Mercuriosities

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.

Nelson’s Column was constructed over a number of years from 1840 onwards, in the wake of many criticisms and controversies. The four bronze lions at its base, by Landseer, were finally added in 1867. Here’s an early article on one of the first meetings of the Committee established to facilitate the construction of Nelson’s Column. The article also has to tell readers the location of Trafalgar Square, near Charing Cross, of course.

“The Committee appointed to take measures for erecting a monument to Nelson, assembled at the Thatched-house Tavern on the 11th inst., Sir George Cockburn in the chair. There were also present the Duke of Wellington, the Marquis of Anglesey, Lord Byron, Mr. Croker, Mr. Spring Rice, Lord Minto, Sir Thomas Hardy, and Sir John Barrow. The chairman announced that the Duke of Buccleugh had consented to act as chairman of the Committee. A letter from Mr. Spring Rice was read, approving of Trafalgar-square, near Charing-cross, as the site of the monument, provided the plans and designs are submitted to Government. The Duke of Wellington suggested that an advertisement for plans should be issued immediately, with an intimation to artists that the sum to be expended would be about 25,000l.: the Duke of York’s column cost 23,000l. After some discussion, a resolution in accordance with these suggestions passed.”

The Stamford Mercury, 20th April, 1838.

St. Lucia, as part of the British Empire, was subject to British justice. An early article on the treatment of the population of the Caribbean island of St. Lucia by their English governor shows how this power was dispensed. The one consolation for the St. Lucians was that it didn’t last long; Bunbury was recalled and by 1839 he was causing havoc in New South Wales.

‘But the most extraordinary proceedings are those at St. Lucia. The inhabitants of this small island are French, in habits, feeling, and language. Col. Thomas Bunbury has for some time been their provisional Governor ; his fitness for the post may be estimated by one of his recent acts. The St. Lucia Gazette of Feb. 23d contains a proclamation, ordering the language used in the courts of justice in the island to be changed from French to English. This monstrous enactment, under which justice is to be administered to a people in an unknown tongue, is couched in the most insulting and contemptuous terms. Colonel Bunbury says, the British Government, in the hope that the advocates would conform themselves to the wishes of the Government, and learn the language of the mother country, had “conceded the use of the French language in their written and verbal pleadings;” but now, having ascertained that those advocates refuse to appear in court, with a view to dictate to the Government the appointment of a Judge of their own choice, he has resolved, in order to “reduce a spirit in these said advocates, so utterly repugnant to that exercised by him,” to order and appoint that, from the 1st of March, “the English language shall be the sole language to be used in the future written pleadings of the said court, and by the advocates of the said court ; and that the French language is alone to be used by the Chief Justice in his addresses and charges to French assessors, empannelled in said court, and by the sworn interpreter of said court : and as a fit and just punishment for the offences so set forth, and by the said advocates so committed,” he prohibits them from practising “in said court as aforesaid.” It is difficult to imagine anything more arbitrary than this. According to Governor Bunbury’s own showing, the only sin of the advocates was refusal to enter the Governor’s Court, which certainly they might do or not as they pleased ; and for this offence, the entire people are punished by a decree amounting substantially to a denial of justice.

This is not all : it appears that Governor Bunbury, towards the end of last year, thought fit to suspend Chief Justice Reddie, and one of the Puisne Judges, Lafitte, for declining to act with another Puisne Judge provisionally appointed by the Governor to try only certain causes ; which arrangement, the old Judges maintained, amounted to a denial of justice to the parties whose causes were put out of court. The result was, the appointment of three new Judges, Englishmen ; and we conjecture that it is before this court that the advocates refuse to plead. Be that as it may, it is certain that among suitors as well as advocates, great anger and excitement prevails ; and there is, at any rate, prima facie evidence of gross misconduct on the part of the Governor.’

Stamford Mercury, 20th April, 1838.

Subterranean forests have been found throughout the country and around the world but when this subterranean forest in the Fens was first written about only the local inhabitants were aware of the wealth of raw material just below the surface of the land they ploughed.

