When my husband and I were married some twelve years ago, there were few impediments for us to reach the altar as soon as we wished to. He knelt down on one knee to ask me, I gave an enthusiastic “Yes!” and almost immediately afterwards, we began making our joyful plans.
Besides the all important wedding gown, the perfect candlelit venue and the explosion of decisions that had to be made, we focused little on what the government required for our union and more on how we would put our personal mark on the day we’d pledge our future lives to each other. In fact, we lived in a location that had minimal government restrictions – we were citizens of the country and were of legal age so we had but to file with the county official’s office and in turn, would have been required to wait only 24 hours before making our walk down the aisle.
In researching Regency Era marriage for a recent book project, it was fascinating to learn how different our options would have been had we lived in England some 200 years ago.
Of course the differences in how an eligible young lady would have made her social debut, how a young man and woman would meet and how courting would commence is in stark contrast to what we know today. But as for government, it’s interesting to find that there is just as much government restriction on the act of marriage (and just as much dodging of said restrictions) as there would have been in force during the Regency Era.
Country road in Gretna Green, Scotland (Photo: Wiki Commons)
The first of these restrictions involved the literal “Las Vegas” of the day – or Gretna Green, Scotland. It was to this elopement location that many couples embarked upon a journey along the Great North Road from London in order to quickly exchange their vows. Similar to the little wedding chapels that one might find along Nevada’s famous neon strip, the tiny village of Gretna Green became the virtual Vegas of its day.
It lies just over the border to Scotland and at the time, became a famous spot for couples escaping the 1754 Lord Hardwicke Marriage Act that was still in effect in the Regency years. The British government dictated that a couple must have parental consent to marry if under twenty-one years of age. In contrast, Scotland’s age for eligible marriage was just sixteen. This led to many couples fleeing up the road on a days-long journey to traverse the border and become a Mr. and Mrs. both quickly and legally.
With this ring… (Photo: Wiki Commons)
Another stark contrast in Hardwicke’s Act dictated the waiting period required to be married in satisfaction to the church. In the Regency Era, Hardwicke’s Act would have compelled couples to be married in a parish building by an ordained minister. By Scottish law, a man and woman could be married with virtually no notice and required only to make a commitment before two witnesses in order to make their marriage contract binding. This spurred the act of marriages performed by “anvil priests”, or blacksmiths that acted as marriage officiates in the village for runaway marriages. [Click here for more information onanvil priests.]
Another practice for a couple wishing to be married in the Church of England was the reading of the banns of marriage (also known as “banns”). This proclamation of marriage was announced publicly within the church for three weeks in succession prior to a marriage taking place (mainly so that anyone citing a credible reason that the marriage should not take place would have adequate notice to make such a stand against the union). Today, a couple may be required to participate in marriage counseling or take classes to satisfy the requirements of a particular church or denomination, but the requirement would be independent of government decree. In addition, couples may declare their intent to marry by proclaiming their engagement in a public announcement, newspaper article or engagement party, though these practices are social in nature and are not dictated as a requirement by the government. For those traveling to Gretna Green, no such proclamation was expected or required.
It is interesting to note that now more than 200 years after the time of these original runaway marriages, Gretna Green remains an extremely popular wedding venue. In fact, it is estimated that one in six Scottish marriages occur in the small village made famous for its take on marriage minus the control of government.
Today, a wedding ring is a must. The making of a marriage promise is still a lifelong commitment. And whether or not we travel to Gretna Green to exchange the all important vows or whether we follow the requirements of the government in the locale where we live, we still say “with this ring…” with as much heart as those couples would have all those years ago.
In Romans 13, Paul warns his flock to obey the rulers over them, saying, “But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain . . .”
These days, “the sword” of the government is usually jail time or fines or community service, and only occasionally the death penalty. But in the Regency, it was different.
Criminals were still sent to prisons then. But in the Regency, prisons weren’t nearly as regulated as they are now. Some prisons didn’t provide enough of food or other necessities for the prisoners. Some were workhouses. Worst of all, some were “hulks”: old ships moored in the Thames, where hundreds of men were locked below deck, in the dark, doomed to fight and starve and probably die long before they were granted the dubious opportunity of transportation to the colonies.
And it wasn’t just men in the prisons or hulks: children convicted of crimes were sent there, too. While men and women were generally separated in prison, adults and children were not. You can just imagine the fate of those children.
If you weren’t sent to prison, you might be sent off to the colonies, on the theory that if you couldn’t commit any more crimes in England if . . . well, if you weren’t in England anymore.
