Parliament opened on 6 November 1449 and lasted until 5 June 1450. The session was dominated by political matters - namely, an attack on the duke of Suffolk and his courtiers, who had been in control of the government for several years. It was not until the end of the session, therefore, that the commons granted a subsidy, which was, in effect, an income tax on landholders, wage earners and officeholders.

There is evidence to suggest that the architects of this tax consulted the records of previous taxes in an attempt to find the most effective way of taxing the real sources of wealth within the realm; Roger Virgoe has postulated that an estimate summarising the yields of all taxes levied since the reign of Richard II, now E 179/242/73, which includes a figure (of £10,000) for the 1450 subsidy at the end, was compiled at this time. The tax that was ultimately designed was modelled closely upon the subsidy of 1435, but with significant modifications to increase its yield. It also broadened the basis of assessment geographically, as the tax was to be levied on lands held in the marches and Wales as well, and also in other places, such as Durham and Cheshire, normally exempt from Parliamentary taxation. However, following a petition from a group of leading Cheshire men on behalf of the inhabitants of the county, the right to exemption was upheld, on the grounds that the county was not represented in Parliament. In Wales, on the other hand, there is some evidence to suggest that the subsidy may have been extended to parts of the Duchy of Lancaster. A subsidy or 'donum' of 50 marks payable over the next three years on 25 March each year was grated at great sessions held at Kidwelly on 20 August 1451 by the Welshry, foreignry and town of Kidwelly (DL 29/584/9246 m. 1). A similar subsidy of 50 marks was also granted by the whole commonalty of the commote of Carnwyllion, and one of 100s by the tenants and residents of the hamlet of St Ishmael, presumably on the same date. The timing of this subsidy at least makes it likely that it was intended to coincide with the subsidy on lands under its revised terms.

Whereas in 1435 only freehold lands were taxed, the subsidy of 1450 was also imposed upon copyhold lands and lands held by custom of the manor. The taxation of fees and wages granted for a term of years was also a novelty, but probably, as in 1435, annuities paid to others by the taxpayer were allowable deductions from his/her taxable income. More significant still, however, was the lowering of the thresholds of liability and the increase in the rates charged on the middle income brackets.

Those holding lands of an annual value of 20s., had to pay 6d., while those at the next level up - tenants of lands worth between 20s. and £20 per annum - were to be charged a tax of 6d. per pound. The rate doubled on lands worth between £20 and £200 per annum; these were taxed at 12d. per pound, and doubled again on landholders of over £200 worth of land per annum, to 2s. per pound.

Those paid wages or fees for offices of an annual value of 40s., were to pay a tax of 12d. The next band for wage earners and officeholders ran from 40s. to £20 per annum, on which the tax payable was 6d. per pound. Those earning between £20 and £200 had to pay double this amount - 12d. per pound - and those with an annual income from wages or offices of £200 or more, were to be charged 2s. per pound.

As in 1404, four treasurers - Sir William Lucy, Sir Thomas Tyrell, Sir James Strangways and Richard Waller, all experienced soldiers and administrators - were appointed to collect the subsidy. They were to receive it from appointed collectors and pay it directly to the captains chosen by the king, and were to receive wages for performing this office, at the king's discretion. Assessments were to be made by specially-appointed commissioners in each county, who were to examine under oath the residents of the county on their incomes. The king's foundations of Eton College and King's College, Cambridge, were to be exempt from the tax, as were ecclesiastical lands; convocation voted a corresponding clerical subsidy in the following month.

The disorders which followed the dissolution of parliament - Cade's Rebellion chief among them - meant that assessment and collection were impossible, and the commissions authorising them were delayed until 8 August 1450. The sheriffs were now made responsible for collection, and they were to levy and collect the tax 'from time to time'. On the same day, the treasurers were instructed to receive loans in anticipation of the subsidy and pay the sums to the captains accordingly. Although further unrest that year obstructed the collection of the subsidy, some loans were made to the treasurers in September 1450 (E 368/228, Hilary views of account, rot. 7).

An extant copy of instructions sent to the sheriff of Newcastle, dated 20 September 1450, indicates that local constables were to provide him with the names of all persons dwelling in the city known to possess a taxable income. These persons were to be summoned before them by warrant and were to make oaths as to the true value of their property, which was to include all escheats and wardships. 'Temporal communitees' (cities, towns, guilds and other corporations) were also to be examined, as well as clerics possessing property acquired since 20 Edward I (BL, Add MS 25,459, fos 300-303).

