This section is not yet complete and is being added to but it has been placed here to share the infomation with those who are interested. Because of the amount of information the larger excerpts have been given their own pages(s) found by clicking on the links.

Kentwell Stations and their contribution to the Armada Preparations

The extracts cover both the "Victualler" who was a merchant who supplied food for the army and the "Purveyor" who was a servant of the government who bought provisions for the Royal Household or the Navy. The roles might overlap to a certain extent.

Purveyor

Purveyancing was a system whereby the Royal court obtained goods at a reduced rate. It was a form of taxation. It had been in force for many centuries and stemmed from the right of the King to take the possessions of his subjects. This eventually evolved into a system whereby the King paid a fixed, and lower than market price for the goods of his subjects. By the time of Elizabeth I there was a good deal of bad feeling voiced in parliament because the system was easy to abuse and could fall unfairly on a select number of the Queen's subjects.

During the latter part of her reign there was agreement, for certain commodities, to allow composition, or compounding, for goods by county. This was a system whereby a county could protect its inhabitants from the “random raids” by purveyors by agreeing to provide a certain amount of a certain commodity at a certain time at a certain agreed price. Thus the cost of providing for the Royal court was spread more evenly amongst the inhabitants of the county. Of course outside this limited agreement purveyors could still operate, particularly in national emergencies like the Armada.

In the 16thC there was a transition from a system of purveyancing to that of composition by county for individual catagories of goods. Purveyed goods taken for emergencies such as war or for Royal progresses did not normally come under these composition arrangemenst because the quantities and locations needed could not be predicted in the long term.

Extracts from: “Purveyance for the Royal Household in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth”; Allegra Woodworth; Transactions of the American Philosophical Society; Vol. XXXV; Part 1, 1945.

(This is a comprehensive document about Purveyancing and “Composition” for only the Royal Household and not for the military or navy).

Extracts from: Tudor Constitutional Documents 1485-1603, J.R. Tanner, Cambridge , 1940.

Pp598. Although in the Tudor period the control of Parliament over taxation was clearly recognised, only a fraction of the Royal revenue was provided by taxation; by far the greater. The sources of income were:

1. Income from Crown lands.
2. Feudal Incidents – reliefs, escheats and profits of wardships,
3. Purveyance and pre-emption
4. Ecclesiastical first fruits and tenths
5. Proceeds of Justice
6. Customs tonnages and poundage
7. Impositions

Purveyance and pre-emption

Purveyance was the ancient royal right of demanding horses and carts and personal services from the districts through which the royal progress passed, at prices to be fixed by royal officers and paid for by Exchequer tallies entitling the “victim” to deduct what was due to him from the next taxes which he had to pay. Pre-emption was the same right applied to the purchase of provisions but “ purveyance ” is often used to cover both. These rights has come to be used as a source of revenue, although one of spasmodic productiveness. Thus Elizabeth for a time victualled her navy by means of warrants of purveyance ; and twice in her reign she purveyed beer upon her own terms and sold it abroad at a profit.

Note on: Exchequer tallies

"The tally-sticks were made of hazel, willow, or alder wood, differing in length according to the sum required to be expressed upon them," reported Smee. "They were roughly squared, and one end was pointed; and on two sides of that extremity, the proper notches, showing the sum for which the tally was a receipt, were cut across the wood. All these operations were performed by the officer called 'the maker of the tallies.'

"On the other two sides of the instrument were written, also in duplicate, the name of the party paying the money, the account for which it was paid, the part of the United Kingdom to which it referred, and the date of payment; recorded with ink upon the wood, by an officer called 'the writer of the tallies.'

"When the tally was complete, the stick was cleft lengthwise by the maker of the tallies, nearly throughout the whole extent, in such a manner that both pieces retained a copy of the inscription, and one half of every notch cut at the pointed end.

"One piece was then given to the party who had paid the money, for which it was a sufficient discharge; and the other was preserved in the Exchequer. Rude and simple as was this very ancient method of keeping accounts, it appears to have been completely effectual in preventing both fraud and forgery for a space of seven hundred years. No two sticks could be found so exactly similar, as to admit of being identically matched with each other, when split in the coarse manner of cutting tallies; and certainly no alteration of the particulars expressed by the notches and inscription could remain undiscovered when the two parts were again brought together.

