Social Economy
Under this head are placed many matters which could scarcely be classified.
Take, for instance, the series of groups copied from a long picture of the “Installation Supper, as given at the Pantheon, by the Knights of the Bath, on the 26th of May 1788.”
In looking at this series, we must never lose sight of the fact, that, here, we are getting a peep at haut ton—none of your common folk—and, if the picture be a true one, they must have been contented with the roughest accommodation. Hard seats, plain tables, with no Plate, nor floral decorations, no napkins; Knives and forks brandished in a most reckless, and uncouth manner; an utter disregard for the proprieties of the table, even to drinking the gravy out of a plate; and intoxication, in its various phases, passing, seemingly, unchallenged. A tankard of beer admitted to such a banquet, and two people sharing the same “dish of tea,” are all, to us, astounding revelations of the social manners of our grandfathers.
From the following we get a curious glimpse of the Social economy, of the times—a phase of thinking which would scarcely do nowadays:—
“In a complicated machine, any of the inferior parts getting out of order, will soon obstruct the whole: and, conceiving such may be the case with public society, we are led to make a few observations on some improprieties which occur in the present day.
“The wages given to servants have increased during the last 10 years, more than for 30, or perhaps 40, years before: and the misfortune is, that dissipation, and want of morals, have also much increased, particularly among manufacturing labourers, who now have got, in many places, only to work three, or four, days in the week, and to be drunk the remaining time, leaving their wives, and children, neglected, and in rags.
“As to household servants, the accommodation offices for hiring of them, have had the worst effect. They make them indifferent about keeping their places; lure them on with false hopes, and often before a servant gets fixed, they, and the pawnbroker, put them under difficulties.
“Travelling expences, by the profusion in the perquisites given to waiters, post boys, &c., have become enormous, and their attention is less; but, if those who give in that way, were to consider the injury they do the public, and of how little use it is to those who receive it, they would certainly think such money so squandered away, would have been better bestowed, if applied to some public charity, or left for the poor of the parish.
“Increase of trade, and wealth, having produced an increase of luxury, and made the necessaries of life more expensive, it is proper that wages should be increased: but yet not beyond the bounds of proportion; for it will be found in those manufacturing occupations, in which labourers get the most money, they are the most disorderly, continually combining together to leave their work, unless their masters consent to increase their wages, and which only proves a temporary compromise, till they have an opportunity of making a further demand. On the contrary, where less wages are given, we shall find the people more happy, and contented, their wives more attended to, and their children brought up with more religion, and better morals.”—(Times, Sept. 5, 1794.)
“To the CONDUCTOR of the TIMES.
“Sir,—Various are the receipts for cheap puddings, and many long, and useful, letters have appeared in your very excellent paper, towards alleviating (as much as is in the power of every Housekeeper) the scarcity, and dearness, of bread: by substituting rice, and potatoes, in the room of pies, or flour puddings: but there still exists an evil which I have not seen spoken against, and which certainly occasions a very great consumption of starch: I mean the general fashion which has prevailed for some years, and does still, from the highest, to the lowest, of wearing white dresses, which, upon a moderate computation, for every individual, must consume at least double the soap, and starch, than when coloured callicoes, silks, and stuffs, were in fashion: Added to this, that every maid servant (who, though she is perhaps not worth a second pair of shoes) will wear her muslin handkerchiefs. I think it is the duty of every good master, and mistress, to stop, as much as possible, the present ridiculous, and extravagant, mode of dress in their domestics. View, on a Sunday, a tradesman’s family coming from church, and you would be puzzled to distinguish the porter from his master, or the maid from her mistress. Formerly a plaited cap, and a white handkerchief, served a young woman three, or four, Sundays. Now a mistress is required to give up, by agreement, the latter end of the week for her maids to prepare their caps, tuckers, gowns, &c., for Sunday, and, I am told, there are houses open on purpose, where those servants who do not choose their mistresses shall see them, carry their dresses in a bundle, and put them on, meet again in the evening, for the purpose of disrobing: and where, I doubt, many a poor, deluded, creature, has been disrobed of her virtue. They certainly call aloud for some restraint, both as to their dress, as well as insolent manner. Tell a servant, now, in the mildest manner, they have not done their work to please you, you are told to provide for yourself, and, should you offer to speak again, they are gone. Surely no set of people are more capable of rendering our families comfortable, or the reverse, than domestic servants, nor any set of people who feel the present dearness of provisions so little. I look upon their exorbitant increase of wages, as chiefly conducive to their impertinence: for, when they had five, or six, pounds a year, a month being out of place, was severely felt; but now their wages are doubled, they have, in a great measure, lost their dependence: And what is this increase of wages for? not in order to lay by a little, in case of sickness, but to squander in dress. No young woman, now, can bear a strong pair of leather shoes, but they must wear Spanish leather, and so on in every article of dress. No wonder, then, that there should be so many prostitutes, and so few good wives.
“By inserting these hints, as soon as you conveniently can, you will much oblige,
A Constant Reader.”
—(Times, Dec. 25, 1795.)
“We trust that the measure, which was, last year, so laudably attempted by the Brewers, Bakers, and Publicans, for the abolishing Christmas-Boxes, will not only be continued by them, but will also be followed up by the other trades, who have hitherto been compelled, by custom, to continue a practice so destructive to the lower orders of people.”—(Times, Dec. 17, 1794.)
Advt.—“CHRISTMAS BOXES.—The BUTCHERS, resident within the Parish of HACKNEY, beg leave respectfully to inform their Customers, and the Public, that, on account of the excessive high price of Provisions, they find it impossible to continue the practice of giving CHRISTMAS BOXES to the servants of their customers, without sustaining, on the one hand, a deduction from their profits, which the trade will not allow, or, on the other hand, increasing their charges: they have, therefore, unanimously resolved to discontinue the practice, in time to come, and hope that their conduct, on this occasion, will not be deemed improper, or disrespectful.”—(Times, Dec. 9, 1795.)
The following Advertisements, which are only a few out of many, shew how common was the sale of Government appointments:—
“Place under Government. £2000 or £3000 or more will be presented to any Gentleman, who has interest to procure for the Advertiser, a Place in any of the Public Offices, of respectability, and an adequate income. No Agent, or Broker, will be attended to. Letters to be addressed &c., &c.”—(Times, March 13, 1793.)
“Place under Government. To be DISPOSED of, a Genteel Place under Government: present Salary £100 a year, with the chance of rising, and other advantages: the next rise will be a considerable one.—Any Young Gentleman, who can command from 500£ to 1000£ will be treated with: and by addressing a line to A. Batson’s Coffee-house, with real name and place of abode, will be informed of further particulars. N.B. No Brokers will be attended to.”—(Times, April 15, 1793.)
“A PLACE under GOVERNMENT.
“To be sold, a permanent Place, which can always be disposed of at pleasure, the salary £76 per annum, net, payable quarterly, the attendance not more than 20 times in the year, and about 2 or 3 hours each time: the duty is agreeable, and in the line of a Gentleman, and can at all times at a small expence be executed by a Deputy. Address &c., &c.”—(Times, Feb. 3, 1798.)
Advt.—“Three hundred Pounds. An adequate Premium of £300 or upwards, will be given to any Lady, or Gentleman, who has interest to procure the Advertiser a Place in one of the Government Offices. As the parties are of the utmost respectability, the greatest honour and secrecy may be depended on. Address to &c., &c.”
Advt.—“Fifty Guineas will be given to any Gentleman, or Lady, who has interest to procure the Advertiser, a young Man, 25 years of age, a Situation in any of the Public Offices under Government. Address &c., &c.”
Advt.—“A Douceur. Wanted, Information as to Situations in Public Offices, or other Appointments under Government, at home, or abroad, which are at present vacant, or like soon to be, or where those who hold such may be willing to resign, on account of their advanced time of life, or other circumstances, on a Douceur being made them. Any person who can give information of this kind will be waited on at any time, or place, he may appoint. At meeting, all particular terms, and circumstances, can be explained. The Advertiser is a person who can give the most satisfactory testimonials of connections, and abilities, and he wishes to be understood that the object of this Advertisement respects Appointments where the emoluments derived from the Situations may be from £500, down to £200 per ann. The most perfect secrecy may be relied on—”
Advt.—“Five Hundred Pounds will be given to any Lady or Gentleman, who can procure the Advertiser a Place under Government, where the emoluments will be a liberal compensation for the sum proposed, and but little attendance required: or, if constant attendance is necessary, it will be expected that the emoluments should be in proportion. The person who wishes such a situation, is respectable in his connections, and the most inviolable secrecy will be observed. No broker will be attended to. Either in a Civil department, or otherwise. For reference &c. &c. &c.”—(Times, Jany. 4, 1799.)
The Penny Post was an institution of those days, although its action was limited as to distance. The following excerpts will enable us to notice its different phases, during the years treated of:—
“The Postmaster General has lately established a Penny Post at Manchester, which promises great convenience to the inhabitants of that place, and its vicinity.”—(Times, April 17, 1793.)
“The new Penny Post Office is likely to prove such a very great accommodation to the public, that the only wonder is—it has been so long neglected. Instead of the number of deliveries, and the hours of despatch, varying in different parts of the town, as at present, there will be six deliveries, each day, in all parts of the town: by which means, a person living at Mary-le-bonne, may send letters to, or receive letters from, Limehouse, a distance of seven miles, five times a day. Persons putting in letters by nine in the morning at the distance of ten miles from the chief Penny Post Office, and later, at less distant parts, may receive answers from London the same afternoon. There will be three deliveries of letters, in most parts of the country, within the limits of the Penny Post; and there will be two posts, daily, from all parts within the distance of ten miles from Lombard St.”—(Times, Feb. 28, 1794.)
“The proposed plan of a new Penny Post is no longer talked of:—It is every day more, and more, wanted, as the present mode is extremely irregular, and insufficient. According to the new plan, the Penny Post was to have gone out seven times a day.”—(Times, May 4, 1794.)
“The PENNY POST.
“The late regulations in the Penny Post Office are certainly of the most essential service to the public: but the conduct of the Letter Carriers requires the most minute attention. They wall defraud where they think they can do it with impunity; and as an instance of this, we give the following fact. From any part of the Metropolis, to the Borough of Southwark, and its adjacent parts, is stated to be but One penny per Letter. The Carriers, however, uniformly charged 2d. per Letter. A Complaint of this imposition was made to the Comptroller, by a Gentleman, whose house is in the Blackfriars Road, and an immediate answer was given ‘that the Carrier had been severely reprimanded,’ and the surcharge had been returned. His removal from that walk, gave his successor, who, perhaps, did not hear of this reprimand, an opportunity to continue the same imposition, and the letters to Blackfriars Road, and in other parts of St. George’s Fields, were again charged 2d. The Comptroller was again applied to, and on the next evening, he wrote a letter to the person who sends this for publication, ‘that the Carrier was ordered to return the surcharge.’ The publication of this circumstance is requisite, as no doubt, similar extortions are practised in other parts of the suburbs. This is a matter that ought to be universally made known, as cent. per cent., even on a penny, is rather too much for a man, illegally, to pay.”—(Times, Oct. 27, 1794.)
