Let There Be Light…London’s First Streetlights

Posted on August 2, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

Old_Street_Light_-_LamplighterIn describing London at the end of the 1600s, Francis Maximilian Mission, author of Nouveau voyage d’Italie: avec un mémoire contenant des avis utiles à ceux qui voudront faire le mesme voyage (New travel from Italy: with a report containing of the opinions useful to those which will want to make the mesme travel), said, “They set up (at every tenth house) in the streets of London (Mr Edward Hemming was the inventor of them about fifteen or sixteen years ago), lamps, which, by means of a very thick convex glass, throw out great rays of light which illuminate the path…They burn from in the evening until midnight, and from every third day after the full moon to the sixth day after the new moon.”

Mission had erred in his estimation of the use of lighting in the early 18th Century, but the City, obviously, impressed the French writer and traveler. As early as the 17th Century, the law enforced street lighting from Michaelmas (September 29) to Lady Day (New Year’s Day until 1752, but with the adjustment of the calendar from Julian to Gregorian, April 6) each evening until midnight.

In 1417, Sir Henry Barton, Mayor of London, ordained “lanterns with lights to be hanged out on the winter evenings between Hallowtide and Candlemasse.” Paris led the way with lighting the streets. A 1524 order said inhabitants were to keep lights burning in windows, which faced the street. With the regulations of 1668 to improve London’s streets, the residents were “encouraged” to hang out their lanterns each evening. In 1690, an order required residents to hang their own lights before their homes. By an Act of the Common Council in 1716, all housekeepers, whose houses faced any street, lane, or passage, were required to hang out, every dark night, one or more lights, to burn from six to eleven o’clock, under the penalty of one shilling as a fine for failing to do so.

The before mentioned Edward Hemming attempted to set up lights in 1685 Cornwall as an example of his plan to light London with whale-oil lamps. Needless to say, the Companies opposed Hemming’s plan. Those who made tallow chandlers, tinsmiths, and horners saw Hemming’s proposal as a threat to their livelihood.

thomson_lamp

The historian, James Peller Malcolm, recorded that “Globular lights were introduced by Michael Cole, who obtained a patent in July 1708.”  Malcolm went on to describe “a new kind of light, composed of one entire glass of globular shape, with a lamp, which will give a cleaner and more certain light from all parts thereof.” Supposedly, Cole first exhibited the light outside a St James coffee house in 1709.

Cesar de Saussure, who has left an amusing and detailed description of his journey from Yverdon, Switzerland, through the German States and then across the North Sea from Rotterdam to London, describes the London streets of 1725 as, “Most of the streets are wonderfully well lighted, for in front of each house hangs a lantern or a large globe of glass, inside of which is placed a lamp which burns all night. Large house have two of these lamps suspended outside their door by iron supports, and some houses even four.”

The most commonly used fuels until the late 18th Century were olive oil, fish oil, beeswax, whale oil, sesame oil, nut oil, etc. From parish to city parish, a system was put into place to raise a rate from “eligible” households for lighting the streets. Later, a similar system was used for financing paving the streets and establishing a watch. A series of Acts of Parliament established the necessity for proper lighting for London’s streets. A 1736 Act gave the City of London the power to charge the inhabitants for lighting the streets throughout the year.

From Dan Cruickshank and Neil Burton’s Life in the Georgian City, we learn, “The aldermen and common council began by determining how many houses there were in the City, valued them, decided how many lamps were needed and what they would cot to erect and maintain, and then determined what proportions of the total each rateable inhabitant would have to pay. There were, it was calculated, 1,287 houses with rent under £10 per annum; 4,741 with rent between £10 and £20 per annum; 3.045 with rent between £20 and £30 per annum; 1,849 with rent between £30 and £40 per annum; and 3,092 with rent of £40 and upwards per annum. ‘In all, 14,014 houses, then inhabited and chargeable.’ The reference to rent should not be confused with actual rent paid. Rates were calculated on the value of a house that was expressed in terms of the rent it was worth. This is not to say that the occupier was actually paying that rent: he could have been a freeholder, a most rare thing in the eighteenth-century city, paying no rent; a lessee paying merely a nominal ground rent to the landlord; or a sublessee on a short lease paying a rack rent. The committee then established that the number of lamps required was 4,200, exclusive of those wanted in ‘public buildings and void places.’ This was based on the decision that lights should be ‘fixed at 25-yd distance on each side of the way in the high streets, and 35 in lesser streets, lanes, etc.’ The money was calculated and raised in the following manner: The several wards of the City agreed for the lighting them at an average of 41s. per annum per lamp, at which rate the expense of 4,200 lamps amounted to £8,610. The fixing of those on posts and irons, averaged at 14s. 6d. each [equaled] £3,045. ‘Houses under £10 [rent] paid 3s. 6d. per annum; under £20 paid 7s. 6d.; under £30 paid 8s.’ under £40 paid 9s. 6d.; upwards of £40 paid 12s.’”

In 1726, Stephen Hales procured a flammable fluid from the distillation of coal. From the distillation of “one hundred and fifty-eight grains [10.2 g] of Newcastle coal, he stated that he obtained one hundred and eight cubic inches [2.9 L] of air, which weighed fifty-one grains [3.3 g], being one third of the whole.” However, Hales results passed without notice for several more years.Mulberry_Street_NYC_c1900_LOC_3g04637u_edit

Posted in British history, buildings and structures, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, Regency era, Uncategorized, Victorian era, White Soup Press | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Regency Unrest: The Ely and Littleport Riots of 1816

Posted on August 1, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

396px-Proclamtion The Ely and Littleport riots of 1816, also known as the Ely riots or Littleport riots, occurred between 22 May and 24 May 1816 in Littleport, Cambridgeshire. The riots were caused by high unemployment and rising grain costs, much like the general unrest which spread throughout England following the Napoleonic Wars.

The Littleport riot broke out when a group of residents met at The Globe Inn. Fuelled by alcohol, they left the inn and began intimidating wealthier Littleport residents, demanding money and destroying property. The riot spread to Ely where magistrates attempted to calm the protests by ordering poor relief and fixing a minimum wage. The following day, encouraged by Lord Liverpool’s government, a militia of the citizens of Ely, led by Sir Henry Bate Dudley and backed by the 1st Royal Dragoons, rounded up the rioters. In the ensuing altercation at The George and Dragon in Littleport, a trooper was injured, one rioter was killed, and at least one went on the run.

Edward Christian, brother of Fletcher Christian, had been appointed Chief Justice of the Isle of Ely in 1800 by the Bishop of Ely. As the Chief Justice, Christian was entitled to try the rioters alone. The government, in this case via the Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, nevertheless appointed a Special Commission, consisting of Justice Abbott and Justice Burrough. The rioters were tried in the assizes at Ely during the week commencing June 1816. 23 men and one woman were condemned, of which five were subsequently hanged. General unrest and riots such as that at Littleport may have been a factor in the government passing the Vagrancy Act of 1824 and subsequently the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829.

Background
In 1815, the government increased taxation on imported wheat and grain to help pay for the costs of the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815). Poor laws, such as the Speenhamland system, were designed to help alleviate financial distress of the poorer communities, but such systems helped to keep wages artificially low as the farmers knew labourers’ wages would be supplemented by the system. Basic commodities, like cereals and bread, became heavily over-priced, creating widespread social unrest. The worst hit were the families of the men returning from the Battle of Waterloo (1815), who arrived home at a time when unemployment was already high. One reply to a questionnaire circulated by the Board of Agriculture in February, March, and April 1816 reported that “the state of the labouring poor is very deplorable, and arises entirely from the want of employment, which they are willing to seek, but the farmer cannot afford to furnish.”

