CAPITALISTS
Term includes aristocracy and _nouveau riche_. Tendency of these two
classes to approximate in manners—Activity of aristocratic women with
affairs of household, estate and nation—Zeal for patents and
monopolies—Money lenders—Shipping trade—Contractors—Joan Dant—Dorothy
Petty—Association of wives in husbands’ businesses—Decrease of
women’s business activity in upper classes—Contrast of Dutch
women—Growing idleness of gentlewomen.
PERHAPS it is impossible to say what exactly constitutes a capitalist,
and no attempt will be made to define the term, which is used here to
include the aristocracy who had long been accustomed to the control of
wealth, and also those families whose wealth had been newly acquired
through trade or commerce. The second group conforms more nearly to the
ideas generally understood by the term capitalist; but in English
society the two groups are closely related.
The first group naturally represents the older traditional relation of
women to affairs in the upper classes, while the second responded more
quickly to the new spirit which was being manifested in English life. No
rigid line of demarcation existed between them, because while the
younger sons of the gentry engaged in trade, the daughters of wealthy
tradesmen were eagerly sought as brides by an impoverished aristocracy.
Therefore the manners and customs of the two groups gradually
approximated to each other.
At the beginning of the seventeenth century it was usual for the women
of the aristocracy to be very busy with affairs—affairs which concerned
their household, their estates and even the Government.
Thus Lady Barrymore writes she is “a cuntry lady living in Ireland and
convercing with none but masons and carpendors, for I am now finishing a
house, so that if my govenour [Sir Edmund Verney] please to build a new
house, that may be well seated and have a good prospect, I will give him
my best advice gratis.”[3]
Footnote 3:
Verney Family, _Memoirs during the Civil War_, Vol. I., p. 210.
Lady Gardiner’s husband apologises for her not writing personally to Sir
Ralph Verney, she “being almost melted with the double heat of the
weather and her hotter employment, because the fruit is suddenly ripe
and she is so busy preserving.”[4] Their household consisted of thirty
persons.
Footnote 4:
_Ibid._, Vol. I., p. 12.
Among the nobility the management of the estate was often left for
months in the wife’s care while the husband was detained at Court for
business or pleasure. It was during her husband’s absence that
Brilliana, Lady Harley defended Brampton Castle from an attack by the
Royalist forces who laid siege to it for six weeks, when her defence
became famous for its determination and success. Her difficulties in
estate management are described in letters to her son:
“You know how your fathers biusnes is neglected; and alas! it is not
speaking will sarue turne, wheare theare is not abilltise to doo other
ways; thearefore I could wisch, that your father had one of more
vnderstanding to intrust, to looke to, if his rents are not payed, and I
thinke it will be so. I could desire, if your father thought well of it,
that Mr. Tomas Moore weare intrusted with it; he knows your fathers
estate, and is an honnest man, and not giuen to great expences, and
thearefore I thinke he would goo the most frugally way. I knowe it would
be some charges to haue him and his wife in the howes; but I thinke it
would quite the chargess. I should be loth to haue a stranger, nowe your
father is away.”[5]
Footnote 5:
Harley, _Letters of Brilliana, the Lady_, pp. 146-7, 1641.
“I loos the comfort of your fathers company, and am in but littell
safety, but that my trust is in God; and what is doun to your fathers
estate pleases him not, so that I wisch meselfe, with all my hart, at
Loundoun, and then your father might be a wittnes of what is spent; but
if your father thinke it beest for me to be in the cuntry, I am every
well pleased with what he shall thinke best.”[6]
Footnote 6:
Harley, _Letters of Brilliana, The Lady_, p. 167, 1642.
One gathers from these letters that in spite of her devotion and ability
and his constant absence Sir E. Harley never gave his wife full control
of the estate, and was always more ready to censure than to praise her
arrangements; but other men who were immersed in public matters
thankfully placed the whole burthen of family affairs in the capable
hands of their wives.
Lady Murray wrote of her father, Sir George Baillie, “He had no ambition
but to be free of debt; yet so great trust and confidence did he put in
my mother, and so absolutely free of all jealousy and suspicion, that he
left the management of his affairs entirely to her, without scarce
asking a question about them; except sometimes would say to her, ‘Is my
debt paid yet?’ though often did she apply to him for direction and
advice; since he knew enough of the law for the management of his own
affairs, when he would take the time or trouble or to prevent his being
imposed upon by others.”[7]
Footnote 7:
Murray (Lady), _Memoirs of Lady Grisell Baillie_, p. 13.
Mrs. Alice Thornton wrote of her mother:
“Nor was she awanting to make a fare greatter improvement [than her
dowery of £2000] of my father’s estate through her wise and prudential
government of his family, and by her care was a meanes to give
opportunity of increasing his patrimony.”[8]
Footnote 8:
Thornton (Mrs. Alice), _Autobiography_, p. 101, (Surtees’ Society Vol.
lxii.
In addition to the Household Accounts those of the whole of Judge Fell’s
estate at Swarthmore, Lancashire, were kept by his daughter Sarah. The
following entries show that the family affairs included a farm, a forge,
mines, some interest in shipping and something of the nature of a Bank.
July 11, 1676, is entered: “To mᵒ Recᵈ. of Tho: Greaves wife wᶜʰ. I am
to returne to London foʳ her, & is to bee pᵈ, to her sonn Jⁿᵒ. ffellꝑ
Waltʳ. miers in London, 001. 00. 00.”
Jan., 14, 1676-7, by money lent Wiƚƚm Wilson our forge Clarke till hee
gett money in for Ireon sold 10. 0. 0.
Aug. ye 9º 1677 by mᵒ “in expence at adgarley when wee went to chuse
oare to send father 000. 00. 04.”
Other payments are entered for horses to “lead oare.”[9] &c., &c.
Footnote 9:
Fell (Sarah), _Household Account Book_.
In addition to those of her family Sarah Fell kept the accounts for the
local “Monthly Meeting” of the Society of Friends, making the payments
on its behalf to various poor Friends.
