How did 18th century British people support themselves?

[goubi]

I just finished reading Pride and Prejudice and one burning question is how did the Bennets support themselves financially? The father was not working, the mother was not working, the daughters were not working, but they still had servants and a butler?

[kev67]

Did they have any tenant farmers? Another possibility was that they were living off the interest from a large amount of capital at the bank. A £10,000 sum in the bank would give an annual income of £400, given an interest rate of 4%.

[Ecurb]

On today's market, a pound of silver is worth about $300 (U.S.). So by that measure, Darcy had an income equivalent to $3 million a year -- rich even today. The "landed gentry" made their money from rents -- which is why the Bennets would become impoverished when Mr. Bennet died and Mr. Collins inherited the property. Elizabeth's Uncle Gardiner worked as a lawyer, which led Miss Bingley to mock him for being "working class". Bingley's income was 5000 Pounds -- equivalent in silver to $1.5 million. Sevants came cheap - room and board and a few pounds a year. In an agricultural society, cash income was not as necessary as it is today.

India had not quite kicked in as a major source of wealth for Brits in the 18th century. However, in Mansfield Park, Sir Thomas sails off to Antigua to look after some business interests. We can assume that he owned a plantation, growing sugar or some other cash crop. He probably also owned the slaves that worked the plantation, and when he returns Fanny asks him about the institution of slavery, which was controversial in England.

[OrphanPip]

According to the National Archives of the UK a pound in 1800 had the equivalent worth of 36 pounds today. I think that calculation would be based on a price index inflation calculation, not that I have the knowledge of economics to really assess how accurate this information is. Ecurb's calculation is interesting, but I think what matters is how much a pound would buy in 1800 more than what a pound of silver would be worth on current commodity markets in contemporary currency. Also, most people of Bingley or the Bennet's class would be using credit (a wealthy person in the city would likely pay for their food and drink expenses at the end of a month in a lump sum) and paper money for their purchases, and they'd only keep a few coins for small expenses.

So, someone like Bingley had an income of around 160k GBP, or 268k USD. However, it is also important to consider the purchasing power at the time. As Ecurb said, cost of labour was significantly lower than today, much like how 160k would go much further in Costa Rica than it would in the UK.

For an interesting comparison, I was recently reading a Frances Brooke novel from the 1770s and in it a newly married couple worry that their 500 pounds a year would only afford them a modest house with a handful of servants and a single carriage, but they couldn't afford new furniture. So, that gives you the idea of the limits of what 500 pounds could buy you in a year.

Also, Mr. Bennett is a landowner so presumably his money comes from tenants. The novel reports his income as 2000 a year, while his wife had a dowry of a lump sum of 4000 pounds. Depending on how the marriage contract was drawn up, that 4000 pounds may have been spent or kept in reserve to provide an annual income, or it could be tied to an inheritance or dowry for any possible offspring of the match.

[goubi]

On today's market, a pound of silver is worth about $300 (U.S.). So by that measure, Darcy had an income equivalent to $3 million a year -- rich even today. The "landed gentry" made their money from rents -- which is why the Bennets would become impoverished when Mr. Bennet died and Mr. Collins inherited the property. Elizabeth's Uncle Gardiner worked as a lawyer, which led Miss Bingley to mock him for being "working class". Bingley's income was 5000 Pounds -- equivalent in silver to $1.5 million. Sevants came cheap - room and board and a few pounds a year. In an agricultural society, cash income was not as necessary as it is today.

India had not quite kicked in as a major source of wealth for Brits in the 18th century. However, in Mansfield Park, Sir Thomas sails off to Antigua to look after some business interests. We can assume that he owned a plantation, growing sugar or some other cash crop. He probably also owned the slaves that worked the plantation, and when he returns Fanny asks him about the institution of slavery, which was controversial in England.

