rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Can someone help me with rates of pay? I can't find my original notes on pay rates and would be grateful if someone could supply me with the daily rates for a private, lance-corporal and shoeing-smith in the mounted infantry at the time of the ZW. Many thanks.

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:59 am

Dear Julian,

Only have infantry - whether there was extra trade pay for MI certificate I do not know - might have been 1d or 2d per day:

Rate per day in 1879:

Lt 6s 6d

Sgt 2s 5d

Cpl 1s 4d

Dmr 1s 1d

Pte 1s 0d plus gcp 1d per day (max 5p per day)

Boy 0s 7p

Corporals are better paid today by comparison reflecting their greater responsibility.

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:56 pm

Thanks - no info on Lance-corporals then?

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:20 am

Julian, I dug this out of the old forum (Page 35 right below the "Great Ammo Marathon"). :

14th May 2004 Daily Pay For Infantry Regiments as at 31st Jan 1879
By melanie
NOT BAD PAY FOR ONE DAYS WORK

COLONELS 17s 6d
LIEURENANT COLONELS 17s
MAJORS 16s
CAPTAINS 11s 7d
LIEUTENANTS 6s 6d
2nd LIEUTENANTS 5s 3d
SUB LIEUTENANTS 5s 3d
COLOUR SERGEANTS 2s 7d
SERGEANTS 2s
LANCE SERGEANTS 1s 11d
CORPORALS 1s 4d
LANCE CORPORALS 1s 3d
PRIVATES 1s
BOYS 7d
GOOD CONDUCT 1d

[Wonder whatever happened to Melanie?]

I know I've seen rates lists elsewhere, but checking Skelley and Spiers didn't help. May have been on a web site. ( Lost all my old notes last year when I left them in a Massachusetts motor lodge, their historical value obviously lost on those who cleaned the room!) (Or perhaps not!)

MAB

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:00 pm

and sheing smiths?

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:44 pm

Okay Julian how's this,

Rates of Daily Pay:- Troop Sgt Majors 3/10s.

Quarter Master Sgt 3/10s.

Sgt Instructor of Fencing 3/3s.

Farrier QM Sgt 4/0s

Armourer Sgt 5/3s

Sgt Farrier 2/10s

Saddler Sgt 3/8s

Sgt Trumpeter 2/8s.

Sergeant 2/8s.

Lance/Sgt 2/4s.

Corporal 2/0s

Cpl Saddle Tree Maker 2/0s

Lance/Cpl's 1/7s

Private 1/2s

Trumpeter 1/4s

Saddler 1/9�s

Saddle Tree Maker 1/9�s

Shoeing Smith 1/10s

Boys under 18 years of age 8d

Above as 1881 in the the QDG from-

http://www.qdg.org.uk/digest.php?I'd=21&di=1881&re=Queens%20Bays

Hope this helps

MAB

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:48 am

Could somebody translate those figures to USD? I am totally confused.

Thanks

Mikey

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:55 am

Mikey

To convert the values of the above sums to US dollars & cents would be rather difficult (although possible) after 130 years but translating or explaining the differences so that the numbers and symbols become meaningful to someone across the pond (or even someone over here who is too young to remember our pre-decimal system) should be manageable.

I'm assuming that in the 1870s there were several US dollars to the British pound (GB�) , perhaps up to eight, but that can be looked up & checked, I'm sure. However, whereas the dollar was divided into 100 cents, that is where the difference starts.

The British pound (the � sign is a corruption of the letter L, denoting the French "livre", just to confuse) was not divided into 100 anything, but into 20 shillings. Each of these shillings was divided into twelve pennies, or pence - thus there were 240 pence in a pound. A penny was divided into four farthings, two of which would obviously make a halfpenny, usually pronounced "ha'penny" ("haypnee").

A shilling was always denoted by a small "s" after the number or preceded a dash/oblique/"forward slash": / (to divide the number of shillings from pence). The pennies or pence were denoted by a "d" (as opposed to a "p" since 1971) which came from the Roman denarius, I believe. A ha'penny was the usual "half" sign followed by the "d." (I'm sure I can make a half sign on this keyboard somehow but I won't try - it was the usual smaller "one" over a small 2). Similarly, a farthing was the usual quarter sign followed by a "d", three farthings was obviously denoted by three quarters.

So one pound (or a "quid", as you might say a "buck" for a dollar) was �1. Or �1 0s 0d. (One pound, no shilling, no pence). Slang for a shilling, incidentally, was "bob."

One pound ten shillings was shown as �1 10s 0d ("One pound, ten.") Or it could be shown as 30/- (30 shillings, or thirty "bob"). In fact, right up to 1971 many prices in shops were just as likely to show the price in shillings, even if more than 20, and one was certainly more likely to say "30 bob" than "one pound, ten" or "I paid 50 bob for these jeans" rather than "two pounds ten."

Still with me? (That's the easy bit over!)

Smaller sums, involving pence or shillings and pence, would be shown thus:

Fifteen shillings: 15s 0d - or 15/- (Never �0 15s 0d - the unnecessary pound would be ignored).

Seven shillings and six pence (which was, of course, seven and a half shillings) would be 7s 6d - or 7/6. The latter was probably more usual on shop price signs or when written quickly, but either would do.

