Origins of medieval Exchequer accounting

Abstract

The origins of the English Exchequer's accounting system have been the subject of controversy since fitz Nigel's treatise in c.1179. The English Exchequer system was the first known medieval charge and discharge system. In England, it became the dominant accounting system in the Middle Ages and persisted in some English institutions until the nineteenth century. This article explores the possible origins of the English Exchequer accounting system which have been suggested by previous writers: Carolingian Empire; contemporary Western states (Sicily, Flanders, France or Normandy); Anglo-Saxon England; Norman England; or invented under Henry I. The balance of probabilities suggests little evidence of a foreign influence on the English Exchequer, rather that the English Exchequer influenced other states. Certain features of the Exchequer appear to have existed in England before 1100 either in Anglo-Saxon England (territorial structure, the treasury, coinage and tallies, pre-existing tax system) or in Norman England (the King's household, scribes and literacy). Finally, in Henry I's reign the abacus, accounting rolls and Justices in Eyre were developed. These notable features of Exchequer accounting appear to have been ‘assembled’ into a workable system by Roger of Salisbury, under the direction of Henry I. A key trigger for this was probably the need to raise a marriage aid for Henry I's daughter, Matilda. The paper also shows that the accountability based system of the Exchequer shares some similar characteristics with earlier societies in Mesopotamia and in Rome.

Keywords:

• charge and discharge accounting
• Exchequer accounting
• origins of accounting

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the participants at the Accounting, Business and Financial History Conference in September 2003 for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. I would also like to thank Mahmoud Ezzamel for his advice on the use of accountability-based systems in Mesopotamia. Finally, I would like to thank John Richard Edwards for his editorial improvements.

Notes

From ‘The Dialogue of the Exhequer’ as per the Latin translation (Douglas and Greenaway 1953, 498).

Many writers see manorial accounting, which commenced in the thirteenth century in England, as the earliest form of charge and discharge accounting. This confusion can, perhaps, be traced back to Littleton's (1933) groundbreaking book Accounting Evolution to 1900. Littleton (1933, 123) distinguishes between royal finance which ‘gave rise to the tally stick method of recording past remittances from tax collections’ and charge and discharge accounts on individual manors. He does not connect the two or enquire more deeply into the origins of charge and discharge accounts, merely seeing them as suiting feudalism. Chatfield (1973, 25) in one of the key books on the history of accounting exemplifies this confusion. ‘The charge and discharge statement is often incorrectly assumed to have originated in executory accounting. In fact, it was developed in fifteenth-century Scotland by government accountants, adapted by English manorial stewards, and not widely used by executors until 300 years later.’ His correction is itself incorrect! I argue in this article that charge and discharge accounting as used on English manors in the thirteenth century can be traced back to the English Exchequer in 1110 (see also Jones 2008b)

Many accounting historians simply do not speculate on the origins of the Exchequer or on the origins of charge and discharge accounting at all. Boyd (1905, 41), for example, merely notes that the Exchequers were the earliest systems of accounting in Great Britain and suggests that some (unnamed) authorities maintain English royal revenue was audited as far back as the first two Norman Kings. Woolf (1912, 63) considers the origins of the Exchequer to be the source of much ‘speculation’ and ‘conjecture’ and alludes vaguely to Anglo-Saxon taxation, and the Anglo-Saxon treasury and Domesday Book.

I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this point.

The evidence for this derives from a series of writs by Henry I (see Regesta Regum Anglo-Norman Normanorum, Vol. 2, Regesta Henrici Primi nos 963. 1000; Douglas and Greenaway, 486). A writ in 1110 is addressed to Baronibus de Scaccario (Barons of the Exchequer) by Roger of Salisbury and Ranulf the Chancellor. In 1111, there is a meeting of the Exchequer court with Roger of Salisbury as first officer. In circa 1100–16, a writ of Henry I to the Abbot of Westminster talks of ‘10 shillings of alms, as it is in my rolls’ (writ of Henry I in favour of the Abbot of Westminster, Douglas and Greenaway 1953, 486). There are also two early writs which include the term ‘Barons of the Exchequer’ dating from (1100–May 1118 Writ of Henry I in favour of Holy Trinity) and 1108–27 (Writ of Henry I in favour of the Abbot of Westminster (July 1108–27) (Douglas and Greenaway 1953, 486).

The farm, or firma unius nocta, was a consolidated payment from the royal manors. Originally, it was the amount of provisions needed to put up the King for one night. However, by Henry I's time it was commuted into a one-off cash payment (see, for example, Stafford 1980). The Danegeld was originally a payment for irregular one-off needs, such as paying off Viking incursions. However, by Henry I's time it had become more regularised.

These are effectively charges made for the administration of justice at the local, shire level.

A Pipe Roll was essentially a rolled up piece of parchment on which the sheriffs’ accounts were enrolled.

Tallies were effectively notched wooden sticks which could be split and used as a check against fraud.

Haskins (1911) summed up the prior discussion as being somewhat superficial and perhaps, even nationalistic. For example, Stubbs, an English scholar, saw England as influencing Sicily, while Sicilian scholars saw Sicilian developments as influencing English ones.

See evidence for 1180, 1184 (in part), 1195, 1198 in Lyon and Verhulst (1967, 45).

Notification by Henry I to Barons of the Exchequer: ‘The King does not wish that the land of St. Mary of Lincoln should be subject to custom (sit in consuetudine) on account of the aid which he had thence on account of his daughter but shall be quit as William I commanded’ (Johnson, Cronne, and Davis 1956; Regesta Henrici Primi No. 963 1100–5, 1956).

Stenton (1955), for example, presupposes that there was a central treasury at Winchester from King Alfred's reign (871–99).

However, it should be noted that those early tallies were essentially made of carved antler bones rather than being wooden, financial records.

And thus not in 812 as suggested by Brown (1905) and Woolf (1912).

I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this point.

Mattessich (2000) contributes substantively to our understanding of the technical nature of Mesopotamian accounting. He sees elements of duality, referring to a closed double-entry system. Such a duality does not necessarily rule out the broader charge and discharge ‘accountability’ nature of the system.

I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this line of enquiry.

These classical accounting systems are discussed in detail elsewhere. For Babylonia/Mesopotamia see, for example, Schmandt-Besserat (1988); Mattessich (1998); Ezzamel and Hoskin (2002); Carmona and Ezzamel (2007). For Greece and Rome see de Ste Croix (1956); Macve (1994); Sarris (2004).

A notable exception to this was ancient Athens during its period of democracy.