Mercuriosities

We tend to look on trafficking of women as a feature of modern life, yet almost two hundred years ago men were luring English governesses to France on the pretext of good employment.

‘Caution to Governesses.–At the Mansion-house, London, on the 18th, Mr. Beard, solicitor, called attention to certain systematic attempts which were being made to prevail upon young women in this country, chiefly governesses, to go to France, by holding out to them tempting offers of employment and remuneration, but with the real though secret intention, as there was reason to believe, of entrapping them for purposes of prostitution. A few weeks ago many very respectable young women of the class alluded to were induced to reply to an advertisement which appeared in the Times, the result of which was to bring them into communication with a Mr. F. Robertson, who was supposed to be a Frenchman assuming an English surname. He (Mr. Beard) had letters which this Mr. Robertson had addressed to three young women, and all of which were to the same purport. Writing from an address in the Rue du Paradis-Poisonniere, he stated that he could introduce his correspondent as a governess to a highly-respectable French famiy, where it would be her duty to instruct, chiefly in English, two young ladies about 13 and 15 years of age. The writer added that the conditions of “our firm” were–commission 4l. to be paid in four months, at 1l. a month, and she would be expected to send immediately a post-office order for 1l., the first month’s commission, with her references. There was reason to believe that about 20 young women had been induced to embrace the offers held out to them and to go to Paris ; but on arriving there they discovered that they had been allured from their homes for immoral purposes. On the 17th, about as many more young women met Robertson by appointment at an office in Lower Thames-street, to make arrangements for going to Paris for situations which he had undertaken to procure them. The man in charge of the offices, surprised at seeing so many well-dressed lady-like women, and strongly suspecting something amiss, entered the room and mentioned his suspicions to the Frenchman. Robertson then left the place, and had not since been seen there, nor had the man in the occupation of the office in Lower Thames-street.’

Stamford Mercury, 27 March, 1863.

The villagers of Caistor were keen to witness the marriage of an elderly shoemaker to his housekeeper, the difference in their ages being 63 years! The couple, however, conspired to avoid the public and marry in secret.

“The quizzical portion of the inhabitants of Caistor have been during the past month considerably amused with the publication of the ‘bans of marriage‘ between Mr. Thomas Tomlinson, and eccentric ‘English gentleman of the olden times,’ aged 85! (formerly an eminent shoemaker – celebrated in his youthful day for ‘Tally O! the hounds, Sir,’ and throughout his protracted life for possessing ‘a light heart and a thin pair of breeches,’) to Elizabeth Jackson, his buxom housekeeper, a spinster, aged 22! No impediment was declared during three succeeding sabbaths ‘why these two persons should not be joined together his holy matrimony.’ Many great lords of the creation, – matrons, ‘looking unutterable things,’ – simpering misses, – and ready-made ‘fools thick as blackberries,’ for miles around, eager to witness the making of the amorous couple one, became impatient of the happy event’s taking place; and it was slily consummated early last Sunday morning, through the sheer tact of the gay Lothario: the Rev. G. Watson tied the silken bands without clamour, according to request. The candidates for matrimony toddled to and from church in a zig-zag direction, and separately in both cases: they arrived at the temple unobserved, and the veteran then and there, quickly, for the third time, ‘plighted his troth,’ and endowed his lady with all his worldly goods. On their return from church, the bride, accompanied by a ‘brother chip,’ (who had kindly given ‘this woman to be married to this man,’ in the regretted absence of the groom’s godfather!) was assailed with the queerest gibes and jokes ever heard at Caistor, compelled both to take shelter in the house of a relation, and they were ultimately escorted home by the Caistor rural police! By the bye, the son of St. Crispin, unconscious of what had fallen upon his newly-made rib, not like Jacob of old, ‘leaning on his staff,’ but contrariwise wielding it as he waxed warm at his numerous mockers, ever and anon laid about him, but found that in doing so he only increased their mirth: he therefore wisely imitated the stern indifference of a philosopher, and quietly marching away, arrived at his castle to breakfast. – Great anxiety was expressed by many to know how the happy pair were next morning’ and we are happy to state that the answer to the numerous enquiries was that both were as well as could be expected.”

The Stamford Mercury, 1st February, 1839.

Marie Antoinette must have known that things were going to end badly for her following her husband’s execution. Few newspapers exist that covered contemporary events of revolutionary France. This article written a few days after her execution suggests that she was originally acquitted by the Revolutionary Tribunal before being murdered by ‘the sanguinary mob’. History has since been re-written.

