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

“Commissions” for an Officer Engineer or Artilleryman in the Regency Era

Posted on July 15, 2022 by Regina Jeffers

I recently had another writer send me a message to ask about the process for a man of the gentry or the aristocracy to purchase a commission as an officer engineer or artilleryman. First, permit me to say I am far from an expert on this subject, but the way I understand it, commissions for these positions were not sold. However, I will tell you, dear readers, if you ask me this same question later, I may have a different response. It seems there were no “absolutes” regarding these positions.

A person could only purchase a commission in a cavalry or infantry regiment. For any other regiment, such as the Royal Engineers or Royal Artillery, the young man had to attend the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich in order to receive a commission. Promotions there were based on length of service and experience.

I have read numerous accounts where cadets entered the Royal Military Academy at age fourteen, but other accounts have the person entering at age twenty. What I can say with some certainty is there was an entrance exam, which required more than a simple working knowledge of both regular math and geometry. When the person graduated is a whole other story. The fourteen year old graduated at age 18, while the twenty year old graduated at age twenty-five. This leads me to believe the courses required for this type of commission took four years to complete.

This information would naturally lead one to assume it would take four years to “graduate,” but I have read of instances where the officer passed back and forth between the artillery and engineers, so I am truly not certain that the Ordinance Department made any distinction between the two.

I think it is safe to say no officer was commissioned under the age of sixteen and, more likely, most were eighteen or older. We must remember those who attended the Academy had also to pass an exit exam. If one failed, he returned to the classroom for more instruction.

“Captain Wentworth, with five-and-twenty thousand pounds, and as high in his profession as merit and activity could place him, was no longer nobody. He was now esteemed quite worthy to address the daughter of a foolish, spendthrift baronet, who had not principle or sense enough to maintain himself in the situation in which Providence had placed him ...” [Chapter 24, Persuasion, by Jane Austen]

The Navy proved to be a popular trade/occupation for the sons of the gentry, but less so for sons of the aristocracy. A boy as young as ten could “volunteer” for a seafaring apprenticeship, one attached to the Captain of a particular ship. This position was unpaid, and the boy’s parents footed the bill for his food and clothes. He could become a midshipman when he reached 14.

The other means to become a midshipman was through the Royal Naval Academy at Portsmouth. Two of Jane Austen’s brothers attended the academy. It taught seamanship along with the standard educational subjects. Obviously, mathematics was emphasized because the use of the subject in navigation. It took two years (funded by the young man’s parents) onboard a ship for the fellow to become a Midshipman.

The Gunner and His Crew in Aubrey’s Royal Navy ~
https://thedearsurprise.com/the-gunner-and-his-crew-in-aubreys-royal-navy/

Naval History and Military Command provides us this excellent breakdown of duties:

OF GUNNERS, GUNNERS’ MATES, GUNNERS’ YEOMEN, AND QUARTER GUNNERS.

GUNNER of a ship of war, (cannonier de vaisseau, Fr.) an officer appointed to take charge of the artillery and ammunition aboard; to observe that the former are always kept in order, and properly fitted with tackles and other furniture, and to teach the sailors the exercise of the cannon.

The GUNNER’S Mate is to assist the gunner in every part of his business; he is an officer who should be as well acquainted with gunnery, and every thing respecting the ordnance and military stores, as the gunner himself: his particular business under the gunner is to have every thing ready for action in a moment’s warning; he should never be as a loss to know where to lay his hands upon any article belonging to the gunner’s department; he should be expert in preparing port and false fires, match stuff, grenadoes, and every sort of combustible used in war; and in a word, in doing every part of a gunner’s duty on board a ship of war.

The GUNNER’S Yeoman’s particular business is the stowage of the magazine, filling the store-rooms, &c. account, care, and distribution of all the stores of that department, under the gunner’s orders.

Quarter– GUNNER, an inferior officer under the direction of a ship of war, whom he is to assist in every branch of his duty; as keeping the guns and carriages in proper order, and duly furnished with whatever is necessary; filling the powder into cartridges, scaling the guns, and keeping them always in a condition for service. The number of quarter-gunners in any ship is always in proportion to the number of her artillery, one quarter-gunner being allowed to every four cannon.

