The Dawn of the XIXth Century in England

A curious story about a wedding ring is told in the Morning Post of the 3rd of December, 1800, under the heading “Clerkenwell Sessions”:

“The Prosecutor, a young man, lately out of his apprenticeship, and in very confined circumstances, applied, about a month ago, to the Parish of Shoreditch, and stated, that, it having been his wish to marry a young woman in the same street where he worked, but not having money sufficient to buy the wedding ring, and, his intended spouse being as poor as himself, he hoped their Worships would advance him a small sum to accomplish the purchase; and then added, that they had already been three times asked in Church, and the morrow (Sunday) was the day appointed for the ceremony.

“The Vestry taking into consideration the good character of the applicant, ordered five shillings to be paid him, and the defendant, who is overseer of that parish, was requested to furnish him with a ring, which he did, the same night about ten o’clock, and charged for it 7s. 6d. Before leaving the shop the purchaser said he hoped it was worth the money, when the overseer replied it was good gold, and added, you may pledge it at any pawnbroker’s in the town for 7s. The witness was then satisfied and departed.

“On the Monday following, the affairs of the newly married couple not having assumed the most flourishing aspect, the bridegroom was necessitated to resort to a neighbouring pawnbroker’s shop, when, to the surprise of the party, the ring was declared to be worth nothing, it being a metal composition gilt. Upon this discovery he made application to a Magistrate; the affair went before the Grand Jury, who found a true bill against the jeweller, and the matter was yesterday brought into Court, but in consequence of the absence of material witnesses, the further investigation of this business stands over to a future day.” I regret to say there is no further record of this case.

On this class, the marriage tie lay lightly, and a rough, and summary, method was sometimes used to dissolve it. In a book of mine49 I have already mentioned the practice of wife-selling, as being in vogue at this time. What I then said, can be further confirmed by examples which come within the range of this book.

Morning Herald, March 11, 1802: “On the 11th of last month, a person sold, at the market cross, in Chapel en le Frith, a wife, a child, and as much furniture as would set up a beggar, for eleven shillings!”

Morning Herald, April 16, 1802: “A Butcher sold his wife by auction the last market day at Hereford. The lot brought £1 4s. and a bowl of punch.”

Annual Register, February 14, 1806: “A man named John Gorsthorpe exposed his wife for sale in the market, at Hull, about one o’clock; but, owing to the crowd which such an extraordinary occurrence had gathered together, he was obliged to defer the sale, and take her away. About four o’clock, however, he again brought her out, and she was sold for 20 guineas, and delivered, in a halter, to a person named Houseman, who had lodged with them four or five years.”

Morning Post, October 10, 1807: “One of those disgraceful scenes, which have, of late, become too common, took place on Friday se’nnight at Knaresborough. Owing to some jealousy, or other family difference, a man brought his wife, equipped in the usual style, and sold her at the market cross for 6d. and a quid of tobacco!”

In the Doncaster Gazette of March 25, 1803, a sale is thus described: “A fellow sold his wife, as a cow, in Sheffield market-place a few days ago. The lady was put into the hands of a butcher, who held her by a halter fastened round her waist. ‘What do you ask for your cow?’ said a bystander. ‘A guinea,’ replied the husband. ‘Done!’ cried the other, and immediately led away his bargain. We understand that the purchaser and his ‘cow’ live very happily together.”

Enough examples have been given to show that the French idea of wives being sold in Smithfield, and elsewhere, is founded on fact; indeed, there is no reason to disbelieve the writer of “Six mois à Londres in 1816,” when he describes a wife sale he saw at Smithfield – at which the lady was offered at the price of 15s., and, at that price, was eventually purchased, after due examination, “Comme il avait examiné quelques instans auparavant, une jument que je l’avais vu marchander.”

We must not throw stones at our grandfathers because this custom was in their midst. I could quote numerous instances of it, from time to time, down to our own days. Vide the South Wales Daily News, May 2, 1882, where, at Alfreton, a woman was sold by her husband, in a public-house for a glass of ale; and, again, in the Pall Mall Gazette, October 20, 1882, where it is recorded, that, at Belfast, a certain George Drennan sold his wife to one O’Neill, for one penny and a dinner.

