1 in 72 from the bottom of a shaft sunk to a depth of 164 ft. in the chalk marl at Shakespeare’s Cliff.

About this time the Channel Bridge and Railway Company took in hand the design of a bridge, the preliminary plans for which were exhibited in the Paris Exhibition of 1889. The terminal points were Folkestone and Cap Grisnez, and for the sake of facilitating the laying of the pier foundations it was proposed to take the bridge over the Varne and Colbart shoals. The main girders were to be nearly 59 yds. above the sea-level, the railway itself being more than 20 ft. higher still, and the spans were to vary in length between 540 and 108 yds. As the result of a survey of the sea bottom made in 1890, a modification in the line of the bridge was adopted, and it was taken direct from Cap Blancnez to the South Foreland. It was found that in this way an excellent bottom would be obtained for the foundations, and the length of the bridge would be 3 m. less, the number of piers, by employing spans of 434 and 542 yds. alternately, being reduced to 72. The cost of this structure was estimated at £28,320,000, exclusive of interest on capital during the period of construction, which was put at seven years. The same company also worked out plans for a moving chariot or platform, capable of holding a railway train and supported by long legs on a submerged causeway or track constructed of steel orarmoured concrete 45 or 50 ft. below low-water level. No attempt has been made actually to carry out either this project or that of a bridge.

In 1905 the question of establishing a train ferry from Dover across the Channel was brought forward by the Intercontinental Railway Company, and in the following year the Channel Ferry (Dover) Act was passed authorizing the work. About the same period the Channel Tunnel Company, which had amalgamated with the Submarine Railway Company, awoke to activity and started a campaign in favour of its scheme; but the bill which it promoted was opposed by the government and accordingly was withdrawn in March 1907.

SeeBlue-book, Correspondence respecting the proposed Channel Tunnel, Commercial No. 6 (1875);Blue-book, Correspondence with reference to the proposed Construction of a Channel Tunnel, C. 3358 (1882);Blue-book, Report from the Joint Select Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons on the Channel Tunnel(1883); F. J. Bramwell, “The Making and Working of a Channel Tunnel,”Proc. Roy. Inst., May 1882; Tylden Wright, “The Channel Tunnel,”North of England Inst. Min. and Mech. Eng.vol. 33 (1882); W. Boyd Dawkins, “The Channel Tunnel,”Manchester Geol. Soc., May 1882, andBrit. Assoc. Rep.(1882, 1899); E. de Rodakowski,The Channel Ferry(London, 1905).

(H. M. R.)

150° F. = 10° C.; 60.8° F. = 16° C.

ENGLISH FINANCE.The history of the English fiscal system affords the best example known of continuous financial development, in respect both of institutions and methods. Though certain great periods of change can be readily noticed, yet from the time of the Norman Conquest to the beginning of the 20th century the line of connexion is substantially unbroken. Perhaps the most revolutionary changes occurred in the 17th century, as the outcome of the Civil War, and, later on, the revolution of 1688. But even in this case there was no real breach of continuity. It is, therefore, possible to trace the normal growth and expansion of British finance as one of the aspects of the nation’s history.

The primitive financial institutions of England centre round the king’s household, or, in other words, the royal economy precedes the national one. Revenue dues collected by the king’s agents, rents, or rather returns of produce, from land, and special levies for emergencies form the elements of the royal income, which gradually acquired greater regularity and consistency. There is, however, little or no evidence of any effective financial organization until we approach the 11th century. The influence exercised from Normandy, which so powerfully affected the English rulers at this time, tended towards the creation of records of revenue claims and also of a central treasury.

With the union of England and Normandy under the same head the idea of settled administrative methods was definitely fixed and became of special importance in the field of finance. The systematizing spirit, so characteristic of both the Norman and Angevin kings, produced the great institution of the exchequer (q.v.) with its judicial and administrative sides, and its elaborate forms of account and control. Even before this organization was developed the Domesday Survey (seeDomesday Book)—now recognized as having a purely fiscal object (in Maitland’s words “a tax book, a geld book”)—shows the movement towards careful observation of the sources of revenue. It is clear that William I. initiated a policy which was followed by his successors, in spite of the serious difficulties of the period of anarchy during Stephen’s nominal reign. The obscure question as to the real origin of the special contrivances employed by the exchequer is, strictly speaking, irrelevant to the financial inquirer, who may be content to hold that, granting the existence of some Old English analogies, the system, as it appears in the 12th century, was a peculiar product of the conceptions as to fiscal organization formed by Norman subtlety. It is the manner in which this institution held together and focused the revenues and expenditure of the kingdom that has to be considered. The picture presented by the “Dialogue of the Exchequer” (c. 1176) is that of a comprehensive system which secured the receipt of the royal income, and provided a thorough audit of the accounts by employing processes adapted to the circumstances of the time. It is, in fact, through the description of financial institutions that it is possible to ascertain the forms of revenue possessed by the crown. The ingenuity expended on the administrative machinery of the exchequer had as its aim the increase of the king’s resources, an object in which the official class of churchmen and lawyers was deeply interested.