But perhaps the biggest difference between the way our government punishes crime and the way crime was punished by the government of Regency England was the death penalty. We still have it, yes, but it’s rarely used, and generally only for very serious and violent crimes. Moreover, these days, attempts are made to administer it humanely. But in the Regency, not only were hundreds of crimes were punishable by death, if you were sentenced to death, you were going to die publicly and probably not painlessly, by hanging.
However, reform of the penal code was beginning – and ongoing – in the Regency. According to Donald Low in his book The Regency Underworld, in 1816 Sir Samuel Romilly succeeded in getting pickpocketing to be no longer punishable by the death penalty. In a time when over two hundred crimes could be punished by death, this was a notable success. Other reformers began trying to implement corrective programs in the prisons or, at the very least, to separate serious criminals from the less serious, instead of having them all mill about together, the worse corrupting the better (see Peel’s Prison Act of 1823).
This post isn’t anywhere near exhaustive – the people of the Regency were inventive, and the nuances of the penal code numerous and arcane. It’s a rich field for research, but one that requires a strong stomach.
But even with all these differences between then and now, prison still isn’t a good place to be, and not even always a safe place. The spirit of the reform work and the concern for prisoners that began in the Regency are still carried out today by ministries like Prison Fellowship. And then as now, children still feel the pain imposed by the penal system. With Christmas coming, Angel Tree is a great place to start if you feel a call to ministering to the children of those in prison in this day and age. And just about every city has a prison with people in it who can use visitors and books and Bibles. Things might be better now, but they’re far from perfect. The light of Christ still needs to be taken to the darkest of places.
Tories, Whigs, Foxite-Whigs, oh my. What shall become of us, Lord?
The government is not stable, barely lasting two years. My fears of invasion, a total loss of the country I know and love, fills my heart.
How can Providence allow such upheavals?
Why change from Pitt, to Grenville, to Portland? Is the title of Prime Minister difficult to hold?
I know I am just a woman. I should contend myself to my needlework. Surely, there are enough ribbons to be added to little Mary’s gown to make my mind numb to fear.
Yet, how can I even think of my girl coming of age in times like these. My heart aches at seeing her cast into this society where dissension reigns. She cannot be a war bride. No! Not her.
My thumb has turned painful. I yank the needle freeing it from the swelling flesh. I’ve pricked finger and stained the satin hem.
Is this coursing of rouge a sign to come? Don’t our enemies in France lay in wait for our weakness? This turmoil is the proper time to strike.
I dispatch my maid for fresh muslin. I will not ruin anymore ribbons with my wringing of hands. Doubt will not save my country.
As I swaddle my hands in the soft cloth, my palms meet. A peace settles on my shoulders. The churning of my stomach quiets. I remember Your words.
Romans 13:1-4
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
So Pitt, Grenville and now Portland… You ordained them to be Prime Minister, in such a time as these?
I slump in my chair. The very thought of this contention being God’s will disheartens me. Yet, the soft words of the passage sing in my soul.
Romans 13:5-7
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Now my heart is pricked. For I have not given tribute to the governing, just gossip and trepidation. I repent of that Lord. I uncover my hands, slapping flesh to flesh, and pay tribute. I pray for Providence’s guidance and mercy to fall upon my leaders. It is the best offering I can render.
Laurie Allice Eakes (LA) invites you into an Interview with Cheryl Bolen (CB), author of Marriage of Inconvenience from Love Inspired Historical.
Cheryl Bolen, author of Marriage of Inconvenience
LA: What drew you to write about the Regency Time Period?
CB: My World War II book—the fourth complete book I’d written but not found a publishing home for—won a lot of contests, but publishers kept saying it didn’t fit into a genre. The final editor judge in one contest told me if I wrote a historical romance that took place before 1900 she would like to look at it. The only period I liked was the Regency England Georgette Heyer had introduced me to. I hadn’t read many of the contemporary writers of Regency because I found some of them not understanding the era as well as I thought I did. That’s when I had a light bulb moment. I can write that! I began A DUKE DECEIVED, and months later that senior editor at Harlequin Historical bought it.
LA: Tell us what year your book is set in and why you chose that particular time.
CB: My newest release is set sometime after Waterloo but before 1820. I actually picked that time because it was a continuation of a series that began earlier and which locked me into a particular time. (The first books in the series, however, were written for a secular publisher, but readers had been clamoring for me to tell this proper miss’s tale.)
LA: What’s your favorite, unique Regency aspect of the novel, something you wouldn’t be able to include in a novel set in another place or time?
CB: Definitely the clothes—both men’s and women’s. Love the elegant, feminine lines of women’s but especially love that the men wore knee breeches, neckcloths—and unlike men later in the century, they were clean shaven!