"And, as if it had been further to prove the superiority of these instruments over writing, two attempts at forgery were reported to have been made on the Exchequer, soon after the disuse of the ancient wooden tallies in 1834." [3]

Exchequer tallies were ordered replaced in 1782 by an "indented cheque receipt," but the Act of Parliament (23 Geo. 3, c. 82) thereby abolishing "several useless, expensive and unnecessary offices" was to take effect only on the death of the incumbent who, being "vigorous," continued to cut tallies until 1826.

"After the further statute of 4 and 5 William IV the destruction of the official collection of old tallies was ordered," noted Hilary Jenkinson. "The imprudent zeal with which this order was carried out caused the fire which destroyed the Houses of Parliament in 1834." [4]

The notches were of various sizes and shapes corresponding to the tallied amount: a 1.5-inch notch for 1000 pounds, a 1-inch notch for 100 pounds, a half-inch notch for 20 pounds, with smaller notches indicating pounds, shillings, and pence, down to a halfpenny, indicated by a pierced dot.

The code was similar to the notches still used to identify the emulsion speed of sheets of photographic film in the dark. The self-authentication achieved by distributing the message across two halves of a uniquely- split piece of wood is analogous to the way large numbers, uniquely split into two prime factors, are used to authenticate digital financial instruments today.

[1] Sir William Petty, 1682, *Quantulumcunque Concerning Money* ( London : A. and J. Churchill, 1695), p. 165.

[2] Hilary C. Jenkinson, "Exchequer Tallies," *Archaeologia,* second series, vol. 12 (1911) p. 368.

[3] Alfred Smee, *Instinct and Reason: Deduced from Electro-biology* (London: Reeve, Benham and Reeve, 1850), pp. xxix-xxxii.

[4] Hilary C. Jenkinson, "Exchequer Tallies," p. 369.

George B. Dyson (gdyson@cc.wwu.edu)

Extracts from: Proceeding in the Parliaments of Elizabeth I, Volume I, 1558-1581, T.E. Hartley, Leicester University Press, 1981, ISBN: 0-7185-1181-6

Pp202. Journals: Anonymous Journal 2-21 April 1571 .

April VI th . The there was an act read for the Preservation of Woods ; the tenor of the bill was, to save from spoyle and bringing to sale younge poles, and cuttinge of boughes, within twenty miles of London. This bill gave occasion to speake of a generall regard to be hadd of woodes throughe the realm, wherof sundry devises were, as by Mr. Bell to stay and prohibit the evill practises of purveiers who taking inder pretence of Her Majestie's service what they would at what price they themselves liked, it enforced the owners not alone not to regard the keeping of the woodes, but withall to make spoyle. Hee advised thereof to make suite, thereby to prevent such oppression. This was prosequuted and soe far by others reasoned unto, and finally by Mr. Seriant Jefferis, that the bill exhibited for London be dashed, and a bill with generall purveience ordered to be drawn.

Pp 203 April VII th . Mr. Seriant Lovelace …”First the abuse of purveyors , wherein he had to desire the Councell (Privy) and the masters of the Houshould to consider it, and to be willing to yeild to reformacion; and in his opinion it should not be amisse to take away the purveiors and to limitt everie county to a proportionable rate, soe should Her Majestie bee better served and the commons eased….. Mr. Comptroller of the Queen's Houshould sayd in a few wordes, that hee, beinge one of the masters of the Houshould, would do his endeavour for reformacion of all thinges rising by the purveiors .

Hooker's Journal 2 April – 30 May 1571

Pp245 7 th April. …that a petician might be made to the Quene for the commons for their help agaynst promoters, perveyers , for collectors spendinge the Quene's money…

Pp254 22nd May. A byll for purveyors at Oxford or Cambridge . (not past)

Pp254 23 rd May . A byll that no purveyors shall intermeddle at Oxford or Cambridge within five myles. ( past)

Pp255 . 25 rd May an act that no purveor of the Quene's shall take anye grayne within fyve myles of Cambridge . ( past)

Pp257. The actes … xiii domine Elizabeth – (in a list of act of parliament passed that year)

An act that none of the Quene's purveiors shall deale within fyve myles of Oxford and Cambridge .

