Happenings During the Reign of William IV: The Oxford Movement, the Beginning of Anglo-Catholicism

The Oxford Movement was a movement of High Church Anglicans, eventually developing into Anglo-Catholicism. The movement, whose members were often associated with the University of Oxford, argued for the reinstatement of lost Christian traditions of faith and their inclusion into Anglican liturgy and theology. They conceived of the Anglican Church as one of three branches of the Catholic Church.

John Newman

John Newman

It was also known as the Tractarian Movement after its series of publications Tracts for the Times, published between 1833 and 1841. The group was also disparagingly called Newmanites (pre-1845) and Puseyites (post-1845) after two prominent Tractarians, John Henry Newman and Edward Bouverie Pusey. Other well-known Tractarians included John Keble, Charles Marriott, Richard Hurrell Froude, Robert Wilberforce, Isaac Williams and William Palmer.
Edward Pusey

Edward Pusey

Early Movement
The immediate impetus for the movement was a perceived attack by the reforming Whig administration on the structure and revenues of the established church in Ireland, with the Irish Church Temporalities Bill (1833). This bill not only legislated administrative changes in the hierarchy of the church (for example, with a reduction of both bishoprics and archbishoprics), but also made changes to the leasing of church lands, which some (including a number of Whigs) feared would lead to a secular appropriation of ecclesiastical property.

Keble attacked these proposals as “national apostasy” in his Assize Sermon in Oxford in 1833. The movement’s leaders attacked liberalism in theology. Their interest in Christian origins led them to reconsider the relationship of the Church of England with the Roman Catholic Church.

The movement postulated the Branch Theory, which states that Anglicanism along with Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism form three “branches” of the one “Catholic Church.” Men in the movement argued for the inclusion of traditional aspects of liturgy from medieval religious practice, as they believed the church had become too “plain.” In the final Tract XC, Newman argued that the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, as defined by the Council of Trent, were compatible with the Thirty-Nine Articles of the 16th century Church of England. Newman’s abandonment of Anglicanism by conversion to Roman Catholicism in 1845, followed by the conversion of Henry Edward Manning in 1851, had a profound effect upon the movement.

Publications
Apart from the Tracts for the Times, the group began a collection of translations of the Fathers, which they called the Library of the Fathers and which in the end ran to 48 volumes, the last published three years after Pusey’s death. These were issued through Rivington’s, under the imprint of the Holyrood Press. The main editor for many of these was Charles Marriott. A number of volumes of original Greek and Latin texts were also published.

Criticisms
The Oxford Movement was attacked for being a mere “Romanising” tendency, but it began to have an influence on the theory and practice of Anglicanism. It resulted in the establishment of Anglican religious orders, both of men and of women. It incorporated ideas and practices related to the practice of liturgy and ceremony in a move to bring more powerful emotional symbolism and energy to the church. In particular it brought the insights of the Liturgical Movement into the life of the Church. Its effects were so widespread that the Eucharist gradually became more central to worship, vestments became common, and numerous Roman Catholic practices were re-introduced into worship. This led to controversies within churches that ended up in court, as in the dispute about ritualism.

Partly because bishops refused to give livings to Tractarian priests, many of them ended up working in the slums. From their new ministries, they developed a critique of British social policy, both local and national. One of the results was the establishment of the Christian Social Union, of which a number of bishops were members, where issues such as the just wage, the system of property renting, infant mortality and industrial conditions were debated. The more radical Catholic Crusade was a much smaller organisation than the Oxford Movement. Anglo-Catholicism – as this complex of ideas, styles and organizations became known – had a significant influence on global Anglicanism.

Paradoxically, the Oxford Movement was attacked for being both secretive and broadly collusive. This confusion is well documented in Walsh’s The Secret History of the Oxford Movement.

Reception of Leading Anglicans into the Roman Catholic Church
One of the principal writers and proponents of the Tractarian Movement was John Henry Newman, a popular Oxford priest who, after writing his final tract, Tract 90, became convinced that the Branch Theory was inadequate. He was received into the Roman Catholic Church in 1845.

He was ordained a priest in that church in the same year and later became a cardinal. He was one of a number of Anglican clergy who became Roman Catholics during the 1840s who were either members of, or were influenced by, the Tractarian Movement. Some opponents of the Oxford Movement viewed this as proof that the movement had sought to “Romanise” the church.

Other major figures influenced by the movement who became Roman Catholics included:
**Thomas William Allies, Church historian and former Anglican priest
**Edward Lowth Badeley, ecclesiastical lawyer
**Robert Hugh Benson, son of the Archbishop of Canterbury, novelist and monsignor
**John Chapman OSB, patristic scholar and Roman Catholic priest
**Augusta Theodosia Drane, writer and Dominican prioress
**Frederick William Faber, theologian, hymn writer, Oratorian and Roman Catholic priest
**Gerard Manley Hopkins, poet and Jesuit priest
**Robert Stephen Hawker, poet and Anglican priest, received Catholicism on his deathbed
**James Hope-Scott, barrister and Tractarian, received with Manning
**Ronald Knox, Biblical texts translator and formerly an Anglican priest
**Henry Edward Manning, later Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster
**George Jackson Mivart, biologist, later excommunicated by Cardinal Herbert Vaughan
**John Brande Morris, Orientalist, eccentric and Roman Catholic priest
**Augustus Pugin, architect
**William George Ward, theologian
**Benjamin Williams Whitcher, American Episcopal priest

Posted in British history, Great Britain, real life tales, religion, Uncategorized, William IV | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Happenings During the Reign of William IV: The Oxford Movement, the Beginning of Anglo-Catholicism

Charles Darwin’s 1839 “Voyage of the Beagle”

The Voyage of the Beagle is a title commonly given to the book written by Charles Darwin and published in 1839 as his Journal and Remarks, bringing him considerable fame and respect. The title refers to the second survey expedition of the ship HMS Beagle, which set sail from Plymouth Sound on 27 December 1831 under the command of Captain Robert FitzRoy, R.N. (see yesterday’s post on the Falkland Islands).

While the expedition was originally planned to last two years, it lasted almost five—the Beagle did not return until 2 October 1836. Darwin spent most of this time exploring on land (three years and three months on land; 18 months at sea).

The book, also known as Darwin’s Journal of Researches, is a vivid and exciting travel memoir as well as a detailed scientific field journal covering biology, geology, and anthropology that demonstrates Darwin’s keen powers of observation, written at a time when Western Europeans were exploring and charting the whole world.

Although Darwin revisited some areas during the expedition, for clarity the chapters of the book are ordered by reference to places and locations rather than by date. Darwin’s notes made during the voyage include comments illustrating his changing views at a time when he was developing his theory of evolution by natural selection and includes some suggestions of his ideas, particularly in the second edition of 1845.

Publication of FitzRoy’s narrative and Darwin’s Book
Darwin was invited by FitzRoy to contribute the natural history section to the captain’s account of the Beagle‘s voyage, and using his field notes and the journal, which he had been sending home for his family to read, completed this section by September 1837. FitzRoy had to edit the notes of the previous captain of the Beagle, as well as write his own account of the voyage and the previous expeditions of two ships. The account was completed and published in May 1838 as the Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of His Majesty’s Ships Adventure and Beagle in four volumes. Volume one covers the first voyage under Commander Phillip Parker King, volume two is FitzRoy’s account of the second voyage. Darwin’s Journal and Remarks, 1832—1835 forms the third volume, and the fourth volume was a lengthy appendix. FitzRoy’s account includes Remarks with reference to the Deluge in which he recanted his earlier interest in the geological writings of Charles Lyell and his remarks to Darwin during the expedition that sedimentary features they saw “could never have been effected by a forty days’ flood,” asserting his renewed commitment to a literal reading of the Bible. He had married on the ship’s return, and his wife was very religious.

Darwin’s contribution proved remarkably popular and the publisher, Henry Colburn of London, took it upon himself to reissue Darwin’s text in August with a new title page as Journal of Researches into the Geology and Natural History of the various countries visited by H.M.S. Beagle apparently without seeking Darwin’s permission or paying him a fee.

Later Editions: Changing Ideas on Evolution
The book went through many editions, and was subsequently published under several different titles. The best known was the second edition of 1845 which incorporated extensive revisions made in the light of interpretation of the field collections and developing ideas on evolution. This edition was commissioned by the publisher John Murray, who actually paid Darwin a fee.

