University of Virginia Library

The Distribution of Almanacks in the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century
by
Cyprian Blagden

NATURE HAS ARRANGED THAT, WHERE THE odds against survival are heavy, the seeds or the eggs through which survival is achieved are proliferated; in the world of the printed word, human activity achieves a corresponding balance by destroying a very high proportion of the books which are produced in the greatest quantities. This must surely be a cause for rejoicing in the twentieth century—so far at least as contemporary production is concerned; but it can be a cause of difficulty, and even of error, when we move back 250 years or more and are forced to rely, for instance, on a single mutilated copy of a school book or even on hearsay for our knowledge of a once widely distributed and frequently handled publication. The study of Literature is probably unaffected by this; but our understanding of what people were reading is made more difficult. Moreover, with the destruction of popular literature went (though for somewhat different reasons) the almost total destruction of the records of its manufacture and distribution; and the survival of quantitative evidence dating back into the seventeenth century is rare enough to be exciting.

It happened that, in 1603, the Stationers' Company received from James I the sole right of printing—amongst other popular books—Almanacks and Prognostications; and there has survived one of the ledgers[1]—a Stock Book dating from sixty years later—in which were maintained the basic records of the trading company within the Company. For the first twenty-four years of the Stock Book's use a detailed account was kept of the almanacks delivered to the Treasurer, the 'manager' of the English Stock of the Stationers' Company; from these details, and from such other contemporary evidence as I have been able

to find, I want to show the size and importance of one kind of popular book production during the reigns of Charles II and James II.

A certain amount of information about the Company's policy in the production and sale of almanacks from 1603 can be found in the Court Books,[2] and there are useful items of information in the Treasurer's Journal which covers the years from 1653 to 1698. Mr Bosanquet has written, in general terms and out of his great experience of handling surviving examples, an account[3] of almanacks during the seventeenth century. I will therefore concentrate upon the quantitative detail which survives in the Stock Book and try to answer as many as possible of the following questions: How many copies of each almanack were printed in London and how many almanacks sold well enough to be reprinted? What proportions remained unsold? Which were printed at Cambridge and in what quantities? What evidence is there for other printing of almanacks—either in London or elsewhere, either surreptitious or legitimate? What were the costs of setting and printing the texts and of printing the plates, and what was the price of paper? How much were the authors paid? At what prices did the Treasurer sell to London booksellers and what prices did country booksellers and the public normally pay? Finally, what profit did the almanack monopoly earn for the partners in the English Stock?

The answers to some of these questions are simple and can be given most easily in tabular form. But, since it would be fatiguing to supply all the figures in all the years for which they are available, I have, in Table I, shown the details of first printings, reprints and unsold copies for nine years only—for the first three years, for the next three (which are also the first three after the Fire) and for the last three. The year at the head of each column is, of course, that for which and not in which the almanacks were printed.

In order to provide a complete picture for one almanack and an indication of the steadiness of the almanack business (the evidence being available for a much longer period), I have, in Table II given the numbers printed of Andrews for all but two of the twenty-four years; and in Table III the value, at wholesale prices, of all the almanacks delivered to the Treasurer from the winter of 1663/4 to the winter of 1713/4, the last of the Stuart era. Table IV lists those almanacks which appeared after 1669 and disappeared before 1685, and which therefore do not find places in Table I.

Table II. Total deliveries of Andrews' Almanacks, 1664-1684

               

1664	12,500	1672	15,000	1680	27,000
1665	12,500	1673	21,000	1681	not known [4]
1666	10,000	1674	17,500	1682	not known
1667	10,000	1675	17,500	1683	30,000
1668	14,500	1676	30,000	1684	25,000
1669	15,000	1677	25,000	1685	25,000
1670	15,000	1678	30,000	1686	25,000
1671	16,000	1679	30,000	1687	20,000

Table III. Value, at wholesale prices and to the nearest £, of all almanacks delivered to the Treasurer, 1663/4-1713/4

                                   