Extracts from: Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, 1559-1581, J.E. Neale, Jonathan Cape , 1953.

Pp122. …a centuries-old grievance, purveyance : an ancient prerogative by which the Crown was entitles to pre-empt goods – principally food – for the maintenance of the royal household, buying them at customary prices, below the market rate. Purveyors were continually out in the shires commandeering supplies. At best it was an onerous antiquated custom, often a cruel burden in the inflationary conditions of the Elizabethan period. But the corrupt and unreasonable practises of the purveyors, who descended like harpies on the countryside, made it a perennial source of complaint. Parliament had protested in the past, time and again and parliamentary legislation had hedged the prerogative about with increasing restrictions. The last statute had been in Mary Tudor's reign. Any further legislation might have made the system unworkable. And indeed, short of a fundamental change, such as Cecil carried out in the latter part of the reign, substituting compounding by counties for the indiscriminate raids of the purveyors , what was needed was the observance of the existing statutes. Elizabeth , with her acute sensitiveness about the royal prerogative, therefore defended purveyance from further statutory encroachment.

In this parliament of 1563 the Commons introduced two bills against the abuses of purveyors : independent moves, undoubtedly. The reign was young, the Queen was feeling her way, and perhaps, with the succession agitation on her, she was being cautious. In later parliaments she intervened to stop such threats to the prerogative. But on this occasion she let the bills proceed. One of them passed the Commons and the Lords. She vetoed it. But an accident took the sting out of her action. It was one of four bills which only reached their final stage an hour or so before she prorogued the Parliament. She vetoed the lot, presumably on the grounds that there had not been time to scrutinize them. In all probability she would have vetoed the purveyors bill in any case.

Extracts from: Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, 1584-1601, J.E. Neale, Jonathan Cape , 1957.

pp187. ..the Commons made another attempt to control purveyors, those harpies whose corrupt and tyrannous exactions when gathering provisions for the royal household were a constant source of grievance and anger. The great statute on purveyance of 1555, if observed, should have kept them in order; but human nature and Elizabethan times being what they were, it was flagrantly broken. On March 2 nd 1586-87 a bill was introduced into the Commons “concerning the great abuse of purveyors”. It imposed a penalty of £20 for taking goods other than allowed by statute, and attempted to put a stop to the tyranny of officials by forbidding the summoning of anyone to answer at Whitehall , unless two neighbouring Justices of the Peace sanctioned it – a salutary device, but a weakening of the prerogative. One might have expected Elizabeth to intervene with a message; but she stayed her hand at that moment, and evidently preferred delayed action.

Sir Walter Mildmay spoke on the first reading. He shared the Commons', not his mistress's view. The vexation of subjects, he seemed to have argued, was a hindrance to their readiness to pay subsidies. Where exactions were proved, should be well punished: but he added some complained for “private displeasure”. The bill was passed on 11 th March 1586-87. It passed the Lords on 13 th March and received two readings on one day: eloquent testimony to its acceptability there. The will of parliament was emphatic. The Queen nevertheless vetoed the bill. Where her prerogative was concerned she was emphatic.

Pp208, 1589 Parliament , Meanwhile the bill about purveyors had been running its course. Its sponsor was Mr. John Hare, one of a pair of brothers who together occupied the two Horsham seats in several parliaments. He spokes about the abuses of purveyors and the debate took practically the whole morning, such was the interest. Elizabethans needs no interval to marshal their thoughts on the subject, particularly just then. Since the agitation in the last Parliament, the Armada preparations had concentrated large numbers of soldiers in the counties near London , creating an extraordinary problem with food supplies; and in such circumstances the activities of purveyors must have seemed less tolerable than ever. The Clerk noted a dozen members speaking.

The bill in preamble and elsewhere seems to have been scathing: it blamed the officers of the royal household, and by inference might be thought to blame the Queen. Their provisions were, in part, a repetition of those of 1587. In an attempt to stop notorious and acknowledged abuses, it undoubtedly hindered the Queens service and clipped the authority of her Household court; know as the Board of Greencloth.

