Banking and Bank Notes in Georgian England

Posted on August 19, 2022 by Regina Jeffers

The 18th Century saw the roots of modern day banking in England. International trade and the various wars, most importantly, the war with France, led to the development of the British banking system. Checks and banknotes appeared, as well as the founding of the Bank of England.

from “A Brief History of Banknotes” ~ http://gaukartifact.com/2013/02/28/a-brief-history-of-banknotes/

Before banks, many of the services we think of when it comes to banking were provided by merchants and brokers, but, most assuredly, by goldsmiths located in most cities and large towns, but, especially, in London. Goldsmiths, as early as the 16th Century, accepted deposits, made loans, and transferred funds. Goldsmiths did more than deal with coins, meaning gold coins, deposited with them. Their promises to pay were accepted as “legal tender,” and these receipts were known as “running cash notes.” They were made out in the name of the depositor and were a promise to pay him on demand. These Goldsmiths were men of character, whose word was as good as the law. They issued endorsed receipts, which one could return to collect his money.

After the name of the depositor, these receipts would carry words “or bearer,” permitting a certain style of circulation of funds, not found previously.

The Bank of England was founded in 1694 as a means to raise money for King William III’s war against France. “Almost immediately the Bank started to issue notes in return for deposits. Like the goldsmiths’ notes, the crucial feature that made Bank of England notes a means of exchange was the promise to pay the bearer the sum of the note on demand. This meant that the note could be redeemed at the Bank for gold or coinage by anyone presenting it for payment; if it was not redeemed in full, it was endorsed with the amount withdrawn. These notes were initially handwritten on Bank paper and signed by one of the Bank’s cashiers. They were made out for the precise sum deposited in pounds, shillings and pence. However, after the recoinage of 1696 reduced the need for small denomination notes, it was decided not to issue any notes for sums of less than £50. Since the average income in this period was less than £20 a year, most people went through life without ever coming into contact with banknotes.” [A Brief History of Banknotes]

In addition, people with money could write to the goldsmith to transfer money into another person’s account, which was an early form of writing a “check.” However, with more access to international trade and investments, a need to move money more efficiently was required. Thus, goldsmith houses became the banks of the 1700s.

As mentioned above, fixed denomination notes were common. The Bank of England began issuing partly printed notes for completion in manuscript around 1730. “The £ sign and the first digit were printed but other numerals were added by hand, as were the name of the payee, the cashier’s signature, the date and the number. Notes could be for uneven amounts, but the majority were for round sums. By 1745 notes were being part printed in denominations ranging from £20 to £1,000.

“In 1759, gold shortages caused by the Seven Years War forced the Bank to issue a £10 note for the first time. The first £5 notes followed in 1793 at the start of the war against Revolutionary France. This remained the lowest denomination until 1797, when a series of runs on the Bank, caused by the uncertainty of the war, drained its bullion reserve to the point where it was forced to stop paying out gold for its notes. Instead, it issued £1 and £2 notes. The Restriction Period, as it was known, lasted until 1821 after which gold sovereigns took the place of the £1 and £2 notes. The Restriction Period prompted the Irish playwright and MP, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, to refer angrily to the Bank as ‘… an elderly lady in the City’. This was quickly changed by cartoonist, James Gillray, to the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street, a name that has stuck ever since.”

Pontefract Bank 1 guinea dated 1810 No.O550 for John Seaton, Sons & Foster, https://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=132&searchlot=263&searchtype=2

A great source for everything “normal” during the Regency era is the book, In These Times, by Jenny Uglow. [As the Napoleonic wars raged, what was life really like for those left at home? Award-winning social historian Jenny Uglow reveals the colourful and turbulent everyday life of Georgian Britain through the diaries, letters and records of farmers, bankers, aristocrats and mill-workers. Here, lost voices of ordinary people are combined with those of figures we know, from Austen and Byron to Turner and Constable. In These Times movingly tells the story of how people really lived in one of the most momentous and exciting periods in history.]

This book contains a lot of information on banks. It concerns the impact of the Wars on life in England, and follows certain families, some involved in banking, for the duration.  You might be surprised by the number of local banks and the amount of commerce it discusses. There are several references to banking and banks.– city banking and country banking. The Bank of England. ” Several private banks dotted down Fleet street and the Strand to Charing Cross, a busy corridor between the city and Westminster and the West end, all dealing with wealthy landed customers in need of mortgages and loans,or, if they were flush, a safe house for their deposits. …. Each bank had its distinctive clientele: Praed & Co in Fleet Street had the West Country and Cornish business; Drummond’s catered for army agents, Gosling’s and Child’s for East India company tycoons; Coutts dealt with the aristocracy and never with industry; Wright’s in Covent Garden looked after the Catholic gentry and Herries Bank in St. James Street, further west, issued cheques for smart travellers setting out on the grand tour.The rule at Hoare’s was that one partner was in attendance at all times…. Ten clerks. One must be in at all times even on Sundays and Christmas day. They could live there.”

Baring’s was a merchant banker even if the word was not used at that time. The Quakers had several banks: Lloyd’s in Birmingham, Backhouse in Darlington, and Gurney’s in Norwich.

Supposedly, Child & Co. was one of the London banks that catered to aristocrats, so I’m using that as my hero’s London bank.

In Jane Austen, Edward Knight & Chawton : Commerce and Community by Linda Slothouber, the author says Edward Austen Knight’s primary London bank was Goslings Bank. He also used a bank founded by his brother Henry. Austen, Maunde & Austen, which went bankrupt, causing Edward to suffer a substantial loss.

Book Blurb: When Jane Austen’s third brother, Edward, inherited the estates of his rich relatives, he took on their surname, Knight, and he took control of property scattered across five English counties. Jane visited her brother at his home in Kent, and she spent her final years in a cottage he owned in the village of Chawton in Hampshire. From these vantage points, she observed Edward’s approach to managing his estates and learned about the concerns and activities of wealthy landowners, knowledge that is reflected in her novels.

Using original estate books, bank records, letters, and other archival sources, Linda Slothouber has created the most detailed portrait to date of Edward Knight. With Edward as an example, along with excerpts from Jane Austen’s novels, the reader discovers how the landed gentry of fact and fiction made their money, tried to ensure the prosperity of their heirs, and interacted with workers on their estates. People at all levels of the estate economy are represented, with profiles of specific individuals that Jane Austen would have known during her years in Chawton.
To fully understand the social criticism and subtle humor in Jane Austen’s novels, it is necessary to understand her world; while the pastimes of the gentry are often in the foreground, the business of estate ownership is an essential foundation. Learn what being “Lord of the Manor” and having “ten thousand a year” really meant; what stewards, bailiffs, overseers, and churchwardens did; who administered the civic affairs of the village; how attitudes toward natural resources and common property changed during Jane Austen’s lifetime; and why the estate-owner, though at the top of the social order of the village, was often judged according to the well-being of his humblest cottagers.

Goslings bank had records of money deposited in country banks. One such was Hammond & Co, in Canterbury. That bank consistently sent large deposits to the Gosling bank. I imagine these deposits would travel with guards. Agents also regularly made deposits in the Gosling bank. They were close enough to town to do so.

Sparrow & Co., an Essex bank also made deposits into the Gosling account. Money for current expenses and for current wages were kept on hand so not all money was sent to the bank. People were not quite in the habit of writing checks. Coin was preferred to paper, and most servants and such were paid in coin. Though this book is about the finances of Edward Austen Knight, it is the only one so far that I have found that actually discusses the bank deposits. Others discus the debts, the expenses, loans made by the landowner to others or taken out from a bank.

Banks in the countryside grew exponentially after the recoinage of guineas in 1774, meaning an institution/established business was required to collect coins and provide alternate currency for the people in the surrounding villages and neighborhood.

If one was involved with government securities, were part of the aristocracy, or the gentry, or was a wealthy barrister, one would customarily use these banks: Hoares, Coutts, Childs, and Drummonds.

If one was a member of the stock exchange, acted as a liaison for country banks, or did business with traders and manufacturers, one would deal with Martins, Mastermans, Curries, or Glyn Mills.

Other Resources: 

BANKING AND BANK NOTES:

Banking in Eighteenth Century England

http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/money/banking.html

British Banking History

http://www.banking-history.co.uk/history.html

Regency England and Money

http://hibiscus-sinensis.com/regency/money.htm

Posted in British currency, British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Promissory Estoppel as a Means to Marry in the Regency or Otherwise

Posted on August 17, 2022 by Regina Jeffers

Marriage by Estoppel

One of the possibilities I explored in researching my book, MR. DARCY’S BRIDEs was marriage by estoppel as a plot point. According to Investopedia, “Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment. Promissory estoppel is intended to stop the promisor from arguing that an underlying promise that was made should be not be legally upheld or enforced. Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment. Promissory estoppel is intended to stop the promisor from arguing that an underlying promise that was made should be not be legally upheld or enforced.” As you can readily imagine I was thinking of some sort of breach of promise suit, when our Mr. Darcy does not marry Anne De Bourgh as he had intended to do, but rather finds himself speaking his vows to a our “dearest, loveliest Elizabeth.”

I was well aware of promissory estoppel being used in marriage issues in the United States, especially in common law marriages. For example, in Martin v. Coleman, 19 S.W.3d 757 (S.Ct Tn 2000), it states that our courts have recognized marriage by estoppel when parties have believed in the validity of their marriage and have evidenced that belief by cohabitation. [Rambeau, 212 S.W.2d at 361.] The doctrine of marriage by estoppel is applied in exceptional cases. It does not apply in cases where the parties knowingly live together in an unmarried state and are privileged to discontinue that relationship at will. [Crawford, 277 S.W.2d at 392.] And although England does recognize Promissory Estoppel, where the doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents one party from withdrawing a promise made to a second party if the latter has reasonably relied on that promise, most of the cases I found dealt with contractual law. I felt I was writing myself into a “legal” nightmare, so I abandoned the idea of promissory estoppel as part of my plot. Good old “Breach of Promise” took its place. We must remember the Regency is an era in which marriage is pretty much forever, and engagements meant you were just as good as married-—neither person can call off without damage to his or her reputation, but the lady had more leeway to back out. Even so, she still risks being labeled either a jilt if she makes a habit of this.