	£		£		£
1663/4	2,506	1680/1	3,062	1697/8	2,728
1664/5	2,651	1681/2	2,903	1698/9	2,816
1665/6	2,418	1682/3	3,418	1699/1700	3,024
1666/7	2,650[5]	1683/4	3,212	1700/1	3,199
1667/8	2,688	1684/5	3,189	1701/2	3,200
1668/9	2,333	1685/6	2,993	1702/3	3,225
1669/70	2,241	1686/7	3,081	1703/4	3,202
1670/1	2,487	1687/8	3,107	1704/5	3,214
1671/2	2,537	1688/9	2,877	1705/6	3,069
1672/3	2,582	1689/90	3,281	1706/7	2,960
1673/4	2,455	1690/1	3,248	1707/8	2,904
1674/5	2,521	1691/2	2,990	1708/9	3,067
1675/6	2,519	1692/3	3,170	1709/10	2,763
1676/7	2,685	1693/4	3,112	1710/1	2,767
1677/8	2,645	1694/5	3,064	1711/2	3,694[6]
1678/9	2,605	1695/6	3,017	1712/3	4,150
1679/80	3,015	1696/7	2,910	1713/4	4,397

Table IV. Almanacks which were alive only after 1669 and before 1685

                                       

					Rate per
Name	Wing no. A	Began		Ended	1,000
Atkinson	1305	1670		1677	£8	not printed 1675
Smith	2395	1673	1675	6
Oxford	2676	1673	only		10	also 8 reams of Sheet almanacks
London	1925	1673		1674	8
Episcopal	2633	1674		1678	8
Country	1928	1675		1677	8
Shepherd	1381	1675		1678	8
Seaman	2371	1675		1677	6	Author recd. £2 2s.
Royal	--	1675		1678	10
Crawford	1497	1676		1677	8
Lord	1927	1678	only		8
Peter	2102	1678	only		8
Yea & Nay	1947A	1678		1680	8	Author recd. £6 4s.
Readman	2242	1680	only		8	Supplied from Cambridge, 1684, &c.mmat; £10
Kirby	1856	1681		1682	8	1,797 unsold copies
Johnson	1851	1683	only[7]		8
Hill	1822A	1684	only		8
Salmon	2314	1684	only		8

In Table I, I have added, for each three-year period, a column for the rate per 1,000 at which the almanacks were sold by the Treasurer, and I have marked with asterisks those quantities printed, under a series of agreements, by the Printer to the University of Cambridge. (I have also done this in Table IV.) It will be noticed that most of the almanacks fall into one or other of two main categories: 'blanks' and 'sorts'; the former were half a sheet (eight pages) longer than the latter and had the first two sheets rubricated, as compared with the first only; they also gave a whole opening, rather than a single page, to each month. The resulting blank spaces were used for private entries and provided the name for this category;[8] it is possible that variety in 'sorts' developed while there was still only one 'blank', but it can be seen in Table IV that new almanacks tried out during the reign of Charles II were almost all 'blanks'.

In Table I, I have also given a column for the amounts (taken from the Journal) paid annually to authors, at the beginning and at the end of the period: a few copies of each almanack were also bound up for presentation to authors, who usually received, in addition, a number of stitched 'offprints'. The normal rate for authors of 'sorts' was £2 throughout the century; as early as 1631 Braithwaite[9] was grumbling at the payment, but sixty years later Mr (?William) Leybourn was content to compile half a dozen or more at forty shillings a piece. For others, however, the rate varied—perhaps with the success of the product the previous year; the 1658 arrangement with William Lilly, for instance, was that he should receive £60 if the sales of his almanack reached 20,000. John Tipper, writing to Humphrey Wanley in November 1703,[10] told him that the Company never paid the author for the first year of a new almanack (though he had been given 100 copies as a present) but that 'if it comes to be printed another year, then they will give me proportionate to what they give others'.

The first of the questions to which answers cannot be given in the Tables concerns surreptitious printing, and only the vaguest answer is possible. In the Journal there are scores of references to the buying in of counterfeit almanacks, to the payment of informers and to legal action against pirates. It is obvious that, when 20,000 copies of a book are being distributed within a few weeks, it cannot have been difficult for a pirate, with the connivance of a wholesaler, to feed another 5,000 to the market; since, as I shall show, there was also good profit to be earned by almanack publishing, both opportunity for and temptation to piracy existed; but the extent cannot even be guessed at. The most flagrant case I have found was the printing of almanacks at York in the early part of the period; this was the chief subject discussed, as a result of journeys to the north, at the last meeting of the Court before the Fire; it was the only subject minuted after the first—but informal—post-Fire meeting. In the end the two York stationers, Francis Mawburn (who admitted to distributing 4,000 almanacks, with twenty different titles,[11] and some sheet almanacks) and Richard Lambert paid the English Stock respectively £65 and £24, early in 1667. The heaviness of the fines reflects either the enormous quantities unlawfully produced or the Company's determination to give a sharp lesson to

stationers in the city which had recently received official permission to have a press, or both.