OF MASTERS AT ARMS AND CORPORALS

MASTER at arms, an officer appointed by warrant from the board of admiralty, to teach the officers and crew of a ship of war the exercise of small arms; to confine and plant centinels over the prisoners, and superintend whatever relates to them during their confinement. He is also, as soon as the evening gun shall be fired, to see all the fires and lights extinguished, except such as shall be permitted by proper authority, or under the inspection of centinels. It is likewise his duty to attend the gangway, when any boats arrive aboard, and search them carefully, together with their rowers, that no spirituous liquors may be conveyed into the ship, unless by permission of the commanding officer. He is to see that the small arms be kept in proper order. He is to visit all vessels coming to or going from the ship, and prevent the crew from going from the ship without leave. He is also to acquaint the officer of the watch with all irregularities in the ship which shall come to his knowledge. In these several duties he is assisted with proper attendants, called his corporals, who also relieve the centinels, and one another, at proper periods.

CORPORAL of a ship of war, an officer under the master at arms, employed to teach the sailors the exercise of small arms, or musketry; to attend at the gang-way, or entering-ports, and observe that no spirituous liquors are brought into the ship, unless by particular leave from the officers. He is also to extinguish the fire and candles at eight o’clock in winter, and nine in summer, when the evening gun is fired; and to walk frequently down into the lower decks in his watch, to see that there are no lights but such as are under the charge of proper centinels, which he is to see placed, &c.

Forgive me for I have again digressed. For a very long time, there was no artillery or engineer manual. Each student created his own in the Academy from the courses he took, and he had to present that “manual” to the Academy teachers for approval as part of his graduation requirements.

Another source I particularly enjoyed was a “Service” magazine, for it held several accounts after the war from a variety of artillery officers. One I particularly enjoyed was “Shots from an Old Six Pounder.” You can find the information on Google Books on clicking the link. (The United Service Magazine, Volume 57, Page 2)

Other Sources:

Gentlemen’s Occupations

The Gunner and His Crew

Posted in British history, British Navy, Georgian England, Georgian Era, historical fiction, history, Jane Austen, military, Persuasion, real life tales, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on “Commissions” for an Officer Engineer or Artilleryman in the Regency Era

The East India Company, the World’s Most Powerful Cooperation, a Guest Post from Eliza Shearer

Posted on July 8, 2022 by Regina Jeffers

This post first appeared on the Austen Authors’ blog on November 12, 2019. Enjoy!

“Do you understand muslins, sir?”

“Particularly well; I always buy my own cravats, and am allowed to be an excellent judge; and my sister has often trusted me in the choice of a gown. I bought one for her the other day, and it was pronounced to be a prodigious bargain by every lady who saw it. I gave but five shillings a yard for it, and a true Indian muslin.”

Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey, Chapter 3

I have been reading a great deal about the East India Company (EIC) of late because one of the characters in Miss Price’s Decision works for it. Four centuries before Walmart, Volkswagen or Amazon, the EIC was the original multinational corporation, employing thousands, yielding more power than many countries and enjoying unimaginable freedom to operate. 

A Profitable Multinational Operation 

The EIC, famously known as The Company, was founded in 1600 to foster trade with the so-called East Indies. By the Regency, the products in its portfolio included cotton muslins like the one bought by Tilney, as well as silk, spices, tea, salt, porcelain, opium and many more.  

At the same time, The Company did much more than overseeing commercial transactions between England and Asia. The EIC was involved in politics as much as in trade, and it effectively controlled a large territory and a population of millions, setting the foundation of what would become the British Empire. 

The EIC even had its own army, with 260,000 soldiers by 1803 (that’s twice the size of the British Army at the time). They enforced the execution of trade and taxation agreements and ensured that Indian labourers did as they were told. They were also known for ruthless looting of local riches.

(The EIC may have been Honourable on paper, but on the ground, it was anything but!)  

The Professionalisation of The Company

The men who worked as administrators for the EIC traditionally achieved their roles by patronage. By the Regency, patronage was still key in the recruitment process, but the EIC controlled such a vast territory that there was a pressing need for competently trained administrators, known as ‘writers’. 

