Mira wrote:
It appears that the Deed of Trust, or 'Deed Poll' to give it its proper title, mentioned in this memo and in Tycho's enquiry above does exist.
I am getting a bit confused about these deeds! Tycho's original query was whether a formal Deed of Separation was ever drawn up. The memo above refers to a Trust, which would have required a Deed of Trust to set up the trust fund with Davison and Maurice Nelson as trustees. These two things are surely not the same? The Deed of Trust certainly existed - see Downer, Nelson's Purse, pages 214, 301 and 397. However although it may have been part of Nelson's arrangements for the separation, it was not a Deed of Separation and related only to the Trust Fund for Fanny's £4,000 legacy from her uncle (paid to Nelson). I do not believe it related to the other elements of the allowance to be paid to Fanny, and it would not imply a separation.
An agreement setting up a trust fund to allow a wife to retain control of her own money seems to have been a normal arrangement, even when there were no marriage difficulties. One example I have come across is my ancestor's second sister who married late in life (to 'the boy next door', now the local vicar and dockyard chaplain) and had inherited from her father. Before her marriage she entered into an agreement with her husband and two other trustees that she would retain full control over the money from her father. It seems that pre-marital agreements are not the exclusive remit of rock-stars, footballers and tycoons.
Nelson certainly was not obliged in law to hand over Fanny's legacy to her, but you can imagine the reaction of friends, family and newspapers if he was seen to keep it for himself.
Downer also refers to the other arrangements listed in the memo above (although he mentions a quarterly payment of £500 which may be an error), and seems to imply the arrangements were made before Nelson left London. In his notes on sources, he provides Lot 86 in the sale of the Alexander Davison Collection as the source (these are described as documents from c.1812-14 relating to the earlier Deed of Trust and other arrangements). Downer also explicitly refers to the word 'absence' also in the memo above:
'Lord Nelson during his absence...'. His conclusion (which I tend to agree with in this instance) is that Fanny (naively in my view) believed these arrangements were for Nelson's temporary absence at sea, rather than for a permanent separation.
Fanny's choice of trustees in the Deed of Trust was unfortunate, as Maurice Nelson died soon afterwards and Davison caused her difficulties for years by not sorting out arrangements for another trustee. Ironically, for many years the trust did not give Fanny the control over her legacy that Nelson had intended. Davison, for some unkown reason, thwarted Nelson's intentions until 1814, when Fanny finally got control over the legacy.
If Fanny had known there was to be a permanent separation, her choice of trustees would seem to me to be somewhat naive - although they were friends she trusted, surely she would have recognised that ultimately, if put to the test, both Maurice's and Davison's loyalties would have to be to Nelson.
Downer comments that Nelson's provisions for Fanny were generous and represented to a little over half his income at that time. I'm not sure whether that is true because the £200 income from Fanny's legacy is included as part of Nelson's £2,000 allowance to her, but is always omitted from Nelson's own statements of his income. Also I'm not sure what his full pay would have been. Half pay, despite its name, was not in fact half of what he earned on full pay. I am not sure if it was more or less. There are also allowances in lieu of Captain's/Admiral's servants to remember. And there was prize money - considerable amounts were still outstanding from previous years, and even his claim against St Vincent was ultimately successful on appeal in 1803, netting him £14,000. But the provisions still seem generous to me.
However it does seem to me that the legal agreement protected only the £200 income and £4,000 principal from Fanny's legacy, and that there is no evidence for any legal agreement or protection for her allowance out of Nelson's income. Legally, as Tycho points out, her position was precarious.