A new parliament opened on 6 November 1450, and in December, the collection of the subsidy, which, it was noted, remained as yet unpaid, was given new parliamentary authorisation. Writs were to be sent to the sheriffs ordering them to proclaim that the commissioners were to examine all persons liable to pay the tax. Those failing to attend for assessment were to be charged with a triple subsidy. Alterations made to the subsidy at this point indicate that there had been opposition to the tax from lower-income taxpayers: the threshold of liability was raised from 20s. to 40s. in land, and from £2 to £3 per annum in fees and wages, thereby reducing the anticipated yield considerably. The new act also made clear that individuals were to be assessed only in one county for all of their property. The revised provisions were approved on 18 December, new writs were issued to the sheriffs on that date (see E 179/124/218, E 179/159/84 or E 179/196/118 for original letters patent attached to the sheriffs' returns), and money from the subsidy began to be received during the summer of 1451.

Returns which give details of the taxpayers survive for only a few counties - Cambridgeshire, Cornwall, Derbyshire, Herefordshire, Huntingdonshire, Kent, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire and Wiltshire, and the Kesteven division of Lincolnshire - and for three towns with county status - Norwich, York and Nottingham - all in the E 179 class of documents, with the exception of those for Shropshire (in E 101/681/39). Assessments for Lancashire, Staffordshire, Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire, Essex and Hertfordshire, and the city of Lincoln also exist in the E 179 class, but these do not include the names of the taxpayers. There is also a composite roll giving summary accounts for Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, Essex and Hertfordshire, and Gloucestershire and Lincolnshire; this same roll contains the full assessments of Norwich and Nottingham (E 179/238/78). The assessment for Newcastle upon Tyne has also been rediscovered amongst the E 179 records (E 179/158/54) where it was previously wrongly listed as an alien subsidy document, as were the particulars of account for Norfolk and Suffolk (E 179/235/27). The document relating to Newcastle upon Tyne is important as it includes a set of English instructions to the commissioners who were to levy the tax. Three assessments for Lancashire have also been discovered in PL 3/3 (mm 26, 28-9); however, two of these are damaged and incomplete, and it is unclear whether they cover the entire county.

Payment was slow to come in, and by the end of 1453, only about three-quarters of the total assessment of just under £6,500 had been collected, which fell well short of the £10,000 which had been forecast. Much of the work of the treasurers can be traced through the expense accounts that they submitted, which were enrolled on the King's Remembrancer's memoranda rolls (E 159), and in their state of account and claims for allowance enrolled on the Pipe Roll of 33 Henry VI (E 372/300, adhuc res Essex). Lists of those individuals who failed to appear for assessment and were thus charged at triple rates were also enrolled on the memoranda roll (E 159/228, Recorda, Michaelmas term, rot. 66).

The account of the four treasurers of their receipts of the subsidy from the collectors, and of their disbursements to military captains, for the period 1 June 1450 and 6 April 1455, which Dr. Virgoe believed to have been lost, is in E 364/89, m. 9. The particulars of account of the treasurers for the years 1455 to 1459 is at E 179/240/316, and enrolled in PRO, E 364/94, m. 4. For the subsidy monies collected before those dates, there is also an enrolled account of the collectors, on a roll that includes the accounts of the income taxes granted in 1404, 1411 and 1435. That account does not include entries for Cheshire, Durham, Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmorland or the Cinque Ports.

The returns and accounts have been analysed in Roger Virgoe's seminal article on the tax, where a table comparing the total amounts received in each county with the yields of the 1435 tax is printed (p. 138). In the light of the recent discovery of the treasurers' account for the years 1450-55, Dr. Virgoe's estimate of the total yield of the subsidy needs some adjustment. The total received from the proceeds of the subsidy by the four treasurers between 1 June 1450 and September 1459 was almost £7,303, some £815 more than the yield which he calculated.

(|Rot. Parl|., V, pp 172-4, 210-211; Virgoe, 'The Parliamentary Subsidy of 1450', (Bulletin IHR, 55, 1982), pp 125-138, |CFR 1445-1452|, pp 167-174; |CPR 1446-1452|, p 377); D M Clayton, |The Administration of the County Palatine of Chester 1442-1485|, Ch. II, pp 45-7; R A Griffiths, |The Principality of Wales in the Later Middle Ages|, p 251 (DL 29/584/9246 m 1).

enrolled account: E 359/29, rots 8-39