King of Clubs, Whig Conversation Club of the Early Regency Period

Unknown The King of Clubs was a famous Whig conversation club, founded in 1798. In contrast to its mainly Tory forerunner The Club (established by Samuel Johnson, Edmund Burke and Sir Joshua Reynolds), it was a predominantly Whig fraternity of some of the most brilliant minds of the day. For an early description of the club see W.P. Courtney’s description in ‘Lord Byron and his Times.’51dxB7rG-+L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-v3-big,TopRight,0,-55_SX278_SY278_PIkin4,BottomRight,1,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_

Membership
The original inspiration for its formation came from the Rev. Sydney Smith’s older brother, Robert – nicknamed “Bobus” after gaining the reputation at Eton for being such a clever Latin “versifier.” The founding members were a group of friends who first met at the house of James Mackintosh in February, 1798. As well as Mackintosh, the group comprised Samuel Rogers, James Scarlett, 1st Baron Abinger, Richard “Conversation” Sharp (see my March 29 post on Sharp), the historian John Allen and Robert Smith, and by 1801 what had started as a small clique of friends had become a properly constituted club comprising the following members,

Richard Porson
Smithson Tennant
John Courtney
Bryan Edwards
“Bobus” Smith
Jo. Richardson
John Allen
Samuel Rogers
Charles Butler
Richard Sharp
James Scarlett, 1st Baron Abinger
James Mackintosh
William Dickinson
John Whishaw
Josiah Wedgwood II
Pierre Etienne Louis Dumont
Henry Vassall-Fox, 3rd Baron Holland

Within seven years the club expanded to include such additional illustrious names as

Thomas Moore
John Wedgwood
Henry Brougham
Thomas Creevey
William Smith
Lord Petty
George Philips
Francis Horner
Rev. Peter Elmsley
Samuel Romilly
John Ward, 1st Earl of Dudley
Rev. Sydney Smith
John Hoppner
Samuel Boddington

The King of Clubs had by now become well known throughout London as an exclusive Whig dining club where erudite conversation on all matters pertaining to books, authors and literature took place, but where the discussion of politics was positively excluded. Tom Campbell described the club as “a gathering-place of brilliant talkers, dedicated to the meetings of the reigning wits of London”. The annual subscription had originally been set at 2 guineas but this was reduced to £2 in 1804, raised to 3 guineas in 1808, and finally fixed at £3 in 1810. As a dining club, an additional charge of 10 shillings and 6 pence was made for dinner, a considerable sum in those days, and princely suppers were held in Harley Street and later at the Crown and Anchor, Arundel Street, in the Strand. The Crown and Anchor was the very inn where Samuel Johnson and James Boswell had once enjoyed supping together; and it was especially popular among the Whigs after it had hosted a great banquet in honour of Fox’s birthday in 1798, when an enormous crowd of 2000 Reformers had toasted The People – the Source of Power!

Such was the popularity of the King of Clubs, and so sought after did membership become, that in 1808 a decision was taken to limit membership to a maximum of thirty people who were resident in England. By this time the membership had gained:

Lord Melbourne
Earl Cowper
William Blake
Abercromby (Lord Dunfermline)
Alexander Baring, 1st Baron Ashburton
Charles Kinnaird, 8th Lord Kinnaird
Henry Luttrell
R.P. Knight
Thomas Malthus
Lord John Townshend MP
John Fleming
John Playfair
George Lamb
Lord King
Henry Hallam
David Ricardo
Lord Thomas Denman, 1st Baron Denman

In 1797 Bobus Smith, the originator of the club, accepted a seven year posting in India as Advocate General of Bengal. His move abroad was a great loss to the King of Clubs and while he was away he asked Richard Sharp to perform a number of duties for him:

“…for I bear you the warmest and most sincere regard, and look upon your friendship as one of the greatest pleasures, past and to come, which has fallen in my way these many years.”

Sydney Smith came to London and took his brother’s place at the club in 1803/4, having previously worked with Francis Jeffrey and Henry Brougham on the Edinburgh Review, a renowned Whig literary magazine, which, with Allen, he had helped to initiate. When he arrived in the city, the irrepressible Sydney formed an immediate attachment to the King of Clubs and his unique sense of humour quickly endeared him to other members and gave meetings an added piquancy. The club lost another of its original members when Sir James Mackintosh, recently knighted, accepted the post of Recordership of Bombay in 1804 and followed in Bobus’s footsteps.

A record book of the King of Clubs has been preserved and a typical meeting of about this time (1804) lists the following members in attendance:

Richard Porson
Richard Sharp
James Scarlett
Sir James Mackintosh
Sydney Smith
Samuel Boddington
Hon. William Drummond
George Philips Manchester
Henry Luttrell
David Ricardo
Charles Kinnaird, 8th Lord Kinnaird Lower Grosvenor St

Meetings
Meetings of the King of Clubs did not always take place at the Crown and Anchor, and after 1819 they were held at the Freemasons’ Tavern, at Grillions in Albemarle Street, and latterly at the Clarendon Hotel. A surviving account from one of the club’s early meetings shows that a dinner for twelve members cost a £24, which included two bottles of Madeira, three bottles of Sherry, two bottles of Port and three bottles of Claret. Despite such unashamed conviviality there is no evidence that alcohol in any way impeded the flow or the quality of the conversation that took place, and we may imagine that the reverse was probably the case since the atmosphere was always a happy blend of the jovial and the serious. It was expected that members should give time to the preparation of their bon-mots, witticisms and anecdotes so that in due course these could be woven into the discussion as productively and effectively as possible. Clayden recalls how on one occasion Sharp, in fun, chanced upon Boddington’s notes before a meeting, made a mental note of all his stories and brought them into the conversation before Boddington could relate them himself.

The preparation that members were expected to undertake before attending meetings of the King of Clubs does not seem to have spoiled either the spontaneity of what occurred or the enjoyment of those who attended. Yet when Francis Horner had his first experience of the club, on 10 April 1802, he gained a very mixed impression, finding the conversation less animated than he had anticipated but attributing this to the absence of Sydney Smith:

“This day I dined at the King of Clubs which meets monthly at the Crown and Anchor in the Strand. The company consisted of Mackintosh, Romilly, Whishaw, Abercromby, Sharp, Scarlett, etc. Smith is not yet come to town. The conversation was very pleasing. It consisted chiefly of literary reminiscences, anecdotes of authors, criticisms of books, etc. I had been taught to expect a very different scene – a display of argument, wit and all the flourishes of intellectual gladiatorship, which though less permanently pleasing, is for the time more striking. This expectation was not answered, partly, as I am given to understand, from the absence of Smith, and partly from the presence of Romilly, who evidently received from all an unaffected deference and imposed a certain degree of restraint.”

