What Do You Know About Posting a Letter During the Regency Era?

This subject of this post came from a faithful reader of the blog. Below are some of the items I shared with her.

People went to the local post office to mail a letter.

Usually the recipient paid.

People sent mail from and received it from a post office.

This was usually near a place where the post horses were changed or a busy inn where stage coaches stopped.

Stamps were the kind made with a stamper.

The letter had to be in hand ready to mail. 

Governesses and others looking for work usually requested prepaid and the respondents were not necessarily in London.

All stamps were hand stamps or postage cost was hand written on the letter. The One Penny Black–the first stamp–comes in place around 1840.

One could NOT get a sheet with of stamps that were marked PREPAID. However, one could–if he knew his local MP (member of Parliament) or was friends with a lord–have them FRANK a sheet. All Members of Parliament were allowed to frank their letters–sign them to send them free in the post.

To see what all this looks like:

Google “prepaid stampless covers”

And “franked stampless covers“

Postmarks were in use in various forms for centuries. Google the four penny post (and you will see its postmark) certainly predates the Regency Era.  But it will show you that by 1805, the initial of the name of the place the letter was mailed from had been part of the postmark for some time. 

It was also common for those post offices through which that letter passed (on its way to the recipient) to postmark the letter as well. The postmarks had the initials of the place of posting, and the date. 

“The uniform fourpenny post was a short-lived uniform pre-paid letter rate in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland that lasted for 36 days from 5 December 1839 until 9 January 1840. The Uniform Fourpenny Post was the first component of the comprehensive reform to the Royal Mail postal service that took place in the 19th century.

“From 5 December 1839 until 9 January 1840, a uniform charge of 4d was levied for pre-paid letters up to half an ounce in weight instead of postage being calculated by distance and number of sheets of paper. One ounce letters were charged 8d and each additional ounce, up to 16 ounces, cost 8d. Unpaid was charged double the pre-paid rates. For mail whose rates were already less than 4d, the existing lower rates applied to those letters.

“The quantity of letters carried increased significantly. For the week ending 29 November 1839, the London post office carried 1,585,973 letters. For the week ending 22 December, the quantity was 2,008,687 and by the week ending 23 February 1840 they carried 3,199,637.”

Sources

  • Reynolds, Mairead (1983). A History of The Irish Post Office. Dublin, IE: MacDonnell Whyte. 91 pp.
  • Grimwood-Taylor, James (1990). The British Postal Reforms of 1839 to 1840. Derby, ENG, UK: Cavendish Philatelic Auctions. 67 pp.
  • Crouch, Guy Robert. The Uniform Fourpenny Post Office Stamps.
  • Kane, William (1990). The Uniform 4d Post of Ireland. UK: Irish Philatelic Circle. 28 pp.

Postal marks were hand stamps (and sometimes writing), and most post offices (particularly those in London) stamped the covers.

A good selection for you to view …

There would be a mark indicating postage due on receipt (most folks paid to receive letters, not to send them).

For more information, check out these writers who have also posted on the process of sending and receiving letters during the Regency Era.

Jane Austen Centre – Regency Letter Writing

Jane Austen Foundation – Issue 111: An Exploration of Regency Letter Writing

Regency Fiction Writers (formerly known as The Beau Monde) Letter Writing – Postal Information in the Regency Era

Regina Jeffers – We Get Stacks and Stacks of Letters-The Expense of Mail During the Regency Period

Shannon Donnelly – The Regency Post: A Pity We’ve Lost Letters

Posted in British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Jane Austen, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on What Do You Know About Posting a Letter During the Regency Era?

Beyond Writing Letters, What Type of Paper Was Used in Regency Households?

Question from a Reader: I have found a great deal of information on the web about writing utensils, but the information about paper during the Regency era primarily centers on letter-writing and general discussions of the high cost and methods used to avoid waste.

Given all that, what was used for general household list-making? Specifically, I have a heroine who is compiling a to-do list of areas that need to be addressed in a neglected estate to bring it up to snuff, but I envision she would use in that circumstance whatever method would have been usual for internal household business such as menu planning, party guest lists, shopping lists, etc. Would paper and pencil have been used for this? If not, what else? If anyone has a resource to recommend, I would be grateful!

Answer: Okay, I have really not researched paper that well, but I do have a bit of information in my Regency Tidbits file that I will share and attempt to give credit where it is due. In the file, I generally note who provided me the information.

First, I am quoting Andrea Penrose from a post over on Goodreads. Andrea used some of this information in her Murder on Black Swan Lane (which is a great historical mystery, by the way).

“So let’s take a quick look at some of the historical highlights of paper making in Great Britain during the Georgian and Regency eras. Until the late 19th century, when wood pulp became the primary source for mass market printing, paper was made of plant fiber, with linen and cotton fibers being the most common. Ragmen collected scraps of cloth, which were sold to paper mills. These were washed to rid them of dirt and foreign matter, then soaked in large vats where they were, as the old saying goes, pounded to a pulp!

“Until the 18th century, stampers—large metal-clad lengths of wood—were worked by hand to reduce the rags to a slurry of fibers (Imagine the muscles of a paper stamper!) The hollander (named as such because it was invented in Holland) took tech to a new level. It was a drum with a wooden roller in its center that was bristling with knifelike blades. The hollander was rotated in a vat of soaking rags, and reduced them to pulp much faster than the old method. (Steam power further improved productivity.) But as is usual with progress, not everything was for the better. Hollanders cut the rag fibers to very short length, while stamping produced long fibers, which made for a stronger paper.

“From there, the pulp was then put in a paper mold—wooden frames with a screen set inside it. The pulp embedded in the screen and the water drained away (Leveling the pulp quickly and efficiently was an art!) After a first stage of drying, the sheet was placed on a felt pad—the papermaker would interleaf maybe two dozen sheets of paper and felt together before placed the stack in a press to squeeze out the remaining water.

“The earliest type of screen was a grid fine horizontal wires held together by regularly spaced vertical wires or threads of horsehair, which produced “laid” paper. The surface tended to be a little irregular and was hard to print on. In 1757, James Whatman the Elder invented a screen that looks very much like our modern window screens. It produced a finer texture paper, which was called “wove” paper. (Today, Whatman paper is still one of the top brands of high quality paper, and is a favorite of watercolor artists.)

“As a final step, the sheets were hung to dry completely before being packaged for sale. As mentioned, paper was not inexpensive—while we routinely buy reams of paper for our printers, Jane Austen and her contemporaries would more often buy far less. The most common package was a quire, which consisted of 24 sheets.

“One of the interesting things I discovered was that in 1800, the paper making industry was using nearly 24 million pounds of rags annually to produce 10,000 tons of paper in England and Wales, and imported cloth scraps were needed to keep up with demand. The shortage of rags prompted experiments with other materials, such as sawdust, rye straw and cabbage stumps, but it wasn’t until the middle of the 19th century that wood pulp became a viable alternative to rag paper.”

Nancy Mayer Researcher tells us: ‘There was a rough sort of paper one used for making lists and ordinary notes. It was to be used with pencils, charcoal, or crayons because ink would go right through. There was rough wrapping paper—brown paper for parcels type, and all the expensive paper for letter writing and invitations.

The paper the mistress of the house would use for menu planing would be different from that used by the cook or housekeeper when they noted what supplies were needed or what was going out in the laundry. There were many different qualities of paper around and a well-stocked house would have them all.

Bronwyn Clarke tells us: The mistress of the house might well use an old notebook or ledger book that had been used by someone else but only part-filled.

I studied a small notebook (pocketbook?) in Yorkshire that had originally been used by clothier John Gibson to record cloth received from weavers and payments made; he subsequently fell ill and died, and someone else used it to record amounts paid to his wife and daughters for their upkeep; however, there were also a few other assorted lists and notes in the book.

Barbara Johnson used an old ledger book and pasted in her fabric samples and fashion plates over the previous owner’s financial records – you can find images of this in the Victoria and Albert Museum website.

From Nancy Mayer: A copy of Johnson’s project was sold some years ago. The fabric samples are only photographs now, but it is still interesting. The book is oversized– more the size of legal paper.

