The Lady's Magazine
Flintlock pistol
Aphothecary
Marshalsea Prison
Bankruptcy Act 1869 - prior to this debts would live in prisons along with their families who prefered to do this than live on charity outside.
When the Fleet prison closed in 1842 some prisoners where found to have been there for 30 years - the law offered no protection for people who had assets tied up by inheritance laws or for those who had payed their creditors as much as they could.
Prisons were privately managed and whole economies were built up around the system - prison keepers charging rent - the 'jailers fee', baliffs charging for food and clothing, attorneys charging for legal fees in their fruitless attempt to get them out - and creditors - usually tradesmen increasing the debt - the whole family - including children were sent to work to pay off the debt
Under George III new legistration was brought in to stop people with debts under 40s (£563 2009) from being sent to prison.
Most of the Marshalsea was given over to debtors - 1773 debtors within 12 miles of Westminster owing 40s or more would fiond themselves here - along with prisoners waiting to appear at the Old Bailey charged with crimes at sea
The prison was technically under the contol of the Knight Marshal but was let out to private individuals who ran it for profit
The prison was seperated into two classes of prisoner - The Masters side - 50 rooms for rent and the Common side - nine small rooms - 300 prisoners locked up from dusk-dawn
1772 - Master's Side - rates 10s week
Turreted lodge with a side room called the Pound where new prisoners would wait for a room - courtyard leading off from the lodge was where the prisoners from the Common side would spend their daylight hours
There was a bar run by the governor's wife and a chandler's shop - candles, soap and a little food - in 1720s run by a couple of prisoners - there was a coffee shop and a chop house and prisoners on the Master side could hire those on the Common side as servants
The practice of 'garnish' was in place with new prisoners being bullied into giving money to older prisoners
There was a beer room - and beer was also brought in from nearby taverns - another of the jailor's money making schemes - drunkeness was usual
Wives, daughters and lovers of male prisoners could live there - as long as they were paid forwomen prisoners who could afford the fee would be moved to 'The oak'
Common side - horrific conditions - over-crowding and torture - The Strong Room - use of a windowless shed as punishment were corpses were stored before they were buried - those left there died from disease and were then attacked by rats
Those who were ill had to pay to enter the sick room
Royal College of Surgeons
(See text below for some info of RCS)
300 Fellows of the RCS -
Correct way to address a member is - Mr, Mrs, Miss - NOT Dr - this system which applies only to surgeons not physicians has its origins in the 18th century when surgeons were barber surgeons - and did not have a medical degree or formal qualification
- pysicians held a University Medical degree.
When the RCS recieved it's Royal Charter (1800) the Royal College of Physicians insisted that candidates must have a medical degree first. Therefore, an aspiring surgeon must have a medical degree first and recieve the title of Dr - only then having obtained the diploma of Fellow of the RCS could he rivert to Mr, the title Mr only applied to Fellows not members with a diploma MRCS
John Abernethy FRS (3 April 1764 – 20 April 1831) was an English surgeon
Sir Astley Paston Cooper 1768-1841
Guy's Hospital
Notes - eighteenth century medicine
Dr James Blundell - 1791-1878 - obstetrician - performed the first successfully transfusion of blood to a female patient suffering a postpartum hemorrhage 1818
Blood transfusion - early attempts using animal blood - 17th France and England - Royal Society - before it was made illegal following deaths - probably from alergic reactions
1667 - London Arthur Coga - first to recieve blood transfusion from lamb's blood
1616 - William Harvey - discovered the circulation of blood - the heart was not the mystical centre of the body but a pump
Royal United Hospital
Bellott's Almshouses
Bath Mineral Hospital
Bath Mineral Hospital
Many people - chronic skin diseases came to Bath - many supposed they had leprosy - infact - scabies, psoriasis (leprosy had died out with the Tudors)
Social and Occupational Structure
In the City itself the financial services of insurance and merchant banking along with warehousing and trading came to form the basis of huge fortunes and middling sort aspirations. City merchants increasingly moved out to more salubrious spots beyond the ring of slums gradually encircling the old town, commuting back daily to Cheapside and the Royal Exchange.
Witness to the greatest change, the West End evolved in response to the growing importance of the London Season, and its increasing role in the lives of Britain's elite. Here the palaces of the aristocracy were served by well-appointed shops and skilled craftsmen. Communities of service workers, coach makers, and dancing masters filled the interstices between the parks and squares, town houses and royal residences, creating perhaps the wealthiest single community in Europe.
