Gentility
Theprovincialwomenattheheart ofthisstudy hailed from familiesheadedbylesserlandedgentlemen,attornies,doctors,clerics, merchantsandmanufacturers.Asagrouptheydescribedthemselvesas ‘polite’,‘civil’,‘genteel’,‘well-bred’and‘polished’.Asbridestheyaimed to appear‘amiableandaccomplished’.Yettheydidnotpretend to be membersof‘thequality’,thepeopleof fashion,thecosmopolitanbeau mondeorthe ton,althoughtheywerenot aboveharpingontheirexalted acquaintancesamongthenobilityorthe antiquity oftheirlineagewhen theysawfit.Theirpossessionswerecontrived to haveagenteeleffect, ratherthan adazzling elegance,andtheirentertainmentsaimedatgenerousliberalitynotsumptuousmagnificence.Thepompandsplendourof acrestedcoach,sixhorsesandequipagewasbeyondtheirgrasp.Asa shorthanddescription, Ihavelabelledthisgroup‘thepolite’or‘the genteel’.Whilepolitemannerscouldbe practised at lowersocialdepths andamplifiedatgreaterheights,1 thislabelcapturesthemoderatesocial eminenceIwish to convey,combined with anemphasisonoutwardbehaviour,whilenotprejudginganindividual’ssourceofincome.This choiceof termsalso reflectsthefindingsof Paul Langfordonthecollaborationof‘thelandedgentryandtheupperelementsofbourgeois society...Whentheydidsotheyconstitutedthatcategoryoftheindisputably“polite”,whichin thelastanalysisformstheclosest thing to a governing classinGeorgianEngland.’2 Aboveall,Ihavedeployed these labelsbecause‘thepolite’and‘thegenteel’aretheonly termsconsistently usedbythewomenstudiedheretoconveytheirsocialprestige.Theyhad norecourse to avocabularyof‘upper’,‘middle’and‘lowerclass’.3
HoweverprominentthepoliteinGeorgiansocialobservations,this socialstratumhasnot beenwellservedbyrecenthistoricalinvestigation.
Oneelementofit,theEnglishlessergentry,has hardlybeenresearchedat allandisusuallywrittenoffas‘parishgentry’,orsmotheredunderthe convenientlyelasticlabel‘aristocracy’.4 Commercialandprofessional eliteshavereceivedmoreattention,buttoooftentheyaresimplyassumed to occupy aplaceinthe socialhierarchyonestepbelow amonolithic landedupperclass.5 Someoftheworkonthecommercialworldhas highlightedthemassivegentryrecruitment to prestigioustradesand theextentofintermarriagebetweenthelandedandmercantileelites. However,manysuchstudiesare designed to establishtheGeorgianorigins of acohesivenineteenth-centurymiddleclass andits cultural identity. Consequently,theyexhibitlittleinterestinexploringtheextentofsympathybetweentheupperechelonsofthatemergingmiddleclass andits landedneighbours.ThusJohnSmail’spainstakingsearchfortheorigins ofmiddle-classcultureinHalifaxleadshim to arguethatintheeighteenth centurythenorthernmiddlingsortdefinedthemselvesagainsttheneighbouringgentry:‘Onthewhole,althoughindividualswithinthisgroup mightaspire to becomegentlemen,themiddlingsortrecognizedthesocial superiorityofthegentryandtheprofoundculturalgulfthatseparated them fromthelandedelite.’Aprudentialbourgeoisieisperenniallycontrasted to anaristocracythatismad,badanddangerous to know. Thus,Davidoff andHall’saccountofmiddle-classformation inSuffolk, NorwichandBirmingham from 1780 to 1850 setsmuchstorebythe ‘oppositionalculture’of thelateeighteenth-centurymiddleclass,arguing thattheyforgedtheircollectiveidentityinconsciouscontrast to anaristocracythatisitselfcaricaturedasthoroughlyprofligate,indebted,licentiousanddissipated.Despitetheenormousnumbersoflessergentry, certainlywellover ten thousand familiesincontrast to thetwo to three hundredthatcomprisedthenobilityinthisperiod,theirroleinthisepic battleofcommercialversusaristocraticmoresisvirtuallynevermentioned. Byimplication,thelessergentryshouldbesubsumedintoone camportheother:eithertheyrepresentedthelesserechelonsofaristocracy,somehowsharingtheworld viewofnoble families with onehundred timestheirincome,ortheyshouldbeseenasruralrentierbourgeois. Asthingsstand,thelessergentryinhabitasocialno-man’sland,apparentlylyinglowwhile theshotsof aculturalwarwhizzedoverhead.6
Attheleveloftheparish,however,theimageof aprofoundculturalgulf yawning betweenthelocalelitesoflandandtrade bearslittleresemblance to the teaminginteractionsofthemarriagemarketandthedining-room. What followsisadetailedcasestudyofelitesocialcontactrootedinone particularareaforwhichrichrecordssurvive.Letus turn to themoors andvalleysofthePennine north;inparticular to theenormousparishof
Whalley,whichembracedthetownsofColne,BurnleyandClitheroe.7 Theland to thesouthofPendleHillwasknownforitspoorsoil,heavy rainfallandlong-established textilemanufactures.Itseconomywas heavilydependentonmakingclothlongbeforetheperiodcoveredbythis bookandwas to continuesolongafter. In thecourseoftheeighteenth centuryproductionexpandedandthe typesofclothproducedchanged radically.Thesechangeswere partlyaresponse to theintroductionofnew powermachinerythatisconventionallyassociated with the term IndustrialRevolution.Neverthless,before 1830 workinthearea’s textileindustriescontinued to beperformedmainlybyhand.Alargenumberof independentclothiersproducedwoollenclothinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies,but fromtheearlyeighteenthcenturytheproductionof woollenswasincreasinglysupersededbythemanufactureofworsteds undertheputting-outsystem.Theconstructionof aPiece Hall in 1775 was concreteproofofColne’ssuccessinworstedmarketing. In 1781 Colneand Rochdalewereconsideredmoreimportantmarketsforworstedcloththan Manchester.8 However, fromthe 1780scottonmanufacturingwasonthe ascendant.Themechanizationofcottonspinningmadeworkforanarmy ofhand-loomweavers.TheshiftwasrecognizedbyAikin, visitingColne in 1795:‘Thetrade formerlyconsistedinwoollenandworstedgoods, particularlyshalloons,calamancoesand tammies,butthecottontrade is oflateintroduced,thearticlesconsistingchieflyofcalicoesand dimities.’9 Bythe 1830stheareahadbecomewhatitwas to remainintothemidtwentiethcentury,thenorthernfrontieroftheLancashirecotton district. Foralltheireconomicbuoyancy,eighteenth-centuryColneandBurnley wereremote fromlargertownsandthemajornorth–southtrade routes. In 1750 theareahadno turnpikeroadswhatsoeverandtheinaccessibility ofthisLancashirefrontierwas aproverbialjoke.Allthiswasshortly to change.A turnpike trustwasestablishedin 1755 forthebuildingofanew roadbetweenBradfordandColne (knownastheBlueBellturnpike), transforming the treacherousjourneyoverthePennines,or‘thealps’as theywerelocallydubbed.By 1770 ColneandBurnleyhadbecomelocal nodesinthe turnpikenetwork, with improvedroads fromColne to Skipton,KeighleyandBradfordand fromBurnley to Halifax,Manchester andPreston.10 ANavigationActauthorizingthecuttingof theLeeds to Liverpoolcanalwas passedinthelate 1760s,butthecanaldidnotreach Colneuntil 1796 11 Theseimprovementsopenedupthearea to outsiders andincreasedthemobilityofnatives,althoughin 1824 Bainesstill regrettedthat‘thereisinthistractmuchfineromanticscenerywhich,asit isatadistance fromanyoftheprincipalroadsofthekingdomisless visitedthanitdeserves’.12 In themodern touristimagination,ofcourse,
1 PieceHall, Colne, Lancashire, 1950.Itopenedin 1775 asamarketplace forworsteds,though itwaslargelysupplantedbytheHalifaxPieceHall(1779)andtheriseof cottonmanufacturing. ThePieceHallalsofunctionedasthelocalassemblyroomsandhosted agalaseriesoforatorios andballsinAugust 1777.Itwasdemolishedin 1952.