In order to understand the character Of English finance in the middle ages it is absolutely essential to bear constantly in mind the identification of the king with the state. Though feudalism (q.v.) was, in one of its aspects, a powerful instrument for division of political authority, it, nevertheless, in the particular form in which the Conqueror introduced it into England, enabled the fiscal rights of the crown to be established in a more definite shape than was possible under the older condition. For, in the first place, the actual property of the crown was more carefully administered as each royal manor came under the system of accounting. Again, the various claims or dues of the king took more decidedly the feudal type and received stricter legal definition. Further, the higher judicial organization assisted the expansion of court fees; while, above all, the increased authority of the state made the casual receipts (for such they were) from trade more profitable.

In a broad view the sources of revenue fall under the following heads:—(1) The royal estates which were distributed over England, derived in part from the possessions of the old English kings, but increased by the confiscations that followed the events of the Conqueror’s reign, as well as by the doctrine that unowned land was the king’s (terra regis). Over fourteen hundred manors appear in Domesday as royal property. The forests, placed under special laws, yielded little revenue, except in the form of penalties on offenders. The rural tenants, who at first paid their rents in produce, gradually commuted them into money payments. As the royal demesne was favourable for the growth of towns the rents derived from urban tenants became a valuable part of the yield from the demesne; this, later, took the shape of a payment from the town as a unit (thefirma burgi), a method which secured to the burghers freedom from the exactions of the sheriff and which was purchased by special payments. (2) The feudal rights. These included the claim to military service; the three regular aids and the payments of relief at succession to a fief, as also the profits on wardships and marriages. Escheats and forfeitures completed the list. The yield from this source varied with the power of the king and was kept within bounds by the resistance of the tenants as shown in the provisions of Magna Carta. (3) The administration of justice was a lucrative prerogative of the crown. Suitors had to pay for securing the hearing of their cases in addition to the fees for writs, and both amercements and compositions increased the receipts under this head. (4) Two special classes contributed to the royal exchequer. As a great deal of the wealth of the country was in the hands of the church the opportunities afforded by the vacancies of sees, abbacies and priories were utilized for the purpose of securing the profits of these offices during the time in which there was no occupant; and this term was frequently prolonged by the king’s action or inaction. The Jews, until their expulsion, were an even more profitable class to the revenue. Being under the absolute control of the crown, they could be taxed at pleasure, either by taking a percentage of their property (e.g.in one case, one-fourth), or by levies for alleged offences. The existence of a separate exchequer for the Jews is an indication of their fiscal value. (5) Direct taxation formed an extraordinary or occasional head of revenue. The Danegeld was succeeded by the carucage, and the commutation of military service introduced the scutage, but these forms were of little immediate importance, though very significant for the future course of development. (6) Lastly come the dues claimed at the ports, which contain in germ the customs system of later times, though they rather resemble the harbour charges of modern ports and were very trivial in amount.

The history of the English financial system consists largely in the exhibition of the different fortunes of these several component parts of the exchequer receipts; for it must be remembered that the sheriff was bound to account to that tribunal for all that he should have received, and by this agency the localcontributions passed into the king’s possession for the service of the state, During the century and a half that lay between the Conquest and the granting of the Great Charter the account given above holds good. The character of the ruler affected the vigour of the fiscal, as well as the general, administration. Henry I. and Henry II. secured much better results than Stephen or John; but the collection of the rent and profits of the royal manors and the feudal and other dues continued as the mainstay of revenue. Indications of change are, however, to be found. Thus the substitution of the “carucage” or plough tax for the “Danegeld” marks an advance towards direct taxation of land through its produce, and the introduction of “scutage” is not only further evidence of the same tendency, but also a step in the development of “money economy” in place of the earlier “natural economy” or system of payments in kind. The special levies or “tallages” imposed at times of need on the towns in the king’s demesne appear to have been a doubtful exercise of the royal prerogative, but scientifically they belong to the same class as the Danegeld and scutage. Perhaps the most important advance made in this period is the beginning of taxation of movables, first applied in the Saladin tithe of 1189 and, later, expanded into a general system.

In the reign of John (1199-1216) the loss of Normandy and the concession of the barons’ demands by the issue of Magna Carta rendered financial readjustments inevitable. During the long reign of Henry III. the struggle to maintain the privileges granted by the Charter acted on the fiscal system by checking the arbitrary use of tallages, and as a consequence, encouraging the regular assessment of the tax on movables, which was becoming more prominent. The fruitful idea that it was necessary to obtain the consent of the payers of taxes before the imposition operated powerfully in favour of the establishment of bodies representing the several estates. It is through the reaction of constitutional on fiscal development that the transition from feudal to parliamentary taxation in its earlier form is made.

