Overview
The history of the landed estate remains under-researched and much neglected until a recent renewal of interest in the role of the land agent.1 While various studies have explored themes such as agricultural rent, the Agricultural Revolution, the impact of absentee landownership, improvements, repairs, under-draining and landowner and tenant relationships, they have rarely been explored within the context of a single volume. Each individual estate was a complicated and complex melding of social, economic and political relationships which were underpinned by a financial thread. At the core of the landed estate was the need for sustainability, and this was particularly difficult in the fragile economic climate of the post-Napoleonic period. Some, for example, the Portlands in Nottinghamshire and the Leveson-Gowers in the West Midlands, turned to mining and other industrial investments to promote profitability. Other rural estates with no means of boosting income in this manner were left to juggle their financial commitments alongside high rental arrears and considerable reductions in rent to promote tenant retention and viability. Yet, few historians have considered how the daily management of a large agriculture estate was underpinned by a range of fiscal decisions beyond the bonds paid by land agents and other officials. This might consist of but was not limited to supporting those tenants who could be relied on for voting loyalty, the retention of good tenants through the accrual of eye-wateringly high rental arrears, partnerships in draining and improvement or even monies spent on schools and charities to exert a modicum of control over the labouring poor. Understanding the finances of an estate opens a new window onto rural society and the way in which it functioned. This we can only really do through the multiplication of detailed studies and their associated agents. Through a single meticulous estate study, it is possible to explore how landowners and tenants worked together to ensure both personal and economic stability, and this can then be used to create a different view of working communities that rarely appears in the historiography.
The Marquis of Anglesey inherited his Dorset and Somerset estate in 1812, which included land and property in a number of villages spread across the Blackmore Vale. Why Anglesey inherited this part of his estates remains a mystery, and a summary of the way the family came to own these properties will be explored below in greater detail. Mr. Cox and Admiral Aylmer were at the time of his inheritance employed in managing the estate, but by 1814 William Castleman had taken over as land agent and was in full control. It is the correspondence between these Anglesey and Castleman, combined with the estate voucher and rental/disbursement accounts which form the basis of this research. Anglesey was an absentee landowner who like many others in the same position continued to take an active interest in the day-to-day organisation, supervision and financial administration of his asset. In Castleman (and then his sons) he found capable reliable men whom he could trust. Consequently, this is a well-documented estate with a considerable archive of surviving correspondence and estate documentation which amounts to some 3000 letters, more than 10,000 estate vouchers and biannual rental/disbursement accounts.2 These papers create an unbroken run across four decades and make it possible to forge a greater understanding of the financial history of the landed estate as well as the way in which the rural community was organised, managed and changed in the turbulent economic period at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The historical prism created by the surviving archive allows the researcher to explore estate life multi-dimensionally: that is, socially, economically and politically. Pecuniary decisions form an integral part of the diurnal management, which extend beyond the compiling of accounts and the collection of rents. Choosing the right person to run an estate really mattered; it required a man who understood the local community, had good entrepreneurial and financial skills, understood the local community and could be relied on to manage with the minimum of supervision. Much of the shape of this Dorset and Somerset estate was, therefore, the work of William Castleman, the land agent. He used his skills to manage all the estateās social, economic and political relationships.
Contemporary writers were not enamoured by land agents and advised landowners not to leave too long a gap between their visits and where possible to visit annually during the summer. It was suggested that these measures would prevent unnecessary losses or attempts to defraud the estate of stock or money. Edward Laurence emphasised āthat nothing has tended more to the Abuse and Ruin of brave Estates than the Lordās Neglectā.3 More recent research has suggested that absenteeism was not in fact anywhere near as disastrous as writers such as Laurence advocated nor was it likely to encourage poor farming practices or duplicitous practices by tenants or land agents.4 Discovering whether a landowner was resident or not is often hard to establish as many estate records especially correspondence, rental accounts and vouchers conceal both absence and its impact.5 Modern historians have mixed views on the impact of absenteeism and in many respects much depended on the individual owner and who was left to manage the estate. For example, Sir Marmaduke Constable of Everingham absented himself for long periods, leaving England in May 1730 and spending all but one of the next 16 years travelling on the continent; this was an exceptional case, but not by any means unusual.6 More widely because a landowner was not physically present, it did not necessarily follow that an estate was neglected.7 For larger landowners holding land in more than two or three counties often meant visiting was simply too time-consuming and unrealistic. It becomes more difficult in this instance to ascertain the absence, as Anglesey was a keen sailor and when possible regularly visited Cowes, which is not at a great distance from the estate. There is no doubt that he trusted the Castleman family, and the correspondence particularly between the pair reveals an avid demand for information, an in-depth knowledge of the area, its problems and his estate in the south more generally.