One of the sisters after her marriage embarked upon speculations in
salt; of her, another sister, Margaret Rous, writes to their mother:
“She kept me in the dark and had not you wrote me them few words about
her I had not known she had been so bad. But I had a fear before how she
would prove if I should meddle of her, and since I know her mind wrote
to her, being she was so wickedly bent and resolved in her mind, I would
not meddle of her but leave her to her husbands relations, and her salt
concerns, since which I have heard nothing from her. But I understand by
others she is still in the salt business. I know not what it will
benefit her but she spends her time about it. I have left her at
present.”[10]
Footnote 10:
Crosfield (H. G.), _Life of Margaret Fox, of Swarthmore Hall_, p. 232,
1699.
A granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell, the wife of Thos. Bendish, was also
interested in the salt business, having property in salt works at
Yarmouth in the management of which she was actively concerned. It was
said of her that “Her courage and presence of mind were remarkable in
one of her sex, ... she would sometimes, after a hard day of drudgery go
to the assembly at Yarmouth, and appear one of the most brilliant
there.”[11]
Footnote 11:
Costello, _Eminent Englishwomen_, Vol. III, p. 55.
Initiative and enterprise were shown by Lady Falkland during her
husband’s term of office in Ireland whither she accompanied him.
“The desire of the benefit and commodity of that nation set her upon a
great design: it was to bring up the use of all trades in that country,
which is fain to be beholden to others for the smallest commodities; to
this end she procured some of each kind to come from those other places
where those trades are exercised, as several sorts of linen and woollen
weavers, dyers, all sorts of spinners and knitters, hatters,
lace-makers, and many other trades at the very beginning.”
After a description of her methods for instruction in these arts the
biographer continues: “She brought it to that pass that they there made
broad-cloth so fine ... that her Lord being Deputy wore it. Yet it came
to nothing; which she imputed to a judgment of God on her, because the
overseers made all those poor children go to church; ... and that
therefore her business did not succeed. But others thought it rather
that she was better at contriving than executing, and that too many
things were undertaken at the very first; and that she was fain (having
little choice) to employ either those that had little skill in the
matters they dealt in, or less honesty; and so she was extremely cozened
... but chiefly the ill order she took for paying money in this ...
having the worst memory in such things in the world ... and never
keeping any account of what she did, she was most subject to pay the
same things often (as she hath had it confessed to her by some that they
have in a small matter made her pay them the same thing five times in
five days).”[12]
Footnote 12:
_Falkland, (The Lady), Her Life_, pp. 18-20.
Lady Falkland received small sympathy from her husband in her dealings
with affairs—and though her methods may have been exasperating, their
unfortunate differences were not wholly due to her temperament. He had
married her for her fortune and when this was settled on their son and
not placed in his control, his disappointment was so great that his
affections were alienated from her.
Of her efforts to further his interests Lord Falkland wrote to Lord
Conway:
“My very good Lord,
By all my wife’s letters I understand my obligations to
your Lordship to be very many; and she takes upon her to have
received so manifold and noble demonstrations of your favour to
herself, that she begins to conceive herself some able body in
court, by your countenance to do me courtesies, if she had the
wit as she hath the will. She makes it appear she hath done me
some good offices in removing some infusions which my great
adversary here (Loftus) hath made unto you ... it was high time;
for many evil consequences of the contrary have befallen me
since that infusion was first made, which I fear will not be
removed in haste; and must thank her much for her careful pains
in it, though it was but an act of duty in her to see me righted
when she knew me wronged ... and beseech your Lordship still to
continue that favour to us both;—to her, as well in giving her
good counsel as good countenance within a new world and court,
at such a distance from her husband a poor weak woman stands in
the greatest need of to dispatch her suits,” ... etc., etc.
“Dublyn Castle this 26th of July, 1625.”[13]
Footnote 13:
_Falkland (The Lady), Her Life_, pp. 131-132.
Later he continues in the same strain:
“... I am glad your Lordship doth approve my wife’s good
affection to her husband, which was a point I never doubted, but
for her abilities in agency of affairs, as I was never taken
with opinion of them, so I was never desirous to employ them if
she had them, for I conceive women to be no fit solicitors of
state affairs for though it sometimes happen that they have good
wits, it then commonly falls out that they have over-busy
natures withal. For my part I should take much more comfort to
hear that she were quietly retired to her mother’s in the
country, than that she had obtained a great suit in the
court.”[14]
Footnote 14:
_Ibid._, pp. 132-3.
The sentiments expressed by Lord Falkland were not characteristic of his
time, when husbands were generally thankful to avail themselves of their
wives’ services in such matters.
While Sir Ralph Verney was exiled in France, he proposed that his wife
should return to England to attend to some urgent business. His friend,
Dr. Denton replied to the suggestion:
“... not to touch upon inconveniences of yʳ comminge, women were
never soe usefull as now, and though yᵘ should be my agent and
sollicitour of all the men I knowe (and therefore much more to
be preferred in yʳ own cause) yett I am confident if yᵘ were
here, yᵘ would doe as our sages doe, instruct yʳ wife, and leave
her to act it wᵗʰ committees, their sexe entitles them to many
priviledges and we find the comfort of them more now than
ever.”[15]
Footnote 15:
_Verney Family_, Vol. II., p. 240, 646.
There are innumerable accounts in contemporary letters and papers of the
brave and often successful efforts of women to stem the flood of
misfortune which threatened ruin to their families.
Katharine Lady Bland treated with Captain Hotham in 1642 on behalf of
Lord Savile “and agreed with him for the preservation of my lords estate
and protection of his person for £1,000,” £320 of which had already been
taken “from Lord Savile’s trunk at Kirkstall Abbey ... and the Captain
... promised to procure a protection from the parliament ... for his
lordships person and estate.”[16]
Footnote 16:
_Calendar State Papers_, Domestic, April 8, 1646.
