Well might the Lord Mayor, in Shakspeare's Henry VI. exclaim "That nobles should such Stomachs bear!" Whether Buckingham's feelings were soothed by this middle course of proceeding or not may be doubted; but all jealousy was soon set at rest. Dugdale tells us that, on the death of Warwick, about two years after, without issue male, Buckingham obtained a special grant giving to himself and his heirs precedence above all dukes whatever, excepting such as were of the blood royal. Dugdale also states that "In consideration of his vast expences, in attending the King in those turbulent times, against his adversaries, then in arms, he obtained a grant (38 Hen. VI.) of all those fines which Walter Devereux, William Hastings, and Walter Hopton were to make to the King for their transgressions." Here was a fresh augmentation of wealth. The Duke was slain in the battle of Northampton (28th July, 38 Hen. VI.), and was buried either there or in the monastery of Delapré. His will is given by Dugdale and by Nicolas. It contains some bequests for religious and charitable uses, and one provision deserves notice. In an age when the funeral solemnities of noblemen were performed with extraordinary splendour, and at a lavish expense, the Duke wisely directs, that his own should be solemnised "without any sumptuous costs or charge." The To revert to the roll. It contains the rental of estates in twenty-seven counties. The largest of these possessions appears to have been the castle, manor, and dominion of Brecknock, Huntingdon, and Talgarth, in Herefordshire, and the Marches of Wales, yielding 11837. per annum. estates in Holderness, producing the gross rental of 9497., were also of immense extent, comprising the seigniory, liberty, and manor of Holderness, and lands or other property in twenty-eight parishes. These the Duke inherited through his mother. The property in this county (Oxfordshire) was small (viz., 377. 18s. 3 d. per annum), consisting only of the manor of Stratton Audley. The gross rental is 6300%., a sum then of vast amount. To show this the more accurately, I had bestowed some labour, in order to arrive, if possible, at the sum which it would represent in our own days. But to enter into the 6 Dugdale's Baronage, p. 165. details necessary, in order to lead us to a correct conclusion as to this point, would compel me to trespass upon your time far longer than would be acceptable. Those who may feel interested in the subject may consult -1. Bishop Fleetwood's Chronicon Preciosum; 2. The History of England, by Dr. Henry; 3. The Tables, drawn up with so much care, by Rear-Admiral Rainier, in 1833, and 4. Mr. Hallam's Work on the Middle Ages, where some very judicious observations on this subject will be found. Still our endeavours to adjust a multiplier for expressing the real value of a sum in the days of Henry VI. in terms of our present money, or its equivalent value, in commanding commodities in the present day, are attended with difficulties-1. From the difference of opinion which prevails amongst writers on the subject; 2. From the great variations in the price of wheat, taken as a criterion; and 3. In the shifting value of money. In order, therefore, to prove the magnitude of the Duke of Buckingham's income, I would endeavour to show how very much could be effected in different ways at that period with sums of far less amount. It may be remarked that this income exceeded that of the powerful peer before alluded to, the Duke of Warwick, by some hundreds per annum, and we may compare it with the revenues of the greatest religious houses at the Dissolution. Whilst thus engaged, we must never fail to bear in mind Johnson's judicious remark, that "custom, or the different needs of artificial life, make that revenue little at one time. which is great at another. Men are rich and poor, not only in proportion to what they have, but what they want." Ascham's pension of 10%, granted him by Henry VIII, reckoning the wants he could supply, and those from which he was exempt, Johnson (seventy years ago) computed at more than 100l. a year. Although a great nobleman at this period had, as we shall presently see, many heavy calls upon his purse, yet people had few imaginary wants. Our habits, in this age of luxury, when contrasted with the severe simplicity of ancient times, must differ almost as widely, in some respects, as did those of the inhabitants of the Friendly Islands with the English, when the former were visited by Captain Cook. 7 Obligingly lent by the Earl of Chichester, at the instance of my friend R. W. Blencowe, Esq. True it is, that we find, in old inventories, vast quantities of plate the property of individuals-Sir John Fastolfe, for instance, one of the heroes of Agincourt, possessed not less than 13,400 ounces of silver in flagons and other massive articles, and the bed-rooms at Caister were furnished with luxuries which would then, perhaps, be regarded as effeminate; still, ordinarily, great simplicity prevailed. Carpets were used only as coverings for tables and sideboards; sometimes for chairs. Hay and rushes served for floors. A few oaken benches and tables, raised on strong tressells, and a pair of andirons or dogs, generally formed the whole inventory of the best furnished apartment. In the reign of Edward I., says Mr. Hallam— "An income of 10l. or 20l. was reckoned a competent estate for a gentleman; at least the lord of a single manor would seldom have enjoyed more. A knight who possessed 150l. per annum passed for extremely rich."9 His income was comparatively free from taxation, and its expenditure was lightened by the services of his villeins. Sir John Fortescue speaks of 57. a year as "a fair living for a yeoman," a class whose importance he is not at all inclined to diminish.1 Dr. Henry, eighty years ago, observed: "It seems to be abundantly evident, that inferior clergymen, yeomen, respectable tradesmen, and others in the middle ranks of life, could have lived as plentifully, in the fifteenth century, on an income of 5l. a year, of the money of that age, as those of the same rank can live on ten times that nominal, or five times that real income, that is, on 50l. a year, at present. "The precious metals of gold and silver," he continues, "have indeed greatly increased in Britain since those times; but we must not therefore imagine, that we are so much richer than our ancestors; because as these metals increased in quantity, they decreased in value and efficacy.' 