Excusing an uncle’s mistakes: A handwritten statement by William Carrol on the life of John Parker, 1840

by Sarah Wiltschek, BA History Student

At UL’s Special Collections, the O’Carrol Papers are incredibly interesting because of their insight into nineteenth century interpersonal and economic relationships. Most of the collection is centred around William Parker Carrol (1776–1842) and discusses the issues surrounding estate inheritance and management, as well as the reliance siblings have on the inheritor’s generosity. Carrol’s statement about his uncle, John Parker (unknown–unknown), and his poor financial decisions is a clear example of this. (P49/49) Specifically, the statement focused on Parker’s sale of his inheritance to Mr Studdert who was a solicitor in Athy. The inheritance included two estates, one in Tipperary and one in Clare. There is no further information regarding the location or names of the estates.

On 10 December 1840, Carrol wrote a statement to his son, William Hutchinson Carrol (1817–1895). In it, Carrol argued that Parker was influenced into selling his inheritance. He reasoned that this could void Parker’s sale of the two estates and allow his son to reclaim the land.

 

Picture of the envelope dated 10 Dec 1840 from Sir William Parker Carrol to William Hutchinson Carrol (P49/56)

 

The statement consists of six, yellowed pages (18.5 cm x 23.2 cm). On the first four pages, the spaces between sentences are consistent. On the fourth page, the spaces are closer together and the handwriting becomes uneven. By the sixth page, the writing is noticeably different, indicating that Carrol possibly grew frustrated as he recounted his uncle’s life.

 

Picture of the final page in Carrol’s statement about Parker (P49/49)

 

John Parker

Other than the information provided by Carrol in his statement, little is known about Parker’s life. Carrol claimed that before receiving his inheritance, Parker was highly respected. He was talented, accomplished, and involved in his local government. Eventually, he married Miss Lynde whose father was a doctor acknowledged by Queen Charlotte. Carrol did not specify where Parker resided, Miss Lynde’s first name, or when the marriage took place. Parker and Miss Lynde had eight children.

This description of Parker established two things; firstly, that he was once an upstanding citizen which reflected well on his family; and secondly, it helped Carrol’s argument that Parker was manipulated into financial ruin.

 

Gambling, and other unwise financial decisions

Carrol argued that Parker had a history of poor financial decisions before he sold the inherited estates. When Parker first received his inheritance, he was persuaded to start gambling. This lost him a lot of money.

 

Carrol denouncing Parker’s acquaintances as ‘Gentlemen by Birth, but swindlers by profession’ (P49/49)

 

After losing his money, Parker went to France. He was accompanied by people Carrol denounced as ‘swindlers by profession’. This shifted responsibility away from Parker and onto the people he surrounded himself with. Carrol alleged that in France, Parker was swayed by flattery to become a partner in a company. This company failed, resulting in Parker having to pay all its debts. Once again, the argument was that Parker was manipulated into acting against his interests.

An unspecified time later, Parker began an affair with an unnamed French woman who spent large sums of his money. Consequently, Parker sold the two estates he inherited for ‘infinitely less than their Value’. Mr Studdert bought the estates as well as Parker’s debt and mortgages.

This sale resulted in Parker’s yearly income reducing from £2,000 to between £400 and £500. Additionally, it impacted his siblings’ income and welfare. His brother, Francis, now only received £50 a year and his married sister resided with Studdert’s family until her death.

 

An extramarital affair… with a French woman!

Although infidelity was publicly seen as a breach of God’s commandments and a disturbance to civil society, 1, some degree of male infidelity was normalised if it remained discreet 2. By entering an openly illicit affair and leaving his wife, Parker acted in a socially unacceptable manner. Yet, Parker’s extramarital affair with the French woman was depicted similarly to his gambling and property sales. Namely, that it was not his fault. Carrol asserted that Parker was ‘induced […] to abandon his wife and Eight children’ by the French woman. Parker’s financial ruin and the familial estrangement that followed were allegedly also caused by her. This made the French woman responsible for Parker’s poor financial decisions and his questionable social behaviour.

 

Carrol claims the French woman persuaded Parker to leave his wife and become a ‘low life’ (P49/49)

 

The intricacies of Parker’s estrangement

During the nineteenth century, familial dynamics prioritised collective needs over individual desires 3. Additionally, a person’s family was an important guarantor of social stability 4. Still, Parker broke off contact with his children, siblings, and father. Subsequently, Parker’s father died in poverty. Carrol once again blamed the French woman and argued that she demanded Parker withhold most of his siblings’ inheritance from them. Based on social conventions of the time, Parker’s disregard for his family’s wellbeing and care was considered outrageous behaviour.

 

Argument to void the sale to Mr Studdert

Parker’s portrayal as someone fundamentally vulnerable to manipulation provided a loophole where the sales of the estates could be voided. In the early nineteenth century, sales could be labelled fraudulent if the buyer of an estate misrepresented its value as lower than it was 5. The only exception to this was if both the buyer and the seller did not know the value of the property 6. Carrol’s depiction of Parker characterised him as gullible, impulsive, and ultimately unable to gauge an estate’s value or act in his interest. However, whether this argument was used in a court of law, or if the sold estates were returned to the Carrol family, is currently unverified.

 

Carrol states that the estates were sold ‘for infinitely less than their Value’ (P49/49)

 

Upon his inheritance, Parker was responsible for providing for his family. However, his financial decisions left his siblings and children destitute. Carrol listed these mistakes to offer his son an opportunity to reclaim the estates. While highly subjective, Carrol’s statement provided valuable insights into the socio-economic landscape and complex family dynamics of nineteenth century Irish society.

 

  1. Dabhoiwala, Faramerz, ‘Sex and societies for moral reform, 1688-1800’ in Journal of British Studies, 46, 2 (2007), p. 319.[↩]
  2. Hughes, Kathryn, ‘Gender roles in the 19th century’ in The British Library (2014), available: https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/gender-roles-in-the-19th-century [accessed 22 Oct 2023].[↩]
  3. D’Cruze, Shani, ‘Chapter fifteen: the family’, in Chris Williams (ed.), A Companion to Nineteenth-Century Britain (Oxford, 2004), p. 266[↩]
  4. ’Cruze, Shani, ‘Chapter fifteen: the family’, in Chris Williams (ed.), A Companion to Nineteenth-Century Britain (Oxford, 2004), p. 269[↩]
  5. Sugden, Edward Burtenshaw, A practical treatise of the law of vendors & purchasers of estates (London, 1818), pp 226-7.[↩]
  6. Sugden, Edward Burtenshaw, A practical treatise of the law of vendors & purchasers of estates (London, 1818), p. 227.[↩]