Skip to main content
Read page text
page 28
28  silver patronage 6 FIG 6 The Calverley Toilet Service, 1683–84, William Fowle (1658–84), London, silver wood and glass, ht of mirror 51.8cm, Victoria and Albert Museum, London Photo: © Victoria and Albert Museum, London Hogarth’s Marriage A-la-Mode series of 1743–45, and also during the official lying-in, when an aristocratic mother would receive guests in a state bed following the birth of a child. Toilet services were often presented by the groom or members of his family on the occasion of a woman’s marriage. For instance, in 1707, Sir Walter Calverley, first baronet, and his mother purchased a second-hand toilet service comparable to the Duchess of Somerset’s by William Fowle and hallmarked for 1683 (Fig. 6), for Calverley’s bride, Julia Blackett of Wallington Hall in Northumberland (1686–1736).22 Similarly, when the third Duke of Buccleuch married Lady Elizabeth Montagu (1743–1827) in 1767, his mother and aunts supplied the new duchess’s ‘dressing plate’, which they ordered from Thomas Heming: ‘’Twas agreed to be the same as that which the Princess of Wales had presented to the Queen of Denmark [sister of George III] when She left England, with some additions. The cost near seven hundred pounds’.23 Assuming it was silver-gilt, as are most other examples from this period, the Buccleuch service would at that price have weighed over 1,000 ounces, which was prodigious.24 By comparison, the service thought to have been presented by one of the 18th century’s greatest consumers of silver, George Booth, second Earl of Warrington, to his daughter Mary, Countess of Stamford (1704–72), on her 50th birthday in 1754, weighed only 731 ounces (Fig. 7).25 A toilet service was generally treated as being the wife’s possession during her lifetime, though she was not necessarily free to dispose of it as she wished upon her death. When, for instance, Maria Shireburn, Duchess of Norfolk (c. 1693–1754), separated from her husband, Thomas Howard, the eighth duke, in 1715 she was allowed to keep the toilet service by Benjamin Pyne of 1708 – it had, after all, been given to her by her own father – but it was to revert to the Howards once she was dead.26 Lady Stamford was in a far more fortunate position, and not only because she was in a loving and mutually respectful marriage with Harry Grey, fourth Earl of Stamford. Her father, Lord Warrington, left his estates in trust for her benefit, a common means among the wealthy of protecting a wife’s interests and effectively putting her in the same position as a widow or an unmarried woman.27 She also maintained control of the silver she brought into the marriage, including a cup and cover of c. 1705 by Isaac Liger, which bears her native arms in a lozenge and must have been a christening present (Fig. 8). On her death in 1772, the countess had 2,700 ounces of plate, in addition
page 29
silver patronage  29 to the heirlooms at Dunham Massey, and left instructions in her will that her heir, George Harry Grey, fifth Earl of Stamford, should especially preserve a pair of tankards by Thomas Jenkins of 1671, which had come from her grandmother Mary Langham, Countess of Warrington.28 Alicia Maria Carpenter, Countess of Egremont (1729–94), was similarly protected when she entered into a second marriage, with Count Brühl, in 1767.29 Her 3,000 ounces of plate were precisely detailed in the marriage settlement, with individual weights given, as was a service of gilt dressing table plate.30 Widowhood could prove a liberation of taste as well as bringing financial independence. This certainly seems to have been the case with Barbara Wanley (c. 1692–1750; Fig. 9). She was the sister and niece respectively of George Wanley and James Chambers, early partners in the goldsmith and banking business that became Goslings Bank.31 Her husband, Matthew Hutton, was an immensely wealthy merchant and landowner. When Hutton died in 1728, reputedly worth £60,000,32 he stipulated in his will that Barbara, in addition to her jointure, should receive outright her jewels, together with his coach, chariot and coach horses, and should also have the use of (though without the power to dispose of them) his house and estate at Newnham in Hertfordshire, together with ‘all my Plate Houshold Goods ffurniture and Utensills’.33 She was thus extremely well provided for, and though she was unable to dispose of any plate, she was not prevented from purchasing more, which she did with gusto for the rest of her life. The Hutton silver is now at Erddig in Wales, having been inherited by Matthew and Barbara’s daughter Dorothy, wife of Simon Yorke. Within this collection are numerous items bearing Barbara’s lozenge of arms. Among the silver objects at Erddig are chamber sticks, flatware, two sturdy jugs, a hand bell and, most significantly, a bread basket of 1734 (Fig. 1) by one of the best and most fashionable goldsmiths of the period, Peter Archambo.34 It is heavy, weighing 70oz 10dwt, and the skilled piercing to create a flowing foliate band would have added substantially to the cost, perhaps as much as 5s per ounce on top of the metal.35 It is not surprising that Barbara, coming from a distinguished goldsmith family, should have had an eye for the highest quality of silver, but judging by the almost complete absence of any fashionable purchases during her husband’s life, her expenditure and patronage had probably been curtailed prior to her widowhood.36 In addition to the women discussed here, numerous others are known to have commissioned silver, such as Mary Lepell, Lady Hervey,37 Margaret Harley, Duchess of Portland,38 Anne Johnson, Countess of Strafford,39 Louise de Keroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth, and Nell Gwynne, the latter going so far as to commission a silver bed from John Cooqus.40 Many more, however, are in the shadows and harder to bring to light because their patronage was undertaken while they were married. In such cases, it is difficult to separate their patronage from their husbands’ activities. With increasing attention being paid to the role of women in the arts, it is to be hoped that archival research and analysis of surviving pieces will allow these sophisticated and often prolific patrons to receive the attention they deserve. James Rothwell is a Senior Curator and the Silver Adviser at the National Trust. FIG 7 The Stamford Toilet Service, 1754–55, Magdalen Feline (fl. 1753–62), Richard Rugg (fl. 1746–95) and John Quantock (fl. 1738–73), London, silver, wood and glass, ht of mirror 62.2cm, Dunham Massey, Cheshire Photo: © National Trust Images/Brenda Norrish 7