Lady Mary Heveningham, through her efforts restored the estate to the
family after her husband had been convicted of high treason at the
Restoration.[17]
Footnote 17:
_Hunter (Joseph), History and Topography of Ketteringham_, p. 46.
Of Mrs. Muriel Lyttelton, the daughter of Lord Chancellor Bromley, it
was said that she “may be called the second founder of the family, as
she begged the estate of King James when it was forfeited and lived a
pattern of a good wife, affectionate widow, and careful parent for
thirty years, with the utmost prudence and economy at Hagley to retrieve
the estate and pay off the debts; the education of her children in
virtue and the protestant religion being her principal employ. Her
husband, Mr. John Lyttelton, a zealous papist, was condemned, and his
estates forfeited, for being concern’d in Essex’s plot.”[18]
Footnote 18:
Nash, _Hist. and Antiq. of Worcester_, Vol. I., p. 492. It appears by
depositions in the Court of Chancery that she paid off £25,000 which
was charged upon the estate, and only sold lands to the value of
£8,854, _Ibid._, p. 496.
Charles Parker confessed, “Certainly I had starved had I not left all to
my wife to manage, who gets something by living there and haunting some
of her kindred and what wayes I know not but I am sure such as noe way
entangle me in conscience or loyalty nor hinder me from serving the
King.”[19]
Footnote 19:
_Nicholas Papers_, Vol. I., p. 97. Charles Parker to Lord Hatton.
Lady Fanshawe said her husband “thought it conveniente to send me into
England again, ... there to try what sums I could raise, both for his
subsistence abroad and mine at home.... I ... embarked myself in a hoy
for Dover, with Mrs. Waller, and my sister Margaret Harrison and my
little girl Nan, ... I had ... the good fortune as I then thought it, to
sell £300 a year to him that is now Judge Archer in Essex, for which he
gave me £4,000 which at that time I thought a vast sum; ... five hundred
pounds I carried to my husband, the rest I left in my father’s agent’s
hands to be returned as we needed it.”[20]
Footnote 20:
_Fanshawe (Lady), Memoirs of_, pp. 80-81.
The Marquis of Ormonde wrote: “I have written 2 seuerall ways of late to
my wife about our domestick affaires, which are in great disorder
betweext the want of meanes to keepe my sonnes abroad and the danger of
leaueing them at home.... I thank you for your continued care of my
children. I haue written twice to my wife to the effect you speake of. I
pray God shee be able to put it in execution either way.”[21]
Footnote 21:
_Nicholas Papers_, Vol. III., pp. 274-6. Marquis of Ormonde to Sir Ed.
Nicholas, 1656.
This letter does not breathe that spirit of confidence in the wife’s
ability which was shown in some of the others and it happened sometimes
that the wife was either overwhelmed by procedure beyond her
understanding, or at least sought for special consideration on the plea
of her sex’s weakness and ignorance.
Sarah, wife of Henry Burton, gives an account of Burton’s trial in the
Star Chamber, his sentence and punishment (fine, pillory, imprisonment
for life) and his subsequent transportation to Guernsey, “where he now
is but by what order your petitioner knoweth not and is kept in strict
durance of exile and imprisonment, and utterly denied the society of
your petitioner contrary to the liberties and privileges of this
kingdome ... debarred of the accesse of friends, the use of pen, inck
and paper and other means to make knowne his just complaintes,” and she
petitions the House of Commons “to take her distressed condition into
your serious consideracion and because your peticioner is a woman not
knowing how to prosecute nor manage so great and weighty busines” begs
that Burton may be sent over to prosecute his just complaint.[22]
Footnote 22:
_State Papers, Domestic_, cccclxxi. 36, Nov. 7, 1640.
Similarly, Bastwick’s wife pleads that he is so closely imprisoned in
the Isle of Scilly “that your petitioner is not permitted to have any
access unto him, so that for this 3 yeares and upward hir husband hath
been exiled from hir, and she in all this time could not obtayne leave,
although she hath earnestly sued for it, neither to live with him nor so
much as to see him, and whereas your peticioner hath many smale children
depending uppon hir for there mauntenance, and she of hir selfe being
every way unable to provide for them, she being thus separated from her
deare and loving husband and hir tender babes from there carefull father
(they are in) great straights want and miserie,” and she begs that her
husband may be sent to England, “your Petitioner being a woman no way
able to follow nor manage so great and weighty a cause....”[23]
Footnote 23:
_S.P.D._, cccclxxi. 37, 1640.
The above efforts were all made in defence of family estates, but at
this time women were also concerned with the affairs of the nation, in
which they took an active part.
Mrs. Hutchinson describes how “When the Parliament sat again, the
colonel [Hutchinson] sent up his wife to solicit his business in the
house, that the Lord Lexington’s bill might not pass the lower house ...
she notwithstanding many other discouragements waited upon the business
every day, when her adversaries as diligently solicited against her” a
friend told her how “the laste statemen’s wives came and offered them
all the information they had gathered from their husbands, and how she
could not but know more than any of them; and if yet she would impart
anything that might show her gratitude, she might redeem her family from
ruin, ... but she discerned his drift and scorned to become an informer,
and made him believe she was ignorant, though she could have enlightened
him in the very thing he sought for; which they are now never likely to
know much of, it being locked up in the grave.”[24]
Footnote 24:
_Life of Colonel Hutchinson_, by his Wife, pp. 334-336.
Herbert Morley wrote to Sir William Campion in 1645:
“I could impart more, but letters are subject to miscarriage, therefore
I reserve myself to a more fit opportunity.... If a conference might be
had, I conceive it would be most for the satisfaction of us both, to
prevent of any possible hazard of your person. If you please to let your
lady meet me at Watford ... or come hither, I will procure her a
pass.”[25]
Footnote 25:
_Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. x., p. 5. To Sir William Campion from
Herbert Morley, July 23rd, 1645.