Bronwyn Clarke tells us: It’s out of print now, but the V&A Museum does have photographs of each page in their online catalogue, which is a great resource.

Posted in British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Regency era, research, writing | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Beyond Writing Letters, What Type of Paper Was Used in Regency Households?

Falling into Easy Writing Traps: Do You Know These Rules?

7178225_fd10bbb6b2_o.jpg.736x0_q85 (image via 4 Common Academic Writing Mistakes and How to Fix Them from http://www.noodle.com)

Falling Into Easy Writing Traps…

1.  The word “hold” is confusing to some. Essentially a person can hold a baby, a spoon, a smart phone, etc., but how does one “hold” a meeting, a party, or a conversation?

Example: The committee held its meeting last week. (should be) The committee met last week.

Example: The elected representatives will hold a meeting Monday to vote for officers. (should be) The elected representatives will vote for officers Monday.

2.  The words “feel,” “think,” and “believe” are not interchangeable. “Feel” refers to your sense of touch and to refer to your health. “Think” is to express an opinion. “Believe” refers to a conviction or a principal.

Example: The senator thinks (not “feels”) the new bill will pass.

Example: The preacher believes (not “thinks” or “feels”) in God’s salvation.

Example:  He feels sympathetic for those who grieve for lost loved ones.

Tim Challies, an author, blogger, and book reviewer, tells us, “There is a hierarchy when it comes to the ways we express ourselves and our convictions. There are some things we believe, some things we think, and some things we feel. The terms are hierarchical rather than synonymous and over time we ought to see a progression from feeling to thinking to believing. We should want to elevate more of what we feel into what we think and more of what we think into what we believe. I will grant that there can be fine distinctions here, but there is still value in distinguishing them, at least for our purposes.

“The things I believe are the things for which I have the highest confidence. They are the things I am convinced of, the things I hold to be absolutely true, even though you may disagree. I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead. I believe democracy is superior to fascism or communism. I believe marriage is meant to be a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman.

“The things I think are the things for which I have a little bit less confidence. These are the areas in which I am in a process of growth in understanding and conviction. These are the areas in which absolute right or wrong may not be quite as clear. I believe God tells us to assemble with other Christians to worship him each week, and I think it is best to do this on Sunday (especially here in North America).

“The things I feel are the things I am unsure of, the things I am encountering and responding to on an impulsive or emotional level. I feel that it would be a bad idea for the government of Canada to shut down the office of religious freedom. I feel that because I have only the barest knowledge of the office and its functions and I would need to learn more in order to develop thoughts and then beliefs about it. I feel that it would be a good idea for the Blue Jays to offer a contract extension to Jose Bautista, but I have not read or researched enough to have well-formed thoughts.

“In this way I believe, I think, and I feel have different meanings. And I believe (not “I feel”) that these meanings are consistent with how they have typically been used.”

3.  “Bad” is customarily an adjective, while “badly” is an adverb. Because “badly” is an adverb, it describes the manner in which an action is performed. Therefore if you say, “I feel badly about…,” you are saying that your sense of touch does not perform well. “Feel” is not an action verb, and so one is use “bad” to describe the pronouns “we” and “I.”

Example: I feel bad about missing the appointment.

Example: The runner performed badly in the 400 m race. (“Performed” is an action verb. “Badly” tells how the runner performed.

4.  “Everyday” written as a single word is an adjective that indicates days in general, without emphasizing a specific day. “Every day,” written as two words, has a different meaning. “Every” is an adjective describing the noun “day.” [Hint: Substitute the word “each” for “every.”]

Example: Sam’s Hardware has everyday low prices. [You cannot substitute “each” in this sentence and have it make sense. “…has each day low prices.”  Therefore, one word is needed.]

Example: Sam’s Hardware has the lowest prices every day. [ You can substitute “each” in this example. It would sound fine to say “the lowest prices each day.” Therefore, two separate words is required.}

5. Plurals are easy to confuse.

Add “es” to form plurals from words ending in ch, sh, x, s, ss, and zz. [batches, blushes, boxes, buses, addresses, buzzes]

Change the singular “sis” ending to “ses” for the plural. [analysis – analyses]

If “y” is preceded by a vowel, just add an “s.” [alley – alleys, Monday – Mondays]

If Proper Nouns end in “y,” just add an “s.” [Barry – I know two Barrys.]

If “y” is preceded by a consonant, drop the “y” and add “ies.” [apology – apologies]

Most words ending in “o” add an “s” to form the plural. [cellos, pianos, studios zeros]

Some words ending in “o” add “es” to form a plural. [echoes, heroes, mosquitoes, potatoes, tomatoes, vetoes]

Some words have both endings. [cargos/cargoes, placebos/placeboes, lassos/lassoes, mementos/mementoes, tornados/tornadoes]

images16.  Forming the possessive of proper nouns ending in “s.”

Example: [singular possessive … Charles = Charles’ (or) Charles’s; Lucas = Lucas’ (or) Lucas’s; Hayes = Hayes’ (or) Hayes’s]

Example: [plural possessive … Hayes (singular)      Hayeses (plural)    Hayeses’ (plural possessive)

William (singular)     Williamses (plural, more than one William)   the Williamses’ house

7.  “Healthful” refers to something that promotes good health (i.e., food, exercise, etc.). “Healthy” refers to being in good physical and mental health.

Example: He believes that running is healthful (promoting health).

Example: Fruits and vegetables are healthful (not healthy) for you.

Example: After running the 5K race, he is feeling healthy.

8.  There is a multitude of phrases that require editing because they are too wordy.

Examples:

matinee performance = matinee

joined together = joined

Jewish rabbi = rabbi

made good his/her escape = escaped

on account of = because

off of = off

in the near future = soon

etc.

9. Some words are easily confused.

“Blond” is the adjective used for all references. As a noun, “blond” refers to males, while “blonde” refers to females.

“Credibility” means believability, while “credulity” means to be gullible or unsuspecting.

“Each other” is used when two people, places or things are involved. “One another” is used for three or more.

Use “farther” to refer to distance.” Use “further” to refer to degree or extent.

“Brief” is used to refer to time, while “short” is used to distinguish something that is neither long or tall.

“Compared to” is to liken one person, place, or thing to another. Compared to is used for similarities. “Compared with” is to provide a more concrete and factual comparison of similarities and differences.

“Famous” means well known for favorable reasons. “Infamous” and “notorious” means to be well known for unfavorable reasons.

“Burglary” is when the culprit breaks into a building to steal. The victim is not present or is not confronted. “Robbery” is the unlawful use of force or threat of force to take something belonging to another.

10. Of late, I’ve been doing some editing of my own, as well as scoring the manuscripts of others for writing contests. I am a West Virginia Hillbilly by birth, but even so, I am still sensitive to split infinitives. That does not mean I do not use them occasionally; yet, I do attempt to correct them in my work.

What is an infinitive? It is the verb root, written as “to” + “the verb,” as in “to read,” “to call,” and “to love.”

What is a split infinitive? It is a construction consisting of an infinitive with an adverb or other word inserted between “to” and the “verb,” e.g., she seems to really like it. (“to diligently read,” “to consciously call,” and “to devotedly love”).

I recently read a manuscript for a contest where FEW infinitives used in the work were not a split infinitive. Many experts are mixed on the “rule” not to split infinitives; however, I am still of the persuasion to avoid them. (Remember that I spent 40 years teaching English.) In the dialogue of a work of fiction, I can overlook the split construction, for people often use them orally. However, I’d like to see more diligence in eliminating some of the damage found in the narration. 

Posted in books, editing, Industry News/Publishing, language choices, manuscript evaluation, publishing, vocabulary, word play, writing | 8 Comments

This and That About Parliamentary Elections in the Regency Era

Looking at the House of Lords Journals in the first decade of the 1800s, the members often sat all week, including Saturdays. From some of their Minutes, I gather they began in the morning. One entry included the note that the House rose earlier than usual at 1 PM, suggesting the sitting day could be quite long normally. The hours they met and sat has been one of the more difficult pieces of information to come by. Though the Regency and the War of 1812 would have called for more discussions, it seems that the general sessions were shorter- only from February to July for several years.