Horner regretted that there was no discussion of political ideas and complained that Sharp and Mackintosh seemed to be too much in agreement with one another, “as if they belonged to a kind of sect.” In a sense this remark was quite true, but Horner was quite happy to become a member of the sect himself that year and Clayden confirms that by 1804 Mackintosh and Sydney Smith had established “a kind of society” which still held parties “once or twice every week” in their own homes. In effect these were a continuation of the informal meetings which had started in 1798 and which Horner was now happy to attend. As far as the more formal meetings of the club were concerned there was broad agreement by members that James Mackintosh and Sydney Smith were the most brilliant contributors. Tom Moore felt that certain of the group, Mackintosh included, invested so much of their time and energy in club proceedings that their literary and professional careers suffered as a direct consequence, but whatever the risks, the King of Clubs enjoyed immense status as a place where superb conversation might be found and accordingly membership became more keenly sought than ever. In 1809, and mindful of those times when he had been in financial straits, Sydney Smith wrote dryly to Lady Holland:

“…we have admitted a Mr Baring, importer and writer, into the King of Clubs, upon the express promise that he lends £50 to any member of the club when applied to. I proposed this amendment to his introduction which was agreed to without a dissenting voice.”

Smith added pointedly:

“I wish you would speak to [Samuel] Romilly about the levity and impropriety of his conversation – he is becoming an absolute rake and Ward and I talk of leaving the Club if a more chaste line of dialogue is not adhered to.”

At one stage it was proposed by Mackintosh that the conversation and witticisms of their meetings should be recorded in a literary magazine, to be called The Bachelor. It was felt that there existed more than sufficient material to support a twice-weekly publication, but although the idea had the support of Rogers, Robert Smith, Scarlett and Sharp, the project never materialised. Consequently, though the Club’s meetings spanned a quarter of a century, few details hav$e survived of the bonhomie, the magic and the sparkling conversation that went on at them. The reason for the final demise of the club is not known but the poet Thomas Campbell became a frequent guest and in the following letter to a friend he reflects on some of the reasons why he himself gradually became disenchanted:

“Much of the art and erudition of these men please an auditor at the first and second visit; the trial of minds becomes at last fatiguing because it is unnatural and unsatisfactory. Every one of these brilliants goes there to shine, for conversational powers are so much the rage in London that no reputation is higher than his who exhibits them to advantage. Where everyone tries to instruct there is, in fact, but little instruction. Wit, paradox, eccentricities, even absurdity, if delivered rapidly and facetiously, takes priority in these societies of sound reason and delicate taste. I have watched sometimes the devious tide of conversation guided by accidental associations turning from topic to topic and satisfactory upon none. What has one learned? – has been my general question. The mind it is true is electrified and quickened, and the spirits are fiercely exhilarated, but grand fault pervades the whole institution – their enquiries are desultory, and all improvements to be reaped must be accidental.”

Ending
As a creative phenomenon perhaps it was inevitable that the King of Clubs should enjoy an initial period of rapid growth, reach a high point of maturity, and then suffer a final decline. Perhaps the appeal of such a club went out of fashion, or perhaps more likely it simply outgrew itself and became a victim of its own success. As more and more people with diverse personalities and different conversational skills became members, the dynamics of the group must inevitably have changed and in Campbell’s view the club was ultimately consumed in the heat of its own incandescence. But as it came towards its end, the final glowing embers were not easily extinguished in the hearts of members and many warm memories were kept alive. A good number of those who had attended meetings for much of their lives would reflect nostalgically in old age on what wonderfully pleasurable times had been spent at the club. Richard Sharp summed up the sentiment at the very end of his life, when he wrote to Scarlett on the 13th of November, 1834:

“Ah yes! – our King of Club days with Mackintosh, Bobus, Dumont and Romilly, were days that the Gods might envy!”

Posted in British history, George IV, Great Britain, language choices, Living in the Regency, political stance, real life tales, Regency personalities, Victorian era | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“Conversation” Sharp – Victorian, Richard Sharp, Doyen of the Conversationalists

Richard Sharp, FRS, FSA (1759 – 30 March 1835), also known as “Conversation” Sharp, was a hat-maker, banker, merchant, poet, critic, British politician, but above all – doyen of the conversationalists.

Family Background
Sharp was born in Newfoundland. His father, also Richard Sharp, came from a well-known family of merchants in Romsey, England, and in 1756 joined the British army as a nineteen-year-old Ensign in His Majesty’s 40th Regiment of Foot – a regiment which would later became known as the “illustrious 40th” after distinguishing itself during the Seven Years’ War against the French in North America (1756–1763). While garrisoned at St. John’s in Newfoundland, Ensign Richard Sharp met and fell in love with Elizabeth Adams, a citizen of St John’s, and they were married in 1759. Richard and Elizabeth’s first son was soon born and, though naming him ‘Richard,’ they could have had little idea when he grew up he would become variously known throughout London society as ‘Hatter Sharp,’ ‘Furrier Sharp,’ ‘Copenhagen Sharp’ (after a famous speech that he gave as an MP castigating the British bombardment of Copenhagen) or, most famously of all, as ‘Conversation Sharp’ Long before this time, and while the Lieutenant was still in North America fighting the war, his grandfather was establishing a highly successful firm of hat-makers on Fish Street Hill in the very heart of London. Thither, in about 1763, the wounded soldier and his family returned from Newfoundland and there he died a few years later at the age of twenty-eight. His grandfather had been a close friend of Isaac Watts, all the family being staunch Dissenters, so Richard was buried in the family vault within the Dissenters’ graveyard at Bunhill Fields (where his tomb-stone is still visible).

In 1769, the widow Elizabeth Sharp married Thomas Cable Davis, a partner in the hatter’s business, and they had further children, while it was not long before Richard Sharp, still in his teens, began to assume a major responsibility for the family business as evidence of his exceptional abilities.

Biography

Isaac Watts

Isaac Watts

Until the age of 13/14, Richard Sharp was educated at Thaxted, Essex, by the Rev. John Fell, a Dissenting minister, and a friendship sprang up between the two which lasted until Fell’s death. At the age of 24, Sharp wrote the “Preface” to Fell’s influential book, An Essay towards an English Grammar (1784), a work which is still acknowledged and quoted to this day. Graduating from Fell’s care, Sharp returned to the family home/business at 6 Fish Street Hill to begin a 7-year apprenticeship to become a master hatter. In this role he excelled, not only rescuing the business from imminent commercial failure but gradually developing his exceptional erudition and powers of conversation in such a way as to enable him to rise from the humble ranks of hatter to reach celebrity status in several different spheres of life. A commentator described Sharp at about the age of thirty as,

…already a figure in society, where his great conversational powers and his unbounded goodness of heart made him universally welcome. His judgement was trusted by all who knew him, and in later years statesmen went to him for counsel and advice. It would scarcely be too much to say that he was the most popular man in London society in his time.

Sharp thought seriously about joining the legal profession and he was admitted to the Inner Temple on 24 January 1786. It seems however that his strict moral conscience could not be reconciled with the prospect of having to defend a guilty man, and in the end he was not called to the Bar. In 1798 he finally retired from the hatter’s business and joined a firm of West India merchants run by his friend Samuel Boddington in Mark Lane, a third partner later becoming Sir George Philips. Sharp made so much money as a merchant, and through his investments and banking connections, that he eventually left an incredible £250,000 in his Will. He was once described as being ‘one of the most considerable merchants in London’ and his acquired knowledge of the shipping business enabled him to give crucial support and advice to Samuel Coleridge in 1804 when the poet was about to leave England for health reasons. Indeed, as a respected London critic, Sharp gave important assistance and encouragement to both Coleridge and Wordsworth, among many others, and although much of their correspondence with Sharp has been sold overseas, some may still be seen within the poets’ collected works.