'LONDON
Murder of the Queen of France

Tuesday morning an account arrived from Dover, of the melancholy event of the execution of the Queen of France. By subsequent and well-authenticated accounts, this afflicting intelligence is too certainly confirmed. Our advices do not enter into a particular detail ; but they contain enough to freeze every heart with horror, that is not become callous to all emotions of humanity.

On the morning of the 15th, this ill-fated Queen was put upon her trial before the Revolutionary Tribunal. The charges made against her are alike an outrage to decency and common sense ; but notwithstanding the friendless and deserted situation in which she stood, and the acknowledged malice of her judges as well as accusers, our accounts state that SHE WAS ACQUITTED.

Would to Heaven that, in pity to the honest and tender feelings of our countrymen, and from regard to the general character of mankind, we could for ever draw a veil over the dreadful catastrophe !–The just sentence of acquittal was no sooner pronounced, than the sanguinary mob seized on the unhappy Queen, and MURDERED HER without remorse !!!

Another account says, the tribunal pronounced the unfortunate Queen guilty of having been accessary to, and having co-operated in different manoeuvres against the liberty of France ;–of having entertained a correspondence with the enemies of the Republic ; of having participated in a plot tending to kindle civil war in the interior of the Republic by arming citizens against each other.

[The execution of an unjust sentence by regular forms, is as repugnant to humanity as the most savage outrages of a lawless mob.]

When the sentence of the National Convention was read to the widow of Capet, she cast down her eyes, and did not again lift them up. “Have you nothing to reply to the determination of the law?” said the President to her.–“Nothing,” she replied. “And you, officious defenders?” “Our mission is fulfilled with respect to the widow Capet,” said they.

The execution took place at half past eleven o’clock in the forenoon. The whole armed force in Paris was on foot, from the Palace of Justice to the Place de la Revolution. The streets were lined by two very close rows of armed citizens. As soon as the ci-devant Queen left the Conciergerie, to ascend the scaffold, the multitude which was assembled in the courts and the streets, cried out bravo, in the midst of plaudits. Marie Antoinette had on a white loose dress, and her hands were tied behind her back. She looked firmly round her on all sides. She was accompanied by the ci-devant Curate of St. Landry, a constitutional Priest, and on the scaffold preserved her natural dignity of mind.

After the execution, three young persons dipped their handkerchiefs in her blood. They were immediately arrested.’

Stamford Mercury, 25 October 1793.

Bastardy is so out of fashion nowadays. Is the story of the ‘noble’ Duke of Dorset, who is said to have died childless, really so extraordinary ? Perhaps because he was found out ? Could someone alive now resurrect this title ?

‘EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF BASTARDY.–Within the last fortnight an order of affiliation has been obtained, by the parish officers of St. George’s, Hanover-square, against the Duke of Dorset, to compel his Grace to give security to the parish for the maintenance of a child which a female had sworn he was the father of. The facts of the case are these:–The mother of the child, who appeared to have been a good-looking female, but reduced to extreme poverty, was a few years ago residing at the west end of the town, when she accidentally met with a gentleman who called himself ‘Mr. Smith.’ The gentleman expressed much regard for her, and offered to allow her a conditional maintenance, and she accepted his terms.–She became pregnant after their intercourse had been carried on for some time, and she communicated the fact to ‘Mr. Smith,’ who left a sum of money, and without mentioning his intention to discontinue his visits, never afterwards called on her. When she had given birth to the child in question, she was reduced almost to a state of starvation, and with the child in her arms she was compelled to go about the streets to solicit alms as a means of existence. A short time ago she was walking near Portland-place, and caught a view of her quondam friend ‘Mr. Smith.’ She followed him, unobserved, and saw him go into the mansion of his Grace the Duke of Portland. She knocked at the door soon afterwards, and asked what the name of the gentleman who had entered the house was, as she had previously suspected that Mr. Smith was not his real name. The servant replied, ‘that gentleman is the Duke of Dorset.’ On this she informed the parish officers that she had discovered the father of the child, and his Grace was summoned to show cause why he should not maintain it. On the woman’s examination, she mentioned places, and dates, and circumstances, under which ‘Mr. Smith’ (who she swore was the Duke) had met her ; and although an attempt was made to induce her to fix on a date when it might have been proved his Grace was not in London, it did not succeed, and her evidence was not impeached, except by the strong counter-declarations of his Grace. The order, however, having been made on the noble Duke, his Grace paid 120l. to the parish officers as a compromise, and so the affair terminated.’