Sir William replied: “For any business you have to impart to me, I have
that confidence in you, by reason of our former acquaintance, that I
should not make any scruple to send my wife to the places mentioned; but
the truth is, she is at present soe neare her time for lying downe, for
she expects to be brought to bed within less than fourteen days, that
she is altogether unfit to take soe long a journey....”[26]
Footnote 26:
_Ibid._, Vol. x., p. 6.
A book might be wholly filled with a story of the part taken by women in
the political and religious struggles of this period. They were also
active among the crowd who perpetually beseiged the Court for grants of
wardships and monopolies or patents.
Ann Wallwyn writes to Salisbury soliciting the wardship of the son of
James Tomkins who is likely to die.[27] The petition of Dame Anne
Wigmore, widow of Sir Richard Wigmore, states that she has found out a
suit which will rectify many abuses, bring in a yearly revenue to the
Crown and give satisfaction to the Petitioner for the great losses of
herself and her husband. Details follow for a scheme for a corporation
of carriers and others.[28]
Footnote 27:
_C.S.P.D._ lxvii, 129, 1611.
Footnote 28:
_C.S.P.D._ clxii, 8, March 2, 1630.
Dorothy Selkane reminds Salisbury that a patent has been promised her
for the digging of coals upon a royal manor. The men who manage the
business for her are content to undertake all charges for the discovery
of the coal and to compensate the tenants of the manor according to
impartial arbitrators. She begs Salisbury that as she has been promised
a patent the matter may be brought to a final conclusion that she may
not be forced to trouble him further “having alredie bestowed a yeres
solicitinge therein.”[29] In 1610 the same lady writes again:—“I have
bene at gte toyle and charges this yere and a halfe past as also have
bene put to extraordinarie sollicitacion manie and sundry waies for the
Dispatching of my suite ...” and begs that the grant may pass without
delay.[30]
Footnote 29:
_S.P.D._ xlviii, 119, 22nd October, 1609.
Footnote 30:
_S.P.D._ liii, 131, April 1610.
A grant was made in 1614 to Anne, Roger and James Wright of a licence to
keep a tennis court at St. Edmund’s Bury, co. Suffolk, for life.[31]
Bessy Welling, servant to the late Prince Henry, petitioned for the
erecting of an office for enrolling the Apprentices of Westminster, etc.
As this was not granted, she therefore begs for a lease of some
concealed lands [manors for which no rent has been paid for a hundred
years] for sixty-one years. The Petitioner hopes to recover them for the
King at her own charges.[32] Lady Roxburgh craves a licence to assay all
gold and silver wire “finished at the bar” before it is worked, showing
that it is no infringement on the Earl of Holland’s grant which is for
assaying and sealing gold and silver after it is made. This, it is
pointed out, will be a means for His Majesty to pay off the debt he owes
to Lady Roxburgh which otherwise must be paid some other way.[33]
Footnote 31:
_C.S.P.D._ lxxvii, 5 April 5, 1614.
Footnote 32:
_S.P.D._ cxi, 121, 1619.
Footnote 33:
_S.P.D._ clxxx, 66, 1624.
A petition from Katharine Elliot “wett nurse to the Duke of Yorke” shows
that there is a moor waste or common in Somersetshire called West Sedge
Moor which appears to be the King’s but has been appropriated and
encroached upon by bordering commoners. She begs for a grant of it for
sixty years; as an inducement the Petitioner offers to recover it at her
own costs and charges and to pay a rent of one shilling per acre, the
King never previously having received benefit therefrom.[34] The
reference by Windebank notes that the king is willing to gratify the
Petitioner. Another petition was received from this same lady declaring
that “Divers persons being of no corporation prefers the trade of buying
and selling silk stockings and silk waistcoats as well knit as woven
uttering the Spanish or baser sort of silk at as dear rates as the first
Naples and also frequently vending the woven for the knit, though in
price and goodness there is almost half in half difference.” She prays a
grant for thirty-one years for the selling of silk stockings, half
stockings and waistcoats, to distinguish the woven from the knit
receiving from the salesmen a shilling for every waistcoat, sixpence per
pair of silk stockings and fourpence for every half pair.[35]
Footnote 34:
_S.P.D._ cccxxiii, 109, 18th June, 1637.
Footnote 35:
_S.P.D._ cccxxiii., 7, _Bk. of Petitioners_, Car. I.
Elizabeth, Viscountess Savage, points out that Freemen of the city enter
into bond on their admittance with two sureties of a hundred marks to
the Chamberlain of London not to exercise any trade other than that of
the Company they were admitted into. Of late years persons having used
other trades and contrived not to have their bonds forfeited, and the
penalty belonging to His Majesty, she begs a grant of such penalties to
be recovered at her instance and charge.[36]
Footnote 36:
_S.P.D._ ccciii., 65, Dec. 6th, 1635.
The petition of Margaret Cary, relict of Thomas Cary Esquire, one of the
Grooms of the Chamber to the King on the behalf of herself and her
daughters, begs for a grant to compound with offenders by engrossering
and transporting of wool, wool fells, fuller’s earth, lead, leather,
corn and grain, she to receive a Privy Seal for two fourth-parts of the
fines and compositions. Her reasons for desiring this grant are that her
husband’s expense in prosecuting like cases has reaped no benefit of his
grant of seven-eighths of forfeited bonds for the like offences. She
urges the usefulness of the scheme and the existence of similar
grants.[37]
Footnote 37:
_S.P.D._ cccvi., 27, 1635.
Mistress Dorothy Seymour petitions for a grant of the fines imposed on
those who export raw hides contrary to the Proclamation and thereby make
coaches, boots, etc., dearer. The reference to the Petition states: “It
is His Majesty’s gratious pleasure that the petitioner cause impoundr.
to be given to the Attorney General touching the offences above
mencioned ... and as proffyt shall arise to His Majesty ... he will give
her such part as shall fully satisfy her pains and good endeavours.”[38]
Footnote 38:
_S.P.D._ cccxlvi., 2, Feb. 1st, 1637.