Built Environment
The nature of the built environment that filled these once rural fields was both squalid and grandiose. Up until at least the passage of the London Building Act of 1774, many suburban developments were haphazard and of poor quality, the work of speculators -- poor carpenters and bricklayers, using even poorer materials. During periodic depressions in the building industry houses put up in hope of attracting middling sort and rich occupants were let out room by room to the very poor. House collapses were common, with whole families occasionally crushed in their beds. To the East and North of the City, the huddled extramural communities of London suffered poor housing and poor infrastructure, made tolerable only by the almost unbounded demand for casual labour on the quays and wharves and in the service industries of the city.
contrast, the West End was built to a higher standard. The urban palaces of the aristocracy stood shoulder to shoulder around the formal squares that came to characterise Westminster. Chains, iron railings and padlocks increasingly served to segregate the rich from their neighbours. At the same time the back streets and mews that filled the areas between the squares retained a diverse community of artisans, service workers and paupers.
New types of street lighting, of paving and water supply grew in the same pattern, with remarkably high standards to be found in the West End and in those parts of the City rebuilt after the Great Fire, and equally remarkably low standards in many other areas. In some areas ground water from public wells was still the only source, and mud still filled the unimproved roads for much of the year. At the end of the century, the building of the huge, enclosed docks east of the Tower only served to emphasise the relative squalor of the communities around.
http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/oldbailey/history/london-life/london-life18th.html
Hogarth and Methodism, Credulity, Superstition and Fanaticism
In the foreground a woman splinters a gin glass while giving birth to rabbits. This was an actual person (a Mrs. Tofts) who made her living by performing such tricks. Above her the church clerk, surrounded by cherubs, embodies the words written on his lectern, "Continually do cry." Behind, the faces of the congregation are convulsed with horror and torment. Over them hangs a threatening chandelier which is titled, "A New and Correct Globe of Hell".
Standing apart from this scene of religious fervor is a bemused, pipe smoking man peering in from the window. Being the only sane individual depicted, he is thus both physically and emotionally removed from this obvious madhouse.
Bawdy Houses
At the west end of Saviours, alias St Mary Overy Church yard in Southwark, is a new bagnio, where any person may be sweated cupt and shav’d (after the best manner) for two shillings and sixpence, and for six pence more they may be bathed, every day for men, except Fridays, which is only for women. (The Post Man)
27 June 1719 Last week, at the King’s Bench Court, Westminster, one Elizabeth Carey, of the Parish of St. Martin’s in the Fields, having been found guilty of ten indictments, in keeping a disorderly house, was fined for eight of them half a Crown each, for the ninth to stand on the pillory, and for the tenth to be whipt from Charing-Cross to Somerset-House. Mary Whaley, of the said Parish, being also convicted of six indictments for the same offence, was for the first four fined half a Crown each, and for the fifth and sixth to be pilloried and whipt in the like manner as Elizabeth Carey. (Original Weekly Journal)
27 June 1719 On Thursday Elizabeth Carey and Mary Whaley stood on the pillory at Charing Cross, for keeping bawdy-houses, pursuant to their sentence afore-mentioni’d. Whaley had the impudence, when she mounted, to say, that if all her sex were to be punished in the like manner for venial offences, she doubted whether all the timber in Norway would be sufficient to make pillorys for them. (Original Weekly Journal)
28 January 1721 Last week William Laurence and his wife were convicted before the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, at Guildhall, for keeping a notorious disorderly house in Chick-Lane, near West-Smithfield, harbouring loose, idle persons, night-walkers, and pickpockets. (London Journal)
23 January 1725 Sarah Kettleby, alias Blackerby, of Stepney Parish, convicted of keeping an ill-govern’d and disorderly room, and receiving and entertaining lewd and disorderly persons, whoring and misbehaving themselves, being poor, and not able to pay a fine, was order’d to be whipp’d at the cart’s tail, from the Angel and Crown Tavern in Crispin-Street in Spittle Fields, to Lamb-Street there, and from thence to Red-lyon-Street, and round to Pater-noster Row there, and from thence to the Angel and Crown aforesaid, and to be kept at the House of Correction to hard labour for fourteen days. [Weekly Journal, or The British Gazetteer ]
Saturday, 5 August 1727 One night this week about 9 o’clock a waterman belonging to the Dutchess of M—— ply’d a gentleman and a lady at Hungerford Stairs, who bid him row them to Chelsea Reach; where the gentleman order’d the waterman and his man to lye by their oars, while he occupied the lady in the boat, which the waterman refusing to do, the gentleman drew his sword, and then he submitted: But the next day set fire to his boat and burnt it to ashes, saying, he would not row a bawdy-house about the river. We hear, her Grace has given her waterman 3 guineas towards another wherry. (Weekly Journal: or, The British Gazetteer)
30 April 1730 Thursday, April 23. On Sunday night 3 Bridewel boys were taken into custody for attempting to rescue 4 women of the town out of the hands of the Constable; but the rest of the fraternity in Bridewel having notice of it, a party of them, armed with sticks, came to their assistance, who beat the watch and Constables to such a degree that they were obliged to release them. [Grub-street Journal]
http://rictornorton.co.uk/grubstreet/brothels.htm
French sedan chair
Mozart in Prague
The Estates Theatre underwent several changes in its history. It first acquired the name Royal Theatre of the Estates in 1798 when it was purchased by the Czech Estates.)