“Franking,” as the privilege of free postage was called, had already assumed dimensions, so as to have become a scandal, which is well exposed in the following notices:—
“Motion respecting Clerks in Office.
“Mr. Dent said... Public notoriety went to accuse the offices of great abuse of the privilege of franking... that such abuses did exist, and to give the proofs of them was the object which he proposed to gain by his present motion. He would state to the House some of the abuses. Certain bags came to the Post Office, marked Ordnance, Navy, Treasury Bags, &c., and the letters contained in these bags were furthered without more enquiry. These bags, perhaps, contained a great quantity of letters from the various Clerks: he could produce an instance of a very inferior Clerk, who had franked to a great amount, by placing his initials on the superscription. He had looked attentively over the list of those who had the privilege, and he did not find his name among them.... Among other instances, he would mention a Mr. Lackington, a celebrated bookseller; he had friends in some one of the Offices, and the whole of his Catalogues were franked to different parts of the country. It was also notorious, that some persons had written to their country correspondents, that if they would deal with them, the whole mass of pamphlets published in London should be sent them free of postage: this was done by means of the Clerks in office. In short, there were persons whose salaries amounted to only £300, or £400 per annum, who from their situation, made £1000 or £1200. It surely could not be the intention of the House to permit such malversation, and, therefore, he should move for a Committee to enquire into these facts. Before the late regulation, venison has passed as nimbly, by the post, as it run when alive in its native park. After further conversation, the House divided.—For the Question, 53; Against it, 41.—Majority, 12.”
“It would have been extraordinary indeed, if Sir Benjamin Hammett had not opposed the Franking Bill: for we are informed from very good authority, that Letters franked by, and addressed to, him only, are to the amount of £2400 sterling per annum.”—(Times, March 11, 1795.)
“Debate on Franking.
“Mr. Hobart brought up the Report of the Committee upon the Bill to restrain the abuse of Franking.
“Mr. Dent said, he was sorry to add, that this privilege had been notoriously abused, and was so publicly known, that paragraphs had appeared in a newspaper, of a Member having received £300 annually, from a mercantile house, to give them the advantage of this privilege. He hoped this fact was false, but he feared, however, it would be found too well warranted. By this Bill, Members were to receive only fifteen letters, and send ten, therefore the abuse, to this extent, could not be continued. At the same time, he thought, and should, bye-and-bye, more particularly state, in the motion he should submit to the House, that, when they were curtailing their own privileges, the Clerks in office should not be permitted to continue their abuses.
“Mr. Courtenay said, by the official returns it appeared that £30,000 was franked by the various offices, which amounted to one third of the whole of what was franked by Members of Parliament. Now the privilege was restrained in Members of Parliament, it would become more valuable to the Clerks in Office, and he should not wonder, if some of them should become not sleeping, but writing, partners in mercantile houses....
“Mr. Dent observed, abuses in the offices did exist to a very great degree. The Commissioners of the Customs received large Packets which contained letters to all their acquaintances in Town: the abuse did not end here: 20 Custom-House Porters were immediately dispatched to 20 different parts of the town.
“Mr. W. Smith said,... Public notoriety was sufficient grounds to proceed against the Offices. Though all those letters were superscribed for His Majesty’s service, yet they went upon many other purposes. A friend of his had informed him of some Vine cuttings, which had been sent to Ireland, franked: he also knew of a silk gown franked into the country: this was hardly for His Majesty’s service.
“Mr. Rose said, if those abuses, mentioned by the Hon. Gentleman, had been privately intimated, they would have had immediate attention and some remedy applied. The laws to prevent the abuse of franking had been transmitted to the several Offices, and by them the first offence was a penalty, and the second, a dismissal from Office.
“The Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Friday.”—(Times, April 14, 1795.)
The following are to be the new rates of Postage in this country:—
“For every single Letter by post, for any distance not exceeding 15 miles, be charged 3d. Double letters 6d. Triple 9d. Those of 1 ounce weight, 1s., and so, in proportion.
“Above 15 miles, and not exceeding 30, for single Letters 4d., and so, in the same proportion.
“Above 30 miles, and not exceeding 60, 5d., and so, in proportion.
“Above 60 miles and not exceeding 100, 6d., and so, in proportion.
“Above 100 miles, and not exceeding 150, 7d., and so, in proportion.
“All above 150 miles, 8d., &c.
“Upon every single Letter to Scotland, 1d., the rates of Postage remaining the same, on double letters, 2d., &c.
“That the present rates of Postage between London, and Portugal, and between London, and British America, do cease.
“From any part of Great Britain, to Portugal, exclusive of Inland Postage, every single letter, 1s., &c.
“The same from any part of Great Britain, to British America.
“The Inland Postage upon said Letters according to distance.”—(Times, Dec. 12, 1796.)
The following paragraph is interesting, as it fixes the date of the Postal Uniforms—the colours of which are still adhered to by the Postal authorities, in clothing the Mail drivers:—
“The Post Office Letter Carriers in London are to be provided with an uniform of red coats, faced with blue, and to wear numbers.”—(Times, Feb. 10, 1793.)
“There is at this time a third of the Mail Guards ill, either from the intenseness of the severe weather or from colds they have caught in the floods: their exertions were in general very great, and meritorious, in saving the Mails.”—(Times, Feb. 19, 1795.)
We are here presented with the infancy of Telegraphing—which was then a marvel of the age—but which we, from our standpoint of Electricity, must fain smile at. They were mechanical contrivances placed on hills, or other eminences.
“The Telegraph.—This mode of communication is little understood here, although the invention be not a new one. The process is getting possession of heights at convenient distances, and by fire-works, in different forms, for different letters, spelling the order, or intelligence, from station, to station!”—(Times, Sept. 11, 1794.)
“The new mode of correspondence, by the help of which, the surrender of Quesnoy was known at Paris an hour after the entry of the French troops into that place, is a communication by signals, which are repeated from distance, to distance, by machines, stationed four, or five, leagues asunder. This may explain the celerity with which communications are made.
“The telegraph, now brought into use by the French, appears to have been an invention of Dr. Hooper’s, and published in his Rational Recreations, in 1774. The plan of which may be seen in his ‘Visual Correspondence.’”—(Times, Sept. 15, 1794.)
“The invention of the Telegraphe, does not belong alone to the French. About ten years ago, Count Possini at Rome, invented a mode of getting intelligence from Naples, in the course of an hour. The Lottery at Rome, depends upon that drawn at Naples. It differs from our Lottery, materially, for there are but six prizes, and these are the first six numbers drawn, and the remainder are all blanks. The Count, whose house is on an eminence near Rome, managed with his confederates, who were placed at certain distances, between Naples, and his estate, to have sky rockets let off, by which they had previously fixed with each other, to ascertain by such signals, any particular number, or numbers, drawn. The plan succeeded, as Tickets continued to be sold in Rome, for several hours after the drawing commenced at Naples, the account of which was always brought by the ordinary courier. By this scheme the party got about 100,000 crowns, and the plot would never have been discovered, had not the Count purchased the whole of the six prizes, which caused suspicion, and of course, excited enquiry.”—(Times, Sept. 16, 1794.)
“Astley, who is always employed in the production of something new, brings out, this evening, an exhibition of the much talked of, and ingenious Machine, called the Telegraphe, at the Lyceum, in the Strand.”—(Times, Sept. 19, 1794.)
“The invention of the Telegraphe, is now traced back to 1655, and particularly mentioned in a little book, then written, and published, by the Marquis of Worcester, inventor of the Steam Engine. He there gives it the name of Visual Correspondence, and calls it his own invention.”—(Times, Sept. 20, 1794.)
“Experiments are now making at Woolwich with a new species of the Telegraphe, to ascertain at what distance intelligence can be conveyed by it during the night. It is composed of letters, or figures, nine feet high, cut out in a board, which is painted black in front, and strongly illuminated behind by patent lamps with reflectors; it is placed on the top of the butt against which the cannon are proved, and proper persons are stationed at Purfleet, and other intermediate places, with telescopes, to determine at what distance letters of that size are legible at night, by which means any word may be written, by a succession of letters, and intelligence may be conveyed, with astonishing celerity, during the night, by having a series of different signal-houses at proper distances between whatever places information is intended to be communicated.”—(Times, Oct. 7, 1794.)
“It has been said, that a conversation had actually taken place across the Channel, between Donaghadee and Port Patrick, by means of a Telegraph. The following are the particulars: Two Gentlemen of the county of Longford have been, for sometime past, making experiments, in different positions, in that county, and they succeeded so well, as to induce them to undertake the journey to Donaghadee, where the Channel between Britain and Ireland is the narrowest, being about 18 Irish miles across. They brought down their machinery with them, and, having erected one on each side, they conversed with each other, on Monday evening last, the weather being tolerably clear. The conversation that passed was as follows—The Gentleman on this side said ‘I see you, being white, distinctly.’ The other replied ‘I see you; I wish your’s was white also.’ (The machine on this side being black.) The Gentleman on this side then asked ‘What o’clock is it?’ and was answered ‘Six.’ He then said ‘I will shew lights at nine o’clock, do you attend.’ He was answered ‘I will attend, but I have only one light.’ They then made signals of ‘good night,’ and the communication ended. The machine consists of a triangle, with two long sides and a short one, suspended in the air vertically; it turns on a pivot, and is capable of being put into eight different positions, very distinct from each other. These positions represent eight of the common numerical figures, and these figures, according to their position, denote certain words and sentences, according to a preconcerted dictionary, or vocabulary, alphabetically, as well as numerically, arranged. It is believed this machine is on a principle totally different from the French.”—(Times, Sept, 11, 1795.)
“A chain of Telegraphs is erected from Shuter’s Hill to Dover. Gad’s Hill, and Barham Hill, are the intermediate posts.”—(Times, Dec. 30, 1795.)
“Telegraphe.—An improvement on this post-haste mode of travelling, has been offered to the Administration, by two foreigners, who demand £40,000 for the discovery, if it should be found to answer; if it does not, like quacks of another description, they retire with nothing but the shame of the attempt. These foreigners undertake to convey intelligence to all parts of the world, by letter as quick as thought. Certain globes are to be constructed, that, by the power of electricity and attraction, a packet, large as a horse can carry, shall be sent to and from Dublin, in about the time requisite for dispatching a breakfast!! Credat Judeus!”—(Times, Jan. 12, 1796.)
