A short visit - General Tom Thumb calls on the Queen

General Tom Thumb (Picture courtesy of Paul Frecker, London)

On the 20th of February 1844, an advertisement appeared in The Times announcing the appearance of General Tom Thumb at the Princess’s Theatre in Oxford Street. He, his family and his mentor and manager, Phineas T. Barnum had left New York a month earlier aboard the "Yorkshire" bound for Liverpool, and after a short season there had proceeded to London where Thumb appeared for several days at the Princess's theatre. Barnum saw the short engagement as a way of "advertising" his youthful protégé.

Barnum and Tom Thumb

The day following his first London appearance, The Times waxed lyrical, describing him as “the most minute specimen of walking and talking humanity it is possible to conceive”.  Although Thumb was only five years old at the time, the review notes that “he stated his age to be 12 years.” At the time he was 25 inches tall and weighed 15 pounds; a height and weight he maintained from the time he was seven months old until early adulthood.  Barnum made it a point always to exaggerate the little man’s age in order to make his appearance seem more dramatic.

On the stage, Thumb sang, danced, mimicked, and answered questions put to him (mostly by Barnum). Barnum rented a furnished mansion in the West End and invited members of the nobility to see his ward. Barnum, of course, was a consummate showman and made sure that young Charles Sherwood Stratton, whom he had “re-badged” as General Tom Thumb was kept in the eye of the British public.

Barnum training Tom Thumb

Shortly after their arrival, the Baroness Rothschild sent a carriage for Barnum and "the General."  Barnum described the reception they received.

We were received by a half a dozen servants, and were ushered up a broad flight of marble stairs to the drawing-room, where we met the Baroness and a part of twenty or more ladies and gentlemen.  In this sumptous [sic] mansion of the richest banker in the world, we spent about two hours, and when we took our leave a well-filled purse was quietly slipped into my hand.  The golden shower had begun to fall.

The "Egyptian Hall" in Piccadilly was engaged for appearances by "the General," and the show was a great success.

The reviews were generally favourable and it was not long before General Tom Thumb was invited to attend the Queen at Buckingham Palace. Here, on Saturday evening, the 23rd of March 1844, according to the Court Circular, he, accompanied by Barnum, “exhibited his clever imitations of Napoleon, &c., which elicited the approbation of her Majesty and the Royal circle.” The "meeting" took place in the Queen's picture gallery where "the General" appeared before the Queen, Prince Albert, the Duchess of Kent and "twenty or thirty of the nobility." According to Barnum, "The Queen ... took him [Thumb] by the hand, [and] led him about the gallery."

When the evening came to an end, Barnum and his protégé began the process of backing out of the Queen's presence.  Thumb, because of his size and the shortness of his legs,

found he was losing ground, [so] he turned around a ran a few steps, then resumed the position of 'backing out,' then turned around and ran, and continued to alternate his methods of getting to the door, until the gallery fairly rang with the merriment of the royal spectators.

One of the spectators was not impressed.  The Queen's favority poodle started barking and the General was forced to defend himself with his cane.  Much hilariaty ensued and

Tom Thumb and the Queen's Poodle

one of the Queen's attendants came ... [out] with the expressed home of Her Majesty, that the General had sustained no damage -- to which the Lord in Waiting playfully added, that in case of injury to so renowned a personage, he should fear a declaration of war by the United States!

A few days later, again accompanied by Barnum, the young performer,  appeared at Marlborough House before the Queen Dowager who “was graciously pleased to express her approbation.”  On the 1st of April, Thumb was again at Buckingham Palace and again on the 19th of April. 

Just two months later, William Cavendish the 6th Duke of Devonshire, attended General Tom Thumb at the Egyptian Hall where he “presented him with a magnificent gold snuff box, engraved with beautiful devices, brilliantly mounted with turquoise, and bearing the General’s initials on the top.”