In the first edition, Darwin remarks in regard to the similarity of Galápagos wildlife to that on the South American continent, “The circumstance would be explained, according to the views of some authors, by saying that the creative power had acted according to the same law over a wide area.” (This was written in a reference to Charles Lyell’s ideas of “centres of creation.”) Darwin notes the gradations in size of the beaks of species of finches, suspects that species “are confined to different islands,” “But there is not space in this work, to enter into this curious subject.”

Later editions hint at his new ideas on evolution:
Considering the small size of these islands, we feel the more astonished at the number of their aboriginal beings, and at their confined range… within a period geologically recent the unbroken ocean was here spread out. Hence, both in space and time, we seem to be brought somewhat near to that great fact – that mystery of mysteries – the first appearance of new beings on this earth.”

Speaking of the finches with their gradations in size of beaks, he writes “one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends.”

Contents – Where Darwin Traveled:
For readability, the chapters of the book are arranged geographically rather than in an exact chronological sequence of places Darwin visited or revisited. The main headings (and in some cases subheadings) of each chapter give a good idea of where he went, but not the exact sequence. See Second Voyage of HMS Beagle for a detailed synopsis of Darwin’s travels. The contents list in the book also notes topics discussed in each chapter, not shown here for simplicity. Names and spellings are those used by Darwin. The list below is based on the Journal and Remarks of 1839.

Preface
Chapter I: St. Jago–Cape de Verde Islands (St. Paul’s Rocks, Fernando Noronha, 20 Feb.., Bahia, or San Salvador, Brazil, 29 Feb..)
Chapter II: Rio de Janeiro
Chapter III: Maldonado
Chapter IV: Río Negro to Bahía Blanca
Chapter V: Bahía Blanca
Chapter VI: Bahía Blanca to Buenos Ayres
Chapter VII: Buenos Ayres to St. Fe
Chapter VIII: Banda Oriental
Chapter IX: Patagonia
Chapter X: Santa Cruz–Patagonia
Chapter XI: Tierra del Fuego
Chapter XII: The Falkland Islands
Chapter XIII: Strait of Magellan
Chapter XIV: Central Chile
Chapter XV: Chiloe and Chonos Islands
Chapter XVI: Chiloe and Concepcion
Chapter XVII: Passage of Cordillera
Chapter XVIII: Northern Chile and Peru
Chapter XIX: Galapagos Archipelago
Chapter XX: Tahiti and New Zealand
Chapter XXI: Australia (Van Diemen’s Land)
Chapter XXII: Coral Formations (Keeling or Cocos Islands)
Chapter XXIII: Mauritius to England

In the second edition, the Journal of Researches of 1845, chapters VIII and IX were merged into a new chapter VIII on “Banda Oriental and Patagonia,” and chapter IX now included “Santa Cruz, Patagonia and The Falkland Islands.” After chapter X on Tierra del Fuego, chapter XI had the revised heading “Strait of Magellan–Climate of the Southern Coasts.”

The following chapters were renumbered accordingly. Chapter XIV was given the revised heading “Chiloe and Concepcion: Great Earthquake,” and chapter XX had the heading “Keeling Island:–Coral Formations,” with the concluding chapter XXI keeping the heading “Mauritius to England.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Happenings During the Reign of William IV: The UK Reasserting Control of the Falkland Islands

Luis Vernet

Luis Vernet

The United Kingdom sent two naval vessels to reassert British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands in December 1832, after the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata (part of which later became Argentina) ignored British diplomatic protests over the appointment of Luis Vernet as governor of the Falkland Islands and a dispute over fishing rights.

Background
In 1765, Captain John Byron, unaware of the French presence on East Falkland, explored Saunders Island, on West Falkland, named the harbour Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont. The British presence in the west continued, until interrupted by Spain (who had acquired the French colony), during the Falkland Crisis from 10 July 1770 to 22 January 1771. Economic pressures led Britain to unilaterally withdraw from many overseas settlements in 1774.

On 20 May 1776 the British forces under the command of Lieutenant Clayton formally took their leave of Port Egmont, leaving a plaque asserting Britain’s continuing sovereignty over the islands. The Falkland Islands remained an important outpost for whalers and sealers who used the islands to shelter from the worst of the South Atlantic weather. By merit of their location, the Falkland Islands have often been the last refuge for ships damaged at sea. Most numerous among those using the islands were British and American sealers, where typically between 40 and 50 ships were engaged in hunting fur seals.

In 1823, after its war of independence against Spain, the United Provinces granted land on East Falkland to Luis Vernet, who first travelled to the islands the following year. That first expedition failed almost as soon as it landed, and a second attempt, in 1826, sanctioned by the British (but delayed until winter by a Brazilian blockade), also failed after arrival in the islands. In 1828, the United Provinces government granted Vernet all of East Falkland, including all its resources, with exemption from taxation if a colony could be established within three years. He took settlers, some of them British, and before leaving once again sought permission first from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. After receiving consent, Vernet agreed to provide regular reports to the British consul and expressed the desire for British protection for his settlement should they decide to re-establish their presence in the islands.

On Vernet’s return to the Falklands, Puerto Soledad was renamed Puerto Luis. The United Provinces proclaimed Luis Vernet as governor of the islands in 1829. British diplomatic protests at the appointment and declarations of sovereignty were ignored. The United Provinces also granted Vernet exclusive rights to seal hunting in the islands. This too was disputed by the British and US consulates at Buenos Aires but once again the diplomatic protests were ignored. Vernet continued to provide regular reports to the British consul throughout this period.

In 1831, Luis Vernet seized three US vessels (Breakwater, Superior and Harriet) hunting seals in Falklands waters, confiscating their catch and arresting their crews. Vernet returned to the mainland, bringing senior officers of the US vessels to stand trial for violating restrictions on seal hunting. The US consul protested violently against the seizure of US ships and the USS Lexington sailed to the Falklands. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his claim against the US government for compensation (rejected by the US government of President Grover Cleveland in 1885) Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo, where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers.

This latter incident finally convinced the British Foreign Office to reassert its sovereignty claim over the islands. Throughout much of 1832, the United Provinces did not have a government representative in the islands. The Buenos Aires government commissioned Major Esteban Mestivier as the new governor of the islands, to set up a penal colony, but when he arrived at the settlement on 15 November 1832 his soldiers mutinied and killed him. The mutiny was put down by Lieutenant Colonel José María Pinedo, commander of the United Provinces schooner Sarandí, with aid from a French ship Jean-Jacques, which had arrived by chance, and by some loyal gauchos. Order was restored just before the British arrived.

Arrival of the Squadron
Under the command of Captain John James Onslow, the brig-sloop HMS Clio, previously stationed at Rio de Janeiro, reached Port Egmont on 20 December 1832. It was later joined by HMS Tyne. Their first actions were to repair the fort at Port Egmont and affix a notice of possession.

Onslow arrived at Puerto Louis on 2 January 1833. Pinedo sent an officer to the British ship, where he was presented with the following written request to replace the Argentine flag with the British one, and leave the location.

I have to direct you that I have received directions from His Excellency and Commander-in-Chief of His Britannic Majesty’s ships and vessels of war, South America station, in the name of His Britannic Majesty, to exercise the rights of sovereignty over these Islands.

It is my intention to hoist to-morrow the national flag of Great Britain on shore when I request you will be pleased to haul down your flag on shore and withdraw your force, taking all stores belonging to your Government.

Pinedo entertained plans for resisting, but finally desisted because of his obvious numerical inferiority and the want of enough nationals among his crew, approximately 80% of his forces were British mercenaries who refused to fight their countrymen. The British forces disembarked on 3 January and switched the flags, delivering the Argentine one to Pinedo, who left on 5 January.

Recognising Vernet’s settlement had British permission, Onslow set about ensuring the continuation of that settlement for the replenishment of passing ships. The gauchos had not been paid since Vernet’s departure and were anxious to return to the mainland. Onslow persuaded them to stay by paying them in silver for provisions and promising that in the absence of Vernet’s authority they could earn their living from the feral cattle on the islands.

The British vessels did not stay long and departed two days later, leaving William Dixon (Vernet’s storekeeper) in charge of the settlement. Dixon was provided with a flagpole and instructed to fly the British flag whenever a vessel was in harbour.

Argentina claims that the population of the islands was expelled in 1833; however, both British and Argentine sources from the time, including the log of the ARA Sarandí, suggest that the colonists were encouraged to remain under Vernet’s deputy, Matthew Brisbane.