Powers as a Conversationalist
Despite his modest roots, Richard Sharp’s exceptional cleverness and powers of conversation gained him acceptance in the highest social circles and led to him acquiring his lasting sobriquet. Although he achieved distinction in many areas, he nevertheless seems to have made most impact upon people simply because of his basic human kindness and wisdom, as a few quotes from some of those who knew him well will illustrate:

John William Ward, later Earl of Dudley, was not only a man of immense personal wealth but similarly renowned for being an extremely talented, quick-witted and humorous man with a tenacious memory. He described Richard Sharp as,

Hatter Sharp, alias Copenhagen Sharp, alias Conversation Sharp, he is my particular friend, and I cannot forbear adding in perfect seriousness one of the most thoroughly amiable, good-tempered, well-informed, sensible men that I have ever become acquainted with.

Francis Horner, an original contributor to the Edinburgh Review and a barrister before he turned to politics, met Sharp when he came to London:

This morning spent with Sharp has forced me to attempt again a journal. He is a very extraordinary man; I have seen so much of him lately that I determine every day to see more of him, as much as I possibly can. His great subject is criticism, upon which he always appears to me original and profound; what I have not frequently observed in combination, he is both subtle and feeling. Next to literature, the powers of his understanding, at once ingenious and plain, show themselves in the judgement of characters; he has seen much of the great men of the last generation and he appears to have seen them well. In this particular his conversation is highly interesting; from his talent of painting by incidents and minute ordinary features, he almost carries you back to the society of those great personages and makes you live for a moment in their presence.

Horner later wrote to Lady Mackintosh in 1805 in the same admiring tones, complaining that he simply could not get enough of Sharp’s company and telling her ‘….Sharp I respect and love more and more every day; he has every day new talents and new virtues to show’. Her husband, Sir James Mackintosh, was one of the few people that Sharp felt able to discuss metaphysics with and he expressed the opinion that Richard Sharp had made a greater influence on his thinking than almost any other person. In Byron’s opinion Sharp was one of those who had ‘lived much with the best – Fox, Horne Tooke, Windham, Fitzpatrick and all the agitators of other times and tongues..’ while Macaulay was similarly impressed by Sharp when he commented in a letter to his sister before leaving for India,

….the other day I had a long talk with Sharp about everything and everybody – metaphysics, poetry, politics, scenery and paintings. One thing I have observed in Sharp which is quite peculiar to him among Town wits and diners-out – he never talks scandal. If he can say nothing good of a man he holds his tongue. I do not of course mean that in confidential communications about politics he does not speak freely of public men, but about the follies of individuals I do not believe that – as much as I have talked with him – I ever heard him utter one word. I passed three or four hours very agreeably in his company….

As a young man Sharp met Samuel Johnson and Edmund Burke and dined regularly with Boswell. He was a close friend of the dramatist Richard Cumberland, of Mrs Siddons, and of John Henderson the actor. The latter once asked Sharp to report on the acting ability of an up-and-coming rival, John Kemble, which Sharp did and his accurate account of Kemble may still be read.

Political Reform
By the late 1780s Sharp was at the hub of the Dissenter movement in London at a crucial period in history when Revolution was in the air and when young intellectual Whigs such as he fell under natural suspicion. (See Richard Price and the Revolution Controversy.) He belonged to the Society for Constitutional Information and helped, with other leading Whigs, to establish the Friends of the People society. At about the same time he became one of the Dissenters’ ‘Deputies’ – it being the custom for each dissenting congregation within ten miles of London to be represented by two such deputies and their common aim being to overturn the notorious Test Acts which so discriminated against them. In this latter connection Sharp issued a famous ‘Letter’ in support of repeal which may still be viewed within the British Library records. In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed and Thomas Clarkson records that Richard Sharp was elected onto this famous Committee along with David Hartley (the Younger). The Committee produced prints showing the layout of a typical slave ship (Brookes (ship))and how cramped it was, which had a profound effect on all who saw it, significantly helping to change public opinion regarding the slave trade. The print showed each slave being allocated less than 2metres height and .5 metre width for a lengthy sea voyage that could last for 6 months or more, such figures being calculated on the assumption that there were about 400 slaves on a ship when in fact it was known that there were sometimes more than 600.

Friends and Acquaintances
Sharp’s reputation as a critic increased when his close friend, Samuel Rogers, began to emerge as the most eminent and popular poet of that period (his poem “To a Friend” being dedicated to Sharp) and both visited Wordsworth in the Lakes and gave him important ‘city’ support before this new, naturalistic style of poetry became truly fashionable. The Rogers family in Newington Green was a well known one in Dissenting circles, and the names of Joseph Priestley, Samuel Parr, Richard Price, Rev. John Fell, Kippis and Towers were eminently familiar to both men. Apart from a common interest in Unitarianism, both Sharp and Rogers became well known for their good taste at a time when ‘taste’ was one of the most vital commodities that an aspiring young man could acquire. Rogers’ home in St James’s Place was visited by almost every famous person in London and he was a guest of royalty. Both men were habitues at the fashionable Whig salon, Holland House, and considerable correspondence between Sharp and Lord and Lady Holland has survived to this day. When Sharp moved to his house in Park Lane he acquired portraits painted by Reynolds of Johnson, Burke and of Reynolds himself as symbols of those things that he most cherished – language, oratory and art. At his cottage retreat, in Mickleham, Surrey, he received politicians, artists, scientists and some of the cleverest minds of the day including people from abroad such as the intriguing but formidable Mme de Staël. Guests were recorded and included such names as Henry Hallam, Thomas Colley Grattan, Sydney Smith John Stuart Mill, James Mill, Basil Hall, Dugald Stewart, Horne Tooke, Lord Jeffrey, Archbishop Whately, Walter Scott, Tom Moore, George Crabbe, Michael Faraday, Charles Babbage, Richard Porson, Maria Edgeworth, Francis Chantrey, and Sir Thomas Lawrence.

Clubs and Politics
Sharp was a founder member of the intellectual ‘King of Clubs’ conversation club as well as a leading figure in founding the London Institution in 1806, a venue for popular education and a forerunner of London University. He belonged to a great many London Clubs and Societies, such as Brooks’s, the Athenaeum, the ‘Unincreasable,’ the ‘Eumelean’ and the ‘Clifford-street Debating Club.’ An early member of the Literary Society, in 1787 he became a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries and in 1806 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, his application for the latter being supported by such names as Charles Burney Jnr, James Watt and Humphry Davy. During the period 1810-1812 Sharp was appointed Prime Warden of the Fishmongers’ Company in London and at different times represented the Whig party as a dissenting Member of Parliament for Castle Rising from 1806 to 1812, Portarlington from 1816 to 1819 and Ilchester from 1826 to 1827. In the House of Commons he often sat next to his friend, Samuel Whitbread, and supported his move for popular education.

End of Life
Sharp once considered writing a history of American independence and wrote to his friends, John Adams and John Quincy Adams about this and other matters. He also considered writing a tourist’s guide to Europe after becoming so familiar with continental travel that he was once called ‘the Thomas Cook of his day.’ In the event his only publication was a slim volume of ‘Letters and Essays in Prose and Verse’ published shortly before his death.