LA: What are the biggest challenges to writing in the Regency Period?
CB: Some vocabulary is peculiar to the Regency, and you want to use it in a context that won’t confuse readers.
LA: Why did you choose to write Regencies for Love Inspired?
CB: I was honored that the senior editor of Love Inspired Historical came to me and asked me to write for her. I was thrilled because I’d developed a love of inspirational romances. Deeanne Gist is a friend of mine, and I love her award-winning books. LA: What is your favorite Regency Food, aspect of dress, and/or expression?
CB: I don’t get into food a lot in my books because I don’t think modern readers would like to read about the excessive gluttony of the period! I love the wonderful formality and manners of the upper classes in their speech of the period. I really don’t like it when I read a book where an earl says, “Call me John.” This simply wasn’t done. Ladies were always Miss Lastname even to their closest friends. LA: What is your favorite Regency setting; e.g., London, country house, small village?
CB: For my own books, I like a mix of the two. I’ve been to London many times and like to describe it as I believe it looked in the Regency, but there’s nothing like those grand country estates, and I like my readers to get a taste for that, too. LA: What makes your hero and heroine uniquely Regency?
CB: In my newest book, the hero is in Parliament, and it plays a particular role in my book. They both favored reforms to benefit the lower classes.
LA: Tell us about your book.
CB: It’s actually sort of funny that in the same month I’ve got two new releases, and both of them are G-rated. As an ebook only, I’ve got CHRISTMAS BRIDES: 3 REGENCY NOVELLAS.
Marriage of Inconvenience, Love Inspired Historical: Proposing to the Earl of Aynsley seems a sensible—if unconventional—solution to Miss Rebecca Peabody’s predicament. As a married woman, she will be free to keep writing her essays on civil reform. Meanwhile, the distinguished widower will gain a stepmother for his seven children and a caretaker for his vast estate.
But the earl wants more than a convenient bride. He craves a true partner, a woman he can cherish. To his surprise, the bookish Miss Peabody appears to have every quality he desires…except the willingness to trust her new husband. Yet despite his family’s interference, and her steadfast independence, time and faith could make theirs a true marriage of hearts.
Cheryl Bolen’s Bio: A former journalist who admits to a fascination with dead Englishwomen, Cheryl is a regular contributor to The Regency Plume, The Regency Reader, and The Quizzing Glass. Many of her articles can found on her website, www.CherylBolen.com, and more recent ones on her blog, www.CherylsRegencyRamblings.wordpress.com. Readers are welcomed at both places.
Cheryl holds a dual degree in English and journalism from the University of Texas, and she earned a master’s degree from the University of Houston. She and her professor husband are the parents of two sons, one who is an attorney, and the other a journalist. Her favorite things to do are watching the Longhorns, reading letters and diaries of Georgian Englishmen, and traveling to England.
I’ve always found the process of democracy—and elections in particular—rather fascinating. And as we head into the month of November here at Regency Reflections, we’re going to talk a bit about government.
In Regency England, I’m afraid voting options were rather limited. Britain’s Parliament is (and was) divided into two houses, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of Lords was composed of peers who were approved membership by their fellow peers, and these positions in the House of Lords were handed down through heredity. Your regular English coal miner or weaver or farmer had no voice in anything that happened in the House of Lords.
The House of Commons was a little more democratic in nature. These members were “elected,” by counties and boroughs, though a lot of corruption was embedded in the electoral process. When Regency characters in novels and movies mention purchasing a seat in the House of Commons, that’s because the electoral process was so crooked individuals could well “purchase” seats that were supposed to be “elected.”
Further complicating the issue, a Member of Parliament representing a county had to have a yearly income of 600 pounds. And a Member of Parliament representing a borough had to have a yearly income of 300 pounds. Thus election to and involvement in parliament was unattainable for the average Englishman. In fact, lower born sons of peers filled a good number of the seats in Commons for this very reason.
Even more disparaging, all voting was done open ballot, and oftentimes retribution could occur if you voted for the wrong person. For example, if an earl’s third son was running for a seat in Commons and you farmed the earl’s land, you could go cast your vote for the opposing candidate. But you might well loose your rights to farm as a result.
Elections were hardly honest or fair. It was a world where the most elite and wealthy controlled the government and gave the bulk of the country’s citizens very little power. Most citizens were not even allowed to “vote.”
To vote in county elections, a person had to be:
1). Male
Though offensive to most people living today (myself included), this was completely normal for the time period. Women’s suffrage wasn’t even thought of yet.
