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

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