Hours: Until 1888 The Commons met at 3:45 on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday. No cut-off time 40 were needed for a quorum in the Commons and 3 in House of Lords. There is a suggestion in some writings that the House of Lords met four or more days a week between the hours of 10:00 and 4. Other authorities say like House of Commons, the late hours were remarked on, and they often stayed late in the evening.

Regina Scott has a fabulous blog post listing when Parliament was in session:

http://www.reginascott.com/parliament.htm

Meeting Dates for Parliament During the Regency ~ During the Regency, Parliament met at least once a year to vote on the military budget and various bills. Gleaning dates from a variety of sources, Parliament was in session during the following times: 

  • 1 November 1810 to 24 July 1811
  • 7 January 1812 to 30 July 1812
  • General election: 5 October to 10 November 1812
  • 24 November 1812 to 22 July 1813
  • 4 November 1813 to 30 July 1814
  • 8 November 1814 to 12 July 1815
  • 1 Feb 1816 to 2 July 1816
  • 28 January 1817 to 12 July 1817
  • 27 January 1818 to 10 June 1818
  • General election: 15 June to 25 July 1818
  • 14 January 1819 to 13 July 1819, before the 16 August 1819 Peterloo Massacre
  • 23 November 1819 to 28 February 1820 (special session because of the massacre but ending early because of the death of George III)
  • General election: 6 March to 14 April 1820
  • 21 April to 23 November 1820 (including a special session beginning the third week of August for the trial of Queen Caroline).

Who was allowed to vote? Parishes or Boroughs? Only male landowners could vote, and if I remember correctly, their property had to be worth a certain sum.

A. Those who could vote: Qualifications for voters varied. Most counties allowed all who had a freehold worth 40 shillings a year to vote. Those who could vote for the members from the county were called 40 shilling freeholders. They had to occupy property that was charged a land tax of 40s a year.

Other qualifications were required to vote in borough elections.

Scot and lot: all householders who paid poor rate was required. The term scot comes from the Old English word sceat, an ordinary coin in Anglo-Saxon times, equivalent to the later penny. In Anglo-Saxon times, a payment was levied locally to cover the cost of establishing drainage and embankments for low-lying land and for ensuring they remain secure. This payment was typically a sceat, so the levy itself gradually became to be called sceat. In burghs, sceat was levied to cover maintenance of the town walls and defences.

In Norman times, under the influence of the word escot, in Old French, the vowel changed, and the term became scot. In 19th century, low-lying farmland in Kent and Sussex was still being called scot-land. Scot, though, gradually became a general term for local levies; a person who was not liable for the levy, but received its benefits, got off scot-free. 

Lot means portion/share, hence lottery and allotment. The phrase scot and lot thus meant the local levies someone paid and the share they received of local provisions; more generally, it meant rights and obligations in respect of local government.

Parliament had evolved from the king’s baronial court. Before the mid 19th century, burghs varied in their choice of franchise. In some burghs, the franchise was set at scot and lot; that is, people were only permitted to vote if they were liable for the local levies.

B. Householder: all who were not receiving alms or poor relief – the usual definition of a householder was a person able to boil a pot on his/her own hearth.

C. Burgage was voting rights attached to certain property in the borough – in England and Scotland tenure of land in a town was held in return for service or annual rent.

D. Corporation: Where a corporation runs the borough only members could vote.

E. Freeman: All freeman had the right to vote – a freeman was one who was not a slave or a vassal.

F. Freeholder: All freeholders could vote. A freeholder had a freehold, which was land held in fee, fee-tail, or for life. 

Peers could not vote.

http://www.regencyresearcher.com/pages/pp1.html

1802 United Kingdom general election

The electoral districts were boroughs which could be a whole village or align with a parish.

I do not recall ever seeing a breakdown of electoral districts  in London and Westminster.Voters in 

London.          Middlesex          4           10,000

Westminster.   Middlesex.         2           12,000

http://www.regencyresearcher.com/pages/counties.html

How, exactly, would one go about standing for Parliament? If one goes looking, he/she will find all sorts of information about rotten boroughs, how some seats were totally under the control of certain influential families, and who could and could not vote, but it is difficult to find much of the truth about the process itself. I have the impression that stumping and making speeches was a later development (although I would be happy to be wrong!), and I am assuming that entertaining influential people to dinner would be necessary, but how would one go about reaching the few people who could vote, I cannot say with any authority.

There is the rumor that Duchess of Devonshire went out campaigning for Whig candidates, offering a kiss for a vote? So there must have been some campaigning.

Georgiana Spencer, Duchess of Devonshire

Most agree that stumping and speeches and paying the voters ( bribing them with ale and beer) was flourishing well in the Regency.

Process: One declared for a seat. One did not have to be resident in the district.

Usually one had a party behind him for the contested seats.

The rotten boroughs and seats held by peers (they owned the village) were seldom contested.

Sir Ralph Milbanke nearly put himself into the debtors’ prison because of campaign debts. Much money was spent on the contested elections.

There really were not that many seats that were contested.

One had to be 21 years of age (though William Pitt the Younger and one or two others were younger than 21) and a member of the Church of England.

I am pretty sure that the Lord Chancellor ‘s office was in charge of the writs to the House of Lords, but am not confident if his or the Home Secretary’s office organized elections and proclaimed the winner of them and issued writs of summons to the next session of parliament for the House of Commons.

While some seats were strongly contested and could cost a man a fortune to win, most were obtained by influence and patronage.

Eighty-seven peers controlled the seats of 218 members.

Ninety commoners controlled the seats of 137 members.

The Government had influence in sixteen seats. The treasury had 11, Admiralty had 4, and Ordnance had one.

These totaled 371, or more than half the 474 English MPs.

Five counties ( including their boroughs) returned 142 MPs, or around a fourth of the total membership of the House of Commons. The number of voters in the five counties came to 48,443 out of a population of 1,221,671.

Posted in Act of Parliament, British history, England, estates, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, laws of the land, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, Regency era, research, Whigs | Comments Off on This and That About Parliamentary Elections in the Regency Era

The Cost of Military Uniforms in the Regency Era

I had a reader recently ask me what I knew of officers uniforms, specifically the cost of those for the British Army.

Note: Most of what I have included are notes from a class I sat in on regarding the British Officer from multiply years ago.

It is my understanding that tailors would sew a monogram or letter in the lining to identify their work. So Stultz had a ‘St’ sown in it. As there was no set regulations on what materials were to be used, officers’ uniforms could be plain with little cording or gaudy with lots of gold cording and lace. Of course, any officer who showed up with a new uniform heavy with gold would be looked down upon. There are memiors noting such things.

As unbelievable as it may seem, a gentleman’s pocketbook and tailor often had more to do with the look of the uniform than the Army regulations. Weston made uniforms as well as tailors in Cheapside. Each infantry and cavalry regiment had a different uniform, though the general cut of each was proscribed by the British Army. Most, but not all, infantry coats and about half of the cavalry coats displayed the British scarlet. The facings were all different colors as a way of identifying the regiment. Facings were the collar, cuffs and lapels, which could be red, white, buff, brown, yellow, green, black, purple, orange, or light blue, and for all guards and royal regiments, dark blue. Usually, for officers, the inner lining of the coat was the facing color because the coat could be buttoned with the facings turned out and showing, or buttoned as a double-breasted coat.

Each regiment also had a unique badge, sort of a crest or emblem, which would be stamped on all buttons, and often pinned as decorations on the white tails, or turnbacks of the coat as well as the on the shield of the shako or hat.

Mr. Buckmaster, a tailor on Old Bond Street, could make a full officer’s uniform, coat, waistcoat, and two pair of breeches for between £20-30, and Mr. Hoby, the Bootmaker, could make a pair of Wellingtons, long Regent boots, or Hessians for about the same amount. George Hoby had shops on both St. James Street and 163 Piccadilly.  A Mr. Prater, a linen draper, could supply the shirts for six shillings apiece and stockings for four a pair.  We know this because a Colonel Burgoyne sent money from Spain in 1811 to a brother officer in London asking him to settle his accounts with the merchants above. He even paid the saddler, Mr. Cuff of Curzon Street, £16 for a saddle. 