EIC writers were clerical workers in charge of recording all the transactions overseen by the organisation, from minutes of meetings to accounting books to stock logs. Their importance to keep the EIC machinery running smoothly was such that the EIC (you guessed it!) founded its own college to train them up. 

The East India College, known as Haileybury, was established in 1806 in Hailey, Hertfordshire. The College, which was a short distance north of London, had the specific purpose of educating the young men destined to serve as EIC administrators in the colonies. 

A Very Peculiar College

Haileybury was a private institution quite unlike anything else. The curriculum was very ambitious. As well as political economy, philosophy, history, mathematics, law, and the classics, students were taught languages they would need once in their positions abroad, such as Arabic, Urdu, Bengali, Sanskrit or Persian. 

Admission to the programme was complex and required candidates to be backed by rich and powerful patrons. The College was not a cheap operation. The tutors were paid handsomely, some as much as 500 pounds a year, and with a reason, because they were amongst the most brilliant scholars of their time, many having previously taught at Oxford and Cambridge. 

By the mid-nineteenth century, many viewed the East India Company with suspicion, and in 1855, a Parliament act was passed “to relieve the East India Company from the obligation to maintain the College at Haileybury.” The Indian Civil Service would take its place, but the halo of Haileybury would remain for decades afterwards. 

Haileybury College in Miss Price’s Decision

I found the story of Haileybury too fascinating to ignore, so I weaved it into Miss Price’s Decision, which tells the story of Fanny Price’s sister Susan. Here is an excerpt discussing it:

“Miss Price! Another pleasant coincidence!”

Holding the dirty cloth in my hand, I looked up. Jamie Gartner was standing in front of me, beaming. His smile turned into a frown when he saw my tea-stained dress. 

“Can I be of any assistance?”

I blushed, shook my head and mumbled something. His gaze was burning my skin. To hide my embarrassment, I introduced Jamie to my companions, and to my relief, Mr Allen began to ask him a great many questions. Their conversation immediately touched upon Jamie’s occupation. Jamie, it turned out, had studied at the prestigious Haileybury College and had subsequently acquired a clerking post at the East India Company.

“Do you happen to know a Mr Payne? He has a post in the main registry.”

“It is my pleasure to work alongside him, sir.”

“Do you really? It is a small world, indeed. And do you plan to remain in the London office or are you destined to go abroad?”

“I have applied for a post in Calcutta. It is an important port and offers great opportunities for a writer like me as the company grows.”

Mr Allen appeared impressed, and invited Jamie, who confessed he was on his own, to join our little party. He readily accepted, to the delight of Mrs Allen and Miss Morland, who had been clinging to his every word. (…)

Mrs Allen’s fan tapped my arm.

“Have you known Mr Gartner long, then?”

“We grew up together,” I replied, trying to sound more animated than I felt. (…)

“He appears to have done very well for himself. A son of my cousin’s attended the East India College in Hertfordshire a few years ago, and his mother likes to go on about how only the most talented manage to secure a place, and how well he speaks all manners of strange languages, and how good he is with numbers.”  

“He was always a very bright boy,” I replied with a smile. 

“He must have very good patrons, too. My cousin tells me that, in order to be accepted into that fancy college, students need to be recommended by people in high places. They are also expected to pay hefty fees, although to be fair, their studies set them up for life. Do they not, Mr Allen?”

“My understanding is that posts abroad offer excellent prospects,” replied Mr Allen, stroking his chin. “Mr Gartner is not married, is he?”

“No, I do not think so,” I replied. 

“Well, if he is to travel to the East Indies, he will be in a hurry to find himself a wife,” said he. “There are very few Englishwomen in those lands.” 

Mrs Allen let out a cry of delight.

Eliza Shearer’s Miss Price’s Decision, Chapter 9

How familiar are you with the East India Company and what do you think of the curriculum at Haileybury College? 