2). A Property Holder with land worth 40 shillings or more per year
This is known as the forty shilling freehold.
To vote in borough elections, you had to be:
1). Male
2). A resident of the “right” county or borough.
There were a lot of populated cities in Regency England that didn’t get any representatives in the House of Commons. The designated “boroughs” were delineated during the Middle Ages and not changed until 1832. So numerous cities that sprang into existence due to industrialism were denied members to the House of Commons, while some extremely small communities that had been thriving 400 years earlier got to elect officials.
3). Owner of a certain amount of wealth or property.
The degree of wealth and property ownership varied from borough to borough. In some places, the forty shilling freehold stood. In others, not receiving alms or poor relief earned you the right to vote. And in others, simply owning a home gave you opportunity to vote.
So now I’m curious. If you’d been living during the Regency days, do you think you (or your husband) would have been able to vote? I daresay my husband would not own enough property to qualify.
Whenever I read a Regency novel set during the Napoleonic Wars, I’m interested to see how the war and France are portrayed. Of course France was hated. They were, after all, the bad guys, trying to invade England, take over Europe, and end the world in with some sort of nuclear holocaust (well, maybe not quite that extreme, but you get the picture). And then after you look at France the country, there’s it’s leader: Napoleon Bonaparte, the Corsican Monster , tyrant, etc.
Yet as the British are sitting on their nice little island, thinking of names to call France’s new ruler, they quite happily forget that Napoleon was much less of a tyrant to the French people than King Louis XVI. Or King Louis XV. Or King Louis XIV. In fact, the average Frenchman and Frenchwoman had a much better life under Napoleon’s rule than under Louis XVI’s.
(Heaven forbid we actually let the French people choose their own ruler rather than foist another wasteful, birth-ordained monarch on them.)
French citizens aside, anyone familiar with the Napoleonic Wars will tell you Napoleon had a lust for power. Though he never claimed to be a king, he did aim to conquer much of Europe. And so, it stands to reason that we’re all lucky England was around to protect the rest of the world from the big, bad Mr. Bonaparte. Correct?
Not exactly.
At the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars, England was much more of a big, bad bully than France. In fact, England—with all its outrage against the Corsican Monster—was the one to start the Napoleonic Wars.
Yes, that’s right. England picked a war with France, not the other way around.
England and France had been enjoying a tenuous peace, as delineated in the Treaty of Amiens, which lasted from the spring of 1802 to 1803. Neither France nor England was doing any of the things it promised to do in that treaty. In fact, England was much more aggressive than France, gathering another coalition of nations to fight France. Napoleon, however, withdrew troops from certain territories he’d agreed to evacuate. In all fairness, both countries signed a treaty that neither intended to honor.
When this finally became clear to England, the country did what it was so very fond of doing two hundred years ago. It declared war. Then the British navy promptly captured two French ships within a matter of days. I can just imagine the conversation between the British and French soldiers as the French were once again losing two of their ships to the Brits.
Frenchman: “But you can’t capture our ship. We’re at peace. Remember that treaty our countries signed last spring?”
Brit: (Laughs cruelly) “We decided to call off the treaty and declare war two days ago. Hadn’t you heard?”
Frenchman: “No! We’ve been at sea for the past three months.”
Brit: “Oh well, we’re taking your ship anyway, and you’ll need to come with us. I’m sure you’ll have a nice time moldering in one of our prison hulks until you die in about three months time.”
Ah yes, England was quite the picture of benevolence two hundred years ago.
So in retaliation, Napoleon rounded up all the Brits visiting France on holiday and interned them in a citadel located in northwestern France.
England was outraged, of course. How dare Napoleon actually fight back!
And so there you have it, the story of how England started the Napoleonic Wars.
If you’ve read any significant amount in the Regency genre, you’ve come across references to the décor fashion trend involving Egyptian-style furniture. Ever wondered or imagined what it was like?
It’s clear to me why this particular style is not remembered with fondness and it hasn’t swept back around in nostalgic, retro reoccurrences. Regency culture became fascinated with ancient articles upon the publication of Henry Holland’s book “Etchings of Ancient Ornamental Architecture”. This ushered in a period of interest in the producing of copies of ancient objects coming from Greece, Rome, and Egypt.
comfy?
When the book, “Reproductions of Classical Furniture” by designer Thomas Hope came out in 1807, the Egyptian reproductions using mainly mahogany, but also rosewood and zebrawood, became wildly popular in high echelons of society. The pieces had straight lines, and used symbols as decoration.