But, before dismissing the social status of women of this class, at that time, I cannot help chronicling a singular custom, which, however, appears to be peculiarly local.

Annual Register, March 22, 1806: “A Woman to Let! There is a custom, which, most likely, is peculiar to a small district in the western part of Cumberland. A few days ago, a gentleman from the neighbourhood of Whitehaven, calling upon a person, at his house in Ulpha, was informed that he was not at home; he was gone to church; there was ‘a woman to let!’ On enquiry as to the meaning of this singular expression, it was thus explained: – When any single woman, belonging to the parish, had the misfortune to prove with child, a meeting of the parishioners is called, for the purpose of providing her a maintenance in some family, at so much a week, from that time to a limited time after delivery; and, this meeting (to give it the greater sanction), is uniformly holden in the church, where the lowest bidder has the bargain! And on such occasions, previous notice is given, that on such a day, there will be a ‘woman to let.’”

CHAPTER XXXIV

Gambling – Downfall of Lady Archer, &c. – Card playing in the Royal Circle – Card money – High play – Play at the Clubs – Lotteries – The method of drawing them – Horse racing – Turf and horses better than now – Curious names of race horses – Ladies Lade and Thornton – Lady Thornton’s races – Tattersall and Aldridge.

ONE VICE the women of that age had, in common with the men, and that was Gambling – which, perhaps, was not so bad among the former, as during the last years of the preceding century, when Ladies Archer, and Buckinghamshire, and Mrs. Concannon were pilloried, and scourged metaphorically by the Satirists, as they were promised to be treated, physically, by Lord Kenyon. Their race was run – as expressed in the Morning Post, January 15, 1800: “Society has reason to rejoice in the complete downfall of the Faro Dames, who were so long the disgrace of human nature. Their die is cast, and their odd tricks avail no longer. The game is up, and very few of them have cut with honours.”

Mrs. Concannon still kept on, but not in London, as is seen by the following paragraph. Morning Herald, December 18, 1802: “The visitors to Mrs. Concannon’s petits soupers, at Paris, are not attracted by billets previously circulated, but by cards, afterwards dealt out, in an elegant and scientific manner; not to mince the matter, they are the rendezvous of deep play: and the only questionable point about the matter is, whether the Irish, or the French, will prove victors at the close of so desperate a winter’s campaign.”

Still, we find even in the Royal circle, where the utmost gravity of demeanour, and purity of manner, were to be found, the card table was the evening’s amusement. “The evening is, as usual, passed at cards, in the Queen’s Drawing Room, where three tables are set out.” And cards were still the staple entertainment both for men and women, at night. Naturally, the latter did not play for such high stakes as the men did; but they contrived to make, or lose, a sufficient sum, either to elate, or to depress them, and experience, as far as in them lay, all the fierce feelings of the gambler. Nay, some made a pitiful profit out of their friends – in the shape of “card money” – which meant that the players put so much, every game, into a pool (generally the snuffer tray) to pay for the cards, and something for the servants.

It was a practice in its death throes, having been mortally wounded, by public opinion, at the end of the last century; but the little meanness still obtained —vide the Morning Herald, December 15, 1802: “In a pleasant village near the Metropolis, noted for its constant ‘tea and turn out parties,’ the extortion of Card Money had, lately, risen to such a pitch, that it was no unusual thing for the Lady of the House, upon the breaking up of a table, to immediately examine the sub-cargo of the candlestick, and, previous to the departure of her guests, proclaim aloud the lamentable defalcation of a pitiful shilling, which they might, perchance, have forgot to contribute. We are happy to find that some of the most respectable people in the place have resolved to discountenance and abolish this shabby genteel custom, which has too long prevailed; a shameful degradation of everything like English hospitality.”

But they sometimes played as high as did the opposite sex – the climax, perhaps, coming in the following, from the Morning Post, April 5, 1805: “The sum lately lost at play by a Lady of high rank is variously stated. Some say it does not amount to more than £200,000, while others assert that it is little short of £700,000. Her Lord is very unhappy on the occasion, and is still undecided with respect to the best mode to be adopted in the unfortunate predicament.”