In early 1816, a quarter (28 pounds) of wheat cost 52 shillings (£153), rising through 76 shillings (£223) in May to 103 shillings (£303) in December. Average wages for the period remained static at 8–9 shillings (£24–£26), per week. In 1815, a pound of bread was quoted at over 4 shillings (£12) and predicted to rise to over 5 shillings (£15).

Rioting
Preceding Events in the Region
There was rioting in the first months of 1816 in West Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. On 16 May riots broke out in Bury St Edmunds and Brandon in West Suffolk and also in Hockwold, Feltwell, and Norwich in Norfolk.

On the morning of 20 May, a meeting was held in Southery, Norfolk. The group, including a Thomas Sindall, marched through Denver to Downham Market to meet with the magistrates at their weekly meeting at The Crown public house. Sindall was the only person known to have been at both the riots at Downham Market and Littleport. He was killed by troopers at Littleport. The mob of 1,500, mainly men but some women, besieged The Crown until the magistrates agreed to allow a deputation of eight rioters inside to make their pleas: to have work and two-shillings (£6) per day. The magistrates acceded to these demands, but they had already called the yeoman cavalry from Upwell, who arrived at 5 P.M. Backed by the troops, the Riot Act was then read in the market place by Reverend Dering, causing further tussles, which subsided after arrests started to be made.

At the Norfolk and Norwich Assizes in August, nine men and six women were sentenced to death. Thirteen of those sentences were commuted, and two of the Downham rioters, Daniel Harwood and Thomas Thody, were hanged on the afternoon of 31 August 1816.

Littleport
Littleport is a large village in Cambridgeshire with a population in 1811 of 1,847. It is just under 11 miles (18 km) south-south-west of Downham Market and just over 4 miles (6 km) north-north-east of Ely.

On 22 May 1816, a group of 56 residents met at The Globe Inn in Littleport to discuss the lack of work and rising grain costs. Fuelled by alcohol, the residents directed their anger at local farmer Henry Martin. He had been overseer of the poor in 1814 and was not well liked by the parishioners. One man went to get a horn from Burgess, the lighterman, and started blowing it outside The Globe Inn, gathering hundreds of villagers to join the first group, and the riot commenced.

The rioters began at Mingey’s shop, where stones were thrown through the windows, and then they invaded Mr Clarke’s property and threw his belongings into the street. Next, at Josiah Dewey’s place, the Reverend John Vachell and his wife arrived to try to calm the rioters. Vachell had been vicar of St George’s since 1795 and was also a magistrate; he was an unpopular man, as he dealt harshly with even minor offences. He read or tried to read the Riot Act without effect, as the crowd “told him to go home.”

The rioters next visited the premises of disabled 90-year-old Mr Sindall, throwing his furniture into the street; his housekeeper, Mrs Hutt, was intimidated by a rioter wielding a butcher’s cleaver. After stopping at the place of Mr Little, “a nice old gentleman,” who gave the mob £2 (£118), they continued to Robert Speechly’s and demolished his furniture. Next they broke into the house of Rebecca Waddelow looking for Harry Martin, her grandson. He had seen them coming and escaped out the back. Rebecca Cutlack was visiting at the time, and they robbed her and removed property worth between £100 and £200 (£5,877–£11,754).

At about 11 P.M., the rioters arrived at the house of the Reverend John Vachell, who, after threatening to shoot anyone who entered his house, was disarmed when three men rushed him. He fled on foot with his wife and two daughters towards Ely. After Vachell had left, the rioters destroyed his goods and chattels and stole some of his silverware. Vachell was later to sue the Hundred of Ely for the damages under the Riot Act. He received over £708 (£41,610), an award which was challenged in the press, as many people complained about the size of the resulting district levies used to pay for it. The rioters then stopped a post-chaise returning with Hugh Robert Evans senior and Henry Martin from a Turnpike Trust meeting in Downham. They robbed Evans of 14 shillings (£41) before allowing them both to proceed. On reaching Ely, Evans alerted the magistrates who sent a carriage for Reverend Vachell, which collected him and his family walking towards Ely.

Ely
Ely, Cambridgeshire, is a city with an 1811 population of 4,249 people. The city is nearly 15 miles (24 km) north-north-east of Cambridge and 67 miles (108 km) north-north-east of London. When Vachell arrived in Ely, he alerted fellow clergymen and magistrates Reverend William Metcalfe and Reverend Henry Law who dispatched Thomas Archer, as a messenger, to Bury.

The rioters in Littleton had in the interim stolen a wagon and horses from Henry Tansley and equipped it with fowling guns, front and back. Most of the Littleton mob, armed with guns and pitch-forks, then began the march to Ely, arriving three-quarters of a mile (1.2 km) north of the city between 5 and 6 A.M. on 23 May. The Reverend William Metcalfe met them, read the Riot Act, and asked what the mob required. On being told that they wanted “the price of a stone of flour per day” and that “our children are starving, give us a living wage,” the Reverend agreed but stated that he would have to converse with the other magistrates. He asked everyone to return to Littleport, but they marched on. Metcalfe implored them to go to the market place and many did go there, where they were joined by Ely citizens. Recognising the needs of the rioters, the Ely magistrates, the Reverends William Metcalfe, Peploe Ward and Henry Law drafted a response, offering poor families two-shillings per head per week and ordering farmers to pay two-shillings (£6) per day wages. On hearing the proclamation, the mob cheered. The magistrates then “gave the men some beer, told them not to get drunk and tried to persuade them to go home.” Some took the advice, whilst others continued the rampage, intimidating shopkeepers, millers and bankers and stealing from some. However, most of the rioters, marching with their wagons and guns, left the city for Littleport before the arrival of the military from Bury.

Meanwhile, the magistrates delegated Henry Law to go to London to discuss the matter with Lord Sidmouth, the Home Secretary. On the way, Law stopped at the barracks of the Royston troop of volunteer yeomanry cavalry and requested they go to Ely. Law was unable to convince Sidmouth of the seriousness of the situation, and Sidmouth asked Reverend Sir Henry Bate Dudley to return with Law and report on the matter.

Restoring Order
A detachment of 18 men of the 1st Royal Dragoons, commanded by Captain Methuen, arrived in Ely from Bury on May 23 in the late afternoon. They marched through the streets as a show of force, remaining all night. The following afternoon, 24 May, the troops marched on Littleport, led by Sir Henry Bate Dudley and John Bacon, a Bow Street constable. They were followed by the Royston troop of volunteer yeomanry cavalry summoned earlier by Henry Law, and a militia of gentlemen and inhabitants of Ely.

Before arrival at the Ely Road, a small detachment of troops were ordered across the Hemp Field to enter the village from the east. The larger group then charged at a hard gallop down the Mill Street incline through to Main Street. The rioters were found making a stand in The George and Dragon near the west end of Station Road. The militia were called to the front when the rioters would not come out after being ordered to by Bate Dudley. Thomas South, shooting from a window, hit trooper Wallace in the forearm. The militia got the rioters out of the public house and assembled them in the street, surrounded by the troopers. Thomas Sindall attempted to take a musket from trooper William Porter but was not successful. Sindall ran away, and when he did not stop after being called on to do so by Porter, he was shot through the back of the head. Thomas Sindall was killed; he was the only person known to be at both Downham Market and Littleport. The result of this shooting was to subdue the rest of the rioters. Those captured were taken to Ely gaol and the rest of the rioters were rounded up.