Stamford Mercury, 11th April, 1828.

Public flogging fell out of favour during the 20th century but 200 years ago it was a highly popular activity … for stealing a bag of nuts? As a form of corporal punishment, public flogging was only one of an abundance of options available to the state to inflict pain on its citizens.

‘An immense concourse (probably more than 5000 persons) assembled last Friday in the sheep-market and its approaches, to witness the whipping of Richard Taylor (or Sampson), a youth of about 18, convicted at our late assizes for stealing a sack of nuts from the shop of Mr. D. Flatters. After being paraded in a waggon round the neighbouring streets, attended by a procession of beadles, constables, and sheriff’s officers, the culprit was fastened to the lamp-post in the centre of the sheep-square and surrounded on all sides by the escort above mentioned. The punishment then commenced, under the inspection of one of the sheriffs and other city authorities, the executioner and culprit being both elevated in the waggon, in view of the immense multitude. The number of lashes ordered was one hundred, but the sheriff in attendance (Mr. Cappe) suggested its discontinuance after about 80 had been inflicted, which was accordingly done. To judge by the culprit’s cries, the punishment was sufficiently severe ; more so, probably, than he had expected, from his previous insolence and bravado : at the conclusion he put on his shirt, and was re-conveyed to prison for a term of 6 months with much seeming indifference, venting a few hearty curses and threats of “sarving out” upon the authors of his suffering. The whip used had nine lengths of whipcord, each having nine knots upon it, and though plentiful discolouration was produced, yet no blood was drawn.’

Stamford Mercury Archive, 28th March, 1828.

Shipwreck survivors were rare in the centuries before the Royal Navy changed its rules to make the ability to swim mandatory. Many thought that sailors refused to learn to swim because, “it was quicker to die from drowning than from hyperthermia”. Luckily, all hands on this ship were saved, despite no-one knowing how to swim.

On Wednesday morning, about 7 o’clock, a vessel appeared on shore at Withernsea, on the Holderness coast, in a most dreadful situation. The sea running high, and the wind blowing strong from the N.E. in about half an hour she fell on her side, and in a short time was entirely a wreck. The crew, eight in number, in the mean time presented a most awful spectacle, holding themselves upon the wreck by ropes ; every minute was expected to be their last, the waves constantly washing over them ; and the people collected on the shore in anxiety and grief, not knowing what to do to save the lives of these their fellow creatures.–At length two men, F. Cookman and B. Wilson, boldly ventured into the sea, with ropes tied around them, and happily succeeded, ultimately, in bringing them all safe to shore, and as well as could be expected. In this humane attempt, Mr. Cookman was twice washed off his feet, and thrown into the sea ; and both of them were several times completely overboard.–Great credit is due to these two men, and their exertions ought not to pass unrewarded. The vessel proves to be the Enterprize, Ingles, of Kirkaldy, coal-laden, for Rotterdam. Most of the stores will be saved.’

Stamford Mercury, 27th January, 1815.

Following a report in a previous issue of the newspaper, the clergyman accused of assaulting a lady in his house seeks to put the record straight.

“To the EDITOR of the Mercury.