Land was a significant asset and there was little reason to neglect an estate unless there was an economic reason to do so, for it formed the basic financial underpinning of aristocratic and gentry families. Incomes were derived from rental revenues and the exploitation of natural resources such as timber, stone and increasingly coal. An estate might be left unsettled so that it could be sold, financial crisis could mean cutting back on the monies expended and land might be left untended in order to purchase more land closer to the main estate. Rumours abounded, for example, in 1824 when it was suggested the Duke of Devonshire had disposed of his Wetherby holdings in order to buy additional land in Derbyshire.8 Estates were thus valuable investments, a fact which is often overlooked when considering absentee landowners. There is no doubt absenteeism at times caused discontentment and nowhere is this more obvious than in the anonymous letters that were written to landowners decrying the competencies of resident land agents.9 It was impossible, however, to leave an estate unattended for even short periods of time, and no matter how unpopular in those circumstances, it was essential to employ someone who could be trusted with the day-to-day management. Protecting revenue for most landowners was essential if they were to continue their extravagant life-styles. Absenteeism was not therefore necessarily disadvantageous to the interests of the countryside, and landowners wherever possible sought ways to ensure their property was put into the hands of capable and honest men. John Beckett argues a managed estate under the correct land agent may actually have been the most efficient. The documentary evidence where it has survived suggests that non-residents showed a healthy respect for their property and sufficient financial gains could still be made through competent and well-organised management.10 It is the daily correspondence, rental accounts, estate vouchers and other estate documents which detail the social, economic, political, financial and business history of the landed estate.
Historiography
Of all areas of agricultural history or that surrounding the country house, the financial history of the landed estate remains relatively unknown. Agricultural history reached its zenith in the 1970s and 1980s, and while new studies are beginning to appear, it has never recovered its previous prominence. In recent years there has been a renewed interest in the country house and its consumption, and this is slowly beginning to encompass the greater and outer estate itself.11 Elizabeth Hurren contends that the sheer volume of surviving archives in both public and private archives has deterred even the most intrepid of researchers.12 There is no doubt that by and large these immense archives are in the main uncatalogued and often wieldy to navigate. Overall much of the historiography of the landed estates relies on the work of Gordon Mingay, F. M. L. Thompson and David Spring and was written more than 30 years ago.13 Commonly these works are generalist in nature and sacrificed depth for breadth and contain little primary source material. More recently Richard Hoyleās edited volume Farmer in England 1650ā1980 explores the farmer within the panorama of agrarian society.14 While Rab Houstonās latest work investigated socio-economic relationships within the Celtic regions of Britain and only fleetingly explores England.15
More recently Vanessa Doe has examined the life and achievements of Richard Westbrook Baker who was steward of the Exton Estate in Rutland. Her volume intertwines the biographical narrative of Westbrook Bakerās life with his work at Exton and the surrounding community.16 It is not a financial history. Other source books such as A Lancashire Gentleman exist; this one, for example, contains the correspondence of Richard Hodgkinson who was steward to the landed gentry in the north of England. Rather than providing a meticulous case study, this is in effect an edited volume of his letters and does not take an analytical approach to the management of the landed estate or the form and function of the role of the land agent. Neither does it provide a detailed study of the estates for whom he worked.17 In other words there is a wide gap in the historiography regarding the business and financial history of the landed estate. A new set of sources enables us to focus on the economic aspects of the landed es...