1. Stone (1977), especially p. 274. Trumbach (1978) has a similar thesis to that of Stone, but confines himself explicitly to the aristocracy. For some critics of Stone, see Wrightson (1982) pp. 66-118, Houlbrooke (1984) and Macfarlane (1986). For a good general introduction to modern historical studies of the family, see Anderson (1980). [BACK]

2. Treatise (1732) p. 25; example from GLRO DL/C/165 fo. 233v; in general on this subject, see Swinburne (1686) and Helmholz (1974). [BACK]

3. Salmon (1724) p. 180; see also Swinburne (1686) p.2. [BACK]

4. R. L. Brown (1981) pp. 117-36. Much the commonest occupations of London-based grooms given in Fleet registers are those of craftsmen, but 'tradesmen and innkeepers' account for 9 per cent of the occupations recorded between 1700 and 1750 (ibid. p. 126). Brown's figures are probably too high since nearly a quarter of entries in Fleet registers are duplicates. The numbers are also swollen in the early eighteenth century by the marriages of soldiers and sailors (information from Amanda Copley via Jeremy Boulton).

5. Quoted by ibid. p. 124. [BACK]

4. R. L. Brown (1981) pp. 117-36. Much the commonest occupations of London-based grooms given in Fleet registers are those of craftsmen, but 'tradesmen and innkeepers' account for 9 per cent of the occupations recorded between 1700 and 1750 (ibid. p. 126). Brown's figures are probably too high since nearly a quarter of entries in Fleet registers are duplicates. The numbers are also swollen in the early eighteenth century by the marriages of soldiers and sailors (information from Amanda Copley via Jeremy Boulton).

5. Quoted by ibid. p. 124. [BACK]

6. Misson (1719) p. 183; see also Jeaffreson (1872) p. 134, R. L. Brown (1981) p. 124; Frith (1954), introduction, has a discussion of the licence system. [BACK]

7. Misson (1719) pp. 351-3. [BACK]

8. Elliott (1981) p. 82. [BACK]

9. Hajnal (1965); Macfarlane (1986); Wrigley & Schofield (1983) pp. 157-84. [BACK]

10. Elliott (1981) pp. 84-6. Her analysis was based on GHMS 10091/1-7. Nothing much seems to have changed by our period, judging from my analysis of a small sample of licence applications for the years 1667, 1696, 1715 and 1730 in GHMS 10091. The early age at marriage for women in London is confirmed by Finlay in his reconstitution study of four parishes, which had average ages for women at first marriage of 23.0, 19.7, 21.5 and 23.0 (Finlay (1979) pp. 31-2). There were far more immigrants than London-born in the metropolis so the average age at marriage in London would be nearer the immigrant average but still considerably younger than elsewhere in the country. [BACK]

11. Closeness in age between marriage partners is sometimes seen as a prima facie case for assuming that love has played a more important part in the choice of partners than other considerations such as money or dynastic continue

      strategy. Such assumptions are impossible to prove but, if they were true, then our results would throw considerable doubt on Stone's thesis that it was the upper bourgeoisie who pioneered the marriage based on affection and companionship, since it is this group which have the biggest age difference between bride and groom (Stone (1977) pp. 274-81, 294, 362 etc.). It is possible that this pattern of men marrying much younger wives may have been reversed in the common circumstances of the remarriage of widows. From a reconstruction of late sixteenth-century data, Vivien Brodsky found more than half of widows remarrying single men of whom a large proportion were younger than their brides (Brodsky (1986) pp. 122-34, esp. p. 127). [BACK]

12. For a discussion of age at marriage in terms of such strategies, see Wrigley (1983) and see also Macfarlane (1986), where a basic reason why Westerners got married later than other people was because they saw marriage and children as something economically costly which would be unlikely to bring about the economic benefits assumed in most other parts of the world, where marriage created no new expense in the form of a separate household and children were regarded as an economic asset. [BACK]