What was the appeal of General Tom Thumb? There would appear to be two facets to the fascination he seemed to exercise. First, there was the ongoing flirtation of the British with what were commonly known as “freaks.” Travelling shows with all sorts of human and animal oddities were common from well before the Victorian Era. Bearded women, giants, midgets, Siamese Twins and mermaids were all a part of the make-up of these perambulating exhibitions. In addition to the desire to see strange creatures, there was the appeal of the foreign. In fact, in the United States, General Tom Thumb who was clearly American, was paraded as English whereas in England he quickly became a “Yankee” wonder.

But the most significant factor in the success of the tour was Barnum’s entrepreneurial ability Barnum was a showman and he knew how to capture the peoples’ interest. On the occasion of his visit to Buckingham Palace, Barnum posted a sign on the door of the Egyptian Hall which read, “Closed this evening, General Tom Thumb being at Buckingham Palace by command of Her Majesty.” 

On December 24th, a letter appeared in The Times in which the writer complained that traffic had been disrupted because Tom Thumb was “being slowly drawn along in a little carriage.”  The carriage, which Barnum had built for him, was “drawn by miniature horses and attended by children dressed in livery.”

That he remained popular with the British public is attested to by an article in The Morning Chronicle which, when he returned to England in the mid-1850s, welcomed him as a “lively, debonnaire little gentleman.”

To gain some sense of the General's height, click here.

"Give us some figgy pudding"

As the festive season is upon us, I recently had contact with an old friend who told me she was in the midst of making her annual figgy puddings. She was using a recipe passed down through her family since the middle years of the 19th Century.  Of course, this brought to mind the wonderful English West Country Christmas carol, "We wish you a Merry Christmas" with its references to that seasonal treat. Like so many other songs and carols, we sing it without thought but there is, in this delightful piece, a lovely little story to tell.

The carolers have arrived on Christmas eve and are, in joyous song, wishing the people "a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year." After "Good tidings we bring to you and your kin" and again wishing "a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year," they ask to be "paid" in the form of "some figgy pudding" and, depending upon the version of the carol, possibly "a cup of good cheer."

In a mood, which is clearly one of good fun, they sing, "we won't go until we've got some." In fact, they repeat this three times ending with "so bring some out here."

Although "fig" or "figgy" pudding probably dates back to at least the 16th Century, it was a popular seasonal dish in the nineteenth century and was often given to carolers. Despite numerous claims that this is the famous pudding made by Mrs Cratchit in Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol," there is no specific reference in the tale to the type of pudding presented. However, a correspondent to "Notes and Queries," Number 188 (June 4, 1853) does remind us that in Devon, it was common to refer to raisins as "figs" and to refer to plum pudding as "figgy pudding." He goes on to write, "So with plum-cake, as in the following rhymes:--"

"Rain, rain, go to Spain,
Never come again:
When I brew and when I bake,
I'll give you a figgy cake."

What we do know is that whatever the pudding, it was "like a speckled cannon-ball, so hard and firm, blazing in half of half-a-quartern of ignited brandy, and bedight with Christmas holly stuck into the top."  Whether the Christmas pudding at the Cratchit's table was a "figgy" pudding or not is really irrelevant to the tale.

Whatever the case then, let us leave the Cratchits to enjoy their Christmas meal and look at  Mrs Beeton's recipe for a "figgy" pudding. And while you are looking at it, you might wish to listen to the carol as sung by Enya.

1275. INGREDIENTS - 2 lbs. of figs, 1 lb. of suet, 1/2 lb. of flour, 1/2 lb. of bread crumbs, 2 eggs, milk.

Mode.—Cut the figs into small pieces, grate the bread finely, and chop the suet very small; mix these well together, add the flour, the eggs, which should be well beaten, and sufficient milk to form the whole into a stiff paste; butter a mould or basin, press the pudding into it very closely, tie it down with a cloth, and boil for 3 hours, or rather longer; turn it out of the mould, and serve with melted butter, wine-sauce, or cream.

Time.—3 hours, or longer. Average cost, 2s.
Sufficient for 7 or 8 persons.
Seasonable.—Suitable for a winter pudding.