Side Note Regarding Colonel Burgoyne:

General John Burgoyne (24 February 1722 – 4 August 1792) was a British military officer, playwright and politician who sat in the British House of Commons from 1761 to 1792. As a member of the British Army he first saw action during the Seven Years’ War when he participated in several battles, most notably during the Spanish invasion of Portugal in 1762.

Burgoyne is best known for his role in the American Revolutionary War. He designed an invasion scheme and was appointed to command a force moving south from Canada to split away New England and end the rebellion. Burgoyne advanced from Canada but his slow movement allowed the Americans to concentrate their forces. Instead of coming to his aid according to the overall plan, the British Army in New York City moved south to capture Philadelphia. Burgoyne fought two small battles near Saratoga but was surrounded by American forces and, with no relief in sight, surrendered his entire army of 6,200 men on 17 October 1777. His surrender, according to the historian Edmund Morgan, “was a great turning point of the war, because it won for Americans the foreign assistance which was the last element needed for victory”.France had been supplying the North American colonists since the spring of 1776. [Morgan, Edmund S. (1956). The Birth of the Republic 1763–1789, pp. 82-83]

General John Burgoyne – Joshua Reynolds c. 1766 ~ Public Domain

In all, a uniform with boots could cost upwards of £100. Any number of times, the newly commissioned young man, if without funds, would borrow the money from the Regimental agent against his future pay, 3% interest going to the regiments stock-purse or into the Agents pocket [legally, depending on whose money was being loaned.]

However, a cavalry officer could pay twice or three times that much for a uniform, because of the extensive cording, belting, and sabretache [saber pocket]. An example of the elaborate decorations on one is in the file, as well as examples of how it was worn, with a cover to protect it, by the officers of the 10th Hussar.

The officer’s hat, along with its oilcloth cover, was one of the more expensive items, whether the Wellington bicorne, felt and leather shako, metal dragoon helmet, or fur-covered Busby worn by the Hussars. There was also the forage cap which was worn in most all situations outside of parade and battle.  These items, with the variety or requirements, materials and metals, required specialists. One of the most well-known Military Cap and Hat Maker was Hawkes on 24 Piccadilly. Cavalry officer Lt. Dyneley asked his brother to order another forage cap from Hawkes, saying If Hawkes does not recollect [what it looked like], send me one neat but not gaudy. Later the same officer ordered a sabretache and belts from Hawks for £15.

General officers could go to the famous tailor and the politician Mr. Place. From Spain, General Pakenham begged his brother Lord Longford, at one point, to have Mr. Place ship him enough cloth for a regimental coat[the cut], blue cloth for the facings, cuffs, and collar, and three dozen staff buttons. [All general staff members had dark blue facings and specific staff buttons instead of buttons for a regiment.] Cost: £30, including shipping. 

A book about Savile Row mentions a Stultz and a Scholte but no Schultz, Hoby made boots. 

Meyer and Mortimer made uniforms for Wellington.

Gieves (now called Gieves & Hawkes) made uniforms for some naval officers.

Thomas and William Adeney also made uniforms 

T. Davies made uniforms for the military.

People could easily identify uniforms by cut, and some tailors did  put a small mark to show their work  in the clothes.

If anyone’s name was sewn into the garments, it would have been the owner’s. Worth was the first designer to sew his label in clothing and that was not until the after 1850.  

I don’t know if this helps but, in Every Man Will Do his Duty: An Anthology of Firsthand Accounts from the Age of Nelson by Dean King. there is a firsthand account by William Dillon in which he needs a uniform fast. He did not have a uniform due to being a prisoner in France. He manages to secure a sudden commission and must leave the next day. On page 194, he states that his stepmother “had ordered a tailor to be in waiting who understood he was to make me a coat and waistcoat in a few hours.” He then goes on to say what else he went around London and bought before shipping out. The tailor did not finish the coat as promised, but he did ensure it was delivered to him by 4 o’clock the next morning in Rochester. The uniform did arrive by parcel at 4a.m..

The phenomenal success of Patrick O’Brian’s seafaring novels has spawned a great hunger for more reading material on the Royal Navy and the Napoleonic Wars. Dean King has combed through mountains of primary-source material and has selected the most riveting, informative, and entertaining accounts from the great age of sail. His explorations have, in the words of Douglas Day, C. W. Barrett Professor of English at the University of Virginia, “yielded a collection of narratives that are just as exciting as the marvelous Aubrey–Maturin novels of Patrick O’Brian.”

Told by actual participants, the eyewitness stories range from slices of life at sea to events of great historical significance, including epic battles such as those of Cape St. Vincent and Trafalgar, and the death of Nelson. Every Man Will Do His Duty is sure to delight legions of seafaring adventure fans.
Posted in British history, British Navy, England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Living in the Regency, military, Napoleonic Wars, real life tales, Regency era, research, terminology | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Cost of Military Uniforms in the Regency Era

Pounds, Shillings, Pence, and Guineas: Understanding British Currency Used in the 19th Century

Okay, I admit it. When it comes to understanding the British system of currency in the books I read, even I am sometimes confused. So, I set out to learn more of the currency. 

The common currency was created in 1707 by Article 16 of the Articles of Union.

Here is a guide to British currency:

Pound: This was the basic unit of currency. One could find possess a “pound” in the form of a paper note or in the form of a sovereign (a gold coin). Sometimes it was also called a “quid,” but this was more of a slang term. Another slang term found in the period was a “monkey,” which was equal to £500. Meanwhile, a “pony” was £25. The pound sign (£) represents Libra, a pound weight in Latin. “The symbol derives from a capital “L”, representing libra, the basic unit of weight in the Roman Empire, which in turn is derived from the Latin name of the same spelling for scales or a balance. The pound became an English unit of weight and was so named because it originally had the value of one tower pound (~350 grams) of fine (pure) silver.” (Pound Sign)

In 1066, after the Norman Conquest, the pound was divided into twenty shillings or 240 pennies. It was as such until the decimalization on 15 February 1971. Prior to that time, money was divided into pounds (£ or 1), shillings (s. or/-) and pennies (d.). 

lima_shilling_giiShilling: The most popular coin of the period was a shilling. It was used to purchase food, coal, soap, cloth, etc. There are 20 shillings to a pound and twelve pennies to a shilling. The symbol s. or /- came from the Latin solidus. The slang term for a shilling was “bob.”

“The word shilling comes from scilling, an accounting term that dates back to Anglo-Saxon  times, and from there back to Old Norse, where it means ‘division.’ One abbreviation for shilling is s (for solidus). Often it was informally represented by a slash, standing for a  long s or ʃ thus 1/6 would be 1 shilling and sixpence, often pronounced “one and six” (and equivalent to 18d; the shilling itself was valued at 12d). A price with no pence was written with a slash and a dash: 11/–. Quite often a triangle or (serif) apostrophe would be used to give a neater appearance, such as 1’6 or 11’–. During the Great Recoinage of 1816, the mint was instructed to coin one troy pound (weighing 5760 grains) of standard (o.925 fine) silver into 66 shillings, or its equivalent in other denominations. This effectively set the weight of the shilling, and its subsequent decimal replacement 5 new pence coin, at 87.2727 grains or 5.655 grams from 1816 to 1990, when a new smaller 5p coin was introduced.” (Shilling)

150px-Aethelred_obv2150px-Aethelred_rev2Penny: This was the smallest unit of currency. The plural of “penny” is “pence.” There were 12 pence for each shilling and 240 pence for each pound. “The earliest halfpenny and farthing (¼d.) thus found date to the reigns of Edward I and Henry III, respectively. The need for small change was also sometimes met by simply cutting a full penny into halves or quarters. In 1527, Henry VIII abolished the Tower pound of 5400 grains, replacing it with the Troy pound of 5760 grains and establishing a new pennyweight of 1.56 grams. The last silver pence for general circulation were minted during the reign of Charles II around 1660. 

