PARTE I: ANTECEDENTES CONCEPTUALES, PROBLEMATIZACIÓN, DISEÑO
CAPÍTULO 2. EL PROBLEMA DE INVESTIGACIÓN Y EL OBJETO DE
As previously shown, younger sons were considerably less well-placed to take advantage of the marriage-market than their older brothers. They were generally less able to compete for wealthy wives, although some of those in the sample did secure ‘good’ marriages. Younger sons of the squirearchy who married did so for various reasons, including the desire for a companion and to secure their financial
34 Aphra Behn, Sir Patient Fancy (London, 1676), in Kathryn Rogers (ed.) The Meridian
Anthology of Restoration and Eighteenth Century Plays by Women (London, 1994), p. 50, Act 2, scene 2.
and social position. Family members often helped identify potential brides and conducted negotiations. Several younger sons in the sample married relatives or neighbours whom they probably knew well. Evidence in the sample challenges the view that many younger sons were compelled to choose brides from lower social strata and fails to show that their marriages were often geographically exogamous. Younger sons’ matrimonial prospects were affected and shaped by finance. In 1763, The Universal Museum complained that parents gave ‘the whole estate to the eldest male branch, [so that] the younger ones become disabled to marry’.35 Without sound finances it was difficult to attract a suitable bride and establish a separate home. Dudley Ryder was concerned about his own marriage prospects. He knew that an early marriage would harm his prospects unless he could secure a wealthy wife. In June 1716, fearing that his behaviour might have implied a proposal he wrote,
My circumstances were not proper at all for matrimony at present. If [Mrs Matthews] has but a small fortune it would ruin me to marry her, keep me low in the world and prevent my rise. And if she has a considerable fortune … I cannot suppose my father can or will give me enough to answer [her] £2,000 fortune without the addition of a business or employment, but here comes in the balance of my love and inclination to her, and I did not find that so strong as to be an equivalent for all the rest.36
Later, reiterating his desire to marry, he stressed the imprudence of such a step. As I am in no business it would be madness for me to go to marry under a considerable fortune. I could indeed myself be contented with a little and so agreeable a wife as her, but I don’t see how it is possible for me with what my father will give me and her fortune, which I don’t find is likely to be above £1,000, to maintain as genteelly as she has hitherto lived and will expect still if she marries.37
35The Universal Museum or Gentleman and Ladies Polite Magazine of History and Literature
for 1762, volume 2, issue 2. [accessed through Eighteenth Century Journals, 22.11.2016]
36 Matthews (ed.), The Diary of Dudley Ryder, p. 251, 5 June, 1716. 37Ibid., p. 271, 11 July, 1716.
Love or passion, however powerful, could not compensate for lack of employment or fortune. Many lesser gentry younger sons were forced to defer marriage until they were well-established in employment and could afford to support a wife and family. Hopes of an early ‘good’, that is a financially and socially sound, marriage, when wealth was a dominant element in marriage-making, usually depended on the generosity of parental provision.
This difficulty is highlighted in fiction. Jenny Jessamy’s friend was forced into an unhappy marriage after her father, ‘a younger son, [with] no other dependence than a post in one of the public offices … [had] lived up to the height of his income’ leaving her without a fortune.38 Mrs Harley, widow of a destitute West Indian merchant, told Emma Courtney that ‘his two younger sons and three daughters [were] left wholly unprovided for’.39 Most fathers wanted to deal fairly with their younger children but could not because of limited resources. It was always difficult for them to calculate how much of an estate’s wealth should be set aside for younger children, without imposing too great a burden on the estate or impoverishing the heir.40
Living in London was ideal for mixing with society and meeting a variety of young women. Twenty-five-year-old Dudley Ryder easily met many potential brides that he wanted to marry, but knew that his father could not, or would not, provide the portion he needed to attract and support a suitable wife. After a family meeting to discuss his brother’s marriage he noted his father’s difficulty in raising the necessary portion ‘he not having money enough at command that he must either sell some of his houses or give [William] some of them’.41
Younger sons, resident in Midland towns, could benefit from similar opportunities as Ryder. In one sense they were more privileged than their brothers who were posted overseas as traders or served in the armed forces. Richard Congreve, as bishop’s chaplain, was based in Worcester and had easy access to a varied social life compared to his brothers: Francis was a merchant based in Cairo, William a soldier in Minorca, and Ralph, a merchant seaman. Richard’s opportunities to meet eligible young women were much greater than theirs. The sample correspondence indicates
38 Eliza Haywood, The History of Jemmy and Jenny Jessamy (ed.), John Richetti, in
Eighteenth Century Novels by Women (Kentucky, 2005), p. 118.