If you are interest, you may read more on Promissory Estoppel here: Promissory Estoppel http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/promissory_estoppel.asp#ixzz4mdnX1f81

MDF eBook Cover Introducing MR. DARCY’S BRIDEs…

I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses.

ELIZABETH BENNET is determined that she will put a stop to her mother’s plans to marry off the eldest Bennet daughter to Mr. Collins, the Longbourn heir, but a man that Mr. Bennet considers an annoying dimwit. Hence, Elizabeth disguises herself as Jane and repeats her vows to the supercilious rector as if she is her sister, thereby voiding the nuptials and saving Jane from a life of drudgery. Yet, even the “best laid plans” can often go awry.

FITZWILLIAM DARCY is desperate to find a woman who will assist him in leading his sister back to Society after Georgiana’s failed elopement with Darcy’s old enemy George Wickham. He is so desperate that he agrees to Lady Catherine De Bourgh’s suggestion that Darcy marry her ladyship’s “sickly” daughter Anne. Unfortunately, as he waits for his bride to join him at the altar, he realizes he has made a terrible error in judgement, but there is no means to right the wrong without ruining his cousin’s reputation. Yet, even as he weighs his options, the touch of “Anne’s” hand upon his sends an unusual “zing” of awareness shooting up Darcy’s arm. It is only when he realizes the “zing” has arrived at the hand of a stranger, who has disrupted his nuptials, that he breathes both a sigh of relief and a groan of frustration, for the question remains: Is Darcy’s marriage to the woman legal?

What if Fitzwilliam Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet met under different circumstances than those we know from Jane Austen’s classic tale: Circumstances that did not include the voices of vanity and pride and prejudice and doubt that we find in the original story? Their road to happily ever after may not, even then, be an easy one, but with the expectations of others removed from their relationship, can they learn to trust each other long enough to carve out a path to true happiness?

Enjoy this Excerpt from MR. DARCY’S BRIDEs…

“Mr. Darcy?” his butler said tentatively. “There is a gentleman below who requests a few minutes of your time.”

With a frown marking his brow, Darcy looked up from his book. “At this hour?” He wondered if his aunt had sent a magistrate for Miss Elizabeth. “Does the gentleman have a name, Thacker?”

“A Mr. Gardiner, sir.”

Not the magistrate, he thought, but someone to remove her from my protection, nevertheless. Miss Elizabeth’s family has come for her. The idea did not please Darcy half as much as it should, but it was only proper to speak to the man. He had set several barristers to work today in pursuit of whether he was married to the woman or not. One of the men mentioned the possibility of Darcy’s pursuing a Promissory Estoppel case where one person makes a promise to another, but there is no enforceable contract. However, Darcy had no desire to sue the woman for the promise to “love, honor, and obey.” He simply wished to know whether he needed to approach the church courts to void his marriage. “See him up, Thacker,” he instructed.

Within a few minutes, a well-dressed gentleman appeared in the open door. He presented Darcy a bow of respect. “Please pardon the lateness of my call, Mr. Darcy.”

Darcy’s bow was less formal. “I suspect I am aware of your purpose.” He gestured to a nearby chair. “Come join me. Would you care for a drink?”

“No, thank you, sir.”

Gardiner claimed the chair to which Darcy directed him. “That will be all, Thacker.” His butler bowed from the room, and Darcy resumed his seat. “You have come for Miss Elizabeth.”

Mr. Gardiner’s tense shoulders sagged in what appeared to be relief. “She is here? Thank our dearest Lord. When Elizabeth did not return to my office, I began to search for her. It was only by accident that I overheard a tale of how you and Lord Haverton had rescued a girl in the street. Did she step into the way of his lordship’s coach? I told Lizzy that her plan would prove dangerous.”

Ah, Mr. Gardiner is not aware of all that has occurred. “I fear your niece ran into the street when she noted my pursuit.”

“Your pursuit?” Gardiner’s eyebrows drew together in confusion. “Why would a man of your consequence chase after a young woman of little notice? Did our Lizzy offer you an offense?”

“Not unless one would consider her taking the place of my bride during my wedding an offense,” Darcy said in droll tones.

“But she was supposed to be at the wedding of her…” Gardiner’s words slid to a halt as the truth found root. “Oh, my…”

A hint of sympathy touched Darcy’s countenance. “Your niece appears to act before she thinks.”

Gardiner ruefully acknowledged, “You have no idea the half of it.” The gentleman smiled mirthlessly. “Elizabeth meant to disrupt the wedding of her sister to Mr. Bennet’s heir.”

“Mr. Collins?” A wry grimace twisted briefly at Darcy’s lips as Mr. Gardiner’s features again registered his surprise. “Miss Elizabeth has explained her purpose in preventing her sister’s marriage to my aunt’s rector.”

Gardiner’s tone was singularly ironic. “Your aunt is Lady Catherine De Bourgh?”

Darcy nodded his affirmation. “Needless to say, her ladyship was in attendance at my nuptials, as I was to marry her daughter.” The gentleman did not disguise his groan of despair as he buried his face in his hands. “Lady Catherine means to have Miss Elizabeth turned over to the magistrate once she learns of your niece’s whereabouts. Such is the reason I brought Miss Elizabeth here so a physician could attend her, and I could protect her from my aunt’s wrath. Moreover, it is important that I determine whether the vows we spoke are legal or not. Fraud must be in place prior to the nuptials. As Miss Elizabeth and I held no acquaintance until I called in upon her earlier today, fraud may not be applicable to annul the marriage.”

“But did not Elizabeth use her sister’s name in the exchange of vows? That was her intent in foiling Collins’s marriage.” Gardiner contested.

Darcy drawled with cold formality. “She said, ‘I, Elizabeth, take thee William.’ I am Fitzwilliam Darcy, but am known to family and close associates as William. Although we did not sign the registry, I am not certain whether a shortened name is grounds for annulment or to have the marriage declared void. When I spoke my vows, I did so to ‘Anne,’ my cousin.”

Gardiner shared in ironic tones, “Anne is one of Elizabeth’s middle names.” Studying Darcy carefully, the gentleman cleared his throat. “I am certain your legal advisors have already discussed this issue, the marriage is valid as long as those who marry by license marry whom they think they are marrying, no matter what names are used. Elizabeth should have objected to the joining when the vicar asked if she took you as her husband. The fact that she did not could indicate her intent to marry you or her intent to practice fraud. The church courts could rule either way. As to the signing of the register, it is commonplace practice in the church, and I know some bishops have issued warning to clergymen about keeping careful records, but it does not mean the register must be signed immediately after the ceremony. I know a gentleman, a client of mine, who signed the register more than a week following his nuptials, which were conducted by special license and at his betrothed’s home. The clergyman had to call upon the gentleman to secure the man’s signature.”

It was Darcy’s turn to know surprise. “I was unaware of your niece’s full given name, and as to the other information, I was aware of some, but not all of what you have shared.”

“What I do not understand is how Elizabeth appeared at your wedding. She was to be at All Saints at Kingston upon Thames. Where were your nuptials held?”

“A chapel at St. George, which is also near the Thames.”

“Admittedly, Lizzy knows little of London. Mr. Bennet despises the place and comes to Town only when necessary. She and Jane visit often, but not enough to understand the city’s diverse populations and the neighborhoods harboring each or how there are hundreds of churches with ‘Saint’ in their names.” He smiled sadly. “Why did she not hail a cab to return to my office?”

“Miss Elizabeth left her reticule at the church,” Darcy explained.

“But someone would have paid the fare,” the gentleman began in explanation, but halted his protest. “It does not signify to second-guess Elizabeth’s frightened state.” Gardiner sighed heavily. “What do you wish me to do with Elizabeth? It is you who my niece has offended.”

Darcy counted to ten before he responded. What he wished to do and what was proper were in sharp contrast. “Miss Elizabeth should not be moved this evening. Doctor Nott reset her shoulder, and she struck her head upon the paving stones when Haverton’s team knocked her down. Such an injury must be handled carefully. Moreover, your niece has expressed concern at having disappointed her mother’s aspirations. Miss Elizabeth believes her punishment could be extensive. I know from my cousin that Lady Catherine’s ire has yet to abate. If you are agreeable, I think it is best if Miss Elizabeth remain with me until she is well enough to face her accusers or until we have a definitive answer as to whether ours is a legal joining. The vicar did pronounce us man and wife.”

Posted in American History, Austen Authors, British history, Church of England, eBooks, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, marriage, marriage licenses, Pride and Prejudice, Scotland, Vagary, writing | Tagged , , , , , | 16 Comments

A Brief History of Ballooning

Posted on August 15, 2022 by Regina Jeffers

By the Regency, hydrogen balloons were more typically used than hot air. The problem with hot air balloons at that time was they did not have a good fuel source, as we do now. So they could stay up only a short time, whereas hydrogen balloons could be used for long flights, depending on conditions. It was a hydrogen balloon which made the first channel crossing, although just barely.

Nova tells us, “The year was 1783, a milestone year for aviation—the dream of flying had finally been realized. On October 15 of that year, a few months after the duck’s historic flight, a balloon called Aerostat Reveillon, launched in France and carrying scientist Jean-François Pilâtre De Rozier, rose to the end of its 250-foot tether. It stayed aloft for 15 minutes and then landed safely nearby. A month later, De Rozier and a companion, the Marquis d’Arlandes, flew untethered to 500 feet and traveled about five and a half miles in a 20-minute flight—the first “free flight” made by man.

“Designed by the Montgolfier brothers, Joseph-Michel and Jacques-ítienne, the balloon was heated by a straw fire that later caused the balloon to catch on fire. But the Montgolfier brothers, undaunted, went on to design other balloons, including the first successful balloon that was unmanned (and unducked, for that matter).”

The TV show used drawings from 1783 of the crowds surrounding the ascent. King Louis was interested in ballooning but did not want to risk a human, so the French first sent up a chicken, a duck, and a sheep. The animals survived. Later Louis allowed the balloonists to send up men  in a balloon, as long as they did so away from his palace.

In the Nova program, reportedly, the French air command refused to allow the reenactors to cut the tethers. 

Amazing to think that these balloons were the beginning of aviation. The various ideas of DaVinci and  tales of Icarus kept the idea in men’s minds, but most experts in the field say aviation started with those first balloon flights.