Almost at the opening of the age of parliamentary taxation one of the older sources of revenue ceased. The pressure of popularopinionforced Edward I. to decree the expulsion of the Jews (1290), though he naturally desired to retain such profitable subjects. It is, indeed, probable that, owing to the exactions practised on them, the Jewish usurers had become less serviceable to the exchequer; while it is certain that the general resources of the kingdom had so increased as to make their contribution relatively much smaller. The first effects of the representative influence in the fiscal domain are the abandonment of the tallages on towns and the decline of scutage as a mode of levy. The tax on movables was framed in a more systematic way. Instead of distinct charges on different classes, or variations in proportion of levy from one-fourth to one-fortieth, the policy of imposing a tax of one-tenth on the towns and one-fifteenth on the counties was adopted. Greater strictness in assessment was sought by the appointment of commissioners for each county, supplied with special instructions as to taxable goods and exemptions. This method continued in force for the tax on movables from 1290 till 1334, though in some cases the proportions imposed on the towns and counties were varied (e.g.an eighth and a fifth were granted in 1297, and a tenth and a sixth in 1322). A more general influence was the growing national economy which led to greater activity on the part of the king as administrator, and which also increased the need of the state for revenue. Though the doctrine that “The king should live of his own” was generally accepted as a constitutional maxim, the force of events was making it obsolete. From being an infrequent and uncertain kind of taxation the direct tax on movables, which was practically absorbing the older forms, became usual and regular. Under medieval conditions the collection of a general property tax (for such, in fact, was the nature of “the tenth and fifteenth”) presented serious difficulties. Each locality gained by keeping its assessment down to the lowest point, while the borough authorities were naturally not eager to enforce the charge on their fellow-citizens. England in the 14th century was not ripe for a system that has been found hard to make effective in more advanced societies. Hence, from 1334 onward, the method of “apportionment” was employed,i.e.the tenth and fifteenth was taken as affording a definite sum measured by the yield on the ancient valuation. As this gave, in the aggregate, between £38,000 and £39,000, “the tenth and fifteenth” became for the future “practically a fiscal expression for a sum of about £39,000”; the total to be divided or “apportioned” between the several counties, cities and boroughs according to their former payments. This settlement, which remained in force for centuries and affected all the later direct taxes, had the great advantages of certainty and adaptability. The inhabitants of any particular town knew their total liability and could distribute it amongst themselves in the manner most convenient to them. From the royal standpoint also the arrangement was satisfactory, for the “tenth and fifteenth” could be multiplied (e.g.in 1352 three “tenths and fifteenths” were voted for three years), and supplied a stable revenue for the service of the kingdom. To the parliament the power of regulating the policy of the crown by the bestowal or refusal of grants was naturally agreeable. Thus, all sections of the nation united in support of the system established in 1334, just before the opening of the Hundred Years’ War, in connexion with which it was particularly serviceable.

Akin to the tax that has just been described, at least in its nature as a direct impost, is the poll or capitation tax. Financial pressure at the close of Edward III.’s reign (1377) led to the adoption of a tax of fourpence per head on all persons in the kingdom (mendicants and persons under fourteen years being excepted). This “tallage of groats,” which seems to be derived by analogy from the hearth money for Peter’s pence, was followed by the graduated poll taxes of 1379 and 1380. In the former the scale ranged from ten marks (£6:13:4) imposed on the royal dukes and the viscounts, through six marks on earls, bishops and abbots, and three on barons, down to the groat or fourpence payable by all persons over sixteen years of age. Such a form of taxation approximated—as Adam Smith saw—to an income tax, but it proved to be unproductive, only half of the estimated yield of £50,000 being obtained. The tax of 1380 varied within narrower limits; from twenty shillings to fourpence (or sixty groats to three), with the proviso that “the strong should aid the weak.” But this particular tax is chiefly memorable as the occasion—whatever may have been the real causes—of the great “Peasants’ Revolt” of 1381. This unlucky association sealed the fate of the poll tax as a fiscal expedient. It was abandoned, with one exception, for nearly three hundred years; and its occasional employment in the 17th century did not result in its permanent revival. Apart from special circumstances it is plain that the “tenth and fifteenth” was better suited than the poll tax for the purpose of English finance. The machinery for collection was ready to hand for the former, while special agents had to gather the latter, even from the poorest classes. In fact, the episode of the poll taxes may be regarded as an attempt—fortunately unsuccessful—to relieve the propertied classes at the expense of the peasants and poorer burghers. Failure in this respect helped in the maintenance of the settlement of direct taxation devised in 1334.