In addition to the surreptitious printing of the Company's copies, there was the legitimate production of other almanacks—in Dublin; in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow; in Oxford and Cambridge; and even in London, where Raven's and a Welsh almanack were printed under licence. Moreover, the Seymour family laid claim to certain almanacks,[12] as part (I suppose) of the School Book Patent; and there was a trickle of near-almanack publishing,[13] which hoped to cash in on the demand without quite infringing the Company's monopoly.

Unfortunately, the vouchers from which the Journal was posted have been destroyed and there are seldom sufficient details, against the payments to printers, to tell what work was being paid for. The most one is told—and this very seldom—is that, in 1668 for instance, Milbourn was paid at the rate of 3s. 4d. each for twenty reams of Booker and forty-five of Trigge, and that Bruges was paid £9 13s. 4d. for twenty-nine reams of Saunders; or that in 1673 Lilliecrap received £7 10s. for twenty reams of Dade and, two years later, Bruges £12 for thirty-two reams of Andrews.[14] These are all post-Fire prices and the rates per ream, which work out at 3s. 4d., 6s. 8d. and 7s. 6d., are obviously inadequate figures upon which to base any general estimate of cost. Luckily Dr Thomas Yate, Principal of Brazenose College, Oxford, and Bishop Fell's efficient lieutenant,[15] has left some estimates he made about 1671 for printing at Oxford a three-sheet book almanack in octavo. He took paper at 4s. a ream (allowing 10% for wastage), composing and printing at 2s. 6d. a ream and rolling-press work at 4d. per 1,000. If we accept Yate's figure for paper (which is occasionally confirmed in the Journal), drop the charge for the rolling-press (since the crude illustrations in the London almanacks must have been printed with the text) and bear in mind the facts that the Company rubricated two of the three sheets and often employed more than one printer for the same almanack, the Journal figures make more, if not

complete, sense, and we can compile the following tentative estimate for 10,000 copies of a 'blank'[16] almanack at post-Fire rates:                  

	£	s.	d.
66 reams of paper &c.mmat; 4s.	13	4	0
composing and printing
&c.mmat; 3s. 4d. for 2 rubricated sheets	7	6	8
&c.mmat; 2s. 6d. for remaining sheet	2	15	0
copy money, say	7	10	0
	--------
total	30	15	8
wholesale price &c.mmat; £8 per 1,000	80	0	0

I have worked out that, over the ten-year period 1673/4—1682/3, the total expenditure by the English Stock on paper, printing and authorship was 38.2% of the total value, at wholesale rates, of all books and almanacks delivered to the Treasurer; 38.2% of £80 is £30 11s. 2½d. My figure for the printing of 10,000 'blanks' could be varied considerably by altering the sum paid to the author or the ratio of that sum to the number printed; and it is only put forward tentatively.[17] I am inclined to think that I have underestimated the rates for printing, which would mean that the profit on books, which took months to accumulate, was (quite understandably) greater than that on almanacks which was earned in a few weeks—assuming that the length of credit on each kind of business was the same. The possibility that I have overestimated the profit on almanacks is, to some extent, supported by Richard Head who, in The English Rogue,[18] estimates that the Company cleared, in the early 1660s, over £1,000 a year from the sale of almanacks. 'But a knavish printer,' he goes on, 'lately outwitted them, for he printed a great number of almanacks, and though he printed but two sorts, yet they served for all the other sorts [an ingenious

method of dealing with the 'sorts', and not so far from the Company's], only altering the title page, at the beginning, and the last sheet which we call the prog, or prognostication. These almanacks he affording cheaper than ordinary, as indeed well he might [a telling phrase], he sold off a good number of them, which was to his gain and their great hindrance, but he is lately discovered, and how they will deal with him I know not.' For once we know more than Richard Head; but his account of the York piracy suggests that the profit of the English Stock (out of which, of course, came handsome dividends to the partners) was greater than private booksellers normally made and that there was some foundation for the usual complaint that monopolies led to high prices. If, however, my calculations are right, the annual profit on almanacks was much nearer £1,500 than £1,000, and we know that it remained, until well into the second half of the nineteenth century, what Christopher Barker had called it in 1582 (when it was still going into the pockets of Watkins and Roberts) 'a pretty commoditie toward an honest mans lyving'.

