At the beginning of the fifteenth century the taxation was continually rising, and in the war with King Ladislaus the whole of the income registered on the estimo was charged with a tax of five per cent. for three years. Nonpayment of the tax was punished by exclusion from office. The defaulter’s name was entered in a register called the ‘looking-glass’ (specchio), whence the expression netto di specchio applied to a man eligible for office. According to a regulation of 1421 no man was so eligible unless he, his father, or grandfather, had been regular in paying his taxes for thirty years.
Of course there were manifold murmurs at these extraordinary proceedings. The real evil, however, and cause of discontent was not only the high rate of taxation, but its arbitrary and partial distribution. When the partition of the burdens was made an arm of offence against which the citizens rose to defend themselves by violence it was necessary to find some other basis, if the State economy were to be preserved from ruin. The regulation of the cadastre in 1427 had a twofold object in view, namely, first to raise the public income by putting together the property tax, the income tax, and the interest on the national debt (paghe or luoghi di monte); secondly, to make the distribution of the imposts independent of personal and political opinions. This financial reform, which changed nothing in the nature of the tax, but only established a better partition of it, was not a new thing. At bottom it was but a complement of the estimo, and the expression catasto for census, from accatastare, to pile together, was used in Florence a century earlier. That it was brought forward with a view to adjust more equally the incidence of taxation may be gathered from the preamble of the ordinance of May 22, 1427: ‘It is hard to express in speech or writing how much the citizens have suffered in their goods and their liberty by the inequality of the public burdens. They have been robbed and driven to desperation. How many, who would gladly have returned to their homes, have been kept back in doubt and uncertainty, exposed to all the ills that flow therefrom.’
A commission of ten members was appointed to make within the year a register of property. Arranged methodically, it was to specify the various families in each quarter of the town, the name and age of the several members of the family, the estimated value of each one’s property, real and personal, in town and country, and in foreign parts. In the estimate were reckoned the domestic animals of value, merchandise, ready cash, money in the funds, and all good debts. The rent of houses was specified, and in the case of land cultivated by the owner the average crop was taken. The mezzeria, or lands let out to farm, were valued according to the market-price of produce, allowance being made for the working material furnished to the farmer by the proprietor. The capitalised value of property was estimated at 100 for 7 per cent. produce, and on this capital half a guilder, that is, one-half per cent., was levied. In casting up the various elements of personal property and income the same principle prevailed as when it was capitalised. Both sources of revenue united furnished the total of what was called the sostanza, according to which the quota of taxes was fixed. Certain deductions were allowed by law, so that the tax-paying portion of the income was only the surplus over the sum required for the strict necessaries of life. Among these deductions was the rent of the dwelling-house, and of the warehouse, stall, or booth used in the way of business. The fiscal legislation adhered to the principle of burdening the old nobility of the city, nor did it spare the magnates of the provinces, many of whom, up to the time of the French Revolution, preserved an exceptional position. They had to pay twice, nay, three and four times, as much in taxes as other people, and were charged with rates from which the ordinary inhabitants of the country were free. The valuation held good for three years. Five registers were opened. The first was for the burghers; the second for country-people of various shades and degrees, including the peasantry; the third for the clergy; the fourth for guilds and corporations holding land, such as the woolstaplers’, silkmercers’, and money-changers’ guilds; the fifth and last for persons not belonging to the State, yet possessed of territory or engaged in commerce.
An examination of the first cadastre for the years 1427-30 gives a clear insight into the condition of property in town and country. The gross income of the citizens of Florence, then 90,000 to 95,000 in number, was estimated in round numbers at 620,000 gold guilders, which, allowing for the triple value of money, would be equal to 5,000,000 thalers (750,000l. sterling) at the present day. The town duties produced 25,300 guilders, those of the country 18,500. Thirty-two families paid upwards of a hundred guilders in taxes, two hundred paid in all more than 12,800 guilders. The highest tax—that paid by Palla Strozzi—was 507 guilders, which presupposes a fortune of 101,400 guilders, or, in present currency, 820,000 thalers (123,000l.). Second in the list of rich contributors is Giovanni de’ Medici, who pays 397 guilders. Then come two branches of the Panchiatichi, Francesco Tornabuoni, Niccolò da Uzzano, and Bernardo Lamberteschi, with more than 200 others. The landed property belonging to the clergy, to most of the benevolent institutions, and to the guilds within the jurisdiction of the Republic, was valued at 1,577,000 guilders, while the revenues of the clergy and the charities were put down at 130,000 guilders. The value of the untaxed monasteries was registered at 152,000 guilders. A few years later than this Cosimo de’ Medici, with his sons and relatives, were charged with a tax of 428 guilders for his business transactions. Seventy guilders of this amount were paid by the bank at Florence, as much by the branches at London and Bruges, 96 by those of Avignon and Geneva, 65 by that of Venice, and the rest by the partners in the firm.