Bertramka was purchased by František Dušek and his wife Josefa Dušková in 1784 and for 15 years it was a meeting place for many great artists and noble aristocrats who gathered at soirées and social gatherings. Concerts were held weekly during the summer months. Those taking part included Johann Anton Koželuch, Franz Niemetschek and Johann Nepomuk Hummel. It is highly likely that the adventurer Giovanni Giacomo Casanova stayed there.
Mozart visited Prague five times in all: three times for prolonged visits and, in between these, twice on passing through. He first came to Prague in January 1787 for a performance of Le Nozze di Figaro . Despite this opera having been a huge success at its first performance in Vienna in April 1786 the Viennese were already tiring of Mozart and turning their attention to other composers such as Antonio Salieri. Mozart was caught up in a lot of intrigues and he was desperate for money. This is why he came to Prague with his new opera. It caused a sensation and the Prague audiences were always to remain faithful to Mozart.
The Mozarts had arrived in Prague on 11th January 1787. His name was already well-known in Prague. Even the customs officer on duty at the New Gate asked, on examining Mozart’s passport, whether he was the composer of Figaro. On this occasion Josefa and FrantiÅ¡ek DuÅ¡ek, who had met Mozart in Salzburg, were abroad and therefore unable to host him.
Figaro was such a success that the opera manager, Pasquale Bondini, commissioned a new opera from him. This was to be Don Giovanni. He returned to Prague with his new opera in the autumn, probably in late September. He had lodgings in the town, at “Zu den drei goldenen Löwen”, another property of DuÅ¡ek. Today there is a plaque on the wall which reads “V tomto domÄ› bydlel Mozart v roce 1787” (“In this house lived Mozart in the year 1787”). Here and in Bertramka he worked on finishing the composition of the opera. The tranquillity of Betramka as well as the skittles in the garden provided him with the necessary relaxation. According to Georg Nikolaus von Nissen he would stand up when it was his turn to play, and no sooner had he taken his throw than he would sit down and carry on working at his score.
Mozart Piano concertos - Vienna concert series 1784-86
1784
The next concerto, KV. 449 in E-flat major, ushers in a period of creativity that has certainly never been surpassed in piano concerto production. From February 1784 to March 1786, Mozart wrote no fewer than 11 masterpieces, with another (No. 25, KV. 503) to follow in December of 1786. The advance in technique and structure from the early Vienna examples is marked from the very first of this mature series. Written for his pupil Barbara Ployer to play, it (KV. 449) is the first instrumental work by Mozart that shows the strong influence of his operatic writing.
1785 is marked by the contrasting pair KV. 466 (no. 20 in D minor) and KV. 467 (no. 21 in C major), again, remarkably, written within the same month. These two works, one, the first minor-key concerto Mozart wrote (the Jeunehomme concerto has a minor-key second movement) a dark and stormy work, and the other sunny, are among the most popular works Mozart produced.
Mozart managed to write two more masterpieces in one month.
Toward the end of the decade, Mozart's career declined.
Around 1786 he had ceased to appear frequently in public concerts, and his income dropped.[48] This was in general a difficult time for musicians in Vienna because Austria was at war, and both the general level of prosperity and the ability of the aristocracy to support music had declined.