Towards the end of his life Sharp liked to spend the winter months at his house in Torquay (Higher Terrace) where he was able to look out to sea and no doubt think fondly of his birthplace in Newfoundland. He had suffered all his life with a cough and a bad chest and Torquay was noted for both its health-giving air and Italianate landscape, but in 1834 the winter was particularly severe and as Sharp succumbed he resolved that he would die in his beloved London. He set off for the city with his family and servants but only got as far as Dorchester before expiring at the coaching inn there. Fearful that a nephew might obtain and subvert his Will, we are told that 70-year-old George Philips, in a final act of kindness, set off on his horse Canon and rode through the night as fast as he could to ensure that this did not occur!

Richard ‘Conversation’ Sharp never married but in about 1812 he adopted an infant, Maria Kinnaird, who had been orphaned by a catastrophic volcano eruption in the West Indies. Maria, as a teenager, knew Wordsworth’s daughter, Dora, very well and in later life she led an interesting and colourful life in London Society. Macaulay and Romilly (son of Samuel Romilly) were among many eligible young men who were said to be enamoured of Maria but in 1835 she married Thomas Drummond, who later became Undersecretary for Ireland. In the same year, Sharp died at Dorchester.

London Institution
220px-London_Institution_at_the_Finsbury_Circus Richard Sharp’sexc eptional shrewdness and eloquence were frequently aimed at bringing about some tangible outcome or change, and nowhere was this more the case than with regard to the formation of the London Institution. One commentator is in no doubt that this man’s particular role was pivotal in the establishment of this important Institution when he wrote that it was…

…chiefly owing to his influences and exertions that the London Institute (sic) for the improvement of Science and Literature has been established.

As a pioneer and champion of adult education, Sharp’s initiative predates that of his better known contemporary, George Birkbeck, whose Mechanics’ Institutes only developed in Glasgow, London and elsewhere from the 1820s onwards. Like Sharp, Birkbeck was from a dissenter background and both were committed to making education more democratically available. Indeed, history would show that many of the founders of the London Institution would be those who joined with Thomas Campbell and Henry Brougham to found a new University for London incorporating Birkbeck’s Mechanics’ Institute as Birkbeck College.

At the very beginning of its life, Richard Sharp was a member of the Institution’s Temporary Management Committee and he remained a Manager for most of his life. In 1810 he served as their Chairman, resigning from this position on 10 September 1812, and for the years 1827 and 1831 he was Vice-President. Throughout his long period of office he was brought into contact with many leading artists, thinkers and men of science, and as his interest in education grew he supported Whitbread’s move for a proper system of state education as well as Henry Brougham’s drive for a fully-fledged city University.

Published Works
In 1828 Sharp’s only book Letters & Essays in Prose and Verse was published (Murray) which the Quarterly Review declared to be remarkable for “wisdom, wit, knowledge of the world and sound criticism.” Several editions, including an American copy, were published: Letters and essays in prose and verse. Carey & Hart. 1835.

Richard Sharp is a sadly forgotten personality of his age and his biography has surely been a glaring omission from any history of the period. This has recently been corrected by a scholarly volume, privately published as Conversation Sharp – The Biography of a London Gentleman, Richard Sharp (1759–1835), in Letters, Prose and Verse (2004), of which a copy is in many leading British Libraries.

A single, contemporary image of Sharp is known to exist, an excellent master drawing which is held in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

Posted in British history, Great Britain, language choices, political stance, real life tales, Uncategorized, Victorian era | Tagged , | 4 Comments

UK Real Estate: Lacock Abbey, Wiltshire, Backdrop for Harry Potter, Pride and Prejudice, and Robin of Sherwood

Southern view of Lacock Abbey

Southern view of Lacock Abbey

Lacock Abbey in the village of Lacock, Wiltshire, England, was founded in the early 13th century by Ela, Countess of Salisbury, as a nunnery of the Augustinian order.

History
Lacock Abbey, dedicated to St Mary and St Bernard, was founded in 1229 by the widowed Lady Ela the Countess of Salisbury, who laid the abbey’s first stone 16 April 1232, in the reign of King Henry III, and to which she retired in 1238. Her late husband had been William Longespee, an illegitimate son of King Henry II. The abbey was founded in Snail’s Meadow, near the village of Lacock. The first of the nuns were veiled in 1232.

Generally, Lacock Abbey prospered throughout the Middle Ages. The rich farmlands which it had received from Ela ensured it a sizeable income from wool.

The chapter house survives unaltered.

The chapter house survives unaltered.


Following the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the mid-16th century, Henry VIII of England sold it to Sir William Sharington, who converted it into a house starting in 1539, demolishing the abbey church. Few other alterations were made to the monastic buildings themselves: the cloisters, for example, still stand below the living accommodation. About 1550, Sir William added an octagonal tower containing two small chambers, one above the other; the lower one was reached through the main rooms, and was for storing and viewing his treasures; the upper one, for banqueting, only accessible by a walk across the leads of the roof. In each is a central octagonal stone table carved with up-to-date Renaissance ornament. A mid-16th century stone conduit house stands over the spring from which water was conducted to the house. Further additions were made over the centuries, and the house now has various grand reception rooms.

In the 16th and early 17th centuries, Nicholas Cooper has pointed out, bedchambers were often named for individuals who customarily inhabited them when staying at a house. At Lacock, as elsewhere, they were named for individuals “whose recognition in this way advertised the family’s affinities”: the best chamber was “the duke’s chamber,” probably signifying John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, whom Sharington had served, while “Lady Thynne’s chamber,” identified it with the wife of Sir John Thynne of Longleat, and “Mr Mildmay’s chamber” was reserved for Sharington’s son-in-law Anthony Mildmay of Apethorpe in Northamptonshire.

During the English Civil War the house was garrisoned by Royalists. It was fortified by surrounding it with earthworks. The garrison surrendered (on agreed terms) to Parliamentarian forces under the command of Colonel Devereux, Governor of Malmsbury, within days of Oliver Cromwell’s capture of the nearby town of Devizes in late September 1645.

The Abbey also underwent alterations in the 1750s under the ownership of John Ivory Talbot in the Gothick Revival style. The architect was Sanderson Miller.

The house eventually passed to the Talbot family. It is most often associated with William Henry Fox Talbot (see my Friday, March 24, post on Talbot). In 1835 Talbot made the earliest known surviving example of a photographic negative, a photogenic print of the oriel window in the south gallery of the Abbey. Talbot continued with his experiments at the Abbey and by 1840 had discovered the negative/positive process to record photographic images by chemical means.

The Abbey houses the Fox Talbot Museum devoted to Talbot’s pioneering work in photography and the original photograph of the oriel window he developed.

Lacock Abbey and the surrounding village were given to the National Trust in 1944. The Trust market the abbey and village together as Lacock Abbey, Fox Talbot Museum & Village.

The Abbey in Film

The cloisters of Lacock Abbey

The cloisters of Lacock Abbey

Some interior sequences in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets were filmed at Lacock, including the cloister walk (illustrated, left) where Harry comes out from Professor Lockhart’s room after serving detention and hears the basilisk. During four days in October 2007 Lacock was also used to film some scenes for the sixth Harry Potter film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Warner Bros. announced that the spooky nights of Hogwarts were also filmed here with most of the main characters including Daniel Radcliffe.

The Abbey was one of two major locations for the 2008 film version of the historical novel The Other Boleyn Girl.

