‘As the supply alluded to is to be levied upon all old maids, beyond a certain age, and intitled to certain yearly or other income; I make no doubt but both Houses of Parliament will speedily manifest their hearty concurrence thereto.’
The London Magazine, 1777.
(Five Colleges and Historic Deerfield Museum Consortium)
The 1777 edition of the London Magazine includes an interesting letter to the editor in which a gentleman—who signs himself as ‘A Friend to the Community’—has appended a proposed bill to levy a tax of ‘6d. in the pound’ on old maids. He claims that this tax will generate revenues of nearly £300,000 per annum, a sum which could then be used to help fund the British war against the American colonies. The proposed bill begins by stating:
‘That all maids, intitled to a clear yearly income of 100, or 1000l. in the whole, and so in proportion to any fortune above that sum, do at the age of 27 years (being the time limited for the commencement of their old maidship) register themselves in the books of the lord lieutenant of the county they live in, and then and there give in a true and particular inventory or schedule of all their real and personal estate…’
The bill goes on to state that any old maids of twenty-seven years or older who failed to register with the lord lieutenant of their county and give an inventory of their property would be penalized by having ‘a fourth of their fortune forfeited for the first offence’ and ‘double that sum for every other the like omission.’
(Yale Center for British Art)
The bulk of the author’s ire seems to be directed at ladies who were old maids by choice—those women who refused offers of marriage in order to remain independent or to keep control of their own money and property. For women who remained unmarried simply because no man had ever asked them for their hand, he is much more sympathetic. In fact, he exempts these ladies from the proposed tax altogether, writing:
‘And be it further enacted, by the advice and authority aforesaid, that this act, nor any matter, clause, or thing therein contained, shall not extend, or be deemed to extend to such old maids, as never had a true, genuine, or serious proposal of marriage made to them, nor to any person on their account, for ten years preceding their old maidship, any clause, matter, or thing contained to the contrary notwithstanding.’
According to a further provision, those ladies of 27 years of age or older who wished to avoid the onerous spinster tax by getting married had only a limited number of years in which to do so. The author of the bill gives women what amounts to an expiration date—an age after which they are prohibited from entering into marriage. He writes:
‘And be it further enacted, that after the age of 35 years, no old maid shall be allowed, or permitted to enter into the holy state of matrimony; as at that period they shall be deemed incapable of performing any of the necessary functions incident to such happy state.’
(Yale Center for British Art)
Adding insult to injury, the bill concludes by stating that ‘all legacies, given by old maids to favourite cats, lap-dogs, or to other animals, shall be void.’ Money that would have otherwise gone toward the care and support of an old maid’s pets after her death, would instead be appropriated by the government and used to defray the cost of the ‘present American war.’ As the final paragraph of the bill proclaims:
‘…and when and so soon as a peace shall be effected, or take place with the American colonies, that such sums be appropriated towards the support and maintenance of the Magdalene hospital.’
Magdalene hospitals, also known as Magdalene laundries, were 18th and 19th century institutions which housed unwed mothers and other ‘fallen’ women, often in conditions which were more brutal than a workhouse or a prison. The idea of taxing old maids to pay for the maintenance of such grim establishments seems a bit odd. One would think it made more sense to tax the gentlemen responsible for the condition of the unwed mothers. Unfortunately, the author of the bill makes no mention of any taxes on men except for a lone postscript which states, quite clearly:
‘No old bachelor is to be concerned in raising this tax upon any pretence whatever.’
(Yale Center for British Art)
I suspect that the proposed bill written by ‘A Friend to the Community’ was meant purely as masculine humor. Stories about old maids and their pets were a source of great amusement in both the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Nevertheless, there is something vaguely unsettling about the tone of this proposed bill. It makes one wonder, just what type of man was this ‘Friend to the Community’? And what in the world did an old maid ever do to him?
Sources
The London Magazine or Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer, Vol. XLVI. London: R. Baldwin, 1777.