2 EmmottHall,nearColne, Lancashire, c.1890.Thisrarephotographdepictsthehomeofthe gentryfamilyof Emmott. Alargehall,originallybuiltaround 1600,itsclassicalfrontagewas addedin 1737,withnewsashwindowsintroducedinthecrosswingsatthesametime.Itwas demolished in 1968.
theseblastedmoorswilleternallyrepresenttheouterreachesof‘Brontë country’.
If theparishofWhalleywasremote frompoliteresortsitwasnotin wantofpolitefamilies. Ahostofwell-established familiesinhabitedthe valleyoftheLancashireCalder;theirlastingmonumentsarethewealthof modestmansionsstillstandinginthevicinityofBurnleyandColne.Dispersedat two- or three-mileintervalsacrossthevalley’slowerslopes,most of thesegentryresidenceshadoriginallybeenbuiltinthesixteenthor seventeenthcenturies,sometimesbyprosperousyeomen,sometimesby thethensmallernumberoflocalgentry. In thecourseoftheeighteenth century fewentirelynewgentryhouseswereerected,butmostofthe gentry’sexistingresidencesweresubstantiallyrebuilt to incorporateupto-dateinteriorschemesandsymmetricalfrontages with someclassical detailing(seeplates 2, 6 and 8,forexample).13 With theirdynasticpretensions,dignified hallsandlandedestates,thelessergentryconstituted theenduringheartofpolitesocietyinnorth-eastLancashire;theywere wellacquainted with eachotherandfrequentlyintermarried.However, landwasnottheonlylitmus test ofpoliteness.Onequal terms with local lessergentrywereanumberofprofessionalsandtheir families.The doctorsWilliamStClaretheelderandWilliamStClaretheyounger,for example,actedasboth friendsandphysicians to thenortherngentry foroverfiftyyears.Thatclerics,lawyersanddoctorsshouldbe personae gratae inpolitesocietyis hardlysurprising,giventhatmanyofthemwere themselvessubstantiallandownersand thesonsofgentlemen. Indeed, manyprominentbarristersonthenortherncircuitwerenot onlythesons ofgentlemen,buttheirprincipalheirs.Inaddition,the personnelofelite societyextended to commercial families.Oftensuch familieswererelated to thelandedgentry,somethingwhichwasespeciallylikelyamongthesocalledgenteeltradessuchaswoollenmerchant,winemerchant,wholesale draperandsoon.Thus,localpolitesocietyincorporatedminorgentry, professionalandmercantile families;theirenmeshedrelationshipis perhapsthemoststriking featureof familyhistoryinthePennines.Indeed, many familieswereso‘hybrid’instatus,thatitseemsartificial to assign them asingleoccupationallabel.Letusconsiderindetailthecareersand contactsof threenorthern familieswhohaveleftcopiousrecords:the Parkers, theBarcroftsandtheHorrockses.
TheParkersofAlkincoatsexemplifythelinksbetweenthenorthern gentryandthe textiletrade.JohnParker(1695–1754)wasascionof theYorkshire gentry,whomadehiswayasaLondonlinen-draper,and marriedthedaughterofanEssexmerchant. In 1728 heinheritedthe Parkerestatethrough ahalf-brotherandsobecamemaster of Browsholme
3 ArthurDevis, TheParkerConversationPiece, 1757. EdwardParkerandhiswife, Barbara, néeFleming,areshownontheterrace atBrowsholmeHall,nearClitheroe.Thestables,horse andgroomtotherightofthepicture,alongwith EdwardParker’sspurs andtiltedhat,allallude tohissportinginterests.However,thelandscapeinthebackgroundowes more toClaudethan thetopographyoftheforestof Bowland.
5 (facingpagebottom)AlkincoatsHall,near Colne, 1896.ThislargePenninehouseonthe outskirtsofColne, Lancashire,wasbuiltintheseventeenthcentury,refrontedinthe 1720s or soonafterandmodernizedagaininthe 1750s. ElizabethParkercameheresomemonthsafterher marriagetoRobertParkerin 1751.Inhisownestimation,Alkincoatswas‘acomfortable ConvenientHousebutnotgrand’.Thehousewasdemolishedin 1958
4 BrowsholmeHall,nearClitheroe, 1808.Thougha Londonlinen-draper,JohnParkerinheritedthisYorkshireestatethrough ahalf-brotherin 1728.The Gentleman’sMagazine described thehouseasan‘oldmagnificentchateau,anextensiveandvenerablepile’.
HallintheWestRiding,close to theLancashireborder,andofsubstantial farmlandsworthalmostfivehundredpoundsinannualrent.14 Hisonly daughtermarriedhersecondcousinRobertParkerofAlkincoats(1720–58), andremovedthirteenmilesacrossthecountyborder to Alkincoatsin Lancashire.Robertwas hardlytheglitteringmatrimonialprizethatElizabeth’s familyhadhoped for,unable to supportherinthe‘splendour& elegance’theyhadenvisaged.15 Herrelativescomplainedabouthissmall fortune(theAlkincoatsestatecomprisedonly 160 acresandyieldeda comparativelymodest£290 perannuminrent16), arguing‘thataCoach& 6 waspreferable to adoubleHorse’.RobertParkerhimselfconceded to his bride,‘Ican’tmakealargejointure,keepacoach&deckyououtinpomp andsplendour’.Nevertheless,RobertParkerwasan acknowledgedgentlemanandcountyofficeholder,and,ashereasoned,‘weshallhavea sufficientcompetency,wch...willmakeusbreathin[the]world’.17 He initiatedrebuildingworkatAlkincoatsin 1751–2 inpreparationforhis bride’sresidence,intending,inhisownwords, to ‘makeit acomfortable Convenient Housebutnotgrand’.Judgingby friendlyreactions,hesucceededinhisaim, ElizabethParkerbeingteasedbyricher friendsthathers wouldbe a‘agood,thoughoddhouse’.Asherbestfriendremarked, she hadelected to ‘liveinanarrowCompass to passyourdays with theman youlove’.18
RobertParker’sprematuredeath in 1758 leftherawidowatthirtytwo, with threesmallsonsunderfive.Aftersevenyearsofwidowhood, however,ElizabethParkersensationallyeloped to GretnaGreen with JohnShackleton(1744–88)ofnearbyStoneEdge,Barrowford.Thislocal woollenmerchantwasanoutrageousseventeenyearsherjunior;twentyoneyearsold to herthirty-eight.ByheractionsElizabethforfeitedher brother’s societyforatleastsixyearsandwasbarred fromthe Browsholmethreshold. ThomasParker,thesonandheir,cameintothe estateuponhismajorityin 1775.Despite amootedcareerinthechurchor thearmy,he tookupnoprofession.Uponhismarriagein 1779 to the nineteen-year-oldheiressBettyParkerofNewtonHall,Yorkshire,his motherremoveddefinitively to JohnShackleton’snewlybuiltmansion, PastureHouseatBarrowford.Athisdeath in 1788 JohnShackleton’s will reveals asubstantiallandownerbequeathingnumerouscopyholdpropertiesintheLancashireandfreeholdlandsinthenearbyWestRiding. Althoughacreagesarenotrecorded,hehadatleast thirty-threetenants.19
ElizabethShackleton’syoungersons turned,liketheirgrandfather beforethem, to the textiletradesinLondon.Totheirmother’sdistress, theywerefound to lacktheintellectualcapacityforuniversityandthe Church. In 1770,agedfifteen,Johnwasboundasapprentice to adraperon
6 PastureHouse,nearColne, Lancashire, 1977.Thismansionwasbuiltforthemanufacturer JohnShackletonin 1777 intheheightofmodernfashion.ThehouseexhibitssomePalladian effects;thesemi-circularwindowsarethoughttoresemblethoseatChiswickHouse.