In my home, we enjoy a pretty heirloom chair that once belonged to my husband’s grandmother, who was born in 1903. The chair is old, but not Egyptian. It’s been featured in many humble portraits taken in the Karsten home.
It has a problem, however, in that the green velvet-covered, thick-looking seat’s stuffing is completely shot. It’s:
Lovely to look at,
Delightful to touch,
But if you sit,
You’ll find it’s not much.
I happened upon a recent guest stroking this chair’s highly-polished carved wooden back. The reverent look on her face (she didn’t know the seat is corrupt) reminded me of a caution in Matthew 6:19, which says “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal.” The Egyptian furniture trend which is long gone and my own pretty chair prove the Truth of the verse all too well.
The Lucky Man Fox Hunting by Lionel EdwardsThe Kill by Thomas Blinks
Hunting season is just gearing up here in Maine. Already a few families have caught their moose, which will fill their freezers for the winter. During the Regency era in England, hunting had become the sport of gentlemen, although it wasn’t limited to the aristocratic class. But if you didn’t own land where game could thrive, you depended on permission of the landowner. Poaching was illegal and with punishment if caught of transportation to the penal colonies (i.e. Australia) for seven years (according to the Game Laws of 1816) or injury if you were caught in a “man-trap”. Prior to 1816, penalties were doubtless more severe. But we won’t dwell on that unpleasant topic today.
Red Grouse on Alert by Archibald Thorburn
Back to hunting as a sport for the idle rich. Pheasant, partridge, hare and rabbit were all “fair game”—pun intended. The official start of hunting season was August 12th “Glorious Twelfth” for red grouse in the north. It coincided with the recess of Parliament for the year, when the gentry flocked north—another pun—out of hot, dirty London for their country estates or those of their friends. The red grouse is a fowl native to Scotland and northern England so those lucky enough to have estates there could probably expect company during the month of August.
Fox hunting was probably the most popular hunting sport of the regency buck (young, all around sporting man of the ton participating in all the debaucheries available to him). Fox hunting gained popularity as the Enclosure Laws of the 1700s shut off more and more open land with stone walls and hedgerows, giving the landless class less space to grow food and the propertied class more area to protect the wild life for their own pleasure. What had begun a few centuries earlier as a defense of farmers against fox damaging their crops evolved into a very structured sport centered in the “Shire” of England, Leicestershire, in the heart of England, an area of rich, flat pastureland ideal for “riding to the hounds.” The town of Melton Mowbray became the center of fox hunting. Three major hunts, the Quorn, the Belvoir (pronounced “beaver”), and the Cottesmore were held here.
Fox hunting went from the beginning of November through March, after the fields had been harvested and would not be damaged by the horses and hounds running over them and ended before the first spring plantings.
If the hunting was good, men were reluctant to return to town, so women, arriving in London in March would complain over the dearth of men in the early part of the season.
The Hunting Party Meal by by Nicolas LancretPortrait of Favorite Foxhounds by Thomas Woodward
Dog and horse breeds were gradually selected and improved for hunting: the foxhound breed perfected in the 17th and 18th centuries in England for foxhunting, and the Irish hunter becoming the preferred horse for its endurance. Dogs were first used in packs for hunting in the mid-17th century.
Equestrian portrait of the Grand Duchess Yekaterina Alexeyevna
Fox hunting was a man’s sport until the 1830s when the jumping pommel was invented for female side saddles. Before this, if you read about a heroine being just as intrepid a rider alongside the hero in a hunt, she would risk falling off her horse and breaking her neck if she tried such a stunt—unless she rode astride—difficult before the invention of the split skirt in the later Victorian era. A few renown women like Catherine the Great did ride astride but wearing male attire (she also rode side saddle as you can see in the portrait). But being royalty she could get away with this unladylike behavior.
jumping pommel sidesaddle - wikipedia
The jumping pommel sidesaddle had an extra pommel as can be seen in the photograph for the left leg to secured against, in addition to the original pommel for the right leg. Women’s riding habits had long hems on the left side so their ankles would be well covered when they sat atop their horses. This is why they had to drape these long skirts over their left arm when walking. With this new sidesaddle women could gallop and jump fences for the first time.
So until this invention, women had to be content to ride along the roads in carriages, ride sidesaddle on gentle mounts to the meet and then ride home again, or enjoy the sometimes elaborate picnics planned around a hunt.
From:
Wikipedia and blogs: A Web of English History: The Age of George III; Jane Austen’s World; The Jane Austen Centre; Rakehell: Where Regency Lives!; The Word Wenches: Fox Hunting; Shannon Donnelly’s Fresh Ink: The Regency World Horse
Regency Reflections is excited to welcome Regan Walker. Over the next three days we will be sharing a paper Regan wrote entitled “God in the Regency”. This three part series will give you a terrific overview of the religious environment and shifts in the Regency period.
