Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Religion and Holidays, were Socialism (WAS: Re: Why Can't We Just Not Talk Politics?

From:Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
Date:Friday, January 2, 2004, 19:22
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> If the British tax year starts on April 6th, and that date was chosen > because of the Julian calendar, it's odd that the correspondence with > the old new year was only true from 1800 (almost 50 years after the calendar > change) through 1899. Maybe they originally planned on keeping it > in synch with the Julian year, so changed it from the 5th to the 6th in > 1800, then decided it wasn't worth it?
Ah. A quick check back into my trusty _Oxford_Companion_to_the_Year_ verifies this theory: [6 April] is the beginning of the UK tax year. When in 1752 the official beginning of the English year was moved from 25 March to 1 January, it was nevertheless thought expedient to allow the financial year 1751 [sic] its full twelve months, and to reckon its successor from 25 March; the omission of 11 days from September that year caused the next financial year to be counted from Old Lady Day, 5 April 1753. In 1800, the suppression of the leap day caused the corresponding date to become 6 April; but in 1900, when the change of style was no longer a living memory, the further adjustment to 7 April was not made. In other words: as had been the custom for a long time, March 24, 1751, was followed by March 25, 1752. Then the calendar change was made the following September; Wednesday the 2nd of that month was followed by Thursday the 14th. (Most landlords charged a full month's rent despite the 11-day difference, to general outrage.) Then December 31, 1752, was followed by January 1, 1753, rendering 1752 almost three full months short; this was deemed unacceptable for fiscal purposes, so the fiscal year 1752 was extended to the actual anniversary of its first day, and fiscal year 1753 started on April 5th, as did fiscal years 1754-1799. Apparently they felt the need to adjust the date again, keeping the fiscal year of Julian rather than Gregorian length, when the calendars moved one day further apart in 1800. But by the time they moved apart again in 1900, this need was no longer felt, and presumably will be felt even less by the next shift in 2100. (Since 2000 is divisible by 400, it was a leap year in both calendars and the difference didn't change.) -Mark

Reply

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>