Before the 1832 Reform act voting was limited in British parliamentary elections to resticted categories of people. One of these categories is customarily referred to as the "40 shilling freeholders" - ie owners of property "worth" at least 40 shillings (ie 2 pounds) a year.

Various interpretations of what it meant to have "property worth at least 40 shillings a year" can be found on the web, including:

(1) That the annual rental income from the property was 2 pounds. This would make sense for landowners of estates, receiving a rental income from tennants living in anything from cottages to outlying farms. However, we know the franchise even pre-1832 was around 10% of the (male) population, and there simply would not have been enough large landowners to achieve this number. (2) that the annual tax on the property was 2 pounds (if so, how was this tax computed, and was it on the property itself or on income from the property in the sense of (1)?).

Can anyone clarify this topic, and ideally provide a reference to a definitive answer?

Thanks in advance.

There are anecdotes abound of dozens of New York businessmen jumping from windows and bridges, but my history teacher has said that the numbers are often exaggerated. Are there known figures closer to the truth?

When/who was the earliest person to be recorded to have killed themselves?

I remember Spinoza writing about how war became something like game and the people are players (homo ludens) because in 18th century you have those people turning in line formation, with rules and all, just like playing a game. Never before seen in Europe military history.

Question is how did that happen? What made people have a general agreement to have gamey code of conduct in war?

Other important question, how did the soldiers endure psychological pressure knowing they're going to die when waiting the enemy to shoot?

I'm curious as to (allied or axis) what soldiers had the misfortune of being in a position with the average shortest lifespan attached.

I began wondering this after reading about Spitfire pilots during the height of the Battle of Britain. Also recently came across B-17 bomber crew members averaging 12-15 mission lifespans and it got me thinking..

Am I right in thinking that proxy wars have become more common than they have been in the past? If so, what is motivating countries to avoid direct engagement with each other?

I was thinking about the situation in Yemen specifically; one of the explicit goals of Saudi Arabia's campaign there is to ward off Iranian influence, but why not just attack Iran directly, or take over Yemen instead of installing a more friendly government?

This seems more relevant for AskHistorians than AskPolitics though, since it seems like a historical trend. I can think of the Great War of Africa as another example. So yeah, why have countries not faced with devastating consequences (like an American/Soviet nuclear war) decided to not just go toe to toe with each other directly?

As in its significance to certain countries (eg NZ and Australia), and to the whole war itself)

I remember hearing that we broke the Germans codes and we could see all types of info, was any information detected from concentration camps, auchwitz especially?