In the early days of ballooning, crossing the English Channel was considered the first step to long-distance ballooning. Two years after his historic first balloon ride, De Rozier attempted the crossing. De Rozier’s experimental system consists of a hydrogen balloon and a hot air balloon tied together. Tragically, the craft explodes half an hour after takeoff, and de Rozier and his copilot are killed. This double balloon helium/hot air system, however, remains among the most successful designs for long-distance ballooning. This same year, 1785, French balloonist Jean-Pierre Blanchard and American John Jeffries become the first to fly across the English Channel.

On December 1, 1783, just ten days after the first hot air balloon ride, the first gas balloon was launched by physicist Jacques Alexander Charles and Nicholas Louis Robert. This flight too started in Paris, France.  The flight lasted 2½ hours and covered a distance of 25 miles. The gas used in the balloon was hydrogen, a lighter than air gas that had been developed by an Englishman, Henry Cavendish in 1776, by using a combination of sulphuric acid and iron filings.

Gas balloons soon became the preferred mode of air travel. The balloon shown at left is the Royal Vauxhall Balloon typical of gas balloons which were flown in the 1830’s and 1840’s. Unlike hot air balloons, gas balloons did not depend upon fire to get them aloft and stay up and therefore they were able to stay up longer and their altitude could be controlled somewhat easier with the use of ballasts. Gas balloons continued to be the primary mode of air travel until the invention of the fixed wing aircraft  by the Wright brothers in America in 1903. However, it was expensive to and time consuming to inflate a gas balloon so flying was not something just anyone could afford. Hot air balloons, however, had no dependable heat source, so hot air ballooning was not very practical.

The first parachute was used by a person in a balloon. 

An animal was the first one sent out of the balloon with a parachute. A woman died when she fell from a balloon and other ballooners died when their balloons tore or exploded.

They (parachutists) would cut loose from the balloon, not actually jump from it. The 5th illustration at this link gives you an idea: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/André-Jacques_Garnerin

Sources:

David L. Bristow

The Museum of Flight

National Balloon Museum

Posted in British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, real life tales, research, travel, world history | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Felt But Unseen in Pride and Prejudice, a Guest Post from Lelia Eye

Posted on August 12, 2022 by Regina Jeffers

This post originally appeared on the Austen Authors’ blog on 30 June 2022. I hope you find it as interesting as I did. Enjoy!

I thought I would touch upon five characters that each have a presence which is felt despite the fact that they are deceased. In novels, we often get caught up in the living characters who speak and act, but in Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen created such depth in her novel that there are numerous characters who have a presence despite their absence! Some of them are more in a wondering sense (like, “If X character is like this, then what were X’s parents like?”), and some are expressed with more details.

The Old Mr. Bingley

I am beginning with the Old Mr. Bingley. Since we are shown Mr. Bingley, his sisters, and his brother-in-law, the question of what his parents were like is brought to mind. We don’t really see any sort of real hint about the Old Mrs. Bingley, but we are given a glimpse of the Old Mr. Bingley even beyond the fact that his family was respectable and that their wealth was acquired in trade. The most descriptive information from the book is below:

They were of a respectable family in the north of England; a circumstance more deeply impressed on their memories than that their brother’s fortune and their own had been acquired by trade.

Mr. Bingley inherited property to the amount of nearly a hundred thousand pounds from his father, who had intended to purchase an estate, but did not live to do it. Mr. Bingley intended it likewise, and sometimes made choice of his county; but as he was now provided with a good house and the liberty of a manor, it was doubtful to many of those who best knew the easiness of his temper, whether he might not spend the remainder of his days at Netherfield, and leave the next generation to purchase.

His sisters were anxious for his having an estate of his own; but, though he was now only established as a tenant, Miss Bingley was by no means unwilling to preside at his table—nor was Mrs. Hurst, who had married a man of more fashion than fortune, less disposed to consider his house as her home when it suited her. Mr. Bingley had not been of age two years, when he was tempted by an accidental recommendation to look at Netherfield House. He did look at it, and into it for half-an-hour—was pleased with the situation and the principal rooms, satisfied with what the owner said in its praise, and took it immediately.

As you can see in the bolded portion, the first line tells us that the Old Mr. Bingley had money to buy an estate but died before he did it. The following line makes it sound as though perhaps the Old Mr. Bingley was like his son. As long as the family is comfortable and well off, why go to the trouble of buying an estate? Let someone else handle the work! Because of this portion, I think that the Old Mr. Bingley was much like his son. And perhaps the daughters took after their mother, but that can only be speculation!

Sir Lewis de Bourgh

I rather thought Sir Lewis de Bourgh would be mentioned quite a bit, but we really don’t see much about him:

  • [Quote from Mr. Collins:] My mind, however, is now made up on the subject, for having received ordination at Easter, I have been so fortunate as to be distinguished by the patronage of the Right Honourable Lady Catherine de Bourgh, widow of Sir Lewis de Bourgh, whose bounty and beneficence has preferred me to the valuable rectory of this parish, where it shall be my earnest endeavour to demean myself with grateful respect towards her ladyship, and be ever ready to perform those rites and ceremonies which are instituted by the Church of England.
  • Every park has its beauty and its prospects; and Elizabeth saw much to be pleased with, though she could not be in such raptures as Mr. Collins expected the scene to inspire, and was but slightly affected by his enumeration of the windows in front of the house, and his relation of what the glazing altogether had originally cost Sir Lewis de Bourgh.
  • “Your father’s estate is entailed on Mr. Collins, I think. For your sake,” turning to Charlotte, “I am glad of it; but otherwise I see no occasion for entailing estates from the female line. It was not thought necessary in Sir Lewis de Bourgh’s family. Do you play and sing, Miss Bennet?”

We basically see that Sir Lewis spent a lot to look good. (Presumably, it was his idea anyway.) Based on the officious nature of Lady Catherine, I rather think he was cowed by his wife and just did whatever she wished of him. Could you imagine a man who tried to dampen Lady Catherine’s enthusiasm? I cannot! I think the way Lady Catherine speaks of him seems to indicate that they were not at odds with one another, which in turn implies that she was in charge.

Lady Anne Darcy

We have a few different references to Lady Anne Darcy:

  • “You know of course that Lady Catherine de Bourgh and Lady Anne Darcy were sisters; consequently that she is aunt to the present Mr. Darcy.”
  • ” . . . When my niece Georgiana went to Ramsgate last summer, I made a point of her having two men-servants go with her. Miss Darcy, the daughter of Mr. Darcy, of Pemberley, and Lady Anne, could not have appeared with propriety in a different manner. . . . “
  • “The engagement between them is of a peculiar kind. From their infancy, they have been intended for each other. It was the favourite wish of his mother, as well as of her’s. While in their cradles, we planned the union: and now, at the moment when the wishes of both sisters would be accomplished in their marriage, to be prevented by a young woman of inferior birth, of no importance in the world, and wholly unallied to the family! Do you pay no regard to the wishes of his friends? To his tacit engagement with Miss de Bourgh? Are you lost to every feeling of propriety and delicacy? Have you not heard me say that from his earliest hours he was destined for his cousin?””Yes, and I had heard it before. But what is that to me? If there is no other objection to my marrying your nephew, I shall certainly not be kept from it by knowing that his mother and aunt wished him to marry Miss de Bourgh. You both did as much as you could in planning the marriage. Its completion depended on others. If Mr. Darcy is neither by honour nor inclination confined to his cousin, why is not he to make another choice? And if I am that choice, why may not I accept him?”
  • “I will not be interrupted. Hear me in silence. My daughter and my nephew are formed for each other. They are descended, on the maternal side, from the same noble line; and, on the father’s, from respectable, honourable, and ancient—though untitled—families. Their fortune on both sides is splendid. They are destined for each other by the voice of every member of their respective houses; and what is to divide them? The upstart pretensions of a young woman without family, connections, or fortune. Is this to be endured! But it must not, shall not be. If you were sensible of your own good, you would not wish to quit the sphere in which you have been brought up.”

Lady Catherine’s fondness for Lady Anne and the plans she made with Lady Anne seem to indicate that Lady Anne was probably much like her sister. Yet with what we have heard about the Old Mr. Darcy (and the fact that Fitzwilliam Darcy doesn’t appear to have received a dying wish about marrying Anne de Bourgh or anything like that), it also seems likely that Lady Anne was much less extreme in her concerns for proper matches. Regardless, if she did indeed hope to match Fitzwilliam Darcy with Anne de Bourgh, that means she either had leanings toward haughtiness or she had a fondness for her sister and simply wished to be made closer to her.

The Old Mr. Darcy and the Old Mr. Wickham

I attempted to break up the sections on the Old Mr. Darcy and the Old Mr. Wickham at first, but they would have been frequently repeated. Much of what we know about one is related to the other. A good chunk of what we hear is from a conversation between Elizabeth and Wickham that I have abbreviated below:

” . . . His father, Miss Bennet, the late Mr. Darcy, was one of the best men that ever breathed, and the truest friend I ever had; and I can never be in company with this Mr. Darcy without being grieved to the soul by a thousand tender recollections. His behaviour to myself has been scandalous; but I verily believe I could forgive him anything and everything, rather than his disappointing the hopes and disgracing the memory of his father.”

. . .

” . . . The church ought to have been my profession—I was brought up for the church, and I should at this time have been in possession of a most valuable living, had it pleased the gentleman we were speaking of just now.”

“Indeed!”

“Yes—the late Mr. Darcy bequeathed me the next presentation of the best living in his gift. He was my godfather, and excessively attached to me. I cannot do justice to his kindness. He meant to provide for me amply, and thought he had done it; but when the living fell, it was given elsewhere.”

. . .

“There was just such an informality in the terms of the bequest as to give me no hope from law. A man of honour could not have doubted the intention, but Mr. Darcy chose to doubt it—or to treat it as a merely conditional recommendation, and to assert that I had forfeited all claim to it by extravagance, imprudence—in short anything or nothing. Certain it is, that the living became vacant two years ago, exactly as I was of an age to hold it, and that it was given to another man; and no less certain is it, that I cannot accuse myself of having really done anything to deserve to lose it. I have a warm, unguarded temper, and I may have spoken my opinion of him, and to him, too freely. I can recall nothing worse. But the fact is, that we are very different sort of men, and that he hates me.”

“This is quite shocking! He deserves to be publicly disgraced.”