Lacock appears in the “Robin Hood and the Sorcerer,” “Cromm Cruac” and “The Pretender” episodes of Robin of Sherwood. It was also used in the 1995 BBC/A&E production of “Pride and Prejudice.”

In the Spring of 2012, it was a filming location of the fantasy adventure movie Mariah Mundi and the Midas Box, which was released in 2013.

Posted in British history, buildings and structures, Living in the UK, religion | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

During the Reign of George IV: The Metropolitan Police Act of 1829

In my current WIP (Work in Progress), I have spent countless hours in studying the working of the law in 1816 London. The difficulty is there was no Metropolitan Police Force to handle the investigations. The fragmented dealings have created a quagmire of legalities for me to decipher, but I am loving the process.

Sir Robert Peel

Sir Robert Peel

The Metropolitan Police Act 1829 (10 Geo.4, C.44) was an Act of Parliament introduced by Sir Robert Peel and passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act established the Metropolitan Police of London (with the exception of the City), replacing the previously disorganized system of parish constables and watchmen. The Act was the enabling legislation for what is often considered to be the first modern police force, the “bobbies” or “peelers” (after Peel), which served as the model for modern urban police departments throughout England. The UK’s first Police Act was the Glasgow Police Act of 30 June 1800 and another eleven Scottish cities and burghs established police forces under individual police Acts of Parliament before Peel’s Metropolitan Police was established. Until the Act, the Statute of Winchester of 1285 was cited as the primary legislation regulating the policing of the country since the Norman Conquest.

It is one of the Metropolitan Police Acts 1829 to 1895.

Organization
Section 1 of the Act established a Police Office for the Metropolis, to be under two commissioners who were to be Justices of the Peace.

Section 4, constituted the Metropolitan Police District from the Liberty of Westminster and parts of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey and Kent, and stated that “a sufficient number of fit and able men shall from time to time, by the direction of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State, be appointed as a Police Force for the whole of such district…” The constables were to have power not only within the MPD, but also throughout Middlesex, Surrey, Hertfordshire, Essex and Kent.

Section 6 made it an offence for the owner of a public house to harbour a police officer during his hours of duty.

Section 7 outlined the powers of the new police force. A constable was empowered to apprehend “all loose, idle and disorderly Persons whom he shall find disturbing the public Peace, or whom he shall have just Cause to suspect of any evil Designs, and all Persons whom he shall find between sunset and the Hour of Eight in the Forenoon lying in any Highway, Yard, or other Place, or loitering therein, and not giving a satisfactory Account of themselves…

Section 8 made it an offence to assault or resist a police officer, with the penalty of a fine not exceeding five pounds.

Other sections dealt with arrangements for the handing over of police powers in the various parishes, with existing “watchmen and night police” to continue until the commissioners indicated that the Metropolitan Police were ready to assume responsibility for the area. Overseers in the parishes were to levy a Police Rate on all persons liable to pay the Poor Rate, not to exceed eight pence in the pound.

Section 34 of the Act allowed other parishes to be added to the Metropolitan Police District by Order in Council. Any place in Middlesex, Surrey, Hertfordshire, Essex or Kent within twelve miles of Charing Cross could be added.

Posted in British history, George IV, Great Britain, Living in the UK, political stance | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Do You Remember When? A Pin-Up Became a Princess…

2186In the 1940s and 1950s, there was no one “hotter” that Rita Hayworth. With a reserved striptease in the film Gilda, Hayworth became every man’s fantasy. Who could believe in today’s age of near nudity upon every screen that a simple slow peel of arm-length black gloves could be so enticing? Later, Hayworth was reported as saying, “Every man I’ve ever known has fallen in love with Gilda and awakened with me.” (Do you recall Julia Roberts paraphrasing the quote when she is in bed with Hugh Grant in Notting Hill?) 

Hayworth’s pin up poster – the one of her kneeling on a bed in a black lace negligee – became the mainstay of American servicemen during World War II.

Born Margarita Carmen Cansino (the daughter of flamenco dancers) in Brooklyn, NY, Hayworth joined her father as his dancing partner at age 13. With her hair dyed black to emphasize her Latino roots, Rita and her father in performances in Mexican nightclubs in the Los Angeles area. Her parents neglected Rita’s education, and this lack of knowledge increased her insecurities as she matured.

At age 18, she married for the first time to a man named Edward Judson, a man some 20 years her senior. He was a small time wheeler-dealer and used car salesman. Judson was the one, however, to assist Hayworth with an introduction to Harry Cohn, the head of Columbia Pictures. Cohn signed Hayworth to a 7-year movie contract – a contract which required her to slim down her figure, to lighten her hair, and to change her name from “Margarita” to “Rita,” as well as to take the name “Hayworth” from her Irish mother’s surname. ritacolor2

Her first role of any significance came in a supporting role with Cary Grant in 1939’s Only Angels Have Wings. That role was followed by those of an ingenue in Cover Girl, as a terpsichore in You Were Never Lovelier, and the role which became her film signature, the one of Gilda. Her sensuous “Put the Blame on Mame,” which was dubbed by Anita Ellis, was an instant hit upon the music charts.

with Glenn Ford in "Gilda"

with Glenn Ford in “Gilda”

Her marriage to Judson was dissolved in 1943. That relationship was followed by one with Orson Welles. They wed in the fall of 1943. Welles elevated Hayworth’s image from seductress to leading lady by directing her in Lady from Shanghai. Welles co-starred with his wife; they were dubbed as Beauty and the Brain. However, Hayworth was to discover Welles true love was his work. In 1947, she told the press. “I’m tired of being a 25% wife.” Shortly afterwards, she left for the French Riviera with her daughter Rebecca.

Lady from Shanghai

Lady from Shanghai

There, she was introduced to Prince Aly Khan, a man a bit obsessed with the “Gilda” image. They began an affair, which became the fodder of the tabloids. In May 1948 (after both Hayworth and Khan had divorced), they were to have been married at Chateau de L’Horizon, Khan’s seaside villa in the south of France. In reality, they were married at city hall in Vallauris because French law could not be bent even for a prince. Aly placed a 32-carat diamond upon Hayworth’s hand. L’Horizon hosted the reception.

Hayworth soon gave birth to Princess Yasmin, but in April 1951, the couple separated. As it had been with Welles, Aly’s business and social duties kept the “princess” from knowing happiness. Hayworth said after the separation became final, “I have concluded that a happy and contented home life, which I earnestly desire for my children and myself, is otherwise unattainable.” The couple fought openly for the custody of Yasmin, but in 1953, Aly agreed to a $1.5 million settlement in a default divorce. Seven years later, Aly died in a car accident when his Alfa Romeo piled into a tree. He was dead at age 49.

Two more marriages followed. The first to singer Dick Haymes and then to producer/writer James H. Hill Jr. Her last major role for Columbia Pictures was as a stripper-turned-socialite opposite Frank Sinatra in Pay Joey (1957). That role was followed by critic favorites, Separate Tables (1958) and They Came to Cordura (1959).

