A JEMMY TUSCAN BONNET, EXETER, 1845.

 "In this case Mrs. Selina Soper complained that Mr. James Clarke, mine host of the Bishop Blaze public house near the Shilhay, had assaulted her on the 25th April, - torn her Tuscan bonnet, and damaged her frock, - for gowns no longer form part of the habiliments of woman.

"It appeared that Wm. Soper, the goodly mate of Selina, at an early party in the morning on the day in question, betook himself, with other boon companions, to the Bishop Blaze, where he staid about three hours, and drank six half pints of beer!  In the meantime Selina reached home, and found a pan of milk that was intended to be scalded only, on the brink of ruin.  Boiling with rage, even if the milk did not, she set out in search of her truant husband, and finding him at "The Bishop" - if the sign was not fully represented before, - she soon rendered the portraiture complete, by truly setting all in a blaze.  This Mr. Clarke disapproved of , as well a landlord may, and proceeded vi et armis to eject the lady from the premises; - a matter that, calling forth the husband, a battle royal ensued.

"That blood had been spilt on either side there was no reason to doubt, - and as little that the jemmy Tuscan bonnet, and frock of cotton print had been torn.  But the knotty question with the Bench was, had a greater degree of force been made use of in ejected the exited and turbulent Selina from the house than was necessary.

"Mr. G. W. Turner addressed the Bench, on the part of "mine host" of the Blaze, most eloquently on this point.  But the Bench decided that this had been the case.  Considering however that great provocation had been given on the other side, it contented itself with imposing on Mr. Clarke the fine of 1s. and the expenses.  Mr. Turner advised him to pay this, but under protest, if he shall hereafter determine to appeal to the Quarter Sessions against the judgement.  And in order to await this, the "tuscan" and the frock, were delivered into the care of Fulford, an officer."

This trivial tale, as reported in The Exeter Flying Post for 7th May 1845, follows a path well-trodden at the time.  The truant husband is followed into the pub by the furious wife and the landlord throws her out, or tries to.  In this case the intrepid Selina takes the innkeeper to court and wins her case even if her victory is distinctly Pyrric.

The Bishop Blaze: is still a public house near (or on) the Shilhay in Exeter.  Saint Blaise was a fourth century, Armenian, Christian martyr and the patron saint of wool-combers hence his connection to the city. 

Gowns and frocks:  We would seem to be at a significant point in the history of women's fashion with Selina Soper, perhaps, supercool  in her frock of cotton print and with her tuscan bonnet.

Scalding milk:  was a common practice to kill bacteria in fresh milk  - but I like to think our Selina was hoping to make some Devonshire (clotted) cream. 

Vi et armis:  by main force,  as every schoolboy knew.

A Tuscan bonnet: seems to have been a luxury item.  I warm to Selina Soper.

Mine host:   is still common, and sometimes even vulgar.  I wonder how it was pronounced.  These days, in my experience, everyone, those who couldn't care less and those who are nice about these things,  say, mine host,  which must be wrong, it is like saying an happle.  I guess its popularity stems from the Prologue to The Canterbury Tales!

Jemmy:  is not  in my dictionary of  slang (the Oxford).  Etymonline has the fascinating etymology: "a pop form of the masc. proper name James ....In mid 18c. often associated with effeminancy and male fastidiousness, hence jemmy "spruce, neat."  

The tool seems to have the same origin.  I have never seen jemmy (adj.) before but no doubt it is still in use somewhere,  -  the Appalachians or Botany Bay or Tiverton or somewhere!

"OLD HARRY", EXETER, 1845.

From the proceedings of the magistrates at the Exeter Guildhall as reported by the Exeter Flying Post of 7th May, 1845:

 "Solomon, who was a wise man, said  'Correct thy son' but what the doctrine in this respect would be in the present day, it is not very easy to say.  This, however, is clear, that it is a dangerous and very expensive matter to chastise the son  of any other body, however bad their conduct may be; and this James Stubbings found in the present instance.

"Stubbings is the civil driver of an omnibus to and from the railway station, and on the 26th of April,while thus engaged, near the Old London Inn, came in contact with a donkey cart driven by a lad named George Norman,  who not appearing to be attending to what was going on, and there being a danger that the pole of the larger vehicle would play 'Old Harry' with, or perhaps smash the smaller, Stubbings called to him.