Sir, – I have noticed a paragraph in your paper of last week (headed ‘Clerical Faux-pas‘) respecting an unfortunate event between Miss Nevitt and myself, wherein wilful misrepresentation, very prejudicial to my character, are stated, which renders it my duty to request that you will be candid enough to give publicity to the following simple and succinct facts of the case. In making my comments, I shall adhere closely to the misstatements as they have appeared: and in the outset positively assert that Miss Nevitt did not come to my house that evening by any express invitation; nay, indeed, she was not even expected. – The Magistrate, it is intimated, to whom the complaint was first made, refused to take cognizance of it: that is utterly false. After hearing both sides of the matter, he told Miss N. she had better separate, and think no more of it: this good advice would have been acted upon, had it not been for an officious person, ‘of better feeling,’ it is true, than judgement – late a Minister, but now properly deprived of his preferment and cure, and who therefore cannot find other an better employment than to meddle and amuse himself with what does not at all concern him. – It is further stated that Mr. Bourne entered the court with a ‘handful of letters;’ whereas I communicated only once with Miss N., and then by her earnest solicitation. This said solicitor certainly did his part ‘very ably,’ as far as exaggeration went and in deviating strangely from the truth, even magnifying in a manner a look into an assault. – The next point is the unreasonable intrusion, and the disturbance she created during the time my family were assembled for prayers: when mildly asked whether she intended to join in our devotions, her reply was, ‘No : human nature will not permit me, not shall I quite the house till paid what is due to me.’ This led to other subjects; and when accused, not without reasonable cause, of being marked and avoided as a busy-body and mischief-maker, she became very furious and noisy; and not accustomed to such contentions and strife, I begged of her repeatedly to desist, – if not, I should be under the necessity of putting her out of the house. This threat made her more violent still, and in the course of which, her provocations being very great, I gave her, in an unguarded moment, a slight tap on the mouth, which was then covered with eruptions, and turned her out. At the same moment, and before the door was closed, I placed the clothes she required into her hands. However, it is alleged that she returned again and was abused, which is an abominable falsehood – she let the premises immediately, nor was a single stitch in her old tattered garment disarranged. – I have every reason to believe, and undoubtedly it will be evident to unbiased minds, that she came to my house on the said evening with a premeditated determination to disturb the peace and quietness of my family: at all event, her unbecoming behaviour will hear me out in this impression; and the only lame pretext assigned for her unseemly conduct is, her ‘being unfortunately dull of hearing’ – she never showed any objection to such a privilege when an inmate of the house, and had her heart been in the cause then, no interruption of unpleasantness would have occurred. – Again, it is insinuated that I invited her to my house out of charity, and afterwards charged nearly 4l. for her board: no agreement was alluded to in my letter, because Miss N. knew very well, and she cannot deny it, that an engagement was made with Mrs. H. some months previously to her being admitted into my house, that she should pay the very inadequate sum of 20l. a year; and under that express understanding, I of course took payment for the few weeks she had been under my roof, but out of compassion gave her six months’ board prior to this arrangement : and now the public may form an opinion of the suitable return for this kindness. – I would only further observe, that Miss N. left my house to reside with the Rev. Mr. Fisher some six weeks to this frivolous affair having taken place, and had only arrived at the most a quarter of an hour before she was sent back again.

I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, J. HOYLE.”

The Stamford Mercury, 11th May, 1838.

An outrageous assault by a man of the cloth was the result of a lady’s failure to kneel for family prayers. But there is more . . .

“CLERICAL FAUX-PAS, or a Congregation in Danger. – On Tuesday last a rather curious case of assault was brought before the magistrates sitting at Alford. The complainant was Miss Knevet, from the neighbourhood of Grantham, a very respectable lady of good family, who had for a number of years visited in the neighbourhood – amongst others, in the family of the Rev. Jas. Hoyle, and she was there on good Friday last, on a most pressing invitation, as appeared by a letter from both Mr. and Mrs. Hoyle which was read in court. The outrageous assault had been previously complained of before a clerical magistrate, who, it was understood had refused to take cognizance of it: this created intense anxiety, and a clergyman of better feeling took up the matter in Miss Knevet’s behalf. On Mr. Bourne, the solicitor, entering the court (with a handful of letters and papers), it became crowded to excess, and that gentleman in a very able and feeling manner opened the case buy reading Mr. and Mrs. Hoyle’s letter of invitation, couched in language of the finest case, which amused the audience exceedingly. the magistrates, our of good feeling for the cloth, wished to dispense with any more of the letters, to the no small disappointment of most persons present. It appeared that the Rev. Gentleman’s piety outran his meekness! and that on Friday evening, when at family prayer, Miss Knevet did not kneel on the hard floor, but rested her head upon her hand on the table, which his Reverence did not consider due respect to him, and some sharp remonstrance being given, but not distinctly heard by Miss K. (who is unfortunately dull of hearing), his Reverence gave her a violent blow on the head, which broke off her ear-ring and caused her mouth to bleed. Not satisfied with this, he insisted on turning her out of doors; which brought out an expressing that accounts for many a bad feeling, – ‘Not till you pay me what you own me!’ However, he forced her out of doors about 9 o’clock at night, without bonnet, cape, or the like. After having been away for some time, she returned to ask again for them. The ruffian again abused her, and tore her dress in ejecting her from the premises. So ungovernable, indeed, appears to be the temper of this spiritual teacher, that it was with some difficulty the Magistrates could restrain him from the most indecent language in court, though they repeatedly insisted on his silence, and they as repeatedly expressed their thorough conviction that not the slightest imputation could possible be attached to Miss Knevet. The Rec. Gentleman rested his defence entirely on his right to command reverence and respect from his congregation, for such he considered it, there being three or more persons present at prayer. He contended that he had invited the complainant to his house out of charity, and that her want of respect was the height of ingratitude: but Mr. Bourne made it appear that in settling the ‘what you owe me’ question, his reverence had made a stoppage of nearly 4l. for board, as confirmation of the charitable intention of the invitation! The Magistrates (T. W. Yorke and Jos. Hunt, Esqs), after the most patient hearing of the defence and the utmost forbearance (against the insolence shown to them), with great pains prevailed on the parties to retire and arrange the matter.”

