Exchequer

Origins

It is unknown exactly when the Exchequer was established, but the earliest mention appears in a royal writ of 1110 (during the reign of King Henry I), addressed from Roger of Salisbury and Ranulf the Chancellor to the barones de scaccario (Barons of the Exchequer).^[19] The oldest surviving Pipe Roll is that of 1130, already in mature form (indicating that such records existed for some time beforehand, though they do not survive).^{[20]: p.159 [21]} Pipe Rolls form a mostly continuous record of royal revenues and taxation (though not all revenue went into the Exchequer, and some taxes and levies were never recorded in the Pipe Rolls).^{[22]: p.219} The Dialogus de Scaccario ('Dialogue concerning the Exchequer'), which gives a detailed description of the Exchequer and its workings, is believed to date from the late 1170s (during the reign of Henry II).^[13]

According to the Dialogue, the Exchequer "is said to have begun with the very conquest of the kingdom made by king William, the arrangement being taken [...] from the exchequer across the seas" (i.e. the Exchequer of Normandy); albeit "they differ in very many and almost the most important points".^[13] Some, including Thomas Madox (in his 1769 History of the Exchequer), have accepted the likelihood of this proposition;^[23] others, such as 19th-century constitutional historian William Stubbs, have dissented from it. (Either way, in contrast to its English counterpart, none of the surviving records of the Exchequer of Normandy predate 1180).^[24]

Constitution

The Dialogue concerning the Exchequer describes the c. 1180 Exchequer as split into two components, which it terms the 'upper Exchequer' and the 'lower Exchequer'.^[25] The upper Exchequer (usually referred to simply as 'the Exchequer')^[26] functioned as a Court of Audit:^[27] those appointed as Barons of the Exchequer would sit at the counting table (with its distinctive chequered cloth) where, one by one, the sheriffs of the kingdom (and others with responsibility for Crown revenues^[a]) would present themselves to account for monies (rents and other income) which they had received on behalf of the King. The lower Exchequer (called the Exchequer of Receipt, formally the Court of the Receipt of His Majesty's Exchequer)^[29] was where these monies were deposited (and wooden tally sticks issued as a receipt for each deposit). The two were inextricably connected: 'whatever is declared payable at the greater [upper] one is here [at the lower] paid; and whatever has been paid here is accounted for there'.^[25]

The Exchequer normally sat at two times of year: at Easter (when the sheriffs were required to present an interim account) and at Michaelmas (when they were to present their final account for the year: the Exchequer year ended on 29th September, the feast of Michaelmas).^[30] The Exchequer of Receipt operated only while the Exchequer was in session; afterwards the chests of money were taken and deposited in the Treasury at Winchester.^[31]

Originally, the Exchequer's jurisdiction covered only such matters as were associated with the king's revenue;^[32] however, owing to the Barons' experience in weighing evidence and passing judgements, the king began to look to the Exchequer to settle disputes between his subjects (particularly those concerning property and possessions).^[b][33] During the reign of King John, what would later become the Court of Common Pleas began to emerge, which (sitting in Westminster Hall) held pleas of 'all civil causes at Common Law between subject and subject in actions real personal and mixed';^[32] nevertheless, this did not prevent pleas still being heard in the Exchequer (which would continue to function as a court of law in this way until the passing of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act in 1873).

Personnel

In the upper Exchequer, the Chief Justiciar (who presided, in the absence of the king^[c]) sat at the head of the table.^[35] Facing him (across the table) sat the sheriff (or other person) whose account was being examined. On the Justiciar's left sat the king's Chancellor and others who had been appointed as Barons of the Exchequer for the duration of the session. The Chancellor attended with the Great Seal of the Realm, which served as the seal of the Exchequer. (Up until the early 13th century the Great Seal was ordinarily kept in the 'Treasury of the Exchequer' when not in use).^[36]

Operation

Under Henry I, the procedure adopted for the audit involved a writ of summons being issued to each sheriff, requiring him to come before the Exchequer with an account of the income in his shire both from royal demesne lands and from the county farm (a form of local taxation).^{[55]: 73–74} The summons included a detailed statement of the amounts due (these having been determined by reference to the previous year's Roll),^[56] and it required the sheriff to bring to the Exchequer the following items: cash to be paid in, tallies (as proof of deposit) for money already paid in, and copies of any writs or quittances (which made allowances for out-of-pocket expenses).

Summonses were also issued to those called to serve 'by reason of their office or by mandate of their prince' as Barons for the forthcoming session.^[25]

Before appearing before the Barons each sheriff had to go to the Exchequer of Receipt to pay in what was due. Payment was normally made in the form of silver pennies; it was not unusual for a sheriff to deposit tens of thousands of coins, amounting to several hundred pounds sterling.^[57] The coins were counted by the tellers and separated into 100-shilling (£5) batches. Periodically a mixed selection of 240 pennies would be separated off by the Chamberlains' knights and weighed against a Tower pound; if the coins were too far below the requisite weight the whole deposit could (in theory) be rejected.^[58] Each £5 batch was also weighed, before being loaded into £100 sacks (which, when filled, were sealed by the Treasurer's clerk). The sacks were stored in strong boxes with double locks (requiring the presence of both Chamberlains' knights to unlock them), over which the Treasurer's clerk again set his seal.^[d] The Chamberlains' staff cut a tally for each deposit made, while the Treasurer's clerk kept a written record of them on the Receipt roll; the 'stock' of the tally was given to the sheriff and the 'foil' was kept by the Exchequer.

