Corn Laws, Enclosures, and Poor Harvests = Unrest in Britian

In fiction set in Regency England, there’s often some mention of the Corn Laws. These laws regulated the importing of grain (in England, corn refers to any grain). Corn Laws date back to the Twelfth Century, however, they became particularly important in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s due to both a population growth in Britain and blockades from the French during the Napoleonic Wars. 

In the 1700’s, wheat prices had fallen due to an influx of foreign grain. At the same time, the Enclosed Acts had been passed—this meant there was no longer any open land that anyone might farm. Added onto all of this were the Game Laws—the penalty for poaching “or even being found in possession of a net at night” was transportation. 

While the Enclosure Acts enabled landowners to extend their parks and fields, those without land lost their right to trap extra meat on open land. The poor were now in a precarious spot. 

The Corn Laws stated that no foreign wheat (the staple of the poor) could be imported until British wheat reached  a price of 80/- per quarter. At the same time, those who worked the fields did not see an increase in wages to match and increase in food prices.

Bad harvest hit England in 1795, again over 1799 to 1801, and then again in 1802 and yet again between 1812 to 1822. One bad harvest is one thing—almost every farmer knows to store grain to deal with a bad year, and large scale farms can always get credit to get past one rough season. But repeated reduction in production meant two things—higher prices of the most basic food stuffs, and those with low incomes had less money to spend on goods. Manufactures also suffered losses due to the bad years.

The years 1810–1811 had cold winters (1811 was the year the Thames froze sold, and it froze again in 1814), and then heavy rains often brought floods, particularly to the east, where the fens provided very bad drainage. Poor harvests were noted in 1809 to 1812, with rioting as “banks failed and export trade collapsed.” Along with this was the Luddite uprising, and in 1812 in Nottingham, “a riot, engendered by the prevailing famine, commenced in the morning.” But the fail harvest came in better than in the prior year, which helped with a temporary fall in grain prices.

With all this going on, it starts to seem reasonable why England feared there might be a similar revolution to the one that occurred in France. France’s revolution had been driven not just by a need for equality, but by poor crops and an increased population. England faced similar issues.

The winters of 1813 and 1814 were again cold and long, delaying the ability to plant. Frosts were reported in many districts that lasted on through May, and summer storms brought hail and rain, which caused extensive crop damage in Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. By the end of August, the weather turned hot and farmers who had survived were able to get in their harvests. By October and November, early freezes and hard rains hit many areas of England and Scotland.

In 1815, the government attempted to fix corn prices, and, but the country saw unrest and riots in may of the hardest hit areas. In 1815, the national debt also stood at £834 million, but the Income Tax, enacted to pay for the war with France was eliminated, shifting the burden of payment to indirect taxation. Again, the poor were hit the hardest as tax fell onto good purchased. Those with money could afford this—those without had even less money. The end of the war in Europe finally meant that Britain could again freely import grain, but any import was more expensive than local produce—and the grain could only be imported based on what the Corn Laws allowed.

But 1815 again saw a hard winter, as did 1816. The Farmer's Magazine summarized 1816’s harvest as “uncommonly unpropitious” and comparing it with “the memorable year 1799”.

While hardy root crops that could survive frosts would provide some food, grains and cash crops failed. The Farmer's Magazine reported that many tenant farmers were unable to pay rents, and many landlords were unwilling to offer abatement. In Wales, the tax was collected in certain districts in goods rather than in coin.

Reports in Nottingham were that gentlemen who were well off would come to market and distribute food to those without.  At the same time, Britain was also having to deal with a large military force returning from Europe, most of whom had not been back home in a very long time. This provided an even larger workforce, but in some areas jobs were scarce or low paying. The smart soldiers stayed in the army and went on to other spots of unrest in the growing empire.

Another wet summer occurred in 1817, with crops reported as “bad” in Scotland, and then 1818 provided a long, hot, dry summer, with rains finally arriving in autumn, then back to cold in 1819 with late frosts in May, and wet again in 1820. The up and downs of the weather continued on through until the late 1800s. And it was the potato blight and famine in 1845 that finally brought about the end of the Corn Laws, which were repealed in 1846.