“SUBTERRANEAN FOREST.–An immense subterranean forest, of which even tradition preserves no account, lies buried under a part of the fens between Lincoln and Boston ; although its existence is almost unknown, except to the thinly scattered population of the district. The soil consists mainly of rotted wood, mixed with a sort of earthy deposit, evidently left by the subsidence of a large body of water. On passing a lately ploughed piece, a stranger is surprised by observing heaps of wood, many loads to the acre, piled up over its surface, as if a crop of huge black logs had succeeded to the previous one of corn. These have been torn up by the plough ; and it is singular that after forty years of tillage, the yield of these logs in many places continues as great as ever. The occupiers ascribe the phenomenon to the gradual rising of the forest, which lies prostrated a foot or two under ground, though it is probably caused by the sinking of the top soil into a boggy substratum, which is called the sock. The trees force themselves up entire, announcing their approach to the surface by the decay of all verdure above them. When a farmer observes this indication, he digs down and removes the tree from its bed of centuries, and is frequently well rewarded for his trouble. The trees are all oak, and frequently of dimensions which would almost stagger belief. Some years ago the writer of this article saw one taken up which contained no less that 1440 cubic feet of timber ; and, so recently as the winter of 1836, he removed another, the bole alone of which contained nearly 1000 feet. The wood of these gigantic monarchs of the forest, when first bared, is sodden with moisture and apparently rotten ; but, after a short exposure to the air, becomes so hard that none but the best-tempered tools will touch it. It is nevertheless worked into rails and fencing, because the grain is so straight that it rends like a reed. Many gentlemen in the neighbourhood, have a few plain articles of furniture manufactured out of it, as matters of curiosity, as in time it becomes not only as hard, but as black as ebony, and is capable of the highest polish. Every tree is either plucked up from its roots, or snapped short about three feet from them ; and all appear to have fallen pretty much in the same way. It is probable that at some distant date an irruption of the sea may have done the havoc, aided, perhaps, by one of those tornadoes which even now, in a milder degree, are occasionally experienced thereabouts.”

Stamford Mercury, 20th April, 1838.

Two hundred years ago tea companies, the importers, the government and the retailers were all making excess profits, prompting the writer of this article, no doubt a tea drinker, to expose their malpractice.

“CONSUMPTION OF TEA.–The principal article of our commerce with China, tea, is perhaps more singular in its history than any other article of commerce in the known world. A simple and unsophisticated shrub, in little more than half a century, has become an article of such general consumption, that it seems to form one of the prime of articles of existence among the great bulk of mankind. It is the peculiar growth of a country, of which it forms almost the only link of connexion with the rest of the world. It forms the source of the largest commercial revenue to the British Government of any other commodity whatever, and of the largest commercial profits to the individuals concerned in its importation. Withal, it is the simplest, the most harmless thing that ever was offered for the gratification man,– having, it is agreed and argued by many, a moral influence wherever it is diffused. It is the rallying point of our earliest associations ; it has given an additional charm to our fire-sides ; and tends, perhaps, more than any one thing, to confirm the pre-existing domestic habits of the British public. Its exhilirating qualities are eagerly sought after as a restorative and a solace from the effects of fatigue or dissipation ; the healthy and the sick, the young and the old, all equally resort to the use of it, as yielding all the salutary influence of strong liquors, without their baneful and pernicious effects. Yet this shrub, so simple and so useful, is delivered to the community of this country so surcharged with duties and profits beyond its original cost, that, did it contain all the mischievous qualities that are opposed to its real virtues, it could not be more strictly guarded from general use. For the whole of our imports, including factory expenses and commission, the original cost in China amounts to the sum of 2 millions sterling. This is wonderfully increased before the British public can have any access to the article of consumption, thus:–

This gives a total of eight millions, which is nearly doubled by the profits of retailers.”

The Stamford Mercury, 10th October 1828.

The Asiatic Cholera epidemic of 1831 – 32 began in north east England and spread widely throughout Britain. As today, there was much misinformation and scaremongering in the newspapers. It was not until the outbreak of Cholera in Soho in 1854 that John Snow discovered that the disease was water-borne. But why did all the sockists of Beaufoy’s have so many names?!

“BEAUFOY’s CONCENTRATED DISINFECTING SOLUTIONS of the CHLORIDE of SODA and of LIME. Prepared of uniform strength, according to the formula of M. Labarraque of Paris.