The men lost and gained large sums of a night; and, for that age, gaming had reached its climax. Little birds whisper50 that it is not much better now; but, at all events, it is not so open. From the highest to the lowest – from the Heir Apparent, and the two great leaders of party, Fox and Pitt, down to the man who could only afford to punt his shilling, or half-crown, at a “silver hell” – all were bitten, more or less, by this mania of gaming. The magistrates lashed the petty rogues when they were caught, but winked discreetly at the West-end Clubs, and ordered no raids upon them. There they might win or lose their thousands, secure that the law would not stretch out its arm to molest them. There the nobility, legislators, country gentlemen, and officers of the army, met together on a common footing, to worship the Demon of Play.

There were three principal Clubs – White’s, Brookes’, and Boodles’. White’s was originally a “Chocolate House” in William the Third’s time, but became a private club early in the eighteenth century, and was used by the Tories. It was a club always noted for high play and betting, and very curious some of their bets were, the old wager book being still preserved. Brookes’ was the Whig Club, and was then conducted by that

“liberal Brookes, whose speculative skillIs hasty credit and a distant bill;Who, nurs’d in Clubs, disdains a vulgar trade,Exults to trust, and blushes to be paid.”

Among the members of this club were the Prince of Wales, and, of course, his fidus Achates, Sheridan, besides the great Charles James Fox, who here played deeply, and whose name is oft recorded in the wager book, which, however, is of older date, and was kept when the club was held at Almack’s.

“Lord Northington bets Mr. C. Fox, June 4, 1774, that he (Mr. C. F.) is not called to the bar before this day four years.”

“March 11, 1775. Lord Bolinbroke gives a guinea to Mr. Charles Fox and is to receive a thousand from him whenever the debt of this country amounts to 171 millions. Mr. Fox is not to pay the £1,000 till he is one of His Majesty’s Cabinet.”

“April 7, 1792. Mr. Sheridan bets Lord Lauderdale and Lord Thanet, twenty-five guineas each, that Parliament will not consent to any more lotteries after the present one voted to be drawn in February next.”

At all the clubs, gaming was practised more or less. Morning Herald, June 16, 1804: “A noble Lord, lately high in office, and who manifests a strong inclination to be reinstated in his political power, lost at the Union, a night or two back 4,000 guineas before twelve o’clock; but, continuing to play, his luck took a turn, and he rose a winner of a thousand before five the next morning.”

Again, to show the large sums then won and lost at gambling, take the following newspaper cuttings.

Morning Post, June 30, 1806: “The Marquis of H – d is said to have been so successful at play this season, as to have cleared £60,000. The Earl of B – e has won upwards of £50,000, clear of all deductions. A Right Reverend is stated to be amongst those who are minus on this occasion.”

Morning Post, July 8, 1806: “A certain noble Marquis, who has been so very fortunate this season in his gaming speculations, had a run of ill luck last week. At one sitting, his lordship was minus no less a sum than thirteen thousand pounds!”

Morning Post, July 15, 1806: “The noble Marquis, who has been so great a gainer, this season, at hazard, never plays with any one, from a Prince, to a Commoner, without having the stakes first laid on the table. His lordship was always considered as a sure card, but now his fame is established, from the circumstance of his having cleared £35,000, after deducting all his losses for the last six months.”

But, although the magistrates shut their eyes to the sins of the great, and punished the small, when brought before them, the Government systematically demoralized the people by means of lotteries. True, it was a great temptation, for it yielded a revenue to the State of about £350,000, besides the licenses of the brokers, £50 each. Very jealous was the Government to protect its children from the pernicious effects of private lotteries; they were anathema, and, besides, they would absorb some of the profit, which otherwise would have gone into the pockets of a paternal rule. In this decade, there were but two private lotteries, and, for both of them, a special act of Parliament was required, viz., that of the Pigot diamond in 1800, and Boydell’s pictures in 1805.

This illustration is by Pyne, and, like all his drawing, is extremely graphic. It represents the Life Guards, who then had to perform many of the duties of our police, conveying the Lottery wheels, from Somerset House (or Somerset Place, as it was then called) to Cooper’s Hall, in Basinghall Street, where the Lottery was then drawn. There were four sledges employed for the purpose, two carrying the wheels containing the tickets, with their blanks, or prizes, and the other two bore the cases for the wheels. They were drawn by three horses each.

