ON THE PAY OF THE ARMY IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. In continuation of our articles on Military Finance, we propose devoting the following pages to an historical detail of the pay of all ranks in the British Army* from the earliest periods, a labour which, though involving the necessity of considerable research, we have been induced to undertake, as being likely to afford the best possible illustration of the relative condition of our Army in ancient and modern times. This investigation is the more necessary, as we invariably find that when any improvement of income is contended for in civil departments of the State, reference is immediately made to the great reduction in the value of money, and increased expense of the necessaries of life consequent on that progressive advancement in wealth and luxury for which this nation has been so remarkable. On this plea we may safely assert that there is scarcely any civil office under government of which the emoluments have not been trebled in the course of the last century; whereas, we shall be able to show that the pay of the Army, though considerably improved some thirty or forty years ago, is still in value, if not in actual amount, much less than in more remote times. During that period of our history which extends from the Norman Conquest to the reign of Edward I., while the feudal institutions were in full operation, the armies raised either for the protection of the kingdom or foreign aggression were principally composed of persons holding land on condition of military service. Whoever possessed a freehold estate of the value of 20l. per annum was bound to serve the king, at his own expense, for forty days in each year, providing himself during that period with provisions, arms, and accoutrements. The inconvenience attending this system gradually led to a commutation in money being substituted in lieu of service, which was employed by the sovereign in the hire of stipendiary troops, and it is to the pay of that class that the earlier documents principally refer. In comparing the rate of pay then received with that in the present day, two important points require to be kept in view. First, the difference in the weight of the coins which then passed under the same denomination as at present; and, secondly, the difference in the value of money, arising from the greater quantity now in circulation. The diminution which the weight of our coinage has undergone since the earliest period to which we intend to refer, is as under: s. d. in the 27th ditto Henry IV., in the 13th year of his reign Edward I., in the 28th year of his reign coined a pound weight of silver into 20 III., in the 18th year of his reign 22 25 30 37 Thus, a shilling, in the reign of Edward I., contained as much silver as was equivalent to 3s. 34d. of our currency. The limits within which we feel ourselves constrained to confine this article, prevent our including the pay of the Artillery and Engineers in the present investigation; but we shall take an early opportunity of adverting to it. U. S. JOURN. No. 95, Oct. 1836. L But the depreciation which has taken place in the value of money by the increased quantity in circulation now, as compared with those remote times, is of still greater importance than the mere change in weight. For instance, the medium price of a quarter of wheat in 1251, about twenty years previous to the reign of Edward I., was fixed by statute at 4s. 3d., corresponding in weight to 14s. of the present currency. The price of two gallons of ale is stated in the same statute, at 1d., equal in weight to 31d. of our money. Another statute, passed in the reign of Edward II., directed that an ox was to be sold for 16s. and a cow for 10s. In like manner a sheep was to be sold for 1s. 2d., a fat hog for 3s. 4d., a goose or capon for 2d., a hen or two dozen of eggs for 1d., and other necessaries of life in the same proportion. So late as the reign of Henry VIII., beef and pork were directed, by statute †, to be sold at a halfpenny a pound, and mutton and veal at a halfpenny half-a-farthing a pound; these sums corresponding in weight to about three farthings and a penny of our money respectively. With this evidence before us, then, we need have little hesitation in assuming that during these periods the value of money was at least five times greater than at present, independent altogether of the difference in the weight, which requires to be adjusted separately for each reign, according to the variations in the coinage before specified. Keeping these important considerations in view, then, it affords rather an exalted idea of the emoluments of the military profession in former times to learn, that in the reign of Edward I. (anno 1300), the pay of a private crossbowman was no less than 4d. per day, equivalent in weight to 1s. 1d. of the present coin, and in value to about 5s. 6d. ; and the pay even of a common archer was 2d. per day, equal, on the same principle, to 2s. 9d., being about double the highest rate of pay of any private soldier at present serving in the British Army, except the Household Cavalry. Without the aid of any such numerical calculation, however, it is obvious that the profession of arms was at