“Some time or other he will be—but it shall not be by me. Till I can forget his father, I can never defy or expose him.”

. . .

“But what,” said she, after a pause, “can have been his motive? What can have induced him to behave so cruelly?”

“A thorough, determined dislike of me—a dislike which I cannot but attribute in some measure to jealousy. Had the late Mr. Darcy liked me less, his son might have borne with me better; but his father’s uncommon attachment to me irritated him, I believe, very early in life. He had not a temper to bear the sort of competition in which we stood—the sort of preference which was often given me.”

. . .

Elizabeth was again deep in thought, and after a time exclaimed, “To treat in such a manner the godson, the friend, the favourite of his father!” She could have added, “A young man, too, like you, whose very countenance may vouch for your being amiable”—but she contented herself with, “and one, too, who had probably been his companion from childhood, connected together, as I think you said, in the closest manner!”

“We were born in the same parish, within the same park; the greatest part of our youth was passed together; inmates of the same house, sharing the same amusements, objects of the same parental care. My father began life in the profession which your uncle, Mr. Phillips, appears to do so much credit to—but he gave up everything to be of use to the late Mr. Darcy and devoted all his time to the care of the Pemberley property. He was most highly esteemed by Mr. Darcy, a most intimate, confidential friend. Mr. Darcy often acknowledged himself to be under the greatest obligations to my father’s active superintendence, and when, immediately before my father’s death, Mr. Darcy gave him a voluntary promise of providing for me, I am convinced that he felt it to be as much a debt of gratitude to him, as of his affection to myself.”

. . .

[About Georgiana Darcy:] “I wish I could call her amiable. It gives me pain to speak ill of a Darcy. But she is too much like her brother—very, very proud. As a child, she was affectionate and pleasing, and extremely fond of me; and I have devoted hours and hours to her amusement. But she is nothing to me now. She is a handsome girl, about fifteen or sixteen, and, I understand, highly accomplished. Since her father’s death, her home has been London, where a lady lives with her, and superintends her education.”

While we always have to look at Wickham’s words with suspicion, the fact that he sings the Old Mr. Darcy’s praises so highly (and the fact the Old Mr. Darcy treated the son of his steward so well) seems to indicate the Old Mr. Darcy was indeed kind. And we are told the Old Mr. Wickham was an intimate friend in addition to being a steward. It seems likely to me the Old Mr. Wickham was indeed a genuinely good person. Of course, Caroline doesn’t seem to think that was possible:

“So, Miss Eliza, I hear you are quite delighted with George Wickham! Your sister has been talking to me about him, and asking me a thousand questions; and I find that the young man quite forgot to tell you, among his other communication, that he was the son of old Wickham, the late Mr. Darcy’s steward. Let me recommend you, however, as a friend, not to give implicit confidence to all his assertions; for as to Mr. Darcy’s using him ill, it is perfectly false; for, on the contrary, he has always been remarkably kind to him, though George Wickham has treated Mr. Darcy in a most infamous manner. . . . His coming into the country at all is a most insolent thing, indeed, and I wonder how he could presume to do it. I pity you, Miss Eliza, for this discovery of your favourite’s guilt; but really, considering his descent, one could not expect much better.”

“His guilt and his descent appear by your account to be the same,” said Elizabeth angrily; “for I have heard you accuse him of nothing worse than of being the son of Mr. Darcy’s steward, and of that, I can assure you, he informed me himself.”













But Darcy himself, a more reliable source, supports the high opinions of both his father and the Old Mr. Wickham to Elizabeth:





“Mr. Wickham is the son of a very respectable man, who had for many years the management of all the Pemberley estates, and whose good conduct in the discharge of his trust naturally inclined my father to be of service to him; and on George Wickham, who was his godson, his kindness was therefore liberally bestowed. My father supported him at school, and afterwards at Cambridge—most important assistance, as his own father, always poor from the extravagance of his wife, would have been unable to give him a gentleman’s education. My father was not only fond of this young man’s society, whose manner were always engaging; he had also the highest opinion of him, and hoping the church would be his profession, intended to provide for him in it. As for myself, it is many, many years since I first began to think of him in a very different manner. The vicious propensities—the want of principle, which he was careful to guard from the knowledge of his best friend, could not escape the observation of a young man of nearly the same age with himself, and who had opportunities of seeing him in unguarded moments, which Mr. Darcy could not have. . . .





“My excellent father died about five years ago; and his attachment to Mr. Wickham was to the last so steady, that in his will he particularly recommended it to me, to promote his advancement in the best manner that his profession might allow—and if he took orders, desired that a valuable family living might be his as soon as it became vacant. There was also a legacy of one thousand pounds. His own father did not long survive mine, and within half a year from these events, Mr. Wickham wrote to inform me that, having finally resolved against taking orders, he hoped I should not think it unreasonable for him to expect some more immediate pecuniary advantage, in lieu of the preferment, by which he could not be benefited. . . . For about three years I heard little of him; but on the decease of the incumbent of the living which had been designed for him, he applied to me again by letter for the presentation. His circumstances, he assured me, and I had no difficulty in believing it, were exceedingly bad. He had found the law a most unprofitable study, and was now absolutely resolved on being ordained, if I would present him to the living in question—of which he trusted there could be little doubt, as he was well assured that I had no other person to provide for, and I could not have forgotten my revered father’s intentions. . . .












Of course, Mrs. Gardiner also seems to support that the Old Mr. Darcy was a good fellow:





To Mrs. Gardiner, Wickham had one means of affording pleasure, unconnected with his general powers. About ten or a dozen years ago, before her marriage, she had spent a considerable time in that very part of Derbyshire to which he belonged. They had, therefore, many acquaintances in common; and though Wickham had been little there since the death of Darcy’s father, it was yet in his power to give her fresher intelligence of her former friends than she had been in the way of procuring.





Mrs. Gardiner had seen Pemberley, and known the late Mr. Darcy by character perfectly well. Here consequently was an inexhaustible subject of discourse. In comparing her recollection of Pemberley with the minute description which Wickham could give, and in bestowing her tribute of praise on the character of its late possessor, she was delighting both him and herself.





Further, Elizabeth does seem to believe what Mr. Darcy says about his father:





The account of [Mr. Wickham’s] connection with the Pemberley family was exactly what he had related himself; and the kindness of the late Mr. Darcy, though she had not before known its extent, agreed equally well with his own words.





And here are just a couple more references to the whole steward issue, as it is brought up often:





  • Her aunt now called her to look at a picture. She approached and saw the likeness of Mr. Wickham, suspended, amongst several other miniatures, over the mantelpiece. Her aunt asked her, smilingly, how she liked it. The housekeeper came forward, and told them it was a picture of a young gentleman, the son of her late master’s steward, who had been brought up by him at his own expense. “He is now gone into the army,” she added; “but I am afraid he has turned out very wild.”
  • [Lady Catherine about Wickham and Lydia:] ” . . . Is her husband, is the son of his late father’s steward, to be his brother? Heaven and earth!—of what are you thinking? Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted?”










So, what are your thoughts about these unseen characters? I rather think the biggest presence is probably that of Darcy’s father, whose wishes and actions have a large effect on the story despite his death. Imagine how things would have been different if he hadn’t had any wishes with regard to helping Mr. Wickham out?





Do you disagree with any of my speculative characterizations? Do you have any unseen characters you feel have a major presence in the book?

							

	
			

													
						Posted in Austen Authors, book excerpts, books, George Wickham, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Guest Post, historical fiction, Jane Austen, manuscript evaluation, Pride and Prejudice, quotes					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , , , , , , , , 				
				|
				
				Comments Off on Felt But Unseen in Pride and Prejudice, a Guest Post from Lelia Eye

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
Criminal Conversation in the Regency Era + Excerpt  from MR. DARCY’S BRIDEs


			

				Posted on August 10, 2022 by Regina Jeffers			


					

				
Several years back, I did a series for my blog, Every Woman Dreams, entitled “Eccentrics of the Regency.” One of the pieces I wrote was on Edward Hughes Ball Hughes. In it, I wrote: “Hughes’ older sister Catherine Ball was a socialite, journalist, and novelist who eventually styled herself the “Baroness de Calabrella” after acquiring property in Italy. She married an older man, Rev. Francis Lee, at the age of 16 in 1804, without her mother’s permission, and was separated from him in 1810 on charges of adultery; her lover, Captain George de Blaquiere, was successfully sued by Reverend Lee for criminal conversation.” When I read this, I wondered whether “criminal conversation” was anything like “alienation of affection.” So, I was determined to find out.


Criminal conversation is commonly known as crim. con. It is a tort arising from adultery.  For those of you who do not understand “legal speak,” tort law involves a situation where a person’s actions unfairly causes another to suffer harm or loss. The case is not based around an “illegal” action, but rather one of not thinking of the other person and causing some sort of harm. The law allows the harmed individual to recover his loss, generally by awarding monetary compensation. To prevail (win) in a tort law case the plaintiff (person suing) must show the actions or lack of action was the most likely cause of the harm.


Criminal Conversation is similar to breach of promise, a former tort involving a broken engagement against the betrothed, or alienation of affections, a tort action brought by a deserted spouse against a third party.


In 18th and 19th Century England, criminal conversation cases were common. It was not unheard of for the plaintiff to be awarded sums as high as £20,000. These cases were seen at the Court of King’s Bench in Westminster Hall. Not only did the plaintiff make money on the proceedings, but so did publishers such as Edmund Curll, whose name became synonymous, through the attacks on him by Alexander Pope, with unscrupulous publication and publicity.  


Although neither the plaintiff, defendant, or the wife accused of the adultery were permitted to take the stand, evidence of the adulterous behavior was presented by servants or observers. Awards of damages were based upon compensation for the husband’s loss of property rights in his wife, the wife being regarded as his chattel. Historically a wife could not sue her husband for adultery, as he could not be her chattel if she was already his. The criminal conversation tort was abolished in England in 1857, and the Republic of Ireland in 1976. It still exists in parts of the United States, although the application has changed. At least 29 states have abolished the tort by statute and another 4 have abolished it by common law. 