By mid-1788, Mozart and his family moved from central Vienna to cheaper lodgings in the suburb of Alsergrund. Mozart began to borrow money, most often from his friend and fellow Mason Michael Puchberg; "a pitiful sequence of letters pleading for loans" (New Grove) survives. Maynard Solomon and others have suggested that Mozart suffered from depression at this time, and it seems his output rate sank somewhat. The major works of the period include the last three symphonies (1788: 39, 40, 41; it is not certain whether these were performed in Mozart's lifetime), and the last of the three Da Ponte operas, Cosi fan tutte, premiered 1790.
During this time Mozart made long journeys hoping to improve his fortunes: a visit in spring of 1789 to Leipzig, Dresden, and Berlin (see: Mozart's Berlin journey), and a 1790 visit to Frankfurt, Mannheim, and other German cities. The trips produced only isolated success and did not solve Mozart's financial problems.
Mozart's last year was, until his final illness struck, one of great productivity and (in the view of Maynard Solomon) personal recovery. During this time Mozart wrote a great deal of music, including some of his most admired works: the opera The Magic Flute, the final piano concerto (K. 595 in B flat), the Clarinet Concerto K. 622, the last in his great series of string quintets (K. 614 in E flat), the motet Ave verum corpus K. 618, and the unfinished Requiem K. 626.
Mozart's financial situation, which in 1790 was the source of extreme anxiety to him, also began to improve. Although the evidence is uncertain it appears that admiring wealthy patrons in Hungary and in Amsterdam pledged annuities to Mozart, in return for the occasional composition. Mozart also probably made considerable money from the sale of dance music that he wrote for his job as Imperial chamber composer. He ceased to borrow large sums from Puchberg and made a start on paying off his debts.
Lastly, Mozart experienced great satisfaction in the public success of some his works, notably The Magic Flute (performed many times even during the short period between its premiere and Mozart's death) and the Little Masonic Cantata K. 623, premiered 15 November 1791.
Gottfried Van Swieten and Mozart
[edit] The Gesellschaft der Associierten
During the gatherings in van Swieten's rooms, the gathered company sang through entire oratorios of Handel, with Mozart substituting at the keyboard for an orchestra. This naturally led to an interest in full-scale performances of these works.[14] To this end, in 1786[15] van Swieten organized the Gesellschaft der Associierten ("Society of Associated Cavaliers")[16], an organization of music-loving nobles. With the financial backing of this group, he was able to stage full-scale performances of major works. Generally, these concerts were first given in one of the palaces of the members or in the large hall of the Imperial Library, then in a public performance in the Burgtheater or Jahn's Hall.[17]
Mozart took on the task of conducting these concerts in 1788.[18] He had previously been too busy with other tasks, but with a decline in his career prospects elsewhere he was willing to take up the post.[19] In addition to having him conduct, the Gesellschaft commissioned Mozart to prepare four works by Handel for performance according to contemporary taste:
Acis and Galatea, performed in (approximately) November 1788 in Jahn's Hall.[20]
The oratorio Messiah, for which Mozart wrote new parts for flutes, clarinets, bassoons, horns, and trombones, as well as more notes for the timpani (1789).
the Ode for St Cecilia’s Day (1790)[21]
Alexander’s Feast (1790)[22]
Van Swieten was responsible for the translations from English into German of the libretti for these works, a task he would perform later on for Haydn (see below).[23]
The Gesellschaft's concerts were an important source of income for Mozart during this time, when he was experiencing severe financial worries.[24]
E I Co and free-trade
Technology, free trade and utilitarian ethics now came together in a powerful package to uplift the degraded people of India. But while the Company promoted a mission to make Indians 'useful and happy subjects', the twin pillars of Company rule remained the same: military and commercial conquest.