In or about 1796, was instituted the semaphore telegraph—which, until the introduction of the Electric Telegraph, was the best system out.
“The most important services which can be rendered to the public by the Telegraph, is in cases similar to that which occurred last week, in forwarding the news from Deal to London, of the sailing of the Dutch Fleet, within the space of five minutes. This prompt conveyance of the intelligence enabled the Admiralty Board to take such speedy measures for sending a fleet out after the enemy. When the Telegraph is established between London and other ports as well as Deal, the advantage will be very great indeed.”—(Times, Mar. 2, 1796.)
“The English are remarkable for improving upon the inventions of their Gallic neighbours. It is well known, that while these aerial wanderers were tumbling down like so many Phaetons from Heaven, we were driving about securely in balloon-coaches, and eating balloon-cakes, and balloon-oysters. The same advantage has resulted from the telegraph, which, beside christening a coach, and a newspaper, is now transferred to the heads of our ladies, and has given us telegraphic hats and telegraphic caps. By this invention a female will travel to Edinburgh, through the observatory at York, Doncaster, Grantham and Huntingdon, from the principal machine in Bond Street, in the time of three Operas, or twenty-four Routs.”—(Times, Oct. 15, 1796.)
“Since the invention of the Coiffure télégraphique it is scarcely possible to follow the rapidity of the fashions. The morning dress and the evening dress mean literally the dress of the day they are worn in. It was observed, with concern, at Drury Lane the other evening, that the Lady P’s were more than half an hour out of fashion.”—(Times, Oct. 21, 1796.)
Among the various tyrannies of fashion, none, perhaps was more curious than that of powdering the hair. Taxation, and the French mode of “Cropping” killed it, but it died hard.—The Tax was treated both jocularly, and au grand serieux.
EPIGRAM.
“On the Hair Powder Licence Tax, at a time when general Expectation looked for a tax on Dogs:—
“Full many a chance, or dire mishap,
Oft’times between the lip, and cup, is;
The Tax, that should have hung our Dogs,
Excuses them, and falls on Puppies.”
—(Times, Mar. 11, 1795.)
“A tax on Dogs would certainly have been unobjectionable, as well as expedient, in a two-fold degree; first in creating a revenue, and secondly, in lessening the number of them. At the present period particularly, a tax on Dogs would have a good effect, as it is a well known fact, that the coarser parts of meat are scarcely to be had by the poor, because the rich can afford to buy them for their dogs.”—(Times, Apr. 11, 1795.)
“The Tax on Powdered Heads is calculated to produce £450,000 per annum, though the Minister has only calculated it at £200,000. Some Gentlemen are said to have made an offer to farm it at £400,000.”—(Times, Mar. 25, 1795.)
“Hair Powder Tax.”
“An Annual Certificate to be taken out by every person wearing hair-powder, price one-guinea: every sort, or composition, of powder worn as an article of dress, to be deemed within the meaning of the Act. The Royal Family, and their immediate Servants; Clergymen, whose annual income is under £100; Subaltern, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Privates of the Army, Militia, Marines, and Fencible Corps; Officers of the Navy, under the rank of Commander; Officers, and Privates, in Corps of Yeomanry, or Volunteers; Dissenting Preachers in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, whose annual income is under £100, are exempted. Persons having more than two daughters unmarried, to pay only for two.
“Persons wearing Powder without a Certificate, to forfeit £20. Persons selling, transferring, or using, a Certificate, with intent to defraud the revenue, to forfeit £30.”—(Times, May 7, 1795.)
“The Powder Tax has already produced three hundred thousand pounds to Government. The term is to be extended by Act of Parliament, and, according to the most probable conjectures, the final amount will be double that sum.
“The Duke of Devonshire has paid five and thirty guineas for his family. The Duchess of Northumberland, a single guinea for herself: powder is under interdiction among the rest of that family: though not from motives of disaffection. Her Grace assigns a more justifiable motive; namely, a scruple of contributing, in any unnecessary way, to the present scarcity.”—(Times, June 12, 1795.)
“Hair Powder Tax. The Caricaturists, who generally paint so plain, that those who run may read, have whimsically described the two orders of beings, who do, and do not, pay. The first are aptly enough termed Guinea Pigs—the latter, Pigs without a Guinea!”—(Times, July 1, 1795.)
“The Commander in Chief of Brighton Camp has notified to the Officers, that the use of Flour, for the privates, will be dispensed with, during the present scarcity of Wheat.”—(Times, July 15, 1795.)
“HAIR POWDER. To all those whom it may concern.
“Among the many ingenious, and humane, projects that have been devised for lessening the consumption of Flour, and soothing the minds of the poor, at this interesting period, it is a matter of no small astonishment to me, that that of sacrificing our hair-powder, has not been more universally adopted. To the antiquated virgin, indeed, who still sighs, and hopes, and whose silvery locks might prove too sure an index of that worldly experience, which, for certain prudential reasons, she might wish to conceal, I confess the sacrifice is too great to be expected. To the unhappy hen-peck’d bald-pate, whose lively wife nauseates, and detests, the careless brown-bob, something may be said in his behalf, also: but, to every other character, whether the grave judge, or respectable grandmother, the buxom widow, or the broad shouldered Irish fortune-hunter, the flirting coquette, or her coxcomb colleague, the hardy veteran, or flashy militia captain, the pert lawyer, or the young priggish parson: and lastly, the smart apprentice, who beflours his head to cut a dash at the Dog and Duck, or Bagnigge Wells: all these, I say, and every other character that I have omitted to name, can surely have no possible excuse for thus insulting the feelings of the poor. I repeat the word insulting, for it is the just and proper epithet; for what can we term it but insult, to be thus playing with the feelings of these poor wretches, at a moment when they are suffering the greatest of all worldly miseries—want.”—(Times, Aug. 10, 1795.)
“A morning Paper of yesterday, mentions by name, that a Nobleman of the highest rank, in this country, was, last week, summoned to the Police-Office, Queen’s Square, for wearing powder without being licensed. The defence set up that his Grace, being a Menial Servant, in the King’s Household, was exempt from the Tax: which, being admitted, the matter was dismissed.—We trust that this information is not authentic, for it would be a most pitiful subterfuge to evade the payment of a tax, which is generally allowed to be a proper one.” (Times, Feb. 1, 1797.)—(Query, the Duke of Portland.)
All articles of luxury, and very many of absolute necessity, were taxed to supply the drain of the war—and, doubtless, people had to be economical—but the following advertisement reduces economy to a science:—
“ADVANTAGEOUS HAT SUBSCRIPTION. Stamps included.
“Three Hats, value £1, 1s. each, at £1, 14s. 6d. per Ann., delivered as follows. Two on Subscription, the third at the end of eight months, when the two first must be returned, and the third at the end of the year. Four Hats, value £1, 4s. each, at £2, 6s. per Ann., delivered as follows. Two on subscribing, and two at the end of six months, when the two first must be returned, and the other two at the end of the year. The Hats changed as the Fashions vary during subscribing. To remove all prejudices, Gentlemen may call at the Manufactory and see the quality. Old Hats taken in part of the subscription money. Durant and Pitra, Hat Manufactory, middle of Monmouth St.”—(Times, Aug. 25, 1796.)
On Nov. 22, 1798, Pitt brought forward his annual statement, relating to public finance—and proposed to raise £7,000,000, by a new tax called a triple assessment—but, eventually, it turned out that it, with the land tax, brought in but about 4-1/2 Millions. A Briton can extract some fun, even out of his misfortunes, so they caricatured this heavy tax. In Dec. 1797 appeared a picture entitled “More visitors to John Bull; or the Assessed Taxes”—showing four little imps coming to John Bull. He naturally asks, “What do you want, you little devils?—ain’t I plagued with enough of you already? more pick pocket’s work, I suppose?” But the diablotins courteously reply, “Please your honour, we are the Assessed Taxes.”
On Dec. 3, 1798, Mr. Pitt again made his annual financial statement—and, of course, he wanted more money—and the way by which he proposed to raise the necessary funds—was by imposing a Tax on Income. He proposed that no income under £60 a year should be touched—and from that sum, to £200 per annum, should be on a smaller scale than over £200—past which sum—a full tenth of all incomes would be demanded. The returns were to be made by the person assessed, subject to the inspection of a surveyor, who should lay before the commissioners any grounds he might have for suspecting the return to be false. The commissioners had no power to call for account books, or to examine clerks, &c. But, if the individual did not clear himself, and they thought he had not returned sufficient, they could make such assessment as they thought fit. After a long debate it was carried by 183 to 17, and made law on 18th Mar. 1799. By the accompanying caricature, “A Visitor to John Bull, for the year 1799, or the Assessed Taxes taking their leave,” it was evidently the public impression that the Income Tax would supersede the Assessed Taxes. But it was not so, as they were still kept on.
The little demons still behave courteously towards John Bull, who looks in undisguised horror at the size of the awful fund (the Income Tax) now taking possession of him.
The following paragraph would seem, at first sight, rather harsh—but it must be borne in mind that the War was a cruel drain on our fiscal resources—and not one penny that had been granted by parliament could be bated.
“The Commissioners of the Stamp Office having been informed that the practice of letting out newspapers for hire, was carried on to a very considerable extent, to the great injury of the revenue, the Commissioners ordered a prosecution to take place, and a newsman was yesterday summoned before the Lord Mayor, and convicted in the penalty of £5, as the Act directs.”—(Times, Oct. 23, 1795.)
“Lending Newspapers. James Berridge, a Newsman, was, on Saturday, brought before Sir William Addington, and R. Ford, Esq., charged with letting out Newspapers for hire, from house to house. This was a prosecution instituted by the Commissioners of the Stamps. A great number of complaints were brought forward against him, and he was convicted in six penalties of £5 each. A variety of others were about to be exhibited against him, but in consideration of his having a large family, the Solicitor declined going into them.”—(Times, Jan. 2, 1798.)
“The keepers of several reading-rooms in Fleet Street, and Shoe-Lane, were, on Saturday, fined £5 for lending newspapers for hire.”—(Times, Sept. 26, 1798.)
“Government intends to have one fixed standard for Weights, and Measures, over the whole Kingdom; as the greatest frauds, for want of that regulation, have, for ages, been practised with impunity. These regulations are much needed, and are an excellent subject for taxation. The lower orders of the community are grievously imposed upon, for want of them, and, doubtless, it will be a popular mode of taxation, and can give no offence to any class of people, but those dishonestly employed.”—(Times, Sept. 15, 1796.)