The home secretary, Lord Sidmouth, had dispatched three troops of cavalry (100 men), two six–pounder cannons and three companies of the 69th (South Lincolnshire) Regiment of Foot under Major General Byng to help capture the leading rioters.

Two rioters were hidden in Lakenheath by a labourer who eventually betrayed them for £5 each (£294). One rioter, William Gotobed, a bricklayer, escaped and was eventually pardoned a few years later. He returned to Littleport after seven years and then went to America. The rioting spread to nearby areas such as Little Downham, Cambridgeshire, although such areas were not as badly affected. It took until 10 June before the areas were finally cleared of trouble and all of the rioters had been captured.

Trial
The assizes for the 82 persons, 73 of whom were in prison and nine on bail, lasted from Monday 17 June 1816 through to the following Saturday.

Special Commission
Since 970 AD, and until 1837, the Bishop of Ely retained exclusive jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters, and was also keeper of the records (Custos rotulorum). As part of this right, the Bishop appointed a Chief Justice of the Isle of Ely; Edward Christian had held the post since 1800. In these special assizes, the crown, via Lord Sidmouth, created a Special Commission. Sidmouth appointed two judges, Mr Justice Abbott and Mr Justice Burrough to preside over it. Christian, nevertheless, felt he should attend and indeed was in attendance throughout. After the trial Christian said, “It was suggested to me in London, … that it would be more conducive to the great object of the Commission, … if I declined my rotation of duty, and left the trial of all the prisoners to them [the appointed commissioners].”

Execution
On Friday 28 June 1816 at 9 A.M., the condemned men, William Beamiss, George Crow, John Dennis, Isaac Harley and Thomas South, were driven from the gaol at Ely market place in a black-draped cart and two horses costing five-pound five-shillings (£309) accompanied by the bishop’s gaol chaplain, John Griffin, in a hired chaise and pair costing 13 shillings (£38). In submitting his expenses on 29 June, chief bailiff F. Bagge noted, “We have no power of pressing a cart for the purpose, and ’tis a difficult matter to get one, people feel’s so much upon the occasion.”

The men arrived at the gallows at Parnell pits around 11 A.M., and were hanged after praying with the crowd for some time. Griffin was unofficially given the ropes, which cost one-pound five-shillings (£73), after hanging, which he kept; he left a collection to his housekeeper, who sold them as a cure for sore throats. Following the hanging, the bodies were placed in coffins and displayed in a cottage in Gaol Street, where many people came to visit. They were buried the next day in St Mary’s Church, Ely, with the vicar’s blessing. As a warning to others, a stone plaque was installed on the west side of St Mary’s Church; it concludes, “May their awful Fate be a warning to others.”

In 1816, there were a total of 83 people executed in England: 80 men, including the five Littleport rioters, and three women.

Aftermath
A few days after the execution, the ten condemned prisoners who had had their sentences commuted to twelve months’ imprisonment were transported to the prison hulk Justitia, moored at Woolwich on the River Thames. Such ships were used as holding areas prior to convicts being transferred to a regular vessel for penal transportation to, at this time, Australia. Residents of Ely tried to hold meetings to complain at this apparent extension of the prisoners’ sentences. Despite, or because of, media attention—newspapers of the time took sides depending whether they supported the government or not—the prisoners were returned to Ely gaol; it may all have been a simple mistake by the clerk of the assizes.

On 3 April, 1816, lieutenant-colonel William Sorell was appointed lieutenant-governor of Van Diemen’s Land, now Tasmania. He sailed on the Sir William Bensley, the same ship transporting the rioters sentenced to penal transportation. Leaving England on 9 October 1816, the ship arrived in New South Wales 152 days later on 10 March 1817. Soon after, Sorrel sailed to Hobart arriving on 8 April 1817, where he distinguished himself as the third lieutenant-governor.

The Reverend John Vachell stayed on as vicar of St George’s Littleport in title until 1830; he appointed a curate, George Britton Jermyn from 1817. Some of the St George’s church registers were destroyed during the riots. The remaining registers start from 1754 (marriages), 1756 (burials), and 1783 (baptism). General unrest and riots such as that at Littleport may have been a factor in the government passing the Vagrancy Act of 1824. Due in part to some difficulties in enforcing the law and to continued public unease, the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 was created, leading to the first modern police force.

Posted in British history, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, Victorian era | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Regency Unrest: The Ely and Littleport Riots of 1816

Regency Era Unrest: The Spa Fields Riots, the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, and the Treason Act of 1817

Posted on July 31, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

The Spa Fields Riots were public disorder arising out of mass meetings at Spa Fields, Islington, England, on 15 November and 2 December 1816. Revolutionary Spenceans, who opposed the British government, had planned to encourage rioting and then seize control of the government by taking the Tower of London and the Bank of England. Arthur Thistlewood and three other Spencean leaders were arrested and charged with high treason as a result of the riot; James Watson was on trial during June 1817 with Messrs Wetherell and Copley as their defence counsel. Watson was acquitted and the other three were released without trial.

The first Spa Fields meeting, on 15 November 1816, attracted about 10,000 people and passed off peacefully in the main. Its official object was to seek popular support for the delivery of a petition to the Prince Regent, requesting electoral reform and relief from hardship and distress. Henry Hunt addressed the meeting and was elected to deliver the petition, along with Sir Francis Burdett, although the latter subsequently declined to go.

The second meeting, on 2 December, was called after Hunt was refused access to the Regent to deliver the petition, and may have been attended by 20,000 people. Hunt spoke as planned, and most of the crowd listened to him, but some disorder broke out according to the Spenceans’ agenda. A group of protesters moved away from the main crowd, accompanying James Watson and his son toward the Tower of London, looting a gun shop along the way. They were met by troops at the Royal Exchange and dispersed or were arrested. One man was stabbed during the disturbances, and a John Cashman was later found guilty of stealing weapons from the gun shop, and sentenced to death. The main witness to the ‘plotting’ was a government spy, John Castle, who had infiltrated the Spenceans. He may have been working as an agent provocateur, and his character and reliability were discredited at the trial of the first accused, James Watson. Watson was acquitted and the case against the other arrested men was dropped.

Henry Hunt’s role in the events is disputed. He claimed afterwards not to have known about an uprising and tried to distance himself from events.

The Spa Fields meetings were one of the first cases of mass meetings in public, and contributed to the government’s conviction that revolution was possible and action must be taken. The Gagging Acts were passed in February and March 1817, and the Blanketeers march followed in the same month.

The Treason Act 1817 (57 Geo 3 c 6) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It made it high treason to assassinate the Prince Regent. It also made permanent the Treason Act 1795, which had been due to expire on the death of George III.

All the provisions of this Act in relation to the Treason Act 1795, except such of the same as related to the compassing, imagining, inventing, devising or intending death or destruction, or any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maim or wounding, imprisonment or restraint of the persons of the heirs and successors of George III, and the expressing, uttering or declaring of such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices or intentions, or any of them, were repealed by section 1 of the Treason Felony Act 1848.

Sections 2 and 3 were repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1873.

The Acts of 1817 and 1795 were repealed by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1817 (57 Geo. III, c. 3) was an Act passed by the British Parliament.

The Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, introduced the second reading of the Bill on 24 February 1817. In his speech he said there was “a traitorous conspiracy…for the purpose of overthrowing…the established government” and referred to “a malignant spirit which had brought such disgrace upon the domestic character of the people” and “had long prevailed in the country, but especially since the commencement of the French Revolution”. This spirit belittled Britain’s victories and exalted the prowess of her enemies and after the war had fomented discontent and encouraged violence: “An organised system has been established in every quarter, under the semblance of demanding parliamentary reform, but many of them, I am convinced, have that specious pretext in their mouths only, but revolution and rebellion in their hearts”.

