King John's tax innovation -- Extortion, resistance, and the establishment of the principle of taxation by consent

              Accounting Historians Journal
Vol. 34 No. 2
December 2007
pp. 75-107
Jane Frecknall Hughes
SHEFFIELD UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT SCHOOL
and
Lynne Oats
UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
KING JOHN’S TAX INNOVATIONS
– EXTORTION, RESISTANCE, AND THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE
OF TAXATION BY CONSENT
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to present a re-evaluation of the
reign of England’s King John (1199–1216) from a fiscal perspective.
The paper seeks to explain John’s innovations in terms of widening
the scope and severity of tax assessment and revenue collection. In
particular, the paper seeks to highlight the significance of Hubert
Walter as the king’s financial adviser. He exercised a moderating influ-ence
in the first half of John’s reign and was the guiding hand in the
successful introduction of innovative measures designed to increase
revenues. These became extreme after his death in 1205, when John
lacked his counsel. It is further suggested that the Magna Carta was
a direct reaction to such financial severity. Many of the clauses in
Magna Carta refer specifically to John’s tax innovations and severity.
Linked to this, the paper argues that these events were critical to the
establishment of the principle of taxation by consent. As a result of
the innovative and extreme nature of John’s fiscal measures, it is our
contention that John is a significant influence in moving away from
deep-rooted feudal systems to the beginnings of what we would now
understand as a national taxation system. This occurred against the
background of a period of transition in state finance from a domain-based
to a tax-based state.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the following: Ronald
Frecknall for his invaluable assistance with the first draft of this paper; Michael
Collins, Mae Baker Collins (Leeds University Business School), and members of
the Accounting and Finance Group, Warwick Business School, for their comments
on an earlier version of this paper, in particular Keith Hoskin; participants at the
Inaugural Conference of the Centre for Tax Law, University of Cambridge, and
at the Fourteenth Annual Accounting, Business & Financial History Conference,
University of Wales at Cardiff, September 2002, for comments on a version of
this paper presented at these conferences; and Stuart Ogden (Sheffield University
Management School) for very helpful advice and comments on later drafts. We
also thank the anonymous referees who reviewed this paper for the Accounting
Historians Journal for their many helpful comments and suggestions.