“The following curious view of the incredible loss sustained by raising weekly loans of money, at the Pawnbrokers, it is hoped, will prove an additional incitement to frugality; for certain it is, that in many instances, 1/6th, and in some cases 1/5th, and even as high as 1/4th, of the annual earnings of the more thoughtless, and dissolute part, of the poor, is paid for temporary accommodations. For instance,
“The person who borrows 3d. in pawn, pays 6d. a year, interest, but, if taken out weekly, (a thing very common, particularly during the Lottery),
| It is | 1/2d. | per week, | or | 850 | per cent. on the sum borrowed. |
| If | 6d. | it is the same | ″ | 425 | do. |
| If | 9d. | do. | ″ | 285 | do. |
| If | 1s. | do. | ″ | 215 | do. |
| If | 2s. | do. | ″ | 107½ | do. |
| If | 2s. 6d. | do. | ″ | 87½ | do. |
“This explanation should be a warning to those who are so improvident, as to pawn their Sunday cloaths, every Monday morning, or 52 times a year, a custom which too frequently prevails, without reflecting that the Interest paid the Pawnbroker would, probably, purchase two or three coats, gowns, or silk cloaks, in the course of the year.”—(Times, Mar. 20, 1797.)
“ON PUBLIC-HOUSES. (Condensed.)
“In the City of London, and within the Bills of Mortality, there are at present 5,204 licensed Public Houses, and it is calculated that the Beer, and Spirits, which are consumed in these receptacles of idleness, and profligacy, by the labouring people, only, is little short of three millions sterling a year. It has been lately discovered, that clubs of apprentice boys are harboured in Public Houses, for the purpose of supporting their brethren who run away from their masters, and of indulging themselves early, in scenes of lewdness, and drunkenness, which they generally do, by pilfering their masters property, and disposing of it at the old iron shops.
| “In a recent publication, the consumption of Ale, and Porter, annually, in the metropolis, and its environs, is stated to be 1,132,147 barrels, equal to 36,625,145 gallons, making 158,400,580 pots at 3-1/2d. | £2,311,466 15 10 |
| “And, by another calculation, the average consumption of Gin, and Compounds, in Public Houses, previous to the stoppage of the distillery, was about 3,000,000 of Gallons | 975,000 0 0 |
| ———————— | |
| £3,286,466 15 10 |
“If a conclusion may be drawn from the apparent greater degree of sobriety, which is manifested, at present, by the labouring people, and evinced by the number of quarrels, and assaults, being very considerably diminished, and the pressure, with respect to the means of living, apparently less than in the spring of 1795, notwithstanding no charities have been distributed, and bread is considerably higher, it would seem reasonable to attribute this favourable change, to the high price of Gin, which, being in a great measure inaccessible, the lower ranks have it now in their power, to apply the money, formerly spent in this way, to the purchase of provisions, perhaps to the extent of some hundred thousands of Pounds a year, in the metropolis, alone!”—(Times, Oct. 4. 1797.)
Food
The years 1795-6 were years of great scarcity, and the graphic daily accounts of the want of food, and of the various substitutes for bread—the abstinence of all classes, from the King, to the labourer, bring very vividly to our minds, a state of things, which has never since obtained in England—
“In consequence of the scarcity of Wheat, arising partly from such quantities of it being used for hair-powder, several regiments have, very patriotically, discontinued the use of hair-powder, which, in these instances, was generally nothing but flour.”—(Times, Feb. 10, 1795.)
“The Parliamentary Board of Agriculture, in consideration of the probable scarcity of wheat, have agreed to propose a premium of One Thousand Pounds, to the person who will grow the largest breadth of Potatoes, on lands never applied to the culture of that plant before:—they have liberally excluded the Members of their own Board from becoming candidates for this valuable prize.”—(Times, Feb. 14, 1795.)
“The general failure of Wheat, throughout Europe, last year, makes it proper to promote the culture of an increased quantity of Potatoes, and, as one means of doing it, it is recommended to Noblemen and Gentlemen, who have large Parks, to break up a part of them to be planted with Potatoes, those grounds generally lying dry, will be very proper for the purpose, and fit for immediate planting with that root. It is hoped that so benevolent, and patriotic, an object, will be a sufficient incitement, without a consideration of profit attached.”—(Times, March 20, 1795.)
“It is hinted by a benevolent mind, who has, on account of meat being so dear, left off soup in his family, at present, that the making of soup destroys a great deal of meat, and it is recommended that the rich leave off making soups, as the meat is generally wasted, it will relieve a great many poor families in these dear times.”—(Times, April 27, 1775.)
“Friday, a Court of Common-Council was held at Guildhall: when the Lord Mayor stated to the Court, the hardships the poor feel on account of the high price of provisions, on which, Mr. Syms moved, that a Committee of all the Aldermen, and one Commoner, out of each Ward, be appointed, to consider the best method to be adopted for reducing the price, which, after a few observations, was agreed to.
“Mr. Dixon moved, that, for one year, neither the Corporation, nor any Committee, be allowed public dinners. It was seconded by Mr. Kemble, and supported by three, or four, other Members: but some treated the motion as not seriously meant. Mr. Deputy Birch moved an amendment, by adding, that the savings by such means, be paid to the Committee now appointed, to be by them appropriated for reducing the price of provisions—on which a previous questioned was moved, and the question being put, there appeared for it 26; against it 39; Majority against, 13.”—(Times, May 11, 1795.)
“Provisions continue to advance in price. Mutton, in the last week, rose 4d. per stone of 8 lbs., which now costs the enormous sum of 5s. in Smithfield Market, sinking the offal; ox beef is 4s. 4d., lamb 6s., veal 5s. 8d.
“If a bounty was to be given on mackarel brought to market, it would, in a great measure, tend to lower the price of butchers meat, which a ruinous plan of forestalling, and unfair buying and selling, has raised to an alarming price.
“A report from the committee appointed at the last Court of Common Council, to consider of the best means of reducing the present high price of provisions, was read, giving it as their opinion, that encouraging the bringing up fish to Billingsgate, would, in a great measure, reduce the price of meat, with which report the Court agreed, and £500 was granted for that purpose.”—(Times, May 18, 1795.)
“The Committee, appointed by the Court of Common Council, to use the best Means to increase the Quantity of Fish brought to the London Market, to reduce the price of Provisions, do hereby give notice, that they have resolved to give a Bounty of Two Pounds for every 1000 Mackarel, sold at Billingsgate, at the rate of 20s. per hundred of six score, with a sufficient proof of their freshness: Four Pounds for every 2000: Six Pounds for every 3000: Eight Pounds for every 4000, and Ten Pounds for every 5000 Mackarel, sold, as aforesaid. Also, they have resolved to give a Bounty of Five Pounds per Ton, or Five Shillings for every Hundred weight of Cod, and Haddock, sold at Billingsgate at the rate of 2d. per lb., with a sufficient proof of their freshness. The said Bounties to commence on Monday the 1st June next, and be paid by applying at the Chamberlain’s Office, on producing a Certificate, of the number, goodness, and prices, of the said Fish.
RIX.”
—(Times, May 25, 1795.)
“Among the numerous causes which may be assigned for the present high prices of provisions, especially of poultry, the uniting of many small farms into one great one, is not the least. It is a well known fact, that, where three farms have been leased, or let, to one tenant, which three farms, antecedently, had each a separate tenant, no more poultry is produced by the union, than each separately reared, when divided, so that two-thirds are, of course, lost to the public. This mode of throwing many small farms into one large farm, by having one, instead of a number of tenants, however it may profit the landlord, is of very great injury to the public, inasmuch as it gives a kind of Aristocracy to the farmers, that enables them, in a great measure, to set what price they please upon provisions, destroying that competition, which is always the consequence, where the venders are numerous. Thus it is that a great part of Oxfordshire has been bought up by a noble Duke, who, by monopolizing so much land, and destroying a number of small farms, has done a very essential injury to the public.”—(Times, June 22, 1795.)
“We are sorry to learn that Wheat rose yesterday nine shillings per quarter. It is, however, with great satisfaction, we announce, that several ships, laden with corn, are arrived in the Downs from Dantzic, and part of their produce is expected to arrive in time for to-morrow’s market.”—(Times, July 7, 1795.)
“The Privy Council, whose constant attention has been directed, for many months past, to provide the kingdom with a regular supply of corn, propose to recommend to the country at large, the use of Household Bread. It is further to be recommended, that families should not have puddings, or pies, nor any such like articles made of flour.
“The Magistrates of the General Quarter Sessions for Middlesex, seem to be acting upon this principle in the resolution passed at their last Court-day, which we trust will be followed by every other public body in the kingdom. The disuse of pastry seems to be a very important consideration.
“The Directors of the East India Co. have set a laudable example of attention to the distresses of the times, in abridging the customary expense of their dinners, on Court-days.”—(Times, July 10, 1795.)
Advt.—“At a General Quarter Session of the Peace, for the County of Middlesex, the Magistrates assembled, taking into consideration the present High Prices of Provisions, with the consequent inconveniences resulting therefrom, and, feeling the propriety of a general retrenchment in the manner of furnishing the Table, at this particular time, have come to the following Resolution, viz., That during the remainder of the present Session, and during the next Session, in September, no Puddings, or Pies, nor any the like articles made of Flour, be served to their table, nor any other provisions, whatsoever, than fish, beef, mutton, or veal, with vegetables, and household bread.
“By the Court.
Selby.”
—(Times, July 9, 1795.)
“Yesterday, the Directors of the Bank of England sent £500 to the Lord Mayor, requesting he would apply that sum towards the relief of the industrious poor, in the article of BREAD. The Sun Fire Office sent £100, to the same worthy Magistrate, for the like purpose. The different Wards in the City have subscribed, very liberally, towards the relief of the poor in their present distress. Public subscriptions are about to be opened for the same benevolent purpose. Pastry, and puddings, have been abolished in a number of private houses. The Directors of the Bank yesterday came to a resolution to have no more public dinners, while the price of provisions continued so high. This laudable resolution will, we trust, be followed by all the corporate bodies in the kingdom.”—(Times, July 11, 1795.)
“The Drapers Company voted the 200 guineas, for reducing the price of Bread, after the Court had been on a Survey, and, (to use a technical term) returned to dine upon a view. The following Epigram was put under the Master’s plate:—
“In times so hard, how happy ’twere
If thousands, like to you,
Could glut their craving appetites
By dining on—a view.
But from your views such works of love
Such general good accrues,
That happier ’twere if each day brought
New dinners and new views.”
—(Times, July 11, 1795.)
Advt.—“MIDDLESEX.