The last questions to which I would like to find complete answers concern the rates at which country booksellers normally bought from the London wholesalers and the prices which members of the public paid. The evidence for transactions of this kind is extremely difficult to find, but some light is thrown on trade prices by a dispute between a Chester bookseller, Richard Thropp, and his London correspondent, Edward Dod; this led to a lawsuit in 1653.[19] From the evidence (and assuming that the English Stock rates were the same ten years before as they were in 1663) the following comparative figures can be given:

       

	'sorts'	'blanks'	Gallen	Lilly
	s.	s.	s.	s.
rate per 100 to wholesalers	10	12	14	37
rate per 100 to retailers	10/8d.	13	17	46

It also appears that some almanacks were supplied in small quantities, bound in sheep and clasped: Gallen &c.mmat; six for 2s. 9d., Booker (a 'blank') &c.mmat; four for 2s. 2d. and Goldsmith (8s. per 100 to wholesalers) at six for 1s. 10d. The binding rates for Gallen and Booker work out, respectively, at 3½d. and 5d. a copy; unfortunately, the list of binding prices, agreed in 1669, makes no mention either of almanacks or of clasping.

Competition for the country market must have been severe in the standard lines—'blanks' and 'sorts'—for the wholesaler to have been

satisfied with such a small margin. The binding costs were high for single almanacks; but it is believed that many private customers used to have a dozen or more bound up together. The proportion of almanacks which survive in these bound sets is naturally large and may give a false picture of the numbers treated in this way; but many people must have bought them primarily as reference books or as 'desk' books, and only Rider, Gallen and Goldsmith were designed for carrying about, flat or rolled—the ancestors of our pocket diaries.

The alternatives in the method and cost of binding, as always in the seventeenth century, make it almost impossible to arrive at what we know as the published prices. Before the Fire, Anthony Wood normally bought 'sorts' at 3d. and 'blanks' at 4d. each and for Wharton (1658) he paid 6d.; these were probably interleaved and stitched; in December 1667 he paid 7½d. for Gadbury. Another Oxford customer, Dr Stringer, bought an almanack in 1651 for 2d. from Henry Cripps,[20] who, a year later, sold another almanack for 6d.! The post-Fire prices would be at least 25% higher; but this does not get us very far. If any reader of this article can direct me to booksellers' advertisements or private accounts which will throw any light on the mark-up, with or without the addition of binding, between wholesale and retail prices during the seventeenth century, I shall be grateful.

'Of necessity,' writes Mr Bosanquet at the beginning of the article to which I have already referred, 'an old Almanack, merely as an Almanack, must be a very dull book;' and he gives some splendid reasons in support of this statement. But he devotes the rest of the article to showing what interest and information lie hidden in almanacks. Moreover, he speculates about the numbers of copies printed. 'If the average edition,' he says, 'only consisted of from 1,500 to 2,000 copies, we have a total of from three to four millions for the century, and this must be well under the mark. Figures such as these, even though they do not pretend to be correct, show that no book in the English language had such a large circulation as the annual Almanack.'

This is as true as it is important, both for the effect of these little books on a population which was quite small and still far from literate, and for the sheer volume of business with which the book trade was able to deal in the few weeks before Christmas. But the really remarkable point is that Mr Bosanquet's estimate of quantity is true not for the whole century but for the ten years from November 1663. We cannot however multiply his estimate by ten and arrive thereby at a new figure for the century; although the almanack business was a profitable

one when the Company took it over, it is most unlikely that the numbers printed approached those of 1664 until the effects both of the Civil War stimulus to printing and of the Restoration conditions for peaceful distribution could be felt together. 1665 was, in fact, a minor peak of a year, which was not equalled until 1683; it would be unwise to continue the line of the graph, which is astonishingly level during the period for which we have figures, backwards into the first half of the century, at anything like the same height; but further guessing would be valueless.