For many years the Lottery had been drawn at Guildhall, but it was afterwards removed to Cooper’s Hall. At both places the tickets were drawn out of the wheels by two scholars of Christ’s Hospital, or Bluecoat boys – who were thus selected for this office because their youth, and supposed integrity,51 rendered them less liable than other boys, to be tampered with. The accompanying illustration gives a very life-like presentment of the scene.

The last public Lottery, in England, was drawn in October, 1826.

Needless to say that Gambling, either in the form of card playing, dicing, or lotteries, was not the only way that fools and rogues could throw away their money. Still there were two resources left – the Turf, and Cock-fighting. The Turf was undoubtedly purer then than now, when it has reached such a pitch of refinement in blackguardism, and scoundrelism, that it must soon either be swept away, or violently reformed. Racing then was more for encouraging a breed of horses, swift, yet of such staying powers as to be able to run a four-mile heat without breaking down: not like our “exaggerated greyhounds,” who can barely stagger over a course of six furlongs, or three quarters of a mile.

The stakes were not so high, and although there was much betting on a race, yet it was among the upper class, or men who could afford to lose to each other, and in the society of their equals; and not as at present, when a lord is on familiar terms with a ruffian, so long as he will give the odds required, and may possibly be able to pay if he loses; nor, then, did shop boys make books on races, or talk learnedly of double events, &c., and such scenes as can now be witnessed any race day in Fleet Street, were utterly unknown, and undreamt of. A King’s plate of £100 was then considered worth running for, and noblemen, and gentlemen, matched their horses one against the other, in a proper spirit of emulation.

There was a fair amount of racing literature – “Baily’s Racing Register,” “Pick’s Racing Calendar,” “The Turf Register,” “The Racing Calendar,” and “The Sporting Magazine,” and I know, and care not, whether this is an exhaustive list. From some of them we get some curious names of race horses, for their owners then, seem to have run riot in the nomenclature of their animals. What should we say nowadays to such names as “Kiss in a Corner,” “Jack, come tickle me,” “Jenny, come tye me,” “I am little, pity my condition,” “Jack’s my favourite,” “Britons, strike home,” “Why do you slight me?” “Turn about, Tommy,” “Sweeter when clothed,” “Watch them and Catch them,” “First time of Asking,” “Fear not, Victorious,” “Hop, step, and jump,” &c., &c.

As a curious incident of manners in the early century, I may mention that two ladies, Lady Lade and Mrs. Thornton (wife of Col. Thornton), both rode matches in public. Mrs. Thornton’s brother-in-law, Mr. Flint, was stopping at the Colonel’s seat of Thornville, and riding with the lady in its grounds. They had a gallop, and Mrs. Thornton’s old horse, aided by her good riding, beat her antagonist, which so nettled him, that he challenged her to a further trial, which took place publicly, on the last day of the York August Meeting, 1804. Mrs. Thornton’s horse broke down, and she lost; but she did not omit to wail publicly over the matter, asserting that otherwise she would have won, and that her opponent took unfair advantage of her.

This exhibition of herself seems to have fired her ambition, for we read in the Morning Post, August 20, 1805:

“Mrs. Thornton is to ride 9 st. against Mr. Bromford, who is to ride 13 st., over the York Course, four miles; to run the last race on Saturday in the next August meeting, for four hogsheads of Coti Roti p.p. and 2,000 guineas h. ft.; and Mrs. T. bets Mr. B. 700 gs. to 600 gs. p.p.; the 2,000 gs. h. ft. provided it is declared to the Stewards four days before starting. Mrs. T. to have her choice of four horses.

“Mr. B. to ride Allegro, sister to Allegranti.

“N.B. Colonel T., or any gentleman he may name, to be permitted to follow the lady over the course, to assist her in case of any accident.”

When it came to the pinch, Mr. Bromford declined the race, paid his forfeit, and the lady walked over. Later in the day, however, she raced Buckle, a jockey, mounted on Allegro – carrying 13 st. 6 lb., whilst Mrs. Thornton scaled 9 st. 6 lb. – and she beat the professional by half a neck. This match does not seem to have been for any money, but merely for the honour of the thing.

Before quitting the subject of horses, I cannot help mentioning that both Tattersall, and Aldridge, were in existence, as equine auctioneers, a position which, their thorough integrity has consolidated, and preserved to the present day.