Posted in Austen Authors, book excerpts, book release, British history, excerpt, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, Guest Post, historical fiction, history, Living in the Regency, Mansfield Park, political stance, publishing, real life tales, Regency era | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The East India Company, the World’s Most Powerful Cooperation, a Guest Post from Eliza Shearer

Jane Austen and the East India Company – a Guest Post from Elaine Owen

Posted on July 6, 2022 by Regina Jeffers

This post originally appeared on Austen Authors on June 21, 2019. Enjoy!  If you missed it, you can read part one HERE. 

In 1752 a young English woman traveled from the land of her birth to the continent of India for the express purpose of finding a husband. She had been an orphan from the age of six and had only a handful of younger siblings and more distant relatives to claim as her own. With no fortune and no family connections to attract possible suitors, this was probably her best shot at making a profitable marriage.

The young lady, just twenty two at the time, was named Philadelphia (“Phila”) Austen, and she had a younger brother named George. Many years in the future she would become an aunt to the newborn Jane Austen. But at the time all she knew was that she was supposed to become a bride for someone who worked for the East India Company.

Philadelphia Austen Hancock

In my last post I talked about the East India Company and mentioned that Jane Austen was connected to the company in some surprising ways. Today I would like to explore that connection in some detail.

On the six month passage to India Phila made friends with another husband-seeking woman named Margaret Maskelyne. When they arrived in India Phila became quickly engaged to Tysoe Saul Hancock, who worked for the East India Company as a surgeon but also earned money by trading Indian products such as salt and cloth. Phila’s friend Margaret married another East India man by the name of Robert Clive. Eventually these two couples also became close friends with another East India couple, Warren and Marian Hastings. The relationships between these three couples would have a profound influence on the life of Jane Austen.

Hastings and Clive were not mere tradesmen. They both rose through the ranks of the East India Company to the very highest positions of leadership. Robert Clive became one of the military leaders of the East India Company and brought India, modern day Pakistan and modern day Bangladesh into the British Empire. He did this by overthrowing the rightful heir to the Bengal throne and installing a puppet leader instead. His official title eventually became Commander in Chief of British India. Clive is known in history as a competent but corrupt leader for removing wealth from the Indian people, condoning atrocities, and implementing land policies that caused one of the worst famines in modern times.

Warren Hastings worked under Clive and helped him implement his programs. While Clive managed the military side of things, Hastings handled the administrative end, eventually becoming the first Governor General of India. To his credit Hastings saw the corruption and abuses of the British rule in India and he often tried to negotiate between the two sides. But he was an East India man and he was bound to enforce even rules he did not personally agree with.

We know that the Phila and her husband maintained close ties with both of these families, especially the Hastings. For a short time all three couples lived in the Clive’s home in India. Phila’s marriage to Hancock seems not to have been a happy one, and there was widespread speculation that Hastings, not Hancock, was the father of Phila’s only child (Eliza). Whether that is true or not we do know that when Hastings sent his young son George to live in England, the child lived with Phila’s relatives, the Austen family. George died of diphtheria while in the Austen’s care, but the warm association between the Hastings and Austen families continued unabated. Many years later, when Hastings was on trial in England for corruption, the Austen family followed every detail of the proceedings and staunchly supported their long time friend. And Hastings eventually gave Eliza Hancock, his godchild and possible natural daughter, an enormous fortune of ten thousand pounds.

Tysoe Saul Hancock, Clarinda, Eliza, and Philadelphia

So, was Jane Austen aware of the less than savory actions of the East India Company? Did she know that her own family was so closely connected to them? She must have. In her lifetime there was such widespread criticism of the East India Company that Parliament passed a series of laws curtailing its powers and bringing it more directly under the control of the British government. Hastings himself was investigated for corruption for an astonishing seven years. (He was ultimately acquitted.) It’s easy to imagine Jane and her family sitting at the dinner table or writing letters to each other, discussing the latest corruption charges against Hastings and wondering how their aunt Phila and cousin Eliza would be affected.,

Jane leaves no direct statements criticizing her family’s powerful friends. We can surmise that the author who crafted such fair minded, morally strong characters as Fanny Price and Anne Elliott was offended by the excesses and abuses of the British government in other parts of the world. But she was a woman, a daughter of the house, and hardly in a position to challenge the status quo. My best guess is that Jane probably felt conflicted at times, as we all do when people close to us are tied to movements or causes we find objectionable. Most likely she tried not to think about it too much.