FleetStreet,althoughElizabethShackletonhadfirst to arrangethesaleof awood to raisethe fee.Twoyearslater, with yetmoredeftaccounting, Robinwasapprenticed to awholesalehosier,MrPlestowofBishopsgate, London. In May 1779 thetwobrotherssetuptogetherashosiersin partnership with MrPlestowamid ashowerofblessings fromtheir mother,butJohnParkerlater tookthenameofToulson, inorder to inheritproperty inSkipwith, tenmilessouthofYork, fromhismother’s cousinJaneWalton,née,Toulson. Heendedhisdaysasalanded gentleman.Thus,forgenerationstheland/trade‘boundary’wascrossed andrecrossedbyindividualsinthesame family.20
Bycontrast,thehistoryoftheBarcroftsofNoyna throwsmorelighton thelinksbetweenthegentryandtheprofessions –inthiscase,thearmy andthelaw–andalso onthefloatingstatusoftheunmarriedgentlewomaninlodgings.TheMissBarcroftsweretheoffspringoftheprominentbarristerJohnBarcroftofGisburnand theLancashireheiress ElizabethBarcroft.21 Attheir father’sdeath in 1782,thefiveMissBarcofts inheritedameagreone thousandpoundsbetweenthemandayounger
brother.Onesistermarried aColnelawyerandanother aColne gentleman,butthe threeremaininggirls nevermarried,vacillatingfor decadesbetweenlodgingsand family.By 1834,asspinstersandwidows, allthesisterswereagainlivingtogetherinmiddle-agedsisterlysocietyat ParkHouseinColne.22 TheMissBarcroftslostbothoftheirbrothers in the 1790s.Theheir,CaptainAmbroseWilliamBarcroft,perishedina shipwreckin 1795,leavinganinfantdaughterEllen,whowas rearedby herBarcroftauntsinColne. In 1816 theheiressEllenBarcroftmarrieda secondson,EdwardParker,whopractisedasasolicitorinSelby.In 1832 EdwardParkerinheritedAlkincoatsandBrowsholmethroughhiselder childlessbrotherandabandonedthelaw.23 Hereagain,thedistinction betweenthe gentlemanandtheprofessionalwas farfromclear.Towhat singlesocialcategoryshouldthis familybeassigned?
Thesocialminglingthatcharacterizedgenteelsocietyalso came to embracethe familiesofatleastsomeofthewealthier factory-mastersof thearea.TheHorrockscottondynasty hailed fromtheBoltonareain southernLancashire.JohnHorrocksbeganhiscareerin textilesasa masterputtingoutrawcotton to hand-spinnersinthevicinityof Bolton. (Quainttraditionhasitthatheemployedhis threeyoungersisterswinding yarnonpaltrypay, andwhentheystruckforbetter wageshebought them off with newsilkdresses.) In January 1791 herentedasmallwarehousein Prestonandbeganmanufacturingmuslin,leavinghiselderbrotherSamuel incontroloftheEdgeworthbusiness.Thereafter,hisPrestonenterprise developedveryrapidly.By 1798 hehaderectedsix factories,ahundred workmen’scottagesinNewPrestonandhadestablished aLondonoffice. Phenomenalsuccesscrownedhisefforts–thebusinessmadeaprofitof £55,000 in 1799 alone–enablinghim to enrichhiskinsmenwhomhe integratedintotheenterprise.Athisprematuredeath in 1804,attheageof thirty-six, John Horrocksleftanestateworth£150,000. 24 Backedbytheirgloriouswealth,theHorrocksessought to entrench themselvessociallyandpolitically. In 1796 JohnHorrocksunsuccessfully contestedLordStanley’sseatintheparliamentaryelectionofthatyear;in 1798 hebecameacaptainintheRoyalPrestonvolunteer force;in 1801 he establishedhisyoung familyatPenworthamLodge,hisspeciallycommissionedmansionoverlookingtheRibbleamileoutsidethetown;andin 1802,byvirtueofanelectoralpact with the WhigEarlofDerby,he achievedthestatusofMemberofParliament. In thesameyearhisbrother SamuelHorrocksbecameMayorofPreston.Traditionallyseen as the morestolidbrother,SamuelHorrocksneverthelessconsolidatedthebusiness,servedasMPforPreston from 1804 to 1826,anderecteda fashionableneo-classicalmansion inthe town to househislarge family.25 The
marriagesoftheHorrocksoffspringilluminatethesocialchoicesofthe ‘Cottontots’:John’ssonPeterabandonedbusinessandmarriedintothe Kentgentry.OfSamuel’sbrood,Sam,thesonandheir, followedcommercialconventionandmarriedthedaughterofhis father’sbusinesspartner. TheyoungersistersmovedintheouterorbitoftheLakePoets,and eventuallymarriedintotheprofessions.Theeldestdaughter,Eliza Horrocks,marriedintothecountygentry,wedding CharlesWhitakerof Simonstonein 1812 –anofficerandagentleman.Wellpleased with the match,SamuelHorrocksmadeasettlementof three thousandpoundsin hisdaughter’s favour,andWhitakerinstalledhisbrideatRoefield,a handsome townhouseinClitheroeonthebanksoftheRiverEdisford.26 Although,ina famous (and possiblyapocryphal)anecdote,oneprominent residentfoundPreston‘nolongerafittplaceforagentleman to livein’ whenJohnHorrockswasservedbeforehimatthefishmarket,the Horrocks familycould hardly claim to havebeenshunnedby asnobbish county,giventheirmarriagesandpoliticalsuccesses.27 If aculturalwar wasbeing waged,thenhalfthecountywasshamelesslyfraternizing with theenemy.
Relationsbetweenland,trade andtheprofessionswerenot,ofcourse, simplyamatterofintermarriage,butalso of dailysocialinteractions.A similarpatternofinterpenetrationemergesintheeverydaysocialworld revealed in diariesandletters.ElizabethShackleton’sdiariesrecordin fastidiousdetailher dailyencounters with friends,neighbours,business associates,socialinferiorsandkinoveranineteen-yearperiod.Toanalyse hersocialcontacts,twoyearshavebeenselected,documentedbyfive diaries.The threediariesfor 1773 revealElizabethShackleton’ssociallife whenmistressofAlkincoats,Colne,andthetwodiariesdevoted to 1780 illuminatehersocialcalendarwhenlivingatPastureHouse,Barrowford (seeTable 1,p. 394).28
Oneofthestriking featuresofElizabethShackleton’ssocialinteractions istheheavypreponderance ofher kin. Wellover athirdofsocialoccasions andexchangesinvolved familymembers.Kinwereparticularlyprominent atdinner-parties,ingift exchangesandin correspondence (almosthalfof allthelettersElizabethShackletonsentorreceivedwerefromor to her kin).Themajorityofcontacts with herkininvolvedhersons.29 Onlya tiny numberofdiaryentriesrecordcontacts with herbrotherandsister-in-law, EdwardandBarbaraParkerofBrowsholme,apatternexplainedby EdwardParker’sdisapprovalofhissister’ssecondmarriage,andthe resultingsocialpunishmentvisitedonherinparticular.30 GivenEdward Parker’schillytreatmentofhissister,theenhancedsignificanceofwider kinis hardlysurprising.OfElizabeth’swider kin, thephysician’swidow
AnnPelletmaintainedgreaterclaims to gentilitythanschoolmaster’s wife BessyRamsden,althoughbothwerethedaughtersofLondonmerchants andbothmarriedintotheprofessions.31 ButthemajorityofElizabeth Shackleton’sbloodkinbelonged to thegentrybothintheopinionofher contemporariesand by thestandardsofcurrenthistoricalinvestigation. Ofthesixteenindividualsrelated to ElizabethShackletonwhoencounteredherorcorresponded with herin 1773 and 1780, fourwereengagedin trade and threeassociated with theprofessions,whiletheremainingnine drewtheirincomeprincipally fromland.