Captain Onslow’s report reveals that he obeyed his instructions scrupulously. In fact he went to great lengths to persuade the inhabitants, some of whom were dissatisfied with their life in the islands, to remain. Captain Pinedo of the Sarandí confirmed this in his statement to Port Captain Patricio Linch on his return to Buenos Aires – he said Onslow had told him that:

… those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain and both they and their property would be respected as before…

When the Clio arrived, there were 33 genuine resident civilian settlers. Captain Onslow gave them a free choice of staying or leaving; he applied no pressure on them to leave and indeed encouraged some to stay. Only four of them chose to leave and they are named by the prominent Argentine historians Ernesto J. Fitte and Mario Tesler as:

Acuña and his wife

González and his wife

Acuña and González were gauchos who worked for Vernet. Three single men also left, described as “foreigners”: José Viel, Juan Quedy and Francisco Ferreyra. They cannot have been genuine residents, as not one of them appears in Vernet’s accounts; they probably arrived on the Sarandí, as did Máximo Warnes, who is described as a “prisoner” and was probably the first inmate for a proposed penal settlement in the Falklands. In addition, a British seaman, Charles Brasier, and an American seaman, William Drake, were taken aboard the Clio. Vernet’s American settlement manager, Henry Metcalf, left in the Rapid; he is known to have wanted to leave, and he claimed Vernet owed him money.

Only 11 civilians left, most of whom were not genuine residents. They were not expelled; they made a free choice. Of the civilian residents, 22 remained at Port Louis: 12 from Argentina (8 gauchos, 3 women and 1 child); 4 were Charrúa Indians from Uruguay; 2 were British, 2 German, one French and one from Jamaica. Over half the population who stayed were Argentinian. Before he left, Captain Pinedo told the Frenchman who stayed, the illiterate head gaucho Jean Simon, that he was to be “Comandante Político y Militar.”

Whether Simon agreed to this or not, he certainly never attempted to act as such. But he was loyal to his employer. He defended Vernet’s property against other gauchos who wanted to share it among themselves, and maintained Vernet’s business, which later cost him his life.

Aftermath
HMS Beagle arrived on 15 March 1833. Vernet dispatched his deputy Matthew Brisbane to the islands to take charge of his settlement March 1833. Meeting with Captain Fitzroy of the Beagle, he was encouraged to continue with Vernet’s enterprise provided there was no attempt to further the ambitions of the United Provinces. Like Onslow before him, Fitzroy was forced to use his powers of persuasion to encourage the gauchos to continue working in Vernet’s establishment:

During the month we remained in Berkeley Sound, I had much trouble with the crews of whaling or small sealing vessels, as well as with the settlers, who all seemed to fancy that because the British flag was re-hoisted on the Falklands, they were at liberty to do what they pleased with Mr. Vernet’s private property, as well as with the wild cattle and horses. The gauchos wished to leave the place, and return to the Plata, but as they were the only useful labourers on the islands, in fact, the only people on whom any dependance could be placed for a regular supply of fresh beef, I interested myself as much as possible to induce them to remain, and with partial success, for seven staid out of twelve.

Arriving in the Falklands, Fitzroy expected to find the thriving settlement reported by another British officer. Instead, he found the settlement in a derelict state, which Brisbane blamed upon the Lexington’s raid. Fitzroy questioned several members of the settlement who corroborated Brisbane’s account:

Next morning Brisbane came on board with his papers, and I was quite satisfied with their tenor, and the explanation which he gave me of his business. Some misapprehension having since arisen about his being authorized by Vernet to act in his stead, I may here mention again (though no longer of any material consequence), that Brisbane’s instructions from Vernet authorized him to act as his private agent only, to look after the remains of his private property, and that they had not the slightest reference to civil or military authority. This settled, I went to Port Louis, but was indeed disappointed. Instead of the cheerful little village I once anticipated finding — a few half-ruined stone cottages; some straggling huts built of turf; two or three stove boats; some broken ground where gardens had been, and where a few cabbages or potatoes still grew; some sheep and goats; a few long-legged pigs; some horses and cows; with here and there a miserable-looking human being — were scattered over the fore-ground of a view which had dark clouds, ragged-topped hills, and a wild waste of moorland to fill up the distance.

How is this?” said I, in astonishment, to Mr. Brisbane; “I thought Mr. Vernet’s colony was a thriving and happy settlement. Where are the inhabitants? the place seems deserted as well as ruined.” “Indeed, Sir, it was flourishing,” said he, “but the Lexington ruined it: Captain Duncan’s men did such harm to the houses and gardens. I was myself treated as a pirate—rowed stern foremost on board the Lexington — abused on her quarter-deck most violently by Captain Duncan — treated by him more like a wild beast than a human being — and from that time guarded as a felon, until I was released by order of Commodore Rogers.” “But,” I said, “where are the rest of the settlers? I see but half a dozen, of whom two are old black women; where are the gauchos who kill the cattle?” “Sir, they are all in the country. They have been so much alarmed by what has occurred, and they dread the appearance of a ship of war so much, that they keep out of the way till they know what she is going to do.” I afterwards interrogated an old German, while Brisbane was out of sight, and after him a young native of Buenos Ayres, who both corroborated Brisbane’s account.

On departing from the islands Fitzroy expressed his concern for the settlement with its lack of regular authority in a virtually lawless group of islands.

In August 1833, eight members of the settlement ran amok, killing the five senior members. In part this stemmed from the re-imposition of paying the wages of the gauchos in paper vouchers issued by Vernet.

In 1834 on his second visit Charles Darwin commented that:
After the possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Aires then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right and seized them. The Englishman who was left in charge of the flag was consequently murdered. A British officer was next sent, unsupported by any power: and when we arrived, we found him in charge of a population, of which rather more than half were runaway rebels and murderers. (The Voyage of the Beagle.)

Lieutenant Henry Smith was installed as the first British resident in January 1834; he immediately set about establishing British authority, arresting the murderers. The United Kingdom has held the territory ever since but for a two months period after the 1982 invasion, during the Falklands War.

In Buenos Aires, Vernet was effectively bankrupt and attempts to obtain compensation from the US Government for losses from the Lexington raid proved fruitless. The situation in Buenos Aires was chaotic and diplomatic relations with the US remained ruptured till 1839. He made several approaches to the British Government asking for support to re-establish his business at Port Louis, receiving support from Woodbine Parish (British chargé d’affaires in Buenos Aires from 1825 to 1832) as the best qualified person to develop the islands.

Vernet wrote to Lieutenant Smith offering advice, which was gratefully received and acted upon. Smith repeatedly urged Vernet to return to Port Louis but as Vernet became increasingly involved in the territorial dispute with the Government in Buenos Aires all communications ceased and no more accounts were sent. An approach to Lieutenant Lowcay to retrieve his property was rebuffed but later he was requested to remove his property as the Government could not be responsible for it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Regency Happenings: Henry Bell and the PS Comet, the First Commercially Successful Steamboat Service in Europe

The paddle steamer PS Comet was built for Henry Bell, hotel and baths owner in Helensburgh. With the steamer, Bell began a passenger service on 15 August 1812 on the River Clyde between Glasgow and Greenock; it was the first commercially successful steamboat service in Europe.

History
Bell had become interested in steam propelled boats, corresponded with Robert Fulton and learnt from the Charlotte Dundas. In the winter of 1811 he convinced Messrs John and Charles Wood, shipbuilders, Port Glasgow, to build a paddle steamer, which was named the Comet after the “Great Comet” of 1811. The 28 ton craft was 45 feet (14 m) long and 10 feet (3.0 m) broad.

It had two paddle wheels on each side, driven by engines rated at three horse power (or perhaps 4 hp.): at a later date the twin paddlewheels were replaced by a single paddlewheel on each side. The two engines were made by John Robertson of Glasgow, and the boiler by David Napier, Camlachlie, Glasgow: a story has it that they were evolved from an experimental little steam engine which Bell installed to pump sea water into the Helensburgh Baths. The funnel was tall and thin, and a yardarm allowed it to support a sail when there was a following wind. A tiny cabin aft had wooden seats and a table.

In August 1812 Bell advertised in a local newspaper “The Greenock Advertiser”

The Steamboat Comet Between Glasgow, Greenock and Helensburgh for Passengers Only

The subscriber, having at much expense, fitted up a handsome vessel to ply upon the River Clyde from Glasgow, to sail by the power of air, wind, and steam, intends that the vessel shall leave the Broomielaw on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays about mid-day, or such hour thereafter as may answer from the state of the tide, and to leave Greenock on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in the morning to suit the tide.

The fare was “four shillings for the best cabin, and three shillings for the second.”

In 1812 the Comet made a delivery voyage from Port Glasgow 21 miles upriver to the Broomielaw, Glasgow, then sailed from Glasgow the 24 miles down to Greenock, making five miles an hour against a head-wind.