There is, however, a bare hint of this conflict in Mansfield Park. I suspect that this passage is the closest Jane ever came to publicly expressing her thoughts about the darker side of British colonial policy.

[Edmund to Fanny] “Your uncle is disposed to be pleased with you in every respect; and I only wish you would talk to him more. – You are one of those who are too silent in the evening circle.”

[Fanny] “But I do talk to him more that I used. I am sure I do. Did not you hear me ask him about the slave trade last night?”

“I did – and was in hopes the question would be followed up by others. It would have pleased your uncle to be inquired of farther.”

“And I longed to do it – but there was such a dead silence! And while my cousins were sitting by without speaking a word, or seeming at all interested in the subject, I did not like – I thought it would appear as if I wanted to set myself off at their expense, by shewing a curiosity and pleasure in his information which he must wish his own daughters to feel.”

The “dead silence” comment is interesting, for it exactly describes how Jane treated the subject of British abuses in general in her novels. Fanny Price was speaking of slavery in Barbados, but she could just as easily have been speaking of atrocities in India.

The East India Company eventually collapsed under its own weight. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was harshly put down, but the crown had finally had enough of the business enterprise that had ruled large parts of the British empire on behalf of the crown for so long. It nationalized the East India Company and took over all of its holdings, its finances, and especially its armed forces. In 1874 the company was disbanded entirely.

There is at least one writer out there who believes that we can thank the East India Company, at least in part, for having Jane Austen’s novels available to us today. As I mentioned before, Warren Hastings gave Eliza Hancock, Phila’s daughter, a massive inheritance of 10,000 pounds in the form of a trust fund. Eliza married a French duke who was killed in the revolution. Then, as a widow, she married Jane’s brother Henry, which meant that Henry had control of the inheritance from Hastings–an inheritance that came from Hastings’ work for the East India Company. Henry is the family member who negotiated with publishers on Jane’s behalf, signed contracts in her name, and promoted her works after her death. Without Henry Austen we might not have heard of Jane Austen. In my opinion this is a very tenuous connection, but it certainly gives one pause.

What do you think? Should Jane have addressed this difficult sort of topic in her novels? Should she have openly criticized the British government and East India Company, or was she right to stay silent on the subject? I know these are tricky questions but I would really like to hear your thoughts!

Posted in British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Guest Post, history, Jane Austen, Mansfield Park, marriage, marriage customs, political stance, reading, real life tales, Regency era, research, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Phaeton, a Regency Carriage with Wide Appeal – and a Dangerous Side, a Guest Post by Eliza Shearer

Posted on June 29, 2022 by Regina Jeffers

Towards the end of Pride and Prejudice, in a letter explaining Mr Darcy‘s role in securing Lydia’s marriage to Mr Wickham, Mrs Gardiner writes to her niece Elizabeth, whom she suspects the master of Pemberley admires very much:

“I shall never be quite happy till I have been all round the (Pemberley) park. A low phaeton, with a nice little pair of ponies, would be the very thing”

Chapter 52, Pride & Prejudice

All Mrs Gardiner wants to explore the Pemberley estate is a phaeton. But what were these carriages like, and what was their big attraction?

The Draw of Phaetons as Carriages

Phaetons were light four-wheeled, open and doorless carriages with one or two seats. They typically had a folding top to shelter their users from the sun or light rain, but they otherwise offered little protection from the elements.

One of their defining characteristics was that they offered no outside driver’s seat for a coachman. In other words, phaeton owners were expected to drive their carriages. This may have well accounted for their popularity during the Regency and beyond.

A Fashionable Means of Transport

A Gentleman driving a Lady in a Phaeton George Stubbs National Gallery
A Gentleman driving a Lady in a Phaeton, George Stubbs (1787)
National Gallery, London

It’s no wonder that Mrs Gardiner dreams of a handsome phaeton: it must have made for a rather exhilarating means of transport, particularly for those used to being driven around. Note, however, that she specifies that she would like it to be a low one (this is relevant, as we shall see in a minute).