The projecting of patents and monopolies was the favourite pursuit of
fashionable people of both sexes. Ben Johnson satirises the Projectress
in the person of Lady Tailebush, of whom the Projector, Meercraft says:
... “She and I now Are on a
Project, for the fact, and venting Of a new kind of fucus (paint
for Ladies) To serve the Kingdom; wherein she herself Hath
travel’d specially, by the way of service Unto her sex, and
hopes to get the monopoly, As the Reward of her Invention.”[39]
Footnote 39:
Jonson, (Ben.) _The Devil is an Ass_, Act III., Scene iv.
When Eitherside assures her mistress:
“I do hear
You ha’ cause madam, your suit goes on.”
Lady Tailebush replies:
“Yes faith, there’s life in’t now. It is referr’d If we once see
it under the seals, wench, then, Have with ’em, for the great
caroch, six horses And the two coachmen, with my Ambler bare,
And my three women; we will live i’ faith, The examples o’ the
Town, and govern it. I’ll lead the fashion still.”...[40]
Footnote 40:
(_Ibid._), Act IV., Scene ii.
From the women who begged for monopolies which if granted must have
involved much worry and labour if they were to be made profitable, we
pass naturally to women who actually owned and managed businesses
requiring a considerable amount of capital. They not infrequently acted
as pawn-brokers and moneylenders. Thus, complaint is made that Elizabeth
Pennell had stolen “two glazier’s vices with the screws and
appurtenances” and pawned them to one Ellianor Troughton, wife of Samuel
Troughton broker.[41]
Footnote 41:
_Middlesex Co. Rec. Sess. Books_, p. 18, 1690.
Richard Braithwaite tells the following story of a “Useresse” as though
this occupation were perfectly usual for women. “Wee reade in a booke
entituled the _Gift of Feare_, how a Religious Divine comming to a
certaine Vseresse to advise her of the state of her soule, and instruct
her in the way to salvation at such time as she lay languishing in her
bed of affliction; told her how there were three things by her to be
necessarily performed, if ever she hoped to be saved: She must become
_contrite_ in heart ... _confesse_ her sins ... make _restitution_
according to her meanes whereto shee thus replyed, _Two of those first I
will doe willingly: but to doe the last, I shall hold it a difficulty;
for should I make restitution, what would remaine to raise my children
their portion?_ To which the Divine answered; _Without these three you
cannot be saved. Yea but_, quoth shee, _Doe our Learned Men and
Scriptures say so? Yes, surely_ said the Divine. _And I will try_,
(quoth shee) _whether they say true or no, for I will restore nothing_.
And so resolving, fearefully dyed ... for preferring the care of her
posterity, before the honour of her Maker.”[42]
Footnote 42:
Braithwaite, (Richd.), _The English Gentleman_, p. 300, 1641.
The names of women often occur in connection with the shipping trade and
with contracts. Some were engaged in business with their husbands as in
the case of a fine remitted to Thomas Price and Collet his wife for
shipping 200 dozen of old shoes, with intention to transport them beyond
the seas contrary to a Statute (5th year Edward VI) on account of their
poverty.[43] Others were widows like Anne Hodsall whose husband, a
London merchant, traded for many years to the Canary Islands, the
greatest part of his estate being there. He could not recover it in his
lifetime owing to the war with Spain and therefore his wife was left in
great distress with four children. Her estate in the Canary Islands is
likely to be confiscated, there being no means of recovering it thence
except by importing wines, and it would be necessary to take pipe-staves
over there to make casks to bring back the wines. She begs the council
therefore “in commiseration of her distressed estate to grant a licence
to her and her assignes to lade one ship here with woollen commodities
for Ireland, To lade Pipe staves in Ireland (notwithstanding the
prohibition) and to send the same to the Canary Islands.”[44]
Footnote 43:
Overall _Remembrancia, Analytical Index to_, p. 519, 1582.
Footnote 44:
_Council Register_, 8th August, 1628.
Joseph Holroyd employed a woman as his shipping agent; in a letter dated
1706 he writes re certain goods for Holland: that these “I presume must
be marked as usual and forward to Madam Brown at Hull ...” and he
informs Madam Hannah Browne, that “By orders of Mr. John Whittle I have
sent you one packe and have 2 packes more to send as undʳ. You are to
follow Mr. Whittle’s directions in shipping.”[45]
Footnote 45:
Holroyd, Joseph (Cloth Factor) and Saml. Hill (clothier), _Letter Bks.
of_, pp. 18-25.
In 1630 Margrett Greeneway, widow of Thos. Greeneway, baker, begged
leave to finish carrying out a contract made by her husband
notwithstanding the present restraint on the bringing of corn to London.
The contract was to supply the East India Company with biscuit. Margrett
Greeneway petitions to bring five hundred quarters of wheat to
London—some are already bought and she asks for leave to buy the rest.
The petition was granted.[46]
Footnote 46:
_C.R._, 3rd December, 1630.
A Petition of “Emanuell Fynche, Wm. Lewis Merchantes and Anne Webber
Widow on the behalfe of themselves and others owners of the shipp called
the _Benediction_” was presented to the Privy Council stating that the
ship had been seized and detained by the French and kept at Dieppe where
it was deteriorating. They asked to be allowed to sell her there.[47]
The name of another woman ship-owner occurs in a case at Grimsby brought
against Christopher Claton who “In the behalfe of his Mother An Alford,
wid., hath bought one wessell of Raffe of one Laurence Lamkey of Odwell
in the kingdome of Norway, upon wᶜʰ private bargane there appeares a
breach of the priviledges of this Corporation.”[48]
Footnote 47:
_S.P.D._ ccxxxvi., 45, 12th, April, 1633.
Footnote 48:
_Hist. MSS. Com._, 14 Rep., VIII., p. 284, 1655.