“At the General Quarter Session of the Peace of our Lord the King, holden in and for the County of Middlesex... a Letter from his Grace the Duke of Portland, one of her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, was read, inclosing a copy of the following engagement, entered into by several of the Lords of his Majesty’s most Hon. Privy Council, in the following words:
“In consideration of the present high Price of Wheat, and, in order to diminish the Consumption thereof, in our respective Families, so as to leave a larger Supply of this necessary Article of Food, for the People in general, until the Corn of the ensuing Harvest shall come into Consumption, and relieve them of their present difficulties: We, whose Names are hereto subscribed, being desirous of introducing into common use a wholesome Bread, at a lower price than must be paid for the sort of Bread now ordinarily used, do engage that we will not, ourselves, consume, nor suffer to be consumed, in any of our Families, until the First Day of October next, at any place where the sort of Bread undermentioned can be procured, any sort of Wheaten Bread finer than that which, in an Act of Parliament passed in the 13th year of his present Majesty’s Reign, is called by the name of Standard Wheaten Bread: which is directed by the said Act to be made of the Flour of Wheat, which Flour, without any Mixture, or Division, shall be the whole Produce of the Grain, the Bran or Hull thereof only excepted, and which shall weigh three-fourths parts of the weight of the Wheat whereof it shall be made. We further engage to diminish, as much as possible, the use of Flour in other articles of Food consumed in our respective Families. And we earnestly recommend to all our Fellow Subjects, to adopt these Measures, and strictly adhere to the same.
Loughborough.
Mansfield.
Chatham.
Portland.
Chesterfield.
J. Eyre.
A. Macdonald.
Spencer.
Hawkesbury.
W. Pitt.
Leicester.
Up. Ossory.
W. Windham.
Bathurst.
Grenville.
Amherst.
Winchelsea.
Stafford.
R. P. Arden.
Dudley Ryder.
C. Townshend.
Kenyon.
Sandwich.
Mornington.
Carlisle.
C. F. Greville.
“Resolved, that this Court, deeply impressed by the wisdom of this measure, adopt the Regulations stated in the above Engagement, and resolve strictly to adhere to them, earnestly recommending them to the serious consideration, and practice, of all Masters of Families, and other Inhabitants of this County, &c., &c.
Selby.”
—(Times, July 14, 1795.)
“The want of bread is often more imaginary, than real. There are many excellent substitutes for this article, which would in themselves be preferred by many people, if it were a matter of choice, only, between themselves. Unfortunately, the call for bread will always be in proportion to the scarcity of it, from the natural disposition of some to make grievances, and complaints, and of others to provoke tumult, and riot.
“To make good bread. Take a pottle of fine oatmeal, and lay it in water, to steep, all night: next morning, it will appear (if too much water is not put to it) like hasty pudding. This break into several parts of a peck and a half of barley-meal, to which add warm water, and yeast, and knead it into dough, as all wheat meal is commonly done: then mould it into loaves, and bake them. Thus, a barley loaf may be made hollow, white, and sweet, so as scarcely to be known from coarse wheaten bread. When skimmed milk can be had, it will make the bread better still.”—(Times, July 15, 1795.)
“COMMON COUNCIL.
“Yesterday, a Court of Common Council was held at Guildhall, at which the Lord Mayor, 6 Aldermen, and about 150 Commoners, were present.
“The Lord Mayor informed the Court, that he had not yet received any answer to the application made by desire of that Court to his Majesty’s Ministers, requesting them to prohibit the use of Hair Powder, and Flour, in the Army. It was, however, generally understood in the Court, that Government was acting in compliance with the wishes of the Court.
“The Court then proceeded to take into consideration the Resolutions of his Majesty’s Hon. Privy Council, recommending the use of standard wheaten Bread (see the Advertisement in the Times of Tuesday last 14th inst.). The Court resolved to adopt, and to exert themselves to give force to, the Resolution of the Privy Council, and earnestly recommend the same to their fellow citizens. A Deputation was appointed to wait on the Privy Council, relative to some regulations not clearly understood, respecting the Millers forwarding the sort of Flour necessary for the purpose to market. It was also the opinion of the Court, that the said Deputation should recommend to the Privy Council, to take into consideration the propriety of an indemnity to the Bakers, in fixing a price to the said Household Bread.
“Mr. Kemble then made his promised motion for the Court to resolve ‘That no dinners be allowed, at the expence of the City, to the different Committees for managing the concerns of the Corporation, for the period of one year.’ It was seconded by Mr. Herring, when a debate took place, which lasted more than two hours. The debate was at length terminated by Mr. Box proposing to adopt the words ’till the 1st of October next,’ the time fixed on, in the Regulations of the Privy Council, as at that period it was to be hoped the present scarcity would be removed. And, if it was not, the Court could extend the prohibition. The motion, so amended, was then put, and carried, by a Majority of SEVENTEEN only!!”—(Times, July 16, 1795.)
“We offer the following hints for the government of individuals in affluent circumstances, with a view of reducing the high price of provisions:—
“To have fish at table as often as possible.
“To sit down with a determined resolution to eat only of one kind of butcher’s meat; and, where circumstances will admit, to have only one dish of meat at table.
“To forbid the use of pastry in your own house, and to decline the use of it at any other table.
“To be particularly economical in the use of bread, and to cut, yourself, what you use at your own table; making your servants sensible that you give such directions from a regard to the comforts of the poor, and not from any penurious views. It appears, indeed, to be of the utmost consequence to make servants in great, and even small families, sensible how much they may, under present circumstances, contribute to the relief, and comfort, of the poor, which every British heart must wish to do.
“Bakers ought to be prevented from selling bread of the same day’s baking, as, on a fair calculation, four stale loaves are equal to five new ones.”—(Times, July 16, 1795.)
“At a period when every species of grain has become both scarce, and dear, it is the duty of every individual to inform the public of any possible diminution in the consumption. It is with this view that we feel much satisfaction in announcing to all who keep horses for draught, that a saving of twenty-five per cent. in Oats, has been introduced into the stables of Thrale’s Brewhouse, in the Borough, since the month of September last, which we are happy to learn has been adopted by several other principal manufacturers. Their plan is simply to roll all their oats between two iron cilinders, which they have attached to their steam engine. By this process, an increase is found of two bushels a sack. After being well rolled (which is usually done twice, or thrice, a week) the Oats are mixed with chaff of the best quality, and divided in the usual manner. This mode of rolling, is deemed equal to mastication. It is found, from experience, equally beneficial to old horses, whose teeth may be impaired, as well as young horses, who often return home very hungry, and are apt to swallow their oats without chewing them, by which means they are frequently observed to pass through them undigested.”—(Times, July 16, 1795.)
“It is now almost the prevailing custom in every family of distinction, to have the loaf brought on the table, and each person to help himself. This example must have a considerable influence in reducing the consumption of this, as well as other, necessaries of life.
“The custom of wearing Hair-Powder is growing into very general disuse: and we shall not be surprised if we soon see it almost altogether abolished, during the present scarcity of grain.
“The recommendation of the Privy Council, to adopt the use of Household Bread, will be of little avail, unless their request is converted into an order, that no bread, above that standard, shall hereafter be baked: and every idea of expediency, and common policy, demands that some measure of this tendency should immediately be enforced.”—(Times, July 17, 1795.)
“There is no economy more laudable at this moment, than that of lessening the consumption of bread, in private families. This has been practised with such success, by Mr. Parish, on Ludgate Hill, that he now consumes but four Brown loaves per week, in lieu of twelve, or thirteen, White ones, as formerly. This is a most notable example, and, we trust, will be imitated by many, though perhaps with somewhat less rigour. Mr. P.’s substitute for bread, are, principally, potatoes, and rice.”—(Times, July 18, 1795.)
“In Sussex, the Gentry have adopted the most rational mode of diminishing the price of Corn. Instead of supplying the poor with bread, at a low price, which can only tend to increase the consumption, they give pickled pork, &c., to an equal amount, which, with the use of cabbage, beans, &c., may banish, without much suffering, the loaf, at least, from their dinner tables.”—(Times, July 20, 1795.)
“After the humane example of the City, in leaving off their annual feasts, we are happy to find it is intended to be universally adopted by the surrounding parishes, and opulent families; particularly by some of the principal inhabitants of Whitechapel, who, at one of their Greenwich meetings, on Monday, wisely determined to eat venison, and white-bait, no longer than the season will produce them.”—(Times, July 22, 1795.)
Some of the following set of moral rules might be followed with advantage at the present day:—
“THE WAY TO PEACE AND PLENTY.
Rules for the rich.
1. Abolish gravy soups, and second courses.
2. Buy no starch when wheat is dear.
3. Destroy all useless dogs.
4. Give no dog, or other animal, the smallest bit of bread or meat.
5. Save all your skim-milk carefully, and give it all to the poor, or sell it at a cheap rate.
6. Make broth, rice pudding, &c., for the poor, and teach them to make such things.
7. Go to church yourselves, and take care your servants go constantly.
8. Look into the management of your own families, and visit your poor neighbours.
9. Prefer those poor who keep steadily to their work, and go constantly to church, and give nothing to those who are idle, and riotous, or keep useless dogs.
10. Buy no weighing meat, or gravy beef: if the rich would buy only the prime pieces, the poor could get the others cheap.
Rules for the Poor.
1. Keep steadily to your work, and never change masters, if you can help it.
2. Go to no gin-shop, or alehouse: but lay out all your earnings in food, and cloaths, for yourself, and your family: and try to lay up a little for rent, and rainy days.
3. Avoid bad company.
4. Keep no dogs: for they rob your children, and your neighbours.
5. Go constantly to church, and carry your wives, and children, with you, and God will bless you.
6. Be civil to your superiors, and they will be kind to you.
7. Learn to make broth, milk pottage, rice-pudding, &c. One pound of meat, in broth, will go further than two pounds boiled, or roasted.
8. Be quiet, and contented, and never steal, or swear, or you will never thrive.”—(Times, July 23, 1795.)
“Yesterday, the Stationers’ Company had their annual dinner, at Stationers’ Hall. Having determined, in consequence of the great scarcity of flour, to abolish the use of pies, they contented themselves with several haunches of venison, and a number of venison pasties, which consumed flour enough for 50 fruit pies. And in order to adopt the above resolution of no pies, the Court of Assistants had, previously, a snug dinner, consisting of all the delicacies of the season. Of public dinners, those of the Stationers Company rival every other. We have not yet heard of the Company having contributed anything to the relief of the poor.”—(Times, Aug. 14, 1795.)