39 Mary Hays, The Memoirs of Emma Courtney (London, 1759, London, 1987), p. 52. 40 Heal and Holmes, The Gentry, pp. 60. 87, 88.
different ways in which future brides were met but none specifically refer to the marriage-market of assemblies, parties or the social season. Supporting evidence can however be found in the diaries and correspondence of the Williamsons, Dudley Ryder, Abigail Gawthern, Sylas Neville or the Wynne sisters and in the rapidly growing eighteenth century genre of courtship fiction.
Richard Congreve’s first marriage seems to have been based on sympathy, friendship and self-interest which developed as he supported the widow of his close friend William Byrche in her bereavement. Byrche had been Chancellor to the bishop of Worcester and owner of Leacroft near Cannock. Early in 1742, shortly after Byrche’s death, Richard expressed admiration for how ‘poor Mrs Byrche bears this great misfortune’.42 Over the next few months he grew increasingly concerned that her ‘uninterrupted sorrow must needs injure her health’ and urged her to take greater care of her own well-being for the sake of her children.43 At first his letters give no indication of anything other than friendship and sympathy.44 Yet by March 1745, almost three years after Byrche died, they were married, and he had taken up the Leacroft benefice. This was probably in Mrs Byrche’s gift. A friend from Shropshire, surprised to hear that they were married, wrote that Richard ‘spoke of her without the prejudice or passion of a lover’. Her first husband’s family were not enthusiastic about the marriage. John Byrche, her brother-in-law, congratulated them, but in the most lukewarm terms.45
The reasons for this marriage are not explained, but Richard’s situation may hold the key. He was aged 28 when Elizabeth Byrche was widowed and had four older brothers ahead of him in the line of succession. At least two of them were actively pursuing marriage. It seemed unlikely that he would ever inherit the Congreve property and only had his income as a parish priest and the expectation of a small portion of £150, payable from his mother’s jointure after her death. Mrs Byrche
42 SRO, D1057/M/I/17a, Congreve Papers, p. 41. Richard Congreve from Worcester to
William Congreve in Minorca, 15 February, 1742.
43 Ibid., D1057/M/I/17a, p. 45. Richard Congreve from Shrewsbury to Bishop Hough at
Worcester, 3 March, 1742. D1057/M/I/17a, p. 44. Richard Congreve to Mrs Byrche, 25 March, 1742.
44 Ibid., D1057/M/I/17a, p. 48, Richard Congreve to William Congreve, 20 June, 1742.
D1057/M/I/17a, p.56, Richard Congreve to William Congreve, 4 August, 1742. D1057/M/I/17a, p. 58, Richard Congreve to William Congreve, 24 August, 1742.
45Ibid., D1057/M/I/13/15, R. Hind from Christ Church to Richard Congreve, 4 March, 1745.
D1057/M/I/6/2, Ralph Congreve from London to Richard Congreve, 5 March, 1745. D1057/M/I/13/16, W. Adams in Shropshire to Richard Congreve, 7 March, 1745. D1057/M/I/15/2, John Byrche from Birberry to Miss Byrche, 8 February, 1745.
apparently was devastated by her husband’s death but had received a large monetary bequest after her father’s death in 1742 and had control of the Leacroft estate and income during her son’s minority. She and Richard seem to have had no plans to marry when she returned to Leacroft, but it is possible that she wanted a protector, companion and step-father for her three children.46 Richard, who was available and a friend of her late husband’s, probably seemed a safe option. He may have seen the opportunity to improve his status by marrying a wealthy widow and occupying her country estate.