The Act was renewed later in the parliamentary session (57 Geo. III, c. 55). In autumn 1817 Sidmouth went through the list of all those detained under the Act and released as many as possible, personally interviewing most of the prisoners. He also tried to alleviate some of their conditions: “Solitary confinement will not be continued except under special circumstances.” The Act was repealed in February 1818 by the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1818 (58 Geo. III, c. 1).

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, Victorian era | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Regency Era Unrest: The Spa Fields Riots, the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, and the Treason Act of 1817

Regency Personality: Arthur Thistlewood, British Conspirator

Posted on July 30, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

Arthur Thistlewood and the Cato Street Conspiracy play a minor role in my Work in Progress, A Touch of Love. Here is a bit about each…

ArthurThistlewood Arthur Thistlewood (1774–May 1, 1820) was a British conspirator in the Cato Street Conspiracy.

Early Life
He was born in Tupholme the extramarital son of a farmer and stockbreeder. He attended Horncastle Grammar School and was trained as a land surveyor. Unsatisfied with his job, he obtained a commission in the army at the age of 21. In January 1804 he married Jane Worsley, but she died two years later giving birth to their first child. In 1808 he married Susan Wilkinson. He then quit his commission in the army and, with the help of his father, bought a farm. The farm was not a success and in 1811 he moved to London.

Beginning of Revolutionary Involvement
Travel in France and the United States of America exposed Thistlewood to revolutionary ideas. Shortly after his return to England, he joined the Society of Spencean Philanthropists in London. By 1816, Thistlewood had become a leader in the organisation, and was labelled a “dangerous character” by police.

Spa Fields
On December 2, 1816, a mass meeting took place at Spa Fields. The Spenceans had planned to encourage rioting at this meeting and then seize control of the British government by taking the Tower of London and the Bank of England. Police learned of the plan and dispersed the meeting. Thistlewood attempted to flee to North America. He and three other leaders were arrested and charged with high treason. When James Watson was acquitted, the authorities released Thistlewood and the others as well.

Lord Sidmouth
When police arrested Thistlewood after the Spa Fields meeting, he had already bought tickets to travel to the United States. Thistlewood wrote to the Home Secretary Lord Sidmouth in 1817 to demand reimbursement. When Sidmouth failed to respond, Thistlewood challenged him to a duel and was imprisoned in Horsham Jail for 12 months.

Cato Street Conspiracy
On February 22, 1820, Thistlewood was one of a small group of Spenceans who decided, at the prompting of George Edwards, to assassinate several members of the British government at a dinner the next day. The group gathered in a loft in the Marylebone area of London, where police officers apprehended the conspirators. Edwards, a police spy, had fabricated the story of the dinner. Thistlewood was convicted of treason for his part in the Cato Street Conspiracy and, together with co-conspirators John Thomas Brunt, William Davidson, John Ings and Richard Tidd, was publicly hanged and decapitated outside Newgate Prison on May 1, 1820.

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Regency Personality: Arthur Thistlewood, British Conspirator

Georgian and Regency Revolutionary: Thomas Spence, British Radical and Advocate for Common Ownership of Land

Posted on July 29, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

ThomasSpence Thomas Spence (June 21 Old Style/ July 2 New Style, 1750 – September 8, 1814) was an English Radical and advocate of the common ownership of land.

Life
Spence was born in Newcastle-on-Tyne, and was the son of a Scottish net and shoe maker.

Spence was one of the leading English revolutionaries of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Spence was born in poverty and died the same way, after long periods of imprisonment in 1814.

The threatened enclosure of the Town Moor in Newcastle in 1771 appears to have been key to Spence’s interest in the land question and journey towards ultra-radicalism. His scheme was not for land nationalization but for the establishment of self-contained parochial communities, in which rent paid to the parish (wherein the absolute ownership of the land was vested) should be the only tax of any kind. His ideas and thinking on the subject were shaped by a variety of economic thinkers, including his friend Charles Hall.

At the centre of Spence’s work was his Plan, known as ‘Spence’s Plan.’ The Plan has a number of features, including:
The end of aristocracy and landlords;

All land should be publicly owned by ‘democratic parishes’, which should be largely self-governing;

Rents of land in parishes to be shared equally amongst parishioners;

Universal suffrage (including female suffrage) at both parish level and through a system of deputies elected by parishes to a national senate;

A ‘social guarantee’ extended to provide income for those unable to work;

The ‘rights of infants’ to be free from abuse and poverty.

Spence’s Plan was first published in his penny pamphlet Property in Land Every One’s Right in 1775. It was re-issued as The Real Rights of Man in later editions. It was also reissued by, amongst others, Henry Hyndman under the title of The Nationalization of the Land in 1795 and 1882.

Spence may have been the first Englishman to speak of ‘the rights of man.’ The following recollection, composed in the third person, was written by Spence while he was in prison in London in 1794 on a charge of High Treason. Spence was, he wrote,

the first, who as far as he knows, made use of the phrase “RIGHTS OF MAN,” which was on the following remarkable occasion: A man who had been a farmer, and also a miner, and who had been ill-used by his landlords, dug a cave for himself by the seaside, at Marsdon Rocks, between Shields and Sunderland, about the year 1780, and the singularity of such a habitation, exciting the curiosity of many to pay him a visit; our author was one of that number. Exulting in the idea of a human being, who had bravely emancipated himself from the iron fangs of aristocracy, to live free from impost, he wrote extempore with chaulk above the fire place of this free man, the following lines:

Ye landlords vile, whose man’s peace mar,
Come levy rents here if you can;
Your stewards and lawyers I defy,
And live with all the RIGHTS OF MAN

Spence left Newcastle for London in 1787. He kept a book-stall in High Holborn. In 1794 he spent seven months in Newgate Gaol on a charge of High Treason, and in 1801 he was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment for seditious libel. He died in London on 8 September 1814.

His admirers formed a “Society of Spencean Philanthropists,” of which some account is given in Harriet Martineau’s England During the Thirty Years’ Peace. The African Caribbean activists William Davidson and Robert Wedderburn were drawn to this political group.

Spence explored his political and social concepts in a series of books about the fictional Utopian state of Spensonia.

Spence’s Phonetic System
Spence was a self-taught radical with a deep regard for education as a means to liberation. He pioneered a phonetic script and pronunciation system designed to allow people to learn reading and pronunciation at the same time. He believed that if the correct pronunciation was visible in the spelling, everyone would pronounce English correctly, and the class distinctions carried by language would cease. This would bring a time of equality, peace and plenty: the millennium. He published the first English dictionary with pronunciations (1775) and made phonetic versions of many of his pamphlets.

You can see examples of Spence’s spelling system on the pages on English from the Spence Society.

The Rights of Children
Spence’s angry defense of the rights of children has lost little of its potency. When his The Rights of Infants was published in 1796 it was ahead of its time. Spence’s essay also expresses a clear commitment to the rights of women (although he appears unaware of Mary Wollstonecraft’s 1792 Vindication of the Rights of Women’).

Selected Publications
The Real Rights of Man (1793)
End of Oppression (1795)
Rights of Infants (1796)
Constitution of Spensonia (1801)
The Important Trial of Thomas Spence (1807)

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Posted on July 27, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

This post comes from Julie Bosman and The New York Times.

