We have another entry of a similar kind. John Robinson is only assessed at 40s. to this subsidy, because he had lost a ship valued at £28 “captured by the Scots.” We can only infer from this that this ship represented almost the whole of his property. We know from another record that at this time our merchants possessed 14 barks or doggers which used to go to Iceland to catch cod fish and ling, besides smaller boats employed in fishing near home. John Jettor’s ship was probably one of these barks, and John Robinson’s—a small fishing boat. It is clear from these entries that at this time a ship represented a large part of the “movabyll goods” of our richer townspeople. The value of two barks would equal the highest assessment on this roll. When we consider the dangers these ships incurred, not only from the sea, but from the “Scots” and other occasional enemies, we can realise the precarious condition of the property possessed by these “fishing adventurers,” and of the town whose fortunes depended on the success of their enterprises. It may be inferred, however, from this and other evidence that the assessments to the King’s subsidies were very much of a conventional character. They doubtless represented the taxable capacity of the contributors relative to each other, but we may feel quite certain that they did not represent the full value of any persons property. The assessments were practically made by the townspeople themselves, and they would be each and all strongly interested in keeping the aggregate assessment at as low a figure as possible. At the same time, as the returns were subject to the inspection of the Sheriff, as well as the Exchequer Court in London, the range for imposition was limited. The contributions were assessed on the system of a “graduated income tax.” Persons possessed of goods above £20 in value paid 1s. in the £. Those possessing “movabyll goods,” or taxed on “wages and profits” under that amount, paid 6d. in the £. But the working men and fishermen who were assessed at only 20s. for “wages and profits” paid only 4d. No one was assessed at a lower sum than 20s. But 20s. could not represent the annual income of even the lowest paid labourer. According to Mr. Thorold Rogers the wages of the artizan at this time would be 3s. a week, or some £7 a year, and the wages of the agricultural labourer 2s. a week or about £5 a year. Even this would be much more than double the lowest assessment. We can hardly believe that the richer men undertook a much larger share of the burden than their property demanded, and we may reasonably infer that their assessments did not represent the full value of their property. But anyhow our richest merchants of those days must have been very poor men according to our modern ideas.