The Stamford Mercury, 4th May, 1838.

Many important clergy were present as the Bishop of Lincoln consecrated the reconstructed St. Michael’s church. Unfortunately, the local gentry had another engagement – the Newmarket races!

“The Bishop of Lincoln slept on Tuesday night at the house of the Rev. Dr. Bonney, at King’s Cliffe, and on Wednesday morning came to Stamford to perform the interesting ceremony of consecrating and opening the new church of St. Michael. This event passed off in the most effective and happy way. The weather was fine, and the town was filled with company, including about 70 of the clergy of the neighbourhood, accompanied in many instances by their families. The peculiar service of the occasion was performed at the altar by the Bishop, supported by the Rev. T. K. Bonney, Archdeacon of Leicester; and the Rev. Dr. Bonney, Archdeacon of Bedford and Rural Dean of Stamford, finely read the usual morning service of the church. The choir was found to have been most effectively trained by Mr. Woolman; the performances in this department afforded the highest gratification: indeed nothing could exceed the fine effect of the choruses, and of the musical execution generally; the whole was the result of native talent only. The organ (the old one restored), though of small power, was admirably played by Mr. Woolman.

The Bishop preached the sermon, taking his text from Haggal, ‘The glory of this house shall exceed the glory of the former.’ His lordship adverted to the antiquity and acknowledged acceptableness of such temples for the worship of Almighty God, and attributed to the want of them in sufficient number, or to the want of buildings of sufficient capacity for the population, the secession from the Established Church which had so extensively prevailed. He eulogised the distinguished Prelate by whom the attention of the Legislature had been first called to this evil, and by whom that ‘Incorporated Society’ had been suggested, from which on the present occasion had flowed so liberal a contribution towards rebuilding this church in Stamford. The Bishop urged his hearers to aid the committee by whom the beautiful edifice had been completed for public worship, in liquidating the debt incurred in the good work; – and so effective was the appeal, and so powerful the effect produced by this first opening of the church, that the sum of 171l. 4s. 1d. was collected during the performance of the Hallelujah chorus at the close of the service. The Bishop himself gave 10l., and expressed to the Churchwardens his entire approbation of the way in which every thing had been done.

A party of 120 ladies and gentlemen afterwards partook of a splendid déjeûné provided by Mr. Sandwell at the Hotel. Three tables were set out in the large room: at the principal one, the Bishop of Lincoln presided; and at the others, the Archdeacons of Bedford and Leicester. The health of Mr. Brown, of Norwich, the architect of the church, was proposed and drank with every demonstration of respect. Mr. Brown, in acknowledging the compliment, stated that he was more in his element in building a church than in making a speech; to which it was replied that he had constructed a church which would speak for itself. Every person acknowledged that the edifice was one in which the architect and builders might feel a just pride, with reference as well to its beauty and convenience, as to the singular cheapness with which so admirable a structure had been raised. The cost has been about 4000l.: we have before had occasion to remark, that persons who have a right to be considered judges in such matters, have supposed, on looking at the building, that it must have cost half as much more. – The amount of subscriptions is yet deficient about 200l. to cover the total expenses – a sum which we have no doubt will speedily be contributed. Services will take place on Sunday next in the morning an evening, when sermons will be preached by the Rev. Joseph Pratt, of Paston, and the Rev. Ed. Kelly, of Melton Mowbray.

This being a race-week at Newmarket, the Marquis of Exeter and his family were not able to attend the consecration of the new church in Stamford.”

The Stamford Mercury, 21st October, 1836.