In the upper Exchequer the sheriff handed over his summons, which itemised the payments which had been required of him; he then produced the relevant tally stock as proof of payment for each sum deposited (and this was immediately checked by the Chamberlains against the corresponding tally foil). The total amount paid in (totted up using the counters on the table) was then compared against the amount due, and if there was a shortfall (after authorised expenses had been taken into account), then the Barons would judge whether the money owed could be carried forward, or whether the account-holder should be detained pending full payment. The Barons had use of a privy chamber (thalamus secretorum) where they could withdraw if necessary to consider points in private, so that the ongoing accounting business of the Exchequer was not thereby necessarily delayed.^[59]

Many Exchequer payments (including most of the county 'farms') were reckoned 'in blanch', meaning that an additional payment had to be paid (to make up for any discrepancy between the face value and actual silver content of the coinage used). At times the level of this payment was ascertained by assay: coins with a total face value of £1 were melted down and the silver ingot produced was solemnly weighed against a pound weight before the Barons; at other times a notional blanch of a shilling in the pound (i.e. 5%) was used.^[60]

Changes in the 14th-century

In the year 1300 the location of the Exchequer (which had formerly sat in other places from time to time) was permanently fixed at Westminster.

At the same time the Court of the Exchequer was forbidden from hearing cases between the king's subjects. In spite of this, the practice persisted (and indeed grew) thanks to the employment of fictions (most notably the writ of quominus, by which a plaintiff in a case was able to suggest that the actions of the accused had rendered him less able to pay a debt to the king, thus placing the case under the jurisdiction of the Exchequer, notwithstanding the non-existence of any such debt in reality).^[41]

In the early 14th century, the accounting function of the (upper) Exchequer came to be distinguished from its judicial function; the former began to be termed the Exchequer of Account and the latter the Exchequer of Pleas. Formally, both were one and the same Court of Exchequer, but practically they functioned separately.^[61] 1317 saw the first appointment of a Chief Baron of the Exchequer, who (unlike the other Barons) was a trained lawyer; appointed to preside at the Exchequer of Pleas.^[49]

During the 14th century the amount of 'casual' (as opposed to 'certain' or regular) income flowing into the Exchequer significantly increased. This casual income consisted mainly of fines, amercements and forfeited recognizances levied from around the kingdom by local courts of law or Justices of the Peace. (The Exchequer termed it 'foreign' income, possibly because it derived from proceedings in other courts.) The sheriffs had always had to account for both types of income, but, by the end of the reign of Edward III, they had to account for each separately: a Clerk of the Foreign Estreats was employed to draw up a separate writ for casual income (which was sealed with green wax and delivered to the sheriff alongside the regular writ of summons); and this money was then accounted for before a separate official called the Foreign Apposer (rather than before the Barons) and checked against a separate record (the Estreat Roll) by the aforementioned clerk.^[62]

The Tudor period

In the 1490s around 90 percent of the King's revenue was received by the Exchequer.^[63] Although the Exchequer was the official way of receiving tax revenue for HM government, there was never a way of knowing how much one had at a given time. Any report would take years to come to fruition.^[64]

During the reign of Henry VIII, the Exchequer began to develop an Equity jurisdiction (clearly distinct from the Common Law jurisdiction of the Exchequer of Pleas).^[32] The Court of Exchequer in Equity sat separately (in the Exchequer Chamber) and was separately constituted and staffed.

Under Queen Mary, several courts which Henry had established following the dissolution of the monasteries (namely the Court of Augmentations, the Court of General Surveyors and the Court of First Fruits and Tenths) were absorbed into the Exchequer.^[32]

Prior to the reign of Elizabeth I, the Barons of the Exchequer (other than the Chief Baron) had been revenue specialists, appointed from among the officers of the Exchequer of Account. With the judicial work of the Exchequer increasing, however, Elizabeth appointed a Serjeant-at-law to be Baron when one of the positions fell vacant (unlike the other Barons, he was given the same judicial status as the judges of other courts). Subsequent vacancies were likewise filled by lawyers, and at the end of her reign only one non-lawyer Baron remained in post. He in turn retired (and was likewise replaced by a legal specialist). Subsequently, an additional Baron (of inferior rank) was appointed to take care of the revenue work of the Exchequer; he was termed the Puisne or Cursitor Baron.^[41] Subsequently, the sheriffs were examined (or 'apposed') with regard to their accounts by the Cursitor Baron alone.^[62]

Under Elizabeth I a pair of auditors were appointed: the Auditors of the Imprests. Operating out of the Exchequer, they were empowered to examine the accounts of all who had received public money on account or by way of imprest. They later employed deputies to undertake their duties. In the late 18th century the Auditors of the Imprests were found to be in possession of two of the most lucrative sinecures held under the Crown; each received an annual income of over £16,000, while their audit was judged to be entirely ineffective.^[65]

Through most of the 1600s, goldsmiths would deposit their reserve of treasure with the Exchequer, sanctioned by the government. Charles II "shut up" the Exchequer in 1672, forbidding payments from it, in what Walter Bagehot described as "one of those monstrous frauds... this monstrous robbery". This ruined the goldsmiths and the credit of the Stuart government, which would never recover it. In 1694, the credit of William III's government was so bad in London that it could not borrow, which led to the foundation of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England.^[66]

The records of the Exchequer were kept in the Pell Office, adjacent to Westminster Hall, until the 19th century. The office was named after the skins (then "pells" or pelts) from which the rolls were made.^[67]