Second-rate films peppered her filmography during the 1960s and by the 1970s there were rumors of drunkenness. She was replaced as the lead in the Broadway production of Applause because she could not remember her lines. She walked off sets of movies. Her behavior became quite irrational. Finally, the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s proved the alcoholism a mistaken assumption. Rita Hayworth died at age 68 in May 1987.

dancing with Fred Astaire

dancing with Fred Astaire

Posted in acting, Do You Remember?, film | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

The Princess Royal’s Not So Happy Life

The Princess Royal’s Not So Happy Life

As we watched Kate Middleton marry into the Royal Family, people kept saying things that made the life of a princess seem “ideal,” but we who have studied the Regency Period can name six princesses who knew nothing of the glam and glamour of being named “princess.” The Princess Royal, Charlotte Augusta Matilda, was the oldest of those.

The infant Charlotte in the arms of her mother, Queen Charlotte

George III and Queen Charlotte beget a total of 15 children: nine sons and six daughters. Life in the royal household was anything but ideal. Reportedly, the boys were often beaten for the least infraction, but they also had their “freedom.” So, despite George III’s “whip hand,” the king’s sons were given money and their own residences, some receiving these liberties as early as age eleven. The King’s daughters, however, were kept at home under the watchful eye of both parents. The diarist, Fanny Burney, wrote, “Never in tale or fable were there six sister Princesses more lovely.” However, late marriages and spinsterhood plagued all six.

One of the issues that kept the daughters out of the marriage ring was their parents’ insistence that the girls marry men whose politics aligned with the King and Queen’s. Therefore, the princesses were rarely out in Society. Obviously, the girls could not be seen dancing with someone of the Whigs party. Only the daughters of loyal Tories were ever invited to Windsor. Queen Charlotte remained quite adamant in that matter.

Princess Charlotte in 1769

Most experts agree that Queen Charlotte’s allegiance to her husband doomed the girls. Although King George III loved his daughters, he did not want them to marry. Repots say that before he went mad in 1788 that the King apologized to his daughters for not finding them appropriate husbands. The King’s madness and the French Revolution kept the girls at home until their mother’s watchful eye. Queen Charlotte feared her husband’s illness may have passed to her children, and she watched them carefully for early signs of the disease.

Several hopefuls applied for the girls, but each was turned away. Charlotte Augusta Matilda, the oldest of the daughters and known as the Princess Royal to distinguish her from her mother, was two and twenty when her father displayed signs of his madness in 1788. No talk of marriage was possible during these trying times. However, when the King took a turn for the better in 1789, the royal court received new offers of marriage. Denmark, Brunswick, Wurttemberg, and Orange sent inquiries, but the King continued to turn down all offers.

The Prince of Wales attempted to arrange a marriage for the Princess Royal to the heir to the Duke of Oldenburg, but those plans were thwarted. Finally, when Charlotte was nine and twenty, the Hereditary Prince of Wurttemberg approached her father about a possible match. Immensely fat, the Prince was no great prize. He was forty when they married. He had been married previously, and after bearing an illegitimate child in Russia, his wife had died under “suspicious” circumstances. The former Princess of Wurttemberg had been George III’s niece, daughter to his sister Augusta, Duchess of Brunswick. Therefore, King George insisted on clearing the Prince’s name before he would allow his daughter to marry the man.

Frederick I of Wurttemberg

On 18 May 1797 (after the Prince had been cleared), the Princess Royal, age 30, and her groom, Prince Frederick, who had turned forty, were finally permitted to marry. Princess Charlotte left England, never to see her dear father again. Charlotte was happy in her new home, and although her only child was stillborn, she gladly became stepmother to her husband’s four children. Prince Frederick succeeded his father as the reigning Duke of Wurttemberg on 22 December 1797. Charlotte courageously faced the ravages of the European continent during the Napoleonic era. Having previously fled the French several times, Charlotte received the conquering Napoleon with dignity when he marched into Wurttemberg in 1805. Duke Frederick ceded Montbeliard to France before assuming the titled of Elector of Wurttemberg, but Napoleon named Frederick King of Wurttemberg on 26 December 1805. Electress Charlotte became Queen on 1 January 1806. The action further alienated the former Princess Royal from her English family. Wurttemberg had joined Napoleon’s short-lived Confederation of the Rhine, which made the country an enemy of England and George III.

Queen Charlotte of Wurttemberg

To reciprocate, the new Queen arranged a match between her stepdaughter Catherine and Napoleon’s brother Jerome, which made Catherine queen of the new Kingdom of Westphalia. Toward the end of 1813, with Napoleon’s losses, Wurttemberg changed sides in the continuing conflict. In 1814, George IV invited his sister Charlotte to England for the victory celebrations, but Frederick refused to permit his wife to go. Frederick remained affronted by his wife’s family abandonment. Charlotte pretended an illness rather than to embarrass all involved with her refusal to attend.

 

When Frederick died in 1816, Charlotte maintained that she had been happy with the man. To honor her marriage vows, she wore black for the rest of her days. The Dowager Queen of Wurttemberg lived out her days in Stuttgart. Occasionally, she hosted visits from her brothers, the Duke of Kent, the Duke of Sussex, and the Duke of Cambridge, as well as Princess Augusta Sophia. By proxy, she was godmother to her niece, Princess Victoria of Kent, the future Queen Victoria. The year before she died in 1828, she returned to England for surgery for dropsy. Unfortunately, for her sisters, Charlotte’s successful marriage did nothing for their own prospects. The King and Queen used the dangers in which Charlotte found herself during the Napoleonic era as reason not to permit her sisters of making an appropriate match.

Posted in British history, George IV, Georgian Era, Great Britain, Living in the Regency, political stance, real life tales, Regency era | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Victorian Astronomer, Francis Baily

150px-Francis_Baily_(The_Royal_Astronomical_Society) Francis Baily (28 April 1774 – 30 August 1844) was an English astronomer, most famous for his observations of ‘Baily’s beads’ during an eclipse of the Sun.

Life
Baily was born at Newbury in Berkshire in 1774 to Richard Baily. After a tour in the unsettled parts of North America in 1796–1797, his journal of which was edited by Augustus de Morgan in 1856, Baily entered the London Stock Exchange in 1799. The successive publication of Tables for the Purchasing and Renewing of Leases (1802), of The Doctrine of Interest and Annuities (1808), and The Doctrine of Life-Annuities and Assurances (1810), earned him a high reputation as a writer on life-contingencies; he amassed a fortune through diligence and integrity and retired from business in 1825, to devote himself wholly to astronomy.

Astronomical Work
By 1820, Baily had already taken a leading part in the foundation of the Royal Astronomical Society, and he received its Gold Medal in 1827 for his preparation of the Society’s Catalogue of 2881 Stars (Memoirs R. Astr. Soc. ii.). Later, in 1843, he would win the Gold Medal again. He was elected as president of the society for four consecutive two-year terms prior to his death.

The reform of the Nautical Almanac in 1829 was set on foot by his protests. He was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1832. He recommended to the British Association in 1837, and in great part executed, the reduction of Joseph de Lalande’s and Nicolas de Lacaille’s catalogues containing about 57,000 stars; he superintended the compilation of the British Association’s Catalogue of 8377 stars (published 1845); and revised the catalogues of Tobias Mayer, Ptolemy, Ulugh Beg, Tycho Brahe, Edmund Halley and Hevelius (Memoirs R. Astr. Soc. iv, xiii.).

