Agricultural History Review, Volume 54 Part 1 (2006), p. 164

Gradually the surviving records of the military survey of 1522 and the lay subsidy tax of 1524–5 are being made available in print, aided by the National Archives’ ongoing ‘E179’ project designed to list fully and restore to order all the voluminous records of lay taxation in that class. Mr Faraday is a notable local historian who has worked on early Hereford probate records, written a good history of Ludlow and has previously edited the Shropshire lay subsidy returns for 1524–5, so that one approaches this volume with high expectations.

So far as the text of the documents is concerned Mr Faraday has provided what appears to be a trustworthy transcript of the originals with exhaustive indexes of surnames and places: but his subject index of eleven entries is ludicrously inadequate. There should have been full coverage of such matters as lords, stewards and parsons in the military survey and of occupational labels such as ‘retainers’, ‘servants’ and ‘labourers’ throughout the volume. The volume should have had a map to illustrate the coverage of both the military survey and the lay survey and, given modern methods of reproduction, I am not persuaded that ‘the cost ... is such ... that it would be uneconomic to attempt it’ (p. xl). But it is the content of the Introduction that is the most unsatisfactory feature of this volume. I accept that ‘in choosing the topics to be discussed in an Introduction ... an editor cannot please everyone’ (p. ix). Nevertheless, members of a county history society are entitled to expect an editor to provide guidance not only on the origin and nature of the records being treated but also on how they can be used to throw light on the historical development of their own county. This fairly obviously ought to include some reference to earlier authoritative editions and studies of the records being edited, but the reader will search this volume in vain for mention of Julian Cornwall, W. G. Hoskins (apart from one footnote reference on p. xxxvi) or John Sheail, or for any reference to previous editions of the military survey and 1524–5 lay subsidy. Presumably Mr Faraday does not think their work is worthy of mention alongside his own: others may venture to differ.

What is certain is that readers will have to find out for themselves how to apply these records to their own localities, a task in which they will obtain little help from an editor whose interests, to judge from his Introduction, are mainly in constitutional history. Thus he rightly observes that ‘many of the larger valuations were understated’ (p. xxvii) but does not really take on board the implications of his Table 5 (p. xxiii) that the wage-earners and labourers who were supposed to be taxed in 1524–5 (and who in the view of most competent historians of Tudor England comprised at least a quarter of the population) were clearly not fully covered in Blackenhurst, Oswaldslow and Pershore hundreds (8.2 per cent, 11.7 per cent and 14.8 per cent respectively). These figures are clearly far too low, compared to Worcester City (46.0 per cent), Halfshire (24.8 – 28.9 per cent) and Doddingtree (36.1 – 40.3 per cent). To take another m atter, Mr Faraday’s treatment of population (p. xxxi) utterly ignores muster records, later subsidy returns (especially those of 1543–5), parish registers starting in 1538 or the 1563 diocesan census which exists for Worcester diocese and thus covers all Worcestershire apart from the far west which was in Hereford diocese.

In conclusion, Mr Faraday must be thanked for providing a reliable text of the records he has edited, but the fulfilment of his other editorial duties leaves much to be desired.