The success of this service quickly inspired competition, with services down the Firth of Clyde and the sea lochs to Largs, Rothesay, Campbeltown and Inveraray within four years, and the Comet was outclassed by newer steamers. Bell briefly tried a service on the Firth of Forth.

Famous Passengers
Sir Walter Scott
James Watt (in 1816, visiting his home town of Greenock during his old age)

Shipwreck
Bell had the Comet lengthened and re-engined, and from September 1819 ran a service to Oban and Fort William (via the Crinan Canal), a trip which took four days. On 13 December 1820, the Comet was shipwrecked in strong currents at Craignish Point near Oban, with Bell on board. No lives were lost. One of the engines ended its working days in a Greenock brewery, and is now in The Science Museum in London.

Comet II
Bell built another vessel, Comet II, but on 21 October 1825, she collided with the steamer Ayr off Kempock Point, Gourock, Scotland.

The Ayr, we learn, had a light out upon her bow, but the Comet had none. As the night, however, was clear, it is obvious that a bad look out had been kept up, and most reprehensible neglect shown on both sides. At the moment the accident took place, those on the deck of the Comet were, it is said, engaged in dancing. The passengers who were below were in high spirits, amusing themselves telling and listening to diverting tales. The first stroke hit about the paddle of the Comet. The Captain and passengers immediately ran upon deck to see what was wrong; when – the next fatal stroke took place with such force, that the Comet filled, and in two minutes went down head foremost. The moment this look place, the Ayr, instead of lending any assistance, gave her paddles a back stroke, turned round, and went off to Greenock, leaving them to their fate.
— The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, 25 Mar 1826, p3

Comet II sank very quickly, killing 62 of the estimated 80 passengers on board, including the son-in-law of John Anderson, a friend of Robert Burns. Also drowned were recently married Captain Wemyss Erskine Sutherland of the 33rd Regiment and Sarah née Duff of Muirtown. After the loss of his second ship, Bell abandoned his work on steam navigation.

Replica at Port Glasgow
A replica of the Comet made by shipyard apprentices now stands prominently in Port Glasgow.

Posted in British history, Great Britain, Living in the Regency, Regency era, Regency personalities, Scotland | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Regency Celebrities: Henry Bell, Pioneer in the Development of the Steamship

150px-Henry_Bell,_portraitl Henry Bell (7 April, 1767 – 14 March, 1830) was a Scottish engineer who is famed for introducing the first successful passenger steamboat service in Europe.

Early Career
Bell was born at Torphichen, near Bathgate, West Lothian in 1767 and pioneered the development of the steamship. He was the fifth son of Patrick Bell and Margaret Easton, themselves members of a family well known at the time as millwrights, builders and engineers. Their work included the design and construction of harbours, bridges, etc., in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom.

Henry Bell was educated at the local parish school and was apprenticed to a stonemason in 1780. Three years later, he was apprenticed to his uncle, a millwright. He later learned ship modelling in Borrowstounness and in 1787, pursued his interest in ship mechanics in Bell’s Hill with the engineer Mr James Inglis. This was followed by several years in London.

He returned to Scotland around 1790, and moved to Glasgow, where he worked as a house-carpenter. His ambition was to follow in the footsteps of his ancestors and become a civil engineer, and to this end he joined the Glasgow corporation of wrights on October 20, 1797. He was entirely unsuccessful, apparently due to either lack of money, or lack of application or skill on his part. According to his contemporaries:

“Bell had many of the features of the enthusiastic projector; never calculated means to ends, or looked much farther than the first stages or movements of any scheme. His mind was a chaos of extraordinary projects, the most of which, from his want of accurate scientific calculation, he never could carry into practice. Owing to an imperfection in even his mechanical skill, he scarcely ever made one part of a model suit the rest, so that many designs, after a great deal of pains and expense, were successively abandoned. He was, in short, the hero of a thousand blunders and one success.”

Interest in Steam Power for Shipping
The idea of propelling vessels by means of steam early took possession of his mind. “In 1800 (he writes) I applied to Lord Melville, on purpose to show his lordship and the other members of the Admiralty, the practicability and great utility of applying steam to the propelling of vessels against winds and tides, and every obstruction on rivers and seas, where there was depth of water.”

Disappointed in this application, he repeated the attempt in 1803, with the same result, notwithstanding the emphatic declaration of the celebrated Lord Nelson, who, addressing their lord-ships on the occasion, said, “My Lords, if you do not adopt Mr Bell’s scheme, other nations will, and in the end vex every vein of this empire. It will succeed (he added), and you should encourage Mr Bell.” Having obtained no support in this country, Bell forwarded copies of the prospectus of his scheme to the different nations of Europe, and to the United States of America. “The Americans,” he writes, “were the first who put my plan into practice, and were quickly followed by other nations.” The various attempts which preceded that of Bell are briefly noticed in the “Fifth Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Steam-Boats, June, 1822, Sir Henry Parnell, chairman.” Mentioning the following as experimenters, namely, Mr Jonathan Hulls, in 1736; the Duke of Bridgewater, on the Manchester and Runcorn canal; Mr Miller of Dalswinton; the Marquis de Jouffroy (a French nobleman), in 1781; Lord Stanhope, in 1795; and Mr Symington and Mr Taylor, on the Forth and Clyde canal, in 1801-2; the Report proceeds—”These ingenious men made valuable experiments, and tested well the mighty power of steam. Still no practical uses resulted from any of these attempts. It was not till the year 1807, when the Americans began to use steamboats on their rivers, that their safety and utility were first proved. But the merit of constructing these boats is due to natives of Great Britain. Mr Henry Bell of Glasgow gave the first model of them to the late Mr Fulton of America, and corresponded regularly with Fulton on the subject. Mr Bell continued to turn his talents to the improving of steam apparatus, and its application to various manufactures about Glasgow; and in 1811, constructed the Comet steam-boat.”

Paddlesteamer Comet
In 1808, Bell moved to the modern town of Helensburgh, on the north shore of the Firth of Clyde, where his wife undertook the superintendence of the public baths, and at the same time kept the principal inn, whilst he continued to prosecute his favourite scheme, without much regard to the ordinary affairs of the world.

In 1812 he built his steam-boat the Comet, of 30 tons burthen, with an engine of three horsepower. The Comet, named after a great comet, which had been visible for several months in 1811-12, was built by Messrs John Wood and Co., at Port Glasgow which lies 3 miles to the east of Greenock, as adjacent towns on the south bank of the River Clyde as it widens into the Firth of Clyde. The Comet made a delivery voyage from Port Glasgow 21 miles upriver to the Broomielaw, Glasgow, then sailed from Glasgow the 24 miles down to Greenock, making five miles an hour against a head-wind. (some sources give a date of January 18, 1812 for a trial trip, McCrorie gives August 6, 1812 for the delivery, with the historic trip a day or so later.)

In August, Bell advertised a passenger service on the Comet between Glasgow, Greenock and Helensburgh three times a week, returning on alternate days, “to ply upon the River Clyde from Glasgow, to sail by the power of air, wind, and steam.”

Bell briefly tried a service on the Firth of Forth. Then he had the Comet lengthened and re-engined and from September 1819 ran a service to Oban and Fort William (via the Crinan Canal), a trip which took four days, but on December 13, 1820 the Comet was shipwrecked in strong currents at Craignish Point, near Oban.

Bell built another vessel, Comet II, but, on October 21, 1825, she collided with the steamer Ayr off Kempock Point, Gourock. Comet II sank very quickly, killing 62 of the 80 passengers on board. After the loss of his second ship, Bell abandoned his work on steam navigation.

Later Life
Bell lived to see his invention universally adopted. The Clyde, which first enjoyed the advantages of steam navigation, became the principal seat of this description of ship-building. Bell reaped no personal advantage from the widespread adoption of steam powered ships, and, due to his poor management of his finances spent many of his later years in abject poverty.

Touched by his condition, the late Dr Cleland, and a number of other benevolent individuals, commenced a subscription on his behalf, by which a considerable sum was raised. The trustees on the river Clyde granted him an annuity of £100, which was continued to his widow. This was but a becoming acknowledgment of the value of his great invention on the part of the trustees of a river whose annual revenue was greatly increased by it.

Death
Bell died at Helensburgh in 1830, aged 62. He was interred in the Rhu churchyard. An obelisk to his memory was erected on the rock of Dunglass, a promontory on the Clyde, about 2½ miles above Dumbarton.