Parallel with the evolution of direct taxation, but decidedly lagging behind, is the progress of indirect taxation. As already mentioned, the right of levying dues on goods entering or leaving English ports belonged from very early times to the king. Whether this power was, in its origin, due to the protection afforded to traders and thus a kind of insurance, or the result of the royal prerogative of pre-emption is immaterial for finance. What is established is that the “prisage” of wine or levy of one cask in ten, and the taking of one-tenth or one-fifteenth of other commodities was in force. Attempts to impose additional dues were forbidden by an important article (41) of the Great Charter which recognized “the ancient and just customs.” One of the earliest effects of parliamentary influence is manifested in the establishment of duties on wool, woolfells and leather by Edward I.’s first parliament. After some efforts by the king to gather increased duties, the “Confirmation of the Charters”(1297) forbade any increases on the amounts fixed in 1275, which were henceforth known as the ancient customs. Another attempt was made to obtain a higher scale of duties by arrangement with the merchants. The foreign traders consented to the royal proposals, which comprised duties on wine, wool, hides and wax, as well as a general tax of 1¼% on all imports and exports. Thus, in addition to the old customs of half a mark (6s. 8d.) per sack of wool and on each three hundred woolfells, and one mark (13s. 4d.) per last or load of leather, the foreign merchants paid an extra duty (or surtax) of 50% and also 2s. on the tun of wine—the so-called “butlerage.” The privileges granted in the Carta Mercatoria (1303) were probably the consideration for accepting these enhanced dues. The English merchants, however, for the time, successfully resisted the application in their case of the higher charges, and consequently remained under the old prisage of wine. In spite of parliamentary opposition, on the ground that they amounted to an infringement of the Great Charter, the new customs were maintained in force. After being suspended in 1311 they were revived in 1322, confirmed by royal authority in 1328, and finally sanctioned by parliament in the Statute of the Staple (1353). They became a part of the permanent crown revenue from the ports, and, with the old customs, were the basis for further development.

Just as the old direct taxes were first supplemented by, and then absorbed in, the general taxation of movables, so the customs, in the strict sense, were followed by the subsidies or parliamentary grants. One great source of English wealth in the 14th century was the export of the peculiarly fine wool of the country, and the political circumstances of Edward III.’s time suggested the manipulation of the trade in this commodity for purposes of policy as well as revenue. Sometimes, in order to influence the towns of Flanders, the export of wool was absolutely prohibited; at others, export duties of varying amounts were imposed on wool, skins and leather. In the early years of the reign these arrangements were settled by agreement with the merchants. The subsidies of this class began in 1340 and henceforward were frequently granted, though complaints were very often made. Thus, in 1348 the Commons objected to the subsidy of an export duty of £2 per sack on wool on the ground that it was really a tax on the landowners, who received a lower price for their wool in consequence of the duty. Bargains between the king and the merchants were forbidden, and this species of taxation was brought under parliamentary control by statutes passed in 1362 and 1371. Along with the special duties on wool there was an increase of the imposts on wine and general goods. By agreement with the merchants a charge of 2s. per tun on wine and 2½% on goods was levied in 1347. Between 1371 and 1376 these dues were established as parliamentary grants under the names of “Tunnage” and “Poundage,” leaving the older dues intact.

One class or “estate” occupied a peculiar position. The clergy still claimed the privilege of self-taxation, and therefore it was convocation, not parliament, that voted the tenths imposed on clerical property. In some instances much heavier charges (e.g.in 1296 one-third) were decreed by the king, but the taxation of the clergy declined in productiveness during the 14th century. By the close of the reign of Richard II. the results of the transition from feudalism to a parliamentary constitution were practically complete. In respect to finance the most important of these were: (1) The disappearance or reduction to unimportance of the feudal dues. The fact that this change occurred at, relatively speaking, so early a date is of special significance for English development. (2) The royal demesne, though it had not suffered the losses that the grants of later times inflicted on it, had also lost some of its value as a source of revenue. (3) In compensation the direct taxation of property had become a ready means of supplying the growing requirements of the administration, and the mode of levy had been reduced to a well-recognized form, unsatisfactory experiments—such as the poll tax—being withdrawn. (4) The growth of import and export duties through the “old” and “new” customs and the subsidies furnished a large part of the requisite funds. In fact, in the course of a little over three hundred years the constituent parts of the public income had, without any violent change, been completely altered in relative value and in organization.