Page Text

View plaintext

28  silver patronage

6

FIG 6 The Calverley Toilet Service, 1683–84, William Fowle (1658–84), London, silver wood and glass, ht of mirror 51.8cm, Victoria and Albert Museum, London Photo: © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

Hogarth’s Marriage A-la-Mode series of 1743–45, and also during the official lying-in, when an aristocratic mother would receive guests in a state bed following the birth of a child.

Toilet services were often presented by the groom or members of his family on the occasion of a woman’s marriage. For instance, in 1707, Sir Walter Calverley, first baronet, and his mother purchased a second-hand toilet service comparable to the Duchess of Somerset’s by William Fowle and hallmarked for 1683 (Fig. 6), for Calverley’s bride, Julia Blackett of Wallington Hall in Northumberland (1686–1736).22 Similarly, when the third Duke of Buccleuch married Lady Elizabeth Montagu (1743–1827) in 1767, his mother and aunts supplied the new duchess’s ‘dressing plate’, which they ordered from Thomas Heming: ‘’Twas agreed to be the same as that which the Princess of Wales had presented to the Queen of Denmark [sister of George III] when She left England, with some additions. The cost near seven hundred pounds’.23 Assuming it was silver-gilt, as are most other examples from this period, the Buccleuch service would at that price have weighed over 1,000 ounces, which was prodigious.24 By comparison, the service thought to have been presented by one of the 18th century’s greatest consumers of silver, George

Booth, second Earl of Warrington, to his daughter Mary, Countess of Stamford (1704–72), on her 50th birthday in 1754, weighed only 731 ounces (Fig. 7).25

A toilet service was generally treated as being the wife’s possession during her lifetime, though she was not necessarily free to dispose of it as she wished upon her death. When, for instance, Maria Shireburn, Duchess of Norfolk (c. 1693–1754), separated from her husband, Thomas Howard, the eighth duke, in 1715 she was allowed to keep the toilet service by Benjamin Pyne of 1708 – it had, after all, been given to her by her own father – but it was to revert to the Howards once she was dead.26 Lady Stamford was in a far more fortunate position, and not only because she was in a loving and mutually respectful marriage with Harry Grey, fourth Earl of Stamford. Her father, Lord Warrington, left his estates in trust for her benefit, a common means among the wealthy of protecting a wife’s interests and effectively putting her in the same position as a widow or an unmarried woman.27 She also maintained control of the silver she brought into the marriage, including a cup and cover of c. 1705 by Isaac Liger, which bears her native arms in a lozenge and must have been a christening present (Fig. 8). On her death in 1772, the countess had 2,700 ounces of plate, in addition

read next page

My Bookmarks

Buy this Book
Skip to main content