Posted in British history, Great Britain, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, Scotland | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Exploring the UK: Badbury Rings in Dorset

285px-Badbury_Rings_-_view_from_the_northeast_-_April_2013 Badbury Rings is an Iron Age hill fort in east Dorset, England. It was in the territory of the Durotriges. In the Roman era a temple was located immediately west of the fort, and there was a Romano-British town known as Vindocladia a short distance to the south-west.

Iron Age
Badbury Rings sits 327 feet (100 m) above sea level. There are two main phases of construction; the first covered 7.3 hectares (18 acres) and was defend by multiple ditches, while the second was more than twice the size, covering 16.6 ha (41 acres) and defended by a single ditch and rampart. Bronze Age round barrows in the vicinity demonstrate an earlier use of the area.

Until 1983 Badbury Rings was part of the Kingston Lacy estate, the owners of which had discouraged investigation of the site. The site now belongs to the National Trust. A survey of the hillfort by the RCHME was begun in 1993. The summit area was cleared of undergrowth by the National Trust in 1997 and the conifer plantation was thinned out. This allowed the RCHME to complete the survey in 1998, which recorded 28 potential hut sites within the ramparts, although some depressions are probably caused by uprooted trees. The first excavations, led by Martin Papworth, took place in 2004, when three evaluation trenches were dug. Almost all of the pottery found was dated to the Late Iron Age. The current evidence does not suggest that the hillfort was a principal settlement in the Early Iron Age. It seems likely that the hillfort became depopulated towards the end of the Late Iron Age, perhaps as the Vindocladia settlement near Shapwick developed.

Badbury Rings is the fifth in a series of Iron Age earthworks, starting from Hambledon Hill, and also including Hod Hill, Spetisbury Rings, Buzbury Rings, Badbury Rings and Dudsbury Camp. The Iron Age port at Hengistbury Head forms a final Iron Age monument in this small chain of sites.

Roman Roads
During the Roman era, five Roman roads formed a complex junction on the north side of Badbury Rings.

The Roman Conquest of Britain began in 43 AD. It is likely that the Legio II Augusta campaigned in Dorset under the command of the future emperor Vespasian. 4 km southeast of Badbury Rings, at Lake Farm near Wimborne, a fort was established. A military road from the Lake Farm fort was created which passed by the northeast side of Badbury Rings. Beyond Badbury Rings the road headed in a northwest direction (visible today as a thin strip of woodland) heading for the Roman fort at Hod Hill. At an early stage, this road formed a junction with Ackling Dyke, a Roman road which headed northeast to Old Sarum (Sorviodunum). Another road ran across country in a north by northwest direction towards Bath. The final road (still used as a modern trackway on the west side of Badbury Rings) ran in a southwest direction through the settlement of Vindocladia heading towards Dorchester (Durnovaria). This final road was not built until the later Roman period.

Romano-Celtic Temple
Immediately west of Badbury Rings is the site of a Romano-Celtic temple. It is located within a polyogonal boundary bank visible on aerial photographs. It was excavated as early as 1900, and again in 1952. These excavations revealed stone roofing slabs, painted wall-plaster, and over 185 Roman coins, as well as 21 Durotrigian silver and bronze coins. Pottery, glass beads, bronze pins, a bracelet and a brooch were also recovered. Further excavations were conducted in 2000 which showed that the temple was in use from the 1st to 5th century AD.

Vindocladia
A short distance (1.5 km) to southwest of Badbury Rings, between the hillfort and the modern village of Shapwick, lay a small Romano-British town (ST946022), believed to be that listed in the Antonine Itinerary as Vindocladia. In the later Roman period, a small fort was also established on the east side of the town. The fort was only discovered in 1975, and the existence of the town only came to light in the 1990s.

It has long been known that there was Roman activity in the area. A Roman pit and occupation debris were discovered in 1954 in the village of Shapwick, which included Samian ware pottery, a bronze coin of Claudius, and a rim fragment of a mortarium. In 1990 an archaeological field survey revealed three areas of building debris including roof and flue tiles, tesserae, and 2nd-4th century AD pottery.

Excavations, led by Martin Papworth, took place in 1991, 1995, and 2004. The 1991 excavations uncovered robber trenches, tesserae, pottery, painted wall plaster and evidence for iron working. The 1995 excavations demonstrated that the Roman occupation overlay numerous pits and ditches dating from the middle to late Iron Age, and uncovered smithing hearths dating from the second century. They further demonstrated that the Roman road through the settlement and the associated fort were not built until the later Roman period. Excavation of the settlement’s boundary ditch in 2004 uncovered early first-century pottery, including a Samian-ware platter, as well as a first-century brooch.

The evidence suggests that the settlement began as a pre-Roman village or town of the late Iron-Age which continued in use in the Roman period. Coins and pottery recovered from the site show that it was occupied until at least the 5th century. A geophysical survey of the entire settlement has shown that the site covers 25 hectares. It appears to have been one of the biggest Roman towns in Dorset, second only to Dorchester (Durnovaria). It is likely that the town was the Vindocladia listed in the Antonine Itinerary as the only named place between Old Sarum (Sorviodunum) and Dorchester.

The Roman fort is a rectangular enclosure with straight sides and rounded corners, surrounded by triple ditches. It measures around 200×160 metres and encloses about 2.5 hectares. It is located on the east side of the town. Pottery picked up on the ground in 1975 suggested a mid 1st-century date for the fort. However, the subsequent excavations have revealed that the fort was not built until the later Roman period, and that the fort went out of use at the end of the Roman era. The fort contained a large building complex, and may have been the site of an imperial inn, or mansio.

Saxon Era
Finds of late Roman material within the hillfort indicate that Badbury Rings was reoccupied, perhaps as security declined in the post-Roman period. The ancient frontier of Bokerley Dyke to the northeast was revived and may have played a role in keeping the invading Saxons out of Dorset during the 5th and 6th centuries.

The identification of Badbury Rings with the Arthurian Battle of Mount Badon (c. 500 AD) was reported in the 19th century by John Hutchins as originating with a supposition by the ’eminent Dr Edwin Guest’ in the Salisbury Volume of the Archaeological Institute. Local historian Roy Carr has suggested that the Saxons were held off from crossing Bokerley Dyke, by the threat of an army in the west, perhaps stationed at Badbury Rings. Carr has suggested that such a force could be one of the sources of the legends of King Arthur, and that Badbury could be the “Badon” of the legend of the Mount Badon. Badbury Rings is one of three sites regularly advanced as the location of this quasi-mythical battle, with the city of Bath also recognised as a contender.

Nearly 400 years later another Saxon use of Badbury is less contentiously recorded. Edward the Elder stationed troops at Badbury on his succession to the throne in AD899, to face down a challenge to his claim for the crown by his cousin Æthelwold, based at Wimborne Minster.

Antiquarian Accounts
The Tudor antiquarian John Leland visited Badbury Rings during his Itinerary of England conducted from 1538-43. After speaking about the nearby town of Wimborne Minster he wrote:

The Saxon Kinges had hard by the Toune a Castelle now caullid Badbyri, but clerely down. The Diches, Hilles, and Site ther of be yet evidently seene. now Conyes borough in it.

The site today
The site, on the dip slope of Cranborne Chase, is now part of the Kingston Lacy estate owned by the National Trust, with free access.

The site is also used for the popular point to point racing by the Portman hunt.

Posted in British history, buildings and structures, Great Britain | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Regency Scandal: Princess Charlotte’s Indiscretions

George IV

George IV

In the spring of 1812, George IV’s attempted to pique his daughter’s, Princess Charlotte of Wales, interest in William of Orange. The move would have strengthened England’s alliance with the Netherlands. Orange had lived in exile in England and had received his education at Oxford.

Princess Charlotte

Princess Charlotte

The Prince Regent was well aware of his daughter’s increasing acts of defiance, but he was not aware of the depth of Princess Charlotte’s indiscretions. Charlotte had her first flirtation of note in 1811 (when she was but 15 years of age) with Charles Hesse, who was reportedly the Duke of York’s illegitimate son. Hesse was a young, handsome Hussar captain. Rumors had it that Hesse, who later joined Princess Caroline in Brunswick as an equerry, might have been the lover of both mother and daughter.

Duke of York

Duke of York

Princess Caroline of Brunswick

Princess Caroline of Brunswick

Caroline had encouraged the relationship. She had once locked her daughter and Hesse in a bedchamber and had told them to amuse themselves. With Caroline’s encouragement, Charlotte had corresponded with Hesse until Charlotte’s friend and confidant, Mercer Elphinstone, advised against continuing the relationship.