The period of the Lancastrian kings, extending over two-thirds of the 15th century (1399-1471), is noticeable for various experiments in the system of direct taxation. The standard tax—“the tenth and fifteenth”—failed to suit the changed conditions. In consequence of the decay of some of the towns allowances had to be made to them, amounting to over 15% (£6000), which, with other deductions, lowered the yield from a “tenth and fifteenth” to £31,000. As a supplement a land tax, affecting only the large owners, was voted at the rate of 5% in 1404, and repeated with wider scope, but at the lower rate of 12⁄3%, in 1411. A house tax made its appearance in 1428. Taxes on knight’s fees and other freeholds were also tried, while in 1435 and 1450 the graduated income tax was employed. The minimum rate, 2½%, applied to incomes under £100 (or under £20 in the tax of 1450), and rose to 10% on the higher incomes. These devices are evidence of the demand for larger revenue, and also of the increasing unfitness of the existing direct taxation. It may be added that they indicate a disposition to adopt foreign models, particularly the methods of taxation in use in France and Italy. As to indirect taxation the receipts seem at first to have declined, and the subsidies were only granted for fixed terms (the victory of Agincourt gained a life grant to Henry V.). After the establishment of Edward IV. on the throne, the idea of a “tenth,” in the literal sense, was taken up and voted (1472) by the two houses as a special military provision; but it failed to bring in the required revenue, and the king had to fall back on grants of the old-established form. Extra taxes on aliens were levied under both Lancastrian and Yorkist rulers with little profit. The most original contribution of Edward IV. to fiscal policy was the “benevolence” (q.v.) or payment by wealthy subjects of sums requested by the king. Voluntary in form, these payments were, in fact, compulsory, and became in later times one of the great grievances against which parliament had to struggle.

Broader issues in finance marked the course of the Tudor period, and these were connected with the general history of the time. The era of national monarchies had arrived, necessitating the maintenance of greater military and naval forces, as well as more costly machinery of administration. External policy was affected by the set of ideas that developed into mercantilism (seeMercantile System); but so also was fiscal policy. Finance reflected the actions of the personal rule that was the characteristic of the 16th century. Within the period, however, some decided contrasts are to be found. Prudence, carried to parsimony with Henry VII., is followed by lavish prodigality in the case of Henry VIII. Elizabeth, again, presents in her reign a very different financial policy from that of either her father or her grandfather. The desire for a vigorous foreign policy, the hope of encouraging native industry, and the sentiment of retaliation against the trade regulations of other countries are found to interfere with the aim—strictly followed in earlier times—of obtaining the largest possible yield. All the different parts of the public economy were regarded as existing only in order to be utilized for the furtherance of national power. It is this more complex character in policy, coupled with the new influences, that the discovery of America, the Renaissance and the Reformation brought into operation, which gives special interest to the financial problems of the 16th century.

Taking in order the great heads of public income placed at the disposal of the sovereign, it appears that the first head of the old receipts—the crown lands—had been from time to time diminished by grants to the king’s relatives and favourites, but had also gained through resumptions and forfeitures. On the whole, the loss and gain down to the close of the 14th century was probably balanced. The revenue was, however, inelastic, and declined in relative importance. It has been said that “it was in the 15th century that the great impoverishment of the crown estate began.” The Lancastrian kings (especially Henry VI.) lost most of the lands attached to the crown through pressure of expenditure and the wholesale plunder of officials.Though the civil wars of the 15th century brought in many forfeited estates the grants of Edward IV. kept down the increase. But the chief opportunity for aggrandizement was afforded by the dissolution of the monasteries and gilds under Henry VIII. The great mass of property that passed into the royal possession in this way was in part assigned to nobles and officials, while most of the remainder was distributed in the reigns of his children. The dwindling importance of the public revenue from land and rent charges is as noticeable under the Tudors as in earlier times. In like manner the feudal dues had fallen into a very subordinate place notwithstanding the attempts made on particular occasions to enforce them with greater rigour. The force of personal monarchy exercised by the Tudors, depending as it did on popular support, tended to encourage the collection of dues which had a legal ground in preference to taxation of the community. Of similar character was the employment of the old right of purveyance (q.v.), in restraint of which a series of statutes had been passed.

Whatever possibilities of obtaining some additional revenue from the crown lands or prerogative rights may have existed in the 16th century, and these were slight, all the political and social conditions tended more and more to make the need of taxation as the principal financial resource imperative. Amongst the cases of increased calls for funds to maintain the machinery of state, the rise of prices, due to increased supplies of the precious metals, must be included as one of the chief, and its effect extends into the 17th century. It was under this influence that the old forms of revenue became less profitable and that fresh developments were necessitated.