A number of very sensational cases were heard in the second half of the 18th century, including Grosvenor v. Cumberland in 1769, where Lord Grosvenor sued the King’s brother, the Duke of Cumberland for crim con with his wife, being awarded damages of £10,000; and Worsley v. Bisset in 1782, where Sir Richard Worsley lost his case against George Bisset, after it had been found that Sir Richard had colluded in his own dishonour, by showing his friend his wife Seymour Dorothy Fleming naked in a bath house. In 1796, the Earl of Westmeath was awarded £10,000 against his wife’s lover, Augustus Bradshaw.


The tort has seen particular use in North Carolina (my current home state). Criminal Conversation is one of the “Heart-Balm” Laws, which include breach of promise, wrongful seduction, and alienation of affection.” ‘Criminal conversation,’ in turn, was a civil cause of action that dated back at least to the Seventeenth Century in England. The name is oddly inappropriate, since there was nothing criminal about the claim, and it certainly was not about conversation. Rather, “Crim. Con.” allowed a man to bring suit against another man who had sex with his wife. It was a remedy for loss of the wife’s “consortium” (that is, of the companionship and sex she had provided before being seduced by another). Proof of a valid marriage and extramarital sex were all that was required for the husband to make out a successful claim against the interloper.” [Find Law] http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/elizabeth-edwards-v-andrew-young-can-he-be-held-liable-for-contributing-to-the-failure-of-the-edwardses-marriage.html Our most famous Crim Con case in North Carolina in many years was when the late Elizabeth Edwards sued her husband’s, John Edwards’s, former Presidential candidate, “mistress,” Rielle Hunter. 


MDF eBook Cover Introducing MR. DARCY’S BRIDEs…


I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses.


ELIZABETH BENNET is determined that she will put a stop to her mother’s plans to marry off the eldest Bennet daughter to Mr. Collins, the Longbourn heir, but a man that Mr. Bennet considers an annoying dimwit. Hence, Elizabeth disguises herself as Jane and repeats her vows to the supercilious rector as if she is her sister, thereby voiding the nuptials and saving Jane from a life of drudgery. Yet, even the “best laid plans” can often go awry.


FITZWILLIAM DARCY is desperate to find a woman who will assist him in leading his sister back to Society after Georgiana’s failed elopement with Darcy’s old enemy George Wickham. He is so desperate that he agrees to Lady Catherine De Bourgh’s suggestion that Darcy marry her ladyship’s “sickly” daughter Anne. Unfortunately, as he waits for his bride to join him at the altar, he realizes he has made a terrible error in judgement, but there is no means to right the wrong without ruining his cousin’s reputation. Yet, even as he weighs his options, the touch of “Anne’s” hand upon his sends an unusual “zing” of awareness shooting up Darcy’s arm. It is only when he realizes the “zing” has arrived at the hand of a stranger, who has disrupted his nuptials, that he breathes both a sigh of relief and a groan of frustration, for the question remains: Is Darcy’s marriage to the woman legal?


What if Fitzwilliam Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet met under different circumstances than those we know from Jane Austen’s classic tale: Circumstances that did not include the voices of vanity and pride and prejudice and doubt that we find in the original story? Their road to happily ever after may not, even then, be an easy one, but with the expectations of others removed from their relationship, can they learn to trust each other long enough to carve out a path to true happiness?


Enjoy this excerpt from Chapter 5 of MR. DARCY’S BRIDEs in which Elizabeth first learns of Lady Catherine’s idea of having Anne sue Elizabeth for drawing off Darcy’s attentions. 


“I am pleased to find you from your bed,” he said politely while eyeing her with interest. 


Elizabeth did not address his attempt at consideration. Instead, she asked, “Could you explain to me, sir, how you thought it acceptable to remove my person from your home to your yacht without my permission?” She watched as a muscle along his jaw line twitched, but otherwise, his expression of indifference remained in place. 


“It was necessary for you to depart Darcy House, and as you were in no condition to make that decision, I made it for you. As part of my wedding plans, I was set to sail on the day of our departure; therefore, I took advantage of the ship’s preparedness.”


“And why was it necessary for me to leave Darcy House? Could you not have sailed alone? I would have been up and moving about in a day or two, and then I could be gone from your society. No one would have known the difference.”


Other than a slight life of his eyebrow, he displayed no reaction to her tight lipped accusations. “My aunt learned of your presence under my roof. She planned to send a magistrate to my home to arrest you. I thought it best if we were removed from England until this matter can be settled.”


“Arrest me?” Elizabeth demanded. “Upon what charges? Certainly what I did was unconventional, but it was not a crime. It was a mistake. I have no desire to remain with you, and you, sir, should be glad to observe my exit. I have caused you nothing but grief and inconvenience. Needless to say, Miss De Bourgh would still accept a man of your consequence. Marry your cousin. Lady Catherine will be mollified, and I will return to my life in the country. All will be forgiven.”


“If you think my aunt will forgive or forget your perceived insult, you are sadly mistaken. Lady Catherine will make your life and the lives of your loved ones miserable. Only with my protection will you remain safe,” he argued. 


Elizabeth swallowed hard against the trepidation filling her chest. “I shall…I shall assume my chances, sir. Surely a woman of Lady Catherine’s stature will extend her forgiveness once I explain the situation.” She lifted her chin in defiance. 


“More likely she will force Anne to sue you for criminal conversation. I know my aunt, she will not be happy until she leaves you and your family in penury. Not only did you forestall her aspirations of having Anne at Pemberley, but you treated her cleric as if he were insignificant. She sees Mr. Collins’s character as a reflection of her condescension.”


Elizabeth fought the anxiety rising in her stomach. “Nevertheless, I insist that you set me down in the next port and provide me enough coins to claim passage home. I will have Mr. Bennet reimburse you as quickly as I make my way to Hertfordshire.”


“That might be difficult,” he said with a wry twist of his lips, “for you to make your way to Mr. Bennet’s estate in what you are wearing.”


Despite her best efforts, despair pooled in her eyes. “So you mean to keep me a prisoner by refusing me proper dress?” she accused. “I demand the return of the dress I wore for the wedding!”


He shrugged in indifference. “On the morning of our departure, Mrs. Guthrie and a maid dressed in your gown made a great show of leaving Darcy House. I am certain my neighbors will have taken notice of your exodus. My servants have been instructed that if anyone asks after me to tell them that I was so upset after the wedding that I departed for my estate. The servants will also inform those who wish to be apprised of my comings and goings that the poor soul I saw into my house was a distant relation who had been injured at the wedding, and that I instructed my staff to tend the young lady in my absence. When the magistrate calls upon Darcy House he will learn of your leave taking from more than Mrs. Guthrie, who is to explain that you fell into the street before Lord Haverton’s coach and was treated by Doctor Nott. Both my housekeeper and the good physician will confirm the story of your departure. They will tell the official that you asked to be returned to your home in Bath, and before I left Town upon personal business, I made the necessary arrangements.”


“No one will believe such a convoluted tale,” she argued. 


“On the contrary, my dear. The ton is quite gullible. They will believe any tale that smacks of gossip, and they will add their own tidbits to it to make it more outrageous.”


“Then what am I to wear?” she insisted, although she wished her voice had not cracked upon the word “wear.” She suddenly felt like Mr. Darcy’s mistress, for she was dressed for the role.


His expression softened, as if he could read her thoughts. “We had little time to prepare, but Hannah, the maid you met earlier, has altered several of my sister’s gowns. Miss Darcy has sprouted up in the last year, but some of her former gowns will do nicely until we can have something specifically designed for you. Mrs. Guthrie suggest those items ordered as part of Anne’s trousseau, but I rejected the idea, for my Aunt Catherine could then label you a thief. It is best to do over some of my sister’s gowns, rather than to provide her ladyship with a reason to see you behind bars.”


Elizabeth wished to acknowledge his sensible actions, but it was her life in which he dabbled, and all of his decisions were simply too personal. She gritted out the words, “As I am at your disposal, how are we to proceed?”


“If you are agreeable, I thought we might have supper. I tire of eating alone.”


On the subject of Criminal Conversation, I thought you might enjoy William Makepeace Thackeray’s “Damages, Two Hundred Pounds.” 


William Makepeace Thackeray (1811-1863)


                      DAMAGES, TWO HUNDRED POUNDS


Special Jurymen of England! who admire your country’s laws,


And proclaim a British Jury worthy of the realm’s applause;


Gaily compliment each other at the issue of the cause


Which was tried at Guildford ‘sizes, this day week as ever was.


Unto that august tribunal comes a gentleman in grief,


(Special was the British Jury, and the Judge, the Baron Chief),


Comes a British man and husband–asking of the law relief,


For his wife was stolen from him–he’d have vengeance on the thief.


Yes, his wife, the blessed treasure with which his life was crowned,


Wickedly ravished from him by a hypocrite profound.


And he comes before twelve Britons, men for sense and truth renowned.


To award  him for his damage, twenty hundred sterling pound.


He by counsel and attorney there at Guildford does appear,


Asking damages of the villain who seduced his lady dear;


But I can’t help asking, though the lady’s guilt was all too clear,


And though guilty the defendant, wasn’t the plaintiff rather queer?


First, the lady’s mother spoke, and she said she’d seen her daughter cry


But a fortnight after marriage: early times for piping eye.


Six months after, things were worse, and the piping eye was black,


And this gallant British husband caned his wife upon the back.


Three months after they were married, husband pushed her to the door,


Told her to be off and leave him, for he wanted her no more;


As she would not go, why  he went; thrice he left his lady dear,


Left her, too, without a penny, for more than quarter of a year.


Mrs. Frances Duncan knew the parties very well indeed,


She had seen him pull his lady’s nose, and make her lip to bleed;


If he chanced to sit at home not a single word he said;


Once she saw him throw the cover of a dish at his lady’s head.


Sarah Green, another witness, clear did to the Jury note


How she saw this honest fellow seize his lady by the throat,


How he cursed her and abused her, beating her into a fit,


Till the pitying next-door neighbors crossed the wall and witnessed it.


Next door to this injured Briton Mr. Owens, a butcher, dwelt;


Mrs. Owen’s foolish heart towards this erring dame did melt;


(Not that she had erred as yet, crime was not developed in her)


But being left without a penny, Mrs. Owens supplied her dinner–


God be merciful to Mrs. Owens, who was merciful to this sinner!