His observations of “Baily’s Beads,” during an annular eclipse of the sun on 15 May 1836, at Inch Bonney in Roxburghshire, started the modern series of eclipse expeditions. The phenomenon, which depends upon the irregular shape of the moon’s limb, was so vividly described by him as to attract an unprecedented amount of attention to the total eclipse of 8 July 1842, observed by Baily himself at Pavia.

220px-Solar_eclips_1999_6Baily’s Beads
In other work, he completed and discussed H. Foster’s pendulum experiments, deducing from them an ellipticity for the earth of 1/289.48 (Memoirs R. Astr. Soc. vii.). This value was corrected for the length of the seconds-pendulum by introducing a neglected element of reduction, and was used, in 1843, in the reconstruction of the standards of length. His laborious operations for determining the mean density of the earth, carried out by Henry Cavendish’s method (1838–1842), yielded the authoritative value of 5.66.

Baily died in London on 30 August 1844 and was buried in the family vault in St Mary’s Church in Thatcham. His Account of the Rev. John Flamsteed (1835) is of fundamental importance to the scientific history of that time. It included a republication of the British Catalogue.

The lunar crater Baily was named in his honour, as was the rigid and thermally insensitive alloy used to cast the 1855 standard yard (Baily’s metal, 16 parts copper, 2.5 parts tin, 1 part zinc).

Posted in British history, Great Britain, Living in the UK, real life tales, science, Victorian era | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Pride 47 – Prejudice 5

Pride and Prejudice was originally entitled First Impressions, which is a much better title when one considers how Jane Austen bombards her readers with the theme of “impressions”: first, flawed, and founded. However, that is material for a future post.

JeffersVDDWhat I would like to consider today is why did the publishers deem it necessary to change the title to Pride and Prejudice? There are several among my friends, who have had title changes at their publishers’ suggestions. For example, I have seen Wayward Love changed to Captain Wentworth’s Persuasion; Darcy’s Dream to Darcy’s Temptation; Darcy’s Hunger to Vampire Darcy’s Desire, and most recently, A Touch of Gold to The Scandal of Lady Eleanor. Changing titles is a common practice among publishing companies.ladyeleanorsmall

Can one imagine the conversation between Thomas Egerton Publishers and Jane Austen?
Egerton: Miss Austen, we believe the reading public would respond to a title change.
Austen: Are you implying that I must add the word Darcy or Pemberley to the title to sell books?
Egerton: No, that will not be necessary for another 200 years.
Austen: (in awe) Do you expect my works to survive and become part of the British literary canon?
Egerton: Of course, not. You are a female. We will be fortunate to sell a few hundred copies, Miss Austen.
Austen: (a bit disconcerted by his condescending tone) But my book is about misconstruing others – of the weakness of making judgments based on first impressions.
Egerton: (ignoring her objection) We will follow the pattern of your first publication. Sense and Sensibility will be followed by Pride and Prejudice. It will give you a “hook” to capture your readers. Now, if you will sign the contract, we can begin publication.

But why did Austen’s publishers choose those two words: pride and prejudice? Was it to stimulate a debate among those who wonder whether it was Darcy or Elizabeth who was prideful? Who acted with prejudice? College professors base entire semesters on just that concept. Or, perhaps, it was how often those two words are found in Austen’s text: The publishers’ belief that such repetition would create resonance and “connectiveness.”
The word “pride” appears seven and forty times in the text. One of my favorite uses of the word occurs in, “Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously.” I am also found of, “With what delightful pride she afterward visited Mrs. Bingley, and talked of Mrs. Darcy, may be guessed.”

“Prided” is used but once, as is “proudly” and “proudest.” Meanwhile, “proud” is used one and twenty times. “Some may call him proud, but I am sure I never saw anything of it,” is spoken by Mrs. Reynolds. Later in the story, Elizabeth considers Darcy’s actions in dealing with Wickham. “For herself, she was humbled; but she was proud of him – proud that in a cause of compassion and honor he had been able to get the better of himself.”

“Prejudiced” is found once in the text; “prejudices” is used twice, and “prejudice” appears five times. “The general prejudice against Mr. Darcy is so violent, that it would be the death of half the good people in Meryton to attempt to place him in an amiable light.”

darcystemptationsmallWhen I originally entitled my second book Darcy’s Dreams, I did so because I mimicked Austen’s repetition. I used the word “dream” seven and fifty times in the book. When Ulysses Press added the word “temptation” to attract readers, I made a mad scramble to add temptation to the manuscript. The process made me wonder if Austen did the same thing with pride and prejudice. Although I know it’s an illogical assumption, I like to imagine our dear Jane adding those two words as motifs within her text and also imagine her grumbling, just as I did with temptation.captainwentworthspersuasionsmall

Posted in British history, editing, Industry News/Publishing, Jane Austen, language choices, Regency era | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

During the Reign of George IV: The Catholic Relief Act of 1829

140px-Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_(1816-1837).svg
The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, passed by Parliament in 1829, was the culmination of the process of Catholic Emancipation throughout Britain. In Ireland it repealed the Test Act 1673 and the remaining Penal Laws, which had been in force since the passing of the Disenfranchising Act of the Irish Parliament of 1728. Its passage followed a vigorous campaign on the issue by Irish lawyer Daniel O’Connell. O’Connell had firm support from the Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, as well as from the Whigs and liberal Tories.

The Act permitted members of the Catholic Church to sit in the Parliament at Westminster. O’Connell had won a seat in a by-election for Clare in 1828 against an Anglican. Under the then extant penal law, O’Connell as a Roman Catholic, was forbidden to take his seat in Parliament. Sir Robert Peel, the Home Secretary, who had until then always opposed emancipation (and had, in 1815, challenged O’Connell to a duel) concluded: “though emancipation was a great danger, civil strife was a greater danger.” Fearing a revolution in Ireland, Peel drew up the Catholic Relief Bill and guided it through the House of Commons. To overcome the vehement opposition of both the House of Lords and King George IV, the Duke of Wellington worked tirelessly to ensure passage in the House of Lords, and threatened to resign as Prime Minister if the King did not give Royal Assent.

Agitation
The campaign for Catholic emancipation in Ireland, 1828–1829, was led by Daniel O’Connell (1775–1847), organiser of the Catholic Association, but many others were active as well, both for and against.

245px-Richard_WellesleyAs Lord Lieutenant of Ireland from 1822 to 1828, the Marquess Wellesley (brother of the Duke of Wellington) played a critical role in setting the stage for the Catholic Emancipation Bill. His policy was one of reconciliation that sought to have the civil rights of Catholics restored while preserving those rights and considerations important to Protestants. He used force in securing law and order when riots threatened the peace, and he discouraged the public agitation of both the Protestant Orange Society and the Catholic Society of Ribbonman.

Bishop John Milner was an English Catholic cleric and writer highly active in promoting Catholic emancipation, prior to his death in 1826. He was a leader in anti-Enlightenment thought and had a significant influence in England as well as Ireland, and was involved in shaping the Catholic response to earlier efforts in Parliament to enact Catholic emancipation measures.

Meanwhile Ulster Protestants mobilised, after a delayed start, to stop emancipation. By late 1828 Protestants of all classes began to organise after the arrival of O’Connellite Jack Lawless who planned a series of pro-emancipation meetings and activities across Ulster. His move galvanised the Protestants to form clubs, distribute pamphlets and set up petition drives. However the Protestant protests were not well funded or coordinated and lacked critical support from the British government. After Catholic relief had been granted, the Protestant opposition divided along class lines. The aristocracy and gentry became quiescent while the middle and working classes showed dominance over Ulster’s Catholics through Orange parades.