Regency Coinage

In one of my books, Proper Conduct, the heroine spends a good deal of time worrying about money, particular after her father spends nearly 1,000 pounds on a horse. That was not an excessive sum to someone such as the Prince Regent, whose racing stud farm cost him 30,000 pounds a year. But in an era when we talk of millions, billions and trillions and when a new car can cost that 30,000 pounds, all these numbers seemed to need to be put into perspective.

 The value of a pound sterling (£) had changed considerably--the purchasing power of a pound was about 50 to 60 times more than in our current era. So you can basically multiply by 50 to get an idea of the value of having a single guinea in hand or twenty-one shillings.

During the Regency...

• Four farthing made a penny--otherwise known as a pence (or marked by d for denarius)
• Twelve pennies (or twelvepence) made a shilling
• Five shillings made a crown
• Twenty shillings made a pound
• Twenty-one shillings made a guinea

Copper farthings and haypence, silver pennies, shillings and crows, and the tiny gold guineas.

The term farthing comes from 'fourth' of a penny. Two-penny coins were called tuppence. The three penny coin was known as a thruppence, or thripp'nce, thrupp'nce, threpp'nce, thripp'ny bit depending on your accent and area. And there were all sorts of slang names for other coins including: a quid (pound), a bob (shilling), a goldfinch (guinea).

 Coinage in use in the Regency included:

• gold for one, two, five and half-guinea coins
• silver for one, two, three, four, six penny (or pence), shilling and crown coins
• copper for half-pence and farthing coins

Gold Guinea

Due to a shortage of copper and silver coins in the late 1700's, firms began to use tokens to pay wages. There was also a growth in payments by foreign coins.

The sovereign--a gold coin worth 20 shillings or 1 pound--and half sovereign coins came back into production in 1816/1817 (they had been around from the 1400 to 1600s).

The five guinea coin was at first valued as five pounds, but became five guineas in 1717 when the guinea's value was standardized at one pound and one shilling. 

Due to the silver shortage, in 1804 the Bank of England issued light-weight token silver coins for one shilling, three shilling and six pence coins. But special silver coins were also struck to celebrate Maundy, the celebration of the Last Supper when Christ gave the command or mandatum to love one another.

1800 Maundy Silver Penny

 The 1802 Royal Maundy notes recipients were given 4 pounds of beef and four threepenny loaves. Sets of 1d (one penny) to 4d silver coins were struck for Maundy gift from 1731 and on. To avoid statutory prohibitions on the striking of silver coin during the war (due to silver shortages), all Maundy coins from 1800 to 1815 bear the date 1800. Maundy coins and gifts were gradually phased out by King William and Queen Victoria. In 1820, 1,100 years after the first English silver pennies were minted, the last British silver pennies were minted.

It should be noted that the florin had been around in the 1300's, made of gold and worth 6 shillings, and was reissued in 1849 as a 2 shilling coin (or 'two bob bit'), but did not exist in the Regency.

You'll note that most of this discussion is about coins--paper money was rather uncommon and not trusted by many. A coin carried its value in the metal of the coin--if the worst happened, the coin could be melted and the value retains. This was not true with paper.

1821 banknote --partially printed and handwritten

Bank notes had been around for centuries, many of them private notes issued for gold deposits, and the Bank of England started to issue notes for such deposits in 1694. These were all hand written notes. By 1745 notes were being part printed in denominations ranging from £20 to £1,000. The £5 note came out in 1793, and the £1 and £2 notes in 1797. The first fully printed notes do not appeared until 1853--until then, cashiers had to fill in the name of the payee and sign each note. You can see why coins proved to be so much easier to use in transactions.

What this meant is that those with money did not carry money--coins are bulky and carrying a lot of them can also be heavy. Aristocrats would buy goods on credit and expect tradesmen to present bills. Someone who was traveling might have some coins with him--but a few coins went a very long way as well.

