p. 25 “there is considerable uncertainty about the actual
scale of women’s property ownership. A handful of studies have used rentals and
leases to examine female landholding within small groups of manors or parishes.
Jane Whittle, for example, demonstrated that female tenants rarely made up more
than 10% of landholders on her four north-east Norfolk manors in the 15th
and 16th century. Other studies of medieval landholding suggest that
women made up between about 12 and 18% of tenants. Amanda Capern has
demonstrated that women – most of women were widowed or single – made up 15% of
leaseholders on the Jervaiux lands in North Yorkshire between 1600 and 1800,
while Sylvia Seeliger has suggested that female tenants held up to 1/5 of the
land in many Hampshire parishes between the mid-16th and mid-19th
centuries. Yet far less is known about the proportion of land owned – as
opposed to tenanted – by women.
It is exactly this deficit that the remainder of the chapter
sets out to remedy, exploring the issue of women’s landownership using a large
sample of date from the parliamentary enclosure awards.
p. 26/7 “of the 250,000 acres catalogued here, almost 26,000
acres were owned by female landowners, that is 10. 3% of the land in the sample
owned by a woman, either alone or jointly with one or more other parties. Female
landowners were, moreover, a relative commonplace within rural communities up
and down the country. As the data makes, clear, not only was more than one in
10 acres owned by a woman, but female landowners existed in the vast majority
of the sample parishes….it seems likely that somewhere in excess of 3 million
acres in England were owned by women in the later 18th century and
more than 6 million acres in Great Britain as a whole. The tally of female
landowners – great and small 0 almost certainly ran into the tens of thousands
and perhaps reached upwards of six figures.”
p. 40 While the involvement of middle-class women in
business accounting has been increasingly acknowledged in recent years, the
contribution of elite women to estate accounting has received far less
attention. Yet some elite women kept very detailed estate accounts, rentals and
ledgers. One such woman was Lady Elizabeth Dryden, a moderately wealthy widow
who managed the Canons Ashby estate in Northamptonshire between 1770 and 1791.
Despite an avowed dislike of writing letters, the accounts are written in her
hand and cover the entire period of her management. In one book she recorded
her annual outgoings against her yearly income, including her tenants’ rents
and the sums she raised from the sale of underwood, bark and hay from the home
farm and woods. Another book for the same period was organised by tenant rather
than by year, and recorded the rents paid to her on a half-yearly basis, along
with various memoranda concerning their tenancies. Her writing became
increasingly untidy as she grew older … we know from a letter written to her
niece that she suffered a stroke in 1790 and the shaky, almost illegible
handwriting of the final year’s entry demonstrates that she wrote it after her
stroke. This is testimony to Dryden’s sheer determination to record and audit
the estate finances, but also definitive evidence that she kept her own
accounts rather than relying on her steward.”
p. 41 “Elizabeth Hood of Butleigh Wootton (Somerset) kept
the accounts for her modest estate not just as a widow but also as a young
unmarried woman and a wife. Aged just 18, Wood inherited the Wootton estate
from her father John Periam (d. 1788) and later married Alexander Hood, a
captain in the Royal Navy who was killed in command of the HMS Mars six years
later. The estate was a relatively small one: in 1806 the rentals brought her
just over £1,000 a year, plus smaller sums for bark, corn and livestock and
regular dividends from her funds in stocks. The core of the estate inherited
from her father amounted to no more than 600 acres in 772, but Hood spent more
than £11,000 purchasing land and houses in the neighbourhood, and her son’s
portion of the estate amounted to nearly 1,700 acres in 1846. She was thus at
the lower reaches of the gentry. .. Entries in the account book suggest that
she had begun to keep the accounts prior to her father’s death in late 1788 …
probably reflects her father’s failing health, but presumably also the desire
by an elderly estate owner – Periam was
then 74 – to ensure his young heiress knew how to manage the estate… Her only
brother had died before her own birth and Hood was brought up as the heiress to
the estate, but we can only guess exactly what lessons her father provided for
her. She was sent to Wells School from the age of 10 .. sometime later Hood
wrote on the front cover of the account book, perhaps reflecting the lessons
taught her as a young women:
Keep your accounts clear,
Throughout the year;
Let no mistake be made,
Either in paying, or pay’d.”
p. 79
“Lady Elizabeth Monoux was said by Arthur Young to be responsible for introducing improvements following the enclosure of wastes and warrens on an estate belonging to her husband at Sandy (Bedfordshire). The parish was enclosed in 1804 under an act of 1798, and both the act and the award recognised Sir Philip Monoux as the landowner. Yet [Arthur] Young attributed the improvements to his wide, noting that Sir Philip’s estate was ‘entirely under the management of Lady Monoux, who takes much pleasure in husbandry’. She had planted several parcels of the newly enclosed warren with oats and achieved excellent yields with the need to marl, limr or manure the land. In the previous year, Young also reported that she was growing Lucerne on portions of the the new enclosures, again with good results. The Lucerne was used as fodder for horses and was said to be ‘a very fine crop’ which over 20 weeks produced a yield valued at more than £9 n acre after the labour. Young praised ‘the agricultural talents on the intelligent farmeress” and her “very great exertions”.
p. 89 Elizabeth Illive, wrote at least one article for the
Annals of Agriculture. “Also known as ‘Mrs Wyngham’, Ilive was the mistress of
the third earl of Egremont, chatelaine at Petworth House (Sussex) and later
countess of Egremont. Her origins are obscure and nothing is known of her early
education, though she certainly had access to the large library of agricultural
periodicals at Petworth House and probably also discussed agriculture with the
earl – himself a keen agricultural improver – and his many visitors. In her
1797 article in the Annals, she described her experiments growing potatoes on
land she had rented, making a careful study of the effect different methods of
planting had on yields. Her work was underpinned by rigorous scientific method
and demonstrated the value of planting the shoots removed from the chitted
potatoes. The article appeared anonymously, the earl apparently having refused
to allow her name to appear, though it is unclear if this was because of her
gender or her unusual social position as his live-in mistress. [Arthur] Young
commented specifically on Ilive’s piece, noting that she as an ‘ingenious lady’
and the article was ‘highly satisfactory, and proves clearly that the method
detailed is of real importance.