In conclusion, I should like to mention again a factor which affected both the total number of almanacks in circulation and the decisions which the Stock-keepers made about the numbers to print for their stock each year; this factor is the quantity of almanacks surreptitiously printed. The figures in the 'unsold' columns for 1665 and 1666 in Table I, compared with those for the previous year, show clearly how well the size of the market was normally estimated[21] and how vulnerable the Company was to competition; Mawburn and Lambert were not discovering a wholly new public from York but, to an uncomfortable extent, biting into the existing market. The value of unsold almanacks tended to increase as the century grew older; in 1684 it was nearly £250 and by 1696 it was over £300. It therefore seems as if the evenness of the Company's production in a generally expanding market might be explained by the ever-present fear—and fact—of infringement. The attack might come at any point: in 1666 and 1667 it seems to have been aimed at Pond and Dove; and by the time the culprits have been discovered the damage has been done; piracy may only delay the sale of a book; it destroys the sale of an annual. In spite of its caution, the English Stock found itself landed each year with a few more reams of unsold[22] almanacks; but, aided by its caution, the Company clung to most of the profits to be made in this market under the changing conditions of the eighteenth century, and it was not until 1775 that Thomas Carnan succeeded in breaking the almanack monopoly.

                                                                                                                 

		Paid for Copy	Wholesale price per 1,000	1664	1665	1666	Post-Fire price per 1,000	1667	1668	1669	1670-1684	1685	1686	1687	Wholesale price per 1,000	Paid for Copy
Name of Almanack	1664 ref. in Wing A	£	£	first impression	second impression	number unsold	first impression	second impression	number unsold	number printed	number unsold	£	number printed	number unsold	number printed	number unsold	number printed	number unsold	See Table IV	first impression	second impression	first impression	second impression	first impression	second impression	£	£	1687 ref. in Wing A	Name of Almanack
Rider 12°	2248A	10	7	10,000	9,000		15,000	7,500		18,000}	2,000	10	20,000		22,500		25,950	350		30,000	7,000	30,000	3,000	30,000	5,000	10	10	--	Rider 12°
Gallen 12°	--	2	7	10,000			12,000			12,000}		10	8,000		8,000		10,000			10,000		10,000		10,000		10	2	--	Gallen 12°
Goldsmith 24°	--	5	4	16,000		300	10,000		200	10,000	2,800	5	12,000		13,000		15,000	200		20,000	4,000	20,000	3,000	20,000	2,000	5	--	1796	Goldsmith 24°
Lilly 8°	1896	48	18.5	8,000		275	7,965			12,000	850	18.5	14,500		10,974		9,475	75		5,150		3,000		3,500		18.5	20	1438	Lilly 8°
Wharton 8°	2655	2	18.5	8,000		1,300	7,000		1,080	7,000	2,000	--
Smith 24°	--	--	4				3,000		400	5,000	3,300	--
Gadbury 8°	--	--	--									18			6,000	2,538	3,000	50	last 1675					4,000		18	--	1942	Gadbury's Plot
'Blanks' 8°						675										108													'Blanks' 8°
Wing (Vincent)	2813	7	6	25,000	16,500		30,000	15,000		43,000	34	8	40,000		50,000		52,500	750	not 1673-9	6,000[*]		9,000[*]		8,300[*]		8	--	2778	Wing (John)
Poor Robin	2183	2	6	18,000	8,000		25,000	4,000	75	20,000	100	8	20,000		22,500		25,000			18,000		18,000		18,000	1,500	8	6	2206	Poor Robin
Saunders	2334	10	6	15,000			20,000		300	15,000	700	8	14,000	560	14,500	450	14,000	50		20,000		20,000		18,000		8	4	2357	Saunders
Andrews	--	4	6	10,000	2,500		12,500			10,000	33	8	10,000		14,500		15,000	175		20,000	5,000	20,000	5,000	20,000		8	12	1283	Andrews