Caroline Naylor was their servant, said they lived a wretched life,


Saw this most distinguished Briton fling a teacup at his wife;


He went out to balls and pleasures, and never once, in ten-months’ space,


Sate with his wife, or spoke her kindly. This was the defendant’s case.


Pollock, C .B., charged the Jury, said the woman’s guilt was clear;


That was not the point, however, which the Jury came to hear


But the damage to determine which, as it should true appear,


This most tenderhearted husband, who so used his lady dear.


Beat her, kicked her, caned her, cursed her, left her starving, year by 


year,


Flung her from him, parted from her, wrung her neck, and boxed her ear–


What the reasonable damages this afflicted man could claim


By the loss of the affections of this guilty graceless dame?


Then the Honest Twelve, to each other turning round,


Laid their clever heads together with the wisdom most profound;


And towards his Lordship looking, spoke the foreman wise and sound;


`My Lord, we find for this here plaintiff damages two hundred pound.’


So, God bless the Special Jury! pride and joy of English ground,


And the happy land of England, where true justice does abound!


British Jurymen and husbands; let us hail this verdict proper;


If a British wife offends you, Britons, you’ve a right to whop her.


Though you promised to protect her, though you promised to defend her,


You are welcome to neglect her: to the devil you may send her;


You may strike her, curse her; so declares our law renowned;


And if after this you lose her– why you’re paid two hundred pound.



							

	
			

													
						Posted in book release, British history, Church of England, giveaway, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Pride and Prejudice, Regency romance, Scotland, Vagary, writing					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , , , , , , 				
				|
				
				10 Comments

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
The Influence of Screen Adaptations on New Generations of Jane Austen Fans, a Guest Post by Amanda Kai


			

				Posted on August 5, 2022 by Regina Jeffers			


					

				

(This post originally appeared on the Austen Authors’ Blog on June 24, 2022. Enjoy!)





Love ‘em or hate ‘em, there is no denying the powerful influence that screen adaptations of Jane Austen’s beloved novels have to inspire new generations of viewers to become fans of her works. Whether it’s seeing a six-hour miniseries that faithfully recreates one of the books, or a two-hour movie loosely based on one or more of her plots, seeing a Jane Austen story on screen can turn a Jane Austen neophyte into a lifelong fan.





I recall my own experience. Despite loving classic literature, I had never read any of Jane Austen’s books prior to seeing the 2005 feature film “Pride and Prejudice”, starring Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFayden. Nevertheless, after going to see the movie with my mom, I was instantly hooked. I went out and bought a copy of Pride and Prejudice that same week and within a year or so I had read all six of the main novels. It was a lifetime conversion for me, and one that I’ve never regretted. 





I’ve heard countless other stories just like mine, of fans who started out watching one of the many movies or series inspired by Austen, and became Jane Austen devotees as a result. 





In a recent survey of Jane Austen fans across several global Facebook groups, out of over 1200 fans who responded, 31% said that they were introduced to Jane Austen through a film or TV series, before they ever read one of the books. 





In another survey I conducted, I asked fans who had been introduced to Jane Austen through a film or series to share which film or series made them fall in love with Austen. The results were rather fascinating.





Late 1990s– the Golden Era of Jane Austen adaptations





I saw Mr Collins’ proposal scene from 95P&P in my HS English class (1998 grad) and then we read the scene from the book. One scene and I was hooked. My friend found the VCR set at the public library and we watched it together, then bought the set so that we could watch it on repeat. I watched it probably at least 10 times just in high-school. (Kellie F.)






The 1995 Sense and Sensibility, with its all-star cast including Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Kate Winslet, and Hugh Grant, drew lots of viewers to become Jane Austen fans.






1995 was a glorious year for Jane Austen fans. Three feature films, including Sense and Sensibility starring Emma Thompson, Persuasion starring Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root, and Clueless, a modern-take on Emma starring Alicia Silverstone, not to mention the king of Jane Austen adaptations, the 6-hour BBC miniseries of Pride and Prejudice starring Colin Firth, all premiered in this year. 





Following that, the rest of the decade saw the release of two more adaptations of Emma, one starring Gwyneth Paltrow and one with Kate Beckinsale, a Mansfield Park starring Frances O’Connor, and You’ve Got Mail, which is loosely based on Pride and Prejudice and features a heroine whose favorite book is Pride and Prejudice. 






To many people, Colin Firth is the definitive Mr. Darcy, and his stellar performance in the 1995 miniseries of Pride and Prejudice is the reason they fell in love with Jane Austen.






Out of my survey of over 200 responses, a whopping 62% of all participants credited one of the films that came out in the ‘90s as the reason they became a Jane Austen fan, with the 1995 Pride and Prejudice miniseries coming out on top with 39% of fans citing that as their introduction to Austen. A large number of fans also named the 1995 Sense and Sensibility as the film which led to their love of Austen. 





P&P – 1995 6 part tv series. Colin Firth to me is the one and only true Mr Darcy. I was 28, in the middle of a crappy divorce with a toddler in tow and so much needed something romantic and happy to give me some faith! (Janice M.)





Early 2000’s inspire more converts





Joe Wright’s artistic and imaginative adaptation of Pride and Prejudice in 2005 inspired many people to try Jane Austen for the first time.





I was around 15 in 2017, and I decided to watch Pride and Prejudice 2005 with four of my sisters. Immediately feel head over heels in love with it and the Regency world that Austen lived in. I went on to read all of her books and watch as many adaptations that I could get my hand on. She truly changed my life and I wouldn’t be the person I am today without her. (Lauren G.)





A second wave of new fans was triggered with the release of the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice. 15% of the fans who responded named this movie as the reason they became fans of Jane Austen. Other movies sprinkled throughout this time which inspired new fans included Bridget Jones’ Diary and Bride and Prejudice, both modern takes on Pride and Prejudice, and the 2007 versions of Northanger Abbey, Mansfield Park, and Persuasion. 





My first ever Austen experience was the 2005 Kiera Knightley Pride and Prejudice. I saw it in theaters twice, and then bought the book. I was 15. Now, I’m about to graduate with my PhD, and my secondary focus is 19th century feminist literature. All because of that trip to the movies (Sara G.)





Classic Film lovers to Austen lovers





In around 1966/67, I was 11. The 1940 P&P (Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson) was on TV one winter Sunday. I checked the book out of my school library the next day. The rest is history! (Angela D.)






Now considered a classic movie, the 1940 film of Pride and Prejudice starred Greer Garson as Elizabeth and Lawrence Olivier as Darcy






Surprisingly, the 1940 black and white version of Pride and Prejudice starring Greer Garson and Lawrence Olivier was named by 8% of fans as their first Austen film. Most of the fans mentioned that they watched this movie on TV or VHS at a much later date though, and not when it premiered in theaters in 1940. Several people mentioned that they were fans of classic movies, leading to their watching this film and becoming Jane Austen fans also. 





Pride and Prejudice with Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson. I was 10 and already had a huge crush on Olivier. This film just cemented it for me. I still prefer this version to the others. Edna May Oliver who played Lady Catherine is just genius! If you get the chance to see this version, definitely do so. (Kara C.)





Other adaptations






Elizabeth Garvie starred opposite David Rintoul in the 1980 BBC miniseries of Pride and Prejudice






I was 16, and the Elizabeth Garvie/David Rintoul version of P&P was being re-run on Masterpiece Theater. Must have been about 1982, I think. My mom talked me into watching it with her. I grumbled a bit, convinced it would be boring. But soon I was enchanted. I was aghast when the episode ended and I found out there would be no more until the next Sunday night. I told my mom I couldn’t wait that long to find out what happened to Elizabeth and Mr Darcy. (I didn’t realize at that point that it was based on a book.) My mom went to her bookshelf and pulled out her copy of P&P and said, “Here, read!” That was 40 years ago, and I have been hooked on Austen ever since! (Randi C.)






Wishbone as Mr. Darcy in the episode "Furst Impressions"
Wishbone made his appearance as Mr. Darcy in the episode titled “Furst Impressions”






Many other sources were named by fans as their gateway to Austen, including the 1980 Pride and Prejudice miniseries, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, the web series Lizzie Bennet Diaries, an episode of the children’s show Wishbone, and even a Dutch version of Pride and Prejudice. One fan mentioned that she decided to try reading Pride and Prejudice because the book series she’d been reading at the time mentioned it specifically. 






Bridget Jones’ Diary is a modern take on Pride and Prejudice






Bridget Jones Diary, watched it in 2007 when I was going through a divorce. Swooned over Darcy, as one does. Read every Austen after, been obsessed with the books, Jane, and all adaptations ever since. (Megan F.)





A trail to literacy





Saw P&P 95 when I was in 4th grade (1996). I was hooked and wanted to read it as well… I wasn’t a good reader, pretty sure I had a learning disability back then (was always in the lowest reading groups in class and always referred for informal resource services at school ) but since I was obsessed with the movie and knew a lot of it by heart I was able to get through the book in 5th grade and in 6th grade I started tackling JA’s other novels. It gave me the will to keep pushing myself even though reading was really hard for me. In all honesty, I’d probably still be a low reader if I hadn’t been introduced to JA through P&P 95, which then in turn catapulted me into the world of JA and from there to all the other classics (Raquel M.)





Out of all the stories I collected, the vast majority of fans said that their viewing experience made them want to go and read the books, and only a few people said that they have only ever seen the movies/TV series and not read any of the books. There were also some stories of people who had read one of the books in high school and hated it or didn’t get it, but after seeing one of the screen adaptations, they were inspired to re-read the book and became fans after that. 





Another generation of fans?





Sanditon
Andrew Davies brought Jane Austen’s unfinished novel Sanditon to the screen for the first time, creating an original continuation of her story that continues to delight fans.





I saw Sanditon in 2020. That was my first Jane Austen experience. I loved it so much that I wanted to read the books and watch films. So I did. (Joelle R.)





The 2020’s are seeing a new round of Austen adaptations being made. The TV series Sanditon, which premiered in the later part of 2019, and 2020 version of Emma, both of which have enjoyed the viewership of a younger, streaming-driven audience in the face of a global pandemic, have paved the way for the next generation of fans. 





Persuasion 2022
Persuasion 2022 releases on Netflix on July 15.