The first speaker was Sir Francis Knollys, who as Treasurer was the senior officer of the Household. He was aware of the of the abuses; he was aware also that the proper, in fact the only remedy, short of abolishing purveyance, was the radical one of substituting composition by counties for the forays of individual purveyors. He sympathised with the victims of the present antiquated system; but he was concerned to maintain the Queen's prerogative, on which depended the business of feeding the Court without a vast and unbearable increase in Royal expenditure. The bill was immediately read a second time and sent to committee which was authorized to give audience to any of the officers of the Household and Court of Greencloth who wished to be heard.

The committee reported on Feb. 19 th through the mouth of Thomas Heneage, who was Hatton's successor as Vice-Chamberlain. He reported that they had conferred with some officers of the Greencloth and had amended the bill and added a proviso. There was much debate, the bill was passed and sent to the Lords.

By 25 th Feb. the Lords had before them two bills, which from the Queen's point of view were explosive. Knowing this the Lords appeared to have deliberately refrained from considering them. Royal action followed. On Feb 27 th the Commons were informed that the Lords had received a message from her Majesty, delivered by two Privy Councillors, and wished to impart it to a delegation, meeting a select number of peers. At the meeting Burghley acted as spokesman. He told them that the Queen's message concerned the passing of these two bills: “a thing misliked of her Majesty”. The one touched the officers and minister of her own Household; the other, the officers and ministers of her own court of her own revenues. In both matters, if any officials demeaned themselves unlawfully or untruly, her Majesty was of herself both able and willing to see due reformation, and would do so to the public example of others. The bills were dead! However the Commons persisted in wanting a solution and the Queen agreed to their petition and ordered the late Lord Steward, the Earl of Leicester, to write to all the shires of the realm causing enquiry to be made into the misdemeanours of purveyors in order to devise redress. She intended, before the close of the this session of Parliament, to have a collection made of all the laws already in force about purveyors, as also of her Household regulations, and then, by the advice of her judges and learned counsel, to set down a plan of reform, “as good or better”, for the ease of the subjects , than that which this House attempted without her privity, and in which they would have bereaved her Majesty (of) the honour, the glory and the commendation of the same.

The Queen's plan seems to have succeeded in the purveyance did not recur as a grievance in the later Parliaments of her reign.

Extracts from: THE RIOTS OF ELIZABETHAN OXFORD David B. Mock, Tallahassee Communality College http://organizations.ju.edu/fch/1993mock.htm

Purveyance was again an issue in 1590. Despite the university's exemption from purveyance, the queen's purveyors assessed St. John's College in late 1589. An important question arising from this dispute concerned the area to be exempted from the assessment. According to its charter, an area of five miles around the university was exempt unless the monarch came within seven miles of the town. College officials were uncertain, however, whether the distance was measured from the college or the town gates. Further complicating the situation were the claims of college tenants who believed that they too should be exempt. The Council decided ultimately in July 1590 that the five miles were to be measured per certam lineam in circuita from the town gates. Sir Henry Umpton was to mark the boundaries with stakes and inform constables and other officials not to levy purveyance on anyone living within that radius.

Extracts from: Select Statutes and Other Constitutional Documents Illustrative of the reigns of Elizabeth (I) and James I, Ed. G.W Prothero, Oxford, 1964 (first published 1894).

Pp124. Message from the Queen to the Lords, 27 February 1589, D'Ewes Journal p.440.

Concerning two bills. The one concerning Purveyors and... …. a thing misliked by Her Majestie in both these cases … Her Majestie was of herself (he said) both able and willing to see due reformation, and so would do to public example of others upon and of the said officers and ministers which at any time be found to offend….

Pp 340. Purveyance (the King‘s right of buying goods at a valuation and of impressing carriages &c without consent of the owner – Bill against quashed) Impositions: Bates case, 1606 . (Baron Clarke), True it is that the weal of the King is the public weal of the people, and he for his pleasure my afforest the wood of any subject, and he thereby shall be subject to the law of the forest; and he may take the provision of any man by his purveyor for his own use, but at reasonable prices and without abuse, the abuse of which officers has been restrained by diverse statutes; and the King may take wines for his provision, and also timber for his ships, castles or houses in the wood of any man, and this is for public benefit…

Pp298. Propositions touching Purveyance 26 Junii 1610, Lord's Journals p. 660, no. 6 in Seven propositions of ease discussed in connexion with the Great Contract on June 22 and 25 , passed on June 26 and presented to the King on June 27.