Other factors should be considered because of how they influenced people’s view of God during this time. New ideas in politics, philosophy, science and art all vied for people’s attention. Two in particular, the scientific discoveries of the time and the Industrial Revolution, may have had dramatic effect on man’s view of his faith during the Regency.
William Herschel
In 1781, while investigating what he and others believed to be a comet, William Herschel, an astronomer, discovered a new planet he named “George’s star,” after King George III. (In 1850, after Herschel’s death, the name would be changed to Uranus.) This was the first planet discovered since ancient times. In 1816, Herschel was knighted, and in 1821 he became President of the Astronomical Society for his achievements. Herschel, a devout Christian, strongly believed that God’s universe was characterized by order and planning. His discovery of that order led him to conclude, “[T]he undevout astronomer must be mad.”
Herschel’s discoveries caused his fellow scientists and theologians to reconsider their prior views of God and the possibility there were other creations in the universe. Not all views expressed were those of believers in God; however, one who was is illustrative of the prevailing attitude. Thomas Dick, a Scottish minister and science teacher, in his book The Sidereal Heavens, published in 1840, said of Herschel’s discovery,
To consider creation, therefore, in all its departments, as extending throughout regions of space illimitable to mortal view, and filled with intelligent existence, is nothing more than what comports with the idea of HIM who inhabiteth immensity, and whose perfections are boundless and past finding out.
Rev. Thomas Dick
Though he wrote this after the Regency, Dick’s statement is indicative of the view during the early 19th-century in which science was dominated by clergymen-scientists, men dedicated to their scientific work but still committed to their faith in God. Scientific discoveries were seen as entirely consistent with a belief in a Creator. Geologist William Buckland, mathematician Baden Powell and polymath William Whewell found little conflict in their roles as clergymen and men of science.
The Industrial Revolution transformed English society during the 18th and 19th centuries and would certainly cause people to question the established order of things, including the church. During the 18th century, England’s population nearly doubled. The industry most important in the rise of England as an industrial nation was cotton textiles. A series of inventions in the 18th century led to machines that could and did replace human laborers, and the use of new, mineral based materials that replaced those based on animal and vegetable material. The effect of machines replacing workers, particularly in the textile industry, was keenly felt in some parts of England.
The Luddites smashing the looms
During the period 1811-1816, a group called “the Luddites” reacted by smashing thousands of machines developed for use in the textile industries in Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire; thus the Midlands became the center of much unrest. The poor, crippled by bad harvests and taxes and resentful at having no vote, rose up. At times, the clergy would even become involved. For example Hugh Wolstenholme, curate of Pentrich in Derbyshire, took a stand on the side of his parishioners and was critical of the government in the Rebellion of 1817. For his role, he had to flee to America. Interestingly, he attended Trinity College Cambridge when Charles Simeon was the rector.
Charles Simeon
As England changed from an agricultural to an industrial economy during the 19th century, the lives of the working class were disrupted and many people relocated from the countryside to the towns. In 1801, at the time of the first census, only about 20% of the population lived in towns. By 1851, the figure had risen to over 50%. New social relationships emerged with the growing working and middle classes. During this time of upheaval and relocation, which began in the Regency, though some individuals, like Charles Simeon, exercised great spiritual influence, the Church as a whole would fail to grapple with the problems that resulted from the huge surge in population and the growth of industrial towns. Still, perhaps both the problems and the movement of people to the towns, where they might have heard the message of the great preachers of the day, spurred them to examine their faith. One can only hope.
Selected Sources and Books/Articles of Interest: Several of the resources listed below can be clicked on to take you to them.
All Things Austen, An Encyclopedia of Austen’s World,Vols. I & II (articles on the Clergy and Religion) by Kirstin Olsen
Selina, Countess of Huntingdon by Faith Cook
The Bachelor Duke, 6th Duke of Devonshire 1790-1858 by James Lees-Milne
Regency Reflections is excited to welcome Regan Walker. Over the next three days we will be sharing a paper Regan wrote entitled “God in the Regency”. This three part series will give you a terrific overview of the religious environment and shifts in the Regency period.