13. Tryon (1691) p. 463; Dunton (1705) p. 70. One should note too that merchants often spent most of their early years in business overseas and so would not be in a position to start their courtships until they were 30 or so. [BACK]

14. Thirsk & Cooper (1972) p. 773. [BACK]

15. Defoe (1722) p. 18. [BACK]

16. Laslett (1965) pp. 81-9 worries that we get the wrong idea about the age at marriage of girls from the creative literature of the past. However, playwrights would be quite realistic to produce drama for an upper- and middle-class London audience in terms of girls thinking it normal to be married by the age of 21 and not all that unusual to be married at 18. [BACK]

17. Defoe (1722) p. 58. [BACK]

18. Stone (1977) pp. 274-81 discusses the gradual victory of more liberal views on this subject in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; Macfarlane (1986) pp. 120-47 and Wrightson (1982) p. 78 find liberal views at an earlier date, though Macfarlane emphasizes the greater importance of parents' advice in the middling ranks (p. 132). Gillis (1985), on the other hand, emphasizes the continuing importance of family, friends and community, though he does not suggest that such influence prevented individual choice, just that it made it very difficult to fly in the face of contrary advice. [BACK]

19. Dunton (1703-8) p. 148; for a rather more liberal approach, see Taylor (1650) p. 201; Defoe in Review i, 272 distinguished between those over 21 who should regard their father's advice 'with the utmost deference' and those under age 'who ought not to disobey him, nor ask his reasons'. [BACK]

20. In the period March 1667 to March 1668, there were 30 London spinsters over 21 whose parental consent was recorded and 49 where it was not; in January to September 1696, the figures are 28 and 47. In both periods, the median age of those with consent was 22 and without was 26 (GHMS 10091/27 & 33). In the early eighteenth century, recorded parental continue

      consent for over age girls declines very considerably, possibly reflecting a change of attitude but quite likely merely a change of recording practice (GHMS 10091/51 & 70 for 1715 and 1730). [BACK]

21. GHMS 10823/1 pp. 59-64. [BACK]

22. Laws (1765) p. 68. [BACK]

23. GHMS 10823/1 pp. 63-4; CLRO, Common Serjeants' Books. These record the division of estates and have memoranda which would surely have mentioned the disinheritance of daughters if this had occurred. [BACK]

24. S.246 (Williams); cf. S.177 and 303; S.13, 93, 99, 101, 212 (if she married without consent her £500 legacy to his other daughter), 250 (with consent a legacy of £2000, without consent an annuity of £100 p.a.), 319, 337; S.85, S.347 (Sellers), S.279 (Cary). [BACK]

25. E.g. DL/C/246 fos 129, 132—Greenell v. Tucker (1699). [BACK]

26. Ryder (1939) pp. 309-10; Dunton (1705) p. 90; GLRO DL/C246 fo. 129; DL/C/247 fo. 92. For discussions of contemporary literature, see Stone (1977) pp. 275-6; Macfarlane (1986) pp. 174-6, who claims that this stress on a companionate marriage was peculiarly English and surprised foreigners, e.g. the French. [BACK]

27. See Earle (1976) pp. 252-60 for Defoe's views on this subject. [BACK]

28. Ryder (1939) p. 310. [BACK]

29. Defoe (1722) (2) p. 6; for an interesting analysis of the stress caused by courtship problems, very often the result of parents, friends or employers forbidding marriage to loved ones, see MacDonald (1981) pp. 72-111. [BACK]

30. Tryon (1691) p. 452; Baxter (1673) p. 481; Ryder (1939) p. 224. [BACK]

31. S.27 (Pocock); S.281 (Melmoth); cf. S.146, 203, 228, 253, 265 for others in the sample who married their master's daughter and S.270 for Luke Meredith who married his master's grand-daughter. [BACK]

32. S.14, 37, 115, 77. [BACK]

33. Miège (1691) p. 262. [BACK]

34. Quotations from a defamation case, Fawden v. Wilkins, in GLRO DL/C/245 fo. 215. Large numbers of these cases were brought annually during our period, nearly always by women who had been called whore, harlot etc. in public. [BACK]