From 1811 to 1812, an estimated 250,000 people lived comfortably on more than seven hundred pounds a year each. A half million shopkeepers made a hundred and fifty pounds a year each, two million artisans lived on the edge of poverty at 55 pounds per annum, and one and one half million laborers earned only 30 pounds a year each.

With an income of four hundred pounds a year, one could employ two maids, one groom and keep one horse in London. 

On seven hundred a year, one could have one manservant, three maids and two horses.

For a thousand a year, one could have three female servants, a coachman, a footman, two carriages and a pair of horses in London.

And then the expenses went up--a great house could cost between 5,000 and 6,000 pounds a year in maintenance, including housekeeping, repairs, stables, parklands, gardens, home farm costs, servants, and taxes.   

Land still meant riches. There were three to four hundred families whose income was over 10,000 pounds a year, due to vast land holdings. The Earl of Egremont saw a rise in income due to land rentals that increased from 12,976 pounds in 1791 to 34,000 pounds in 1824. But it cost money to make money--the capital to secure an estate was approximately thirty times the desired income. In Somerset (where Proper Conduct is set) 30 acres for let went for 35 pounds per annum, with the tenant paying all taxes except land tax.

The down side in all of this is that anyone with a debt of twenty pounds or more could be sent to debtor's prison. Only a member of Parliament could not be imprisoned while Parliament was sitting. This was a threat to anyone facing debts--but that is another article.

----------------

ABOUT SHANNON DONNELLY

Shannon Donnelly’s writing has won numerous awards, including a nomination for Romance Writer’s of America’s RITA award, the Grand Prize in the "Minute Maid Sensational Romance Writer" contest, judged by Nora Roberts, and others. Her writing has repeatedly earned 4½ Star Top Pick reviews from Romantic Times magazine, as well as praise from Booklist and other reviewers, who note: "simply superb"..."wonderfully uplifting"....and "beautifully written."

Her latest Regency romance, Lady Chance, the follow up to Lady Scandal, is out on Amazon.com. In addition to her Regency romances, she is the author of the Mackenzie Solomon, Demon/Warders Urban Fantasy series, Burn Baby Burn and Riding in on a Burning Tire, and the SF/Paranormal, Edge Walkers. Her work has been on the top seller list of Amazon.com and includes the Historical romances, The Cardros Ruby and Paths of Desire. 

She is the author of several young adult horror stories, and has also written computer games and offers editing and writing workshops. She lives in New Mexico with two horses, two donkeys, two dogs, and the one love of her life. Shannon can be found online at shannondonnelly.com, facebook.com/sdwriter, and twitter/sdwriter.

   

Jewels in the Regency

Sparkle has always caught the human eye—and for as long as history has existed, people have decorated themselves, not just with clothes, but with gems. There is something in the allure of a pretty stone—I’ve used it myself in my Regency novel The Cardros Ruby where a legendary stone that dates back to Elizabethan times haunts the family history into the 1800’s.

We certainly all know about diamonds, sapphires, emeralds and rubies as the jewels that catch the eye today—and inspire greed. But those gemstones have not always been the only ones to be considered as worthy ornaments of the rich and powerful.

In modern times, we consider diamonds, rubies, sapphires and emeralds to be precious gemstones (not semi-precious, which is where most other gems are classified). Precious stones get the big bucks. However, the ancient Egyptians prized glass, both from meteor impacts and the glassblowers of ancient Hebron. Jewelry from ancient times was a sign of status and anything rare could be made into ornamentation. Prized jewelry in ancient times includes stones that are easy to work: amber, turquoise, coral, lapis lazuli, malachite, obsidian and rock crystal.

The Egyptians weren’t the only ones to use glass, or what we would call paste, gemstones. Paste jewelry became popular with in the 1700’s when sumptuary laws relaxed—or were ignored.

In England and most of Europe, sumptuary laws regulated what people could buy and wear based on class. No one was supposed to dress above their rank—and that meant jewels were not allowed to the lower classes. However, as the middle class increased in size and power, they wanted to flaunt their wealth. The paste or glass jewels of the 1700’s turned out to be just the thing for them—something new, a little bit rare, and glittering.