Piggybacking off the success of the Regency-era show Bridgerton, Netflix is releasing a new adaptation of Persuasion next month (July 2022), which will star Dakota Johnson, Cosmo Jarvis, and Henry Golding. Persuasion hasn’t had a historical adaptation made in 15 years, so it’s high time we had another one. While some fans were not thrilled with the trailer for the film, which showed Anne Elliot “breaking the fourth wall” in talking to the audience, mocking Wentworth with a mustache made of jam, and using slightly anachronistic speech (I admit, I cringed when I heard her “worse than exes” line), many fans are also hopeful that the adaptation will rekindle the love for this novel and birth new Jane Austen fans from a generation that thrives on social media and binge-watching on streaming platforms. 





To wrap it up





Looking at how many new fans have been born across the decades just from watching Jane Austen film adaptations gives me hope. Hope that love for Jane Austen will never die, but keep being reborn with each new generation. 





In a world where most teens would rather scroll through TikTok than read a book, I hope that new adaptations of Jane Austen’s beloved stories continue to inspire new fans and readers and make Jane Austen seem “cool” and “trendy” against the ever-changing onslaught of media that’s being foisted on the young and impressionable minds of today’s generation. 





If my story and the stories shared by these fans are any indication, it’s clear that bringing Jane Austen to the screen is a vital way to keep this author’s works alive and encourage people to read them.





I hope you enjoyed my exploration of the influence of Jane Austen films on our generations of fans. Some housekeeping news, my website address has changed. Please visit my website here to check out all of my books!






							

	
			

													
						Posted in Austen Authors, film, film adaptations, Guest Post, Jane Austen					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , , , , 				
				|
				
				Comments Off on The Influence of Screen Adaptations on New Generations of Jane Austen Fans, a Guest Post by Amanda Kai

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
Almack’s, the Place to See and Be Seen During the Regency


			

				Posted on August 3, 2022 by Regina Jeffers			


					

				

Almack’s history is divided into two parts: one is from the inception to around 1815 and the other from 1815 on.






Willis’s Rooms ~ also called “Almack’s”
from Old and New London by E Walford (1878)






First opening on 12 February 1765 on King Street, St. James’s, Almack’s Assembly Rooms were situated immediately to the east of Pall Mall Place and comprised





… three very elegant new-built rooms, a ten-guinea subscription, for which you have a ball and supper once a week for twelve weeks. [written in a letter from Gilly Williams to George Selwyn, 22 February 1765, in Jesse, John Heneage, George Selwyn and his contemporaries (1843)].





Named after their founder, a Scotsman named William Almack, the rooms were initially home to a ladies’ club, designed to permit gambling in the smaller rooms and dancing in the great room. Unlike the entertainments hosted by Madame Cornelys at the Carlisle House, Almack’s developed an “exclusiveness” which set aside the more scandalous assemblies at Carlisle.  On a side note, Almack also owned The Thatched House Tavern and founded a club for gentlemen that later became Brooks’s. 





Almack’s lost a large portion of its popularity when the Pantheon opened in 1772. However, when the Pantheon burned down, Almack’s was still standing and grew again in popularity. 





Though leading ladies of the Haut Ton were known as patronesses of Almacks, at first, both men and women were named to be patron. 





The assemblies were held four or five times a season. They were held on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but not  every week. The patronesses were listed in the paper, and the notice gave the date of the first assembly.












We assume around 1815, after the war with Napoleon ended, Lady Jersey took over Almack’s. The announcements seem to have ceased, the assemblies changed to Wednesday nights, and they were held just about every week during the season. The patronesses greatly restricted its membership. A person could not simply show up at the door and expect admittance. To attend, the person had to procure a “voucher,” signed by one of the patronesses, who are said to have kept a list of whether a person was “good ton” or “bad ton.” This exclusivity element lasted until around 1824.





According to (Samuel Leigh) Leigh’s New Picture of London (1818):





The balls at Willis’s rooms, commonly called Almack’s, are held every Wednesday during the season. They are very splendid, and are very numerously and fashionably attended. Some ladies are styled lady patronesses of these balls; and in order to render them more select, (the price being only seven shillings,) it is necessary that a visitor’s name should be inserted in one of these ladies’ books, which of course makes the admission difficult.





By the 1790s, Almack’s no longer hosted gaming rooms. Instead, dances and assemblies were the entertainment. Eventually, Almack’s became the place for a young lady to “demonstrate” her suitability to members of the ton and for a gentleman to seek out a wife of good social standing. Therefore, it became informally known as “The Marriage Mart.’





The committee at Almack’s changed periodically, but, during the middle of the Regency period, as recorded by Gronow, the Patronesses were Lady Castlereagh, Lady Jersey, Lady Cowper, Mrs. Drummond Burrel, the Countess Esterhazy, and the Countess Lieven. As stated in Ticknor’s [Ticknor, George, Life, Letters, and Journals of George Ticknor (1876).] diaries: only one lady acted as patroness at a time on a rotation basis, but the members of the committee were referred to collectively as the “patronesses of Almack’s.”





Every Monday the Patronesses convened for the sole purpose of deciding who to drop from their membership and to whom to extend a voucher. The criteria for consideration to their hallowed halls was pretty much dependent upon one’s position in society, one’s address, one’s wealth (but being wealthy was not an automatic key to entrance), manners, how one behaved and treated others, and one’s general countenance. All considered acceptable young ladies were introduced to suitable partners by the patronesses, or suffer the consequences of being shunned by them and society, as a whole.





As mentioned above, Gronow, an army officer in London wrote: 





… the Ladies Castlereagh, Jersey, Cowper, and Sefton, Mrs Drummond Burrell, now Lady Willoughby, the Princess Esterhazy, and the Countess Lieven. [Gronow, Captain. The Reminiscences and Recollections of Captain Gronow (1862).] [Note: Other patronesses were the Marchioness of Salisbury and Lady Downshire.]





















							

	
			

													
						Posted in architecture, British history, buildings and structures, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, real life tales, Regency era, research					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , , , , , , , 				
				|
				
				Comments Off on Almack’s, the Place to See and Be Seen During the Regency

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
Statute of Wills, Henry VIII’s Answer to Primogeniture


			

				Posted on July 25, 2022 by Regina Jeffers			


					

				
05aee257e11c9e215186cece06325ad7
Caister Castle is a 15th-century moated castle situated in the parish of West Caister, some 5 kilometres (3 mi) north of the town of Great Yarmouth.


The Statute of Wills (32 Hen. 8, c. 1 – enacted in 1540) was an English Act of Parliament, which created a mechanism for landowners to name who would inherit their landed property. A written will was required. It permitted a land owner to leave two-thirds of his property to anyone as long as their was a written will and testament. Prior to the enactment of this statute, land could be passed by descent only if and when the landholder had competent living relatives who survived him, and it was subject to the rules of primogeniture. When a landholder died without any living relatives, his land would escheat (or revert) to the Crown. The statute was something of a political compromise between Henry VIII and English landowners, who were growing increasingly frustrated with primogeniture and royal control of land.


Ironically, the Statute of Wills was passed by Parliament only four years after the Statute of Uses banned the practice of splitting the title to land to avoid paying royal fee associated with the property. The state of law at the time pressed hardly on other classes than the owners of land. Unfortunately, the accepted conditions often defrauded creditors and intending purchasers of what was rightly theirs. The hereditary heir, unless bound by specialty, was free, according as his honour or his judgment dictated, to pay or to repudiate the debts which his ancestor had incurred; and it was not until the reign of Henry VIII that the heir to an entailed estate was rendered liable even to Crown debts, and then only to those secured by judgment. Until this Statute (and later the Wills Act), the personal estate of a deceased intestate was, if sufficient for the purpose, exclusively liable for the satisfaction for the purpose, exclusively liable for the satisfaction or his mortgage debts while the realty descended unincumbered to the heir-at-law.


572d0512517868eaffbcdf9f7a51aa24Purchasers of land in the period subsequent to de donis (De donis conditionalibus is the chapter of the English Statutes of Westminster (1285), which originated the law of entail.) were often cruelly wronged by the production of latent entails, which deprived them of land for which they had previously paid and for which they had “researched” the validity of the true owner. Francis Bacon’s Treatise on the Use of Land talks about how entailed estates were not liable to forfeiture, how personal offenses could not be addressed by the courts to the heir, how the Crown was prejudiced by the previous “laws,’ which greatly reduced its security for debts due from subjects whose property came under the Crown’s care, so “the King could not safely commit any office of account to such whose lands were entailed, nor other men trust them with loan of money.” 


The Statute of Wills created a number of requirements for the form of a will. Specifically, most jurisdictions still require that a will must be in writing, signed by the testator (the person making the will) and witnessed by at least two other persons. 




Some of the procedures created by the Statute of Wills remain effective in modern law. The statute required that wills be in writing, that they be signed by the person making the will, or testator, and that they be properly witnessed by other persons. If any of these requirements was not met, the will could not be enforced in court. These requirements exist today in state law and are intended to ensure that wills are not fabricated and that the testator’s intent is fulfilled.


A testamentary trust is one that becomes effective at the settlor’s death. To effectively create a testamentary trust, it must be created in a duly executed will. To comply with the Statute of Wills, all the elements of the testamentary trust must be ascertainable from the face of the will and any applicable documents incorporated by reference or facts of independent significance. These elements are:


    

  • Intention to create a trust;
    • 

  • Permissible purpose for the trust;
    • 

  • Identification of beneficiaries; and 
    • 

  • Existence of trust res.
    • 





 


In England and Wales, the Statute of Wills was repealed and superseded by the Wills Act of 1837. 




Resources: 


Law.Jrank




Paralegal.edu


The Law and Custom of Primogeniture by Sir Perceval Lawrence

Read more: Statute of Wills – Land, Law, Death, and Property – JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/10505/Statute-Wills.html#ixzz4IkgeFjcd


 

							

	
			

													
						Posted in Act of Parliament, Anglo-Normans, castles, Living in the UK, primogenture					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , , , 				
				|
				
				3 Comments

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
The Treatment of Typhus Upon the Russian Front During the Napoleonic Campaign


			

				Posted on July 22, 2022 by Regina Jeffers			


					

				
In the year 1817, a Prussian army physician by the name of Krantz published a medical history of the treatment of typhus during the Napoleonic campaign in Russia. It was entitled: Bemerkungen ueber den Gang der Krankheiten welche in der koniglich preussischen Armee vom Ausbruch des Krieges im Jahre 1812 bis zu Ende des Waffenstillstandes (im Aug.) 1813 geherrscht haben, which is translated as “Remarks on the course of the Diseases which have reigned in the Royal Prussian Army from the Beginning of the War in the Year 1812 until the End of the Armistice [in August] 1813.”