Direct taxation still retained in one of its branches the pattern set in the reign of Edward III. “Tenths and fifteenths” continued to be voted, and for some time all attempts to introduce new methods failed. In 1488 a military grant framed on the model of the abortive tax of 1472 yielded only a little over one-third of the estimate (£27,000 out of £75,000), and the unsatisfactory result prevented further experiments on the part of Henry VII. The foreign policy of Henry VIII.—particularly his French expedition—with its attendant outlay, accounts for the graduated capitation tax of 1513, which was even less in accordance with anticipation than the tax of 1488 (it yielded only £50,000 instead of £160,000). But these failures cleared the way for a more effective form of direct impost, which appeared in the “subsidy” or general tax on land and goods. The first case of this tax (1514) was a modest one-2½%; it, however, soon took on a typical form, so that the subsidy came to mean a charge of 4s. in the pound on land and 2s. 8d. in the pound on goods, a scale evidently devised with reference to the older tenth and fifteenth, which was henceforth put in a subordinate position. The subsidy became the established mode of grant under both Tudors and Stuarts, though by degrees it underwent a change similar to that experienced by its predecessor. The taxing statutes made elaborate provisions for the assessment and collection of the tax in order to secure a full return. Old habits proved too strong and the subsidy “slipped into the same kind of groove as that of the fifteenth and tenth, and became, in practice, a grant of a sum of money of about the same amount as the yield of the last preceding subsidy” (Dowell). The consequence was that each subsidy came, in the middle of the 16th century, to be a sum of £100,000, and at its close only £80,000. The parallel vote of the clergy in convocation (which after 1533 had to be confirmed in parliament) amounted to £20,000. The usual parliamentary proceeding was to vote so many “tenths and fifteenths” and so many subsidies,e.g.Elizabeth’s first parliament voted her “two fifteenths and tenths and a subsidy,” or, taking the usual values, £160,000. At times of crisis such as the arrival of the Armada the votes were enlarged by granting more tenths and fifteenths and subsidies. The history of the subsidy is instructive as to the tendencies of direct taxation in all countries. The assessment becomes inelastic and approximates to a fixed sum. As the subsidy follows the course of the later medieval taxation, so it is the undesigned model of the later land and property tax.

In the history of the port duties under the Tudors the first point for notice is the life grant to each of the sovereigns of the subsidies on wool, hides and leather, together with tunnage at 3s. and poundage at 5%; thus, with the hereditary customs, supplying a considerable revenue for the crown’s use. No better indication of the increased power and popularity of the monarchy could be found. The contrast with the suspicious and grudging attitude of the Plantagenet and Lancastrian parliaments is significant of the change in national sentiment. A duty on malmsey (1490) had a retaliatory rather than a fiscal aim, being directed against the Venetians who had imposed restrictions on English trade. In several later cases wine became liable to extra duties, chiefly applied to French trade in further pursuance of the policy of retaliation. Restrictions on import and export as well as the hostile measures against foreign merchants were matters of economic policy rather than finance, but they had the indirect effect of increasing the control exercised at the ports. The loss of Calais (1558) dislocated the system of the staple and cut off one centre of customs revenue; and it was also probably the cause of an important change in the mode of valuing goods for duty. For the declaration on oath of the merchant a fixed valuation was substituted and set forth in a book of rates, the first of its class (1558). Following this reform came more stringent regulations against smuggling and fraud on the part of officials. All through the Tudor period the cost of collection was unduly high. For the first six years of Elizabeth it has been estimated at one-sixth of the gross receipts.

Just as in the 14th century the subsidy had followed the “old” and “new” customs, so in the 16th the “impositions” levied by royal prerogative formed a supplement to the parliamentary subsidy; but the principal employment of this expedient occurs in the next century. Another significant indication of the future course of indirect taxation was furnished by the grants of monopolies to inventors, producers and traders. These privileges, when they affected important commodities, operated in the same way as taxes farmed out to collectors, and, though the profit to the crown was small, they enhanced prices and excited discontent. The wisdom of Elizabeth (or her ministers) was shown in the promise of redress after the hostile debate of 1601.

From one point of view it may fairly be said that the great struggle of the Stuart kings with the parliament centred round financial issues. It is, at all events, beyond dispute that questions of taxation were the chosen ground of conflict. Taking the period from the accession of James I. to the opening of the Civil War (1603-42) it appears that the legal basis of indirect taxation was tested for the port duties in the “Great Case of Impositions” (known as Bates’ case, seeBates, John), while that of direct taxation was considered in the even more famous “Ship Money” case (for ever associated with the name of Hampden). In parliament the debates deal with impositions, monopolies, the grounds for voting subsidies, and the proper application of the funds granted; in fact, with nearly all the financial questions of the time. Notwithstanding these difficulties and disputes the financial system shows evident signs of expansion and adaptation to the needs of the state.

The direct grants of the parliaments of James I. far exceeded those of earlier periods (in 1606 six “fifteenths and tenths,” three lay and four clerical subsidies), but the efforts to extend the other sources of revenue by the exercise of the prerogative naturally reacted on this spirit of liberality. The last “fifteenth and tenth” was voted in 1624, from which date this old-established form disappears, and the subsidy alone is used. In spite of Charles I.’s high-handed policy five subsidies were voted after the Petition of Right had been accepted, and even the Long Parliament made similar grants. Almost at the outbreak of the Civil War it also gave the king a graduated capitation tax. Other modes of direct taxation were used without parliamentary sanction. The collection of the antiquated feudal dues was enforced through the special courts (particularly the Star Chamber) with a rigour long unknown; James had tried the French device of a “tariff of honors.” Both kings employedthe “benevolence” until the Petition of Right made such a levy illegal. But by far the most serious innovation was the collection of the “ship money,” a course forced on Charles by his determination not to meet the representatives of the nation. The writs “embodied the ultimate expression of the ingenuity of the king’s advisers in the invention of means to enable him to rule without a parliament.” The first writs secured over £100,000, and were followed by five further issues (1634-1639) bringing in an average return of £200,000 or about three lay subsidies. Like the “benevolence,” the ship money was declared to be illegal (1641).