35. Dunton (1705) p. 48; Mason (1754) p. 17. [BACK]

36. This paragraph is based on the general impression gained from evidence in a number of court cases, mainly in GLRO DL/C/245-8. [BACK]

37. PRO C5/92/13; C5/594/22; Brown (1760) iii, 54; cf. Defoe on marriage broking in Review ix, 82. [BACK]

38. PRO C5/631/107; C5/436/151. [BACK]

39. For estimates of the return on land, see Clay (1974) and Allen (1988). There is a huge literature on upper-class marriage contracts; for a recent contribution with many references, see Outhwaite (1986). A settlement by jointure was made by a minimum of 30 of our sample; there may have been a few more amongst those whose wills have not been found but the total is unlikely to be more than 10 per cent of the sample. References to jointures can be found in wills, in memoranda of the Common Serjeants' Books and occasionally in inventories. S.250 (March); cf. S.304, 329, 354; PRO C5/ continue

      183/76; C5/417/25; the mercer Joshua Monger sold the lands which he had with his wife Rebecca as her portion and which were supposed to secure her jointure, 'by her consent'. He then provided in his will that the sale price of £420 'be taken out of the estate and bestowed and laid out by the executrix on the purchase of lands . . . to be settled on my wife for life' (S.67, PRO PROB 11/344 fo. 48). [BACK]

40. GHMS 12017 p. 23 (Fryer); S.57 (Ewens); cf. S.8 (marriage covenant £1000, estate £1216), S.346 (£2000, £1053); PRO C5/189/26 (Tandin); S.170 (Skrine). [BACK]

41. There were 18 men who had pre-contracted by bond in the sample; since the sum appears as a debt in the inventory, it is unlikely that any have been missed. For jointures, see note 39 above; Mandeville (1709) p. 112; Defoe (1722) p. 58. On separate estate, see p. 159. On pin-money, see Kenny (1879) pp. 116-17. It seems to have been quite common amongst the landed classes in our period. For an example of an agreement for the wife to will part of her dowry, see PRO C5/60/6, Berry v. Skinner, where John Berry received £700 portion with Thomasin Skinner 'but prior to marriage Thomasin got his agreement that £200 of her portion be hers to will as she thought fit'. Such agreements were often made by widows to protect the children of previous marriages. [BACK]

42. For a summary of the debate on this subject, see Outhwaite (1986). [BACK]

43. GHMS 10823/1 p. 42. For some examples of the effects of the high mortality of husbands and wives in their prime, see Brodsky (1986) pp. 137-40. [BACK]

44. PRO C5/181/84, Robinson v. Allen (Mackernes), C5/273/44, Tysoe v. Harman (Thomas Robinson). [BACK]

45. See note 1 above for references. [BACK]

46. On the legal position, see pp. 158-60; for the double standard, see Thomas 1959); for conduct books, see Powell (1917). [BACK]

47. Ryder (1939) p. 274. [BACK]

48. On divorce, see Macfarlane (1986) esp. pp. 227-33 and the references he cites; for examples of deeds of separation, see PRO C107/176, Walker v. Bevis and C110/147, Attorney-General v. Whittington, though both of these relate to gentry marriages. The main court dealing with divorce in London was the Consistory Court, whose records are kept in GLRO. The discussion of alimony is based on eight cases recorded in GLRO DL/C/98, covering the period 1696/97. The weekly payments were 4s., 5s., 6s., 6s.3d., 7s.6d., 10s., 10s., 10s. On alimony and maintenance, see Treatise (1732) pp. 171-2. [BACK]

49. Treatise (1732) pp. 91-2. [BACK]

50. GLRO DL/C/245 fo.93; Defoe (1724) pp. 6-7; GLRO DL/C/245 fo. 196. [BACK]

51. Particular references are not given for all the quotations in the rest of the chapter. They all come from GLRO DL/C/165 and /245-248. [BACK]