Well I just read this part:"Mr. Bennet's property consisted almost entirely in an estate of two thousand a year...", I guess it means that the Bennets lived off their tenants then, no? But two thousand a year is not bad at all if Mr. Bingley only makes five thousand a year. Why were the Bennets so looked down upon by Miss Bingley?

[goubi]

According to the National Archives of the UK a pound in 1800 had the equivalent worth of 36 pounds today. I think that calculation would be based on a price index inflation calculation, not that I have the knowledge of economics to really assess how accurate this information is. Ecurb's calculation is interesting, but I think what matters is how much a pound would buy in 1800 more than what a pound of silver would be worth on current commodity markets in contemporary currency. Also, most people of Bingley or the Bennet's class would be using credit (a wealthy person in the city would likely pay for their food and drink expenses at the end of a month in a lump sum) and paper money for their purchases, and they'd only keep a few coins for small expenses.

So, someone like Bingley had an income of around 160k GBP, or 268k USD. However, it is also important to consider the purchasing power at the time. As Ecurb said, cost of labour was significantly lower than today, much like how 160k would go much further in Costa Rica than it would in the UK.

For an interesting comparison, I was recently reading a Frances Brooke novel from the 1770s and in it a newly married couple worry that their 500 pounds a year would only afford them a modest house with a handful of servants and a single carriage, but they couldn't afford new furniture. So, that gives you the idea of the limits of what 500 pounds could buy you in a year.

Also, Mr. Bennett is a landowner so presumably his money comes from tenants. The novel reports his income as 2000 a year, while his wife had a dowry of a lump sum of 4000 pounds. Depending on how the marriage contract was drawn up, that 4000 pounds may have been spent or kept in reserve to provide an annual income, or it could be tied to an inheritance or dowry for any possible offspring of the match.

2000/yr is hardly bad, no?

[kev67]

2000/yr would have been a huge income compared with an average English family's. Charles Dickens' father earned £80 a year and that was still more than most.

[Lokasenna]

Some critics have read Mansfield Park as having an implicit condemnation of slavery - it is at least true to say that the novel strongly implies that part of the wealth of the Bertram family is derived from overseas slave work, and that it is clearly not a comfortable topic of discussion.

[Ecurb]

I'll grant that my estimate (based on the price of silver) is high -- but the National Archives estimate (36 pounds) is surely low. Accuracy is not possible: labor was cheap, but goods were often expensive. Clothing (for example) was hand tailored. Furniture was hand-made. Efficient manufacturing was in the future. A reasonable estimate would be that a pound in 1800 was worth $70-$100 (or 50-70 pounds) in today's money.

Darcy kept two houses, a giant estate at Pemberley and a town house in London. I don't know how many servants he employed in each house, or whether some of his footmen travelled with him to London, but I'll guess that he must have had 20 full-time servants at Pemberley, and another 5-10 in London. An income of $500,000 a year today would hardly suffice to pay the salaries of 25-30 full-time employees.

The Bennets were not poor. They were rich, compared to most people in England, and 2000 pound per annum was a good income. However, because the estate was entailed to Mr.Collins, the Bennet girls were not rich. I'm trying to remember, but I think Elizabeth would get no dowry, and would eventually inherit 600 pounds (presumably from the 4000 pounds her mother brought to the marriage). 600 pounds might be $60,000 in today's money -- but that's not enough to live on for long.

Austen makes several references to slavery. In Emma, Jane Fairfax whines that the plight of governesses is as miserable as that of slaves (which I always saw as a terrible character flaw in the supposedly Little Miss Perfect Fairfax, an opinion with which I suspect Jane Austen concurred). In Mansfield Park, Sir Thomas is a distant, unloving father as well as a slave owner. Certainly Sir Thomas's desire to marry Fanny off to the highest bidder may be compared to slavery (although any claim that it is equally oppressive would be pathetic, Miss Fairfax!).