The contest respecting monopolies, settled by Elizabeth’s withdrawal, was revived under James I., and had to be finally closed by the Statute of Monopolies (1624), declaring such grants to be utterly void. Certain exceptions (as in the case of the soap-boilers) permitted the raising of revenue by what was in fact a rudimentary excise, and plans for a general excise were discussed, especially as a substitute for the feudal dues, though they were not reduced to practice. In the earlier 17th century the customs show a steady increase. From £127,000 in 1604 they rose to nearly £500,000 in 1641. This fourfold increase was due in part to the growth of English trade, but it was also influenced by the adoption of new “Books of rates” in 1608 and 1635, fixing higher valuations, and by the inclusion of new commodities with definite duties. Wine, currants (the subject of controversy in Bates’ case) and tobacco are particularly noticeable. Sugar also appears as a contributory. An interesting development was the adoption on a larger scale of the “farming” system, an evident imitation from France. A distinction was made between the “great,” the “petty” and the “sugar” farms, and opportunities for gain were afforded to the officials. On the constitutional side the life grant of subsidies, made in accordance with Tudor usage to James, was temporarily withheld from Charles, a restriction which his own overbearing policy led the parliament to maintain. Practically, the whole customs revenue between 1628 and 1640 was raised by the use of the prerogative without any parliamentary sanction. The Tunnage and Poundage Act of 1641 pronounced definitely against the legality of any extra parliamentary customs and thus closed another of the constitutional problems of finance.

In the progress from the Conquest to the crisis of the Great Rebellion there is noticeable a practically complete shifting of the classes of revenue. The king had ceased “to live of his own”; the royal demesne and the prerogative rights included in feudalism had become very subordinate. The direct taxation of property and income, and the indirect taxation on imported or exported commodities became the principal forms of receipt.

In the long course of English financial history the nearest approach to the new departure and an abandonment of old devices is found at the time of the Civil War and Commonwealth. The actual outlines of the now existing system made their appearances, while the older portions of the revenue—particularly the survivals of feudalism—are eliminated. Thus the Civil War and the Interregnum (1642-60) may be regarded as marking a watershed in the financial history of the country. At the beginning of the struggle both sides had to rely on voluntary contributions. Plate and ornaments were melted down and useful commodities were furnished by the adherents of the king and by those of the parliament. As holding possession of London and the central organization the parliament voted subsidies and a poll tax. Such imports could hardly be levied with success and new forms became necessary. The direct taxation took the shape of a “monthly assessment” which was fixed from time to time, and which was collected under strict regulations, in marked contrast to the lax management of the former subsidies. As the amount for each district was fixed, the systematic collection secured “the more equitable adjustment of the burden of the tax as regards the various taxpayers” without hardship to the community. In spite of its origin, the “assessment” was the model for later taxation of property. The yield of this tax—exceeding for the whole period £32,000,000—is a proof of its importance. Minor contrivances,e.g.the “weekly meal” tax, indicate the financial difficulties of the parliament, but are otherwise unimportant. Owing to its control of the sea and the principal ports the parliament was able to command the customs revenue; and in this case also it remodelled the duties, abolishing the wool subsidy and readjusting the general customs by a new book of rates. A more extensive tariff was adopted in 1656, and various restrictions in harmony with the mercantilist ideas of the time were enforced. Thus French wines, silk and wool were excluded from 1649 to 1656. Far more revolutionary in its effects was the introduction of the excise or inland duties on goods—a step which Elizabeth, James I. and Charles I. had hesitated to take. Beginning (1643) with duties on ale, beer and spirits, it was soon extended to meat, salt and various textiles. Meat and domestic salt were relieved in 1647, and the taxation became definitely established under the administration of commissioners appointed for the purpose. Powers to let out the collection to farmers were granted, and a bid for both excise and customs amounted in 1657 to £1,100,000. Confiscations of church lands and those belonging to royalists, feudal charges and special collections helped to make up the total of £83,000,000 raised during the nineteen years of this revolutionary period. Another mark of change was the removal of the exchequer to Oxford, leaving, however, the real fiscal machinery at the disposal of the committees that directed the affairs of the parliament. Under Cromwell the exchequer was re-established (1654) in a form suited for the changes in the finances, the office of treasurer being placed in the hands of commissioners.