BEAUFOY and Co. of South Lambeth, London, feel it their duty to caution the public against the danger of using Chlorides of uncertain and variable strengths and qualities. – The safe and ample directions for using Beaufoy’s Chlorides are not applicable to any other preparation, unless precisely similar to those made in their Laboratory. – The public safety demands a public declaration that these Directions have been copied, and are affixed by the Venders to Chlorides quite different in every essential particular from Beaufoy’s preparations. Beaufoy’s genuine preparations according to Labarraque’s formula, are easily distinguished by their peculiar label upon the wrapper, which should be examined to see that it has not been opeded.

Sold by Mills and Newzam, Handson, Mortlock, and White, Stamford; Nettleship, Keyworth, and Smith, Lincoln; Smith, Harwood, Caparn, Bean, Dawson, Briggs, Noble, Thomas and Clarke, Boston; Caparn, Morley, Holdsworwth, an Harrison, Horncastle; Creasey, Heckington; Groves, and Simpson, Sleaford; Casswell, Falkingham; Westmorland, Billingborough; Stableforth, Pinchbeck; Digby, Watson, Boor, Pigott, and Gilbert, Spalding; Artindate, Coningsby; Tupholme, and Rainey, Spilsby; Robinson, Alford; Abraham, Wainfleet; Cowham, and Peach, Grantham; Strawson, Hurst, Sutton, and Johnson, Louth; Burnham, and Skelton, Grimsby; Gamble, and Lester and Borkett, Gainsborough; Hope, Uppingham; Silver, Oakham; Tuxford, Melton; Marfleet, Crowland; H. Wright, Whitwell; W. Wright, J. Parnell, and Sturton, Peterborough; Casterton, Market Rasen; Snell, Caistor; Hettersley, Barton; Brown, Ball, and Nicholson, Brigg; Goddard, Holbeach; Wright, Gedney; Fields, Long Sutton; and by all respectable chemists and druggists; of whom may be had, gratis, an account of some of the properties and used to which these Chlorides have been successfully applied.

Price of the Chloride of Soda, 3s. 6d.; of Lime, 2s. 6d., quart bottles included, with directions for dilution and use enclosed with the sealed wrapper.”

The Stamford Mercury, 25th November, 1831.

“Such is the mania for ‘anti-choleras,’ that we have not only anti-cholera scent bottles, and anti-cholera lozenges, anti-cholera girdles to be worn next the skin, but (best of all) there is now found out an anti-cholera gin!

The bodies of persons apparently dead of cholera have been in some instances observed to more. M. Londe, President of the later Warsaw commission, has expressed his belief that many have been buried alive in the complaint.”

The Stamford Mercury, 9th December, 1831.

A captive bear ran amok in London – poor Bruin! His owner was a hairdresser and it seems the bear was kept to provide fur for balding customers. Or perhaps he sold bear grease as a hair preparation?

Bear Hunt in the City – On Friday afternoon the inhabitants of Hen & Chicken-court and the adjacent parts of Fleet-street, near St. Dunstan’s church and Fetter-lane, were thrown into a state of consternation by the escape of a huge Russian bear from premises at the back of the house of Mr. Bailey, hair-dresser, where he had been for some time fattening in order to supply his Majesty’s subjects with crops of hair. Bruin, after slipping his collar and demolishing the den, made his first entrée through the window of a house in the court, where and old woman was busily engaged in ironing, and who saluting him with an emphatic “Who are you?” made a rapid exit, leaving him in quiet possession of the apartment, and , hastily shutting the door, cut off his further advance in this direction. An alarm was instantly raised, and the shop-doors closed so as to prevent his egress to the street, and a gallant sally was made from the windows of a publish house in the rear, buy several persons who happened to be in the parlour at the time, headed by Mr. Bailey, the proprietor, armed with whatever missiles the place afforded. From this position the bear was driven into the vaults below, one of the assailants receiving, however, a grip in the arm, which rendered surgical aid immediately necessary. In the cellar the chance of mischief was more appalling, several workmen being engaged in repairs; and Mrs. Haydon, the wife of the proprietor of the shades below, narrowly escaped encountering him in his path by shutting herself in a pantry. He here seized a youth by the leg, which he severely lacerated, but being hotly pursued soon surrendered at discretion; and by the agility of the proprietor, who in the attempt received a bite in the arm, a rope was thrown round his neck and Bruin was conducted back to his former quarters.

The Stamford Mercury, 25th November, 1836.