William Lynch was brimming with the enthusiasm of a start-up entrepreneur. It was January 2012, and Mr. Lynch, Barnes & Noble’s chief executive, was showing off the company’s shiny Palo Alto, Calif., offices, a 300-person outpost that was the center of its e-reader operations.

He and other executives proudly displayed their new devices, talked about plans to expand and promised that the bookstore chain could go head-to-head with the giants of Silicon Valley.

“We’re a technology company, believe it or not,” Mr. Lynch said.

But only 16 months later, Barnes & Noble’s digital plans are crumbling. Last month, a disastrous earnings report coincided with the company’s announcement that it would no longer manufacture color tablets. And on Monday, Barnes & Noble announced that Mr. Lynch, the young, tech-savvy architect of the company’s digital strategy, had abruptly resigned. A new chief executive was not named.

To read the complete article, please visit…
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/business/fork-in-the-road-for-a-bookseller.html?_r=0

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on

History of Lacemaking Before the Regency Period

Posted on July 26, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

In my Work in Progress (WIP), A Touch of Love, there is a simple scene in a mercantile where the women are discussing the purchase of lace, which sent me on a hunt for the history of lacemaking. Below is some of what I have found:

 
796px-Bobbin_lace_5054_Nyplätty_pitsi_C Lace is an openwork fabric, patterned with open holes in the work, made by machine or by hand. The holes can be formed via removal of threads or cloth from a previously woven fabric, but more often open spaces are created as part of the lace fabric. Lace-making is an ancient craft. True lace was not made until the late 15th and early 16th centuries. A true lace is created when a thread is looped, twisted or braided to other threads independently from a backing fabric.

Originally linen, silk, gold, or silver threads were used. Now lace is often made with cotton thread, although linen and silk threads are still available. Manufactured lace may be made of synthetic fiber. A few modern artists make lace with a fine copper or silver wire instead of thread.

Types
The Chancellor of Oxford University. The robes of some high officers of state and university officials are trimmed with gold plate lace or gold oakleaf lace.
There are many types of lace, classified by how they are made. These include:

Needle lace; such as Venetian Gros Point is made using a needle and thread. This is the most flexible of the lace-making arts. While some types can be made more quickly than the finest of bobbin laces, others are very time-consuming. Some purists regard needle lace as the height of lace-making. The finest antique needle laces were made from a very fine thread that is not manufactured today.

Cutwork, or whitework; lace constructed by removing threads from a woven background, and the remaining threads wrapped or filled with embroidery.

Bobbin lace; as the name suggests, made with bobbins and a pillow. The bobbins, turned from wood, bone or plastic, hold threads which are woven together and held in place with pins stuck in the pattern on the pillow. The pillow contains straw, preferably oat straw or other materials such as sawdust, insulation styrofoam or ethafoam. Also known as Bone-lace. Chantilly lace is a type of bobbin lace.

Tape lace; makes the tape in the lace as it is worked, or uses a machine- or hand-made textile strip formed into a design, then joined and embellished with needle or bobbin lace.

Knotted lace; including macramé and tatting. Tatted lace is made with a shuttle or a tatting needle.

Crocheted lace; including Irish crochet, pineapple crochet, and filet crochet.

Knitted lace; including Shetland lace, such as the “wedding ring shawl,” a lace shawl so fine that it can be pulled through a wedding ring.

Machine-made; any style of lace created or replicated using mechanical means.

Chemical lace; The stitching area is stitched with embroidery threads that form a continuous motif. Afterwards, the stitching areas are removed and only the embroidery remains. The stitching ground is made of water-soluble or non heat-resistant material.

Etymology
The word lace is from Middle English, from Old French las, noose, string, from Vulgar Latin laceum, from Latin laqueus, noose; probably akin to lacere, to entice, ensnare.

History
In the late 16th century there was a rapid development in the field of lace. There was an openwork fabric where combinations of open spaces and dense textures form designs. These forms of lace were dominant in both fashion as well as home décor during the late 1500s. For enhancing the beauty of collars and cuffs, needle lace was embroidered with loops and picots.

Objects resembling lace bobbins have been found in Roman remains, but there are no records of Roman lace-making. Lace was used by clergy of the early Catholic Church as part of vestments in religious ceremonies, but did not come into widespread use until the 16th century in northwestern part of the European continent. The popularity of lace increased rapidly and the cottage industry of lace making spread throughout Europe. Countries like Italy, France, Belgium, Germany (then Holy Roman Empire), Czech Republic (town of Vamberk), Slovenia (town of Idrija), Finland (town of Rauma) England (town of Honiton), Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Russia, Spain, Turkey and others all have established heritage expressed through lace.

In North America in the 19th century, lace making was spread to the Native American tribes through missionaries.

St. John Francis Regis helped many country girls stay away from the cities by establishing them in the lacemaking and embroidery trade, which is why he became the Patron Saint of lace-making. In 1837, Samuel Ferguson first used jacquard looms with Heathcoat’s bobbin net machine, resulting in endless possibilities for lace designs.

Traditionally, lace was used to make tablecloths and doilies and in both men’s and women’s clothing. The English diarist Samuel Pepys often wrote about the lace used for his, his wife’s, and his acquaintances’ clothing, and on May 7, 1669, noted that he intended to remove the gold lace from the sleeves of his coat “as it is fit [he] should,” possibly in order to avoid charges of ostentatious living.

Industrial Revolution
With the passage of time and an increasing demand in the market for lace, the way the world produced goods changed. This led to the production of machine lace. In 1768, John Heathcoat invented the bobbin net machine. This machine made the production of complex lace designs more quickly. This Industrial Revolution was the downfall for the handmade lace industry. The teaching of handmade lacemaking disappeared in schools as emphasis shifted from trades to academics, which paved the way for lacemaking to become a hobby instead of the business it once was.

Military Uniforms
The term ‘lace’ is used by the British to refer to the gold bands sewn onto the sleeves of naval officers’ uniforms to indicate rank, and to name the similar decoration elsewhere on other uniforms (such as Italian caps and Polish collars) because of the procedure used to make it. In America, the term is not used for this purpose because the bands are metal compactly sewn, while ‘lace’ seems to imply cloth sewn into patterns with holes in them.

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, Victorian era | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Regency Personalities: Sir Richard Onslow, 1st Baronet, Naval Commander

Posted on July 25, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

Sir Richard Onslow, 1st Baronet GCB (23 June 1741 – 27 December 1817) was an English naval officer who played a distinguished role at the Battle of Camperdown.

Naval Career
He was the younger son of Lt-Gen. Richard Onslow and his wife Pooley, daughter of Charles Walton. Onslow’s uncle was Arthur Onslow, Speaker of the British House of Commons, and he enjoyed considerable interest as he rapidly rose through the Navy.

He was made fourth lieutenant of the Sunderland on 17 December 1758 by V-Adm. George Pocock, fifth lieutenant of the Grafton on 3 March 1759, and fourth lieutenant of Pocock’s flagship, the Yarmouth on 17 March 1760, upon which he returned to England.

Onslow became commander of the Martin on 11 February 1761, cruising in the Skagerrak until his promotion to captain of the Humber on 14 April 1762.[1] He joined the Humber in June, but she was wrecked off Flamborough Head while returning from the Baltic in September. Onslow was court-martialed for her loss, but was acquitted, the pilot being blamed for the wreck. On 29 November 1762, he was appointed to command the Phoenix.