[mona amon]

Umm...what's wrong with comparing exploitative employment where the employee doesn't have much choice to walk away, to slavery? I do it all the time! Rochester does it in Jane Eyre, "You will give up your governessing slavery at once!"

[kelby_lake]

Umm...what's wrong with comparing exploitative employment where the employee doesn't have much choice to walk away, to slavery? I do it all the time! Rochester does it in Jane Eyre, "You will give up your governessing slavery at once!"

Rochester is far from a model man though!

[Ecurb]

Of course there is nothing wrong with comparing exploitave employment to slavery -- so great a thinker as Karl Marx did exactly that. Nonetheless, the comparison should be fair instead of constituting self-serving whining. Here's the quote (Jane Fairfax is speaking first):


"Excuse me, ma'am, but this is by no means my intention; I make no inquiry myself, and should be sorry to have any made by my friends. When I am quite determined as to the time, I am not at all afraid of being long unemployed. There are places in town, offices, where inquiry would soon produce something -- offices for the sale, not quite of human flesh, but of human intellect."

"Oh! my dear, human flesh! You quite shock me; if you mean a fling at the slave-trade, I assure you Mr. Suckling was always rather a friend to the abolition."

"I did not mean, I was not thinking of the slave-trade," replied Jane; "governess-trade, I assure you, was all that I had in view; widely different certainly, as to the guilt of those who carry it on; but as to the greater misery of the victims, I do not know where it lies.

Miss Fairfax is whining that she might have to get a job, instead of marrying Frank Churchill. However much "misery" that horrible eventuality would inflict on her, though, I somehow doubt it would equal the misery she would know were she shipped off to the sugar plantations in Antigua as a slave.

[goubi]

Umm...what's wrong with comparing exploitative employment where the employee doesn't have much choice to walk away, to slavery? I do it all the time! Rochester does it in Jane Eyre, "You will give up your governessing slavery at once!"

I noticed that your avatar is from Witch Hunter Robin

[mona amon]

Of course there is nothing wrong with comparing exploitave employment to slavery -- so great a thinker as Karl Marx did exactly that. Nonetheless, the comparison should be fair instead of constituting self-serving whining. Here's the quote (Jane Fairfax is speaking first):



Miss Fairfax is whining that she might have to get a job, instead of marrying Frank Churchill. However much "misery" that horrible eventuality would inflict on her, though, I somehow doubt it would equal the misery she would know were she shipped off to the sugar plantations in Antigua as a slave.

Oh OK, I thought it was the latest political correctness thing. :D You never know these days.


I noticed that your avatar is from Witch Hunter Robin

Yes, Amon from Witch Hunter Robin. :)

[togre]

Back to the OP, I recall in Pride and Prejudice there being a conversation about the carriage horses being needed on the farm. Mr. Bennett responds "They are needed more often than I can get them." That would imply some relationship with the tenants more reciprocal than merely collecting payments. Gaskell's Wives and Daughters, aside from being a good read in and of itself, has more concert aspects of how the genteel made their money.

[ennison]

The nebulous nature of details raised by the question is one of the problems I personally have with Austen. The Napoleonic Wars were cutting short the lives of thousands of Britons yet they don't impinge upon her cosy domesticity. Oh she's a sharply comic observer alright but I always found her rather narrow.

[Ecurb]

One principle of criticism is that it is unfair to criticize s book for failing to be a different book. I recently read a. Biography of President Grant. It lacked details about the personal life of Robert E Lee. How "narrow"! War and Peace involves not one caped super hero. Narrow?

If a novel about war lacks simple, domestic scenes. would it be narrow? Is the Mississippi river more beautiful than a mountain stream by dint of its width?

[kev67]

Just finished Sense and Sensibility today.
SPOILER
In one of the last chapters, Elinor and Edward Ferrrars are working out how much they will have to live on. Edward has been offered a living worth £200 a year. That is, he is going to be a Church of England clergyman and his parish is going to pay him £200 a year. I am not quite sure who's paying, whether it's the tithes of his parishioners, or the church hierarchy. Edward also has £2000 pounds of his own in the bank and Elinor has £1000. The interest on that is 5%, which comes to £150, £350 in total. I thought that was pretty good for back then, but they don't.