112 To proceed with our illustrations. We have particulars of the pay of Edward the Third's army in the twentieth year of his reign. That of the Black Prince was 20s. per diem. The sum total is 12,7207., for which, says Barrington,3 an army and fleet of 31,294 men were to be paid and subsisted for sixteen months. In the expedition made by John Duke of Norfolk (then 8 Archaeol. vol. xxi. p. 234. 9 Hallam's Middle Ages, vol. iii. p. 451. 1 Ibid. VOL. VIII. 2 Henry's Hist. Eng., vol. x. p. 273. 3 Observations on the Statutes, p. 267. 00 Lord Howard) to Scotland, as Lieutenant and Captain of Edward IV., in 1481, with 3000 landmen and mariners, for sixteen weeks, the payment to each man by the week is computed at xv. for his wages, and for his vitels xii. The sum total in "money wages and vitels for sixteen weeks being VM. V. li." At this time it appears that an ox could be bought for 20s. and a load of hay for 5s. 4d. 4 In the reign of Henry VII., 120l. was held sufficient to found a fellowship.5 The whole revenues of the estate given by Margaret, Countess of Richmond, for the foundation of Saint John's College, Cambridge, amounted to 400l. per annum only, which was shamefully lessened by Henry VIII. On the fabric of that house were expended 4000l. to 5000l., “a round sum in that age," as it is termed,-small as it will strike us for collegiate buildings of great extent. At this time 12d. per week was allowed in common to a fellow, and 7d. to a scholar." The largest sum ever paid in one year at the shrine of Thomas à Beckett, by as many as 100,000 pilgrims (1420), did not reach one-sixth part of the Duke's income, being only 9541. 6s. 3d. In 1482, a grocer's shop in Cheapside, then, as now, a main artery of the Metropolis, "with a place above it," (perhaps a warehouse or store for goods), was let by Lord Howard for 47. 6s. 8d. per annum. Lord Howard seems to have taken out the rent, in whole or in part, in groceries. The vast estates of the Cliffords, in the time of the first Earl of Cumberland (temp. Henry VIII.), in the rich vales of Yorkshire, produced only 17197. per annum.8 From marriage settlements we may also gather what were regarded as adequate allowances for members of illustrious families. Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, on his marriage with the Lady Anne, the youngest daughter of Edward IV., settled on the lady, "for sustentation and convenient diet in meat and drink," 20s. per week. Also a sum of 51. 11s. 8d. was to be paid for the wages, diet, and clothing of the following persons-viz., two women, a woman 4 Howard Household Books, edited by J. P. Collier, Esq. Preface, p. iv., and p. 9. 5 Bishop Fisher's Funeral Sermon on the Countess of Richmond and Derby. Preface, p. xlv. 6 Sermon ut supra, preface, p. xlv. 7 Howard Household Books, preface, p. xxv. and p. 351. & Whitaker's Craven, p. 262. child, a gentleman, a yeoman and three grooms; seven horses were to be kept at 47s. for each horse. The Queen was to find the lady in clothes, and to allow 1207. yearly for a certain period." The second wife of the Shepherd Lord Clifford, who was the daughter of Sir Henry Pudsay, of Bolton, married three times-1st, to Sir Thomas Talbot; 2ndly, Lord Clifford; 3rdly, Richard, third son of Thomas, Marquis of Dorset. Her first jointure, with the Knight, was 10 marks; this was very largely exceeded when she married the Baron, who settled upon her no less than 150l. per annum. The mother of Henry, Lord Surrey (the Lady Elizabeth Stafford), the daughter of the last Duke of Buckingham, on her marriage with the before-named Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, received from her father a fortune of 2000 marks; the jointure settled upon her by her husband's father was 500 marks per annum.' To the talents of this lady, Dr. Nott pays this high tribute of praise" She was one of the most accomplished persons of the times; the friend of scholars, and the patron of literature.”2 On the marriage of the Earl of Surrey, his father, the Duke of Norfolk, settled upon him lands yielding 3007. per annum. His lady, Lady Frances Vere, brought a fortune of 4000 marks, 200 to be paid on the day of marriage, and the remainder by half-yearly payments of 100 marks. The Duke was to be at the charge of Lord Surrey's clothes, Lord Oxford of those for the Lady Frances.3 But we shall probably form the most accurate idea how very much might be effected with a rental of 6000l. in the reign of Henry VI., by seeing how far any sum in round numbers (1000l. for instance) would go in housekeeping, both in those days and somewhat later. Take the monastery of Glastonbury, well entitled, both from its splendour and its possessions, to stand foremost, as it does, in Dugdale's Monasticon. Its head had precedence of all the abbots in England until 1154, when that distinction was transferred to Saint Alban's. At the Dissolution, the revenues of this monastery were estimated at 35087.; and what was its state and condition at that period? It was not only a religious house and an asylum for poverty, but it Nott's Surrey and Wyatt, vol. i. p. vi. 2 Nott's Surrey, Preface, p. viii. |