Onslow did not receive another command until 31 October 1776, when he was appointed to the St Albans. He took a convoy to New York City in April 1777 and joined Lord Howe in time for the repulse of d’Estaing on 22 July 1777 at Sandy Hook. Onslow sailed for the West Indies on 4 November 1778 with Commodore Hotham and took part in the capture of Saint Lucia and its defense against d’Estaing that December at the Cul-de-Sac. In August 1779, he brought a convoy from St Kitts to Spithead.

He was placed in command of the Bellona, in the Channel Fleet under Admiral Francis Geary, in February 1780, and captured the Dutch 54-gun ship Prinses Carolina on 30 December 1780. Onslow took part in the Relief of Gibraltar under Admiral Darby in April 1781, and again under Howe in October 1782. The Bellona captured La Solitaire in the West Indies before Onslow returned home and took half-pay in June 1783.

In early 1789, he was appointed to command the Magnificent at Portsmouth, but was out of employment again in September 1791. He was promoted rear-admiral of the white on 1 February 1793 and vice-admiral on 4 July 1794. In 1796, he was made port admiral at Portsmouth, and in November, he went aboard the Nassau to act as second-in-command of the North Sea Fleet under Admiral Duncan.

During the Spithead and Nore mutinies, Onslow suppressed a rising aboard the Nassau, and was sent by Duncan to quell the Adamant. When the Nassau refused to sail on 26 May 1797, Onslow moved his flag to the Adamant and until the end of the mutiny, Duncan (in the Venerable) and Onslow maintained the blockade off the Texel alone, making signals to an imaginary fleet over the horizon. Onslow moved his flag again to the Monarch on 25 July 1797, and it was aboard her that he took part in the Battle of Camperdown on 11 October 1797.

His flag captain, Edward O’Bryen, supposedly warned him that the Dutch ships were too close together to get between, to which Onslow replied “The Monarch will make a passage.” Indeed, Monarch was the first to break the Dutch line and attack the Jupiter of 72 guns, flagship of Vice-Admiral Reyntjes, who subsequently surrendered to Onslow.

For his exertions at Camperdown, Onslow was created a baronet and presented with the Freedom of the City of London. He became Commander-in-Chief, Plymouth in 1796.

He went on sick leave on 10 December 1798 and retired as Commander-in-Chief, Plymouth a few weeks later. He was promoted Admiral of the Red on 9 November 1805 and received the GCB in 1815. He died in 1817 at Southampton.

Family
In 1765, Onslow, known for his conviviality, was a founder of the Navy Society dining club. On 18 January 1766, he was appointed to command the frigate Aquilon in the Mediterranean, which he did until 1769, and from 12 October 1770, commanded the Diana in the West Indies. Admiral Rodney gave him command of Achilles on 18 January 1773, in which he returned to England, where he acquired an estate and married Anne, daughter of Commodore Matthew Michell. They had three sons and four daughters:

Matthew Richard Onslow (d. 1808), married Sarah Seton in 1805 and had two daughters
Sir Henry Onslow, 2nd Baronet (1784–1853)
Capt. John James Onslow (d. 1856)
Frances Onslow (d. 1844), married V-Adm. Sir Hyde Parker
Anne Onslow (d. 1853), married Francis Lake, 2nd Viscount Lake (d. 1836) in 1833; married Henry Gritton in 1837
Elizabeth Onslow (d. 1861), married Robert Lewis (d. 1840)
Harriet Onslow (d. 1860), married J.N. Creighton

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Regency Personalities: Sir Richard Onslow, 1st Baronet, Naval Commander

Regency Era Celebrity: Robert Banks Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool, England’s Longest-Serving Prime Minister

Posted on July 24, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

372px-Lord_Liverpool Robert Banks Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool (7 June 1770 – 4 December 1828) was a British politician and the longest-serving Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1812–27) since the Union with Ireland in 1801. He was 42 years old when he became Prime Minister in 1812, which made him younger than all of his successors. As Prime Minister, Liverpool became known for repressive measures introduced to maintain order; but he also steered the country through the period of radicalism and unrest that followed the Napoleonic Wars.

Important events during his tenure as Prime Minister included the War of 1812, the Sixth and Seventh Coalitions against the French Empire, the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars at the Congress of Vienna, the Corn Laws, the Peterloo Massacre, the Trinitarian Act 1812 and the emerging issue of Catholic Emancipation.

Early Life
Jenkinson was baptised on 29 June 1770 at St. Margaret’s, Westminster, the son of George III’s close adviser Charles Jenkinson, later the first Earl of Liverpool, and his first wife, Amelia Watts. Jenkinson’s 19 year old mother, who was the part-Indian daughter of a senior East India Company official William Watts, died from the effects of childbirth one month after his birth.

Arms of the Earls of Liverpool
Jenkinson was educated at Charterhouse School and Christ Church, Oxford. In the summer of 1789, Jenkinson spent four months in Paris to perfect his French and enlarge his social experience. He returned to Oxford for three months to complete his terms of residence and in May 1790 was created master of arts.

He won election to the House of Commons in 1790 for Rye, a seat he would hold until 1803; at the time, however, he was under the age of assent to Parliament, so he refrained from taking his seat and spent the following winter and early spring in an extended tour of the Continent. This tour took in the Netherlands and Italy; afterwards, he was old enough to take his seat in Parliament. It is not clear exactly when he entered the Commons, but as his twenty-first birthday was not reached until almost the end of the 1791 session, it is possible he waited until the following year.

With the help of his father’s influence and his political talent, he rose relatively fast in the Tory government. In February 1792, he gave the reply to Samuel Whitbread’s critical motion on the government’s Russian policy. He delivered several other speeches during the session, including one against the abolition of the slave trade, which reflected his father’s strong opposition to William Wilberforce’s campaign. He served as a member of the Board of Control for India from 1793 to 1796.

In the defence movement that followed the outbreak of hostilities with France, Jenkinson, was one of the first of the ministers of the government to enlist in the militia. In 1794 he became a Colonel in the Cinque Ports Fencibles, and his military duties led to frequent absences from the Commons. In 1796 his regiment was sent to Scotland, and he was quartered for a time in Dumfries.

His parliamentary attendance also suffered from his reaction when his father angrily opposed his projected marriage with Lady Louisa Hervey, daughter of the Earl of Bristol. After Pitt and the King had intervened on his behalf, the wedding finally took place at Wimbledon on 25 March 1795. In May 1796, when his father was created Earl of Liverpool, he took the courtesy title of Lord Hawkesbury and remained in the Commons. He became Baron Hawkesbury in his own right and was elevated to the House of Lords in November 1803, as recognition of his work as Foreign Secretary. He also served as Master of the Mint (1799–1801).

Cabinet
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Home Secretary [edit]
In Henry Addington’s government, he entered the cabinet as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in which capacity he negotiated the Treaty of Amiens with France.[4] Most of his time as Foreign secretary was spent dealing with the nations of France and the United States. He continued to serve in the cabinet as Home Secretary in Pitt the Younger’s second government. While Pitt was seriously ill, Liverpool was in charge of the cabinet and drew up the King’s Speech for the official opening of Parliament. When William Pitt died in 1806, the King asked Liverpool to accept the post of Prime Minister, but he refused, as he believed he lacked a governing majority. He was then made leader of the Opposition during Lord Grenville’s ministry (the only time that Liverpool did not hold government office between 1793 and after his retirement). In 1807, he resumed office as Home Secretary in the Duke of Portland’s ministry.

Secretary of State for War and the Colonies
Lord Liverpool (as Hawkesbury had now become by the death of his father in December 1808) accepted the position of Secretary of State for War and the Colonies in Spencer Perceval’s government in 1809. Liverpool’s first step on taking up his new post was to elicit from the Duke of Wellington a strong enough statement of his ability to resist a French attack to persuade the cabinet to commit themselves to the maintenance of his small force in Portugal.