Five shillings (a quarter of a pound) was equivalent to a crown, long out of general use or coinage even in 1879, but the 2s 6d piece was always a standard coin and was invariably known as half-a-crown, or half-crown (or, occasionally in slag, "half a dollar.") The sum itself, rather than the coin, was just as often said as "two and a tanner", tanner being the slang for 6d (sixpence). Note sixpence, not six pence, as we would say since 1971. (I won't go into florins here, nor the usual slang terms for other coins/notes such as joeys, nickers and the like!)

So the rate of pay etc, shown for example as 1s 0d, or 1/-, would be a shilling (twelve pence or a 20th of a pound) which was the daily pay of Tommy Atkins for some generations (subject to deductions!)

When the sum is not in exact pence, such as three shillings and four pence ha'penny (never said as "four and a half pence") it would be shown as 3s 4.5d (but actually it wouldn't, as I've had to us the decimal .5 instead of the usual half sign.) Ditto for, say, one shilling, threepence three farthings (three quarters of a penny) which would be said and pronounced as as "one and thruppence [sic] three farthings." Even without the ha'pennies or farthings, one would say "one and six" for 1s 6d or 1/6, or "two and three" for 2s 3d (2/3).

The above notes should enable you to grasp most of the sums listed in Michael's post (but see note later below) although there were some complications. Just as one would often say "I paid 55 bob for this jacket" (�2 15s 0d) or "that's a bit expensive at thirty-seven and six" (�1 17s 6d) so could smaller sums be spoken a little alternatively. It was almost as common (perhaps less so in the in the last few years of the old system) to say "eighteen pence" (18d) as it was to say �1 6d ("one and six") and even to see it written down like this on shop prices - but not usually for sums of more than two shillings. Similarly, "five farthings " might be used for "a penny farthing" (one and a quarter pence). As far as I can recall, there was no symbol or initial for the farthing.

Looking at Michael's figures more closely, I see he has used the shilling's initial "s" where it usually wouldn't be. The troop sergeant major's pay of three shillings and tenpence a day should be shown as either 3s 10d - or, for short, 3/10 or 3/10d - never as 3/10s. This anomaly continues in most of the sums, I see.

Hopefully, although it won't give you an accurate idea of the relative values of soldiers' pay of 1879 compared to US currency of that time, it should enable you to understand some of the terms or symbols you'll come across when reading about British sums of money before 1971. The currency applied all over the Empire and later the Commonwealth, although some countries, particularly the former Dominions, decided to go decimal before GB did and some of them elected to take ten shillings (half a pound) as the equivalent of the new currency of, say, Australian or NZ dollar, making the old penny close in value to the new cent, whereas in GB we retained the pound, meaning 2.4 old pence equalled one new penny.

And thus we threw out one of the most marvellous pieces of our heritage for the rubbish we have today, because someone thought there must be a good reason for doing so - which, for 35 years, has succeeded in eluding me!

Peter

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:59 pm

Peter,
I'm not sure you should be telling the whole world the secrets of 'old money'.
Pre 1971, it was the way we could detect foreign spies by asking a question about it.

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:59 pm

Alan wrote:

Peter,
I'm not sure you should be telling the whole world the secrets of 'old money'.
Pre 1971, it was the way we could detect foreign spies by asking a question about it.

Don't worry, Alan, my head is spinning and it will take some time take it all in.

And thank you Peter for the currency lesson, i think i will have to re-re read your post Very Happy

Mikey

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:44 pm

Peter, that was excellent. I toyed with explaining it as base12 except for the part that's base20 as opposed to the modern base10 and then felt a headache coming on. It surely must be a lost art as the numbers I quoted in the second post came verbatim from the Queen's Dragoon Guards web site! (Perhaps those who forced the change were from the same cabal that made you exchange yards for meters.)

Alan, as a counter-espionage tool it beats the heck out of the baseball references we used to use!

Best

Michael

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:58 am

Exchange yards for metres !!!!

In my books, the yard and mile is still very much in existance. Some of the old values still remain and hopefully will continue to do so.

Graham

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:56 am

Please, please, please! Nobody ask for an explanation of weights and measures!

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:15 am

While they're about explaining 'avoir du pois',

maybe someone could explain to Mikey the vagiaries of the game of cricket, as well, and why the pitch length is 1 chain ???

Sean

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:18 am

Mikey

Yes, it does look a bit of a mouthful, doesn't it? However, I'm sure you'll grasp it when you've read it a few times. Do a few sums and see if they add up! Laughing

It's not as difficult as it seems, as it was taught perfectly adequately to very young schoolchildren for centuries - we had to add up/substract three separate columns in those days, none of which, of course, involved "tens & units."

Where I didn't help was in omitting to provide any clue about conversion from pre-1971 values, as opposed to GB/US currency conversion, which would obviously have to allow for 130 years of inflation. Briefly, the shilling (the private soldier's pay for much of the 19th century) became five new pence (5p) in 1971, still a 20th of a pound, so the comparison you seek should be easy to calculate, subject to huge inflation.

Kipling had some fun in verse in his Shilling a Day, which you may enjoy, and also alludes to the same pay system in his Troopin' in which the time-expired soldier marries his Mary Ann "on a fourpenny bit" - the Reservist's weekly retainer during his five years on the Reserve after serving the usual seven years with the Colours (a third of his previous regular pay). These verses were composed only a decade or so after the AZW.

No-one here will get me on to metricification or Alan will throw me off! Suffice to say that that system is - and will happily remain - a total mystery to me. As Sean has hinted, how can such a system compare with the magnificent reality of the wonderful chain.

Peter

P.S. Michael: Although the sums in your second posting of the 19th used the symbols incorrectly, I see your earlier posting of the same day used them perfectly.