"Instead,, however, of civilly replying to this, and doing that which was necessary to the safety of all, he (Norman) as he admitted called the other a d****d fool for his interference, and placing the fingers of one of his hands in a certain position, he applied the tip of one thumb to his nose, and in a well known and offensive manner endeavoured to draw ridicule on Stubbings.

"Naturally resenting this, as soon as he was enabled he quitted the box, and administered to the youth a few smart cuts with the whip. This, however, was stated by John Sparks, the beadle, who saw the latter part of the transaction only, to have been done in an unmerciful manner.  While Westcott, a fly driver, who also saw it, as well as the offensive action of Norman - observed nothing above a just and proper punishment. - This appeared certain, that Norman exhibited marks of punishment, the skin of his legs being broken, when he came to the Guildhall to prefer his complaint. - 

"The Bench deliberated, but were not unanimous in the judgement pronounced, which was the infliction of a fine of 5s. and expences, on Stubbings.  Norman's character, not appearing to stand very high with the Bench, and Dr. Barham observing, "I think it served him very right."" 

* 

The Old London Inn: was on the corner where Paris Street meets Sidwell Street.  It was later to be known as the Bude Hotel and was subsequently demolished to allow for road widening.

Old Harry: is an ancient euphemism for the the Devil and no one seems to know why.  It seems to me it might simply be a bad pun on the Old English verbs to harry and to harrow in the sense of to devestate but no one else seems to think so. 

Thumbing the nose: is still a well-known, offensive gesture although deemed much less offensive now than in 1845.  Most sources trace it back only to the 18th century and I always thought that Shakespeare's biting the thumb at someone (famously in Romeo and Juliet) would seem to be much the same thing (as my old English master, the celebrated Alan Durband, maintained) but this thumbing has been well researched back to Adam and this seems not to be the case.

John Sparks the beadle: was the junior beadle of the Exeter Corporation of the Poor.  As such, I suppose, the equivalent of Dicken's beadle, Mr Bumble in Oliver Twist, which  naturally prejudices one against him,  but  here  his seems the voice of reason.  The poor boy had, it would seem, come freshly-bleeding, to the Guildhall.

The Bench were not unanimous: It was unusual for the Exeter Bench to be divided but here Dr. Barham clearly voted for the control of rebellious youth and the Mayor, Edward Woolmer, for the word of the law.  No doubt the Mayor was in the right and these days we not do not lacerate the limbs of insolent young people.  We now, however, dare not speak a harsh word to them however bad their conduct may be, indeed we are cautioned by the police not so to do.  In today's Exeter, where I observe the bad behaviour of some, in particular, Exeter College 'students', with no-one able to exercise any authority over them whatsoever, I think the pendulum might have swung a little too far.

Any other body for anybody else is delightful.

     

A SULLEN FANATIC, EXETER, 1845.

Surprisingly the early-Victorian Board of Magistrates at the Guildhall of Exeter  often functioned as a type of Marriage Guidance Counsel as here in the case of a shoemaker reported in The Exeter Flying Post of 1st May 1845:

 "The wife of Alexander Tapscott. a snob, but anything rather than a jolly one, complained that he had been strapping her at a rather unmerciful rate with his stirrup, and also that he kept her without a sufficient supply of the "ready."

"This would seem to be one of the ill-assorted matches that take place.  Elick is a teetotaller, and the severity with which he disciplines his own body would seem to be such that his face might be taken for that of one of the old puritans, so lank is it and haggard.  His rib, on the contrary, has an eye full of fire, - a face in which spirit sits enthroned, - a form that is buxom, and, in short, appears altogether such as requires only a counter part in her helpmeet to render her a happy and industrious woman.  It appears they have one child 14 weeks old.

"The Bench deliberated whether they should not bind over the sullen fanatic to keep the peace; but on his promising not again to abuse his wife; and she promising also to accomodate herself to his peculiar habits and notions as well as she can, the parties were dismissed."

The jolly snob sounds to me like he should feature in a popular song but, if so, I haven't found him. Snob for shoemaker is still, in 1845, common usage in Exeter.

To strap someone with a stirrup. would be lethal but, bad enough!, it must be his stirrup-leather with which, our reporter tells us, Mr. Tapscott strapped Mrs. Tapscott.

Elick is merely a pet name for Alexander.  

Mrs. Tapscott is Alexander's rib and all the readers of The Flying Post have The Book of Genesis by heart and are familiar with the reference. 

The Post can't spell accommodate either.