In 1636 upon the Petition of Susanna Angell “widowe, and Eliz. her
daughter (an orphan) of the cittie of London humbly praying that they
might by their Lordshipps warrant bee permitted to land 14 barrels of
powder now arrived as also 38 barrells which is daily expected in the
_Fortune_ they paying custome and to sell the same within the kingdome
or otherwise to give leave to transport it back againe into Holland from
whence it came” the Officers of the customs were ordered to permit the
Petitioners to export the powder.[49]
Footnote 49:
_S.P.D._ ccxcii., 24, March 23, 1636/7., _Proceedings of Gunpowder
Commissioners_.
Women’s names appear also in lists of contractors to the Army and Navy.
Elizabeth Bennett and Thomas Berry contracted with the Commissioners to
supply one hundred suits of apparel for the soldiers at Plymouth.[50]
Footnote 50:
_S.P.D._ xx., 62, Feb. 9th, 1626.
Cuthbert Farlowe, Elizabeth Harper Widowe, Edward Sheldon and John
Davis, “poore Tradesmen of London” petition “to be paid the £180 yet
unpaid of their accounts” for furnishing the seamen for Rochelle with
clothes and shoes “att the rates of ready money.”[51]
Footnote 51:
_S.P.D._ cxcvii., 64, July, 1631.
A warrant was issued “to pay to Alice Bearden £100 for certain cutworks
furnished to the Queen for her own wearing.”[52]
Footnote 52:
_S.P.D._, clix., 27th Jan. 1630.
Edward Prince brought a case in the Star Chamber, v. Thomas Woodward,
Ellenor Woodward, and Georg. Helliar defendants being Ironmongers for
supposed selling of iron at false weights to undersell plaintiff.
“Defendants respectively prove that they ever bought and sold by one
sort of weight.”[53]
Footnote 53:
_S.P.D._, clxxxi., 138, 1630.
For her tenancy of the Spy-law Paper Mill, Foulis “receaved from Mʳˢ.
lithgow by Wᵐ. Douglas Hands 85 lib. for ye 1704 monie rent. She owes me
3 rim of paper for that yeir, besydes 4 rim she owes me for former
yeirs.”[54]
Footnote 54:
Foulis, Sir John, _Account Book_, 5th Jan., 1705.
Joan Dant was one of the few women “capitalists” whose personal story is
known in any detail. Her husband was a working weaver, living in New
Paternoster Row, Spital Fields. On his death she became a pedlar,
carrying an assortment of mercery, hosiery, and haberdashery on her back
from house to house in the vicinity of London. Her conduct as a member
of the Society of Friends was consistent and her manners agreeable, so
that her periodic visits to the houses of Friends were welcomed and she
was frequently entertained as a guest at their tables. After some years,
her expenses being small and her diligence great, she had saved
sufficient capital to engage in a more wholesale trade, debts due from
her correspondents at Paris and Brussels appearing in her executor’s
accounts. In spite of her success in trade Joan Dant continued to live
in her old frugal manner, and when she applied to a Friend for
assistance in making her will, he was astonished to find her worth
rather more than £9,000. He advised her to obtain the assistance of
other Friends more experienced in such matters. On their enquiring how
she wished to dispose of her property, she replied, “I got it by the
rich and I mean to leave it to the poor.”
Joan Dant died in 1715 at the age of eighty-four. In a letter to her
executors she wrote, “It is the Lord that creates true industry in his
people, and that blesseth their endeavours in obtaining things necessary
and convenient for them, which are to be used in moderation by all his
flock and family everywhere.... And I, having been one that has taken
pains to live, and have through the blessing of God, with honesty and
industrious care, improved my little in the world to a pretty good
degree; find my heart open in that charity which comes from the Lord, in
which the true disposal of all things ought to be, to do something for
the poor,—the fatherless and the widows in the Church of Christ,
according to the utmost of my ability.”[55]
Footnote 55:
_British Friend_, II., p. 113.
Another venture initiated and carried on by a woman, was an Insurance
Office established by Dorothy Petty. An account of it written in 1710
states that:—“The said _Dorothy_ (who is the Daughter of a Divine of the
Church of _England_, now deceas’d) did Set up an _Insurance Office_ on
_Births, Marriages, and Services_, in order thereby to serve the
Publick, and get an honest Livelyhood for herself.... The said _Dorothy_
had such Success in her Undertaking, that more Claims were paid, and
more Stamps us’d for Policies and Certificates in her Office than in all
other the like Offices in _London_ besides; which good Fortune was
chiefly owing to the Fairness and Justice of her Proceedings in the said
Business: for all the Money paid into the Office was Entered in one
Book, and all the Money paid out upon Claims was set down in another
Book, and all People had Liberty to peruse both, so that there could not
possibly be the least Fraud in the Management thereof.”[56]
Footnote 56:
_Case of Dorothy Petty_, 1710.
In 1622 the names of Mary Hall, 450 coals, Barbara Riddell, 450 coals,
Barbara Milburne, 60 coals, are included without comment among the
brothers of the fellowship of Hostmen (coal owners) of Newcastle who
have coals to rent.[57] The name of Barbara Milburne, widow, is given in
the Subsidy Roll for 1621 as owning land.[58] That these women were
equal to the management of their collieries is suggested by the fact
that when in 1623 Christopher Mitford left besides property which he
bequeathed direct to his nephews and nieces, five salt-pans and
collieries to his sister Jane Legard he appointed her his executrix,[59]
which he would hardly have done unless he had believed her equal to the
management of a complicated business.
Footnote 57:
_Newcastle and Gateshead, History of_, Vol. III., p. 242.
Footnote 58:
_Ibid._, p. 237.
Footnote 59:
_Ibid._, p. 252.