“One among the serious consequences of the dearness of provisions, is, that the price of board in schools, is considerably raised. There are few schools of repute, that have not raised their terms, at least five guineas a year.”—(Times, Oct. 8, 1795.)
“The price of butter, in all parts of the country, has been, lately, most shamefully advanced, without any cause to justify the measure. The season has, hitherto, been favourable to grazing, and the war cannot extend its influence to our dairies. On the same principle, the late advance in the price of Milk, in the Metropolis, should be enquired into. London is supplied with Milk by about 30 cow-keepers, who may at pleasure either deprive the city of this necessary article, or extort what price they may think proper for it. Milk should be made subject to the regulations respecting bread, beer, &c., as, indeed, should every similar commodity.”—(Times, Feb. 15, 1796.)
“In consequence of the public refraining to buy fresh butter, the price fell from 14-1/2d. to 9d. and 10d. per pound, in Sheffield Market, last week. And so it would be in London, if every family would consent to buy Cambridge butter, for a few days, or to allow only half the quantity of fresh to be taken in, which is usually consumed.”—(Times, Mar. 2, 1796.)
“The Beef Trade, though it declined a market day, or two, in the heat of the weather, is nearly up again to its enormous Spring prices: a good bullock being now worth 4s. 6d. per stone. Veal, Mutton, and Lamb, are getting down, but Pork still fetches 10s. a score. Lean stock, of every kind, is excessively dear, and difficult to be obtained, on any terms, that of the sheep kind, in particular.”—(Times, Sep. 5, 1796.)
“The great importance of the Distilleries, in the article of fatted hogs, may be judged of, in some degree, by the number turned out of the distilleries, in Surrey alone, which are estimated at 11,700 a year, valued at £46,215, besides the great number fed in the starch yards. It is said, that all the distilleries in the Kingdom, when in full work, send to market, weekly, near 30,000 hogs: during the last year, they were at a total stand, and the price of bacon has been enormous.”—(Times, Oct. 26, 1796.)
Some of the great ones of the land set a good example of economy to their poorer brethren—the King among the number.
“The Margrave of Anspach sets a princely example of economy to his betters: his table is furnished by contract, and the daily expence exceeds not half-a-guinea per head. Of course, the purveyor takes the needful care of broken victuals: whilst Sir Harry, and the Duke’s servant, fare equally alike in that larder, where Miss Kitty or Mrs. Cook have nought to give, but bread and cheese, and kisses.”—(Times, June 22, 1795.)
“His Majesty has given orders for the bread used in his household, to be made of meal, and rye, mixed. No other sort is permitted to be baked, and the Royal Family eat bread of the same quality as their servants do. It is extremely sweet, and palatable.
“One half flour, and half potatoes, also make a very excellent bread.”—(Times, July 22, 1795.)
“The writer of this paragraph has seen the bread that is eaten at His Majesty’s table. It consists of two sorts only, the one composed of wheaten flour, and rye, mixed; the other is half wheaten flour, half potatoe flour. If ever example deserved imitation, it is surely this.”—(Times, July 30, 1795.)
The Court of Aldermen had the power of apportioning the price of bread according to the price of wheat—thus affording the baker a fair profit, and protecting the consumer.
“Yesterday, a Court of Aldermen was held at Guildhall, which came to a resolution to raise the price of bread to a Shilling the Quartern Loaf.”—(Times, July 8, 1795.)
“The price of Flour having risen 4s. per sack, the Court of Common Council ordered the assize of bread to one shilling and a halfpenny per quartern loaf.”—(Times, July 23, 1795.)
“Tuesday, a Court of Aldermen was held at Guildhall. The Court ordered the price of bread to remain at 1s. 3d. the quartern loaf.
“The Court having considered the petition of the Retail Dealers in Salt, for an advance, were pleased to order the price of salt to be fixed as follows, viz., 8s. per bushel, 4s. per half ditto, 2s. per peck, 1s. per half ditto, 6d. per quarter ditto, 3d. per half-quarter peck, 2d. per pound, 1d. per half ditto.”—(Times, March 10, 1796.)
“Assize of Bread.
“The regulation of the Assize of Bread being generally misunderstood, the following tables, extracted from the Act of Parliament of the 31st Geo. II. will at once shew, by what authority, the Magistrates regulate the Price of Bread, with the allowance to Bakers of 1s. 6d. per bushel for wheat, and 10s. per sack for flour: a reference to which tables, will enable every person to ascertain the price of the quartern, and peck, loaf, as well as the Magistrates themselves: and will prove that the letter of the law, and not the will of the Magistrates, regulates that necessary article. At the same time, the public will be convinced, that the average price of flour is more in favour of the consumer, than that of wheat. For example—the average price of wheat, this day, is 9s. per bushel. The allowance to the baker, is 1s. 6d. The quartern loaf would then be 1s.—whereas, the average price of flour being 63s. and 4d., the Magistrates are enabled to make the Assize of Bread 11d. instead of 1s.
| WHEAT. | ||||
| When the Average Price of Wheat is per Bushel. | Allowance to the Baker. | Total Price, including the Allowance | Quartern Loaf | Peck Loaf |
| 7/ | 1/6 | 8/6 | /9¾ | 3/3 |
| 7/3 | ″ | 8/9 | /10 | 3/4 |
| 7/6 | ″ | 9/ | /10¼ | 3/5 |
| 7/9 | ″ | 9/3 | /10½ | 3/6 |
| 8/ | ″ | 9/6 | /10¾ | 3/7¼ |
| 8/3 | ″ | 9/9 | /11 | 3/8 |
| 8/6 | ″ | 10/ | /11½ | 3/10 |
| 9/ | ″ | 10/6 | 1/ | 4/ |
| FLOUR. | ||||
| When the Average Price of Flour is per Sack. | Allowance to the Baker. | Total Price. | Quartern Loaf | Peck Loaf |
| 50/ | 10/ per sack | 60/ | /9 | 3/ |
| 51/8 | ″ | 61/8 | /9¼ | 3/1 |
| 53/4 | ″ | 63/4 | /9½ | 3/2 |
| 55/ | ″ | 65/ | /9¾ | 3/3 |
| 56/8 | ″ | 66/8 | /10 | 3/4 |
| 58/4 | ″ | 68/4 | /10¼ | 3/5 |
| 60/ | ″ | 70/ | /10½ | 3/6 |
| 61/8 | ″ | 71/8 | /10¾ | 3/7 |
—(Times, July 1, 1796.)
The Aldermen also had the power of visiting the bakers’ shops within their Wards, of fining dishonest bakers, and distributing their bread, gratis, to the poor,—a summary, and most effectual, way of dealing with the rogues.
“Wednesday, a cheap Baker in Bishopsgate-Ward was fined, by the Lord Mayor, 5s. per ounce, on 16 ounces short weight, in seven quartern, and nine penny loaves, taken by the inquest of that Ward from out of his shop.”—(Times, March 29, 1793.)
“Saturday Mr. Justice Russell, and the Peace Officers of Greenwich, went to all the bakers, and weighed their bread, to find out if the poor, and other inhabitants, had their due weight: when many loaves, found deficient in weight, were immediately given away at the doors of the bakers to those poor persons who were not under any relief from the parish.”—(Times, Jan. 12, 1795.)
“Monday, in consequence of an information, Mr. Justice Addington, attended by several officers, went to a Baker’s shop, in Holborn, where they found 70 loaves, short of the standard weight, 181 ounces. The Magistrate fixed the penalty of 5s. per ounce, which amounted to £45, 5s., but which was mitigated to £40. The Magistrate, and officers, then went to a Baker’s in Little Turnstile, and found 54 loaves short of the standard, 142 ounces, amounting at 5s. an ounce to £36, but which was mitigated to £30. The loaves were distributed to the poor in the neighbourhood of Covent Garden.”—(Times, July 8, 1795.)
“A Baker was convicted, yesterday, at the Public Office, Whitechapel, of making Bread, to the amount of 307 ounces, deficient in weight, and fined in the penalty of £64, 7s.”—(Times, Aug. 27, 1796.)
“A Baker was, yesterday, convicted in the penalty of £106, 5s. on 420 ounces of bread, deficient in weight.”—(Times, Aug. 30, 1796.)
“On Thursday a great deal of bread was brought before Alderman Cadell, by the Inquest of one of the City Wards, being under the regular standard of weight. The Alderman ordered the loaves to be all weighed before him, and desired the Bakers who were present, to attend to the weights.
“The Bakers expressed their sorrow for it, and said it was an accident occasioned by the carelessness of their Journeymen, in suffering it to be an hour too long in the oven. They not bringing the men forward, to substantiate the defence, the Alderman told them he should fine them the full penalty, of five shillings an ounce, for all deficient; which came to above twenty pounds, besides the forfeiture of the bread. Mr. Kirby, the Keeper of Newgate, being present, solicited part of it, for his prisoners. Some of the Inquest likewise solicited the bread, for the poor of their ward: but the Alderman told them that half of the penalty came to them, which would compensate for the bread.”—(Times, Nov. 30, 1799.)
“Forestalling” and “Regrating” were heinous sins.—They consisted in buying any thing on its way to market, before it had been exposed for public sale—and in purchasing at any market at one price, and selling it again at a higher.
“In consequence of the serious enquiry making into the infamous practices of the salesmen, in Smithfield market, and the conviction of a leading man among them, for regrating, mutton, and lamb, fell 1-1/2d. per pound, in Friday, and yesterday’s, market. If the Magistrates would but exert themselves, to put in force the laws against monopolizers, and forestallers, provisions would soon be at a moderate price, as we are convinced there is no real scarcity: and are of opinion that the farmers and graziers, who are now holding back their corn, and cattle, will experience the fate of those, who, in the hard weather, refused to sell their potatoes under 2-1/2d. per lb., and now cannot get 1/2d. per lb., but have the well deserved prospect of being obliged to give them to the hogs, for want of a consumption.”—(Times, May 26, 1795.)
“HIGH PRICE OF MEAT. This alarming circumstance is not owing to any real scarcity of oxen, sheep, or hogs, but, partly, to a combination among the carcass-butchers in the wholesale markets, and the salesmen in Smithfield, who fix the prices, and who regulate what quantity of cattle shall come to town: and, partly, to a very shameful practice among the retail butchers, especially where a contract is made to supply a family at so much per pound for the year. When the butcher has made his contract at 5d., 5-1/2d., or 6d., he can make a very great profit, although, as is now the case, he can purchase a carcass at 7-1/2d. in the wholesale markets: and the mode by which he does this, is in defrauding his customers of the due weight, to which the person, who attends to see the meat weighed, too often connives at, for a Christmas present, or an Easter gift. The weight, no doubt is in the scale, at the time of weighing: but when the meat is put by, in order to be sent home, a considerable part is purloined: and it is a well known fact, that, in these large lots, the same leg of beef(?) has been weighed to, perhaps, ten or twelve families, in the same day, and not sent to any of them. The leg is considered as the most convenient for this theft, because it is so large, and is, when weighed with the lot, hung on the end of the beam of the scales, from whence it is taken down, and thrown, not where it ought, with the meat, but to another part of the shop. If this was not the case, how is it possible that a butcher can make a livelihood, when he buys 2d. per pound dearer than he sells? The fact speaks for itself. The mode which all families should adopt, is to weigh their meat when it is sent home.”—(Times, July 3, 1795.)