Prime Minister
When Perceval was assassinated in May 1812, Lord Liverpool succeeded him as Prime Minister. The cabinet proposed Liverpool as his successor with Lord Castlereagh as leader in the Commons. But after an adverse vote in the Lower House, they subsequently gave both their resignations. The Prince Regent, however, found it impossible to form a different coalition and confirmed Liverpool as prime minister on 8 June. Liverpool’s government contained some of the future great leaders of Britain, such as Lord Castlereagh, George Canning, the Duke of Wellington, Robert Peel, and William Huskisson. Liverpool is considered a skilled politician, and held together the liberal and reactionary wings of the Tory party, which his successors, Canning, Goderich and Wellington, had great difficulty with.

Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna
Liverpool’s ministry was a long and eventful one. The War of 1812 with the United States and the final campaigns of the Napoleonic Wars were fought during Liverpool’s premiership. It was during his ministry that the Peninsular Campaigns were fought by the Duke of Wellington. Britain defeated France in the Napoleonic Wars, and Liverpool was awarded the Order of the Garter. At the peace negotiations that followed, Liverpool’s main concern was to obtain a European settlement that would ensure the independence of the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, and confine France inside her pre-war frontiers without damaging her national integrity. To achieve this, he was ready to return all British colonial conquests. Within this broad framework, he gave Castlereagh a discretion at the Congress of Vienna, the next most important event of his ministry. At the congress, he gave prompt approval for Castlereagh’s bold initiative in making the defensive alliance with Austria and France in January 1815. In the aftermath, many years of peace followed.

The Corn Laws and Trouble at Home
Agriculture remained a problem because good harvests between 1819 and 1822 had brought down prices and evoked a cry for greater protection. When the powerful agricultural lobby in Parliament demanded protection in the aftermath, Liverpool gave in to political necessity. Under governmental supervision the notorious Corn Laws of 1815 were passed prohibiting the import of foreign wheat until the domestic price reached a minimum accepted level. Liverpool, however, was in principle a free-trader, but had to accept the bill as a temporary measure to ease the transition to peacetime conditions. His chief economic problem during his time as Prime Minister was that of the nation’s finances. The interest on the national debt, massively swollen by the enormous expenditure of the final war years, together with the war pensions, absorbed the greater part of normal government revenue. The refusal of the House of Commons in 1816 to continue the wartime income tax left ministers with no immediate alternative but to go on with the ruinous system of borrowing to meet necessary annual expenditure. Liverpool eventually facilitated a return to the gold standard in 1819.

Inevitably taxes rose to compensate for borrowing and to pay off the debt, which led to widespread disturbance between 1812 and 1822. Around this time, the group known as Luddites began industrial action, by smashing industrial machines developed for use in the textile industries of the West Riding of Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire. Throughout the period 1811–16, there were a series of incidents of machine-breaking and many of those convicted faced execution.

The reports of the secret committees he obtained in 1817 pointed to the existence of an organised network of disaffected political societies, especially in the manufacturing areas. Liverpool told Peel that the disaffection in the country seemed even worse than in 1794. Because of a largely perceived threat to the government, temporary legislation was introduced. He suspended Habeas Corpus in both Great Britain (1817) and Ireland (1822). Following the Peterloo Massacre in 1819, his government imposed the repressive Six Acts legislation which limited, among other things, free speech and the right to gather for peaceful demonstration. In 1820, as a result of these measures, Liverpool and other cabinet ministers were almost assassinated in the Cato Street Conspiracy.

Although Lord Liverpool argued for the abolition of the slave trade at the Congress of Vienna, he was generally opposed to reform at home, often embracing repressive measures to ensure the status quo. He did however support the repeal of the Combination Laws banning workers from combining into trade unions in 1824, although the powers of these unions were restricted in 1825 following strikes.

Catholic Emancipation
During the 19th century, and, in particular, during Liverpool’s time in office, Catholic emancipation was a source of great conflict. In 1805, in his first important statement of his views on the subject, Liverpool had argued that the special relationship of the monarch with the Church of England, and the refusal of Roman Catholics to take the oath of supremacy, justified their exclusion from political power. Throughout his career, he remained opposed to the idea of Catholic emancipation, though did see marginal concessions as important to the stability of the nation.

The decision of 1812 to remove the issue from collective cabinet policy, followed in 1813 by the defeat of Grattan’s Roman Catholic Relief Bill, brought a period of calm. Liverpool supported marginal concessions such as the admittance of English Roman Catholics to the higher ranks of the armed forces, the magistracy, and the parliamentary franchise; but he remained opposed to their participation in parliament itself. In the 1820s, pressure from the liberal wing of the Commons and the rise of the Catholic Association in Ireland revived the controversy.

By the date of Sir Francis Burdett’s Catholic Relief Bill in 1825, emancipation looked a likely success. Indeed, the success of the bill in the Commons in April, followed by Robert Peel’s tender of resignation, finally persuaded Liverpool that he should retire. When Canning made a formal proposal that the cabinet should back the bill, Liverpool was convinced that his administration had come to its end. George Canning then succeeded him as Prime Minister. Catholic emancipation however was not fully implemented until the major changes of the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 under the leadership of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, and with the work of the Catholic Association established in 1823.

Final Years
Liverpool’s first wife, Louisa, died at 54. He soon married again to Lady Mary Chester, a long-time friend of Louisa. Their marriage only lasted three years however, until Liverpool’s death. Liverpool finally retired on 9 April 1827, when, at Fife House (his riverside residence in Whitehall since 1810), he suffered a severe cerebral haemorrhage, and asked the King to seek a successor. There was another minor stroke in July, after which he lingered on at Coombe until a third and fatal attack on 4 December 1828 when he died. He had no children and was succeeded in the Earldom of Liverpool by his younger half-brother Charles Cecil Cope Jenkinson, 3rd Earl of Liverpool. He was buried in Hawkesbury parish church, Gloucestershire, beside his father and his first wife. His personal estate was registered at under £120,000.

Liverpool Street in London is named after Lord Liverpool.

Lord Liverpool’s Administration (1812–1827)
Lord Liverpool – First Lord of the Treasury and Leader of the House of Lords
Lord Eldon – Lord Chancellor
Lord Harrowby – Lord President of the Council
Lord Westmorland – Lord Privy Seal
Lord Sidmouth – Secretary of State for the Home Department
Lord Castlereagh (Lord Londonderry after 1821) – Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the House of Commons
Lord Bathurst – Secretary of State for War and the Colonies
Lord Melville – First Lord of the Admiralty
Nicholas Vansittart – Chancellor of the Exchequer
Lord Mulgrave – Master-General of the Ordnance
Lord Buckinghamshire – President of the Board of Control
Charles Bathurst – Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
Lord Camden – minister without portfolio

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, Victorian era | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Regency Era Celebrity: Robert Banks Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool, England’s Longest-Serving Prime Minister

The Brown Bess: The Standard of Weaponry in the Napoleonic Wars

Posted on July 23, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

As I said yesterday, my research for my Work in Progress (Book 6 of the Realm Series, A Touch of Love) has led me to explore weaponry during and after the Napoleonic Wars. Below, one find information on the British standard, the Brown Bess.