GiventhebiastowardslandamongElizabethShackleton’s kinandtheir centralroleinhersociallife,itis hardlysurprisingthatwelloverathird ofallElizabethShackleton’ssocialencountersembracedatleastoneindividual fromthelandedgentry.However,evenwhenherkinareexcluded, thegentrystillfigureprominently.ElizabethShackleton’sentirecorpusof diaries and letters testify to(attheveryleast) anodding acquaintance with everyestablishedlanded familyinnorth-eastLancashire,thoughnotallof themregisterinthetwoyearsselected.Moreover,confirminggenteel statusforspinstersandwidowsisdifficult,soa totaloftwenty familiesis almostcertainlyanunderestimateofElizabethShackleton’sgentry frienships.Ofcourse, asnapshotoftwoyears,whileshowingwhere Elizabeth’s warmestrelationshipslay,willnotofits naturedemonstrate thebreadthofheracquaintance,butbyrankinggentry familiesaccording to the frequencyofcontact,thekeyplayersinElizabethShackleton’s sociallifeemerge.Herclosecircle was made up of well-established neighbouring families,suchasthereputableWaltonsofMarsdenHallandthe aspiring CunliffesofWycoller;andYorkshirefamiliessuchasthe foxhuntingWiglesworthsofTownheadandtheelegantListersofGisburn Park.Heroutercircleincludedgrandcounty familiesliketheTownleysof RoyleandtheStarkiesofHuntroyde, with whomsheenjoyedonlyvery occasionalpersonalcontact,althoughhersonswereregularlyinvited to theirdinner-tables.32 Butwhatplacedidsuch familiesoccupyinlanded societyasawhole?Clearly,theyalllacked titles. (The Listerswere ennobledin 1794,afterherdeath,as aconsequenceofthepolitical manoeuvringsofthePortlandWhigs.) ElizabethShackletonwasnoton visitingterms with noble families, noteven with theholdersoflesser titles suchasknightsorbaronets.Thisabsencemayhavebeena functionof locale,asbaronetswerethinonthegroundinnorth-eastLancashire,but italso reflectsonherwealthandstatus.Progressivedownwardmobility throughbothhermarriagesdistancedher fromherbrotherEdwardParker ofBrowsholmeandhisexaltedassociates.Astheheirof‘atrulyancient andrespectable family’livinginan‘oldmagnificentchateau,anextensive
andvenerablepile’,asthe Gentleman’s Magazine eulogized,Edward Parkerenjoyedgreatstandinginthewidercountyandthenorth,aswellas inhisimmediateneighbourhood.Hemarriedthedaughterofabaronet,‘a prudentchoice... to keepupthedignityofhis familywhich fewinthis GiddyAgethinks of’,andwas thusrelatedinthe femaleline to the nobilityofYorkshire,WestmorelandandCheshire.BothEdward ParkerandhissonJohnwerelistedontheCommissionofthePeace(the officialregister of eligiblemen fromwhichthemagistracywasdrawn) fortheWestRidingofYorkshire,whileJohnParkerbecameMPfor Clitheroein 1780.EdwardParker’swascertainlythemilieuofthegreater gentry,whilehissister’ssocialhorizonswere,bycomparison,decidedly parochial.33
Nevertheless, most ofthegentlemenofElizabethShackleton’s acquaintanceheldsomecountyoffice.Thirteenofthetwentygentryhouseholds, outsideher kin,whogracedthe pagesofhersocialcalendarintheyears 1773 and 1780,hadmenfolklistedontheCommissionsofthePeacefor Lancashire,or Yorkshire,orboth.Theminimum propertyqualification forthisofficewaslandedproperty worthatleastahundredpoundsper annum,thebasic thresholdofgentrystatusaccording to RobertWalpole inpoliticaldebatein 1732. 34 Howeveronlysixof these families,the Butlers,Claytons,Ferrands,Pattens,TownleysandWaltons,produceda Deputy-Lieutenantfortheircounty,anofficewhichcarriedthehigher property qualificationoftwohundredpoundsperannumandgreater socialprestige,andagainonlysixofthe families,theClaytons,Starkies, Townleys,Pattens,WaltonsandParkersofCuerdon,boastedanofficerin themilitia.35 Similarly,thosewhowereregisteredashavingfiveormore maleservantsintheservant taxreturnsfor 1780 weredrawn fromthe samegroupofprominentcounty families:theListers,Claytons, Starkies, Townleys,Pattens, WaltonsandParkersofCuerdon.Theremainderof ElizabethShackleton’sgentryacquaintancewere taxedononlyacouple ofservants,orescapedthe taxaltogether–afullsevenhouseholdsevaded thecommissioner.36 AgoodnumberofElizabethShackleton’sgentrycircle,indeedmanyofthose to whomshewasclosest, fellbelow themore demanding thresholds ofgentrysubstance.
Alessexclusivemeansofgauging theminimum wealth andstatus of these familiesisaffordedbytherecordsoftheBradford to Colne(Blue Bell) turnpike from 1755 to 1823.Thebasicqualificationfor aBlueBell trusteewasthepossessionoflandworthatleastahundredpoundsper annum.Twelveofthetwentygentry familieswhoassociated with ElizabethShackletonin 1773 and 1780 servedas trustees.37 Thus,iftherecords oftheCommissionofthePeaceandthe turnpikeareusedincombination,
7 CarrHall,near Burnley, Lancashire.Thehousewasthepropertyofthe Townleys,butcametotheClaytonsby marriagein 1755.TheClaytonsbelonged tothecountygentry,providingdeputy-lieutenantsandmilitiaofficersforLancashireandbeingregisteredashavingfivemaleservantsintheservanttaxreturns for 1780.Theywerewealthyenoughtodecampto BathfortheSeason.Carrwas demolishedthiscentury.
virtuallyevery familyinElizabethShackleton’snetworkisencountered, confirmingthatmostofhergenteel friendswereworthatleast ahundred poundsperannum.38 Althoughsheregularlyencounteredthose families whoeasilypassedthe higherproperty qualificationforDeputy-Lieutenant,shewasnotonintimate terms with them.Therefore,whileclearlyin contact with theprincipalcounty families,herinnercirclewasmadeupof locallessergentry.