“A few days ago, 11 acres of growing wheat, belonging to the Duke of Hamilton, in Scotland, were sold at £20 per acre. This species of forestalling, we fear, is now too generally attempted, which is evidently most injurious to the community, viz., ‘to buy corn growing in the fields.’ This practice, surely, has a direct, and apparent, tendency to enhance the present price of corn: also, that of ‘selling corn in the sheaf.’ We think it expedient, however, to notify, that both these practices are deemed highly criminal by the ‘common law of England,’ and for which the offenders may be indicted, and punished, as they deserve, with great severity, viz., by fines, pillory, and imprisonment. See Inst. 197: also Hawk c. 30.”—(Times, Aug. 19, 1795.)
“The contrivances to keep up the price of wheat, having been discovered, and defeated, we hope the attention of the worthy Chief Magistrate will now be directed towards some plan for the relief of the Metropolis, against the extortion of the Graziers, and Salesmen, in Smithfield Market. The prices of the latter, on Monday, were higher than almost ever remembered, and mutton is now sold at 7-1/2d. per lb. What real cause there is for such extravagant prices, after such a mild winter, is a matter we are at a loss to account for.”—(Times, April 13, 1796.)
“An action for regrating, in Smithfield Market, is now pending in the Court of Common Pleas: against one of the five brothers, who have so long supported themselves, and their families, by jobbing in Cattle at that Market. A Carcass Butcher, in Whitechapel, is also in dread of a similar action, the penalties on which will be very heavy, as it is for purchasing near 70 oxen, on a Friday, driving them to his farm, near Clapton, and bringing them to Smithfield, for sale, on the following Monday.”—(Times, Nov. 29, 1796.)
Before this time of Scarcity, however, the good folks did not deny themselves luxuries of the table, nor, seemingly, care what they paid for them.
“The first green peas which have been produced this season, were sold, on Monday, in Covent Garden market, at twelve shillings per pottle.”—(Times, April 17, 1793.)
“As a proof of the forwardness of the season, green peas have already made their appearance in Covent Garden market, where they are retailed to the curious in vegetables at the moderate price of two guineas a quart.”—(Times, March 1, 1794.)
“The Fishmongers Company are such jolly soles, as to have annually nine quarts of peas at a guinea a quart.”—(Times, May 16, 1794.)
“Lemons have attained a price never before arrived at in London, namely, ninepence each; buying them wholesale, the price is at the rate of from 6d. to 8d. each. About 400,000 were imported during the week from St. Ubes, and as a large supply is daily expected, the prices must of course fall.”—(Times, Jany. 2, 1797.)
“The arrival of the Lisbon fleet, will make Lemons once more plenty. They were sold, a week ago, at the enormous price of 1s. a piece.”—(Times, July 16, 1799.)
It may be interesting to some to learn when Sea Kale first came into use.
Advt.—“SEA-KALE, a new Culinary Vegetable——Mr. Curtis respectfully informs the Nobility and Gentry, that the small quantity of Sea-Kale fit for the table, which he has to dispose of this season, will by his appointment, be sold by Messrs. Dickson and Anderson, Seedsmen, Covent Garden Market, to whom he will continue to send it daily, fresh cut, for the short period it may last. Printed directions for dressing it, are tied up with each bundle.”—(Times, April 30, 1795.)
In the subjoined advertisement we learn the prices, and qualities, of various Wines, and the list gives us all the information required to find out the different sorts of wine then drank.
“At Priddy’s Foreign Warehouse, and Vaults, No. 14 Poland St., a large quantity of the following Wines, &c., which being, himself, the Importer of, can warrant genuine, at the following prices, viz., at per Dozen:—
| Ten years old Sherry | 25/ |
| Red Port, vintage 1788 | 20/ |
| Old Lisbon | 20/ |
| Calcavella | 22/ |
| Fine Hock | 30/ |
| Vin de Grave | 26/ |
| Madeira | 36/ |
| Claret | 36/ |
| Ditto, first growth | 42/ |
| Burgundy | 60/ |
| Red Champagne | 70/ |
| White ″ | 70/ |
| Hermitage | 42/ |
| Frontigniac | 36/ |
“Rich Aliatico, and Montepulciano, Florence Wines, real Cogniac Brandy, Jamaica Rum, Rotterdam Geneva, and Orange Shrub, on the very lowest terms.”—(Times, April 16, 1793.)
Coals, though, of course, not an article of Food, were undoubtedly of use in cooking it: and may therefore be mentioned here. Our Grandfathers paid very dearly for them: but it must be remembered there was no land carriage, and a continued contrary wind, or a “hot press,” would leave the London Market bare. The magnificent basins of Inland Coals were scarcely known, and only those like the Moira Collieries, near to a Canal, could be worked. They were sold to the consumer at per Chaldron of 2800 lbs., and the prices below quoted represent them ex-ship. Add to this the cost of delivery and profit 12s., and take the Sovereign as being worth 30s., and it will much account for the small stoves then in vogue.
“The price of Coals in the Pool, yesterday, were:—Best 43s. Inferior sorts from 36s. to 38s. Delivered to housekeepers 49s. to 44s. The price rose considerably yesterday from a report that several colliers had been captured.”—(Times, Feby. 12, 1793.)
“COAL EXCHANGE.
“On Monday the price was 70s. per Chaldron all sorts.
On Wednesday, the price was 60s. and some sorts lower.
On Yesterday, the price was 50s. to 45s. per Chaldron.
We are happy at giving such an agreeable account to our readers.”—(Times, March 7, 1794.)
“The prices of Coals still continue very high, notwithstanding above 100 ships have, this week, arrived at market, which are nearly all sold from 38s. to 44s. per Chaldron: so that the best sorts cannot be fairly delivered under 50s. per Chaldron. The number of ships taken out of the trade, into the transport, and other services, is the cause of the present high price, as the demand is greater than the supply.”—(Times, Oct. 4, 1794.)
“Many complaints have been made of the high price of coals, and it is supposed to arise from a combination, but we are well assured no such cause exists. The long frost having stopped the navigation of the Thames, what coals remained in the lighters, and barges, were nearly exhausted at the wharfs, and naturally, every man possessed of a commodity, looks to extraordinary profits on unusual events, which has, we understand, occasioned six, and seven, guineas to be given for a chaldron of coals, within a few days past, but, had the frost continued, coals would have been considerably cheaper, than at present, as the ice admitted the coals being worked over it. There are, at present, near 50 sail of colliers in the river, not unladen, which contain about 10,000 chaldrons, for an immediate supply, (but not ten times that quantity, as erroneously stated in most of the papers) and, before they can be consumed, we may expect a fresh fleet at Market.”—(Times, Jany. 30, 1795.)
“Yesterday, there was only one ship of coals, at Market, which sold at three guineas and a half per chaldron. About 30 sail more were at sea, and forced into the Humber.”—(Times, Feby. 24, 1795.)
“Coals were on Friday (12th April) sold in the Pool at five guineas per Chaldron. There was only one ship-load at market.”—(Times, April 15, 1799.)
The Road and Streets
The Highways and Streets were in very far from good condition, the roads being full of ruts, and the streets when paved, were made of large “Cobble” Stones, and were full of holes, ofttimes very dangerous, as we shall see. The foot pavement, except in some of the best streets, which were flagged, was very narrow, and made of “Kidney” stones on end, such as may still be met with in the bye-ways of some country towns. Consequently no one stirred out more than they could help; the men always on horseback, if single—by “Post,” if accompanied by ladies. It will have been noticed in “Men’s dress” that they all wear boots, if not in the house, and the reason is plain—they had to be protected against the mud of the streets, and ready for the saddle. Every man had to learn to ride, and no doubt this laid the foundation of the Continental opinion, that every Englishman is a good horseman.
| “Young Gentlemen during their Holidays, are supplied with gentle pleasant Horses of all sizes, and the most careful Attendance and Instructions for | £2 12 6 | |
| A Horse to ride for Exercise in the House | 0 3 6 | |
| Twelve lessons when convenient | 2 7 6 | |
| Sixteen lessons in four weeks | 2 7 0 | |
| Single lesson | 0 5 0 | |
| Book of Instructions for Ladies | 0 5 6 | |
| Breaking a horse | 2 7 6 | &c.” |
—(Morning Post, Jany. 2, 1788.)
“Advt.—A CAUTION to all Gentlemen who drive Jobb Horses by their own Coachmen, the Gentleman paying yearly wages to them: From a Gentleman who has had experience of it.—That the Coachmaster and Coachmen do agree, the one to give, the other to receive, annually, a certain sum of money, which can be for no other purpose than to defraud their employers, demanding so much more for the price of their horses, to bribe the said Coachmen to conceal defects in them, and to engage the said Coachmaster to recommend the said Coachmen: and so vice-versa to employ each other, if out of place or business. This is a most dishonest, but general practice of the Coachmasters. The writer of this, to avoid and discourage the practice of this Knavery, has purchased his own horses, persuaded no other means will be effectual. This is written merely to put Gentlemen on their guard, at the expense of the Advertiser, and will not be inserted again.”—(Times, July 2, 1795.)
Of course those that could afford it travelled Post—which was charged one shilling per horse per mile, besides a gratuity to the “boy,” but this was raised to fourteen pence in 1796, when food became so dear.
“So great is the itch of pleasure at this time of year, that on Sundays it is difficult to find post-horses in London. Last Sunday General Fox, and several other persons of Consideration, who had business out of town, were confined for want of them, though they sent as far as the extremity of Whitechapel.”—(Times, Sept. 2, 1795.)
“The rate of Posting still continues at 14d. per mile, and nothing but the unanimous determination of the public to resist so extravagant a charge, can possibly do it away. Some few Post Masters have, it is true, advertised at 1s., but the general rate still remains at 14d. This charge took its rise from the scarcity, and, consequently, the high price of corn: but, at this moment, when corn has fell one third, nothing can justify the continuance of what may be justly reprobated as an imposition.”—(Times, July 9, 1796.)
