1.

The downward spiral of contractual marriage

With the practice of pin-money established, the institution of marriage in the
eighteenth century now contracted the husband to maintain his wife by greater
means than rudimentary agreements of dower or jointure (Staves 131). New
literature such as The Ladys Law (1732) and Precedents in Conveyancing (1744)
emerged as a means of enforcing this settlement (Erikson 105). However, this
method of contracting a husband to maintain his wife was ultimately lacking in
validity and damaged the credibility of the presentation of marriage. The
marriage settlement signalled the weakening of ecclesiastical influence; despite
efforts to reintegrate the role of the Church such as in Hardwickes Marriage Act
(1753) spoken about in more detail here agreements such as pin-money
served to degrade the belief of husband and wife as unity of person in
coverture (Prest 112).
A wifes pin-money was now a component in developing this unity of person to
occur. A husband allowed his wife pin-money to maintain her appearance
through the purchase of clothing and various other dispensable items and in
order to maintain his social status. The system of coverture removed the
emotional or religious motivations for marriage and replaced it with a focus on
private expenditure.

For example, the Duchess of York walks alongside and embraces the Duke of
York, but this is not truly an image of marital bliss in the romantic sense. The
image foregrounds the joint financial steadfastness, Pin Money 5000" for the
Duchess and 300000 for the Duke. Nevertheless, this image is heavily
satirical considering the financial instability of the Duke who was known to have
significant debts, believed to be in excess of 401,169.
Ultimately, the main issue surrounding the pin-money settlement was the fact
that it effectively blurred legal enforcement of maintenance came to subsume a
husbands duty of maintenance to his wife. This echoes Samuel Johnsons image
of weddings as mere sealing and signing in the Issue No.54 of Tatler (1759),
despite efforts made to mandate the religious ceremony in the aforementioned
Marriage Act six years prior to the publication. Johnson ridicules pin-money
through the words of disgruntled wife Sukey Savecharges who must rely on the
law and the learned gentlemen of that profession to certify her claims for
unfair treatment. Placing a husbands common decency in contract makes the
agreement of pin-money easier to manipulate as it is contractual and not
emotional. Mr Savecharges justifies the case, Madam, I can now tell you your
coach is ready; and, since you are so passionately fond of one, I intend you the
honour of keeping a pair of horses You insisted upon having an article of pin-

money, and horses are no part of my agreement. Even in contract, pin-money

emblematises the subjectivity of marriage settlements and this problem can be
concluded in Tim Strettons analysis of coverture as a "rag bag of different rules
and conflicting court decisions" (Prest 120).
The system of coverture also removed a wifes claim to partake in common law
and nominated trustees were to represent the wife where dower or jointure was
concerned. However, separate estate was not subjected to the rules of common
law; another form of separate estate was in the form of paraphernalia, a brides
inheritance of jewels. The exchange of paraphernalia from wife to husband was
an action that could be motivated entirely by the wife, this is pictured below in
another depiction of the Duke and Duchess of York.

This image confirms that contracting of marriage signified a loss of emotional

impetus to the marriage. The Duchess declares, "My Jewels? trifles! not worth
the speaking of, if weigh'd against a husband's peace; but let 'em purchase that,
and the world's wealth is of less value". Working outside the common law
refreshes a marriage for a unity in happiness.
ALTER NOT REPLACE