Available Now
The Pug Who Bit Napoleon:
Animal Tales of the 18th and 19th CenturiesFrom elaborate Victorian cat funerals to a Regency era pony who took a ride in a hot air balloon, Mimi Matthews shares some of the quirkiest and most poignant animal tales of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Find out more…
ORDER TODAY
Amazon | Amazon UK | Barnes & Noble | Pen and Sword Books
© 2015-2019 Mimi Matthews
For exclusive information on upcoming book releases, giveaways, and other special treats, subscribe to Mimi’s newsletter THE PENNY NOT SO DREADFUL.
You can also connect with Mimi on Facebook and Twitter.
What a fascinating post but – oh dear, sadly, I can far too easily imagine a prospective MP proposing such a bill as part of their election campaign!
I can imagine it too, Melinda :) Given the current political climate, anything is possible!
What a misogynist! I expect he had proposed marriage to various ladies who turned him down, probably because they could tell he was a brute. Maybe he was responsible for some of the fallen women, because he had ‘needs’ that could not be satisfied within marriage because no decent woman would have him, so he blamed them for that because it couldn’t possibly be his fault.
I think you have it right about him possibly being a man who had proposed to someone (or multiple someones!) and been rejected. He really seemed to have a personal ax to grind in writing that bill.
Sounds as though he was one of those men no woman in her right mind would accept a proposal from. I agree wholeheartedly with Knotrune. In the light of the later and later marriages these days, his proposed banning of marriages over 35 is a bit off and suggests that he was a bit of a paedo too… even in the Regency era, it was not unknown for marriage as late as forty to be fruitful [I use this to give Miss Bates both a husband and a child in my Jane, Bow Street Consultant series] and many spinsters prevented… Read more »
Good points as always, Sarah. His provision about women not being allowed to marry after the age of 35 indicates that he was a man who likely knew very little about relations with women. Probably the reason for so much bitterness!
Thanks for that lovely piece of research. It gives me an uncomfortable laugh, and I really hope this ‘friend of the community’ was not being serious. But looking at the state of women’s rights in his time, I’m afraid he might have found it a pretty good idea. Otherwise, what were unmarried women good for? Urgh!
I agree with the other repliers that this person might not have been the best candidate for marriage himself. ;-)
I’m so glad you enjoyed it, Josephine :) I do think he was trying to be funny (for men at the expense of women), but it struck me that there was an underlying maliciousness to what he wrote. Then again, in light of the current political climate, it’s hard for me to laugh at any bill that begins with a registry and ends with robbing people of their fundamental rights.
I don’t think he was trying to be funny. As man I feel the sentiments after his writings. And these are not funny sentiments. Nothing to joke about in my eyes.
I must say I think it has to be a joke. Not very funny to us, but perhaps at the time there were connotations that are not clear in this day and age. Old maids being encourage to get married? Women with property ought to be marrying some man who needed the income? I expect the gentlemen found it funny even if the old maids did not.
I think it was meant as a joke as well, Elizabeth :) Though definitely a joke for a purely male audience!
Oh bugger, I am 31, single and catless! Do I have to pay the tax too? XD
Effing retard, I’m sure he died without a wife! (He didn’t deserve one in the first place, tax my arse!) :x
Let’s hope he didn’t persuade any poor woman to marry him before her 35 year expiration date!
I’m sure he himself must’ve expired before the age of 35. Being womanless must’ve really killed him.
Oh, my gosh, I don’t even have words for this! I truly hope it was meant as satire.
I suspect that is what he was aiming for, but it did come across sounding a bit personal, didn’t it?
It really sounds as resentful.
I agree, Machiel!
Reblogged this on Book Smart TV and commented:
Author Mimi Matthews astounds us once again today, not only with her encyclopedic knowledge of history, but with this delightful piece about a proposition to tax old maids of twenty-seven! I know you’ll enjoy.
Now, here’s Mimi Matthews:
Thank you so much for the reblog, Diana :) And for your very kind words!
Aw hell, don’t give Trump ideas!
I hope it won’t!
This was great! But old maid at 27! Good Lord!
I’m glad you enjoyed it, Olivia :)
Reblogged this on soundofherownvoice and commented:
this is too wonderful not to share.
Thanks so much for sharing, Leslie :)