The potato trials were not Ilive’s only scientific venture.
Young – a regular visitor of the earl’s – also brought her equipment for the
laboratory at Petworth House and taught her how to use it. In early 1796 she
wrote to the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and
Commerce describing a new method of using levers to raise large weights. Her
letter – which included both a diagram and a model – outlined how the workmen
on the estate ‘all approve of it very much,’ though she also hinted there had
been some laughter at Petworth about her invention, at least initially. Her
letter was apparently well received at the Society and the Mechanics Committee
awarded her the silver medal in May 1796, the first woman to receive a medal
from a scientific section of the Society, though others had previously won for
Polite Arts. She was by then heavily pregnant with her seventh child and did
not receive the medal in person, instead nominating the Society’s president
Samuel More to collect it for her.”
p. 118 The most substantial programme of activities aimed at
improving the lives of the poor was probably that undertaken by Elizabeth
Prowse at Wicken (Northamptonshire) from the late 1760s onwards.. involved in a
range of charitable activities both on her estate and beyond it. Some of this
giving was irregular and ad hoc. Examples include providing five of her tenants
with medicine after they were bitten by a rabid cat in 1776, helping one of her
gardeners get sober and repay his debts, and finding apprenticeships and jobs
for her coachman’s seven children when he suddenly left after being discovered
‘making money in what he had no right to do so’. She also made small gifts of
money and clothes to villagers, local children and unnamed paupers, all of
which were recorded in her pocket expenses. Such charitable acts were primarily
reactive rather than proactive, but Prowse was also involved in a number of
philanthropic projects which aimed to improve living conditions and educational
achievements amongst the poorest Wicken residents in a much more systematic way…
while undoubtedly a committed agricultural improver… Prowse was neveretheless
uneasy about some of the things her predecessors on the estate had done in the
name of progress. She was also aware that the social and economic costs of
enclosure and estate improvement were often borne disproportionaely by the
poorest in society. Her religious upbringing, staunchly Anglican beliefs and
contacts with London Evangelicals and anti-slavery campaigners though her
brother Graville Sharp no doubt played a part in shaping her attitudes towards
farming, improvement and the poor, as did a close reading of Nathaniel Kent’s
General View of the Agriculture of the County of Norfolk. Like Kent – whose
Hints to Gentlemen of Landed Property she bought in 1775 and whom she probably
met in Fulham in the winter of 1791 – Prowse seems to have recognised
agricultural labourers as the very ‘nerves and sinews’ of rural society without
whom ‘the richest soil is not worth owning’.
“Soon after acquiring the estate, Prowse embarked on a programme
of repairs and improvements to the estate cottages. She paid for the cottages
to be rethatched and glazed, and may also have installed water pumps in some of
the cottages, as she did in the tenant farms … Prowse was paying for the
cottagers’ children to attend a school in the village from at least 1768. She
may have founded the school and certainly contri8buted significant sums to the
running costs: in the mid-1770s she spent more than £30 a year on the
schoolmasters’ wages along with clothes and shoes for the children, which
together accounted for between about a third and a half of all spending in the
cottage accounts. There were then at least 12 ‘charity boys’ in attendances, as
well as several girls who were taught to make lace and cloth.. Prowse was also
involved in establishing an early Sunday school at Wicken, which was first held
in the spring of 1788. .. she continued to support both the day and the Sunday
schools postmortem with the gift of a share in the Grand Junctions Canal
Company, which by the 1830s contributed about £10 a year to the running costs.
p. 119 “Prowse … was concerned to provide locally available
and affordable foodstuffs to her tenants … very little of the produce from the
home farm was sold at the market. Instead, most of it was used in the house or
sold locally, either to the village butcher or direct to the tenant farmers and
labourers… sold meat and cheese to the poor at a subsidised price.. She sold a
beef cow to the poor every winder at 2d a pound and in 1783 gave them the meat
for here ‘it having been a hard winter for them’. She also sold firewood from
the estate woodlands to the village poor, presumably again at a subsidised
rate. Much of this activity was focused in the winter months, when conditions
were at their harshest. Importantly, this was also the season Prowse spent in
London and it is clear that she sought to improve conditions for the poor even
whilst in the capital, something which Jessica Gerard argues was unusual
amongst country-house women whose charitable hand-outs were not normally a
year-round benefit to the rural poor.”
p. 123 “elite women .. might actively involve themselves in parliamentary politics, whether by controlling voters on their estates, by directly canvassing for particular candidates or by hosting political meetings and debates. One of the most straightforward ways … was to canvas their tenants and attempt to control their votes, either by only installing tenants whose political allegiance was already known or by evicting – or threatening to evict – those who voted against their wishes. Anne Lister worked hard to try to establish an interest at Halifax, suggesting names for Tory candidates to the head of the local selection committee, directly canvassing voters – both by letter and in person – and refusing to let her land to anyone but ‘blue tenants’. ”Regardless of their sex, most landowners expected to direct their tenants’ votes. Yet the moral case for tenants complying with the landowner’s wishes was arguably greater in the case of propertied women: as Lister wrote in her diaries, the tenants of properties women were doubly obliged to vote with their landlady, who was herself unable to vote and whose political views ‘would otherwise not be represented at all’.