Some marriages were organised through third parties and it is not always clear whether a couple had met before negotiations began, despite close geographical proximity. In 1646, Abel Barker, heir presumptive to his elder brother, married a wife chosen for him by his mother. Abel does not appear to have contacted Anne Burton personally until almost six months after negotiations began. There is no evidence in surviving correspondence of strong feelings between the couple. This marriage was probably more about creating useful political and social connections than about romantic or personal attachment. It may be significant that though seven years younger than her, he was heir to a sickly childless brother and therefore potentially an attractive marriage prospect.47
Some younger sons’ marriages were with families to whom they were related by affinity or consanguinity. The sixth son of John Congreve (1636-1663) and Mary Niccol married his mother’s relative, Catherine, in 1718. Catherine’s brother married Anne Sneyd of Keele, a neighbour and distant relative of the Congreves. Charles Walter Congreve never married but in 1742 had been negotiating marriage with a Miss Fitzherbert, a descendant of his great-grandmother’s family.48 A similar pattern existed in the Barker family. Augustine, Samuel Barker’s second son, married his distant cousin, Thomasin Tryst, the great-great-granddaughter his own great- grandfather. John Edward Conant, eldest son of Sarah Barker’s niece, married
46Ibid., D1057/M/I/17a pp. 47-50. Richard Congreve to William, 20 June 1742.
47 LRO, DG11/4, Conant Papers, letter 40. Elizabeth Barker to Sir Thomas Burton, 1645.
Letter 41, Sir Thomas Burton to Elizabeth Barker, 26 February 1646. Letter 42, Elizabeth Barker to Sir Thomas Burton in London, 2 April, 1646. Letter 43, Abel Barker to Mrs Anne Burton in London, 25 June, 1646.
48 SRO, D1057/S/17/15, Congreve Papers, genealogical note about Niccol family.
D1057/S/17/29, note on family genealogy. D1057/S/17/30, the lineage of William Congreve of Aldermaston. D1057/S/17/56, letter from Henry Heylin of Pentrefelin, Montgomeryshire. D1057/M/I/3/28, William Congreve from Minorca to Richard Congreve, 20 October, 1742.
Sarah’s great-granddaughter Catherine Brown, in 1817. Andrew Hacket II married Mary Scott of Little Aston and their second son, John, married her cousin, Jane Scott of Great Barr. Robert Clavering’s first wife was Richard Congreve’s sister while his second wife was Richard’s step-daughter.49
Shared religious belief and personal attraction was another basis for marriage. Hagger Lowe, a second son and tradesman living in Southwark, married Tabitha Burgess from Leicester in 1811. Both were Quakers and their two families knew each other and were possibly related.50 As members of the Quaker community they probably knew each other from attending the annual Quaker meeting, despite the distance between their homes. Hagger had secretly admired Tabitha for several years, courted her for a long time and had once been rejected by her because of her illness. His poor economic circumstances and her poor health caused him to delay a second proposal, but they did eventually marry.51 This marriage was based on personal attraction, prior acquaintance and shared faith. They were of comparable social and economic status and both families welcomed the marriage. The sample correspondence says little about the qualities that younger sons looked for in wives, but Edmund Williamson’s correspondents outlined the characteristics that they regarded as essential. Tidy Russell thought that her brother needed a young, obedient and biddable wife. She praised a recently remarried friend whose young wife had no fortune and thanked ‘God that he is master of his own house, which he was not before’. She commended Susannah Hanmer as ‘an excellent manager … [who] has the command of everything [except fortune] and manages everything’.52
Dudley Ryder told his wife, whom he married when he was 44,
49 See family trees, Appendix 1,
50 WRO, CR2926/31, The Lowe Correspondence. Anna Lowe from Stanwell Mills to Jeffrey
Bevington Lowe, 5th of 2nd month, 1813. CR2926/29, Anna Lowe from Pooley Street to
Jeffrey Bevington Lowe, 30th of 12th month, 1810.
51Ibid., CR2926/7. Hagger Lowe from Southwark to his brother Jeffrey Bevington Lowe, 9th
of 3rd month, 1810.
52 Manning (ed.), The Williamson Letters. pp. 26, 32-33. Tidy Russel to Edmund Williamson,
I look on matrimony … as a partnership wherein our very passions and affections, our hopes and fears, our inclinations and aversions, all our good and ill qualities are brought into one common stock.53
Edmund himself said he wanted ‘an agreeable woman for a wife’ but later thought it essential to have a wife whose ‘temper … [is] meek, humble and modest’.54 Individuals had their own separate ideals, but these extracts suggest that obedience and submission were highly valued. Tidy Russell clearly cherished birth and some fortune, whereas Ryder was more interested in companionship and a pleasant character, although as shown previously, he also thought a good fortune was essential.
