{"content":[{"text":"Vale and Downland Museum – Local History Series \n The 1522 Muster Role for \n West Berkshire (Part 3) – \n Incomes in Tudor Berkshire","bbox":{"left":0.352354,"top":0.098644,"width":0.453521,"height":0.12746999999999997}},{"text":"by Lis Garnish","bbox":{"left":0.492066,"top":0.251397,"width":0.14935700000000007,"height":0.022868}},{"text":"Since my articles last year on the 1522 Muster Roll for West Berkshire (1 & 2) analysis of the \n Wantage section has continued and some queries have been considered. The 1522 Muster \n Roll (3) is unusual for the amount of fiscal information which it contains, relating not only to \n able-bodied males, liable for military service in the county militia, but also to retired men, \n widows, single women and children. The Commissioners were instructed to gather \n information on \"the yeerely value of every mans land ... and of every stocke and stockes of \n Cattell. or other things ... \" and also \"Item. the value and substance of every person being of \n 16 yeeres and above\" (4). The values given for lands in Wantage Parish range from 8d to \n £67, whilst goods are quoted from 10s to £80. Whilst it has been accepted previously that the \n figures for lands represent annual income doubt has been raised about the figures for goods. \n Were they annual income or could they be values for capital instead? Hoskins has taken the \n figures as capital and says \"Lands were reckoned at so much per annum (i.e. income) while \n goods and chattels were valued as capital\" (5). Cornwall seems to agree with this view and \n mentions \"the figures given to the House of Commons by Thomas Cromwell of £1m. for the \n total of income from lands, and £3m. representing the capital value of moveable property\" \n (6). Pound is more cautious however and makes no definitive statement about the nature of \n \"goods\", referring only to \"value of goods owned\" which refers to percentages of the total \n assessment and leaves open the question of the nature of the assessment (7). So when the \n Berkshire list states that \"Nycolas Radyshe householder (has) in goodes £20 (and is) tenant to \n the collage of wynsore\" (8) should we assume that this was his capital and that his income \n was some fraction of £20? Or does it mean that Nycolas Radyshe had a larger investment \n which yielded £20 per annum? I hope to show that the latter situation was more likely. \n The relationship between the capital cost of land and the .income it yielded can be \n demonstrated for Wantage Parish by reference to a will made fifteen years before the Muster \n Roll (9). Robert Tate was the son of an Alderman of London and he owned land in Wantage \n and Evenlode as well as elsewhere. He purchased the Manor of Franklins in Wantage shortly \n before his death in 1507 and mentioned in his will that it had cost him £140. In the Muster \n Roll we find \"Master Byllettes londe some tyme master Tates\" being rented by Thomas \n Webbe for £8 per annum (10). Allowing for some increased value between 1507 and 1522 \n this would suggest that 5% per annum was the expected return on capital invested in land. \n This would agree with numerous references made in later wills, where money was to be \n invested for the use of minors, and 5% per annum seems to have been the usual income \n expected. No such clear case can be quoted for \"goods\" as none of the earliest wills for \n Wantage have inventories with them. Instead we have to search for circumstantial evidence. \n There are thirty-nine extant wills for Wantage proved during the fifty years following the \n Muster Roll. This limit was set because it was felt that by 1570 even the youngest persons","bbox":{"left":0.151274,"top":0.297187,"width":0.697653,"height":0.606955}}],"images_bbox":[{"left":0.151275,"top":0.10053,"width":0.138333,"height":0.103333}],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[{"left":0.151275,"top":0.10053,"width":0.138333,"height":0.103333}]}