Jeweler Georges Frederic Strass moved to Paris in 1724 and became jeweler to the king—he also invented the rhinestone, something we think of as ‘cheep’ today but it was a hit with those who had money in the 1700’s.

Value has also always been given to the rare, the brilliant and the large, and value has been given in terms of luck or other properties a stone might bestow on its wearer—either heath, protection or even clear vision. We’ve attached gemstones to be the birthstone of someone’s birth month, and various cultures have assigned properties to various stones.

Opals are thought to be unlucky to any except those born in October. For good luck, there are moonstones—those gems with a smooth, oval surface and an opaque coloring that looks almost like moonlight. Jade is also considered lucky by many, Ancient Egyptians thought it brought balance. Jade was the stone of emperors in China, and prized by civilizations in Central America, but appears only rarely jewelry of the Georgian era and Regency. It could be worked into rings or bracelets or used in broaches. Bloodstone, jade, carnelian, ivory and other softer stones could also be carved, and that made them useful as well for signet rings.

The most popular stones for a gentleman’s signet ring to judge by the jewelry that has come down to us seems to have been ruby, amethyst, carnelian and lapis lazuli. Gold was also favored for signet rings and fobs since it could be molded and shaped.

Diamonds, of course, are still prized for rarity, clarity, color and hardness. Just as gold does not tarnish, a diamond can outlast almost anything. It can be cut but not carved. Colored diamonds—blue and yellow—are among the rarest of gemstones.

A scandal over a lavish diamond necklace was said to be part of what brought about the French Revolution and Marie Antoinette’s death. It was thought she had commissioned the necklace at a time when the country was suffering from poor harvests. In truth, her name had been used in an elaborate scheme involving a bishop and the queen’s staff to have the necklace made and then stolen away so the stones could be broken up, recut and sold.

Other diamonds such as the Regent Diamond (that’s French Regency) which Marie Antoinette once wore, the Hope Diamond (a blue diamond said to have come to Europe in the 1300’s and now in the Smithsonian), or the Koh-i-Nor (a legendary stone said to have once been 800 carets and the eye of an Hindu god, but cut down to 186 carets and which came into the British Crown Jewels when given to Queen Victoria), are said to be cursed, not blessed. Such stones always seem to have a past to them—and a bloody history.

But that doesn’t stop anyone from wanting to own and wear jewels.

Fashions prior to the Regency display extravagant jewelry in portraits. The Tudors loved to be painted with jewels, but the jewels are often shown with heavy settings. Cuts were also often not what the cuts we value today.

Malachite and Pearl Parure

As gold-working skills improved, parures came into fashion in the 1600’s offering a suite of matched jewelry. This might include: a diadem, tiara, comb, bandeau, choker, necklace, earrings, brooch, stomacher, bracelets and rings. Parures might have one gem dominant in the set or might be complimenting gems, such as ruby and diamond or amethyst and diamond or emerald and diamond.

Gentlemen, too, of the 1700’s flaunted wealth and status with sparkles. The Macaronis are shown with diamond buttons, diamonds on the heels of their shoes and jeweled buckles. Sword hilts were often decorated with gold, jewels, or even inlay. However, the French Revolution swept away the fashion for showing off jewels when it became dangerous to look like an aristo.

The early 1800’s fashions were also greatly influenced by the antiquities being discovered and returned both to Europe and England in drawings and stories. The craze for Egyptian came and went, bringing with it an influence on jewelry as well as fashion and furniture. And then the style became neo-classical, copying Greek and Roman images and statutes. Now young ladies wore wreaths or flowers or simple strands of pearl. Diadems and armlets came into fashion as did copies of Greek and Egyptian jewelry.

Earlier valued stones again became fashionable—amber, coral, turquoise, lapis and malachite are seen in many examples of jewelry for this era. Gold work became popular with simple gold necklaces, bracelets or chains that could be woven into the hair. Garnets, topaz, agates, carnelian and aquamarines became popular. Wedgewood brought into fashion jasperware, beads and cameos.