Gadbury	1743	6	6	7,000			7,000		125	6,925	150	8	12,000	525					first 1677	20,000	5,000	20,000	3,000	20,000	3,000	8	40	1766	Gadbury
Tanner	2501	--	6	12,000			12,000		100	12,000	100	8	12,500		14,500		15,000	2,300		14,000		12,000		12,000		8	10	2524	Tanner
Pond	2145	--	6	24,800[*]		2,100	24,900[*]		4,075	22,850[*]	5,000	8	19,750[*]}	14,725	14,000[*]	400				8,000[*]		6,000[*]		7,150[*]		8	--	2167	Pond
Dove	1610	--	6	24,850[*]		2,900	24,900[*]		3,900	22,825[*]	6,000	8	22,500[*]}		14,250[*]					11,000[*]		9,000[*]		7,000[*]		8	--	1632	Dove
Booker	1350	12	6	10,000	5,000		15,000			15,000	33	8	7,500		10,000		11,900	1,875	last 1684
Nunns	1993	--	6.6	4,000		700	5,000		200	5,000	1,000	--
Conyers	--	--	6.6	4,000		250						--
Swan	2472	--	5.6	7,900[*]		500	8,000[*]		150	7,950[*]	300	7.6	7,850[*]	1,150	4,700[*]				last 1684
Heatly	--	--	5.6				5,000		250			--
Blagrave	--	--	5.6				5,000		1,100			--
Westly	--	--	--									7.6					5,000	1,900	only 1669
Hooker	--	--	--									7.5			4,450[*]	2,325
																			first 1671	6,000		6,000		6,000		8	3	1434	Coelson
																			first 1672	20,000		20,000		18,000		8	8	1464	Coley
																			first 1677	5,000						8	5	--	Protestant
																			first 1678	15,000	5,000	20,000	3,000	20,000		8	10	2047	Partridge
																			first 1683	3,000						8	3	--	Streete
																			first 1683	3,000		3,000		3,000		8	--	--	Woodward
																				5,000		4,000		3,000	1,500	8	--	1405	Chapman
																				4,000						8	--	--	Crabtree
'Sorts' 8°						600																							'Sorts' 8°
Dade	1554	2	5	10,000	4,000		12,000	4,000	900	10,000	300	6	11,000	1,175	8,000		8,000			6,000		6,000		6,000		6	2	1530	Dade
Woodhouse	2843	2	5	10,000	4,000		12,000	4,000	1,450	10,000	500	6	11,000	1,550	8,000		10,000			10,000		10,000		10,000		6	--	2866	Woodhouse
White	2749	2	5	10,000	4,000		12,000	3,950	800	10,000	400	6	8,000	25	7,900		9,900			8,000		8,000		8,000		6	5.75	2726	White
Fly	1666	2	5	15,000	7,000		21,000	3,975	1,950	19,000	250	6	15,000		15,000		18,000			6,000}		6,000}		6,000}		6	2	1689	Fly
																				16,000[*]}		16,000[*]}		16,400[*]
Rose	2271	2	5	10,000			10,000	3,000	700	10,000	250	6	7,950		10,000		10,000			12,000		12,000		12,000		6	--	2294	Rose
Trigge	2546	2	5	7,000			7,000		100	7,000		6	14,000		15,000	50	15,000			20,000		20,000		20,000		6	-	2569	Trigge
Perkins	2077	2	5	10,000			12,000			10,000	1,400	6	8,000	100	8,000		9,950			12,000		12,000		12,000		6	2	2091	Perkins
Swallow	2428	--	5	24,850[*]			24,900[*]			24,900[*]	3,500	6	24,850	7,325	18,500[*]	50				18,000[*]		16,000[*]		16,350[*]		6	--	2451	Swallow
Neve	1973	2	5	8,000			10,000		200	10,000	2,900	6	7,000	50	7,000	375	6,000	850	last 1672
Vaux	2622	2	5	6,000			6,000		200	5,950	1,200	--
Jinner	1847	--	4.6	8,000								--
Prince	--	--	4.6	4,000								--
Clarke	--	--	--									6			4,400[*]	100
																			first 1680	3,000				3,000		6	1.5	1721	Fowle
																			first 1683	6,000[*]		9,000[*]		8,200[*]		6	--	1508	Culpeper
																								3,000		6	--	1584/5	Davis
																								3,000		6	2	2597	Turner
Total	--	--	--	337,400	60,000	9,600	376,165	45,425	18,255	361,400	35,100	--	327,400	27,185	325,674	6,396	288,675	8,575		360,150	26,000	345,000	17,000	351,900	13,000	--	--	--	Total
'Sheet'																													'Sheet'
London	--	--	2.5	11,500	2,000		14,750	}	150	12,500}	750	3	14,450		15,500}	475	14,000			25,000	23,000	30,000	25,000	30,000	33,750	3	--		London
Cambridge	--	--	2.5	14,900[*]			14,900[*]	}	150	14,950[*]	750	3	10,500[*]		15,500[*]	475				34,000[*]		35,500[*]		40,000[*]		3	--		Cambridge

Notes