Andrew Marvell ‘in want of money’: The Evidence in John Farrington v. Mary Marvell

Abstract

'The legend of Marvell's poverty' - to borrow a phrase from a recent essay by Annabel Patterson and Martin Dzelzainis - underpins his reputation as an incorruptible defender of liberty.1 That underpinning is illustrated by the tale told in 1726 by Marvell's editor, Thomas Cooke, of the attempt by Charles II, through his Lord Treasurer Danby, to compromise Marvell's independence by offering him, first, a place at court and, when that had been declined, one thousand pounds. After Danby had left, so Cooke's story goes, Marvell had to send out to borrow a guinea.2 A later elaboration, recounted by Augustine Birrell from a 'pamphlet printed in Ireland (1754)', even has Marvell asking his servant, in Danby's presence, what he has for dinner and being told that it is the broiled blade-bone from yesterday's shoulder of mutton.3 The legend obviously invites a degree of scepticism. Given what we know about Marvell's liking for secrecy, it is easy to believe that, if he had been a wealthy man or just comfortably off, he would have taken care to conceal the fact. This conjecture, in the absence of evidence either way, seems just as plausible as that of his poverty. However, recently discovered documents in the Public Record Office, in particular a deposition sworn by the bookseller Nathaniel Ponder, establish beyond much doubt that Marvell was genuinely poor.The deposition is one of five that were taken in the course of Chancery proceedings brought by John Farrington, as administrator of the personal estate of Edward Nelthorpe, against the administrators of Marvell's estate, Mary Marvell and John Greene. The case, Farrington v. Marvell, is the main action in a cluster of Chancery proceedings which were discovered by Fred S. Tupper and used by him in his attempt to show that Mary Marvell, otherwise known as Mary Palmer, was not as she claimed the widow of Andrew Marvell. Tupper argued that the Chancery proceedings demonstrated that she had been an accomplice of John Farrington's who at first helped him to get control of Edward Nelthorpe's assets but later fell out with him and tried to claim some of those assets for herself.4 The documents that Tupper discussed were the pleadings (bills of complaint and answers) and orders made in these proceedings. He not find the depositions, that is to say, the evidence of the witnesses produced and examined on behalf of the parties.5Farrington, the complainant in the main action, and Nelthorpe, whose estate he was administering, had been two of four partners who carried on the business of merchant bankers under the name Richard Thompson & Company. The partners were declared bankrupt in 1676. Because official bankruptcy records are sparse for the period before 1710, we are forced to rely for most of our information about the collapse on the self-serving account published by the partners themselves (or some of them).6 In this, they defend themselves against accusations of having concealed their assets and account books and allege that they had paid out £60,000 before the initial meeting with their creditors and another £50,000 afterwards. They blame the intransigence of a minority of creditors for the failure to reach an agreement on the distribution of their assets, claiming that this minority had procured the appointment of three successive commissions in bankruptcy against the partners, not being satisfied as to the rigour with which the original commission and its successor had pursued the partners.7At the time of his death, on 18 September 1678, Nelthorpe had been living in hiding in Great Russell Street, in a house held on a short lease in the name of Mary Palmer, the woman who would become Marvell's administratrix under the name Mary Marvell. She later said that Marvell had requested her to take the house on lease in about June 1677, saying that a friend of his would come to stay with them there. The friend, who turned out to be Nelthorpe, would pay the rent and housekeeping expenses and give her £10 a year in addition 'for her Trouble' (C6/242/13). …