370 ing common people demanded distribution of grain as a form of relief by the Crown. When several years of poor harvests succeeded one another (as was the case during the periods investigated in this study), state finances quickly dedined, forcing the state to raise taxes in compensation. During the 1740’s, the years of dearth moreover coincided with the war against Russia. Both bailiwicks felt this burden thanks to the recruitment of soldiers, and it was not easy to make the equation add up. In spite of these facts, my results show that administration and tax collection nevertheless continued to function, even in the face of difficulties. The proportion of unpaid taxes rose to roughly more than a third in Västernärke and to almost 50 % in Säter. Forced collection of taxes increased, but this did not automatically entail a decrease in tax arrears. The county governor sent repeated reminders, but there are almost no examples of concrete measures being taken. Group indictment for tax arrears was, however, used during the 1770’s in the bailiwick of Säter. This never resulted in a forced collection of fines, but was rather one form of pressure among others. No such measures were taken in Västernärke. The county governors surely made a realistic judgement when they doubted the ability of the bailiffs to collect the taxes owed - many peasants were simply unable to pay. There are several examples of the bailiffs pleading on behalf of the peasants to the county governor. Sometimes they even expressed their unease over the duty of forced collection. During the last years of the Age of Liberty, there is a clear tendency on the part of the parliament and council to treat the taxpayers leniently. But the new regime tightened the regulations. In spite of periods of dearth and social unrest it was for the most part possible to collect tax arrears within the prescribed years - that is to say, the peasants were granted continuous deferments. The writing off of tax debts, which during normal years was extremely limited, increased during years of poor harvest, but only up to a few percent of the amount that the bailiff was to collect. The Crown did not make use of its legal possibility to confiscate the farms of the freeholders with more than three years of tax arrears. The Crown policy on tax debts must therefore be characterized as lenient. An important explanation for the fact that the peasants could pay their taxes within the three-year limit was that the Crowm for several years helped themthrough large loans of grain. During the years of dearth, the problem with the bailiffs’ own deficits was accentuated - the peasants owed large amounts, the demands of the Crown increased and in this situation, the possibilities for the bailiffs to withhold funds were much greater. During the uprising in Dalecarlia of 1743, the tax collection was affected by a brief blockage in the bailiwick of Säter - among other things, the peasants refused to participate in assessment for a new tax appropriated by the parliament. The authorities had little possibility of enforcement when almost the entire local community opposed the demands of the state. But Säter bailiwick never-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=