Another Austen lady who is partial to a sporty phaeton is – you’ll never guess it! – Anne de Bourgh. While Elizabeth is staying with Charlotte and Mr Collins, there are several instances of Miss de Bourgh driving by or stopping by “in her little phaeton and ponies.” (This little tidbit of information, often overlooked, suggests a more intriguing character than the doormat we are used to seeing in Austen adaptations, wouldn’t you say?)

The Wide Appeal of Phaetons

Phaetons could be decidedly pretty: in Austen’s The Three Sisters: A Novel, part of her juvenilia, a young lady expresses her wish to own one that is “cream coloured with a wreath of silver flowers round it.” But as well as the low sort favoured by ladies, some phaetons featured a very high perch. So high, in fact, that they sometimes required a ladder to reach the seats.

The elevated centre of gravity of the light phaetons made for very fast vehicles, ideal for speed-loving young men. In Northanger Abbey, cool-as-a-cucumber Mr Tinley drives “a phaeton with bright chestnuts” with his sister, making Mr Thorpe a very jealous fellow (he has to make do with a more basic one-horsed gig, a carriage with two wheels only, and a second-hand one at that).

Phaeton son of Helios engraving
Benjamin Green, Phaeton, (1777).
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

A Dangers Means of Transportation

High-perched phaetons were, unsurprisingly, very unstable vehicles, especially when driven around a bend at high speed. Accidents would have been common, almost expected for certain types of riders.

It is no wonder that in Love and Freindship, another Austen’s juvenilia story, the heroine and her friend witness the overturning of “a fashionably high phaeton” driven by “two gentlemen most elegantly attired.” (they turn out to be their husbands, but that, reader, is another story).

The Cautionary Tale of Phaeton, Son of Helios

The carriages were named after Phaeton, son of the Greek god Helios. Phaeton asked his father, who drove the chariot of the sun across the heavens every day, to prove his affection by granting him a wish. The god gave his word without realising that what the boy wanted was to drive his chariot, so he couldn’t say no when he realised his son’s folly.

Soon after setting off, Phaeton quickly lost control of the horses of the sun chariot and scorched a large expanse of the Earth which we now call the Sahara desert. Zeus, alarmed, had no choice but to strike the boy down with one of his mythical thunderbolts to stop the carnage, sending him to his death.

The story makes me think that perhaps no vehicle has ever been as suitably named.

Do you fancy the idea of riding a phaeton? Have you ever ridden a similar carriage?

Posted in Austen Authors, British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Guest Post, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Pride and Prejudice, Regency era, travel | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Phaeton, a Regency Carriage with Wide Appeal – and a Dangerous Side, a Guest Post by Eliza Shearer

Capability Brown, England’s Greatest Landscape Artist: “This site has great capabilities.”

Posted on June 27, 2022 by Regina Jeffers

capability_brown_cosway_about_us.jpgLancelot ‘Capability’ Brown changed the face of eighteenth century England, designing country estates and mansions, moving hills and making flowing lakes and serpentine rivers, a magical world of green. (About Capability Brown)

The fifth child of William Brown, the land agent for Sir William Loraine, who held the Kirkharle Hall estate in Northumberland, Lancelot Brown was educated at a school in nearby Cambo until age 16. His first position was as an apprentice to the head gardener on Sir William’s estate, mainly in charge of the kitchen garden. There he remained until age 23. In 1739, he traveled to Boston, a port in Lincolnshire, where he remained for awhile. Later, he took his landscape commission for a new lake in the park at Kiddington Hall, Oxfordshire. Next, he moved to Wotton Underwood House, Buckinghamshire, the seat of Sir Richard Greenville. 