The frequency with which widows conducted capitalistic enterprises may
be taken as evidence of the extent to which wives were associated with
their husbands in business. The wife’s part is sometimes shown in
prosecutions, as in a case which was brought in the Star Chamber against
Thomas Hellyard, Elizabeth his wife and John Goodenough and Hugh
Nicholes for oppression in the country under a patent to Hellyard for
digging saltpetre ... “in pursuance of his direction leave and authority
... Nicholes Powell, Defendants servant, and the said Hellyard’s wife,
did sell divers quantities of salt petre. More particularly the said
Hellyard’s wife did sell to Parker 400 lbs. at Haden Wells, 300 or 400
lbs. at Salisbury and 300 or 400 lbs. at Winchester at £9 the hundred.”
Hellyard was sentenced to a fine of £1,000, pillory, whipping and
imprisonment.
“As touching the other defendant Elizabeth Hellyard the courte was fully
satisfyed with sufficient matter whereupon to ground a sentence against
the defendant Eliz. but shee being a wyfe and subject to obey her
husband theyr Lord ships did forbeare to sentence her.”[60]
Footnote 60:
_S.P.D._, cclx., 21, 1634.
Three men, “artificers in glass making,” beg that Lady Mansell may
either be compelled to allow them such wages as they formerly received,
or to discharge them from her service, her reduction of wages disabling
them from maintaining their families, and driving many of them away.[61]
Lady Mansell submits a financial statement and account of the rival
glassmakers’ attempts to ruin her husband’s business, one of whom “hath
in open audience vowed to spend 1000li, to ruine your petitioners
husband joyninge with the Scottish pattentie taking the advantage of
your petitioners husbands absence, thinckinge your petitioner a weake
woman unable to followe the busines and determininge the utter ruine of
your petitioner and her husband have inticed three of her workemen for
windowe glasse, which shee had longe kepte att a weeklie chardge to her
great prejudice to supplie the worke yf there should be anie necessitie
in the Kingdome,” etc., etc., she begs justice upon the rivals, “your
petitioner havinge noe other meanes nowe in his absence (neither hath he
when he shall returne) but onelie this busines wherein he hath engaged
his whole estate.”[62]
Footnote 61:
_S.P.D._, cxlviii., 52, 1623.
Footnote 62:
_S.P.D._, dxxi., 147. Addenda Charles I., 1625.
Able business women might be found in every class of English society
throughout the seventeenth century, but their contact with affairs
became less habitual as the century wore away, and expressions of
surprise occur at the prowess shown by Dutch women in business. “At
_Ostend_, _Newport_, and _Dunkirk_, where, and when, the _Holland_ pinks
come in, there daily the Merchants, that be but Women (but not such
Women as the Fishwives of _Billingsgate_; for these _Netherland_ Women
do lade many Waggons with fresh Fish daily, some for _Bruges_, and some
for _Brussels_, etc., etc.) I have seen these Women-merchants I say,
have their Aprons full of nothing but _English Jacobuses_, to make all
their Payment of.”[63]
Footnote 63:
_England’s Way_, 1614. _Harleian Misc._, Vol. III., p. 383.
Sir J. Child mentions “the Education of their Children as well Daughters
as Sons; all which, be they of never so great quality or estate, they
always take care to bring up to write perfect good Hands, and to have
the full knowledge and use of Arithmetick and Merchant Accounts,” as one
of the advantages which the Dutch possess over the English; “the well
understanding and practise whereof doth strangely infuse into most that
are the owners of that Quality, of either Sex, not only an Ability for
Commerce of all kinds, but a strong aptitude, love and delight in it;
and in regard the women are as knowing therein as the Men, it doth
incourage their Husbands to hold on in their Trades to their dying days,
knowing the capacity of their Wives to get in their Estates, and carry
on their Trades after their Deaths: Whereas if a Merchant in England
arrive at any considerable Estate, he commonly with-draws his Estate
from Trade, before he comes near the confines of Old Age; reckoning that
if God should call him out of the World while the main of his Estate is
engaged abroad in Trade, he must lose one third of it, through the
unexperience and unaptness of his Wife to such Affairs, and so it
usually falls out. Besides it hath been observed in the nature of
Arithmetick, that like other parts of the Mathematicks, it doth not only
improve the Rational Faculties, but inclines those that are expert in it
to Thriftiness and good Husbandry, and prevents both Husbands and Wives
in some measure from running out of their estates.”[64]
Footnote 64:
Child, Sir J., _A New Discourse of Trade_, pp. 4-5. 1694.
This account is confirmed by Howell who writes of the Dutch in 1622 that
they are “well versed in all sorts of languages.... Nor are the Men only
expert therein but the Women and Maids also in their common Hostries; &
in Holland the Wives are so well versed in Bargaining, Cyphering &
Writing, that in the Absence of their Husbands in long sea voyages they
beat the Trade at home & their Words will pass in equal Credit. These
Women are wonderfully sober, tho’ their Husbands make commonly their
Bargains in Drink, & then are they more cautelous.”[65]
Footnote 65:
Howell, (Jas.), _Familiar Letters_, p. 103.
This unnatural reversing of the positions of men and women was censured
by the Spaniard Vives who wrote “In Hollande, women do exercise
marchandise and the men do geue themselues to quafting, the which
customes and maners I alowe not, for thei agre not with nature, yᵉ which
hath geuen unto man a noble, a high & a diligent minde to be busye and
occupied abroade, to gayne & to bring home to their wiues & families to
rule them and their children, ... and to yᵉ woman nature hath geuen a
feareful, a couetous & an humble mind to be subject unto man, & to kepe
yᵗ he doeth gayne.”[66]
Footnote 66:
Vives, _Office and Duties of a Husband_, trans. by Thos. Paynell.
The contrast which had arisen between Dutch and English customs in this
respect was also noticed by Wycherley, one of whose characters, Monsieur
Paris, a Francophile fop, describes his tour in Holland in the following
terms: “I did visit, you must know, one of de Principal of de State
General ... and did find his Excellence weighing Sope, jarnie ha, ha,
ha, weighing sope, ma foy, for he was a wholesale Chandeleer; and his
Lady was taking de Tale of Chandels wid her own witer Hands, ma foy; and
de young Lady, his Excellence Daughter, stringing Harring, jarnie ...
his Son, (for he had but one) was making the Tour of France, etc. in a
Coach and six.”[67]
Footnote 67:
Wycherley, _The Gentleman Dancing Master_, p. 21.