Prianishnikov_1812


According to Krantz, the soldiers of the Grande Armée (Grand Army) had brought more than the destruction of war to the Russian front. Whole families, especially those with whom the French soldiers had dwelled, were stricken down by typhus. The Prussian soldiers of York’s corps supposedly did not know the disease until they followed the French’s retreat. Krantz reports that the Prussian army corps knew rapidly knew typhus. He also records another phenomenon: There was a certain uniformity among the different divisions. “On account of the overflowing of the rivers, the men had to march closely together on the road, at least until they passed the Vistula near Dirschau, Moeve, and Marienwerder. Of the rapid extent of the infection we can form an idea when we learn the following facts: In the first East Prussian regiment of infantry, when it came to the Vistula, there was not a single case of typhus, while after a march of 14 miles on the highway which the French had passed before them, there were 15 to 20 men sick in every company, every tenth or even every seventh man. In those divisions which had been exposed to infection while in former cantonments, the cases were much more numerous, 20 to 30 in every company.” (“The Treatment of Typhus,” Historion.net)


In addition to the typhus outbreak, epidemic ophthalmy spread through some of the divisions. A common “causal nexus” connected the two diseases. However, it was noted that the two ailments never attacked the same individual. It was as if typhus gave the patient an immunity against ophthalmy and vice versa. Ironically, Krantz and the other physicians discovered the diseases were often “cured” by the cold of the march. “We found confirmed, says Krantz, what had been asserted a long time before by experienced physicians, that cold air had the most beneficial effect during the inflammatory stage of contagious typhus.” (“The Treatment of Typhus,” Historion.net)


Those suffering from typhus were dressed in warm clothing to protect them from the cold and placed on a wagon to be covered completely by straw. The wagons followed the retreating troops, but they stopped frequently so the patients could be given a tea of “Infusum Chamomillae, species aromaticarum, etc., with or without wine or spiritus sulphuricus aetherius.” Those suffering from typhus were given several cupfuls of the mixture to warm them. The soldiers’ hands and feet were wrapped in rags to prevent frostbite.300px-Napoleons_retreat_from_moscow


At night, those infected were crowded into makeshift hospitals. Those with typhus were separated from those needing other medical treatments, often being placed in barns or larger homes – all filled to capacity and then some. “All the hospitals between the Vistula and Berlin, constantly overfilled, were thoroughly infected, and thus transformed into regular pest-houses exhaling perdition to everyone who entered, the physicians and attendants included. On the other hand, most of the patients who were treated on the march recovered. Of the 31 cases of typhus of the 2d. battalion of the infantry guards reported from Tilsit to Tuchel, only one died, while the remaining 30 regained their health completely, a statistical result as favorable as has hardly ever happened in the best regulated hospital and which is the more surprising on account of the severe form of the disease at that time.” (“The Treatment of Typhus,” Historion.net)


Krantz goes on to say that of 330 patients in the first East Prussian regiment of infantry, 300 recovered and 30 were sent to hospitals in Elbing, Maerkisch, Friedland, Conitz, and Berlin. None died. What was discovered was the cold prevented the spread of the disease. Keeping the patients in the wagons and moving about the countryside did not permit the disease to brew and develop into a death sentence. For most patients, three days after they had been free from fever for 24 hours they were fit to rejoin their units.


As opposed to the customary treatment of the time, which included the exclusion of fresh air and the hourly administration of medication, those treated on the march experienced a 2-3% mortality rate.1024px-Myrbach-Cossacks


Note: I used this research as part of my Regency era based novel, A Touch of Honor (Book 7 of the Realm Series).ATOHCrop2

							

	
			

													
						Posted in British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, medicine, military, Napoleonic Wars, real life tales, Realm series, Regency era, research, science					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , 				
				|
				
				3 Comments

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
Did An Officer’s Wife Receive a Pension if Her Husband Died in the Napoleonic Wars?


			

				Posted on July 20, 2022 by Regina Jeffers			


					

				
Scots Greys at Waterloo carrying Canteens without regimental markings. ~ http://www.militaryheritage.com/canteen.htm


 Did an officer’s wives receive  any kind of pension or a refund for her husband’s purchased rank if the man was killed in battle?


 First, permit me to explain, regiments were formed “whole cloth” in some regions, or whole battalions of a regiment. While regiments *generally* had districts and counties where they would recruit. A Sargent and a small group of enlisted men would ‘beat the drum’ and collect recruits, usually ‘enlisted’ men, but that could include officers. Customarily, men who wanted to become officers would apply to the colonel of the regiment, who often was not with their regiment on the Continent, but rather in England, or he might apply to the regimental agent. This process could be conducted in person; yet more often, it was executed by letter with recommendations from friends and relatives. A person could apply directly to the Horse Guards too, but then they would not have a choice as to which regiment they would be assigned.


Only about one-third of all commissions were purchased during the wars. More were purchased between 1792-1800 than later. Also more were purchased in Guard units and cavalry. One reason pensions were created and raised for officers and their wives [though badly handled at times] was because there was no commission to hand the wife. Commissions were the property of the officer. He purchased it. It was his to dispose of when he so chose.


In 1798, far more commissions were bought, meaning more money was raised. An ensign or lieutenant would receive 300 – 400 pounds, depending on whether the position was in a guards unit or the cavalry.  Extended leave was the man’s choice.  However, if it continued for several months, the army, meaning the man’s colonel,  would go after him to serve or sell out. Colonels made money from their regiment and despised having an idler on the payroll.  I read where one officer, after seven months on leave, without his commanding officer receiving any statement of when he would return was asked to return to the army, sell out, or the colonel would sell his commission for him. The man was receiving his pay during that time and taking advantage of the system. This action was the social equivalent of a dishonorable discharge.


The method of filling the necessary posts for an army was part of the Old World proprietary practices where the regiment was a business owned and run by a colonel. He sold commissions in his regiment. This was slowly phased out during the Napoleonic wars to where the Army was not just ‘Okaying’ a colonel’s choice, but granting commissions themselves as the Ordinance Department did for the Engineers and Artillery. 


So, when an officer died, his commission would be presented to the widow WHEN and IF  it was bought by another, which could be immediately, or not for a long, long time, particularly when a regiment was involved in a campaign and willing and monied candidates were not readily at hand. Depending on the colonel, he might have the regimental agent pay the purchase cost out to the widow immediately, or he may wait or ‘forget’ to pay it, just as we see such things happening in the business world today.  The officers of the mess would often auction off an officer’s belongings to raise money for the widow because she would have to pay for any transportation costs to send the body home. 


When the officer hadn’t bought a commission, had what was known as a ‘free commission’, he did not ‘sell out’, he ‘cried out’ and the widow would not receive any pension until she presented the colonel’s signed affidavit to a bank, which would then ‘charge’ the government, which was very bad at paying pensions during different points in the war. Unfortunately, the pensions were not regularly paid. Pensions for wives were about 40% of what an officer’s pay had been when he was alive. Later, in 1814, the pension was raised to equal half-pay.


One must recall the scandal caused by the Duke of York and his mistress selling commissions during the early years of the war. 




“Mary Anne Thompson was the daughter of a humble tradesman. Attractive and intelligent, she was married before the age of 18, to a man named Clarke, who worked as a stonemason However, shortly after the marriage, her husband went bankrupt, and Mary Anne Clarke left him. By 1803 Clarke had been established long enough in the world of  courtesans to receive the attention of Frederick, Duke of York, then the Commander in Chief of the army.


“Taking her as his mistress, he set her up in a fashionable residence. However, he failed to supply the funds necessary to support their lavish lifestyle. In 1809, a national scandal arose when Clarke testified before the House of Commons that she had sold army commissions with the Duke of York’s knowledge. The scandal was the subject of much humour and mockery, especially by caricaturists. Frederick was forced to resign from his position, though he was later reinstated.


“The modern Circe or a sequel to the petticoat”, caricature of Mary Anne Clarke by Isaac Cruikshank, 15 March 1809. Her lover Frederick, Duke of York resigned from his post at the head of the British Army ten days after the caricature’s publication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anne_Clarke#/media/File:Mary_Anne_Clarke2.jpg


“After the Duke of York resigned his post as Commander in Chief of the Army, and before he was later reinstated, he cut all ties to Clarke, paying her a considerable sum to prevent her from publishing letters he had written to her during their relationship. When the scandal forced Clarke to leave London, she took a tenancy of Loughton Lodge, Loughton, Essex. Clarke was prosecuted for libel in 1813 and imprisoned for nine months.” [Mary Anne Clarke]


We must consider the time period in which this is happening, as well as society’s class norms. These transferred directly into the army. Gentlemen were officers, officers were Gentlemen,  non-commissioned officers were the middle class, educated to some extent, and the enlisted men, the lower classes.


These colonels could have as much responsibility for their regiment as they wished, but they often handed off all administrative duties to the regimental agent and the Lieutenant Colonel of the regiment, who was essentially the officer in the field, though certainly there were the commanding colonel who campaigned with their regiment. There were reports and paperwork that had to go to the Horse Guards or the Secretary of the Army, but the only time the colonel of the regiment HAD to appear was if he was summoned. Like most of those who were or aspired to be gentlemen, ‘serving a function’ was too much like being in TRADE for a number of the colonels. They had people, adjutants, aides, commissary officers, and other staff to deal with that sort of thing. 


What is often overlooked is the real changes in the military from 1792 to 1815. The old system was in flux. The army took control of commissioning officers around 1811 and a pension system was set up for retiring officers who had been given a commission and could ‘cry out’, but had nothing to sell as a commission. Widow’s pensions were also given serious attention during this time as they would not receive the commission costs if their husband died.


Other Resources: 


The Evolution of French Napoleonic Army Organization


History: Napoleonic Wars Army Structure


Napoleonic Era British Infantry


Napoleonic Wars


Napoleonic Wars by Rob Hartman

							

	
			

													
						Posted in British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Living in the Regency, military, real life tales, Regency era, war					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , , , , 				
				|
				
				2 Comments