Cartwheel_Penny“Throughout the 18th century, the British government did not mint pennies for general circulation, and the bullion value of the existing silver pennies caused them to be withdrawn from circulation. Merchants and mining companies began to issue their own copper tokens to fill the need for small change. Finally, amid the Napoleonic Wars, the government authorized Matthew Boulton to mint copper pennies and twopences. Typically, 1 lb. of copper produced 24 pennies. In 1860, the copper penny was replaced with a bronze one (95% copper, 4% tin, 1% zinc). Each pound of bronze was coined into 48 pennies.” (Penny)

If I have not lost you completely at this point, we must also address coins that a reader might encounter in an historical document or novel. There were also special coins that were used that spoke of “multiples” and “fractions” of shillings and pence. For example…

Guinea = one pound, one shilling (Slang word for a guinea was “yellowboy.”) You will read in historical novels where a gentleman paid for his business transactions in guineas. 

farthing_queenanneOther coins in multiples and fractions are…

Florin = 2 shillings
Crown = 5 shillings
Half-crown = 2.5 shillings
Tuppence = 2 pence
Thrupence = 3 pence
Groat = 4 pence
Tanner = 6 pence
Ha’penny = 1/2 of a penny
Farthing = 1/4 of a penny
Mite =  1/8 of a penny

For a more detailed explanation visit The Proceedings of Old Bailey, which also addresses questions on wages and the cost of living at time, or British Life and Culture.

 

 

Posted in Act of Parliament, British currency, British history, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 20 Comments

Naval Enlistment in the Regency Era

I had several questions from readers after my Army enlistment post on Monday regarding the rules for enlistment for the British Navy during the Regency era. So here goes . . .

Photograph of the Royal Naval Academy Portsmouth ~ Wikipedia ~ CC BY-SA 2.0

Could one purchase his rank in the Navy?

The navy did not allow the purchasing of rank. They took in young boys and trained them for various positions. As you wished your character is the 3d son of a marquis to join the Navy, that is perfect. Younger sons typically took on the services. 

England Royal Navy History site tells us: “Prior to the Tudor kings, the monarch could call upon merchant ships to supplement his own small fleet in times of war. In particular, trading privileges were granted in the Middle Ages to the south eastern coastal towns of Dover, Hastings, Hythe, Romney, and Sandwich (and later, Rye and Winchelsea), known as the Cinque Ports, in return for contributions to naval defence. The first Tudor king, Henry VII, had seven merchant ships, which in those days were easily convertible to defensive use. The Tudors recognized the need to have a strong navy to defend England as well as to develop trading and colonial interests abroad. His son, Henry VIII, greatly expanded this fleet and founded the English Navy Board in 1546 to oversee it. The latter’s daughter, Elizabeth I, developed it further, and it was during her reign that the Spanish Armada was repulsed in 1588. The fame of Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) as a diarist has obscured the fact that he was the energetic and capable naval reformer who superbly administered the Navy Board after 1660, during the reigns of Charles II and James II.

“Most families have some connection with the Royal Navy as it was one of the country’s largest employers for over 200 years. During the Napoleonic War period in the early 1800s a large sailing ship required nearly a thousand men. Sailor’s careers consisted of intermittent periods of paid work, especially during wartime, and unemployment. Many would alternate between naval and merchant service wherever they could find work. Captains were responsible for manning their own ships and keeping their own records, thus a great variety is seen today amongst those that survive.

“Seamen’s lives are often depicted as adventurous and exciting, but underneath the glamour there was another side as conditions were harsh in the navy, particularly for those below deck. Pay was poor and often delayed for months or years; food was atrocious; conditions dangerous; and punishment frequent and severe. There were people who chose the navy as their career voluntarily, but pay and conditions were better in the merchant service. Most seamen of the Royal Navy up to 1815 were recruited forcibly by the press system that favoured men used to the sea such as merchant seamen, ferrymen, fishermen etc. Navy recruiting centres were opened up in taverns termed rendezvous, where candidates were persuaded to touch the King’s shilling, the typical sign-up bonus. Harbour taverns, and merchant vessels at sea were raided by press gangs, and if these didn’t bring forth enough recruits then the prisons were emptied for the King’s hard bargains. Many men disappeared from parishes this way until the Press Gang died out in the early 19th century. Former sailors of any kind tended to move away from ports and inland to avoid the attentions of the press gangs. Certain numbers of sailors per fishing boat or merchant vessel were able to procure protection from the press and records of this from 1702-1828 are in ADM 7.

“It should also be noted that for various reasons many men used one or more aliases for different periods in the navy, or for navy and shore life. A clever idea was to enroll under an alias so that if later impressed he could revert to his real name and claim mistaken identity to be released (Michael Wood). Burnard paints a good picture of the press gang’s activity, and in an article about the press’s effect on the fishing villages of NE Scotland Mathewson states that only in 1830 was a limit of 5 years put on time served as an impressed man, and contends that impressing is still legal today.

“Conditions did improve in the 19th century, even flogging was abolished (during peacetime only) in 1871, and a regular scheme of entrance into the Navy came about with the Continuous Service Act of 1853. Men could enlist for a 10-year period from age 18, with regular increases in pay and a right to a pension after 20 years service. Those already in service often took up this offer as well, and thus it becomes far easier to trace them through the Continuous Service Engagement Books. In 1903 another system was introduced whereby men could sign on for 5 or 7 years, and commit another period of 7 or 5 years respectively, making a total of 12 years, to the Royal Fleet Reserve.”

Question: Were children enrolled prior to 1800? (see the paragraphs above for specifics)

They did enroll children before about 1800. After that they were not supposed to do so, but a father might take his son or an uncle his nephew as a cabin boy until he was old enough to be an official midshipman. The boy still had to pass the test. All the lieutenants were to be at least 21 years of age, but that did not always happen. Passing the lieutenant’s test did not automatically grant the young man a position. He did not receive the rank until he posted to a the ship.

Question: Did not some people get around that 6 years by having their sons when they were old enough to leave home join the navy? Were they not already lieutenants pretty much when they stepped foot on board?

This is very much the same as I said above. Many sons of dukes and marquesses did rise in the navy.

The youth would go in before he was 16 and had to pass a test and have 6 years service before he could be a lieutenant. Then his father’s or uncle’s or someone’s influence would earn him a berth on a ship and he would be promoted then by seniority.

Question: What were the age requirements for the Navy?

The age requirements in the navy existed, but were not always enforced.

Although children were legally considered infants until the age of 21, they normally began their working lives — or, at least, entered upon apprenticeships – between the ages of 12 and 15, so there was no reason why those contemplating a military career, especially the navy, should not do likewise. This is why, until 1795, the existing age limits had not been enforced. There had been many abuses of this ignored rule, which existed in both the Navy and Army. For instance, the famous frigate captain, Thomas Cochran, comments on his childhood, as he was being groomed for the army by his father:

“Unknown to my father, he [his uncle; Hon. Captain Sir Alexander Cochrane] had entered my name on the books of various vessels under his command; so that, nominally, I had formed part of the complement of the VESUVIUS, CAROLINA, LA SOPHIE, and HIND; the object common in those days – being, to give me a few years’ standing in the service, should it become my profession in reality.”

Thomas was twelve at the time. Simultaneously, however, another uncle obtained for him a commission, presumably as an ensign, in the 104th Foot because Thomas’ father, intended that he should indeed become a soldier. He had him dressed in a quasi-military uniform, featuring yellow waistcoat and breeches, and placed him in the hands of a military tutor. Five years later, at 17, young Thomas achieves his own ambition and goes to sea in June 1793—with five years seniority as a midshipman.  However, it isn’t until 1794 that he actually resigns his commission in the 104th.  Of course, during this time he was receiving pay for both commissions. There were no regulations actually forbidding this until 1795, partly because the army was not seen as an occupation equal to that of the Royal Navy, and partly because it was common practice for many officers, both army and navy, to take an ‘indulgence’, an extended leave of absence.

It wasn’t just a question of six years. You had to pass an exam to be made lieutenant, and those years as a young gentleman and midshipman were spent learning all the things you had to know to navigate a ship. And in the days before GPS, there was a lot to learn. Later on, influence certainly helped with promotions and assignments, but there was a certain minimal standard of competence for officers.

Unlike the army, the navy expected its officers to know what they were doing. If an army officer messed up, he only got men killed. If a navy officer messed up, he might lose a ship, and ships cost lots of money.

