368 The system of regulations had, by this time, developed in a remarkably detailed manner and it is apparent that the legislator strove for a regulation of the administration on the basis of general rules. Both the bailiff and the district clerk had their own general instructions, while the local bailiff, on the other hand, did not have his own set of instructions. In certain respects, the systemof regulations became more and more difficult to comprehend, sometimes even contradictory, which is illuminated by the unsuccessful exertions of the peasant estate to have the rules of tax collection put into print. The grounds for the system had been laid during the Age of Caroline absolutism and the Age of Liberty’s rule of estates found no reason to make major changes. But even if the system of regulations was stable, a certain dynamics can be observed through the struggles of the peasant estate for the alleviations of taxation and tax collection. Certain improvements were obtained through the amalgamation of taxes, later periods of tax collection, better control at meetings of collection, regulation of tithe transports, etc. Important changes had been introduced in 1719 when forced military collection of taxes was forbidden and in 1723 when the bailiff was forbidden to collect tax arrears older than three years - these were to be examined first and then either annulled or collected. On the other hand, the position of the peasants sometimes deteriorated due to increase of taxes. Generally, it should be noted that the peasants’ obligations (and thereby their liberties) were carefully regulated. In several respects, the systemof regulations corresponds to Weber’s idea of the rational bureaucracy: the dischargement of the official duties on the basis of general rules, a rational division of areas of competence, a developed hierarchy of officials, records and written document as a basis for all activities. The system of regulations presupposed a careful regulation of the civil officials’ discipline. It can generally be observed that both administration and tax levy to a high degree seem to have functioned well during the 'normal years' which have been investigated (1734 and 1769/70). For these segments of time, a large number of relevant archival series In bailiwick and county records have been investigated. Both tax arrears of peasants and the bailiff’s own deficits were small at the end of the fiscal year. But the administration was not upheld by a formal rationality where the letter of the law was followed - but rather through a goal-oriented rationality. Here the administration clearly deviates from the Weberian rational bureaucracy. This was partly because the administration had to take into consideration a marked local adjustment of tax collection and other administrative tasks. This reflects the great variations in local economic conditions within the agrarian economy of the age, as well as the socio-economic profile and the interaction between Crown and peasants. It was here that bureaucratization was hampered in its most essential aspect - the dischargement of the official duties according
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=