All purveyance and taking for his Majesty, the Queen, the Prince, and all other the king's children, and for all offices, officers, courts, councils, and societies whatsoever, to be utterly taken away, as well as purveyance for household, stable, navy, servants, labourers, and all other provisions, as well as for carts, horses and carriages, both by land and water; and generally all purveyances and takings , for whomsoever or whatsoever, of what name or nature soever, to be forever extinguished. The compositions for the same to be all dissolved and released. The clerk of the market and all other to be disabled for setting any prices. The power and prerogative of pre-emption to be determined, not intending hereby the pre-emption of tin. What regard shall be had of the merchant-stranger in this point, shall be left to further consideration.

Pp299 Memorial containing the Great Contract with his Majesty touching tenures, with the dependents, purveyance , &c conceived by the direction of the Lords of the Higher House of Parliament (21 July 1610) Lord's Journals p. 662.

…whereof the Lower House of Parliament have this day delivered unto (us)..….certain articles concerning the Great Contract with his Majestie…tied to assure unto his Majesty the sum of £200,000 sterling in yearly revenue in satisfaction of the yearly profits. …..in respect of ….together with the extinguishing of purveyance (all tending to the profit and ease of his Majesty's subjects).

Pp385. Instructions for the President and Council of Wales , 1617 .

XXXV. And his Majesty's pleasure is, that for avoiding of all corruption to be used by any purveyor or other officer appointed to provide carriages for removes and for wood and fuel and such other necessities of the said Council, that from henceforth the country shall not be charged with more carriages than shall be requesite …; and therefore his Highness commandeth that all such carriages shall be appointed from time to time by the special warrant of the Lord President.

Extracts from: London and the Kingdom - Volume II Reginald R. Sharpe Release Date: April 5,

2007, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20990/20990-8.txt

The abuse of purveyance, more especially, had become a standing grievance to the burgesses of London as well as of other cities and towns, in spite of attempted remedies by statute or charter. (29) An offer of £50,000 a year was made to the king by way of commuting any shred of right he might still have to purveyance after thirty-six statutes had pronounced it altogether illegal. This, however, he refused, and the matter was allowed to drop. Two years later, almost to the day (23 April, 1606), the king endeavoured so far to remedy the evil as to issue a proclamation against exactions and illegal acts of his purveyors,(30) and yet scarcely a month elapsed before the lord mayor had occasion to call the attention of the lords of the council to the great inconvenience caused in the city by their recent demand for 200 carts with two horses to each, together with the lord mayor's own barge, for the purpose of conveying his majesty's effects to Greenwich . As for the barge, the mayor wrote that the lord chamberlain sometimes borrowed it for conveying the king's guard, and it might haply be required again for the same purpose, "but for carringe anie stuffe or lugedge whereby it maie receave hurt it was never yet required," and he hoped their lordships would see the matter in that light.(31)   29 The first charter of Edward III, granted to the citizens of London (6 March, 1327) with the assent of parliament, expressly forbade the King's purveyors taking goods contrary to the will and pleasure of the citizens, except for cash; and no prisage of wines was thenceforth to be taken under any consideration.--_Cf._ Stat. 4, Edw. III, c. 3; 5, Edw. III, c. 2; 25, Edw. III, c. 1; 36, Edw. III, c. 2. 30 Journal 27, fo. 36. 31 Remembrancia, ii, 262 (Analytical Index, p. 409).

Extracts from: Parliamentary Taxation in 17thC England , M.J. Braddick, for the Royal Historical Society by the Boydell Press, 1994. ISBN:0 86193 278 1.

It was not until 1660 that purveyance (and some other taxation and royal income) was replaced by excise duty.

Victualler

Extract from Elizabeth 's Army, C. G. Cruickshank, OUP 1946.

Extracts from: “The Elizabethan Militia 1578-1638” (sic), Lindsay Boynton, Studies in Political History, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1967.