Against this background, we emerge into Regency England (1811-1820, extending to 1837 if we consider the larger “Regency Era,” ending when Queen Victoria succeeded William IV). During this period, the religious landscape consisted of the Anglican Church of England, which occupied the predominant ground (though the Evangelicals continued to dominate the Church in the first half of the 19th century), and those considered “Dissenters,” a general term that included non-conformist Protestants, Presbyterians (identified with the Scots), Baptists, Jews, Roman Catholics and Quakers. The Protestants moved toward the Methodist and Evangelical perspective, and a personal conversion experience. The Roman Catholics, governed by the Pope in Rome, though discriminated against, were too strong to be suppressed and persisted, eventually regaining the ability to become Members of Parliament and hold public office with The Catholic Emancipation Act in 1829. (Ironically, the Prince Regent opposed Catholic Emancipation even though Maria Fitzherbert, a twice-widowed Roman Catholic, was arguably the love of his life.)
There were many incentives to be a part of the Church of England because it was government controlled and sponsored. Only Anglicans could attend Oxford or receive degrees from Cambridge. Except for the Jews and Quakers (the latter which received freedom of worship in 1813), all marriages and baptisms had to take place in an Anglican church. All citizens, no matter their faith, paid taxes to maintain the parish churches, and non-Anglicans were prevented from taking many government and military posts.
According to Henry Wakeman in An Introduction to theHistory of the Church of England, by the time George III died in 1820, despite all that occurred in the 18th century with the Evangelical and Methodist revivals, with a few exceptions (some discussed in this article), the Church of England was not materially different than it was when George III came to the throne in 1760.
The bishops were still amiable scholars who lived in dignified ease apart from their clergy, attended the king’s levee regularly, voted steadily in Parliament for the party of the minister who had appointed them, entertained the country gentry when Parliament was not sitting, wrote learned books on points of classical scholarship, and occasionally were seen driving in state through the muddy country roads on their way to the chief towns of their dioceses to hold a confirmation. Of spiritual leadership they had but little idea. (Wakeman at 457)
Jane Austen wrote about the world of the Anglican clergy. Her father was the Reverend George Austen, a pastor who encouraged his daughter in her love of reading and writing. (In addition to her novels, Jane Austen composed evening prayers for her father’s services.) She also had other relatives, including two of her brothers, who were among the Anglican clergy. It was a culture in which faith often influenced one’s livelihood. Some of Austen’s characters (i.e., Edward Ferrars and Edmund Bertram) were clergy in need of parsonages. It was an acceptable occupation for a younger son. Large landowners and peers owned many of the church appointments and could appoint the local clergyman.
Of the Anglican clergy, Wakeman said,
The bulk of the English clergy then as ever were educated, refined, generous, God-fearing men, who lived lives of simple piety and plain duty, respected by their people for the friendly help and wise counsel and open purse which were ever at the disposal of the poor.
A few of them hunted, shot, fished and drank or gambled during the week like their friends in the army or at the bar, and mumbled through a perfunctory service in church on Sundays unterrified by the thought of archdeacon or bishop. Some of them, where there was no residence in the parish, lived an idle and often vicious life at a neighbouring town, and only visited their parishes when they rode over on Sundays to conduct the necessary services. (Wakeman at 459)
[With few exceptions] the clergy held and taught a negative and cold Protestantism deadening to the imagination, studiously repressive to the emotions, and based on principles which found little sanction either in reason or in history. The laity willingly accepted it, as it made so little demand upon their conscience, so little claim upon their life. (Wakeman at 461)
Wakeman recognized the indifference of the Church of England to the “tearing away” of the followers of Whitefield and Wesley:
An earnest revival of personal religion had deeply affected some sections of English society. Yet…the Church of England reared her impassive front…sublime in her apathy, unchanged and apparently unchangeable….
Jane Austen
Unlike some Anglicans, who may have attended church only out of duty or habit, Jane Austen was more than a nominal church member. From the prayers she wrote, she seems to have been a devout believer who accepted the Anglican faith as it was, though she disliked hypocrisy and that may be reflected in some of her clergyman characters. She also had views on the Evangelicals. In a letter to her sister Cassandra, written on January 24, 1809, she admitted, “I do not like the Evangelicals.” Like many Anglicans, she likely felt faith was to be unemotional and demonstrated in observances of certain services, prayers and moral teachings. The demonstrative preaching and strong message of the Evangelicals, particularly their enthusiasm and fervor, might not appeal to a girl raised in an Anglican minister’s home. Then, too, she had experience with certain Evangelicals, notably her cousin Edward Cooper, who she observed in a letter to her sister, wrote “cruel letters of comfort.” (It is very human, is it not, to judge a movement by the few persons we may know within it?) However, as she grew older, there is some indication of a softening in her thinking. On November 18, 1814, Austen wrote a letter to her niece, Fanny Knight, in which she said, “I am by no means convinced that we ought not all to be Evangelicals, & am at least persuaded that they who are so from Reason & Feeling, must be happiest & safest.”