Many would argue that the Company was no worse and in some respects somewhat better than other conquerors and rulers of India. What sets the Company apart, however, was the remorseless logic of its eternal search for profit, whether through trade, through taxation or through war. The Company was not just any other ruler. As a commercial venture, it could not and did not show pity during the Bengal famine of 1769–1770. Shareholder interests came first when it dispossessed Bengal's peasantry with its 'permanent settlement' of 1794. And the principles of laissez-faire ensured that its Governor-General would note the devastation of India's weavers in the face of British imports, and then do absolutely nothing
East India House
Horace Walpole, 1773 (1717–1797)
Yet the case for reform was overwhelming, and the new Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger – that beneficiary of his great-grandfather's time in Madras – pushed through the landmark India Act of 1784. This transferred executive management of the Company's Indian affairs to a Board of Control, answerable to Parliament. In the final 70 years of its life, the Company would become less and less an independent commercial venture and more a sub-contracted administrator for the British state, a Georgian example of a 'public–private partnership'
The Company's monopoly control over the production of opium had equally devastating consequences. Grown under Company eyes in Bengal, the opium was auctioned and then privately smuggled into China in increasing volumes. By 1828, opium sales in China were enough to pay for the entire purchase of tea, but at the cost of mass addiction, ruining millions of lives. When the Chinese tried to enforce its import ban, the British sent in the gunboats.
East India Company
this was not just any corporation. Not only was it the first major shareholder owned company, but it was also a pivot that changed the course of economic history. During its lifetime, the Company first reversed the ancient flow of wealth from West to East, and then put in place new systems of exchange and exploitation. From Roman times, Europe had always been Asia's commercial supplicant, shipping out gold and silver in return for spices, textiles and luxury goods. And for the first 150 years after its establishment by Queen Elizabeth I in 1600, the Company had to repeat this practice; there was simply nothing that England could export that the East wanted to buy.
The situation changed dramatically in the middle of the 18th century, as the Company's officials took advantage of the decline of the Mughal Empire and began to acquire the hinterland beyond its vulnerable coastal trading posts. Territorial control enabled the Company both to manipulate the terms of trade in its favour and gouge taxes from the lands it ruled. Within a few years of Clive's freak victory over the Nawab of Bengal at Plassey in 1757, the Company had managed to halt the export of bullion eastwards, creating what has poetically been called the 'unrequited trade' – using the East's own resources to pay for exports back to Europe. The impacts of this huge siphoning of wealth were immense, creating a 'misery' of 'an essentially different and infinitely more intensive kind than all Hindustan had to suffer before', in the words of a columnist writing for the New York Tribune in 1853, one Karl Marx.
Established as a means to capture control of the pepper trade from the Dutch, the East India Company prospered as an importer of luxury goods, first textiles and then tea. From the middle of the 17th century on, the growing influx of cottons radically improved hygiene and comfort, while tea transformed the customs and daily calendar of the people. And it was in the huge five-acre warehouse complex at Cutlers Gardens that these goods were stored prior to auction at East India House. Here, over 4,000 workers sorted and guarded the Company's stocks of wondrous Indian textiles: calicoes, muslins and dungarees, ginghams, chintzes and seersuckers, taffetas, alliballlies and hum hums. Today, the Company's past at Cutlers Gardens is marked with ceramic tiles that bear a ring of words: 'silks, skins, tea, ivory, carpets, spices, feathers, cottons', but still no mention of the company itself.
Boston Tea Party
During the eighteenth century, tea drinking was as popular in Britain’s American colonies as it was in Britain itself. Legally, all tea imported into America had to be shipped from Britain, and all tea imported into Britain had to be shipped in by the East India Company. However, for most of the eighteenth century, the East India Company was not allowed to export directly to America. But during the 1770s the East India Company ran into financial problems: illegal tea smuggling into Britain was vastly reducing the amount of tea being bought from the Company. This led to a downturn in its profits, as well as an increase in its stockpile of unsold tea. In an attempt to revive its flagging fortunes and avoid bankruptcy, the Company asked the British government for permission to export tea direct to America, a move that would enable it to get rid of its surplus stock of tea. The Company actually owed the government £1 million, so the government had no desire to let the Company go bankrupt. Thus in 1773 the Tea Act was passed, granting the Company’s wish, and allowing a duty of 3d per lb to be levied on the exports to America.
The British government did not anticipate this being a problem: by being exported directly to America, the cost of tea there would actually become cheaper, and 3d per lb was considerably less duty than was paid on tea destined for the British market. But it had underestimated the strength of the American resistance to being taxed at all by their British colonial masters. The issue of the taxation in America had been hotly debated for some years. Many Americans objected on principle to being taxed by a Parliament which did not represent them. Instead, they wanted to raise taxes themselves to fund their own administration. But successive British governments reserved the right to tax the colonies, and various bungled attempts to impose taxation had hardened American opposition. In the later 1760s, opposition took the form of boycotts of taxed goods. As a replacement for them, the Americans either bought smuggled goods or attempted to find substitutes made from native products.