A complete reconstruction of the revenue system became necessary at the Restoration. The feudal tenures and dues, with the prerogative rights of purveyance and pre-emption, which had been abolished by order of the parliament, could not be restored. Their removal was confirmed, and the new revenues that had been developed were resorted to as a substitute. Careful inquiry showed that just before the Civil War the king’s annual revenue had reached nearly £900,000. The needs of the restored monarchy were estimated at £1,200,000 per annum, and the loyal spirit of the commons provided sources of revenue deemed sufficient for this amount. An hereditary excise on beer and ale was voted as a compensation for the loss of the feudal dues, and temporary excises on spirits, vinegar, coffee, chocolate and tea were added. All differences of “old” and “new” customs and subsidies had disappeared under the Commonwealth. The general or “great statute” (1660) provided a scale of duties—5% on imports and exports, with special duties on wines and woollen cloths—accompanied by a new book of rates. A house tax, levied after the French pattern, on each hearth, was introduced in 1662 and became established. Poll taxes were used as an extraordinary resource, as were the last subsidies, voted in 1663, and then for ever abandoned. Licences on retailers and fees on law proceedings were further aids to the revenue, which, in the later years of Charles II. and in the short reign of his successor, was with difficulty kept up to the level of the increasing expenditure. The Commonwealth assessments were revived on several occasions, and indirect taxation was made more rigorous by the imposition of extra duties on brandy, tobacco and sugar, as also on French linens and silks. A very important development was the placing of the customs (1670) and the excise (1683) in the hands of special commissioners, instead of the system of farming them out to private collectors. The approach to modern conditions is further evidenced by the greater care in the administration. Amongst expert officials Dudley North (q.v.), as commissioner of customs, was the most distinguished. In this period, too, the beginning of the public debt as in the appropriation of the bankers’ deposits may be found.

The Revolution of 1688 may be regarded both on its constitutional and financial sides as the completion of the work of the Long Parliament. In the latter respect its chief effects were: (1) the transfer of the administration of the finances from the king’s nominees to officials under parliamentary control, (2) the consequent application of the revenue to the purposes designated by parliamentary appropriation, (3) the rapid expansion of thevarious kinds of revenue, particularly the indirect taxes, (4) the rise and growth of the national debt, combined with the creation of an effective banking system. The greater part of the 18th century was occupied with the working out of these results.

The government of William III. had to face the expenses of a great war and to allay discontent at home. As a preliminary step to the necessary settlement of the revenue a return was prepared, showing the tax receipts at over £1,800,000 and the peace expenditure at about £1,100,000. Parliament accepted the view that £1,200,000 per annum would suffice for the ordinary requirements of the kingdom. It, further, introduced the system of the Civil List (q.v.) and assigned £600,000 for the fixed payments placed under that head, leaving the remainder to be appropriated for the other needs of the state. As the “hearth money” had proved to be a very unpopular charge, it was, in spite of its yield (£170,000), given up. The temporary excise duties were voted for “their majesties’ lives” and the customs for a limited term. These branches of revenue were altogether insufficient to meet the pressure of the war outlay, and in consequence new heads of taxation—or old ones revived—came into use. A series of poll and capitation taxes were imposed between 1689 and 1698, but were after that date abandoned for the same reason as that for the repeal of the hearth money. The monthly assessment was tried in 1688; then came an income tax followed by “twelve months’” assessments in 1690 and 1691. The way was thus prepared for the property tax of 1692, imposing a rate of 4s. in the pound on real estate, offices and personal property. The old difficulties of securing returns made the tax chiefly one on land. It was under the name of “the land tax” that it was generally known. The 4s. rate brought in £1,922,712, a return which declined in the following years. To meet this a fixed quota of nearly half a million (a 1s. rate) was adopted in 1697, the amount to be apportioned in specified sums to the several counties and towns. The framework of the tax remained without substantial change till 1798, the time of Pitt’s redemption scheme. In 1696 houses were taxed 2s. each, with higher rates for extra windows. The beginning of the “window tax,” licences on pedlars, and a temporary tax on the stocks of companies complete the imposts of this kind. Stamp duties—imitated from Holland—were adopted in 1694 and extended in 1698: they mark the beginnings of the modern duties on transactions and the “death duties.” Large additions were made to the excise. Breweries and distilleries were placed under charge, and such important commodities as salt, coal, malt, leather and glass were included in the list of taxable articles, but the two last mentioned were soon relieved for the time. The customs rates were also increased. In 1698 the general 5% duty was raised by the new subsidy to 10%. French goods became liable to surtaxes, first of 25%, afterwards of 50%; those of other countries had to pay similar charges of smaller amount. Spirits, wines, tea and coffee were taxed at special rates. How great was the expansion of the fiscal system may be best realized from the fact that during the comparatively short reign of William III. (1689-1702) the land tax produced £19,200,000, the customs £13,296,000, and the excise £13,650,000, or altogether £46,000,000. In the last year of the reign, the opening one of the 18th century, the returns from these taxes respectively were: land tax (at 2s.), £990,000, customs £1,540,000, excise £986,000, or a total exceeding three and a half millions. The removal of the regular export duties in respect of (a) domestic woollen manufactures, (b) corn, was the only alleviation of taxation, and in both cases it was due to special reasons of policy.

Back to Index Next