800px-Brown_Bess Brown Bess is a nickname of uncertain origin for the British Army’s muzzle-loading smoothbore Land Pattern Musket and its derivatives. This musket was used in the era of the expansion of the British Empire and acquired symbolic importance, at least, as significant as its physical importance. It was in use for over a hundred years with many incremental changes in its design. These versions include the Long Land Pattern, Short Land Pattern, India Pattern, New Land Pattern Musket, Sea Service Musket and others.

The Long Land Pattern musket and its derivatives, all .75 caliber flintlock muskets, were the standard long guns of the British Empire’s land forces from 1722 until 1838 when they were superseded by a percussion cap smoothbore musket. The British Ordnance System converted many flintlocks into the new percussion system known as the Pattern 1839 Musket.

A fire in 1841 at the Tower of London destroyed many muskets before they could be converted. Still, the Brown Bess saw service until the middle of the nineteenth century. Some were used by Maori warriors during the Musket Wars 1820s-1830s, having purchased them from European traders at the time, some were still in service during the Indian rebellion of 1857, and also by Zulu warriors, who had purchased them from European traders during the Anglo-Zulu War in 1879, and some were sold to the Mexican Army who used them during the Texas Revolution of 1836 and the Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848. One was even used in the Battle of Shiloh in 1862.

Most male citizens of the American Colonies were required by law to own arms and ammunition for militia duty. The Long Land Pattern was a common firearm in use by both sides in the American Revolutionary War.

Origins of the Name
One hypothesis is that the “Brown Bess” was named after Elizabeth I of England, but this lacks support. It is not believed this name was used contemporaneously with the early Long Pattern Land musket, but that the name arose in late years of the 18th century when the Short Pattern and India Pattern were in wide use.

Early uses of the term include the newspaper, the Connecticut Courant in April 1771, which said “… but if you are afraid of the sea, take Brown Bess on your shoulder and march.” This passage indicates widespread use of the term by that time. The 1785 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, a contemporary work which defined vernacular and slang terms, contained this entry: “Brown Bess: A soldier’s firelock. To hug Brown Bess; to carry a fire-lock, or serve as a private soldier.” Military and government records of the time do not use this poetical name but refer to firelocks, flintlock, muskets or by the weapon’s model designations.

Soldiers of the Black Watch armed with a musket (Brown Bess) and a halberd, c. 1790.

Soldiers of the Black Watch armed with a musket (Brown Bess) and a halberd, c. 1790.

Popular explanations of the use of the word “Brown” include that it was a reference to either the colour of the walnut stocks, or to the characteristic brown colour that was produced by russeting, an early form of metal treatment. Others argue that mass-produced weapons of the time were coated in brown varnish on metal parts as a rust preventative and on wood as a sealer (or in the case of unscrupulous contractors, to disguise inferior or non-regulation types of wood). However, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) notes that “browning” was only introduced in the early 19th century, well after the term had come into general use.

Similarly, the word “Bess” is commonly held to either derive from the word arquebus or blunderbuss (predecessors of the musket) or to be a reference to Elizabeth I, possibly given to commemorate her death. More plausible is that the term Brown Bess derived from the German words “brawn buss” or “braun buss,” meaning “strong gun” or “brown gun”; King George I who commissioned its use was from Germany. The OED has citations for “brown musket” dating back to the early 18th century, which refer to the same weapon. Another suggestion is that the name is simply the counterpart to the earlier Brown Bill.

In the days of lace-ruffles, perukes, and brocade
Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise –
An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes –
At Blenheim and Ramillies, fops would confess
They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.
—Rudyard Kipling, “Brown Bess,” 1911

The Land Pattern Muskets
From the 17th to the early years of the 18th century, most nations did not specify standards for military firearms. Firearms were individually procured by officers or regiments as late as the 1740s, and were often custom-made to the tastes of the purchaser. As the firearm gained ascendancy on the battlefield, this lack of standardisation led to increasing difficulties in the supply of ammunition and repair materials. To address these difficulties, armies began to adopt standardised “patterns.” A military service selected a “pattern musket” to be stored in a “pattern room”, There it served as a reference for arms makers, who could make comparisons and take measurements to ensure that their products matched the standard.

Stress-bearing parts of the Brown Bess, such as the barrel, lockwork, and sling-swivels, were customarily made of iron, while other furniture pieces such as the butt plate, trigger guard and ramrod pipe were found in both iron and brass. It weighed around 10 pounds (4.5 kg) and it could be fitted with a 17 inches (430 mm) triangular cross-section bayonet. The weapon did not have sights, though it could be aimed using the bayonet lug as a crude sight.

The earliest models had iron fittings but these were replaced by brass in models built after 1736. Wooden ramrods were used with the first guns but were replaced by iron ones, although guns with wooden ramrods were still issued to troops on American service until 1765 and later to loyalist units in the American Revolution. Wooden ramrods were also used in the Dragoon version produced from 1744 to 1771 and for Navy and Marine use.
Accuracy of the Brown Bess was fair, as with most other muskets. The effective range is often quoted as 175 yards (160 m), but the Brown Bess was often fired en masse at 50 yards (46 m) to inflict the greatest damage upon the enemy. Military tactics of the period stressed mass volleys and massed bayonet charges, instead of individual marksmanship. The large soft projectile could inflict a great deal of damage when it hit and the great length of the weapon allowed longer reach in bayonet engagements.

As with all similar smooth bore muskets, it was possible to improve the accuracy of the weapon by using musket balls that fit more tightly into the barrel. The black powder used at the time would quickly foul the barrel, making it more and more difficult to reload a tighter-fitting round after each shot and increasing the risk of the round jamming in the barrel during loading. Since tactics at the time favored close range battles and speed over accuracy, smaller and more loosely fitting musket balls were much more commonly used. The Brown Bess had a barrel bore of .75 caliber, and the typical round used was around .69 caliber. Modern re-enactors and musket enthusiasts often use .715 or even .735 caliber balls for increased accuracy. Modern powders which reduce fouling and cleaning patches run down the barrel between shots are used to avoid problems caused by barrel fouling.
While the looser-fitting musket ball reduced the effective range of a single musketeer firing at a single man-sized target to around 50 yards (46 m) to 75 yards (69 m), the Brown Bess was rarely used in single combat. Since individual soldiers are not aimed at in mass volleys, the effective range of the Brown Bess when fired en masse was easily 100 yards (91 m) or more. The black powder used at the time created a lot of smoke which quickly obscured the battlefield, making battles at these longer ranges impractical due to limited visibility.

Field Tests
Field tests of smoothbore muskets in the late 18th and early 19th centuries reported widely reliable expectations of accuracy and speed of fire. The rate of fire ranged from one shot every fifteen to twenty seconds (3-4 shots per minute) with highly trained troops, to two shots per minute (one shot every 30 seconds) for inexperienced recruits.

The standard military loading procedure from prepared paper cartridges containing ball and gunpowder in an elongated envelope is:
1. Tear cartridge with teeth and prime the pan directly from the cartridge;
2. Stand the musket and pour the bulk of the powder down the barrel;
3. Reverse the cartridge and use the ramrod to seat the ball and paper envelope onto the powder charge.

Standard European targets included strips of cloth 50 yards long to represent an opposing line of infantry, with the target height being six feet for infantry and eight feet, three inches for cavalry. Estimations of hit probability at 175 yards could be as high as 75% in volley fire. This however was without allowances for the gaps between the soldiers in an opposing line, for overly tall targets or the confusing and distracting realities of the battlefield. Modern testers shooting from rigid rests, using optimum loads and fast priming powder, report groups of circa five inches at 50 yards (Cumpston 2008).

Posted in British history, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Victorian era | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Brown Bess: The Standard of Weaponry in the Napoleonic Wars