that period much better paid than at present. By a reference to the prices of provisions just stated, it will be seen that a soldier with seven days' pay could then buy a sheep, which it would take thirty days of his present pay to purchase; with half a day's pay he could purchase two gallons of ale, while with the same proportion of his pay now he could procure little more than a quart. His pay for twenty-five days would purchase him a quarter of wheat, which now could not be obtained for less than forty-five days' pay. So that, so far as regards the three important items of bread, meat, and liquor, his pay was then much more valuable than at present. This rate of pay is, however, much less than what it attained to in the reign of Edward III. (anno 1350), when we find that the pay of a common archer had risen to 6d. a day, which, referring to the table of coinage, will be found equal in weight to 1s. 4d. of the present day; and though the necessaries of life had increased considerably since the reign of Edward I., still that sum was equivalent in value to 5s. at least, so that the private soldier who fought at Cressy and Poictiers virtually received five times as much pay as he who fought at Waterloo. * 35 Henry III. † 24 Henry VIII., c. 3. It was As in this reign the first attempt seems to have been made to fix the price of labour by statute, it may be interesting to compare the pay of soldiers at that period with the wages of the labouring classes. ordered that a reaper, in the first week of August, was not to receive more than 2d. a day; but in the second week he might have a third more. A master carpenter throughout the year was limited to 3d. a day; a common carpenter to 2d. a day, money of that age. Thus the private soldier received three times the pay of the agriculturist, and double that of the highest class mechanic; whereas, in the present day, his pay is little more than half that of the agriculturist, and only about one-fourth of the wages of a good carpenter. During the reign of Henry V. (anno 1420), the pay of the private soldier still remained the same in nominal amount, though, in consequence of a reduction of about one-fifth in the weight of the coinage, the actual value of that pay was lessened in a corresponding proportion. We now find mention made, for the first time, of the pay of cavalry: it is stated in this reign at no less than 2s. a day to each private, equal in weight to 4s. 6d. of our money, and in value to at least four times that amount; but this most probably included the forage of the horse, as well as providing and keeping up the armour and equipments. This high rate of pay having to be provided for the troops out of the slender resources of our sovereigns, frequently involved them in the greatest embarrassments; and not having discovered the ingenious expedient of drawing a bill on posterity by creating a national debt, they were frequently obliged to have recourse to extraordinary expedients for raising the funds necessary for payment of their armies. Henry V. pledged all his jewels for that purpose, and we believe the crown itself was not unfrequently left in pawn with the Rothschilds of that period. Edward III., for want of money, was obliged, upon more than one occasion, to pay his army in wool, a species of currency which would rather puzzle the paymasters of modern times. A further depreciation in the coinage, to the extent of one-fourth, took place in the reign of Edward IV., and as the soldier's pay received no corresponding augmentation, it was, of course, though nominally the same, virtually reduced in that proportion; and this reduction continued till the reign of Henry VII., when it received some addition to compensate for it. This prince raised a band of fifty chosen archers to guard his person, called yeomen of the guard. Their pay varied in his reign from 1s. to 6d. a day, but in this respect they were probably more highly favoured than the ordinary garrison troops from whom they were chosen. The wages of mechanics and labourers had by this time risen to be more on a level with military pay, for the statute of labour, in the last-mentioned reign, fixes the wages of masons, bricklayers, and carpenters as high as 5d., and that of an agricultural labourer at 3d. a day, money of that age. Though we have thus traced the pay of the soldier through all its variations in these remote times, and brought it into comparison with that of the present day, we cannot be equally minute in regard to the pay of the officers,-as, owing to their grades being then distinguished by other appellations than at present, and our ignorance of the precise 37 Edward III. e. 3. 25 Edward III. c. 1, 3. 11 Henry VII. c. 22. duties each had to perform, or the number of men over whom their command extended, it would be difficult to decide what rank, at that period, should be held to correspond to those at present recognized in our Army. We can only state, that in the reign of Edward I. the pay of a knight banneret was 4s, a day, equivalent in weight to about 12s. 6d., and in value, as determined by the prices of the necessaries of life, to about 31. 