The England Royal Navy History site also provides us a break down of the positions aboard a ship. This might be helpful if you are writing naval scenes, etc. It goes like this:

“Organization of Royal Navy

Officers Commissioned by the Admiralty

They commanded ships, naval stations and detached squadrons; during peacetime many were put on a kind of retainer with no work, but receiving half-pay and liable for call-up as needed. Until 1860 appointment to the upper levels of officer rank was only by commission, which depended upon the ability to pay and the right social connections. It was possible, especially in wartime, for an outstandingly capable man to rise through the ranks from ordinary seaman through to commissioned officer.

  • The Lord High Admiral commanded the whole battlefleet consisting of three squadrons of 3-7 ships-of-the-line and a number of supporting frigates and smaller vessels. The three squadrons were in a strict order of seniority:

1. Firstly, the Centre Squadron commanded by the Admiral of the Red2. Secondly, the Van Squadron commanded by the Admiral of the White3. Lastly the Rear Squadron commanded by the Admiral of the Blue

The admirals were the flag-officers who each oversaw his squadron from a ship recognized by a red, white or blue flag (hence flag-ship), but didn’t actually command that ship, which had its own captain. Admirals were promoted strictly on seniority.

  • Commodores were in charge of isolated divisions or squadrons of ships; it was a function rather than a rank.
  • (Post-) Captains commanded frigates and ships-of-the-line. Promotion to this coveted rank was by examination, merit and influence. He was termed a Flag-Captain if he had an admiral on board.
  • Commanders and Masters commanded the larger vessels such as sloops-of-war.
  • Lieutenants were graded as 1st to 6th according to length of time in the rank, were in charge of deck watches, and commanded a battery of guns; they could also command a small naval vessel such as a schooner or brig.

The Midshipmen (Middies) did not hold commissions, but were young gentlemen, usually from wealthy or aristocratic families, training to become commissioned officers. They joined at age 12-14 as junior midshipmen and slung their hammocks in the gunroom, where they were under the supervision of the gunner. They learned navigation and other skills from the captain or sailing master, and if there was a chaplain on board he would also act as schoolmaster to them. At about age 17 they passed up to senior midshipmen and transferred their hammocks to the orlop deck. Midshipmen had several responsibilities; they made and received flag signals, supervised groups of men aloft, and were in charge of a division of guns (Abranson). There were also Officer Cadets (Snotties) who were one rank lower than a midshipman.

The Royal Naval Academy for training midshipmen opened in 1733 in Portsmouth. In 1806 it was moved to Portsmouth as the Royal Naval College, and similar colleges operated at Greenwich and now Dartmouth, Devon. Rodger describes the various records of these colleges.

Warrant Officers worked for the Admiralty but most were regulated by the Navy Board or Trinity House. They came from the ranks but had passed examinations and were appointed by a warrant from the captain certifying their skills and rank. Surgeons, gunners and engineers had usually either served an apprenticeship or held a professional qualification.

  • Ÿ(Sailing) Master was the most important non-commissioned officer aboard as he was in charge of navigation and of sailing the ship. In 1808 they became commissioned officers.
  • ŸCarpenters were in charge of the hull and spars.
  • ŸCoopers looked after the barrels.
  • Sailmakers kept the sails, canvas covers, awnings and hammocks in good repair.
  • ŸArmourers were the blacksmiths and responsible for small arms.
  • ŸMaster-at-arms taught fencing with swords and cutlasses and was also in charge of discipline on the ship, and ensured that the curfew was observed.
  • ŸBoatswain (Bosun) was in charge of all the rigging.
  • ŸGunners were in charge of all the artillery and the powder magazines.
  • ŸQuartermasters steered the vessel and acted as leadsmen when soundings for water depth were required.
  • Cooks also held warrants and did the best they could with the meagre provisions they were assigned.
  • ŸSurgeons held warrants after 1815 and were commissioned officers after 1843. Assisted by surgeon’s mates and orderlies known as loblolly boys.
  • ŸPursers were in charge of the stores and accounts and held warrants after 1815 and were commissioned officers after 1843. They were assisted by purser’s mates.
  • ŸChaplains.
  • ŸNaval Instructors.
  • ŸEngineers became commissioned officers in 1847.

The term Civil Officer was used to describe surgeons, pursers, chaplains, naval instructors and engineers. Likewise the term Petty Officer was used for Mates, who were assistants to various warrant officers e.g. masters mate, surgeons mate; Midshipmen; the Top-captains in charge of a gang of topmen working from the top; Gun-captains; and sometimes for Warrant Officers. The masters, boatswains and midshipmen were known as Standing Officers because they stayed to maintain the ship even when it was out of commission.

Ratings were the ordinary sailors and so-called because they were rated to various jobs according to their ability and experience. The old experienced men-o’-war men were rated fo’c’sle hands and worked the anchors and jibs etc. The agile younger men were rated topmen and worked aloft with the sails. In order of ability, and thus pay, were:

  • ŸAble Seamen—the most experienced including helmsmen experienced in steering and taking 2-hour shifts at the wheel.
  • ŸOrdinary Seamen—those with less experience.
  • ŸLand(s)men—the inexperienced recruits who trimmed the braces from the waist (waisters) or from the quarter-deck (afterguard).
  • ŸShip’s boys, aged 12-16, usually paupers and orphans, were at the bottom of the hierarchy and had all the menial jobs. Pauper boys could be apprenticed as young as seven to the navy and other sea service.

The description of a rating is further complicated by the fact that after 1853 he could have a navy rank, which was the highest type of position which he could hold, but actually be rated on his ship by the job he actually did at the time.

Posted in British history, British Navy, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, historical fiction, history, laws of the land, Living in the Regency, military, Napoleonic Wars, real life tales, Regency era, tradtions, travel, world history | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Army Enlistment During the Regency Era

I regularly receive questions from readers and other authors regarding a “favorite” book being passed around that appeared to have some odd facts in it. No, I will not tell you the name of the book because I do not believe in calling out a person on a public forum, but I will make the explanations to the best of my ability.

Question: Could a 15-year-old join the army.

Answer: If he did so, he would have had to pretend he was sixteen. I suppose it would have been possible, but, after 1795, the minimum age requirement was 16 for the army. Before that time, it was common for family to buy their sons commissions at young ages. John Cockrane of Navy fame found at fifteen his father had purchased a petty officer’s commission for him when he was twelve. His uncle had purchased an ensign’s commission in the army when he was thirteen. He earned pay from both positions, gaining seniority while never actually serving. This was 1790 though. Such practices were eventually eliminated in both the Navy and afterwards, in 1795, the Army.

Question: What does “Crying Out” mean?

Answer: “Crying out” is what an officer who did not pay for his commission would do. If he bought his commission, he would ‘sell out.’   In either case, giving up his commission means he is no longer in the army, making him a civilian again. And yes, he would have to be an officer to do that. If he has spent 14 years in the military as an officer, the odds are he would be a captain or better by then.

Question: What does a “Life Enlistment” mean?  

Answer: If the man enlisted before 1809, it was a life sentence. He could be pensioned off when his battalion disbanded, when he was wounded and, therefore, pensioned off, or if he was placed in the invalid corp and remained in the army. But those were the only alternatives, and the enlisted man did not make the choice. After 1809, this was changed. The government finally realized a life enlistment could discourage volunteers. So enlistment could be for seven or twenty years. With the twenty year enlistment the man would receive a pension when he “retired.”  [I used this issue in my book “Captain Stanwick’s Bride.”]

Army Structure During the Napoleonic War ~ https://www.warlordgames.com/napoleonic-wars-army-structure/

Question: Could an enlisted man move up the ranks and become an officer?

Answer: There were very few opportunities for an enlisted man to ‘better’ himself, other than to gain a higher rank. Only a few men from the ranks became an officer, Richard Sharpe not withstanding. [Note: “Sharpe” is a series of historical fiction stories by Bernard Cornwell centered on the character of British soldier Richard Sharpe. The stories formed the basis for an ITV television series featuring Sean Bean in the title role.] If one had copies of the Gazette, it appears about 5% of officers came from the ranks. They could be identified in the Gazette because they were termed ‘a gentleman of private means,’ but officer records also identified their past occupations, such as laborer or dock worker.