I assume Edward's and Elinor's lump sums were in the bank, but maybe they are not. If their interest comes from the loans that the banks are making to businessmen, then I wonder what those businesses are. The West Indian plantations I dare say and maybe India. The Industrial Revolution had not really got under way, but possibly banks were making loans to mill owners or foundry owners. I get the impression Edward and Elinor don't have a clue what their bank savings are loaned out for. Actually, if I understand the fractional reserve system correctly, the banks would not actually have to lend out Edward's and Elinor's lump sums for them to earn interest on it. Just the fact that money is in the bank allows the bank to magically generate a multiple of that sum, which they are then allowed to lend out to customers, which they have to repay with interest.

When I read any book written any time between Robinson Crusoe and WW1, I multiply any costs by 100. It is not very accurate, but it gives an approximation. A not very poor person might be lucky to earn £1 a week. £5000 a year would be nothing like enough to live on now, but it emphasizes that poor people then really were very poor. On the other hand, I think it underestimates how comparative wealthy the rich were. I wonder what Pemberley's turnover would be today. I think the middle class, but not including the gentry are most like most of us readers today. Most of us don't live in huge houses with acres of parks and gardens. Most of us are not underfed and have no more than one change of clothing. Therefore I reckon the 100x multiplier works fairly well. Another reason I think we resemble more the middle class is that we have labour saving devices. In those days labour saving devices were called servants. To be middle class you had to have servants, and apart from receiving a low wage, they had to be fed and housed. I think food was relatively expensive back then, but accommodation was relatively cheap. I think it makes sense to use a different comparator for middle class and working class incomes, because the middle class were also employers.

[kev67]

double post

[ennison]

It's not one of her novels, it's all of them.

[Ecurb]

Most clergymen got a house to live in, in addition to the money (the extent of my knowledge on this subject comes from reading novels). From Middlemarch, I remember a decent horse costing 50-80 pounds. Crawley couldn't afford one. Also from Trollope, I remember Lily Dale wanting to buy a hat for ten pounds. That might be OK if you're rich – but $700-$1000 for a hat seems extreme if you are not. I think clothing was expensive. I'm not sure about food. England in Austen's day was rural (it was changing by Trollope's time),and it seems farmers can get by without much money because food is cheap.

As far as ennison's complaint about Austen ignoring Napoleon – ennison isn't the only complainer. It's a common plaint, redolent with the whiff of sexism. Why doesn't Austen write about IMPORTANT stuff, that men do? Surely an author can choose her own topics. The Prince Regent once wrote Austen suggesting that she write an historical romance, a request she denied. Tolstoy, who stuck practically everything under the sun in War and Peace, never mentioned caped super heroes in any of his novels. Perhaps that was a wise choice on his part. Rembrandt eschewed cubism, abstract minimalism, and post modern collage. Surely we can find something better to say about his paintings than this rather pedestrian truth.

In addition, Austen hardly ignores the military. Red Coats romp through Pride and Prejudice; General Tilney and his eldest son are military men; Captain Wentworth made money hand over fist captaining the Laconia. I believe Wentworth was worth 20,000 pounds (based on his prize money) which at 5% would be 1000 a year. Of course if he and Anne had the good fortune to live until another war, he could have made more money.

[Ecurb]

There was supposed to be a first paragraph above reading:

In Trollope's Barchester series impoverished clergyman Mr. Crawley has 70 pounds a year on which to support a wife and 3 children. When he gets a new living worth 370 poun#s a year, his wife is ecstatic.