Should you try this the best of luck to you. On the other hand, there are numerous more modern recipes for "figgy" pudding to be found on the Internet. Whatever the case, to all my readers, season's greetings and may you enjoy it all and have a wonderful New Year.

Words, words, words

 

Reading Bob Nicholson's delightful article, "Racy Yankee slang has long invaded our language" which appeared in the Guardian got me thinking about a couple of words which have either been around a lot longer than people suspect or have changed their meanings.  Two words in particular came to mind; "pig" and "gay".
I think we have a tendency to view the first of these as an epithet applied to the police, particularly in America in the 1960s. Images of violence on the one hand and police brutality on the other conjure up visions of protestors screaming "Pigs" usually preceeded with another epithet beginning with the sixth letter of the alphabet.

One of the earliest references to this usage is found in the Lexicon Balatronicum: A Dictionary of Buckish Slang, Unicversity Wit, and Pickpocket Eloquence (1811), where "Pig" is defined as "a police officer.  A China street pig; a Bow-street officer.  Floor the pig and bolt; knock down the officer and run away."  Another example, found under the definition of "Panney" is, "The pigs frisked my panney, and nailed my screws," which translates to "the officers searched my house, and seized my picklock keys."

So, the derogatory usage of the term to refer to a police officer appears to come from England, rather that the United States, and dates from at least the early decades of the nineteenth century rather than the 1960s.

The other interesting term I want to mention is "gay."  One of the definitions found in the Oxford English Dictionary is "Bright or lively-looking, esp. in colour; brilliant, showy."  It is not a huge leap from this to the use of the term to describe a prostitute.  Indeed, The Slang Dictionary (1869) defines it as meaning, "loose, dissipated; 'Gay Woman' or kept mistress or prostitute." In The New Cheats of London Exposed (1792) we find a description of the ways in which gay ladies (and their protectors) might seduce the gullible, and while this is pre-Victorian, the same methods would have been used even while the dear Queen reigned over Albion.

    Those bullies who live upon whores of fashion, affect the dress and airs of men of rank and fortune, and by strutting occasionally by the side of a gay lady, add a consequence to her and themselves, and induce the ignorant cully to think that miss confers her favours on gentlemen alone, and that he cannot therefore dream of a favour from her without an adequate return, which, in proportion to her splendid appearance, must be considerable.

While most definitions of "gay" focus on female prostitution, there is evidence that it was also applied to males.  In 1889, a male homosexual brothel was discovered by police at 19 Cleveland Street, London. John Saul, one of the prostitutes who had worked there referred to himself as "a professional 'Mary-ann.'"  This term usually referred to an effeminant man or a prostitute; either male or female.  According to Morris B. Kaplan's Sodom on the Thames,

The Criminal Law Amendment Act had targeted female prostitutes - "gay women" - and "gross indecency between men" - the defining activities of those who were to become "gay men."

Generally, of course, the term "gay" referring to prostitution, was used either for women or to describe a life of prostitution as in "gay life."  We can see some of this in a marvelous cartoon by John Leech which first appeared in Punch in 1857 and which specifically uses "gay" in this context.

While Thomas Hardy's poem, "The Ruined Maid," does not specifically use "gay" in this way, it does use the term to describe some elements of her dress, thus effecting the linguistic crossover between the two usages.

"O 'Melia, my dear, this does everything crown!
  Who could have supposed I should meet you in Town?
  And whence such fair garments, such prosperi-ty?" —
  "O didn't you know I'd been ruined?" said she.
  — "You left us in tatters, without shoes or socks,
  Tired of digging potatoes, and spudding up docks;
  And now you've gay bracelets and bright feathers three!" —
  "Yes: that's how we dress when we're ruined," said she.
  — "At home in the barton you said `thee' and `thou,'
 And `thik oon,' and `theäs oon,' and `t'other'; but now
 Your talking quite fits 'ee for high compa-ny!" —
 "Some polish is gained with one's ruin," said she.