Younger sons met their wives in various ways and at different locations but family ties were often important when searching for marriage partners. Most younger sons in the sample married women from their own locality, so it is probable that they knew their future wives through family connections and social activities long before marriage was considered. Apart from Francis Raynsford and Hester Isham, the sample correspondence does not provide direct evidence to support this view, but it seems probable that proximity and familial relationships played a significant role in partner selection.
Families and friends were as involved in identifying young women, arranging introductions, and investigating their social and economic background for younger sons as they were for heirs. This was certainly the experience of Edmund Williamson who wanted a second wife but was usually content to leave matters in the hands of his brother and sister rather than take the initiative himself. They recommended suitable young women, including Susannah Hanmer. She had already made her own enquiries about Williamson after she had seen him at the Bletchley Assembly. A mutual London friend recommended another candidate, and Tidy strongly recommended Mary Tipping, because of her youth, respectable birth and education. Mary was 19 and Edmund 47 when they married.55 There is no
53 Matthews (ed.), The Diary of Dudley Ryder, p. 45. Extract from a letter to his wife (nd). 54Ibid., pp. 53, 55. Diary entries for 30 June and 14 July, 1715.
55 Manning (ed.), The Williamson Letters 1748-1765, pp. 32-33. Tidy Russell to Edmund
Williamson, 19 September, 1758; pp. 34-35, Tidy Russell to Edmund Williamson, 17 October, 1758; p. 59, Talbot Williamson to Edmund Williamson, January 1760; pp. 53-54, Tidy Russell to Edmund Williamson, 22 July, 1760.
indication that it was a match based on affection, fortune or prior acquaintance more than on convenience.
There was no guarantee that a marriage would result once a potential partner was identified. Edmund was refused by Susannah Hanmer because of her ‘indifference, or rather reluctance, to change [her] condition’ and her desire for mutual regard in a marriage. Edmund had presumably failed to demonstrate this. She was then aged 34 with a fortune of only £1,000 and little real prospect of more. Even though her age meant that her marriage prospects were rapidly reducing she refused an offer which must have been financially and socially attractive. According to family tradition as recorded in Sarah Barker’s memoir, Abel Barker’s younger brother Thomas ‘had thoughts of marrying [a neighbour] … but took a disgust at seeing the lady wash her hands awkwardly and broke off the match’.56 The failure of this projected marriage must have had more serious reasons than Sarah suggested. Perhaps she rejected Thomas, a prosperous bachelor, and he offered this explanation to the family to preserve his pride and reputation. Charles Walter Congreve, archdeacon of Armagh, aged 35 and heir presumptive to the Congreve estates, was also a potentially attractive marriage prospect. His proposed marriage to Miss Fitzherbert did not occur, probably because her recently dead father left her in ‘circumstances [which] were much embarrassed’. No other reason than financial difficulties are suggested by the correspondence to explain this disappointment.57
Some younger sons, despite their financially disadvantaged position, did marry profitably and retain gentry status. The easiest way to achieve this was through marriage to an heiress or wealthy widow.58 This course was followed by several of the Congreve younger sons. One younger son and two younger grandsons of John Congreve and Mary Niccol, would have expected under normal circumstances to be landless. They each gained property and retained status through marriage. William, John’s sixth son, gained property in London and North Wales through his marriage to Catherine Niccol, joint heiress of a ’Levant merchant’. Ralph Congreve inherited Aldermaston after the death of his wife, Lady Stawell. Richard Congreve’s marriage
56 LRO, DG11/1, Conant Papers, letter 148a. Memorandum probably compiled in 1745 by
Sarah Barker.
57 SRO, D1057/M/I/3/28, Congreve Papers. William Congreve from Minorca to Richard
Congreve, 20 October, 1742.
58 B. A. Holderness, ‘Widows in Pre-Industrial Society: An Essay upon their Economic
to Elizabeth Byrche increased his income and status and gave him control of Leacroft while his step-son was a minor. His second marriage in 1776 brought him property in North Wales, even though he was not yet the Congreve heir.
Younger sons of the squirearchy were often poorly placed for marriage-making. They could easily meet prospective brides but were often unable to match the fortune required by the parents of a desirable prospective bride, at least until later in life. Younger sons in the sample who married generally did so later than their older brothers, but often chose women from their own social group and locality. Several married into families with whom they already had strong links. Some younger sons in the sample did not marry but remained life-long bachelors. It is not clear from the sources whether this was from choice or necessity. The available evidence throws some light on what younger sons looked for in brides but there is