2s. 6d. of the present day. The pay of a knight, or the commander of a castle, was half that amount, and of an esquire, or constable, one-fourth of it: but as each of these ranks, whether belonging to cavalry or infantry, required to be mounted, the expense of keeping up their horse was most likely included in these rates of pay. In those barbarous ages, however, his pay was not the only source of emolument to the soldier. The system of indiscriminate plunder then invariably adopted in an enemy's country was what he principally looked to, and a few successful campaigns were generally sufficient to realize a competency for life. Both officers and soldiers, too, derived large sums from the ransom of prisoners occasionally captured in warfare. From persons of rank the sum exacted was one year's rent of their estate, and from soldiers without property half a year's pay. A third of this ransom-money went to the commander of the army, and one-ninth to the king, the remainder was the property of the captor. There were still more strange methods adopted, however, of turning the person of a prisoner to account, for we find that the wife of one Hugh de Neville paid no less than 100 hens for the privilege of passing a night with her husband, besides finding two securities for 100 hens each, that she should make no undue use of that indulgence; and we may easily conceive that the possession of a few prisoners, who could be lent out on such profitable terms, and for such legitimate purposes, would render the mere amount of pay quite a matter of secondary consideration to a soldier. But the days of such perquisites at length passed away; and with the advance of civilization, not only was the Army curtailed of these advantages, but in each successive reign we find the condition of the soldier, as compared with the labouring classes, gradually deteriorating, though still retaining a considerable superiority over their brethren of the present day... The next Army of which we are able to trace the pay is that employed in the reign of Queen Mary (anno 1557), at the siege of St. Quintin, --and this is the more interesting, as many of the ranks of officers then employed correspond to those of the present day. The strength of each description of troops, and rates of pay, are as under : Both cavalry and infantry in those days seem to have been divided into independent troops, or companies, of 100 men each,-the whole under the command of a captain-general, who was paid 51. 1s. 2d. per day; a lieutenant-general, who received 31. 6s. 8d. per day; and a serjeant-major, as he is called, who appears to have, in some measure, corresponded to the adjutant-general, and whose pay was 15s. a-day. These rates of pay were very high indeed, for though the coinage had been considerably depreciated in the previous reign, still it weighed about one-half more than at present, and was, at least, of four times the value, as compared with the prices of the necessaries of life, so that the captain-general's pay must have been equal to 307., the lieuttenant-general's to 207., and the adjutant-general's to about 47. a-day. If we investigate the pay of the other ranks of officers on the same principle, we shall find that, with the exception of the ensign, it must have been equivalent to double what they receive at present. Indeed, owing to the important perquisite of the "dead payes," as it was called, amounting to 10s. a-day in cavalry, and 6s. 8d. a-day in infantry, the captain's income in those times must have been greater than that of a lieutenant-colonel at present. In addition to the captain, lieutenant, and ensign, there belonged also to each company a chaplain, a surgeon, a drummer, a fifer, and a harbinger, or quartermaster; and it will be observed that the chaplain, who had the cure of souls, and the surgeon, who had the cure of bodies, received precisely the same rate of pay as those who "discoursed sweet music from the spirit-stirring drum and ear-piercing fife," no great proof of the estimation in which the learned professions were held at that time. We find, too, that the ensign was on a par with the serjeant, in regard to pay, though he was always considered superior in dignity and command. It appears that the proportion of medical attendants had increased wonderfully since the days of Edward III., for in the pay-rolls of the troops at the siege of Calais only one surgeon is mentioned for the whole army. The nominal increase from 6d. to 8d. in the pay of the soldier, just noticed, in this reign, did not, however, counterbalance the depreciation of the currency which had taken place in the days of Edward IV. and Henry VIII. A shilling, in the first of these reigns, contained the thirtieth part of a pound of silver; but in the latter, only the forty-fifth part so that, had the soldier received 9d. per day, it would only have been equivalent in weight to the 6d. formerly paid him. Still, even with this rate of pay, the soldier must have been in an infinitely better condition than at present, for the pound of silver, which is now coined into sixty-six shillings, being then coined into fortyfive, eightpence of that period would be exactly equivalent in weight to the shilling he receives now, and in value to more than treble that sum. Of this fact we may have some idea from its being stated by |