 — "Your hands were like paws then, your face blue and bleak
 But now I'm bewitched by your delicate cheek,
 And your little gloves fit as on any la-dy!" —
 "We never do work when we're ruined," said she.


 — "You used to call home-life a hag-ridden dream,
 And you'd sigh, and you'd sock; but at present you seem
 To know not of megrims or melancho-ly!" —
 "True. One's pretty lively when ruined," said she.


 — "I wish I had feathers, a fine sweeping gown,
 And a delicate face, and could strut about Town!" —
 "My dear — a raw country girl, such as you be,
 Cannot quite expect that. You ain't ruined," said she.   

It does, somehow, give a whole new meaning to "having a gay old time!"

To read Bob Nicholson's article in the Guardian, click here.

Sexual Abuse and Sexual Exploitation of Victorian Children

Child Prostitute; year 1871; inscription at the back: Mary Simpson a common prostitute age 10 or 11 year. She has been known as Mrs. Berry for at least two years. She is four month with child.

In the final years of the 20th and the early years of the 21st centuries, child sexual abuse, which has always existed, came more clearly into the arena of public concern. Although less of a topic of conversation in the 19th century, it was, nonetheless, a problem of some disquiet. Yet, as in so many areas of life during the Victorian Era, concern was clearly bounded by class and class interests.

One of the great difficulties in approaching this topic is defining what actually constituted child sexual abuse in a particular period. The legal definition must, inevitably, revolve around questions of age and coercion.  As well, in a much murkier realm, it must be defined by attitudes towards both the "abused" and the "abuser." In approaching this problem, it is worth considering the concept of childhood.  Childhood, as we now think of it, was an idea which was emerging slowly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but it was a concept more common amongst the middle and upper classes.  In the lower and labouring classes children were generally considered as a part of the work force and a source of cheap labour.  Quite aside from this being a form of exploitation and abuse, such young children were "street wise," knowing a great deal more about life and sex than either their counterparts in the higher classes or today's young children.  However, children of any class had no standing.  They were, like a man's wife, his chattel, and within very wide bounds he had the freedom to do with them as he desired.

A letter to The Times in 1849 reported on the attempt of "an old man dressed in the garb of a gentleman" to accost a young girl.  He apparently "asked her to go with him to a house in Oxenden-street", and, as the letter writer comments, "you can easily conjecture the object."  At the insistence of the writer, a Constable warned the girl and suggested she go home "but in a few moments afterwards we observed the hoary old sinner already referred to in hot chase after his prey."  The Police Constable, "behaved with exceeding propriety, and appeared to be quite alive to the grossness of the affair, but he said he had no right to interfere." 

Although the writer's intentions were of the best, and he goes on to ask that the Police be allowed to "address parties" who were engaged in such practices, he goes no further and reflects his own class values and his committment to his view of the family when he tells readers, "I could very accurately describe the personal appearance and dress of this person, so as to lead to his identification, if I did not fear that the superannuated scoundrel might have a wife or child whom the relation of his misconduct might shock."  So, rather than place his emphasis on protecting children from abuse, he puts a higher value on protecting middle-class matrons and their children from exposure to an unpleasant reality.

That hoary old reprobate known to us only as "Walter" who chronicled his sexual exploits for over more than half a century, commented, probably some time in the 1860s, that in his view, and probably in the view of other mid-Victorian gentlemen, "a girl of twelve years is competent to judge of her own fitness for f-----g, and many not a month over that age are plugged daily in London." And, certainly, he was well and truly into child abuse, relating how he had sexual relations with girls under the age of ten!

Unfortunately, laws to protect children from abuse - either sexual or physical - whether through intent or neglect, were weak or non-existant.  On the sexual front, it was not until 1861, with the Offences against the Person Act (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100) that even a minimal degree of protection against sexual predators was placed into law.  There were three relevant paragraphs; all of which dealt with girls.  The idea that a boy could be abused seems to be more than British lawmakers were capable of comprehending.

Procuring the Defilement of Girl under Age.