So if the character in the story is looking to better himself, he is really playing the lottery. Not much chance of that. Achieving an officer’s rank, such as ensign or lieutenant was usually done with exemplary service, a sergeant’s rank, AND some act of heroism that was noticed by those who could do something about it. Conduct medals were reserved for officers. The other way a man might better himself was through war booty/prize money. Soldiers would be given a portion of the value of war materials or valuables just as sailors could gain prize money. [Remember Captain Wentworth in Jane Austen’s “Persuasion” won naval prize money during wartime.]

Anyway, becoming an officer was a better way of ‘bettering” himself,’ if he was a gentleman at all. He could volunteer [at his own expense] and go with a regiment overseas in the hopes of filling a vacancy there, which was easier for the commander than waiting months for a possible replacement from home. 

Question: What does it mean to go on half-pay?

Answer: A man could go on half-pay, meaning he is theoretically “excused” from his duties, but he is still officially in the army and can be called up again, not that he would be necessarily. Pensions were for officers who did NOT buy their commissions [meaning about 65% of the officers throughout the wars] and such would occur when the man left the army and was not on half-pay. 

An officer who bought his commission, only received the price of his rank when he ‘cried out’, which could run from 400 pounds for a lieutenant to a thousand or more for a full colonel, depending on whether they were cavalry or infantry, guard or regulars. Artillery officers never bought a commission, but they had to go through Ordinance School to obtain a commission, so they always had a pension.

Posted in British history, British Navy, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Napoleonic Wars, real life tales, Regency era, research, war | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Costs of Living During the Regency Period

For those of us who write Regency-based novels, the cost of items periodically comes up. How much would would a lady’s gown cost for her Come Out? What was the cost of bread or cheese? For a better understanding of British money, see my post from Tuesday. 

51VMT9uf8TL._SX260_.jpg We can make some viable assumptions on the cost of items. There are several period books that give us insight into the costs of gowns, for example. One of the MANY fabulous reasons to adore Judy Gayle’s Fashions in the Era of Jane Austen: Ackermann’s Repository of Arts is the listing of actual proprietors/dressmakers AND their addresses!

It could cost a father between a hundred pounds to several hundred guineas bring his daughter out into Society. Keep in mind, this amount does not just include the gown for her formal Presentation to the Queen. It includes all the gowns worn throughout the Season. A girl would not wear the same dress to several different balls, for example. There are shoes, stocking, jewels, fan, gloves, headdress, possibly a cloak or an appropriate outer garment. The costs add up. The Court gown could usually only be worn once (like a woman’s wedding dress in the modern era), but sometimes it might be constructed to be adapted and reused. To determine the cost, one can basically look at costs for materials and then add in an extra ten or twenty percent for production.

1a8654685cea393e6c66dcd5be4006d4.jpg For a full Season, there would be walking dresses, morning dresses, evening gowns, riding habits, shoes, boots, half-boots, gloves, stockings, undergarments, bonnets, shawls, muffs (when in fashion), parasols (when in fashion), fans, dominos, spencers, cloaks, pellises, reticules, more jewelry, and all made to match or create an ensemble. A family would pretty much spend what they could afford. There would also be ribbons, handkerchiefs, perfumes, creams, powders, and all sorts of fribbles the young lady might wish to purchase during her Season. And then entertainments–subscriptions, theater seats, lending libraries, ices at Gunters or the cost of a dancing master or music lessons. Is it no wonder that many gentlemen bemoaned the births of daughters? The costs were often charged against the estate.

Cost of gowns would depend not just on the modiste, but the materials–gold and silver netting and embroidery, expensive laces, spangles, seed pearls, velvets, etc. Then, of course, there was the actual cost of a season (a house rental if the family did not have a house in Town, the costs for holding a ball or two, servants, horses, etc, etc.) It has been estimated that a court dress could run anywhere up to £500 and even beyond. I think the lowest amount was something like £ 200.  Her bride clothes could run a couple thousand.

00fcbbe8e98be5beb6aa4d8ac25596fa

Empress Josephine’s court dress from around 1800.

Jane Austen’s World tells us, “Female gowns worn at court during the Regency era looked ungainly. Instead of the lovely columnar silhouette of the Grecian-inspired draped gown, court gowns at this time made their wearers resemble the upper half of an extravagantly decorated apple or a pregnant cake topper.

“These custom creations, made with sumptuously expensive materials, adhered to the rules laid down by Queen Charlotte, who presided over the royal drawing rooms until her death.Earlier Georgian gowns flattered a lady’s waist, with corsets that made the waist seem miniscule. As waists rose, the silhouette of the gowns became grotesque, swallowing a lady’s figure in a ball of fabric. Young ladies presented at court for the first time wore white gowns. Married ladies could wear a variety of colors.The gowns’ narrow trains looked out of proportion to the wide-hooped skirts. Head-dresses consisted of a diamond encrusted bandeau and from three to five to seven to more feathers. A variety of feathers were used for head ornamentation – heron, ostrich (the favorite), Bird of Paradise, pheasant, and macaw.”

Dress shops would be places where a young lady could have her fittings and select fabric for the various dresses, but not purchase a ready-made dress. Linen drapers were more apt to be patronized than “dress shops” as women of this era were skilled needlewomen.

As to practical things, most people of any means would have staff to bake the bread required of the household. Bread, during the period, was regulated. The size and cost was pretty much set by law. Bread cost between 3 penny and a shilling six. A 4 pound 6 oz loaf of bread ( weight) cost around 13 pence. The Corn laws were passed in 1815 because the cost of the loaf of bread went over 14d. The cost of bread fluctuated according to the price of wheat (which they called “corn” to include all grain, but not the “corn” as we think of it, meaning “corn on the cob.”) The price was higher after 1815. Also, the prices were higher in 1816 due to the weather. That was the year known as the “Year Without Summer.” In 1815, a pound of bread was quoted at over 4 shillings and predicted to rise to over 5 shillings. This is many times the price in 1813, but such details are difficult to find. 

What of the “bread” for the mind? What was the cost of books? A Minerva Press novel cost 6 shillings, but other books would be more expensive. What kind of books? A volume of an encyclopedia type book cost 3 13 6. A novel in 3 volumes cost 15 shillings. 14 shillings for 2 volumes of criticism of scripture. Another book cost 10s 6d. 2 volume set. A book Essays in Rhyme by Jane Taylor was 6 shillings. One book cost 7 £ 7 s for imperial 4 to but 10£ 10s for the same book in large paper.

In the Regency,  there were twenty shillings in a pound so she had 60 shillings.

240 Pence to a Pound.

20 Shillings to a Pound.

12 Pence to a Shilling.

5 Shillings was a Crown (a silver dollar sized coin in Jane Austen’s time).

4 Crowns was a Pound.

Guinea (always gold) was 21 Shillings (a super pound).

Guineas were replace by sovereigns ( 20 shillings)  in 1817, but high end stores continued  to price items in guineas.

Jane Austen has some prices for inexpensive fabric but it could run up to a couple pounds an ell and the dresses needed several.

In Sense & Sensibility, the Dashwood family lived on 500 pounds a year while keeping two servants.

The post was from 2008, so it’s that year’s conversion amounts, when it was nearly $2/£1.

 51mvL3GneQL.jpg A very good reference for cost of fabrics, shoes, hats , gloves and more is this invaluable book by C. Willett Cunnington: English Women’s Clothing in the Nineteenth Century: A Comprehensive Guide with 1,117 Illustrations. It is an excellent source for things such as hairstyles. The author does comment that the prices listed are those he discovered in advertisements and, therefore, were street or average prices. Fine modistes would charge much more.

Project Britain also has a post on Understanding Old British Money. Also check out this page, which that describes pre-decimal sterling money. There is a quick convertor below, accurate to 2 decimal places. While this convertor gives the value in old and new money, it does not take any account of inflation. Use the National Archives currency convertor to find the equivalent buying power.

In creating my post on converting British money, I  found a post that listed prices for various items during Jane Austen’s time. Two sources are cited, so there is a documentation trail. (What the Heck is a Pelisse?)