Moving fromthose familieswholivedprincipallyonrents, 18 percent ofthesocialinteractionsElizabethShackletonrecordedinherdiaries (familymembersexcepted)involved amanwhopractised aprofession, orhis kin.39 (Inonlyonecase,thatofaBradford teacher‘Schoolmistress Wells’,dowemeetaprofessionalwoman.)However,itisimportant to rememberthat thereisconsiderableoverlapinpersonnelbetweenthe gentryandprofessionalcategories.Someindividualscould be claimedby eithercamp–anunremarkable factgiventheporosityoftheboundary
betweengentryandprofessionals.40 Eliminatingthoseindividualswhohad qualifiedinaprofession,butdidnotpractise,itemergesthatElizabeth Shackletoninteracted with fourteenprofessional familiesin 1773 and 1780.Shehadthemostcontact with thebarristerJohnBarcroftof ClitheroeCastle. In thiscase,however,theintensityofinteractionwasa consequenceof familybusinessdealingsratherthansimple friendship. In 1773 JohnBarcroftadvisedtheParker familyonatleastthirty-fouroccasions,inletters,overdinnerandduringovernightvisits,ontheciviland legalramificationsofacomplicatedlandpurchase.Butin 1780, with the salecompleted,heandhis wife metElizabethonlyonce.Otherprofessionalssheencounteredhadmoreambiguousclaims to gentility. She entertainedandcorresponded with thelawyerShawsofLondonand Colne,astreamofcurateswhoofficiatedatColneParishchurch,the SlaidburnandBarrowfordschoolmasters,and threelocaldoctorsand theirwives.41
Overathird(229)ofallthenon-kinexchangesrecordedbyElizabeth Shackletoninvolvedanindividualwhowasintrade.Evenwhenbusiness letters,callsandmeetingsarestrippedout, thereremain 190 exchanges with menandwomenwhoderivedtheirprincipalincome fromcommercialactivity.However,asthecaseofthelawyerJohnBarcrofthasalready indicated, it isimportant to remembertheextent to whichElizabeth Shackleton’sencounterswithallsocialgroupshad a‘business’element. In practice,offeringavisitingprofessionalsomerefreshment (aswellasa fee) inreturnforhisadvice,differedlittle fromthehospitalitylavishedonthe millinerandmantua-maker.Similarly,noteswritten to localgentlewomen requestinginformationabouttheavailability,skillsand termsof fresh servantshadasmuchofabusinesspurposeasanyletterwritten to a Londonmerchantconcerningthefineprintofan apprenticeship. Nevertheless,inthecaseoftradespeople,anattempthasbeenmadehere to differentiateintrinsicallysocialcorrespondence from businessletters,and ‘quintessentialhospitality’ fromthat whichaccompaniedanimmediate financialtransaction,inaneffort to establishasunambiguouslyaspossibletheparticipationofcommercial familiesinpolitesociability.
Nearlyathirdofallthe‘quintessentialhospitality’offeredbyElizabeth ShackletonatbothAlkincoats and PastureHouseincorporatedtradespeople,42 but,ofcourse,MrsShackletondidnotconsiderherself to beon termsofequality with everybodyshehad totea,supperanddinner.She encounteredtheretailerBettyHartleyonover twenty-twooccasionsin twoyears,more timesthanshemetorheard frommanyofthegentlewomenofheracquaintance.Yetinthediariesthatrecord theseoccasions, Bettywasoftendesignated‘BettyHartleyShopkeeper’inarathersmug
acknowledgementonElizabethShackleton’spartthathospitalitywas no naturalenemyofhierarchy.Still, therewasanimportantsocialdifference betweenaretailerwhoreceived teaandcondescensionandagenteel wholesalerwhometElizabethShackletonon termsofnearequality,ifnot superiority. Adistinctionbetween‘thegenteelTrades,allthosewhich requirelargeCapitals’and‘thecommonTrades’hadpowerfulpurchase throughouttheperiod.43 Drawing adistinctionbetweenupperandlesser trades,itemergesthatbankers,merchants,manufacturersandthelike accountedforoverhalfofMrsShackleton’ssocialencounters with tradespeople,whileretailersandcraftspeoplewereinvolvedinonly athirdof suchinteractions.44 Nevertheless,thisanalysisundoubtedlyunderestimatesthenumberofmerchantsandmanufacturersonvisiting terms with thegentry,not to mentionthenumberofgentlemanwhocarriedonan enterprisewhichhasleftnohistoricalrecord.Outsidethebig towns, whichpublisheddirectoriesoftradesmen,smallermerchantsandmanufacturersarenotoriouslyhard to identify.
In 1773 and 1780 ElizabethShackleton’sdiariesrevealshehaddealings with atleastsixteen families (outsideher kin) engagedinuppertrades.45 Nearlyhalfofalluppertrade contactslistedinthediariesinvolved onecommercialclan:theBulcocksofBishopsgateandBoroughHigh Street,London,andColne,Lancashire.This familyrana tailoringbusinessinColneandanotherbranchofthe familyoperatedaswholesale haberdashersat threeoutletsinLondon.46 TheysoldJohnShackleton’s callimancoesandhelpedplaceout theParkerboysasapprentices;in returnJohnandRobinParker tookonayoungerBulcockastheirown apprentice,andElizabethShackletonsupervisedtheeducationofthe youngNancyBulcockwhobecameamilliner (and ultimatelymarrieda Londonhatter). In similar fashion,practicalconsiderationsgovernedthe measuredfriendshipwhichgrewupbetweenElizabethShackletonandthe textilewholesalers to whomhersons wereapprenticed:thehosierMr PlestowofBishopsgate,London,andthedraperMrBromeofFleetStreet, London.47 Oftheuppertradespeoplecloser to home,manywereeverybit aswealthyasthelocalgentryandmetElizabeth Shackletonon termsof socialequality,ifnotfinancialsuperiority.TheLeachesofWest Riddlesden Hall,Yorkshire,forinstance,wererichand sociallyprominent. The merchant ThomasLeachownedextensiveestatesintheWest Riding,minedandshippedcoal,andopenedBradford’sfirst bank in 1777. 48 TheWilkinsonsofMaizeHill,London,andBroadBank,Colne, wereable to bid£23,000 for alocal farmandkept ahandsomecarriage–somethingmany of ElizabethShackleton’slanded friendswereunable to do.Moreover,ofthelocalcommercial familiesElizabethShackletonregu-
larlyencountered,sevenproducedoneor more menwhometthehundred poundsperannumproperty qualification to becometrusteesoftheColne to Bradford turnpike.49
In additionto politenetworksofgentry,professionalandgreatercommercial families,ElizabethShackletonwasintegratedintoneighbourhood networkswhichincorporated farmers,artisans andlabourers,manyof whomwereher tenants.Thatthiswassoshouldbenosurprise.Small farmersandproducerssuppliedherintermittently with foodstuffsand household goods,andlocallabourersandcraftsmenfoundoccasional employmentinherhouseandtheestate. In addition,thelocalcommunity purchasedherbutterandrabiesmedicine.Mostofthecommunitycould expect to receivesomebasichospitalityunderElizabethShackleton’sroof, when billsandrentswerepaid,workdelivered,grievancesaired,patronagedispensedandsoon.As aresult, 11 percentofallElizabeth Shackleton’srecordedinteractions with non-kininvolvedaservant,a tenant, afarmer, aworkeror some combinationofthefour,although manyofherencounters with thepoorersortinherlocalitymayhavegone unrecorded.
TheplaceElizabethShackletonheldatthejunction ofvariousnetworks is thrownintoreliefwhenhersocialinteractionsareanalysedbyregion (seeTable 1,p. 394). Sheparticipatedinthesociallifeofherimmediate neighbourhood,engaging,asseen, with thosewhoweremanifestlyher socialinferiorsin fulfilmentoftheneedsandresponsibilitiesof alocal landowner.She socialized with many Lancashiremerchantsandprofessionals,butknew fewersuch families fromoverthePennines.Greater contactwasmaintained with mercantileandprofessional familiesinthe metropolis,althoughinmostcases theselinkswereafunction ofpreexistinglocalconnectionsand kinship. Atthesame time,however,she participatedinagentrynetworkwhichbridgedthePennines,yetthis networkwasessentiallynorthernandprovincial.ElizabethShackleton enjoyednosocialrelationships with theLondon-basedelite,and playedno roleinelitecultureat anational level.