George FitzClarence

George FitzClarence

Next, Charlotte’s cousin Captain George FitzClarence (eldest son of the actress Dorothea Jordan and William, Duke of Clarence, the Prince of Wales’s youngest brother) caught the young princess’s eye, but George soon moved with his regiment to Brighton, where he fell in love with Mary Seymour (who was the first to call the Prince Regent “Prinny”).

William, Duke of Clarence

William, Duke of Clarence

Dorothea Jordan

Dorothea Jordan

 During this time, Charlotte wrote to Mercer regarding Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility saying, “[The book] certainly is interesting, and you feel quite one of the company. I think Marianne and me are very like in disposition. I am not so good, displaying the same imprudence, etc., however very like. I must say it interested me much.”

When the Regent first encouraged his daughter to accept William of Orange, Charlotte was determined to oppose the union. However, a marriage would free her from her father’s control, as well as to provide her with her own household and financial independence. Therefore, in December 1813, Princess Charlotte agreed to the marriage.

Yet, when she discovered that Orange would expect her to live part of the year in Holland, Charlotte had second thoughts. The Whig politician Lord Grey had advised Charlotte against leaving England. He had insinuated that if Charlotte resided in Holland for even part of the year that Princess Caroline would follow suit. It was common knowledge that Caroline intended to take up residence away from her estranged husband. If Caroline left Prinny, he could claim desertion and file for a divorce. If the Regent then remarried and produced a son out of his next joining, Charlotte would be replaced in the line of succession. With this in mind, Princess Charlotte ended the engagement.

Meanwhile, the Princess fell in love with Prince Frederick, the King of Prussia’s nephew. One of her lady companions aided Charlotte in arranging several clandestine meetings with Frederick, and she maintained a secret correspondence with the prince until January 15, 1815, when he informed her that he had fallen for another. Frederick returned Charlotte’s gifts and portrait at that time.

Incensed by Charlotte’s refusal to marry Orange, George IV removed his daughter’s servants and dismissed her lady’s companions. Confined to Cranbourne Lodge, Charlotte was permitted no visitors except Queen Charlotte. In August 1814, Princess Caroline departed England. Charlotte felt deserted. Her depression became quite evident. Queen Charlotte encouraged a resolution to the separation between her eldest son and his daughter.

Leopold

Leopold

On Christmas Day 1814, Charlotte turned to her father for affection. During their intimate talks, she provided Prinny with a full accounting of her relationship with Captain Hesse. Charlotte explained how her mother had encouraged Charlotte to write to Hesse. She also spoke of her recent attempts to have Hesse return her letters and of the captain’s refusal to do so. Charlotte confided that she expected Hesse to blackmail her with their correspondence.

The Regent promised to assist his daughter with Hesse. Therefore, expecting a restoration of their connection, Charlotte confided in her father what she knew of Princess Caroline’s many lovers. To protect his daughter’s position in Society and in the line of succession, he suggested that Charlotte renew her engagement to Orange, but she stood firm. However, she did agree to a possible joining to Prince Leopold, third son of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. It was after Napoleon’s defeat in June 1815 before Leopold could return to England. They married on 2 May 1816.

Spoiler: So what does all this have to do with my Austen-inspired novel, Christmas at Pemberley? Notice that the previous paragraph mentions Christmas Day 1814. Yes, believe it or not, I incorporated Princess Charlotte’s liaison with Hesse into my Christmas tale. How, one might ask, does a writer mix political intrigue with an inspirational romance, a Regency Christmas-themed tale, and a continuation of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice? Not an easy task, but one I hope you will enjoy reading.JeffersC@Pemberley

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

Actors Who Have Portrayed Multiple Austen Characters

Daphne Slater took on the parts of Anne Elliot in Perusasion 1960 and that of Elizabeth Bennet in the 1952 production of Pride and Prejudice.

images

Phyllida Law played Mrs. Austen in Miss Austen Regrets and Mrs. Bates in Emma 1996.

Unknown-1

 

Leo Bill was cast as John Warren in Becoming Jane, as well as Robert Ferras in 2008’s Sense and Sensibility.

UnknownLindsay Duncan was Lady Catherine in Lost in Austen and Mrs. Price in 1999’s Mansfield Park.

Unknown

JJ Feild portrayed Henry Tilney in 2007’s Northanger Abbey and is set to play Mr. Henry Nobley in Austenland.

UnknownGuy Henry portrayed the sleazy Mr. Collins in the 2008 film Lost in Austen, as well as the more likeable John Knightley in Emma 1996 (TV).

Unknown-1

Hugh Bonneville has appeared three times: Rev. Brook Bridges in Miss Austen Regrets; Mr. Bennet in Lost in Austen; and Mr. Rushworth in Mansfield Park 1999.

Unknown

Sylvestra Le Touzel played Mrs. Allen in Northanger Abbey 2007. Earlier she portrayed Fanny Price in Mansfield Park 1983.

Unknown

Irene Richard played Charlotte Lucas in the 1980 version of Pride and Prejudice. The next year she became Elinor Dashwood in Sense and Sensibility.

Unknown

David Savile took on the part of Charles Bingley in the 1967 version of Pride and Prejudice. Four years later, he portrayed Mr. Elliot in Perusasion.

Unknown-1

Gemma Jones, who portrayed Mrs. Dashwood in the 1995 version of Sense and Sensibility, also played the role of Bridget Jones’s mother in the films based loosely on Pride and Prejudice.

Unknown-1

Joanna David portrayed Elinor Dashwood in 1971’s Sense and Sensibility, as well as Mrs. Gardiner in 1995’s Pride and Prejudice.

UnknownCarey Mulligan has been Isabella Thorpe in 2007’s Northanger Abbey and Kitty Bennet in 2005’s Pride and Prejudice.

Unknown

James Callis will be Colonel Andrews in Austenland, but early on he was Tom in Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason.

blake

Blake Ritson has portrayed both Edmund Bertram in 2007’s Mansfield Park and Mr. Elton in 2009’s Emma.

imagesOlivia Williams was cast as Jane Austen in Miss Austen Regrets and Jane Fairfax in 1996’s TV version of Emma.

Unknown-1

Jonny Lee Miller once portrayed Mr. Knightley in 2009’s Emma. In 1999, he was cast as Edmund Bertram in Mansfield Park, and believe it or not, he was Charles Price in the 1983 TV mini-series of Mansfield Park.

Lucy Robinson also appeared in three Austen-related flicks: she was Mrs. Hurst in 1995’s Pride and Prejudice; Mrs. Elton in the 1996 TV version of Emma; and Janey in Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason.

I also found it interesting that Richard Owens, who played Colonel Brandon in the 1971 version of Sense and Sensibility is the father of Susannah Harker, who played Jane Bennet in 1995′s Pride and Prejudice.

It is a bit amusing that Hugh Grant’s birthday is 9 September, and Colin Firth’s is 10 September. They played the “Wickham” and “Darcy” roles, respectively, in the Bridget Jones movies. Of course, Grant was also Edward Ferrars in 1995’s Sense and Sensibility.

So, do you know of other similar roles I have missed?

Posted in film, Jane Austen | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

November 5 ~ Guy Fawkes’ Day

Guy Fawkes Night, also known as Guy Fawkes Day, Bonfire Night and Firework Night, is an annual commemoration observed on 5 November, primarily in Great Britain. Its history begins with the events of 5 November 1605, when Guy Fawkes, a member of the Gunpowder Plot, was arrested while guarding explosives the plotters had placed beneath the House of Lords. Celebrating the fact that King James I had survived the attempt on his life, people lit bonfires around London, and months later the introduction of the Observance of 5th November Act enforced an annual public day of thanksgiving for the plot’s failure.

The Gunpowder Treason Day celebration quickly became the predominant English state commemoration; unfortunately it also became a focus for anti-Catholic sentiment because it carried strong religious overtones. Puritanical sermons addressed the perceived dangers of popery, while during increasingly raucous celebrations common folk burnt effigies of popular hate-figures, such as the pope. Towards the end of the 18th century reports appear of children begging for money with effigies of Guy Fawkes and 5 November gradually became known as Guy Fawkes Day.

Towns such as Lewes and Guildford were in the 19th century scenes of increasingly violent class-based confrontations, fostering traditions those towns celebrate still, albeit peaceably. In the 1850s changing attitudes eventually resulted in the toning down of much of the day’s anti-Catholic rhetoric, and in 1859 the original 1606 legislation was repealed.

Eventually, the violence was dealt with, and by the 20th century Guy Fawkes Day had become an enjoyable social commemoration, although lacking much of its original focus. The present-day Guy Fawkes Night is usually celebrated at large organised events, centred around a bonfire and extravagant firework displays.