Extracts from: English Public Finance 1558-1641, F.C. Dietz, The Century Co, New York , for The American Historical Association 1932,

pp36. The disbursements of the Surveyor of Victuals of the Fleet were slightly reduced; they had averaged nearly £4000 per year in the six years before Burley became Lord Treasurer, and they averaged £3500 per year from 1572 to 1585.

pp81. The costs of victuals for the fleet had ridden to over £50,000 annually in 1596 and 1597.

Pp111. 1602 1607

£40945 £16375   the surveyor of victual of the navy.

£18130 £0 upon the accounts of the victuallers .

Extracts from: “The Papers of Nathanial Bacon of Stiffkey”.

Pp196. Officers of the Greencloth to Sir William Paston,, Sir Edward Clere, Sir Henry Woodhouse, bailiffs of Yarmouth and John Hoo.

1581/2 March 8. After our hearty comendacions. We have received your letter dated the sixte of Marche wherby we perceyve that certain merchants have made cleime to the waxe which by shippwrake is cast upon the coast of Norfolk and Suffolk & have procured not only letters from the Cownsell but also a comission from the Admiraltie unto yow for the deliverie of the same wax unto them. Notwithstanding the said letters and comission which yow have receyved to that end, we eftesones in Her Majestes name earnestlie requier & will yow to suffer this bearer Edmund Powell, Her Majesties purveior, to take out of the said masse of waxe (being aswell uppon the coast of Norfolk as Suffolk) for the only service and expenses of Her Majesties howse tenne thousand weighte of the best and purest waxe, wherof Her Majeste doth at this present stand in need. And there shall be answered unto yow or to any other who pretender an interest therein such price as Her Majestie genet to her to her subjects , & others of whom the like provision is taken. And so we do bid yow farewell.

From the Courte at Grenewich the viii of Marche 1581

You loving friends F. Knollys, Jeames Crofte.

There follow three letters relating to the wax.

Extracts from: The Second Parte of the Principles of the Arte Militarie 1638

Extracts from: A Path-Way to Militarie Practise, Barnaby Rich 1587,

The Provost

He must rate the prizes (prices?) of suche victaull as shall come into the campe in such reasonable sort; as both the victualler may be a computant gainer, the end he be not driven to shun the camp, and also that the soldier be not to much exacted on, to the end hys little pay may be able to find him, he must have care that the Victuall be good and wholesome, and in any wise he must not suffer the Victualler to receive abuse, because there is nothing more beneficial to a campe , then that it be followed with great store of Victuallers . …. and at convenient houres must cause all victuallers to shut up their doores, that all things may be husht, quiet and stil.

Extracts from: The Counter Armada 1596,

S & E Usherwood, Naval Institute Press 1983 ISBN 0-87021-135-8

Pp33. Letter from the Earl of Essex to Cecil: “Mr. Dorrell (the Victualler General) is not (at) hand, who would help in bestowing the proportions of victual in every ship, and yet he promised to be here a week ago.

Pp 44. Her Majesty had by her commission given power unto Sir George Carew, Master of the Ordinance, Mr. Anthony Ashley, Secretary and Mr. Marmaduke Dorrell, the Victualler -General, to take into their charge (with the privity of the Lord Generals) to her use such purchases and prizes of value as should be taken.

Pp59. Mr. Marmaduke Dorrell had been given his commission by the Privy Council. “This day also a commission was delivered under the Lords Generals' hands and directed to Sir George Carew, Master of the Ordinance, Mr. Anthony Ashley, Secretary and Mr. Marmaduke Dorrell, the Victualler -General for the Army, to this tenure ensuing.”

Pp65-66. In the log of Jan van Doornik“Also the same (day) athwart the Rock the John and Francis , wherein Master Dorrell the Victualler the captain, took a flyboat called the Falcon of Flushing , laden with oils and wine, in her was also of silver XX, of gold XX,”

Extracts from: Militarie Instructions for the Cavalrie 1632.

Of the Provost Marshall

Of all things in charge of the Provost Marshall, his principall care must be about the victuals . He must be an honest man, and content with his fees. He is to look to the weights and measures, and to guard the victualls (or sutler) from insolencies. Himself or some of his men must alwayes be in the market-place, or we here the victuals are sold, and he is to inform himself where and at what price the sutlers buy their victuals , that the Commissarie and Auditor may tax them accordingly.