1741 saw him in the position of undergardener for Lord Cobham at Stowe, Buckinghamshire. William Kent, one of the founders of the “new” English style of landscaped garden of the 18th Century, was the head gardener. At Stowe, Brown executed both the architectural and landscaping works in the famous garden. He also met his future wife there, marrying Bridget Wayet, with whom he had nine children, in 1744. “At the age of 26 he was officially appointed as the Head Gardener in 1742, earning £25 year and residing at the western Boycott Pavilion. Brown was the head gardener at Stowe from 1742 to 1750. He made the Grecian Valley at Stowe, which, despite its name, is an abstract composition of landform and woodland. Lord Cobham allowed Brown to take freelance commission work from his aristocratic friends, thus making Brown well known as a landscape gardener. As a proponent of the new English style, Brown became immensely sought after by the owners of landed estates. 

While at Stowe, Brown also began working as an independent designer and contractor and in autumn 1751, he was able to move with his family to the Mall, Hammersmith, the market garden area of London.

“By the 1760s, he was earning on average £6,000 a year, usually £500 for one commission. As an accomplished rider he was able to work fast, taking only an hour or so on horseback to survey an estate and rough out an entire design. In 1764, Brown was appointed King George III’s Master Gardener at Hampton Court Palace, succeeding John Greening and residing at the Wilderness House. In 1767 he bought an estate for himself at Fenstanton in Huntingdonshire from the Earl of Northampton and was appointed High Sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire for 1770, although his son Lance carried out most of the duties.” (Capability Brown) 

The CapabilityBrown.org site tells us, “Brown’s style derived from the two practical principles of comfort and elegance. On the one hand, there was a determination that everything should work, and that a landscape should provide for every need of the great house. On the other, his landscapes had to cohere and look elegant.

gardens-of-capability-brown-prior-park-90190358_da2ff24e22_o-2

Prior Park: There are three lakes in the gardens along with a serpentine lake, a stunning Palladian bridge and a Gothic temple feature. http://www.aboutbritain.com/articles/gardens-of-capability-brown.asp

“While his designs have great variety, they also appear seamless owing to his use of the sunk fence or ‘ha-ha’ to confuse the eye into believing that different pieces of parkland, though managed and stocked quite differently, were one. His expansive lakes, at different levels and apparently unconnected, formed a single body of water as if a river through the landscape, that like the parkland itself, ran on indefinitely.

“This effortless coherence is taken for granted today in a way that was predicted in his obituary: ‘where he is the happiest man he will be least remembered, so closely did he copy nature his works will be mistaken’. His nickname of ‘Capability’ is though to have come from his describing landscapes as having ‘great capabilities’.”

Brown’s nickname came from his habit of saying: “This site has great capabilities.” Brown preferred to “perfect nature.” His lawns were smooth and undulating, intentionally leading the eye away from the manor house and toward stands of trees, hills, and lakes. He had abandoned the formal French style founded at Versailles, and Brown was sometimes criticized for his efforts, but he was a proponent of “English designs,” not French. In his lifetime, he is said to have laid out some 170 gardens. Some of England’s finest—those at Bowood, Burghley, Longleat, Stowe, Petworth, Althorp, and Blenheim are considered his masterpieces.

gardens-of-capability-brown-blenheim-palace-park-lake-6092929443_458e152185_o-1

The landscaped parkland and gardens include water terraces, a magnificent lake and architectural eye-catchers such as the Grand Bridge designed by Vanbrugh and the Column of Victory. http://www.aboutbritain.com/articles/gardens-of-capability-brown.asp

When I think of Brown, I think of Jane Austen’s description of Pemberley in Pride and Prejudice. “They gradually ascended for half a mile, and then found themselves at the top of a considerable eminence, where the wood ceased, and the eye was instantly caught by Pemberley House, situated on the opposite side of a valley, into which the road with some abruptness wound. It was a large, handsome, stone building, standing well on rising ground, and backed by a ridge of high woody hills;—and in front, a stream of some natural importance was swelled into greater, but without any artificial appearance. Its banks were neither formal, nor falsely adorned. Elizabeth was delighted. She had never seen a place where nature had done more, or where natural beauty had been so little counteracted by an awkward taste. They were all of them warm in their admiration; and at that moment she felt that to be mistress of Pemberley might be something!“

Brown died at Fenstanton in 1783. 

