Effects under £3000 in 1864

[LDaw]

Samuel Rayner died 12/08/1864 and probate lists his effects as less than £3000.  I've used a converter site and it translated this to around £265,000 in today's money.

He was a farmer.  The 1851 census has him with 1200 acres and 8 labourers.  The 1861 census has decreased this to 800 acres (he was 78 by then).  The 1871 census for his wife, Elizabeth, mentioned 140 acres and employing 8 labourers and a 13 year old. (She was 68 by then.)


1) Was £3000 a lot of money then? 

2) It seems odd to me that they had as many labourers 20 years later for land that wasn't far off a tenth of the size?  Is it likely lots of casual staff were being used in 1851?

3) Not really the same topic but.... he was 46 when he married Elizabeth at St Mary, Bocking.  I've not found anything yet to confirm if it was his first marriage.

Thank you all.

[rosie99]

Not really the same topic but.... he was 46 when he married Elizabeth at St Mary, Bocking.  I've not found anything yet to confirm if it was his first marriage.

You don't give any dates Is this his marriage (from freereg) 
St Mary the Virgin Bocking
30 Oct 1828
Samuel  RAYNER
widower
Grooms parish   Gestingthorpe
Elizabeth PARKER
spinster
Witness   Jeremiah P
Witness   Sarah Wybrow

[ScouseBoy]

Yes, £3,000   was a lot of money in those days.

[Rosinish]

In effect it is the same as what it's worth is today.

Annie

[youngtug]

Question 2 concerning the disparity of acreage and the number of laboureres could have several reasons. It may be that he sold the land on a leaseback agreement, so still farming the same acreage without owning all of it. There are of course other reasons that come to mind.

[LDaw]

rosie99 - that confirms he was a widower when he married my 3rd great grandmother.  Jeremiah became his father-in-law.  That means it's very likely there's a whole first family to find.

I've had an idea about judging the value of his estate.  I've found a website that gives the average weekly wage of a farm labourer in 1864 as 11s 1/4.  That means his estate could have paid the wages for about 105 farm labourers for one year.  (If my maths hasn't gone awry) at National Living Wage today he could only pay for about 18.

Young tug - interesting idea about leaseback.  I suspect that will be a research idea for when I have more info gathering experience.

[ScouseBoy]

Question 2 concerning the disparity of acreage and the number of laboureres could have several reasons. It may be that he sold the land on a leaseback agreement, so still farming the same acreage without owning all of it. There are of course other reasons that come to mind.

  I doubt  that leaseback  contracts  were available at that date.

[*Sandra*]

Did he give any of the land he owned to any sons or daughters before he died  ?

Sandra

[LDaw]

His wife died in 1875 and her estate was half what his was.  I suspected the other half had gone to a child/children.  I've not got as far as checking the occupations of all the children yet.  Certainly a good point.