Brummell influenced restraint for the gentleman, who might sport a jeweled snuff box (and Brummell had a huge collection of snuff boxes), or a signet ring or a single jeweled fob—but to do more was deemed slightly vulgar. But a gentleman might also carry a jeweled toothpick case, if he’s a bit of a fop, as Jane Austen has her character Robert Ferrars design and buy in London.

However, not all ladies followed the fashion for minimal.

Older women who had lost the bloom of youth—or who just intended to display their wealth and status—might well decide to go for the gleam of diamonds and wear the family parure anyway. Sir Walter Besant says of Almack’s, “Riff-raff might go to Court; but they could not get to Almack’s, for at its gates there stood, not one angel with a firey sword, but six in the shape of English ladies, terrible in turbans, splendid in diamonds, magnificent in satin, and awful in rank.”

Willmott Willmott-Dixon notes in Queens of Beauty and Their Romances, speaking of Lady Jersey, one of those patronesses of Almack’s, “She had a way of showing too obtrusively that her diamonds were larger and her beauty more splendid than all her rivals.”

Certainly after December, 1804, when Bonaparte crowned himself Emperor of France and brought the bling and a court back to France, the style for more jewels to establish status followed.

The Empress Josephine led fashion in France and her elegant style carried over to England. She was noted for her taste and restraint, but Bonaparte had no such inclination. He was as fond of jewels in the hilts of his swords as he was of crowns and diamonds scattered about on watches, clocks and his ladies.

After divorcing Josephine, in 1810, Bonaparte had the Parisian jeweler Etiene Nitot et Fils craft an emerald and diamond parure for his new empress, Marie-Louise with 138 emeralds, 382 rose-cut diamonds and 2,162 brilliant-cut diamonds. The parure included a diadem, necklace, earrings, comb and belt clasp. The rose-cut is no longer in fashion, but the parts of the parure that survived intact—the necklace and earrings—are lovely and now live in the Louve. (Bonaparte also gave Marie-Louise two more parures, one of diamonds and one of pearls and diamonds that were mean to be part of the French Crown Jewels.)

Made by T. Gray

The Prince Regent, too, loved his glitter and added to the British Crown Jewels. Venetia Murry in An Elegant Madness, notes, “The Prince was clearly unable to pass a jewellery shop without buying what he referred to as a 'trinket', meaning anything from a diamond tiara to a butterfly brooch with emerald eyes. Among the fashionable jewellers he patronized were Hamlet's—whose customers included the Duke of York, the Duchess of Cloucester and various foreign royals—Thomas Gray in Sackville Street and Phillips in Bond Street. But his favoroute by far was Rundell and Bridges on Ludgate Hill, the principal goldsmiths and jewellers at the time. After 1805, that shop became Rundell, Bridge & Rundell.
 

Rundell and Bridges on Ludgate Hill

Thomas Gray on Sackville Street was patronized by young Prince George and is listed as active until 1805. Stedman and Vardon are also listed in as jewelers to Queen Charlotte in 1796 (and in 1795 as John Stedman, Samuel Vardon and Thomas Vardon), Goldsmiths and Jewelers at 36 New Bond Street.

In 1815, the Congress of Vienna mixed English aristocrats with European once more and held lavish balls, masquerades, and the jewels once associated with royalty returned. While daytime jewelry remained restrained—a watch, broach, or a ring—evening wear became more fussy (frills, ribbons, ruffles) and for important occasions, ladies again began to done their finest jewelry of diamonds, sapphires, emeralds and rubies to show off their wealth and status.

If you are looking for reproductions from the era, I can recommend:

https://www.etsy.com/shop/damesalamode

And for additional information:

https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/a-history-of-jewellery

http://wordwenches.typepad.com/word_wenches/2010/08/regency-bling.html

http://www.langantiques.com/university/Georgian_Jewelry:_1714-1837