Moving fromElizabethShackleton to theothermajorgentlewomen inthisstudy,ananalysisofsocialinteractionofequivalentprecisionis thwartedbythelackofdocumentation.Theonlymeansofestablishing thesocialnetworksofElizaWhitakerandtheBarcroftsistersisthrough theirsurvivingcorrespondence.AsTable 2 (p. 395)makesclear,manuscriptlettersare hardlyaperfectlydesignedsource.BycomparingElizabethShackleton’scorrespondencenetworkasrevealedinthediaries with thatwhichcanbereconstructedfromhersurvivinglettersalone,it appearsthatthosemanuscriptletterswhichsurvivedonotnecessarily
representthefullspreadofacorrespondence.Letters from kin, forexample,areover-representedinthearchives,althoughthisis hardlysurprising, giventhatmost familycollectionsweresortedbydescendantsforstorage inoldchestsanddustyattics.Nevertheless,theproportionsarenotsufficientlydivergent to renderananalysisofsocialcontactsbasedonsurvivingcorrespondenceentirelymeaningless.Handled with sufficientcaution, statisticsbasedonsurvivingletterscan formthebasisofsomesuggestive comparisons.
Table 2 summarizesthesocialcharacteristicsofthosecorrespondents whocanbeidentified fromthesurvivinglettersofElizabethShackleton, ElizaWhitakerandtheBarcroftsisters.Theproportionofgentrycorrespondents is broadlysimilarineachcase,asistheproportionofletterwritingkin.Significant contrastsemergein three areas:thesocialprofileof non-gentrycorrespondents,theresidenceofallcorrespondentsandtheir sex.Theevidenceofthesurvivinglettersisatitsmostproblematicwhere socialprofileisconcerned,becauseofthelargeproportionofcorrespondentsintheWhitakerandBarcroftnetworksforwhomreliablestatus informationhasnotbeen found.Nevertheless,thehighproportionof uppertradespeopleintheWhitakernetworkisstrikingandsignificant.50 In thelightofElizaWhitaker’s own familybackgroundin manufacturing, thishighproportionisnotsurprising. In theBarcroftnetwork,onthe otherhand,theproportionofcorrespondentsintrade appearsrather low.Yetthisisprobablyareflectionofthedifficultyofidentifyingsmaller merchants and manufacturersinruralareas.
TheParker,BarcroftandWhitakernetworksvariedingeographical scope.TheParkernetworknaturallystretchedintotheWestRiding ofYorkshire,sincethemajorityofElizabethShackleton’skinresided justovertheborder.Indeed,muchParkerproperty wasscatteredabout CraveninYorkshire andJohnShackleton’s textiledealing tookhim to theYorkshire worsted towns.TheParker’sLondonlinkshavealready beenexplained.ThepreponderanceofYorkshire correspondentsinthe Barcroftnetwork is unremarkablein afamily fromtheeastLancashire border.However,theYorkshire biaswasreinforcedbythe factthatthe MissBarcroftsresidedinOtley,justnorthofLeeds,forsomeyears.The Whitakernetworkoffersaregionalcontrast,being drawnmostheavily from Lancashireitself,andparticularly fromPreston,BoltonandLiverpool. In social terms,ElizaWhitakerwasoriented to thewestandsouth, unlikemostofherimmediateneighbourswholookedeastintotheWest Riding ofYorkshire.Or, fromanotherperspective,theParkerand Barcroftnetworkscouldbesaid to reflectthegeographyoftheworsted industry,while theWhitakernetworkreflectedthatofcotton.Undoubt-
edly,ElizaWhitaker’s Prestonupbringing andBoltonantecedentsexplainsthebiastowardscentralandsouthLancashire.Therewasalso a familypresenceandcompanyofficeinLondon,whichaccountsforher metropolitanletters.ThelinksbetweenElizaWhitaker and herscattered correspondentsinthesouthofEnglandaremoremysterious. It ispossible that thesewomenwereLancastrianbyoriginandthattheemergenceofa nationalmarriagemarketaccountsforthediaspora.Anotherplausible explanationisthat thesewomenmetataboarding schoolwhichdrew fromanationalpool.51
Individualvariationsnotwithstanding,someconcludinggeneralizations canbemade.All thesewomenweremembersofthelessergentry (atleast bymarriage),allwereintimate with thesameLancashire familiesandall wereenmeshedin atissueof friendshipswhichembracedtheuppertrades andprofessionals.ToooftenthemanuscriptsofGeorgiancommercial familieshavebeenstudiedwithoutreference to thesurvivingrecordsof theirlandedneighbours.Byreadingthepersonalpapersofcommercial familiesinconjunction with thoseofthelandedgentry,aneglectedaspect ofthepyramidoflocalsocietyisrevealed. In socialandadministrative terms,eastLancashirewasdominatedbylandedgentry,politeprofessionalandgreatercommercial families–alocalelitewhoexhibitedconsiderablecohesion.Theirincomes,whetherinrents, feesorprofits,were broadlycomparable.Themenfolkof these families tended to beeducated atnortherngrammarschools,notsouthernpublicschools,particularly sointheearlytomid-eighteenthcentury.52 Theyservedtogetheronlocal turnpikecommissionsandwerelistedsidebysideontheCommissionsof thePeaceforLancashireandYorkshire. In additionto theirsharedrolein administration,landedgentlemen,professionalgentlemenandgentlemen merchantsstoodshoulder to shoulderonthegrousemoorandriverbank. Theycombined forhearty,exclusivelymalemeals,notablypreexpeditionarybreakfastsand formaldinnersatlocalinns.Meanwhile, theirwivesexchangedinformationonprintandpolitics,localnews,servants,pricesand fashions,recipesandremedies,child-bearingandchildrearing.Whole familiesencounteredeachotheratdinner-partiesandate offsimilarmahoganydining-tables–mostofthembespoke fromthesame risingfirmofcraftsmen, GillowsofLancaster.53 These familiesemployed abevyof femaleservants,yetmostoftheirhouseholdsweresufficiently unassuming to escapethe taxonmaleservantsleviedin 1780.Allwere mobileonhorseback,byone-or two-horsechaise,orbyhiredpost-chaise, for to haveone’smovementsdependentuponthewhimofotherswas anathema to respectable independence,or,asone anxious motherputitin 1731,‘maylooklowintheeyeoftheworld’.Nevertheless, fewgenteel
familiescouldaffordthegreatstatussymbolofacrestedcoachandsix horses –thepossessionofwhichwas auniversalshorthandforworldly wealthandsocialprestige.54 Nordidgenteel familiesexpect to decamp to LondonfortheSeason.
Intellectualsympathyacrosstheelitewas pronounced.Establishment prejudice,WhigandTory,andunenthusiasticAnglicanismiseverywhere apparent.Nevertheless,bothpoliteDissenters,suchasthegayQuakers andgenteelMethodistscouldbeabsorbedintotheelite,sincethemost significantreligious faultline inthecountyranbetweenProtestantsand Catholics,notbetweenthedifferentbrandsofProtestantism.Mrs Shackleton,forinstance,saw asmatteringofhercircleembrace Methodisminthe 1770s,andalthoughshewas far fromimpressed with thegrowthofthe‘methodisticaltribe’and thoughtitimprudentforher sonJohn to marrytheMethodistMissDawson,shedidnotcutoffsocial contact.Moreover,sheregularlyentertainedtheEcroydsofEdgeEnd,a prominentQuaker familyinvolvedinthe textile trade.Bycontrast,two localgentry families with whomElizabethShackletonhadvirtuallyno contactweretheTempestsofnearbyBroughtonandtheTownleysof Townley,bothofwhomwereCatholic.Indeed,ofthelattershesniped in 1779,‘MrTownleyofTownleyraising 500 men tofight thecombined fleets.WillaRomanCatholick fight forEnglandorFrance?’55 Faced with acommonenemy,Anglicansand wealthyDissenterscoulduniteinthe nameofProtestantgentility.