But it was not every one who could afford Posting or even the Stage Coach,—for them existed the “Stage Wagon”—a most cumbrous affair with very broad wheels—and some eight horses, the driver being mounted on a pony—so as to be able to ride round his team. The following is a very humorous story of a journey by Wagon:—
“A DELIGHTFUL RIDE,
“In the ten-wheeled Caravan, from Greenwich to London.
“We were twenty-four passengers within side, and nine without. It was my lot to sit in the middle, with a very lusty woman on one side, and a very thin man on the other. ‘Open the window,’ said the former, and she had a child on her lap, whose hands and face were all besmeared with gingerbread. ‘It can’t be opened,’ said a little prim coxcomb, ‘or I shall get cold.’—‘But I say it shall, Sir,’ said a Butcher, who sat opposite to him, and the Butcher opened it; but, as he stood, or rather bent forward to do this, the caravan came into a rut, and the Butcher’s head, by the suddenness of the jolt, came into contact with that of the woman who sat next to me, and made her nose bleed. He begged her pardon, and she gave him a slap on the face that sounded through the whole caravan. Two sailors, that were seated near the helm of this machine, ordered the driver to cast anchor at the next public-house. He did so; and the woman next to me, called for a pot of ale, which she offered to me, after she had emptied about a pint of it, observing, that ’as how she loved ale mightily.’ I could not drink, at which she took much offence; and said, ‘I was mighty squeamish; but thank God, she was as good as I, and kept a lodging-house in Craven St., where she saw her betters every day, and so,’ continues she, ‘here’s to you, my dear:’ and she finished the pot. A violent dispute now arose between two stout looking men, the one a Recruiting Sergeant, and the other a Gentleman’s Coachman, about the Rights of Man: and, having struck two or three blows in the Caravan, they got out into the road, to decide whether Tom Paine was an Atheist, or a Deist. In this contest, victory fell to the Sergeant, and the driver of the horses was so mauled by the leader of men, that he was lifted into the vehicle, where he sat in sullen silence all the rest of the journey.
“Another dispute afterwards arose about politics, which was carried on with such warmth, as to draw the attention of the company to the head of the Caravan, where the combatants sat wedged together like two pounds of Epping butter, whilst a child incessantly roared at the opposite side, and the mother abused the two politicians for frightening her babe. The heat was now so great that all the windows were opened, and with the fresh air, entered clouds of dust, for the body of the machine is but a few inches from the surface of the road.
“I trust, Mr. Conductor, you will give this journey to London, a place in your paper, and, I am, &c. &c.
“Lucy Treadneedle.”
—(Times, Sept. 5, 1794.)
It will be noticed that then, as now, the Times, was a powerful organ for calling public attention to social grievances, and that people “wrote to” that paper as at the present time. We, in our time, know the little social inconveniences arising from staying at Hotels, where, not only does the proprietor charge for attendance, which we, no more than the writer of this letter, can understand is not included in his servants’ wages—but we, also, if we want good attendance, have to “tip” the servants as well.
“To the CONDUCTOR of the TIMES.
“Sir,—Having frequent occasion to travel many of the principal roads of England, I have often witnessed the exorbitant demands of Inn-keepers, and the no less serious ones of their domestics, sanctioned only by custom, yet arisen to such a pitch as to become a burthen unable to be borne by the poor Tradesman who is obliged to travel to sell his goods, as well as an inconvenience to the person in middling circumstances of life, who, for his health, or otherwise, has occasion to travel. Grievances (the latter of which especially), are only suffered to exist from the disinclination people have to break through a custom, or to appear singular. Having hinted at the former, I shall only shew the nature, and point out a remedy for the latter. It is well known, that let an Innkeeper’s bill be ever so exorbitant, you must not only comply with it, but also give the servants just as much as if it was reasonable: so that there is no end of the expence: for instance, if a man who has a horse, puts up at an inn, besides the usual bill, he must at least give 1s. to the waiter, 6d. to the chamber-maid, 6d. to the hostler, and 6d. to the jack-boot, making together 2s. 6d., and this to be repeated every night he lays on the road (I speak now of what’s expected from those who appear in middling circumstances of life). The same expence in proportion occurs in the course of the day: at breakfast, you must give at least 6d. between the waiter and hostler. If the traveller only puts up to have a refreshment, besides paying for his horse’s standing, he must give 3d. to the hostler: at dinner 6d. to the waiter and 3d. to the hostler: at tea 6d. between them, so that he gives away in the day 2s. 6d., which added to the 2s. 6d. for the night, makes 5s. per day on an average to servants. Thus he is putting his hand in his pocket from morning till night, not merely to satisfy the Landlord’s demand, but to appease the croaking of domestics, who, it is well known, will let you see, or feel, their displeasure in some way or other if you do not, so that it is disagreeable to go to that inn the second time where you do not behave with profuseness at the first, and there is not only the above inconvenience, but also this, that after all your givings they are not satisfied, but often abuse you for your liberality. The following anecdote proves this:—Coming home from Colchester some time since, I put up at an Inn at Ingatestone, the Innkeeper’s bill was as follows:—Supper 1s., beer 3d., bed 1s., horse and corn 1s. 7d.—together 3s. 10d. I gave away as follows: waiter 1s., chambermaid 6d., jack-boot 6d., hostler, the change out of 2s. I paid him for the horse, being 5d., together 2s. 5d., being 1s. 5d. less than the bill. Yet the hostler was so abusive, because I did not give him more than the odd 5d. change, that he actually threatened me that he would mark me if I came there again. I therefore did, what I wish every one would do in the like case, punish him on the spot for his insolence. I appeared to relent that I had not given him more, and desired him to give me the half-pence again that I might see for silver for him, which after he had done, I rode off, leaving him to repent he had not kept what I first gave him. It may be alleged that these servants have little or no wages, and therefore ought to receive liberally. Be that as it may, it is very hard that I am to pay wages to another man’s servants. I pay the master his bill, in which he makes a charge sufficient to cover his servants’ wages, and then he leaves me to pay his servants besides. If Innkeepers have nothing to pay for servants, their charges ought to be reasonable in proportion. But I would meet another objection that is likely to be made, which is, that what is given to servants at inns is not to be considered as wages, but as their perquisites. There are two answers to this, the one, that the very notion of perquisites, signifies something gotten over and above their usual wages, whereas it is notorious, that most Innkeepers allow their servants no wages: the other, that perquisites signify a gift, now a gift is free, and may be much, or little, as suits the inclination of the giver, but, according to the modern custom at inns, he is not permitted to use his discretion, but there must be a settled sum given to each servant, fixed as to the lowest quantum, though as much above that mark as he pleases, and, if he gives less than custom warrants, they have the impudence to tell him of it. Besides, why should Innkeepers, be exempted from paying their servants wages, any more than any other tradesman. If I go into a shop, to buy a few yards of any thing, I am not charged so much for the trouble of the shopman who cut it off. Tradesmen are contented to pay their servants out of the profit of their bills, without saddling it upon their customers: and I am fully persuaded, were travellers of all descriptions to withhold for a certain time their usual gifts to servants at inns, it would ultimately tend to the benefit of those servants themselves, as well as the comfort of travellers, for when the servants find their finances so low, they would insist upon, and would not hire themselves without stipulated wages, after which, travellers might again resume their former generosity, and what they then gave, would be looked upon in the light it ought, as a gift, and not a debt.
“A Constant Reader.”
—(Times, Oct. 17, 1795.)
The following notices will show that, what with over-crowding, and bad roads, accidents were as frequent by road as they are now by rail—indeed, the per centage, considering the relative number of passengers, was much greater. The basket mentioned below, was a huge wicker work machine attached to the Coach, intended to carry parcels.
“Yesterday the driver of the Chelmsford and London Stage Coach, was convicted before the Magistrates at the Public Office, Whitechapel, in three separate penalties of 40s. each, for suffering more than six persons to ride on the roof of the said Coach.
“The owner and driver of the Bishop Stortford, and London, Stage Coach, was also convicted in the penalty of £4 for the same offence: and the driver of the Westham Stage Coach, in the same penalty, for suffering eight persons to ride on the roof of the said Coach.”—(Times, Oct. 5, 1795.)
“In despite of continual and fatal accidents, not to mention the inferior consideration of pains and penalties, the Stage Coaches still continue to carry extra numbers on the outside. There were eleven on the coach, and box, of the Gosport Coach, beside the driver, and nine in the basket, on Thursday last.”—(Times, Oct. 16, 1795.)
“The pavement in Bridge St. Blackfriars, which has been so long in a most dangerous state, has sunk near a foot more, within the last week, so that the roof of the main shore is every hour expected to give way.”—(Times, Aug. 6, 1794.)
“On Wednesday afternoon, about four o’clock, the Boston Coach broke down, on the lowest part of Snow Hill, soon after it left the Saracen’s Head Inn. The outside passengers, which were FOURTEEN in number, and mostly soldiers, were thrown with such violence on the pavement, that several were bruised, and one woman was taken to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, where she died, on Thursday night. The inside passengers, which were five, and a young child, were not much hurt.
“The frequent accidents which arise from the outsides of coaches being so overladen, calls highly for reprehension. The laws are either inadequate to remedy the evil, or they are not properly enforced: and we sincerely hope that the coachman, and those who are concerned, will be severely punished, as an example to prevent the same accidents in future. We think there should be a fresh Act of Parliament, and, if the inside passengers were empowered, after taking their seats, to hire a post-chaise where there was above a stipulated number (at the owner’s expence), it would remedy the evil.”—(Times, Aug. 8, 1795.)
“The pavement in Bridge St. Blackfriars, still grows worse, and worse, and not the least notice is taking of it by the Paving Committee. This is a most scandalous act of neglect; as, publicly, and privately, the parties have been applied to, who ought to make the necessary repairs. The ground has now sunk near three feet. In so well regulated a city, as that of London, this is a most disgraceful business.”—(Times, Oct., 16, 1799.)
“A few days since, the axle-tree of a carriage was broken in descending the slope of Blackfriars Bridge, in consequence of the very large hole, at the bottom of it, on the Surry-side, which is in the highest degree dangerous. We are not certain that an indictment would not lay against the Trustees of the Surry Roads, for the scandalous manner in which they are kept. They vie with the Paviours, in some parts of the City, and we know not which are the worst of them. It is not to be conceived the number of horses that are foundered, by holes in the streets, and roads.”—(Times, Oct. 5, 1799.)
“From the dangerous state of the pavement in some parts of London, it might be supposed that the Public paid nothing towards it. The thoroughfare about the New Church, in the Strand, is so bad, that two, or three, accidents have lately happened by horses tumbling down, from their feet catching in the holes.”—(Times, Sept. 30, 1799.)