[ennison]

If an American author had written a series of novels in the 1860s and never mentioned the Civil War, never introduced the burning issues of the day at any point, never considered the basis of the characters' material comfort, I would consider him socially unaware. Her characters belong largely in the class of social parasites who take their economic superiority for granted. I am perfectly willing to allow others to enjoy her social comedies without myself being a fan. Tolstoy of course has Spider-Man appearing in chapter twenty-six.

[ennison]

Vot idet chelovekpaulk kottory kruttit svoye gryazne pautinny, no ne imyet plascha. In Book 2 In case you think I'm joking. Which evil thing I never do.

[Ecurb]

Ennison might consider an 1860s American author who never mentioned the Civil War “socially unaware”, but his conclusion would be a non sequitur. How is it reasonable to make inferences about a novelist's “social awareness” on the basis of what they choose to omit from their novels? In addition, is a novel written during the Civil War that fails to involve blood and thunder artistically inferior to such a novel written at any other time? Are Renoir's paintings of lily ponds any indication that he lacked “social awareness”?

In Jane Austen's era (that of the Napoleonic wars) novels were denigrated as lightweight entertainments. In Northanger Abbey, Catherine Moreland and Isabella Thorpe read “The Mysteries of Udolpho”, a gothic novel by Ann Radcliffe. Here, in an authorial aside, Austen defends her chosen art form, although, in doing so, she makes no mention of Austerlitz or Borodino:



….if a rainy morning deprived them of other enjoyments, they were still resolute in meeting in defiance of wet and dirt, and shut themselves up, to read novels together. Yes, novels; for I will not adopt that ungenerous and impolitic custom so common with novel–writers, of degrading by their contemptuous censure the very performances, to the number of which they are themselves adding — joining with their greatest enemies in bestowing the harshest epithets on such works, and scarcely ever permitting them to be read by their own heroine, who, if she accidentally take up a novel, is sure to turn over its insipid pages with disgust. Alas! If the heroine of one novel be not patronized by the heroine of another, from whom can she expect protection and regard? I cannot approve of it. Let us leave it to the reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure, and over every new novel to talk in threadbare strains of the trash with which the press now groans. Let us not desert one another; we are an injured body. Although our productions have afforded more extensive and unaffected pleasure than those of any other literary corporation in the world, no species of composition has been so much decried. From pride, ignorance, or fashion, our foes are almost as many as our readers. And while the abilities of the nine–hundredth abridger of the History of England, or of the man who collects and publishes in a volume some dozen lines of Milton, Pope, and Prior, with a paper from the Spectator, and a chapter from Sterne, are eulogized by a thousand pens — there seems almost a general wish of decrying the capacity and undervaluing the labour of the novelist, and of slighting the performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them. “I am no novel–reader — I seldom look into novels — Do not imagine that I often read novels — It is really very well for a novel.” Such is the common cant. “And what are you reading, Miss — ?” “Oh! It is only a novel!” replies the young lady, while she lays down her book with affected indifference, or momentary shame. “It is only Cecilia, or Camilla, or Belinda”; or, in short, only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best–chosen language. Now, had the same young lady been engaged with a volume of the Spectator, instead of such a work, how proudly would she have produced the book, and told its name; though the chances must be against her being occupied by any part of that voluminous publication, of which either the matter or manner would not disgust a young person of taste: the substance of its papers so often consisting in the statement of improbable circumstances, unnatural characters, and topics of conversation which no longer concern anyone living; and their language, too, frequently so coarse as to give no very favourable idea of the age that could endure it.

[ennison]

Well there you go. You are a fan. I aint.

[Danik 2016]

The social element is not only present in the content but also in the form of the novel. Austen`s novels paint as no one else to my knowledge does, a picture of the specific part of the English society of her time that included herself, namely that of the ladies without fortune, who were educated to marry well. Not marrying a rich man amounts to complete failure because for these people, who lived so close to the landed gentry, but who didn´t own estates themselves, work, specially femenine work was usually not an option to be considered.