Perhaps as Austen viewed the decadence of the Regency period (particularly the social life in London), the indulgences of her monarch, and the lackluster faith of some who adhered to the Church of England out of habit, she found value in the sincerity of those who espoused a more evangelical message. It was, after all, the Evangelicals led by William Wilberforce, allied with the Quakers that became the champions of the anti-slavery movement, resulting in the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1807. Among Jane Austen’s favorite writers were those who were passionately anti-slavery, such as William Cowper, Doctor Johnson and Thomas Clarkson. One of her naval brothers, Frank, after a visit to Antigua in 1806, wrote home condemning slavery.
Prince Regent, later George IV
Austen was critical of the Prince Regent, understandably so. Unlike his parents, George III and Queen Charlotte, the Prince Regent lived a decadent life, indulging in his personal pleasure devoid of any evidence of a strong faith, or indeed any faith at all, though he was nominally the head of the Church of England. As a result of the tax burden from the wars in France and the Prince’s opulent lifestyle that was crushing the poor and working classes, the resentment for the Prince grew more strident as time went on. Jane Austen disliked him intensely, principally because of his treatment of his wife, Princess Caroline of Brunswick (as seen in her letter to Martha Lloyd of February 16, 1813). She was not pleased when it was “suggested” she dedicate her novel Emma to him in 1816, though she did so for marketing reasons.
George Whitefield preaching
In at least some parts of the Church of England during the Regency, spiritual change was afoot continuing from the movements in the 18th century. In such places, the Church of England looked more like the Protestant Evangelicals. For example, Charles Simeon, rector of Trinity Church, Cambridge for 54 years (1782-1836), and a member of the Clapham group, was a great Bible expositor, who taught a risen Savior and salvation through grace, sounding very much like Wesley and Whitefield decades earlier. That was no mean feat given the opposition he faced in Cambridge. The universities were bastions of the established Church of England and seedbeds of rationalism, neither of which made them sympathetic to a rector of strong religious fervor.
Anglicans distinguished between the “High Church” and the “Low Church.” The High Church or “Orthodox” church, associated with the Tories, was content with the state’s involvement in religious matters and associated itself with the court and courtiers and emphasized the rituals of the church and the Common Book of Prayer. The Low Church, associated with the Whigs and with Cambridge, and before they broke off, with the Methodists, presented a middle ground where faith was tolerant, rational and low-key. To the Low Church, the Bible was all-important and the Book of Common Prayer considered merely a human invention that could be adapted and changed. To those in the Anglican High Church, Low Church members, like Charles Simeon, were merely “Dissenters in disguise.” The Evangelicals were opposed by both the High and Low Church of the Anglicans, particularly because of their enthusiasm (their fervor raised the specter of the troubles in France). Because of their strong stance on moral issues, the Evangelicals of that day were also viewed by some as troublemakers who didn’t want anyone to have any fun. Notwithstanding such views, there were those in the aristocracy, including the William Cavendish, the 6th Duke of Devonshire, who became Evangelicals though they never left the Anglican church.
One effect of the Methodist and Evangelical influences, begun in the 18th century and continued in the Regency, was the growth in foreign missions, as Christians went to other parts of the world to spread the “good news.” There were many English men and women whose newfound faith compelled them to accept the challenge for the cause of the gospel. Missionary societies, initially viewed with disfavor by the established church, gained in prominence in the 19th century.
Charles Simeon
Charles Simeon was one of those clergymen in the Church of England who was interested in missions and spreading the Bible’s message around the world. He took a special interest in India and sent his former assistants as chaplains with the British East India Company. Henry Martyn may be the most famous of those assistants. He served in India and Persia from 1806 until his death in 1812, and during those few years, translated the New Testament into Persian, Urdu and Judaeo-Persic. He influenced young people for generations to go to the mission field and is remembered as saying, “The spirit of Christ is the spirit of missions. The nearer we get to Him, the more intensely missionary we become.” Such a faith was not one of ritual or habit but a faith that moved one to action and personal sacrifice.
God in the Regency will continue with part 3 tomorrow.
After years of practicing law in both the private sector and government, and traveling to over 40 countries, Regan has returned to her love of telling stories. She writes mainlineRegency romances, her first is Racing With The Wind, set in London and Paris in1816, and features spies and intrigue as well as a smart, independent heroine and a handsome British lord–lots of adventure as well as love! It’s the first in her Agents of the Crown trilogy. For more, see her website: http://www.reganwalkerauthor.com.