These included ‘Labrador tea’, which was made from the leaves of a plant that flourished in the colonies, and ‘Balsamic hyperion’, made from dried raspberry leaves. The successful boycott of such a popular domestic product as tea was largely made possible by the active support of American women, who were on the whole responsible for household purchases. An anonymous American commentator writing some decades later noted that by abandoning the use of imported tea, ‘American ladies exhibited a spirit of patriotism and self-devotedness highly honourable to their sex’
In 1770, the British government repealed most of the import duties - with the exception of the duty on tea, which remained at 3d per lb. For a time this calmed down the situation in the colonies, although taxed tea continued to be boycotted. But the maintenance of duty in the Tea Act of 1773 reawakened the anger of the Americans. They were further incensed by the decision of Parliament that the East India Company would have a monopoly on the distribution of tea in America, using its own agents instead of established American tea merchants. This seemed like an attempt to put patriotic Americans out of business.
The colonists were united in their decision to resist the new arrangements, and decided to refuse to pay the tax on tea. Regardless of the opposition, the East India Company pressed ahead with its plans, and in autumn 1773 four ships, Dartmouth, Eleanor, Beaver and William, set sail for Boston with their precious cargo of tea. In the weeks that these ships were sailing, the American opposition stepped up a gear. The Massachusetts Gazette reported a meeting in early November when the people of Boston resolved that no one would import any tea that was liable for duty, and that anyone who aided or abetted the East India Company would be considered an ‘enemy of America’. Tempers were clearly running high, and there were further riotous public meetings against the tax, and even attacks on the warehouses for which the tea was destined.
The Boston Tea Party
Nowadays tea is thoroughly associated with the British, and taking time for a cup of tea is considered by millions to be a moment of calm and enjoyment in our hectic lives. It seems a little incongruous to remember that a little over 250 years ago, tea was such a hot political issue in America that it led to event that changed history forever. This was the infamous Boston Tea Party, a protest against tea duties in December 1773 that sparked off the American War of Independence and so eventually led to the United States of America becoming an independent nation instead of a group of British colonies.
a hot political issue
During the eighteenth century, tea drinking was as popular in Britain’s American colonies as it was in Britain itself. Legally, all tea imported into America had to be shipped from Britain, and all tea imported into Britain had to be shipped in by the East India Company. However, for most of the eighteenth century, the East India Company was not allowed to export directly to America. But during the 1770s the East India Company ran into financial problems: illegal tea smuggling into Britain was vastly reducing the amount of tea being bought from the Company. This led to a downturn in its profits, as well as an increase in its stockpile of unsold tea. In an attempt to revive its flagging fortunes and avoid bankruptcy, the Company asked the British government for permission to export tea direct to America, a move that would enable it to get rid of its surplus stock of tea. The Company actually owed the government £1 million, so the government had no desire to let the Company go bankrupt. Thus in 1773 the Tea Act was passed, granting the Company’s wish, and allowing a duty of 3d per lb to be levied on the exports to America.
The British government did not anticipate this being a problem: by being exported directly to America, the cost of tea there would actually become cheaper, and 3d per lb was considerably less duty than was paid on tea destined for the British market. But it had underestimated the strength of the American resistance to being taxed at all by their British colonial masters. The issue of the taxation in America had been hotly debated for some years. Many Americans objected on principle to being taxed by a Parliament which did not represent them. Instead, they wanted to raise taxes themselves to fund their own administration. But successive British governments reserved the right to tax the colonies, and various bungled attempts to impose taxation had hardened American opposition. In the later 1760s, opposition took the form of boycotts of taxed goods. As a replacement for them, the Americans either bought smuggled goods or attempted to find substitutes made from native products.
hotly debated
These included ‘Labrador tea’, which was made from the leaves of a plant that flourished in the colonies, and ‘Balsamic hyperion’, made from dried raspberry leaves. The successful boycott of such a popular domestic product as tea was largely made possible by the active support of American women, who were on the whole responsible for household purchases. An anonymous American commentator writing some decades later noted that by abandoning the use of imported tea, ‘American ladies exhibited a spirit of patriotism and self-devotedness highly honourable to their sex’.