Compromise
The Parliamentary Elections (Ireland) Act 1829 (10 Geo. IV, c. 8) which accompanied emancipation and received its Royal Assent on the same day, was the only major ‘security’ eventually required for it. This Act disenfranchised the minor landholders of Ireland, the so-called Forty Shilling Freeholders and raised fivefold the economic qualifications for voting. Starting in the initial relief granting the vote by the Irish Parliament in 1793, any man renting or owning land worth at least forty shillings (the equivalent of two Pounds Sterling), had been permitted to vote. Under the Act, this was raised to ten pounds.

Political Results
J. C. D. Clark (1985) depicts England before 1828 as a nation in which the vast majority of the people believed in the divine right of kings, and the legitimacy of a hereditary nobility, and in the rights and privileges of the Anglican Church. In Clark’s interpretation, the system remained virtually intact until it suddenly collapsed in 1828, because Catholic emancipation undermined its central symbolic prop, the Anglican supremacy. Clark argues that the consequences were enormous: “The shattering of a whole social order….What was lost at that point… was not merely a constitutional arrangement, but the intellectual ascendancy of a worldview, the cultural hegemony of the old elite.” Clark’s interpretation has been widely debated in the scholarly literature, and almost every historian who has examined the issue has highlighted the substantial amount of continuity between the periods before and after 1828–1832.

Eric J. Evans (1996) emphasises that the political importance of emancipation was that it split the anti-reformers beyond repair and diminished their ability to block future reform laws, especially the great Reform Act of 1832. Paradoxically, Wellington’s success in forcing through emancipation converted many Ultra-Tories to demand reform of Parliament. They saw that the votes of the rotten boroughs had given the government its majority. Therefore it was an ultra-Tory, the Marquis of Blandford, who in February 1830 introduced the first major reform bill, calling for the transfer of rotten borough seats to the counties and large towns, the disfranchisement of non-resident voters, preventing Crown office-holders from sitting in Parliament, the payment of a salary to MPs, and the general franchise for men who owned property. The ultras believed that a widely based electorate could be relied upon to rally around anti-Catholicism.

Posted in British history, George IV, Great Britain, Living in the UK, political stance, real life tales | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Georgian Happenings: The Wapping Coal Riots of 1798

John Harriott

John Harriott

Wapping Coal Riots of 1798
By Regina Jeffers

Coal was a major source of heat and an important commodity to London’s financial stability. As such, ships filled with coal called in at the various ports of London on the River Thames. Early on, officers of the West India Merchants and Planters Marine Police Institute (England’s first organized police force) patrolled the crowded Thames waters from their headquarters at Wapping New Stairs.

To understand the changes coming to the area at the turn of the 19th Century, one must realize that NO absolute authority existed to stifle the crimes, which followed the rapid growth of the area. John Harriott and Patrick Colquhoun organized their “Thames River Police” differently from what we know today of a marine police force. For one thing, the officers were watermen, lumpers, and surveyors. Initially, only five officers patrolled the area, and Harriott and Colquhoun learned to depend on “honest” workers among those who frequented the docks along the Thames. Harriott employed lumpers and watermen to help “police” the unloading of vessels. These men were under the protection of the Marine Police Office. They were paid extra for their diligence in stifling the crimes committed along the river. One such man was Gabriel Franks, the first “police officer” killed in the line of duty. When the coal ships were unloaded, thieves helped themselves to a substantial amount and sold it at “coal markets” along the streets of Wapping.

With Government's approval obtained the Marine Police began on the 2 July 1798 in Wapping High Street, on the site of the present Headquarters of the Marine Support Unit (MSU) of the Metropolitan Police.

With Government’s approval obtained the Marine Police began on the 2 July 1798 in Wapping High Street, on the site of the present Headquarters of the Marine Support Unit (MSU) of the Metropolitan Police.

On 16 October 1798, three men had been accused of coal theft and were standing trial at the Thames Magistrates Court attached to the Marine Police Office. Two of the men were coal heavers, while the third was a watchman’s boy. “They were all convicted and each fined forty shillings. As they left the building, friends arrived at the court, and paid the fines. Upon leaving, one of the three, Charles Eyers was met by his brother, James, who said, ‘Damn your long eyes, have you paid the money?’ Charles said, ‘Yes, I have.’ James then took his brother by the collar, dragged him toward the door and said, ‘Come along and we shall have the money back or else we shave have the house down!’ Within a very short period of time a hostile crowd had gathered outside the police office, and stones and rocks were being directed against the windows. The action that was to follow was to leave two men dead and another wounded.” (Thames Police Museum)

ps354348_lThose inside the Marine Police Office attempted to secure the building, but as the crowd and the violence continued, Officer Perry removed his pistol and fired upon the crowd. One of the rioters was killed, and the crowd outside withdrew slightly, but they did not disperse. Patrick Colquhoun took the opportunity to step into the street and to read the crowd the Riot Act. However, they refused to abandon their mission.

A man named Gabriel Franks was in a nearby public house. Upon hearing the noise of the crowd, he made his way to the Police Office and asked to be admitted, but the crowd drove him away. He retreated where he might observe the goings on. Franks instructed one of his companions (Mr Peacock) from the tavern to keep an eye on the rioters while he went to secure a cutlass for their protection. Unfortunately, before Franks could return, he was shot along the Dung Wharf.
Franks did not immediately succumb to his wounds, but lived on for several days. William Blizzard, a surgeon at the London Hospital, treated him. Assumptions are made as to the reason(s) for Franks’ attack, likely he was singled out for his association with the Police Office. Despite there being little evidence to the act, James Eyers was eventually arrested and charged with Franks’ murder. Eyers’ inciting the riot was, as a point of law, was responsible for Franks’ death, and the court agreed. He was tried and convicted of the crime and sentenced to hang. “In passing sentence the judge, Mr Justice Heath, donned the traditional black cap and spoke the usual and well-known phrase, ‘Prisoner. May the Lord have mercy upon your soul.’ Eyers replied, “Amen, I hope he will.” (The Thames Police Museum)

The actual trial transcript can be viewed at the Old Bailey trial site:
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17990109-5-person78&div=t17990109-5&terms

Meet Regina Jeffers:
Regina Jeffers is the author of several Austen-inspired novels, including Darcy’s Passions, Darcy’s Temptation, Vampire Darcy’s Desire, Captain Wentworth’s Persuasion, The Phantom of Pemberley, Christmas at Pemberley, The Disappearance of Georgiana Darcy, Honor and Hope and The Mysterious Death of Mr. Darcy. She also writes Regency romances: The Scandal of Lady Eleanor, A Touch of Velvet, A Touch of Cashémere, A Touch of Grace, A Touch of Mercy, A Touch of Love and The First Wives’ Club. A Time Warner Star Teacher and Martha Holden Jennings Scholar, Jeffers often serves as a consultant in language arts and media literacy. Currently living outside Charlotte, North Carolina, she spends her time with her writing, gardening, and her adorable grandson.

Posted in British history, buildings and structures, Georgian Era, Great Britain, real life tales | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Georgian Happenings: The Wapping Coal Riots of 1798