49. Whosoever shall, by false Pretences, false Representations, or other fraudulent Means, procure any Woman or Girl under the Age of Twenty-one Years to have illicit carnal Connexion with any Man, shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour.

Carnally knowing a Girl under Ten Years of Age.

50. Whosoever shall unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any Girl under the Age of Ten Years shall be guilty of Felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for Life or for any Term not less than Three Years, or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour.

Carnally knowing a Girl between the Ages of Ten and Twelve.

51. Whosoever shall unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any Girl being above the Age of Ten Years and under the Age of Twelve Years shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for the Term of Three Years, or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour.

Only the act of abuse of a child under the age of ten years was considered worthy of being a felony.  This allowed a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life with hard labour, but it also permitted a sentence as light as two years imprisonment without hard labour!  Procuring carried with it a sentence of only two years with or without hard labour, and abuse of a child between the ages of ten and twelve years might carry with it a maximum sentence of three years with hard labour or one as light as two years without servitude.

When three Wellington schoolboys were expelled in 1872 by headmaster Edward White Benson, later Archbishop of Canterbury, for ostensibly seducing a fourteen years-old servant during their Christmas holidays, two of the boys were reinstated by order of the Governors after their parents complained about such summary justice.  The third, and oldest of the boys, had contracted venereal disease which obviously made his misdemeanour greater and he was not allowed to return.

The Board of Governors, which included the second Duke of Wellington, the Duke of Richmond, Earl Stanhope and Lord Eversley, was described by an assistant master as having “acted like a pack of cynical, hoary old sinners, who looked upon youthful immorality … as a sort of childish complaint, like measles!”   The immorality complained about was, however, sexual.  There seems to have been little concern, at any level with the immorality involved in the abuse of position and power.  David Newsome, in his History of Willington College, described the Governors’ lack of concern over the matter as “a nice indication that the oppressive moral code of the Victorian middle-class had not penetrated the ranks of the aristocracy.”   It might equally be argued that with the growth of the middle-class and the development of schools modelled on the Great Public Schools, the worst aspects of the attitudes of the aristocracy towards the lower and labouring classes found their way downwards.

In 1875, sections 50 and 51 of the Act of 1861 were repealed and in their place the Offences against the Person Act 0f 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c.94) substituted paragraphs which made it a felony to "unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any girl under the age of twelve years."  To do so carried a sentence only marginally dissimilar from that of the 1861 Act for abuse of a girl under ten.  If the offense was committed against a girl between the ages of twelve and thirteen, it was merely a misdemeanor carrying with it a maximum sentence of two years with our without hard labour.

It was not until 1885, and then after a mighty struggle in Parliament, that the age of consent was raised to sixteen years.

Among the lowest classes, sexual abuse appears to have been endemic.  The writers who explored the social underworld frequently made mention of the early age at which sexual activity took place.  The over-crowded and unsanitary conditions which defined the life of the lower classes; the complete disregard, if not ignorance, of the niceties of marriage, all conspired to create a 'loose'sexual environment.  It was an environment in which sex among the pre-pubescent and between the mature and the very young was no more uncommon than the prostitution and violence that surrounded the lower class and was an integral part of life.  And while the twenty-five years of progress saw changes in the laws, it was not until these had filtered down into changes of attitudes, especially when viewed in class terms, that real progress could be seen to have been made.

Georgian London

Yesterday I came across what I think has to be, for those of us who enjoy 18th and 19th Century English history, one of the premier blogs on the subject.  I could, of course, rave on and on about it, but suggest that you have a look for yourselves.

The keeper of the blog (blog mistress?) is Lucy Inglis and the blog is all about Georgian London.  It is gossipy, well-written and historically accurate.  Georgian London was voted 'History Website of 2009' by the online readers of History Today Magazine, and also won the 2009 Cliopatria Award for 'Best Individual Blog' and 'Best New Blog'.

I have to say I am in awe both of the website and of Lucy.  You can find this remarkable blog at:

http://www.georgianlondon.com