CHAPTER XXXV

Cock-fighting – Its illegality – Public recognition of it – Description of company at a cock-fight – High stakes – Bull-baiting – Debate thereon in the House of Commons – Prize-fighting – Famous pugilists – George IV. as a patron of the Ring – Attempts to put down prize-fighting – Female physical education – Cudgel-playing, and other sports.

COCK-FIGHTING was another way of gambling – a barbarous pastime, yet of great antiquity, and, changing the name of the combatants to quails, or partridges, extending all over the world, especially in the East. The Greeks had their Cock-fights, the Romans fought both cocks and quails. Of its introduction into England there is no certain date, but Fitz-Stephen, who died in 1191, mentions schoolboys as fighting their cocks on Shrove Tuesday. Edward III., Henry VIII., Elizabeth, and Cromwell, all prohibited Cock-fighting; yet, so popular was it, that no prohibition was of any avail, and the Royal fulminations passed unheeded, and fell into desuetude almost as soon as uttered.

In the time of which I write, Cocking was a recognized sport, publicly advertised. Morning Post, January 5, 1805: “Cocking, to be Fought on Monday, January 7, 1805, and continue all the week, at the Cock Pit Royal, South side of St. James’s Park, the Gentlemen of Suffolk, and the Gentlemen of Hampshire’s Main of Cocks, for Five Guineas the battle, and One Hundred Guineas the odd. To begin fighting each day precisely at Half-past Five o’clock.” Indeed, “Cock-fighting, Shooting, and Military Carriages” were advertised.

The Cock Pit Royal was in Bird Cage Walk, St. James’s Park, and was a great institution, until the expiration of its lease in 1816, when the landlord refused to renew. Of a sketch of its interior (by Rowlandson, and Pugin, in their “Microcosm of London”) the following description is given, which will better help to illustrate the sport than any words of mine, as the account is contemporary:

“This print may, without undue partiality, be acknowledged to excel that of Hogarth, upon the same subject. It is different in one particular: here the satire is general, not personal; a collection of peers and pickpockets, grooms and gentlemen, bons-vivants and bullies; in short, a scene which produces a medley of characters, from the highest to the lowest, has seldom been painted with an adherence to nature so strict and so interesting. The principal figure in the front row seems to anticipate the loss of the battle; his neighbour to the right appears to have some eggs in the same basket; whilst a stupid sort of despair in the countenance of the next figure proclaims that all hope is lost; the smiling gentleman on his left seems to be the winner. The clenched fists and earnest features of the personage in the same row, between two sedate contemplaters of the fight, make one feel that sort of interest which arises from a belief that victory depends upon only a little assistance being given at that particular moment to the bird upon whose side he has betted. In the centre, and on the highest row behind, are two figures, apparently intended as hurling defiance to the whole company; they are certainly offering odds, which no one is disposed to take. A little to the left, and just above the smart officer with a cocked hat, is a group inimitably portrayed. A parcel of knowing ones, who have betted pretty high, finding themselves in the wrong box, appear very desirous of edging off, and are attacking all together a personage who has been too much for them; his attitude is expressive, and, with his fingers thrust into his ears, seems to indicate that he will take no more bets; whilst the two figures (one in a cocked hat) to the left appear to enjoy the humorous expedient… On the right we discover a pugilistic exhibition, and at a little distance horsewhips and sticks brandished in the air; all these are the natural accompaniments of the scene. Upon the whole, this picture has great merit, and conveys a more perfect idea of the confusion and bustle of a Cockpit than any description.” This was written in 1808-9.

Sometimes very large sums depended upon these combats —vide Morning Post, April 28, 1800: “A main of cocks is to be fought this week at Newmarket, as interesting to the sporting world as that, last summer, at York. The match is ostensibly made between Mr. Cussans, and Mr. Germain; but Sir Harry Vane Tempest, and others we could name, are supposed to be the real principals. It is for 1,000 guineas a side, and forty guineas each battle. Great sums are depending, and much money will be sported.”

The last Act against Cock-fighting was 12 and 13 Vic., cap. 92 (August 1, 1849); but if any one imagines that, therefore, this amusement is extinct, he is very much mistaken.