Undoubtedly the new mode of taxation distributed taxation more equally than before. All those—some 3,000 in number—who, divested of property, lived only by the labour of their hands, were valued pro formâ, and counted by heads; but the payment of rates was not strictly enforced on them. They constituted a particular class, known as miserabili. Another class, one degree better off than these, and numbering more than 5,000, came to terms with the revenue officers for the payment of a small quota of taxes. If, however, the poorer classes were very lightly burdened, the charges on the rich were enormously heavy. Many among them paid the estimo ten and twenty times over, and could not as formerly obtain exemption from any charge on the plea of expenses incurred in the public service by the discharge of official duties confided to them. Malcontents were numerous. Those who owned land and capital, which are easy to get at and to tax, complained of the favour extended to trade and commerce. The lower classes, however, still dissatisfied, demanded political power, and a revision of the old payments. Giovanni di Bicci, by acting as mediator between the classes, did more than anyone in keeping off injudicious demands and maintaining peace. To him is generally ascribed the merit of the measure which aimed at a more just distribution of the public burdens. But in the deliberations on the subject that took place after 1426 he played but a secondary part, and at the last sitting declared that his adhesion to the measure was due not to his confidence in its success, but to his feelings of deference for the many citizens who had recommended it.[9] Rinaldo degli Albizzi and Niccolò da Uzzano were, for political reasons, both secret and avowed, foremost in supporting the proposal, although, as it happened, they and their friends were the most seriously affected by the new mode of taxation. There were insinuations against Medici that he profited by the embarrassments of his country in time of war, as he did by the distresses of individuals in time of panic, for all came to him for advances. It must be remembered, however, that his business extended far beyond Italy to all parts of France, and to Flanders especially, and that his trading interests would be best promoted by the peace of his country and the prosperity of his neighbours. With Pope Martin V., as with his predecessor, John XXIII., Di Bicci was on the best terms. The former made him Count of Monteverde, in the province of Fermo, on May 8, 1422.
Giovanni di Bicci lived to be sixty-nine. Only two sons remained to him, the children of his wife Piccarda, daughter of Odoardo Bueri. She survived her husband three years. He, on feeling his end approach, called his sons to him, and bade them follow his example—to be prudent, benevolent, and on friendly terms with those who wished them well. ‘Do nothing,’ he said, ‘against the wish of the people, and if they wish what they ought not, endeavour to turn them from it by friendly remonstrance rather than by arrogant dictation. Do not make the government-house your workshop, but wait until you are called to it, then show yourselves obedient, and avoid big swelling words. Strive to keep the people at peace, and the strong places well cared for. Engage in no legal complications, for he who impedes the law shall perish by the law. Do not draw public attention on yourselves, yet keep free from blemish as I leave you. Take care of my wife, your mother, and let her keep the place she now has.’[10] He expired on February 20, 1429, and was carried to San Lorenzo on an open bier. His remains were followed by his two sons, and twenty-eight members of the family, accompanied by the ambassadors of Venice and of King Sigismund, with many other persons, including the magistrates. The obsequies cost more than 3,000 guilders, and Cosimo and Lorenzo presented to the chapter a sum of 800 guilders for the institution of an annual festival in memory of the departed, to be held on the day of his death.[11] There, in the sacristy built at his own cost, lies Giovanni di Bicci, with his spouse, in a sarcophagus worked by the hand of Donatello, with genii holding the coat-of-arms carved in semi-relief on the cover, and inscriptions cut on the lower parts.[12] The contemporary already mentioned has described the personal appearance of Giovanni.[13] ‘He was tall and strong in figure, and broad in the face, with a dark, sallow complexion. His sense of humour was greater than anyone would have imagined from his melancholy expression. In business transactions he was straightforward, though not exactly eloquent, for nature had not endowed him with the graces of speech. Yet in public he was always ready with a good argument and sound advice. No one spoke ill of him. Niccolò da Uzzano, who passed for his rival, said to his sons, with tears in his eyes, “Your excellent father has left you in favour with the people, and beloved by the burghers, with splendid and improving pecuniary prospects.” He loved the good, and pitied the bad. The wicked, he said, existed for their own misfortune, and the good by the grace and good providence of God. He never complained of other citizens, nor they of him. The poor excited his compassion, and the rich enjoyed his friendship and support. He strove against misery, and promoted the happiness of mankind, when he could do so without injury to the Commonwealth. His hands were clean, and not seldom he neglected his own interests in the service of others. For others, too, he would often ask favours of the Government, never for himself. Yet, the fewer the pretensions he had, the more did the duties of State devolve upon him.’