The picture is obviously intended to throw ridicule on the neighbouring
state, of whose navy and commercial progress England stood at that time
in considerable fear.
How rapidly the active, hardy life of the Elizabethan gentlewoman was
being transformed into the idleness and dependence which has
characterised the lady of a later age may be judged by Mary Astell’s
comment on “Ladies of Quality.” She says, “They are placed in a
condition which makes that which is everyone’s chief business to be
their only employ. They have nothing to do but to glorify God and to
benefit their neighbours.”[68] After a study of the Restoration Drama it
may be doubted whether the ladies of that period wished to employ their
leisure over these praiseworthy objects. But had they the will,
ignorance of life and inexperience in affairs are qualifications which
perhaps would not have increased the effectiveness of their efforts in
either direction.
Footnote 68:
Astell, (Mary), _A Serious Proposal_, p. 145, 1694.
The proof of the change which was taking place in the scope of
upper-class women’s interests does not rest only upon individual
examples such as those which have been quoted, though these instances
have been selected for the most part on account of their representative
character.
It is quite clear that the occupation of ladies with their husband’s
affairs was accepted as a matter of course throughout the earlier part
of the century, and it is only after the Restoration that a change of
fashion in this respect becomes evident. Pepys, whose milieu was typical
of the new social order, after a call upon Mr. Bland, commented with
surprised pleasure on Mrs. Bland’s interest in her husband’s affairs.
“Then to eat a dish of anchovies,” he says “and drink wine and syder and
very merry, but above all things, pleased to hear Mrs. Bland talk like a
merchant in her husband’s business very well, and it seems she do
understand it and perform a great deal.”[69] The capacity of a woman to
understand her husband’s business seldom aroused comment earlier in the
century, and would have passed unnoticed even by many of Pepys’
contemporaries who lived in a different set. Further evidence of women’s
business capacity is found in the fact that men generally expected their
wives would prove equal to the administration of their estates after
their death, and thus the wife was habitually appointed executrix often
even the sole executrix of wills. This custom was certainly declining in
the latter part of the century. The winding up of a complicated estate
and still more the prosecution of an extensive business, could not have
been successfully undertaken by persons who hitherto had led lives of
idleness, unacquainted with the direction of affairs.
Footnote 69:
Pepys, (Sam.), _Diary_, Vol. II., p. 113, Dec. 31, 1662.
That men did not at this time regard marriage as necessarily involving
the assumption of a serious economic burden, but on the contrary, often
considered it to be a step which was likely to strengthen them in life’s
battles, is also significant. This attitude was partly due to the
provision of a dot by fathers of brides, but there were other ways in
which the wife contributed to the support of her household. Thus in a
wedding sermon woman is likened to a merchant’s ship, for “She bringeth
her food from far” ... not meaning she is to be chosen for her dowry,
“for the worst wives may have the best portions, ... a good wife tho’
she bring nothing in with her, yet, thro’ her Wisdom and Diligence great
things come in by her; she brings in with her hands, for, _She putteth
her hands to the wheel_.... If she be too high to stain her Hands with
bodily Labour, yet she bringeth in with her Eye, for, _She overseeth the
Ways of her Household_, ... and eateth not the Bread of _Idleness_.” She
provides the necessities of life. “If she will have Bread, she must not
always buy it, but she must sow it, and reap it and grind it, ... She
must knead it, and make it into bread. Or if she will have Cloth, she
must not always run to the Shop or to the score but she begins at the
seed, she carrieth her seed to the Ground, she gathereth Flax, of her
Flax she spinneth a Thread, of her Thread she weaveth Cloth, and so she
comes by her coat.”[70]
Footnote 70:
Wilkinson, (Robert), _Conjugal Duty_, pp. 13-17.
The woman here described was the mistress of a large household, who
found scope for her productive energy within the limits of domestic
industry, but it has been shown that the married woman often went
farther than this, and engaged in trade either as her husband’s
assistant or even on her own account.
The effect of such work on the development of women’s characters was
very great, for any sort of productive, that is to say, creative work,
provides a discipline and stimulus to growth essentially different from
any which can be acquired in a life devoted to spending money and the
cultivation of ornamental qualities.
The effect on social relations was also marked, for their work implied
an association of men and women through a wide range of human interests
and a consequent development of society along organic rather than
mechanical lines. The relation between husband and wife which obtained
most usually among the upper classes in England at the opening of the
seventeenth century, appears indeed to have been that of partnership;
the chief responsibility for the care of children and the management and
provisioning of her household resting on the wife’s shoulders, while in
business matters she was her husband’s lieutenant. The wife was subject
to her husband, her life was generally an arduous one, but she was by no
means regarded as his servant. A comradeship existed between them which
was stimulating and inspiring to both. The ladies of the Elizabethan
period possessed courage, initiative, resourcefulness and wit in a high
degree. Society expected them to play a great part in the national life
and they rose to the occasion; perhaps it was partly the comradeship
with their husbands in the struggle for existence which developed in
them qualities which had otherwise atrophied.
Certainly the more circumscribed lives of the Restoration ladies show a
marked contrast in this respect, for they appear but shadows of the
vigorous personalities of their grandmothers. Prominent amongst the many
influences which conspired together to produce so rapid a decline in the
physique, efficiency and morale of upper-class women, must be reckoned
the spread of the capitalistic organisation of industry, which by the
rapid growth of wealth made possible the idleness of growing numbers of
women. Simultaneously the gradual perfecting by men of their separate
organisations for trade purposes rendered them independent of the
services of their wives and families for the prosecution of their
undertakings. Though the stern hand of economic necessity was thus
withdrawn from the control of women’s development in the upper classes,
it was still potent in determining their destiny amongst the “common
people,” whose circumstances will be examined in detail in the following
chapters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------