Extracts from: Great Harry's Navy,

G Woodhouse, Weidenfield & Nicolson 2005, ISBN: 0 297 6454 7

Extracts fromThe History of the Royal William ( Victualling ) Yard and its association with Plymouth , LWM Stephens, circa 1961? Type written self published pamphlet.

Extracts from: The Arte of Warre (published in English 1560-62) , Machiavelli, Niccolo, Neal Wood, Da Capo Press, 1990 ISBN: 0-306-80412-3

Pp139. I shall tell you how I would supply them with provisions… All Prices and commanders should take particular care that their armies be as light and little encumbered as possible, so that at all times they may be fit and ready for any enterprise and expedition. Now the difficulties occasioned by the want or superabundance of provisions may be reckoned amongst the most considerable incident to an army. The ancients did not trouble themselves much about furnishing their troops with wine, for when they came into countries where there was none to be had , they drank water with a little vinegar in it to give it a taste; so, instead of wine, they always carried vinegar along with them. They did not bake their bread in ovens, as is usual in towns; every soldier had a certain allowance of meal or flour and lard, which when kneaded together made a very good nourishing bread . Also they used to carry a sufficient quantity of oats and barley for their horses and other cattle, for they had herds of oxen and flocks of sheep and goats that were driven after the army and therefore did not occasion any great hindrance. As a result of these precautions, their armies would sometimes march for many days through desert countries and rugged defiles without distress or difficulty.

On the contrary, our modern armies, which can neither live without wine, nor eat any bread but that baked and made as it is in towns (and they cannot carry enough to last for any length of time), must often be reduced to great distress, or be obliged to provide themselves with those necessities in a manner that that must be very troublesome and expensive. I would therefore re-establish this method in my army, and not allow any kind of bread to be eaten by the soldiers other than that they have made themselves. As for wine, I should not prohibit its use, if any were brought into camp, but I would not make the slightest effort to procure it for them. In all other things also relating to provisions, I should follow the example of the ancients, by which many difficulties and inconveniences might be avoided, and many great advantages gained in any expedition.

Pp167. As for guarding against famine, it is not only necessary to take timely care that the enemy may not be able to cut you off from your provisions , but to consider from whence you might be conveniently supplied and to see that the provisions that you have are properly husbanded and preserved. Therefore you should always have at least a month's provisions in reserve, and the oblige you neighbouring friends and allies to furnish you daily with a certain quantity. You also ought to establish magazines and storehouses in strong places, and above all, to distribute you provisions duly and frugally among your men; give then a reasonable portion every day and attend so strictly to this point that you do not by any means exhaust your stores and run yourself aground.

Although all other calamities in an army may be remedied in time, famine alone grows more and more grievous the longer it continues, and it is sure to destroy you eventually. No enemy will ever engage you when, in such circumstances, he is sure to conquer you without fighting. An army then that wantonly wastes its provisions without foresight or regard to rule, measure, or in the circumstance of the times, cannot possibly escape famine; want of timely care will prevent its having supplies and profusion consumes what it already has to no purpose. Consequently, the ancients took care that their soldiers should eat no more than a daily, reasonable allowance, and that only at stated times,; they never were permitted to eat breakfast, dinner or supper unless their General did the same. How well these excellent rules are observed in our armies at present, I need not tell you,; everyone knows that our soldiers, instead of imitating the regularity and sobriety of the ancients, are a parcel of intemperate, licentious, and drunken fellows.

Extracts from: English Merchant Shipping 1460-1540, D Burwash, David and Charles, (1947 original, 1969 reprint) ISBN 7153 4386 6?