Ofcoursethislocalelitedid notexistin avacuum.Gentryandprofessionalswereoftenlinkedbybloodandfriendship to thesupremecounty families;manycommercialandgentry familieshadrelativesstruggling inlessertrades.Allof these factorsled to minutediscriminationwithinthe localeliteitself –bytheirassociationsweretheyknown –but snobberywasnot apowerfulenoughsolvent to separateintodistinctlanded, professionalandcommercial fractions familieswhohadsomuchelsein common.However,wasthesocialcohesionoflanded,professionaland commercial familiespeculiar to north-eastLancashire?Afterall,theparishofWhalleyisnotEngland.Differentsocialrelationsmayhaveprevailedinareaswithoutalargelessergentrypresence,alonghistoryof manufacturing,or with adifferentreligioushistory. Yetbecause few historians haveconcernedthemselves with thelessergentry,thecase studieswhichwouldsettletheissuearescarce.Thisisnot to suggest,on theotherhand,thatnorth-eastLancashirewasaberrational.Far fromit. OneofthedistinctivecharacteristicsofEnglishsocialstructureaccording to eighteenth-centuryforeigntravellerswastheextraordinaryinterpenetrationoflandandtrade.DeSaussurenotedin 1727,‘inEnglandcom-
merce is not looked down upon as being derogatory, as it is in France and Germany.Here menofgood familyandevenofrankmaybecomemerchantswithoutlosingcaste.Ihaveheardofyoungersonsofpeers,whose familieshavebeenreduced to poverty throughthehabitsofextravagance anddissipationofanelderson,retrievethe fallenfortunesoftheirhouse bybecomingmerchants...’56 Moreover,culturalhomogeneityhas beenstressedbymanyeighteenth-centuryhistorians,notablythose unhamperedby apriorcommitment to ataleofVictorianmiddle-class emergence.
FromtheRestoration,findsR.G.Wilson,themerchantoligarchyin Leedshadmoreincommonin termsofsociallife with Yorkshire gentry than with humblerLeedsclothiers.Merchants enjoyed asimilarincome to thelessergentry,andhadacomparable tasteforluxurygoodsand fashions:
Therewasauniformityofupper-class tasteanddesigninGeorgian England,whichsavedtherich fromthecensuresofvulgarity thatwere laterlevelledagainsttheleadersofthenewindustrialsociety.Therewas nodivisionbetweennorthandsouth,noclashbetweenthegentilityof thearistocracyandthebarbarityofurbansociety...Before 1780 there wasonepatternofliving,thatmanifestedbythearistocracy.
Thisstyleoflivingsetthegentlemenmerchantsapart fromtheself-made inthetown,since‘thebarrierwasnotoneofwealthbutofsocial form’.57 Many achieved‘acountrylifeinbusiness’onthenorthernfringesofthe town,and ahealthyproportionsanktheirprofitsin acountryestate and setaboutfounding alandeddynasty,thatbeing thepeakofmerchant ambition,according to Wilson. Manyfactors, therefore,easedtheintegration oflessergentryandmercantilesociety:commonbusinessventures (transportandmining),theexchangeoffinancialservices, asharedrolein countyadministrationandeconomic tiesthatwereconsolidatedbyintermarriage.Thissocialandculturalintegrationcanbefoundelsewhereif thesearchismade.EvenJohnSmailconcedes(ratherat odds with his overall thesis)that‘theevidence fromHalifaxamplyconfirmsthatthe boundary betweenthecommercialandprofessionalelitesandlanded societywasnotveryclear’.AtleastsomemembersoftheHalifaxcommercialelitesupped,rodeandintermarried with leadingcounty families.58
Asimilarstorycouldbetold furtherafield.Thepotentiallylivelysocial intercourseofcommercial,professionalandlandedelitesineighteenth andearlynineteenth-centuryNottinghamisdemonstratedbythediaryof AbigailFrostGawthern(1757–1822), thedaughterofagrocerandthe wife ofNottinghamwhite-leadmanufacturer.Afterherhusband’sdeath in
1791,Gawthernmanagedtheworksuntil 1808,whenitwassoldoff,and administered considerableproperty inthe townandsurroundingcountryside.Herdaughtermarriedacaptaininthe 100th RegimentofFootin 1812.OfGawthern’ssocialposition,AdrianHenstockconcludes, Hercircleofrelativesand friendsembracedmembersofallclasses from the titled families,thecountygentry,theclergyandvisitingarmy officers, to theattorneysandrespectable tradesmen,allofwhomconstitutedNottinghamSocietyin thisperiodandwhoseboundarieswere oftenfluid. In herlaterlife,AbigailGawthernwasbothaNottingham manufacturerandacountylandowner. 59
Thecomparative inclusivenessofpolitesocietyin theprovincialsouth isrevealedbythediariesofJamesOakes,oneofthewealthiestmanufacturersandbankersinBuryStEdmunds,Suffolk. Throughhismother, Oakeswasrelated to theSuffolkgentryand,throughhis father, to wealthy cottonmerchantsanddyers,whosesonswentontobecomebarristersin London.Oakes’s sistersmarriedprosperousLiverpoolmerchantsand whenhevisitedLiverpoolandManchester,hewasentertainedbyboth mercantileelitesandnortherngentry.LikeotherprominentmeninBury, Oakescouldclaimacommonculturalbackground with thegentry;he belonged to thesameclubsandlibraries,pursued asimilarinterest in agricultureandinventions,paintingandarchitecture,entertainedasliberallyandenjoyedthesamepublicassembliesandprivateparties.Oakes andhisilkalso sharedtheburdenandprestigeoflocaladministration with theneighbouringgentryandaristocracy:heservedasCountyTreasurer, Receiver-GeneraloftheLandTax,Deputy-Lieutenant,Justiceofthe Peaceandas aregularmemberoftheGrandJury. Allofwhichleadshis editorJaneFiske to conclude,‘Burysocietywascomparativelyopen. Therewasnodiscerniblelinebetweenurbanandcountrygentry.’Onthe otherhand,‘itwasa finelygradedsocietyinwhichmenwereveryconsciousofstatus.... [and]Oakesalwaysmadeadistinctionbetweengentlemeninwhichheincludedhimself,andthemiddlingortrading sortand thelowerorders.’60 Thus,again,thecrucialsocialdividewasseen to run betweengenteelcommerceandretailtrade,betweenthepoliteandthe vulgar,notbetweenlandandtrade assuch.