Silk stockings — 12 shillings (£20.38 or $40.24 in today’s currency!)
Woolen stockings — 2 shillings 6 pence (£4.25 or $8.39)
A white silk handkerchief² — 6 shillings (£10.19 or $20.12)
A pair of gloves² — 4 shillings (£6.79 or $13.41)
A simple white dress — 5 shillings (£8.49 or $16.77)
A fan — 5 shillings (£8.49 or $16.77)
Simple shoes 6-11 shillings (£10.19-18.68 or $20.12-36.89)
Walking boots 2 pounds (£67.92 or $134.12)
Cotton fabric — 1 shilling per yard (£1.70 or $3.36)
Enough cotton fabric for a dress — 6 shillings ($20.12)
Velveteen fabric — 2 shillings 10 pence (£4.81 or $9.50)
Enough silk fabric for a dress — 1 pound 6 shillings (£44.15 or $87.18)

**Shawls — if real silk or Kashmir could run £200-300

Shoes  — men’s shoes went from 10 /6 to several pounds for boots so I

think the ladies shoes will  be in the same range.

A silk purse– a coin purse sort of thing–  2 s

some gloves 2/6

A 1998 article (How Wealthy is Mr. Darcy – Really? Pounds and Dollars in the World of Pride and Prejudice, James Heldman, Department of English, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY) from the Jane Austen Society of North America (JASNA) gives us this table for costs: 

Some good references:

https://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/the-economics-of-pride-and-prejudice-or-why-a-single-man-with-a-fortune-of-4000-per-year-is-a-desirable-husband/

http://www.kristenkoster.com/a-primer-on-regency-era-womens-fashion/

I also recommend the books Candice Hern references: http://candicehern.com/regencyworld/court-dresses-overview/

Posted in British currency, British history, business, Georgian England, Jane Austen, Regency era | Tagged , , , , , | 10 Comments

Corruption of the Blood or Committing a Felony During the Regency Era

In English law, an attainer was the extinction of one’s civil rights and political rights due to the sentence death from outlawry after a conviction of treason or felony.

“The most important consequences of attainder were forfeiture and corruption of blood. For treason, an offender’s lands were forfeited to the king. For felonies, lands were forfeited to the king for a year and a day and then, because felonies were considered a breach of the feudal bond, escheated (forfeited) to the lord from whom the offender held his tenure. Subsequently, in Magna Carta (1215), the crown renounced its claim to forfeiture in the case of felony. Even harsher than attainder was the doctrine of corruption of blood, by which the person attainted was disqualified from inheriting or transmitting property and his descendants were forever barred from any inheritance of his rights to title. All forms of attainder—except the forfeiture that followed indictment for treason—were abolished during the 19th century.” [Britannica]

The man had to be convicted. If he died before conviction, the penalty was not applied. The forfeiture for suicide was one year’s income, rather than everything, which is one reason the murderers were usually encouraged to end their own lives—at least in books. The penalty was modified throughout the19th century and if a charge of murder could be changed to manslaughter, the penalty did not apply after around 1814. There were also bills of attainder. As mentioned above the bills of attainer varied. For political purposes, Lord Edward Fitzgerald was the last one to have a bill of attainder drawn up against him for his part in the Irish uprising in 1798. This was done even though he died before being convicted. It was later modified to help his poor wife. The attainder imposed by a court of law came with conviction of being guilty of murder or treason. It was very hard for the families, though most of those executed had no property to be forfeit.

I used this penalty of murder and forfeiture as part of my plot for The Heartless Earl.

When the real Lord Ferrers was convicted and executed for murder, his property was taken. Fortunately his wife had been able to secure a legal separation with a legal charge against the estate, if I recall correctly. Also, they had no children so the brother succeeded to the earldom. The earldom was not forfeited to the Crown. The property of a murderer was forfeited when he was convicted. He was also attained with corruption of the blood.

Also, if I remember correctly, Writs of Attainder could make acts criminal retroactively. I think Henry VIII used this method to gain property for the Crown with some regularity. Generally, this was executed for treason or treasonous acts or what those in power called “treason.” There were some bills of attainder issued post facto. In addition to his marital problems, Henry was dealing with the Reformation and the break from Rome. It was easy enough to turn a difference of opinion into treason. Attainted means that the person losses all civil rights and becomes a non-person. He cannot sue or be sued. He cannot have a government position or money. Usually, those who are attainted because of a crime are executed. Bills of attainder were passed against some for treason and without a trial. If titled the man does not lose his title until he is executed, but he has no privileges or rights. Corruption of the blood means he cannot inherit from anyone and has no heirs. This is complicated subject and most sites discuss the political bills of attainder for political enemies and those in opposition to policies, like Catholics and supporters of the Starts.

WIKIPEDIA and other sources say that even after 1815 a conviction of murder leads to corruption of the blood, but that has to be premeditated, malice murder—the accused meant to kill someone and made plans to carry out the act. It does not include spontaneous murder, manslaughter, accidental, self-defense, or in the commission of another crime.

“Historically, a legislative act attainting a person without a judicial trial was known as a bill of attainder or—if punishment was less than death—as a bill of pains and penalties. The power of Parliament to declare guilt and impose punishment by such measures was well established by the 15th century. During the Wars of the Roses (1455–85), bills of attainder were used by rival factions to rid themselves of each other’s leaders, and later King Henry VIII (reigned 1509–47) induced both the House of Lords and the House of Commons to pass such bills against ministers whom he had ceased to trust. Unlike impeachment, which is a judicial proceeding in the House of Lords on charges made by the House of Commons, a bill of attainder was a legislative act adopted by both houses with the formal consent of the king. The offenses charged in such bills were usually characterized as treason but did not have to satisfy established legal definitions of that or any other crime. Thus, bills of attainder have generally been deplored not only because they deprived the accused of a fair trial but also because of their typically ex post facto quality. The dominant faction of the legislature could make any past conduct that it found offensive into a crime. In England, the last bill of attainder was against Lord Edward Fitzgerald, who was condemned to death by an act of Parliament for leading the 1798 rebellion in Ireland. The last bill of pains and penalties, introduced in 1820, led to a legislative trial of Queen Caroline, wife of King George IV, on charges of adultery, but the bill was not passed.”

**Before 1815:

Suicide: Forfeiture. Personal property likely lost.

Common-Law Felony or Treason: Death and corruption of the blood. The heir gets nothing–no lands, no title.

Statute enacted by parliament: Attainder, and possible death sentence (or transportation, or forfeiture). The heir inherits, BUT any pending suits–contracts, etc, and rights to money could potentially be lost.

**After 1815:

Suicide: Forfeiture. Personal property likely lost.

Treason: Death and corruption of the blood. The heir gets nothing–no lands, no title.

Felony: Attainder, and possible death sentence (or transportation, or forfeiture). The heir inherits, BUT any pending suits–contracts, etc, and rights to money could potentially be lost. So conviction of an actual crime has an effect on the legal status of the felon that would almost certainly be more detrimental than mere forfeiture, even if there was no corruption of the blood.

If it is known that a man of wealth and property kills a man, it is better that he commit suicide–if he could stage it like an accident so much the better–so the family is not completely ruined and poverty stricken. Earl Ferrers is one of the few peers to be executed for murder. 

Almost all the others who lost their lives did so because of politics and loyalties. A spate of men were executed after the 1715 and 1745 uprisings. Mrs. Drummond Burrell’s great-grandfather lost his life and his earldom, Her father reclaimed some of it. If a man was a peer, his son immediately became the son of none and could not inherit anything when he died. This was obviously very hard on a young man who was not trained for anything means of earning his own support. There was one case where a man whose father, a peer, was still alive murdered a man and escaped abroad where he died. When his father died, his son succeeded him–that is when the grandfather died, the grandson inherited the earldom. The boy’s father never inherited the peerage of his own father so his son was not barred from it. Crazy, I know.

Ironically, the U.S. constitutional provisions prohibits declaring people guilty of crimes by legislative act, and prohibits sentences for crimes that take property or rights from the family or heirs of the convicted person, even in cases of treason. At least that is how it has been interpreted. Fines may be levied, but may only fall on the actual property of the person convicted. [“What Does Corruption of Blood Mean?”]

Posted in Act of Parliament, British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, laws of the land, Living in the Regency, marriage, real life tales, research | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments