Issue 57: the secret women investors of 17th Century London
Issue 57: the secret women investors of 17th Century London
‘Male signatures in corporate ledgers were often middlemen.’
While the stats are improving, women still trail behind men when it comes to financial investing.
The reasons for this are multiple – including stereotypes about gender roles and temperaments which filter down to what women are taught and how they are treated when they want to learn or do more, and real gender disparities which see women earning less and doing more of the unpaid care and labour which impacts their disposable income.
It's reasonable to think that the further back in history we go, the greater influence these stereotypes and barriers would have had. And in many cases, we’d be right.
But in a number of recorded instances (from which it’s reasonable to extrapolate further instances), women at the end of the 17th Century were investing in an evolving London financial market – albeit clandestinely.
In Susan Whyman’s article about London merchant and baronet John Verney, she found some fascinating evidence of women taking control of their money and financial futures.
The Verney family were wealthy landowners from Buckinghamshire, southeast England. John (1640-1717) was the youngest son. He became apprentice to a merchant and spent 12 years in Aleppo before returning to England and setting himself up as a merchant in London. Following the death of his father, older brothers, and nephews, he inherited the family baronetcy in 1696.
We know so much about the Verneys thanks to a unique collection of almost 100,000 manuscripts, including the largest consecutive family correspondence for 17th Century England. Whyman analysed 10,000 of the Verneys’ documents for her article.
In the 1690s, London’s financial landscape was changing. The first government bonds were issued, the Bank of England was established, and the stock exchange emerged. As the Verneys began to change their economic behaviours – investing in stocks and bonds – so too did their friends and acquaintances, including the women.
Whyman said that previous scholars had taken men’s signatures in account ledgers at face value, but:
“[W]hen private records are overlaid upon corporate documents, investments by women and provincials emerge from hiding. East India Company, Million Bank, and Bank of England records list the Verneys' country friends, while unlisted subscribers are revealed in family letters. Male signatures in corporate ledgers were often middlemen.”
She says the family correspondence “teem[s] with overlooked mechanisms” for how investments were made under other people’s names.
“Over and over, John placed money for friends, servants, and female kin.
“Married women had particular reason to hide their assets. Thus, when John invested £50 for [his father] Sir Ralph's landlady, Sir Ralph insisted that the bond should be in another's name, or 'the money will belong to your husband ... and liable to his debts'.
“Women normally gave up property upon marriage, but in the 1690s, widows, wives, and even portionless spinsters could emulate men and develop financial plans.”
In her article, Whyman mentions the example of ‘Aunt Gardiner’, whose four daughters were supported with profits from government funds and annuities that yielded between 6-14% interest.
“Some obtained sums for new investments from legacies left by other women. Thus one generation created financial opportunity for the next.”
So, while women in the 17th Century may not have enjoyed the freedoms we have today – indeed, they were considered first the property of their father, and then their employer or husband – the rise of new financial institutions in London in this period, and the privilege of knowing the right people, (and yes, I acknowledge lots of caveats here!) meant some were able to achieve a little economic independence, at least.