Page Top
In 1770, the British government repealed most of the import duties - with the exception of the duty on tea, which remained at 3d per lb. For a time this calmed down the situation in the colonies, although taxed tea continued to be boycotted. But the maintenance of duty in the Tea Act of 1773 reawakened the anger of the Americans. They were further incensed by the decision of Parliament that the East India Company would have a monopoly on the distribution of tea in America, using its own agents instead of established American tea merchants. This seemed like an attempt to put patriotic Americans out of business.
The colonists were united in their decision to resist the new arrangements, and decided to refuse to pay the tax on tea. Regardless of the opposition, the East India Company pressed ahead with its plans, and in autumn 1773 four ships, Dartmouth, Eleanor, Beaver and William, set sail for Boston with their precious cargo of tea. In the weeks that these ships were sailing, the American opposition stepped up a gear. The Massachusetts Gazette reported a meeting in early November when the people of Boston resolved that no one would import any tea that was liable for duty, and that anyone who aided or abetted the East India Company would be considered an ‘enemy of America’. Tempers were clearly running high, and there were further riotous public meetings against the tax, and even attacks on the warehouses for which the tea was destined.
"no taxation without representation"
When Dartmouth reached America on 28 November 1773, it was faced with the resolve of the townspeople that the tea must not be brought ashore or the duty paid. But the customs officers completed the necessary paperwork for the import of the tea, after which the ship could not legally set sail for England with the tea still on board. A few days later Eleanor arrived, followed by Beaver, which had been delayed by an outbreak of smallpox onboard. William had run aground and was stranded near Cape Cod. So it was that these three ships languished in the harbour at Griffin’s Wharf in Boston, waiting for the situation to be resolved.
But there was deadlock. The townspeople would not allow the tea to be brought ashore without an agreement that no duty would be paid on it. The Governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson (whose sons were to have been agents of the East India Company for the distribution of the tea), refused to let the ships leave port without paying duty on the tea. An armed guard of patriots was posted at the wharf to prevent the tea coming ashore, while a naval blockade of the harbour prevented the ships from leaving. Mass meetings were held by the resistance leaders, Samuel Adams and Josiah Quincy, and the Bostonians were further buoyed up by messages of support which they received from all over New England. On 16 December, perhaps as many as 7,000 local people met at the Old South Meeting House. Francis Rotch, the American owner of two of the ships, attended the meeting. He was in an unfortunate position: unwilling to risk the wrath of his countrymen by bringing the tea ashore, but yet knowing that if he ordered the ships to set sail illegally he risked them being confiscated by the navy or even sunk. In an attempt to resolve the situation, Rotch was sent in person to see Governor Hutchinson, to demand from him a pass for the ships to leave port, with the tea still onboard. The Governor, who was at his country house seven miles from Boston, refused, and Rotch returned to the meeting with this news. George Hewes, who took part in the Tea Party, remembered that Rotch’s announcement created a great patriotic stir at the meeting; men cried out ‘”Let every man do his duty, and be true to his country”; and there was a general huzza for Griffin’s Wharf’. The townspeople were faced with a stalemate, and so decided upon drastic action, they took part in the Tea Party.
In the early evening of 16 December, a band of men, some disguised as Mohawk American Indians (Hewes recorded that he darkened his face with soot), assembled on a hill near the wharf. Whooping Indian-style war cries, they marched to the wharf, where they boarded the ships one after another, hoisted the tea on board deck, split open the chests - 342 in total - and threw all the tea into the sea. The whole affair took about three hours, and it was not a violent protest - the ships’ crews attested that nothing had been damaged or destroyed except the tea - and the protesters swept the decks clean afterwards.
This Tea Party sparked off other protests: tea being shipped to New York and Philadelphia was sent back to London, while tea off-loaded at Charleston was left to rot in the warehouses. In retaliation, the British government passed five laws in early 1774 that became known as the Intolerable Acts. Although intended primarily to punish the people of Massachusetts (the Acts included closing the port of Boston until the tea was paid for, restricting town meetings and giving the British-appointed governor more power), in the event the Acts played a key role in uniting the 13 American colonies against British rule. In September 1774, representatives of the colonies, including Samuel Adams, one of the Bostonian resistance leaders, met at the First Continental Congress to plan common measures of resistance against the Acts. The united resistance of the colonies would lead to the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence, which was signed in July 1776, just three years after the Boston Tea Party.
Taken from - tea.co.uk