NorisitlikelythatBurywasanoasisofsocialminglinginanotherwise snobbishsouth-easternwaste,givenR.G.Wilson’srecentresearchonthe uniformityofpolite tasteincommercialNorwichandgentryNorfolk.61 By 1700 inNorthamptonshire,AlanEveritt tellsus,themajorityofyounger sons fromgentry familiesturned to theChurchor to trade inthemetropolis, whiledaughtersweremorelikely to marryaLondonmerchantthanalocal
gentleman.62 OnfinallyreachingLondon,confirmingevidencecanbefound amongstthe papersofthepatriciate.NicholasRogers’saccountofthe‘big bourgeoisie’inHanoverianLondon,stressestheirsocialconfidenceandthe politeculturetheycomplacentlyshared with thegentry.Theyshouldnotbe seenasdesperatelyemulativeofthelandedaristocracyhesuggests,rather assecurepossessorsofurbangentility:‘Refinementwasnot theexclusive preserveoflandedculture.Merchantsemployed fashionablearchitects, portraitartistsandstatuaries;rubbedshoulders with thegentryatthelocal assemblyroomsandspas; joinedthemattheracesandthehunt;and invited them to shareintheannualroundofcivicconvivialities.’63
Thesocialcohesionoflanded,professionalandgentry familieswasnot necessarilytheuniversalexperience,butitwas neverthelesswidespreadin theeighteenthandearlynineteenthcenturies.Ofcourse,thisengagement wasnotwithoutits tensions.Satiresdisparagingtheaspirationsandpretensionsoftradingfamiliescirculatedwidely,and apoliticallanguagethat characterizedlandandcommerceasenemieswascertainlyavailable, although its popularity fluctuated.64 There were obviously instances when politicalconflictswerealignedalongaland/tradedivide,but thesewere
8 StandenHall,Clitheroe,Yorkshire.Theausterelyelegantseat ofSerjeantJohn Aspinall,agentlemanbarristeronthenortherncircuit,whoactedagainstthe interestsoftheParkersofBrowsholmeandthe ListersofGisburneParkinthe disputedClitheroeelectionof 1781. ElizabethShackletonsuspectedhehadtaken abribeto‘enablehimto make aPorticooradd aVenetianwindowtotheBeauties ofStanden’.
relatively fewinthe mid-eighteenthcentury,whensocialcommentators oftenemphasizedthesharedinterestsofthecomfortablyoff.AsBob Harrisreportsinaslightlydifferentcontext,‘In 1753,theessay-paperthe Protester definedthe“middleranks”asthe“Gentry,theLiberalProfessionsandthewholemercantile Interest”.WilliamBeckford’soften-quoted definitionofthe“middlingpeopleofEngland”it is worthrecalling, includedcountrygentlemenandyeomen,aswellasmanufacturersand merchants.’65 Undoubtedlythepolitical tensionsbetweenland andcommerceincreasedtowardstheendoftheeighteenthcentury,anditis possiblethatmanufacturers,unlikerentiersandfinanciers,becameprogressively frozenoutofland-basedpolitesocietyasthenineteenthcentury advanced.Indeed,itisWilson’scontentionthatwhiletheYorkshire elite couldeasilyabsorbgreatermerchantsintheeighteenthcentury,itdrew thelineatmanufacturersinthenineteenth.Certainly, aliterarydistinction betweengenteelmerchantsandvulgarmanufacturershadpopularcurrency throughoutthe period.ThecommentatorandclericJosiahTucker, forexample,distinguishedin 1757 between‘farmers,freeholders,tradesmenandmanufacturersinmiddlinglifeand...wholesaledealers,merchantsandallpersonsoflandedestates...ingenteellife’.Meanwhile, novelistssympathetic to trade madeheroesofmerchantsattheexpenseof newmanufacturers.Nevertheless,theexperienceof thePrestoncotton manufacturersJohnandSamuelHorrocks,whosechildrenmarriedinto clericalandDomesday families,suggeststhecontinuedinclusivenessof Lancashirehighsocietyinthe 1810sand 1820sandbeyond,a feature whichhasbeenremarkedbyotherstudiesofthecounty.66
It hasbeencustomary to imaginethegentry,the professions and the uppertradesasdistinctstrataofthesocialhierarchy. It makesmoresense, however, to seeeachasathreadinthecomplicated textureofgenteel society–awoven fabricoranintricatecobwebbeing moreexactmetaphors to conjuresocialstructureandsocialrelationsintheprovinces. In parochial terms,the lessergentry,thegenteeltradesandtherespectableold professional familiesconstitutedthelocalelite. In national terms,contemporaries thoughtofthemasthepolite,below thequality,butoccupyinga comfortableeminence fromwhich to patronizethevulgar.Thesewerethe womenwho,inElizaHaywood’sunderstanding,werenot ‘placedsohigh as to havetheiractionsabovetheReachofScandal’,butthose‘whohave Reputations to lose,andwhoarenotaltogethersoindependent,asnot to haveittheirInterest to be thoughtwellofbytheWorld’.Theybelonged to ‘theLittleGentry’,whowent‘insuchCrowds to allPlaceswheretheir Superiorsresort...’67 While these familieswerelinkedby awebofkinship to thegreat,itwouldbemistaken to seethemassimply fawningjunior
membersofamonolithicupperclass.Theirrelation to thegreatergentry andnobilitywasambivalent: fascinatedadmiration,deferentialrespect, scandalizedhorror,amusedcondescension andloftydisregardcanallbe illustrated from the manuscripts of the genteel.
ThegenteelreadofthescandalousactivitiesofLondon-basedlords andladies with anappalledanduntiring fascination,butstronglydefined themselvesagainstsuchoutrageousself-indulgence.Pamphletssuchas The CourtofAdultery:AVision,whichsatirized‘Tonish’excesses and censuredthelikesof‘Chats—H’ssprightlydame’(theDuchessofDevonshire),wereread with generalsatisfaction.Dissertationsonmetropolitan immodestywererelished:‘Irecd alongandanentertainingletter fromMrs Ramsdenofthepresent Indecent,Fashionablemeetingsoftheconspicuous,GreatLadiesofthisIsle,fieforshame.’68 Eventhoseonvisiting terms with thegreat, temperedtheirdeference with alittlehumour.MrsParker ofCuerdongentlysatirizedher titledguestsevenasshestruggled to honour them:‘tho’IcouldnotplaceLadyEgerton’sBumuponsorichaSophaas shehadatHomeorGiveHersoElegantadinnerasshewou’dhavehadat HeatonHousethebestIcoudprocureforherwasatherservice.’She took everyopportunity to pointoutarrogantperversity, suchasthatofLady JaneClifton,whorefusedaninvitation to aPrestonassembly with the excuse‘BecausetheLadiesdresstheirHeadssoHighandshewoudnot dresshersso–GoodLordwhat aReason –but sheis awomanofquality’. With equalwryamusement,MissFannyWalkermadefunofthe‘vastly formall’LondoncompanyataYorkshire house-partywhensheentertained ‘threeofthelongestchinned familysthateverwasseen’. 69 Theold provincial families flattered themselvesthattheycouldseetherealworth behindfine feathers,broadacresandsmartconnections.Mostwouldhave enjoyedthedryproverbElizabethShackletontranscribedintoherdiaryin 1768: ‘Howwisewasnaturewhenshediddispence alarge estate to cover wantofsense’.70 Nordidthegenteelautomaticallyseekmaritalalliances with the fashionable:themercantileStanhopeclantried totalktheirrich heirWattySpencerStanhopeoutofbuying aLondonhouseasthey feared hewouldsurelyendupmarryinganexpensive‘Womanofquality’.71 Snobberydidnotleadthelessergentryautomatically to associate themselves with thevaluesofthe fashionablearistocracy.Provincialgentility hadrewardsofitsown.AsAnnPelletcounselledhernieceonthesuperior fortunesoftheBrowsholme family,‘thotheirgrandureat present may seem alittlemoreconspicuous –yet...aconstantuniformlifegenerally producesmoresolidhappinesstoafamilythanalltheGlorious fatiguesof dress &equipage’.72 Genteelsocietyhasadistincthistory. It is to women’s role in this that the discussion now turns.
9 ‘TheAssignation’,fromthe Lady’sMagazine (1772),depicting thethrillof clandestinecorrespondence.