Together with danger the mariner had to face discomfort. Though no Halkluyt has chronicled their hardships, the dry records of our period make it clear that the seamen suffered as much from unappetizing food and cramped quarters as did their Elizabethan successors. The Howard and Cely accounts show that salt meat, salt or smoked fish, bread and beer were the staple foods while the ship was at sea. The accounts of the voyage of the Margaret Cely made to Zealand in 1487 five an exceptionally full picture of the victualling arrangements in a medieval ship, since there have survived both William Maryon's account of the cost of fitting her out for the voyage and the purser's book of day to day expenses. Large quantities of preserved fish, that is white and red herring and stockfish were bought and put down in barrels during March. Just before she sailed in mid-May two oxen were salted down, also in barrels. Bread was bought in dozens and must obviously have been some kind of ship's biscuit or hardtack , since purchase began in March, though it is true that three quarters of wheat were ground and bolted and shipped as flour. The absence of beer or wine is probably accidental, and in any case the omission was repaired as soome as the ship reached Antwerp . The Dutch beer and the results of a baking done at Antwerp are the only supplements to the spare diet of salt meat and fish and the shipp's biscuit that seamen seem to have had. Before the Margaret had sailed from London however, her harbour crew had had slightly more varied provisions. The purser's books show that, though at least three times a week the diet was fish, there was also fresh meat and on one day nearly every week , “egys and butter”. Small quantities of mussels and medlers and in one gala week figs, raisins, and leeks were evidently intended as occasional delicacies, since there was no purchase large enough to have been meant for the full crew on the voyage itself. (Possibly intended for the officers? DJH).

The use of ship's biscuit in the Margaret Cely, and even more the fact that when she arrived at her various destinations there was nearly always a payment noted “for baking” suggest that the actual amount of cooking done on board was limited . The purser's books make it clear that she had a “koke rom” and that in it there was a hearth , but necessarily an oven in which baking might be done. Other ship were known to have had ovens; Sir John Howard's carvel, for example, had one which needed 800 bricks, 250 house tiles and 13 paving tiles, and took six days abuilding. The Anthony of Hull , too as early as 1456-59 may have had “furni and coquine” made of stone, but probably many smaller craft like the Celys' had none. Most ship had similar provisions.

The victualling account of the James of Dunwich in 1545 show more variety, since in addition to the regular salt meat, biscuit, fish, and beer, she shipped bacon, cheese, pease, honey, salt butter and even pepper. Though some of the things were certainly for trade, it is possible that the seaman's diet had improved as compared to the time of Henry VII. But even the James can hardly have deserved the remark made by a later Spanish ambassador to the effect that English ships could carry only half cargoes because they sail “loaded with victuals , considering the way Englishmen eat”.

The Laws of Oleran state

“Article XVII. The mariners of Brittany ought to have but one meal a day from the kitchen, because they have beverage going and coming. But those of Normandy are to have two meals a day, because they have only water at the ship's allowance; and when the ship arrives in a wine country, there the master shall procure them wine to drink.”. Presumably, “kitchen” relates to a cooked meal and that bread making up the chief part of a lighter meal, (and cheese and butter on occasion) would be available at other times.

Extracts from: Tudor Economic Documents Parts I and III,

R H Tawney and E Power, Longmans 1924.

Vi, Pp122. Admission to the freedom of Chester . 1557. “… every person being a forener so Admyttyd to pay for his fredome the some of ten pounds sterling at the leste; unles yt may apere at such assemble the person so requiring to be franchised a vytler or other wyese profytable to the publyke welthe of this citie, and ther upon by consent of the same assemble to geve again and rebayte of the said some of x li . Such parcell of the same as should be thought good by the agreement of the same assemble…”

Vi, Pp148 Orders of the Justices of Cornwall for the reformation of the unreasonable prices of victuals in the markets . This was an attempt to regulate prices in the markets. The justices were to make enquiries of sellers of victuals (at high prices) and to judge them. It mentions the “King's Majesties price” to be paid for cattle and other victuals . Reasonable prices were to be sought for each commodity. Officers ( victuallers ) were appointed, one each from buyers (e.g. landsmen or victuallers ) and sellers (e.g. fishermen or graziers), to make a market price.

Viii, pp77. Harrison , Of Fairs and Markets 1577-87. It is a world also to see how most places of the realme are pestered with purueiours , who take up egs, butter, cheese, pigs, capons, hens, chickens, hogs, bacon &c. in one market, vnder the pretense of their commissions, and suffer their wiues to sell the same in another, or to pulters of London…. …In like sort, since the number of buttermen haue so much increased, and since they trauell in such wise, that they come to men's houses for their butter faster than they can make it; it is most incredible to see how the price of butter is augmented: whereas, when the owners were inforced to bring it to the market townes, and fewer of these butter buiers were stirring, or butter was scarcely woorth eighteen pence the gallon, that now it is worth three shillings four pence, and perhaps five shillings….