Settlers exported Guy Fawkes Night to overseas colonies, including some in North America, where it was known as Pope Day. Those festivities died out with the onset of the American Revolution, although celebrations continue in some Commonwealth nations. Claims that Guy Fawkes Night was a Protestant replacement for older customs like Samhain are disputed, although another old celebration, Halloween, has lately increased in popularity, and according to some writers, may threaten the continued observance of 5 November.

Origins and history in England
Guy Fawkes Night originates from the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, a failed conspiracy by a group of provincial English Catholics to assassinate the Protestant King James I of England and replace him with a Catholic head of state. In the immediate aftermath of the arrest of Guy Fawkes, caught guarding a cache of explosives placed beneath the House of Lords, James’s Council allowed the public to celebrate the king’s survival with bonfires, so long as they were “without any danger or disorder.” This made 1605 the first year the plot’s failure was celebrated. Days before the surviving conspirators were executed, in January 1606 Parliament passed the Observance of 5th November Act 1605, commonly known as the “Thanksgiving Act.” It was proposed by a Puritan Member of Parliament, Edward Montagu, who suggested that the king’s apparent deliverance by divine intervention deserved some measure of official recognition, and kept 5 November free as a day of thanksgiving while in theory making attendance at Church mandatory. A new form of service was also added to the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer, for use on 5 November.

Little is known about the earliest celebrations. In settlements such as Carlisle, Norwich and Nottingham, corporations provided music and artillery salutes. Canterbury celebrated 5 November 1607 with 106 pounds of gunpowder and 14 pounds of match, and three years later food and drink was provided for local dignitaries, as well as music, explosions and a parade by the local militia. Even less is known of how the occasion was first commemorated by the general public, although records indicate that in Protestant Dorchester a sermon was read, the church bells rung, and bonfires and fireworks lit.

Early Significance
According to historian and author Antonia Fraser, a study of the earliest sermons preached demonstrates an anti-Catholic concentration “mystical in its fervour.” Delivering one of five 5 November sermons printed in A Mappe of Rome in 1612, Thomas Taylor spoke of the “generality of his [a papist’s] cruelty,” which had been “almost without bounds.” Such messages were also spread in printed works like Francis Herring’s Pietas Pontifica (republished in 1610 as Popish Piety), and John Rhode’s A Brief Summe of the Treason intended against the King & State, which in 1606 sought to educate “the simple and ignorant … that they be not seduced any longer by papists.”

By the 1620s the Fifth was honoured in market towns and villages across the country, though it was some years before it was commemorated throughout England. Gunpowder Treason Day, as it was then known, became the predominant English state commemoration. Some parishes made the day a festive occasion, with public drinking and solemn processions. Concerned though about James’s pro-Spanish foreign policy, the decline of international Protestantism, and Catholicism in general, Protestant clergymen who recognised the day’s significance called for more dignified and profound thanksgivings each 5 November.

What unity English Protestants had shared in 1606 began to fade when in 1625 James’s son, the future Charles I, married the Catholic Henrietta Maria of France. Puritans reacted to the marriage by issuing a new prayer to warn against rebellion and Catholicism, and on 5 November that year, effigies of the pope and the devil were burnt, the earliest such report of this practice and the beginning of centuries of tradition.

During Charles’s reign Gunpowder Treason Day became increasingly partisan. Between 1629 and 1640 he ruled without Parliament, and he seemed to support Arminianism, regarded by Puritans like Henry Burton as a step toward Catholicism. By 1636, under the leadership of the Arminian Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud, the English church was trying to use 5 November to denounce all seditious practices, and not just popery.
Puritans went on the defensive, some pressing for further reformation of the Church.

Bonfire Night, as it was occasionally known, assumed a new fervour during the events leading up to the English Interregnum. Although Royalists disputed their interpretations, Parliamentarians began to uncover or fear new Catholic plots. Preaching before the House of Commons on 5 November 1644, Charles Herle claimed that Papists were tunnelling “from Oxford, Rome, Hell, to Westminster, and there to blow up, if possible, the better foundations of your houses, their liberties and privileges.” A display in 1647 at Lincoln’s Inn Fields commemorated “God’s great mercy in delivering this kingdom from the hellish plots of papists”, and included fireballs burning in the water (symbolising a Catholic association with “infernal spirits”) and fireboxes, their many rockets suggestive of “popish spirits coming from below” to enact plots against the king. Effigies of Fawkes and the pope were present, the latter represented by Pluto, Roman god of the underworld.

Following Charles I’s execution in 1649, the country’s new republican regime remained undecided on how to treat 5 November. Unlike the old system of religious feasts and State anniversaries, it survived, but as a celebration of parliamentary government and Protestantism, and not of monarchy.

Commonly the day was still marked by bonfires and miniature explosives, but formal celebrations resumed only with the Restoration, when Charles II became king. Courtiers, High Anglicans and Tories followed the official line, that the event marked God’s preservation of the English throne, but generally the celebrations became more diverse. By 1670 London apprentices had turned 5 November into a fire festival, attacking not only popery but also “sobriety and good order,” demanding money from coach occupants for alcohol and bonfires. The burning of effigies, largely unknown to the Jacobeans, continued in 1673 when Charles’s brother, the Duke of York, converted to Catholicism. In response, accompanied by a procession of about 1,000 people, the apprentices fired an effigy of the Whore of Babylon, bedecked with a range of papal symbols. Similar scenes occurred over the following few years.

In 1677 elements of Elizabeth I’s Accession Day celebration of 17 November were incorporated into the Fifth, with the burning of large bonfires, a large effigy of the pope—his belly filled with live cats “who squalled most hideously as soon as they felt the fire”—and two effigies of devils “whispering in his ear.”

Two years later, as the exclusion crisis was reaching its zenith, an observer noted the “many bonfires and burning of popes as has ever been seen.” Violent scenes in 1682 forced London’s militia into action, and to prevent any repetition the following year a proclamation was issued, banning bonfires and fireworks.

Fireworks were also banned under James II, who became king in 1685. Attempts by the government to tone down Gunpowder Treason Day celebrations were, however, largely unsuccessful, and some reacted to a ban on bonfires in London (born from a fear of more burnings of the pope’s effigy) by placing candles in their windows, “as a witness against Catholicism.”

When James was deposed in 1688 by William of Orange—who importantly, landed in England on 5 November—the day’s events turned also to the celebration of freedom and religion, with elements of anti-Jacobitism. While the earlier ban on bonfires was politically motivated, a ban on fireworks was maintained for safety reasons, “much mischief having been done by squibs.”

Guy Fawkes Day
William’s birthday fell on 4 November, and for orthodox Whigs the two days therefore became an important double anniversary.

William ordered that the thanksgiving service for 5 November be amended to include thanks for his “happy arrival” and “the Deliverance of our Church and Nation.” In the 1690s he re-established Protestant rule in Ireland, and the Fifth, occasionally marked by the ringing of church bells and civic dinners, was consequently eclipsed by his birthday commemorations.

From the 19th century, 5 November celebrations there became sectarian in nature. Its celebration in Northern Ireland remains controversial, unlike in Scotland, where bonfires continue to be lit in various Caledonian cities. In England though, as one of 49 official holidays, for the ruling class 5 November became overshadowed by events such as the birthdays of Admiral Edward Vernon, or John Wilkes, and under George II and George III, with the exception of the Jacobite Rising of 1745, it was largely “a polite entertainment rather than an occasion for vitriolic thanksgiving.”

For the lower classes, however, the anniversary was a chance to pit disorder against order, a pretext for violence and uncontrolled revelry. At some point, for reasons that are unclear, it became customary to burn Guy Fawkes in effigy, rather than the pope. Gradually, Gunpowder Treason Day became Guy Fawkes Day. In 1790 The Times reported instances of children “…begging for money for Guy Faux,” and a report of 4 November 1802 described how “a set of idle fellows … with some horrid figure dressed up as a Guy Faux” were convicted of begging and receiving money, and committed to prison as “idle and disorderly persons.” The Fifth became “a polysemous occasion, replete with polyvalent cross-referencing, meaning all things to all men.” Lower class rioting continued, with reports in Lewes of annual rioting, intimidation of “respectable householders” and the rolling through the streets of lit tar barrels.

In Guildford, gangs of revellers who called themselves “guys” terrorised the local population; proceedings were concerned more with the settling of old arguments and general mayhem, than any historical reminiscences. Similar problems arose in Exeter, originally the scene of more traditional celebrations.