Blenheim_Palace_Grand_Bridge

At Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, Brown dammed the paltry stream flowing under Vanbrugh’s Grand Bridge, drowning half the structure with improved results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Brown#/media/File:Blenheim_Palace_Grand_Bridge.jpg ~ Public Domain

Posted in British history, business, estates, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, real life tales, research | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

“Rule of Thumb”: The Wife as Property in the Regency Era, Part I

Posted on June 22, 2022 by Regina Jeffers

I have written several scenes in my 55+ books in which the wife is abused by her husband, sometimes mentally and sometimes physically. During the Regency there was no laws against such abuse. The wife held no rights. In fact, if we take a closer look at the actual laws on the books in the Regency, we discover a woman was only an extension of her husband—not a person in her own right.

Women, for example, were not permitted to buy property, write a will, make contracts, own her own carriage, or even have custody of her children. In Darcy’s Temptation, which will rerelease toward the end of this calendar year, Elizabeth fears Darcy will send her away after she delivers his heir.

Sir William Blackstone – Public Domain – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone#/media/File:Sir_William_Blackstone_from_NPG.jpg

Back in 1765, English jurist, judge, and Tory politician, William Blackstone published the first of four volumes of Commentaries on the Laws of England, considered his magnum opus; the completed work earned Blackstone £14,000 (£1,990,000 in 2022 terms). Blackstone’s four-volume Commentaries were designed to provide a complete overview of English law and to provide it some consistency.

Of women’s legal rights in marriage and without, he explained . . .

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or, at least, is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband… and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture.

… For this reason, a man cannot grant anything to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: … a husband may also bequeath anything to his wife by will; for that cannot take effect till the coverture is determined by his death.

… the chief legal effects of marriage during the coverture; upon which we may observe, that even the disabilities which the wife lies under are for the most part intended for her protection and benefit: so great a favourite is the female sex of the laws of England.

What this meant was a woman could NOT make contracts, purchase property, write a will, perform the duties of a business partner, sign bills of exchange, own the money she made in performance of a job, or even claim custody of her children.

A single woman or a widow possessed more rights than did a married one. In my tale, “His Christmas Violet,” the main character Lady Violet Graham is a widow, and she refuses Sir Frederick Nolan’s offer of marriage, for she does not want again to place her life in the hands of a man.

It was not until the Married Women’s Property Act of 1884 that married women enjoyed the same legal rights as unmarried women.

In my tale, “Lady Joy and the Earl,” Lady Jocelyn “Joy” Lathrop has married a man who takes great “pleasure” in beating her. When he dies, she declares she will never again place her life in the hands of any man, not even the hands of James Highcliffe, 10th Earl Hough, who she has loved since childhood. I received some “criticism” for including this reality in the tale, but I wished to make a point regarding the lack of rights women possessed during the Regency. She was safer as a widow than she would have been in placing her life in the hands of another. In the 1970s, the “rule of thumb,” so to speak, was a man could not beat his wife with a limb that was larger around than his thumb. Whether this was true in the Regency, I cannot say with any certainty, but the thumb has long been used a unit of measurement. The old English “ynche” was defined as the breadth of a man’s thumb at the base of the nail. Yet, I digress.

According to Wikipedia, “A modern folk etymology holds that the phrase is derived from the maximum width of a stick allowed for wife-beating under English common law, but no such law ever existed. This belief may have originated in a rumored statement by 18th-century judge Sir Francis Buller that a man may beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb. The rumor produced numerous jokes and satirical cartoons at Buller’s expense, but there is no record that he made such a statement.

“English jurist Sir William Blackstone (yes, Blackstone again) wrote in his Commentaries on the Laws of England of an “old law” that once allowed “moderate” beatings by husbands, but he did not mention thumbs or any specific implements. Wife-beating has been officially outlawed for centuries in England (and the rest of the United Kingdom) and the United States, but continued in practice; several 19th-century American court rulings referred to an ‘ancient doctrine’ that the judges believed had allowed husbands to physically punish their wives using implements no thicker than their thumbs.”

According to Blackstone (1765)

The husband also, by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children; for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases to answer.

Posted in British history, Church of England, family, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, marriage, real life tales, Regency era | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments