Eighteenth century smugglers were known for the ingenious stratagems that they used to avoid detection of their contraband goods.  These included towing waterproof containers up rivers below the surface, and of course wrapping yards of silk round their bodies.  The following story illustrates the lengths to which they would go.

A most remarkabe seizure was lately made by Mr. Tankard, of Dartford.  The captain of a ship, whose wife died abroad, brought home a coffin, in which was supposed to be the remains of his once beloved wife.  It was suffered to be taken on shore without searching, and the lady lay in state for several days before she was interred;  however, at last, a hearse was prepared and two mourning coaches attended with the relations of the deceased, and the procession moved on slowly towards Stepney, where the coffin was deposited.  About twelve o’clock at night, Mr. Tankard and his man coming by the church-yard, observed some mean a-digging, and a cart standing by;  they watched the motions of those resurrection-men, and presently saw them open the coffin and take out the body, which consisted of upwards of 500 pieces of muslin and various other contraband articles.  Mr. Tankard suffered them to proceed to with their corpse till they came to Ratcliff-Cross, where he got assistance and seized the whole.
[The Times Jun 27, 1786]

This elaborate deceit raises in my enquiring mind a few questions:

Why did they not take the contraband out of the coffin while it was above ground?  They could surely have replaced it with any kind of rubbish of similar weight.  Instead they exposed themselves to discovery by digging it up after it had been buried.

Did the captain’s wife actually die abroad?  If so, was she buried there?  Unless they were also involved in the plot, the family must have believed that her body was in the coffin, in order to have gone through the mourning and funeral.  If they did not know, it must have come as something of a surprise to them.

Were the men then prosecuted for smuggling or grave-robbery (or both)?

This blog has no connection with tailors or the Georgian period but it's my blog and we all deserve a break, including the readers!

Having been brought up listening to the music of Benjamin Britten, I remembered yesterday his arrangements of folk songs, which were sung on record by Peter Pears.   A ballad that had always intrigued me was ‘Little Sir Willliam.’  In Britten’s version it goes:

Easter day was a holiday
Of all days in the year,
And all the little schoolfellows went out to play
But Sir William was not there.

Mama went to the School wife’s house
And knock-ed at the ring,
Saying, "Little Sir William, if you are there,
Pray let your mother in."

The School wife open'd the door and said:
"He is not here today.
He is with the little schoolfellows out on the green
Playing some pretty play."

Mamma went to the Boyne water
That is so wide and deep,
Saying, "Little Sir William, if you are there,
Pray pity your mother's weep."

"How can I pity your weep, Mama,
And I so long in pain?
For the little pen knife sticks close to my heart
And the School wife hath me slain.

"Go home, go home, my mother dear,
And prepare my winding sheet,
For tomorrow morning before eight o'clock,
You with my body shall meet.

"Lay my Prayer Book at my head, Mama
And my grammar at my feet,
So that all the little schoolfellows as they pass by
May read them for my sake."

I have to admit that to my childish ear it was always “my Grandma at my feet”.  I always wondered why the school-wife should have murdered that rather sanctimonious little boy in a fit of pique, and why Mama went to her house when it was a holiday?   What emerges from my reseach is far more shocking than I had imagined.  Britten described this as a Somersetshire ballad, but as far as I know there is no Boyne-water in that county.  It sounds more as if it came there via Northern Ireland.  The lyrics were sanitised, perhaps by Britten, because the original ballad has the villain not as a homicidal pedagogue but a Jew-wife, i.e., a Jewess.

This older ballad, with many variations, is called 'Sir Hugh, or The Jew’s Daughter', and is most recently quoted in ‘English and Scottish Ballads’, selected and edited by the American historian Francis James Child (1825-1896.).  His source is given as ‘Minstrelsy, Ancient and Modern’ by William Motherwell, (1797-1835).  In his introduction Motherwell says: “Two copies of this ballad appeared in Herd's Collection, Edinburgh 1776, under the above title.  A third is printed in Dr. Percy's Reliques, and Mr. Jamieson has given another copy of the same ballad, taken down from recitation, in Ireland.”  Maybe that explains the Boyne-water, though that does not appear in the original.

A further book in French which quotes the ballad is: ‘Hugues de Lincoln: Recueil de Ballades Anglo-Normande et Ecossoisses Relatives au Meurtre de cet Enfant Commis par les Juifs en 1260’, compiled by Francisque Michel.  This is supposedly taken from the writings of St. Hugh of Lincoln (1140-1200) but many other sources are given.  What the  connection is, apart from the name, between the saint and the dead child was is not made clear.  It is a particularly nasty work of anti-Semitism.

So now it appears that  we have a Scottish ballad which in fact comes from Lincoln.   It starts with Hugh kicking his ball though the woman’s window, and he asks for his ball back, whereupon she asks him in to dine, finally overcoming his reservations with offers of apples.  She leads him though various rooms before stabbing him with her pen-knife, watching him bleed, and even in one version catching the blood in a golden cup, until ‘There was nae mair (blood) within.  She laid him on a dressing table, She dress'd him like a swine’,  garnished with the apples.  She then puts him into a case of lead and drops him down a fifty-fathom draw-well.

So, far from the act of an envious schoolmarm, what we actually have is a case of ritual slaughter.  The significance of Easter Day is that in the middle ages stories were rife that the Jews would crucify or otherwise murder Christian children at Easter.  Mostly these stories were shown to be false, but they served to whip up hatred against the Jews.  Because of their talent as businessmen and moneylenders they were in fact regarded as necessary by the barons and noblemen, and were given protection by a succession of kings.

“Little Sir William” scans better than “Little Sir Hugh”, so that the probable reason for the change of name.  I will never quite feel the same way about the song.  Anyway, here is a very nice version of Britten’s arrangement:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JgMIhA4Nb8

“The following is extracted from a Volume just published, intitled, LETTERS between an Illustrious PERSONAGE and a LADY of HONOUR at B*******. “  [Brighton]

It then printed two letters with all names asterisked out apart from the lady’s name - MARGARITTA.   A little more digging showed that this was the name Maria Fitzherbert used in her letters to the Prince of Wales, which I did not know before this.  How these letters came to be available is not clear.  They must have been written about 1784, when Prinny was pursuing Mrs Fitz.  After his marriage to Princess Caroline in 1795, and rejection of Maria, she may have let them slip or had them stolen.

Fortunately I found copies of these letters, and several more, collected in a book called Love letters of Famous Royalties and Commanders, selected by Lionel Strachey, 1909.  They appear elsewhere but are not freely available in digital form (I found this book on HathiTrust).  Here is a selection, minus the asterisks, for your enjoyment.

FROM MRS. FITZHERBERT
"Princes, like women, find few real friends;
All who approach them their own ends pursue,
Lovers and ministers are seldom true."

So spake a bard well used to courts and my sex. To you, my Prince, I ought, agreeable to the style of those who surround you, pay an implicit obedience, and meet you as you desired on my quitting the ballroom last night. Meet you! What, you, the Prince of Wales, whose character in the annals of gallantry is too well known for me to suppose that after such a meeting I should have any character at all? This may be too free—I am unused to address people of excessive rank—my manners are unaffected—I know not a sentiment that I would wish to disguise, and I should be happy to know only that behaviour from your Royal Highness that must command silent respect from
Your father's affectionate subject,
MARGARITTA

TO MRS. FITZHERBERT
I find but too often cause to lament that rank in life that perhaps is envied me by all the world. Princes indeed have few real friends. Even your sex fly me, and does the amiable Margaritta allow her better judgment to be biassed by public calumny? It is beneath the heart that reigns in so lovely a bosom! I do not command, far from it, I only entreat a further knowledge of you, and where is the impropriety of permitting a meeting with a condescension that will make me most happy—not your Prince, the son of your Sovereign, but your admiring,
your adoring,
WALES

FROM MRS. FITZHERBERT
Public calumny I am above; my own reasons and observation are the charms that forbid a private meeting.  Already has the notice bestowed on me at the ball by your Royal Highness brought on me the envy of my own sex and the impertinence of yours. I like not your associates, particularly that wild man, H., [presumably George Hanger] who stares me out of countenance. The difference of our rank in life forbids a further knowledge of me, and I entreat you to avoid me. I shall be tonight at the ball, not because I like it, but my not having appeared since the last is, I find, observed; and some of our visitors yesterday told me I was too much engaged by the Prince's notice to bestow any on those beneath him. Come to the ball, dance with Lady B., and take the slightest notice of me. Why should you wish to take more? There are a hundred much prettier women! Mrs. O. for example—you think her pretty. She is indeed divine! And she has a husband, an officer of spirit, to shield her from the rude attacks of envy. You may enjoy her conversation, she yours, and malice dare not speak. But me, an unprotected, helpless orphan? It will be cruel to pursue the humble,
MARGARITTA

TO MRS. FITZHERBERT
Cold, unkind, Margaritta ! Why am I forbid that attention which is your due—which all the world must pay you? Why am I doomed to pass an insipid evening with a woman of fashion only, when my heart and my better judgment would lead me to the most elegant, the most accomplished fair that Brighton has to boast. Mrs. O. is beauteous, but it is not mere beauty I admire, it is expression, "a something than beauty dearer." You know my opinion of Lady B.; her rank entitles her to my hand, nothing besides could induce me. I respect her Grace for the sake of the best of mothers, and therefore I comply with what politeness and etiquette requires; but why must I give up the enjoyment of your conversation? Be superior to common talk.  Call not yourself unprotected—all the world must be your friends. I am concerned H. displeases you. I am certain he never designed it. This wild man has really some good points; that he admires you I wonder not, and perhaps he is not perfectly delicate in that admiration.  Does S. [Sheridan?] likewise displease you, and little J. O. [John Willet Payne, known as ‘Little Jacko’?], that you say you do not like my associates? If they do, they shall not trouble you; I want no company when in yours!  I felt your absence from the ball, and rejoice that you will grace it this evening. It is impossible to see you with indifference! In vain would you exact so hard a task from the tenderest of your friends,
The obliged,
WALES

[Obviously Maria didn't turn up at the ball!]

TO MRS. FITZHERBERT
What a disappointment! Ah, cruel Margaritta ! I entered the ballroom last night at nine, in the highest spirits. My eyes flew round it with impatience, in search of the only bright object they wished to see—but they sought in vain! I asked H. and S. after you; they had seen you airing—not dressed for the ball. I was disconcerted ! Is it possible so gentle a form, a countenance so soft, so tender, can be thus unkind? I danced with several, and I was persuaded at about one o'clock to join in a Scotch reel. The small company that remained were diverted, but nothing could reanimate my spirits. Why do you thus fly me? Once more I entreat a meeting; let it be at your own house if you please. Where is the impropriety? If you grace not the court, which hundreds may rejoice at, why refuse attentions that are most due to you? I wish not to be considered here in my public character—much less by you—than as any other private gentleman whose eyes and whose heart assure him you are most worthy his regard.  I esteem a character that I would not injure; report says yours is faultless as your form. Allow me, permit me, a further knowledge of you; you will not find me, I trust, undeserving of your good opinion, but that I shall always remain
Your devoted and admiring
WALES

FROM MRS. FITZHERBERT
Surprised that I was not at the ball! Recollect your letter in the morning: it is impossible to see you with indifference. What then was I to expect? No one thing that I wished. You imagine, I doubt not, that my vanity would have been so well gratified that reason would have been silent. Had I suffered the woman wholly to prevail, this must have been the case; but a thousand combining circumstances have almost quelled the foibles of my sex, and vanity you must suppose dead in me when I withdraw thus from your notice. And yet I wish your friendship, am deeply interested in your fame, and desire most ardently that you may be as eminent in goodness as in rank.  I cannot receive your visits; the family I am with would leave the place immediately on such an event. They are what the world calls extreme good people—what I should call outrageous. They are not of the number of your friends.  Your first unfortunate vote in the house against our gracious Sovereign they will never forgive, and it is vain that I urge the impetuosity of youth, that love of independence so natural to all, that you gave not that vote from reason. I dare believe you never thought about it.  F. [Fox] desired it, and you was glad to appear to have a will of your own.  But why enter I into politics, yet you make me a politician. I was violent for P. [Pitt] ; I now dislike him, but like not F. [Fox] notwithstanding.  A man of bad private character, though of the greatest talents, and blest with uncommon genius, can never deserve the love of a worthy heart.  I took an airing last night, and paid a very stupid visit, yet was I not dissatisfied.  It was a proper sacrifice to prudence.  I am now going a-sailing. Our party is large, the day is fine, and the gale favourable. If you write again, be cautious how your letter is given me. I think it needless to desire you to destroy mine. They have no merit to entitle them to preservation; and as they are not directed or signed with my real name, I think they can never be made public. Yet I am not without fear. Such trash would be a treasure to the printer, and the very initials of your name would sell a book wonderfully.
Adieu.

The letters show Mrs. Fitz to be feisty, intelligent and artful.  I find her endearing and interesting in the extreme.  Note her prophetic last sentences!

I would welcome any feedback!

It is the work of Margaret Anderson of Athabasca University Press, and great kudos to her.

The cork rump apparently became fashionable around 1770 as a means of extending a lady's backside to accentuate the waist.

The following story appeared in the Morning Post on 4 October, 1785:

"As much raillery has been levelled against the wearing of cork rumps, we shall insert the following most extraordinary fact in order to prove, that one of a good size is equal to a cork jacket, in accidents by water — a few days ago, a lady with an immense circumference of bottom, as she was stepping into a boat, at Blackfriar's Bridge, by the awkwardness of the waterman, in handing her off the Stairs, lost her footing, and tumbled into the Thames, but, instead of sinking, to the surprise of every body, from her hips up she appeared above water; all the boats immediately put out after her; but the wind and tide both going strongly down the river, which circumstance, added to an immense parachute hat she had on, acting as a sail, there was no overtaking her; in this exceedingly perilous state, the poor lady proceeded like a mermaid, till the alarm became so general on the river, that the combined fleets of the Old Swan, and Tower Stairs, put out all the Navies, and luckily meeting her as she passed London Bridge, towed her safely into Billingsgate; but her fright did not end here, for as she was stricken in years, and her dip in the Thames having restored her shrivelled countenance to its native sallow, the ladies of Billingsgate, with one united voice, pronounced her a witch.  Nor could she have escaped their fury, if she had not proved, to the satisfaction of these conscientious matrons, that it was not to the Devil but to a cork rump that she owed her safety."

If readers see in me a morbid fascination with the matter of suicide they are not wrong, since this is the second such report that I have committed to blog.   However, my interest is not only in the process by which the truth is arrived at, and in the conflicting reports which give colour to the story, but in trying to devine the state of mind of the deceased and his reasons for committing the ‘rash act’.  This is probably the only occasion when a member of Prinny’s staff actually killed himself in Carlton House.  A sad and rather grisly issue is why the footman decided to shoot himself twice in the body instead of in the head, as if he wanted to die in the more painful fashion.  If you read the reports through to the end you will feel the language being used, and finally understand more about why this unfortunate man took his own life.

Evans’ and Ruffy’s Farmer’s Journal of 28 July 1810 begins the sad story:

SUICIDE
On Wednesday morning last, the people in Carleton-house were alarmed by the report of a pistol, from a room adjoining the servants’ hall, which, a few seconds after, was followed by another report;  and on opening the door, a most terrific scene presented itself; one of the footmen, of the name of Tranter, lay weltering in his blood, with his shirt and cravat on fire.  He survived about nine minutes, and was sufficiently sensible to inform the people around him that he was his own executioner, and that it was his desire to die.  The first ball, it was supposed, took a slanting direction from the breast, but the second lodged in the neck.  It was conjectured that losing at play was the cause of suicide.

The Times of 26 July continues:
Yesterday morning, one of the most deliberate and horrid suicides was committed by a young man by the name of Tranter, a footman in the employ of the Prince of Wales.  He entered Carlton-house as early as between five and six o’clock, and went in to the servant’s hall, where he was found writing by another servant named Barr, who had got up early.  They conversed together without his perceiving anything extraordinary in Tranter’s conduct or behaviour.  At length Barr left the hall, and when he was in another part of the house heard the report of a pistol.  He had no suspicion that it proceeded from the hall, but returned there as he intended, when he found Tranter in another part of the hall, and at the instant called to know what was the matter; and looking at him, he perceived blood flowing from his stomach, and that he had shot himself with one of his travelling pistols, which are always kept loaded; his waistcoat was on fire, occasioned by the wadding of the pistol.  Barr was so much alarmed by this horrid sight, that he ran out to fetch the gate-porter to assist.  On his return with the porter, just before they got to the hall-door they heard the report of a pistol, and its fall.  They found that Tranter had been so completely determined on his own destruction, that he has got off his waistcoat, which was on fire, and, in his wounded state, he had got across the hall, about ten yards,  and procured another loaded pistol, and discharged the contents into his left side.
Barr asked Tranter what had induced him to do the rash act? He replied: “He had done it himself, and it was no business of his or anybody else”.  Tranter lived about twenty minutes.  The letter he was writing proved to be a letter to his sister’s husband, bequeathing all his property to his sister, amounting to about 500l., except 40l. to be given to a natural child.
He appeared to be in very good health and spirits on Tuesday.  He neither assigned any cause for the rash act, nor can any conjecture be formed as to the cause, except a report of a disappointment in a love affair.  He had lived with the Prince between seven and eight years.  Previous to that he lived with the Duke of Queensbury as a running footman.  The body was taken to St. Martin’s bonehouse.

The Farmer’s Journal adds:
He was supposed to be a favourite of the Prince.
Thursday an inquisition was held on the body of the above unfortunate man, when it appeared that he was much addicted to liquor, and there is reason to suppose that he was labouring under a fit of intoxication when he committed the dreadful act.  Three witnesses proved, that for some days preceding, he had exhibited symptoms of mental derangement, in consequence of which the Jury returned a verdict of - Lunacy.

Bell’s weekly Messenger of 29 July 1810 gives a more detailed report of the inquest.
An inquisition was taken on Thursday, at the Light Horseman, in Orange-street, Leicester-square, before A. Gell, Esq., Coroner for Middlesex, on the body of Andrew Tranter, footman to the Prince of Wales, who shot himself at Carlton-house.
The first witness was John Barr, a foreigner, and who stated himself to be the Prince’s hussar.  He stated that he had been up all night in the footmen’s room, and a little before six o’clock on Tuesday morning, Tranter, who had been about eight years in the Prince’s service, came in reeling against the chairs, and asked witness the hour; and on being told, he opened the shutters of the hall, and asked witness if he could get the Prince’s clothes to be brushed, and said something about a review that morning.  Witness informed Tranter that it was too soon to get the clothes, as the Prince’s page in waiting was not up, and they both went out at the hall door.  Witness went to the porter’s lodge, and on his return, in about ten minutes, he saw Tranter sitting in one corner of the footman’s room weltering in his blood; he enquired the cause of it but the former did not answer him.  Witness gave an alarm to a cook, and to Serjeant Wright, a night porter at the lodge; before Wright and witness got back to the deceased they heard the report of a pistol, and on entering the room, Tranter had moved, and was then sitting in the middle of the room; his coat, waistcoat and cravat were off, and his shirt was on fire, as was also his waistcoat, which was lying on an adjoining table, and there was a pistol smoking under the cravat.  Wright asked Tranter what was the matter, and who had hurt him?  The latter replied that he had done it himself and he should be off in a few minutes.  He left a paper in the window, addressed to his sister, which witness understood to be a sort of will, which stated that she should have what property he possessed, after giving 40l. to a natural child of his.  Tranter lived about twenty minutes after the second shot was fired.  Witness conceived him to be a good fellow servant, and never heard of his having been given to gaming, or any other propensity that might rack the mind.  The deceased, to use the witness’s own words, was rather snuffy (meaning tipsey) when he came in, but he was accustomed at times to get inebriated.  Witness never conceived him to be in any way deranged, nor could he account for the cause of suicide.
J. Wright corroborated the testimony of the preceding witness, and he described the words of the deceased, on being interrogated, thus: “I have done the deed, and have but a few minutes to live.”  Witness saw the deceased come in at twelve, and go out again at one on Tuesday morning.  He talked with him some time, and he appeared rather wild, and went off in a great hurry.  He was accustomed to drink very freely, and witness could not account in any other way for his rash conduct.  Two pistols were found in the room.
Mr. Phillips, a Surgeon, proved that the deceased had met his death by two pistol balls, one of which had entered the breast, and he conceived must have lodged in the back bone, and the other, which had entered on the left side, must have lodged in the lungs.
To prove a kind of derangement three witnesses appeared, one of whom, the Prince’s chairman, G. Bowring, stated that the deceased had been much altered for some time, and that about ten days ago he expressed much anxiety at being obliged to drop the acquaintance of a Jewess, in the city, in consequence of religion preventing their union.  Witness, who was in great confidence with him, jocosely asked him how he would get rid of three other lasses, and he expressed great uneasiness.  Two or three days ago the deceased informed the witness that he had quarrelled with himself, and had agreed to make it up with himself by a treat of a glass of ale, and after running on wildly, he observed that the best way to rid himself of his troubles would be to clap a pistol to his head, as one thing and another distracted him.  Mr. Rymer, and another witness, also spoke of a material alteration in the deceased for three months past.
The Coroner left it entirely to the Jury to weigh the evidence, and they returned a verdict of Lunacy.  The deceased was forty years of age.

There was a ball at Ranelagh Gardens on 26 May 1789.  To attend, the gentlemen had to wear a military or Royal Dress uniform.  If they did not possess either, a special uniform had been designed, presumably by the Prince and Louis, for the occasion:

FETE at RANELAGH,- on the 26th of MAY.
THE BALL will be a Dressed Ball.
Military and Royal Dress Uniforms, and a Uniform for the occasion (a Pattern of which may be seen at Mr. Bajalgette's, Taylor, in Lower Grosvenor-street) will be admitted.
Admittance on the 26th May, in the Evening, at Nine o'clock.
[The World, 22 May 1789 and Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, 25 May 1789]

At this fete, as reported by The Times on the following day under the title ‘AN AFFRONT AT RANELAGH’, Captain Charles Morris and the Prince were censured:

Personages of the highest rank should ever be most circumspect in their behaviour, whenever they appear in public; thoughtless levity cannot be too much reprobated:- this being mentioned, arises from a very unpardonable insult being offered to a Gentleman of fortune, who when in company with some Ladies at Ranelagh, since the season commenced, happening to have the Constitutional Club uniform on, and passing his R. H. in company with Captain M., the latter apparently with his R. H.’s knowledge, came, and loud enough to be heard, uttered a most gross and vulgar epithet, which coming to the knowledge of his Lady, has occasioned constant alarm for fear of her husband’s resentment, and been productive of great family uneasiness.  As this may probably reach the eye of the parties who have given offence, they will show some repugnance by admitting their error, which may be done through the Conductor of this Paper, with whom the parties have left their address.

Unfortunately it is not clear from contemporary sources who the wounded party was.  Maybe he was insulted because he was not wearing the approved uniform, in which case he should not have been admitted to the event.  The fact that he left his address with The Times suggests that he was not known to the Prince.

A report in The Times, of Saturday 27 January 1800 described a meeting of two hundred and thirty-four master tailors which had taken place on 22 December 1799 at the Freemason’s Tavern in Great Queen Street.  There was much agitation amongst the journeymen following the imposition of the Combination Act of that year, which prohibited workers from forming combinations (i.e., trade unions) to try to secure higher pay and better conditions.  The resolution appended the names and addresses of the master tailors who attended the meeting, so it is therefore a useful reference list.

At a General Meeting of Master Taylors on Monday evening last, Mr. Smith in the Chair,
IT WAS RESOLVED,
1.  That it appears to this Meeting, that, notwithstanding the public invitations and admonitions given by the Masters to the Journeymen Taylors, the Leaders and Advisors of the Journeymen still continue their dangerous and alarming conspiracy, to deter those who, amongst their own body, are willing and desirous to return to their duty, and their respective employers
2.  That the advance of wages, now illegally demanded by the Journeymen of the Masters, is wholly out of their power to grant.
3.  That the facility with which the Journeymen obtained an advance of wages in the year 1795, and at former periods, has enduced them to form the present conspiracy, a conspiracy of a more alarming nature than the Public at large are probably aware of, and which has involved the Master Taylors in a very perilous situation, the journeymen having it in their contemplation to prosecute them for having, in compliance with their demands, given them for a number of years, more wages than by Act of Parliament is allowed.
4.  That it is the opinion of this meeting, that the Journeymen are extremely culpable by thus undeservedly distressing their Masters.  As the same Act of Parliament grants them liberty at all times, under any grievance, to apply to the Lord mayor and Court of Aldermen of the City of London, who have full power vested in them, by virtue of the same act, to raise and regulate their wages whenever the exigencies of the time may require, to which decision the masters will cheerfully submit.
5.  That inasmuch as the Journeymen are incorrigible, and do encourage and carry on their combinations in defiance of the law, to the great inconvenience of the public and stagnation of trade, the masters have, in consequence of their embarrassed situation, been obliged to apply to Parliament for relief.
6.  That it is the resolution of this Meeting, that the measures adopted should be persisted in, even if the Journeymen should agree to return to their work at the late wages.
7.  That it is the opinion of this Meeting, thay in order to destroy the combinations that exist among Journeymen Taylors, it is absolutely necessary to abolish public houses of call.
8.  That, in order to set a great example to all Master Taylors, as well as to inform the Public in general of the unanimous determination of this Meeting, that the Resolutions of this Meeting shall be published, with the name of every person present.
9.  That this Meeting do acknowledge, with the greatest gratitude, the kind indulgence they have experienced from the Nobility, Gentry and Public, in having suspended their orders, and they beg such further indulgencies as the existing circumstances may require.
10.  That the Thanks of this Meeting be given to the Chairman for his candid and impartial conduct.
By Order of the Meeting, J. Mullett, Secretary.

Adams and Baker, Southampton-street, Covent Garden
Allan, Thomas, Bond-street
Anderson, Alexander, Union-street, Bond-street
Arbuthnot, Jos., Crown-court
Armstrong,-, Margaret-street, Cavendish-square
Atkinson, George, Castle-street, Leicester-fields
Bagster, George, Beaufort-buildings
Balard, Charles, Maddox-street
Barber,-, Haymarket
Barker, thomas, Basinghall-street
Barnes, Jos., Gracechurch-street
Barnes, Thomas, Broad-street, Carnaby-market
Bayley Christoper, Bedfordbury
Bayne, William, Cornhill
Beatly,-, Strand
Bell, John, Bateman-buildings
Bell, Matthew, Marybone-street, St. James’s
Bichner, Otto, Soho-square
Binks, Christopher, King-street, Covent-garden
Bishop, Charles, Mount-street
Bower, Henry, Great Marlborough-street
Bowling, Nathaniel, Newcastle-court, Boswell-street
Brockleby and Co., 65, Margaret-street
Brown, George, Old Cavendish-street
Buck, Jarvis, 28, Arundel-street, Strand
Buckmaster, John, St. James’s-street
Burgh, Charles
Callow, William, Greville-street, Hatton-garden
Callow, Paul, Arundel-street
Cameron, Angers, Noble-street, Cheapside
Cameron, John, Great Marlborough-street
Camppin,-, Greenland-dock
Cartwright, Thomas, Grosvenor-street
Cecil, Thomas, Jewin-street, Aldgate
Cepheld, Davidm Greek-street, Soho
Chambers, William, Charlotte-street, Portland-place
Christie, Samuel, Poland-street
Clark, John, Pancras-lane, Cheapside
Coe and Carr, White Hart-court, Bishopsgate
Cook, Thomas, King-street, Holborn
Cook, Thomas, Tavistock-street
Copley, John, Bolt-court, Fleet-street
Corner, Henry, Maddox-street
Couttee,-, Green-walk
Coward, William, Haymarket
Cox, thomas, Leicester-place
Craven, William, Arundel-street
Creed, William, Finch-lane, Cornhill
Croft, Robert, Fleet-street
Cruett, John, Queen-street, Soho
Darley, Thomas, St. Michael’s-alley, Cornhill
Davies, John, Cork-street
Davison, Anthony, Craven-buildings, Drury-lane
Deane, William, Argyle-street
Delin, Benjamin, Portland-street
Deraad, Walter, Marlborough-street, St. James’s
Dietrichsen, Frederick, Rathbone-place
Dixon, Lindsey, Greek-street, Soho
Donaldson, John Staples-inn-buildings
Dunn, John, Bedford-street
Edward, Thomas, Hatton-garden
Edward, Joel, Greville-street, Hatton-garden
Edwards, T. and J., Broad-street, St. James’s
Elliott, James, Berwick-street, Soho
Elliott, William, Berwick-street, Soho
Emmott, William, Leicester-fields
Evans, Richard, 194, Oxford-street
Fancook, Charles, Jermyn-street
Farrant and Co., Bedford-street
Filby, Miles, Pilgrim-street, Ludgate-hill
Finke and Co., Mortimer-street
Fisher, Robert, Bedford-street
Fisher, Peter, Castle-street, Leicester-fields
Ford, John, Strand
Forsyth, Alexander, Vere-street
Fortell, Jos., Suffolk-street
Fox, George, Henrietta-street
Fraser, Duncan. Titchfield-street, Oxford-street
Gerath, Casper, Church-street, Soho
Gibbs, James, Rupert-street, Soho
Gibson, John, Wells-street, Oxford-street
Glover, Thomas, Berners-street, Oxford-street
Goff, Richard, Adam-street, Manchester-square
Gordon, Alexander, Church-street, Soho
Graham, John, Cook’s-court, Cary-street
Graham, William, Lothbury
Griffiths, Samuel, Old Boswell-court
Gwynne, David, Frith-street, Soho
Habberer, Poland-street
Hare, John, Little Stanhope-street, Mayfair
Hawkins, Thomas, Margaret-street
Hecking, Thomas, White Hart-court, Bishopsgate-street
Heron and Jones, South Molton-street
Heward, James, Chapel-court, Swallow-street
Hollier, Nicholson, Borough
Hood, James, Burlington-street
Horspool, Richard, Tavistock-street
Howell, John, King-street
Hunter, Thomas, Maddox-street
Hurd. Thomas, South-street
Inglish, James, Orange-street, Leicester-fields
Isaac, Thomas, Wimpole-street
Jackson, Thomas, Argyle-street
Jackson, James, Clement’s Inn
Jennings, William, Covent-garden
Jones. Rice, Carlton-place
Keene, William, South Audley-street
Kemp, George, Great Pulteney-street
Key, John, Freeschool-street, Horslydown
King and Thompson, Little Maddox-street
Kolbe, John, 18, Broad-street, Soho
Laffan and Shee, Welbeck-street
Lamas, James, 4, Chapel-street, Lamb’s Conduit-street
Lane, Richard, Charing-cross
Lanman, John, Hanover-street
Leverick, William, White’s-alley, Chancery-lane
Lister, Richard, Little Stanhope-street, Mayfair
Little, Robert, 12, Garlick-hill
Lloyd, William, Beaufort-buildings
Logan, Samuel, South Molton-street
Lucas, Stephen, Greek-street, Soho
Lyne, George, Cecil-street, Strand
Mallam, Thomas, Shepherd-street, Mayfair
Matlers, William, Boyle-street
McCallan, Beaufort-buildings
McCarthy, Margaret-street, Cavendish-square
McKellar, Duncan, Cecil-street
McKenzie, Alexander, 4, Oxenden-street
McRonald, Alexander, Crown-street, Westminster
Meek, John, 17, Prince’s-street, Bank
Meesk, Henry, Edward-street, Portland-place
Meyer and Co., 25, Mortimer-street
Micheson, Thomas, 10, Salisbury-street, Strand
Micklam, James, Wells-street, Oxford-street
Middleton, St. James’s-street
Millar, John, Store-street
Milna, James, Grosvenor-street
Monkhouse, Thomas, Jermyn-street
Morrison, George, Parliament-street
Morse, William, Conduit-street
Moss, John, East-street, Red Lion-square
Nash, John, Salisbury-court, Fleet-street
Neil, Felix, Prince’s-street, Hanover-square
Neupert, J. G., Poland-street, St. James’s
Newman, Henry, Norfolk-street
Nix, James, Strand
Oliver, John, Warwick-street, Charing-cross
Onion, John, Essex-street
Orier, Thomas, Poland-street
Otley, Bond-street
Otto, Frederick, Berners-street, Oxford-street
Owen, Owen, Bond-street
Owen, David, Norfolk-street
Parkinson, James, Hatton-garden
Pearce, Sampson, Silver-street, Golden-square
Pearce, -, Greek-street, Soho
Penny, Stephen, King-street, Golden-square
Pepperill, Daniel, Featherstone-buildings
Philip, Robert, 52, Red Lion-street, Clerkenwell
Plagenberg, Mary-le-bonne-street
Pool, John, 30, Camomile-street
Popjoy, James, Water-lane, Blackfriars
Powell, James, 12, London-wall
Prosser, John, Strand
Pugh, William, 54, Berwick-street, Soho
Rait, James, 83, Minories
Rayner, Joseph, 81, Jermyn-street
Regnier, John, Leicester-fields
Rentz, Christopher, Great Pulteney-street
Ring, John, Borough
Robertson, David, Devonshire-street, Bishopsgate-street
Robertson, James, Whitechapel-road
Robertson, William, Duke-street, Portland-place
Ross, William, Broad-street, Carnaby-market
Russell, John, Blackfriar’s-road
Sanders and Greece, Newport-street, Soho
Scarfe and Willis, Fleet-street
Schweitzer and Davison, Cork-street
Scott, Henry, Jermyn-street
Scott, Thomas, Kirby-street, Hatton-garden
Scott, Robert, Arundel-street, Strand
Sedgley, T., Bond-street
Shepherd, Thomas, Grosvenor-street
Sheriff, Alexander, Newman-street
Shur, George, Wells-street, Oxford-street
Simms, William, King-street, Soho
Sizeland, John, Wimpole-street
Slater, Samuel, Surry-street, Strand
Smith, S., Litchfield-street, Soho
Smith, John, Craven-street, Strand
Smith, F., Prince’s-street, Hanover-square
Sohaar, Charles, Great Pulteney-street
Somerville, William, Green-court, Cary-street
Soranson, Christopher, Newman-street, Soho
Staples, John, Hollis-street, Clare-market
Starck, Alexander, Buckingham-street
Stephen, William, Warwick-street, Charing-cross
Strachan, William, Oxendon-street
Stratton, Francis, Queen-square, Aldersgate-street
Strickland. Samuel, St. Martin’s-lane, Leicester-fields
Stuart, John, Finch-lane
Taylor, John, 35, Bow-lane
Taylor, Thomas, Green-street, Leicester-fields
Taylor, Throgmorton-street
Tempany, William, High-street, Marylebone
Thomas, John, Devereux-court
Thompson, James, Adam-street, Manchester-square
Thompson, Peter, Frith-street, Soho
Thompson, Joseph, Cloysters
Toon, Daniel, Crown-street, Westminster
Trail, John, James-street, Golden-square
Twentyman, William, Davies-street, Grosvenor-square
Usher, John, Featherstone-buildings
Vantandaloe, Thomas, Great Titchfield-street
Vernon, -, Charing-cross
Vigurs, John, Southampton-street, Covent-garden
Wallace, David, Bridge-street, Westminster
Watkins, Robert, Mount-street
Welker, -, Warwick-street, St. James’s
West, Joseph,Charles-street, Covent-garden
Weston, John, Featherstone-buildings
Wettig, Frederick, Duke-street, Portland-place
Weyrick, Henry, Berwick-street, Soho
Williams, Peter, George-street, Foster-lane
Williams, Richard, Philip-lane, London-wall
Wilson, Thomas, Store-street
Wilson, Samuel, East-street, Red Lion-square
Windlier, John and Henry, Rathbone-place
Winter, Sim., Bury-street, St. James’s
Wood, George, Pall-mall
Wright, Robert, Cary-street
Wynn, William, Staples-inn-buildings
Young, Charles, Vine-street, St. James’s
Young, Charles, Beaufort-buildings

Having almost completed a biography with has taken me over fifteen years in the research and writing I am faced with the question of how to get a reasonable return on the great deal of money and effort that I have devoted to the project.  Unless one is an established biographer and can command high fees at the start, this is very difficult to achieve.  I’m not being mercenary about this, since the project was never taken on with the idea of making money, but my concern is not to be ripped off.

The fundamental problem in book publishing and distribution nowadays is the Wal-Mart mentality.  Amazon is a prime example of this.  Not only do they charge what to my mind is a high commission, but they set a low standard shipping rate, which is below what it actually costs, so that the author has to pay the extra, and if the book is not selling as fast as they would like they will just discount it.  All of this means that the author receives almost nothing, and his or her work is devalued.

Small indie publishers are now unwilling to accept anything that is ‘not commercial enough’, as are agents.  I have approached both, purely to satisfy myself that I needed to self-publish!  Larger publishers will only accept submissions if they come via an agent, with a few exceptions.  One of these is Yale University, but the manuscript you submit has to be so nearly in publishable form that you might as well do it yourself.  I do not believe that any publisher nowadays will make more than minimal efforts to market your book - you still have to do most of it yourself.  And when you consider that you might get 5-6% royalty if you are lucky it doesn’t look worthwhile to me.  These grapes are indeed sour!

For a fairly niche biography such as mine, I see no value in listing the book on Amazon.  There is no point in making such a book available to a mass world market, when 99% of the potential readers will not be interested in buying it.  In any case, wherever you list the book, you need to tell your potential readers where to look for it.  Being a bookseller who uses Biblio already, this is a much better option from my point of view.  They charge either 15% commission, or 7.5% + $10 per month.  The seller also sets the book price and the shipping charge.  Of course you also have to ship the books, but this is no great hardship at the volumes I expect.

Another option I looked at was self-publishing companies.  I liked CreateSpace, despite the fact that it is part of Amazon, but the requirement to get a US Tax Identification Number, which involves sending my passport and other original documents to IRS was not one which I was prepared to comply with.  AuthorsOnline is a UK company and it looked a possibility, but it specified an exclusive contract, a UK bank account, and I did not like their standard page layout.  I may be picky, but I didn’t find any of these companies provided what I needed.  Add to that the fact that their main selling point is that the book would be listed on Amazon and the Book Depository, again I could predict near-zero profits.

It is within the author’s power to promote a book using social media.  In the two years or so that I have been blogging I have been able to reach quite a number of potential purchasers.  The biography is set in the Georgian/Regency period, and therefore is not only of interest to historians but in particular to novelists, to whom such material is of great use.  Having identified my market, I don’t need Amazon.  I just have to list the book somewhere online where the buyer can easily use online checkout facilities, and Biblio will suffice for that.

Given the choice, and a reasonable return for my labours, I wouldn’t go through all of the process of typesetting, cover design and getting the book printed, but in the circumstances I don’t see that I HAVE a choice.  And this way, as someone who has always believed that if you want it done right you have to do it yourself, I keep control of the whole project, without, as far as I can see, that much extra effort.

Her introduction is just that, and is a model for other biographers in that it actually does introduce the characters; rather important in this case as there were five William Knightons, three Dorothea/Dorothy Knightons, two Dora Seymours and two Michael Seymours, all of whom are given aliases at the start, such as ‘Grandfather Knighton’, so you know throughout who is being referred to.  This introduction also contains useful information about other characters whom the reader will meet, as well as some background data on sources.  Very useful and a good idea in preparing the reader for the story to come.
The author has consulted many fresh sources to give an accurate picture of Knighton’s career, showing us along the way many aspects of Georgian life which will be of great interest to researchers and writers on this period.  Undertaking such a biography is always a labour of love, and as such the author deserves our support and thanks.

Born the son of a Devonshire yeoman farmer, he never showed great brilliance but built up his knowledge of medicine and his practice slowly and methodically.  He was in some ways something of a plodder, but his integrity and his preparedness to work hard for the good of his patients, together with his apprenticeship to an apothecary, gained him experience and confidence which other doctors may have lacked.  It was this reliable quality which was eventually to make him indispensible to the regent, as his doctor and then as controller of his finances.

There is only one existing biography  – the Memoirs, which was mainly written in Knighton’s lifetime and published after his death by his wife.   It therefore naturally presents a picture biased in his favour, and omits anything controversial.  Against that must be set all of the lampoons  and the political machinations by those, such as the Duke of Wellington, who conspired to bring him down from his position of power.  As far as we know he maintained a dignified silence in the face of these blandishments.

In his later years he was frequently sent by George IV on arduous European missions, some of which were quite trivial, while others required delicate negotiations such as the buying up of foreign bonds taken out years ago by the debt-ridden prince and his brothers.  He was a constant and reliable friend.  By the King’s death in 1830 he was himself almost worn out by all of this, but fortunately was allowed a few years of peaceful retirement before his own death.

The book is highly readable and meticulously researched, and presents a balanced view of Knighton which is long overdue.  A late chapter analyzes the stories of his detractors and presents a full picture of the criticisms that were levelled at him during later life and after his death.  Although some of these stories are not proved or disproved, the main body of the book convinced me that the subject was a clever, resourceful, conscientious and loyal man.  Knighton has now been rehabilitated, and Charlotte Frost has with this work done him (and us) a great service.

Thoroughly recommended!

http://www.authorsonline.co.uk/book/1010/Sir_William_Knighton%3A_The_Strange_...