In 1831 an effigy was burnt of the new Bishop of Exeter Henry Phillpotts, a High Church Anglican and High Tory who opposed Parliamentary reform, and who was also suspected of being involved in “creeping popery.” A local ban on fireworks in 1843 was largely ignored, and attempts by the authorities to suppress the celebrations resulted in violent protests and several injured constables.

On several occasions during the 19th century The Times reported that the tradition was in decline, being “of late years almost forgotten”, but in the opinion of historian David Cressy, such reports reflected “other Victorian trends,” including a lessening of Protestant religious zeal—not general observance of the Fifth. Civil unrest brought about by the union of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland in 1800 resulted in Parliament passing the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, which afforded Catholics greater civil rights, continuing the process of Catholic Emancipation in the two kingdoms.

The traditional denunciations of Catholicism had been in decline since the early 18th century, and were thought by many, including Queen Victoria, to be outdated, but the pope’s restoration in 1850 of the English Catholic hierarchy gave renewed significance to 5 November, as demonstrated by the burnings of effigies of the new Catholic Archbishop of Westminster Nicholas Wiseman, and the pope.

At Farringdon Market 14 effigies were processed from the Strand and over Westminster Bridge to Southwark, while extensive demonstrations were held throughout the suburbs of London.

Effigies of the twelve new English Catholic bishops were paraded through Exeter, already the scene of severe public disorder on each anniversary of the Fifth. In 1863 a mob in Ipswich smashed Catholic-owned businesses, prompting the curate of the newly built Saint Pancras Church to barricade himself in the presbytery. Gradually, however, such scenes became less popular. With little resistance in Parliament, the thanksgiving prayer of 5 November contained in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer was abolished, and in March 1859 the Anniversary Days Observance Act repealed the original 1606 Act. As the authorities dealt with the worst excesses, public decorum was gradually restored. The sale of fireworks was restricted, and the Guildford “guys” were neutralized in 1865, although this was too late for one constable, who died of his wounds.

Violence continued in Exeter for some years, peaking in 1867, when incensed by rising food prices and banned from firing their customary bonfire, a mob was twice in one night driven from Cathedral Close by armed infantry. Further riots occurred in 1879, but there were no more bonfires in Cathedral Close after 1894. Elsewhere, sporadic instances of public disorder persisted late into the 20th century, accompanied by large numbers of firework-related accidents, but a national Firework Code and improved public safety has in most cases brought an end to such things.

Songs, Guys and Decline
One notable aspect of the Victorians’ commemoration of Guy Fawkes Night was its move away from the centres of communities, to their margins. Gathering wood for the bonfire increasingly became the province of working-class children, who solicited combustible materials, money, food and drink from wealthier neighbours, often with the aid of songs. Most opened with the familiar “Remember, remember, the fifth of November, Gunpowder Treason and Plot.” The earliest recorded rhyme, from 1742, is reproduced below alongside one bearing similarities to most Guy Fawkes Night ditties, recorded in 1903 at Charlton on Otmoor:
Don’t you Remember,
The Fifth of November,
‘Twas Gunpowder Treason Day,
I let off my gun,
And made’em all run.
And Stole all their Bonfire away. (1742)

The fifth of November, since I can remember,
Was Guy Faux, Poke him in the eye,
Shove him up the chimney-pot, and there let him die.
A stick and a stake, for King George’s sake,
If you don’t give me one, I’ll take two,
The better for me, and the worse for you,
Ricket-a-racket your hedges shall go. (1903)

Organised entertainments also became popular in the late 19th century, and 20th-century pyrotechnic manufacturers renamed Guy Fawkes Day as Firework Night. Sales of fireworks dwindled somewhat during the First World War, but resumed in the following peace. At the start of the Second World War celebrations were again suspended, resuming in November 1945.

For many families, Guy Fawkes Night became a domestic celebration, and children often congregated on street corners, accompanied by their own effigy of Guy Fawkes. This was sometimes ornately dressed and sometimes a barely recognisable bundle of rags stuffed with whatever filling was suitable. A survey found that in 1981 about 23 percent of Sheffield schoolchildren made Guys, sometimes weeks before the event. Collecting money was a popular reason for their creation, the children taking their effigy from door to door, or displaying it on street corners. But mainly, they were built to go on the bonfire, itself sometimes comprising wood stolen from other pyres; “an acceptable convention” that helped bolster another November tradition, Mischief Night. Rival gangs competed to see who could build the largest, sometimes even burning the wood collected by their opponents; in 1954 the Yorkshire Post reported on fires late in September, a situation that forced the authorities to remove latent piles of wood for safety reasons.

Lately, however, the custom of begging for a “penny for the Guy” has almost completely disappeared. In contrast, some older customs still survive; in Ottery St Mary men chase each other through the streets with lit tar barrels, and since 1679 Lewes has been the setting of some of England’s most extravagant 5 November celebrations, the Lewes Bonfire.

Generally, modern 5 November celebrations are run by local charities and other organisations, with paid admission and controlled access. Author Martin Kettle, writing in The Guardian in 2003, bemoaned an “occasionally nannyish” attitude to fireworks which discourages people from holding firework displays in their back gardens, and an “unduly sensitive attitude” toward the anti-Catholic sentiment once so prominent on Guy Fawkes Night.

David Cressy summarised the modern celebration with these words: “the rockets go higher and burn with more colour, but they have less and less to do with memories of the Fifth of November … it might be observed that Guy Fawkes’ Day is finally declining, having lost its connection with politics and religion. But we have heard that many times before.”

Posted in British history, Great Britain, holidays, royalty | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Regency Happenings: The Founding of The Royal Doulton Company

The Royal Doulton Company was an English company producing tableware and collectables, dating from 1815. Operating originally in London, its reputation grew in The Potteries, where it was a latecomer compared to Royal Crown Derby, Royal Worcester, Wedgwood, Spode and Mintons. Its products include dinnerware, giftware, cookware, porcelain, glassware, collectables, jewellery, linens, curtains and lighting.

Three of its brands were Royal Doulton, Royal Albert and Mintons. These brands are now owned by WWRD Holdings Ltd (Waterford Crystal, Wedgwood, Royal Doulton), based in Barlaston near Stoke-on-Trent.

History
The Royal Doulton Company began as a partnership between John Doulton, Martha Jones, and John Watts, with a factory at Vauxhall Walk, Lambeth, London. The business specialised in making stoneware articles, including decorative bottles and salt glaze sewer pipes. The company took the name Doulton in 1853.

By 1871, Henry Doulton, John’s son, launched a studio at the Lambeth pottery, and offered work to designers and artists from the nearby Lambeth School of Art. The first to be engaged was George Tinworth followed by artists such as the Barlow family (Florence, Hannah, and Arthur), Frank Butler, Mark Marshall and Eliza Simmance. In 1882, Doulton purchased the small factory of Pinder, Bourne & Co, at Nile Street in Burslem, Staffordshire, which placed Doulton in the region known as The Potteries.

When the Anglican St. Alban’s Church was built in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 1887 with Alexandra, Princess of Wales as one of the driving forces, Doulton donated and manufactured an altarpiece, a pulpit and a font. They were executed in terra cotta with glazed details to the design of Tinworth.

By this time Doulton was popular for stoneware and ceramics, under the artistic direction of John Slater, who worked with figurines, vases, character jugs, and decorative pieces designed by the prolific Leslie Harradine. Doulton products came to the attention of the Royal family. In 1901 King Edward VII sold the Burslem factory the Royal Warrant, allowing the business to adopt new markings and a new name, Royal Doulton. The company added products during the first half of the 20th century while manufacturing fashionable and high-quality bone china.

The Lambeth factory closed in 1956 due to clean air regulations preventing urban production of salt glaze. Following closure, work was transferred to The Potteries.

The headquarters building and factory of the Royal Doulton ceramics firm were in Lambeth, on the south bank of the Thames. This Art Deco building was designed by T.P.Bennett. In 1939 Gilbert Bayes created the friezes that showed the history of pottery through the ages. The factory building was demolished in 1978 and the friezes transferred to the Victoria & Albert Museum. The office building in Black Prince Road survives, complete with a frieze of potters and Sir Henry Doulton over the original main entrance, executed by Tinworth.

Recent Developments
On 30 September 2005, the Nile Street factory closed. Some items are now made in the parent company, WWRD Holdings Ltd in Barlaston, south of the Potteries Conurbation. Further production is carried out in Indonesia.

Royal Doulton Ltd (along with other Waterford Wedgwood companies) went into administration on 5 January 2009. The company is now part of WWRD Holdings Ltd.

Posted in British history, food and drink, Great Britain, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Regency Happenings: The Founding of The Royal Doulton Company