Women, Families and the British Army, 1700–1880 Vol 2

Jennine Hurl-Eamon, Lynn MacKay

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781138766129
• eBook ISBN: 9781000028881
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

This series concentrates on women and the soldiers in the ranks whose lives they shared, assembling a wide body of evidence of their romantic entanglements and domestic concerns. The new military history of recent decades has demanded a broadening of the source base beyond elite accounts or those that concentrate solely on battlefield experiences. Armies did not operate in isolation, and men's family ties influenced the course of events in a variety of ways. Campfollowing women and children occupied a liminal space in campaign life. Those who travelled "on the strength" of the army received rations in return for providing services such as laundry and nursing, but they could also be grouped with prostitutes and condemned as a 'burden' by officers. Parents, wives, and offspring left behind at home remained in soldiers' thoughts, despite an army culture aimed at replacing kin with regimental ties. Soldiers' families' suffering, both on the march and back in Britain, attracted public attention at key points in this period as well.

This series provides, for the first time in one place, a wide body of texts relating to common soldiers' personal lives: the women with whom they became involved, their children, and the families who cared for them. It brings hitherto unpublished material into print for the first time, and resurrects accounts that have not been in wide circulation since the nineteenth century. The collection combines the observations of officers, government officials and others with memoirs and letters from men in the ranks, and from the women themselves. It draws extensively on press accounts, especially in the nineteenth century. It also demonstrates the value of using literary depictions alongside the letters, diaries, memoirs and war office papers that form the traditional source base of military historians.

This second volume covers the period during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic War era

Part I

EXPERIENCES OF COURTSHIP AND MARRIAGE

1

DAVID FORDYCE, THE NEW AND COMPLETE BRITISH LETTER-WRITER; OR, YOUNG SECRETARY'S INSTRUCTOR IN POLITE MODERN LETTER-WRITING. CONTAINING NEAR FOUR HUNDRED . . . (LONDON, 1790), P. 85.

This manual appears to have been published posthumously. Its author, David Fordyce (c. 1711–1751), was a Scottish professor of moral philosophy who had written several books in this field. His brother James (who lived until 1796) ensured that his writing remained in the public eye long after David died, unmarried and childless, on a voyage home from Rotterdam. Fordyce likely moved in elite academic circles. Thus, this sample letter from a concerned father of a girl being courted by a non-commissioned officer suggests that he was drawing upon popular stereotypes of army romances. If “epistolary manuals were conduct books in which ideas . . . were modeled, taught, and imitated”, this excerpt also showed that fathers should be wary of any indication of interest in a red coat displayed by their daughters.¹

LETTER CXXXV.— From a Father to his Daughter, dissuading her from encouraging the addresses of a serjeant in the army.

Dear Peggy,

With the greatest concern I received intimation from a friend in the neighbourhood, that you frequently give your company to Muster, the Serjeant, who last week came to your town to raise recruits. I cannot but feel the duty I owe you as a parent to stop you in so wild a career, and rescue you from the misery in which so indiscreet a connection must inevitably plunge you, if persisted in. The greatest part of these men are of the meanest extraction, and most abandoned morals, without the knowledge of any particular trade or business, and therefore in the highest sense incapable of supporting or conducting a family. Many unthinking girls have been lured by the glare of a red coat, to barter their honour, and, what is much dearer, their peace of mind, for a life of drudgery, servility, and poverty. Almost daily observation must point out to you the wretched situation of those unfortunate creatures who follow the fate of such vagrants. Let me then warn you by all the ties of duty, by the regard due to your own welfare and the credit of your family, to shun the snare laid to entrap you, by breaking off the connection immediately, as the indispensable means of avoiding incumbrances that cannot fail to involve you in misery and disgrace. I have taken the utmost pains to conceal your indiscretion from your uncle, on whom you know is your chief dependence. Take the advice of a father before it is too late; in a word, be obedient, and you may be happy.

Your’s affectionately.

2

SELECTIONS FROM GRENADIER GUARDS REGIMENTAL COURTS MARTIAL, 31 JULY 1797; 15 JUNE 1799; 23 DEC 1799; 26 MAY 1804; 10 SEPT 1804; 15 AUG 1805, GRENADIER GUARDS ARCHIVES, LONDON, D04/020.

The regimental courts were the lowest level of courts martial and—by virtue of rarely being stationed abroad—the Guards were the only regiments able to maintain a voluminous collection of these records.² Brigade courts martial, also included below, were similar to regimental courts in having their verdicts reviewed by their commanding officer and only hearing cases involving enlisted men. When sentencing was recorded, it tends to appear extreme to modern eyes, but the large number of lashes was intended as a deterrent to others. It was also never inflicted in a single session, but rather in smaller—and often curtailed—doses. When a non-commissioned officer was convicted before the court, his rank was always reduced as part of his punishment, in order to maintain the army practice of only imposing corporal punishments on privates.

Women who roused commanders’ ire could be turned out of the regiment, which stripped them of the ability to see their husbands and prevented them from earning money in the sanctioned role of laundress or sutler. The case of John Thomas is a curious episode of a soldier-flasher that would have done little to help a courting redcoat’s reputation for rakery. While women could be a touchpoint for tensions, they could also serve as an intermediary between officers and men-in-the-ranks, as Private Courtenay’s wife did in 1799. The Guards may have benefited from better pay and working conditions than line regiments, but their marriages were still subject to army control. Guards usually served in domestic postings, but were sent to fight in the French Revolutionary War with the regiments of the line. Thus, the cases below can reveal broader insights into the relationships not only between wives and their soldier-spouses, but also among military couples more broadly, and between the army and soldiers’ female companions.

31 July 1797

Mrs Davies inform’d the Court that Serj^t Bangey and Hickson slept out of their Baracks on the night of Monday the 3^d of the present month that sergeant Bangey returned the next day at twelve oclock and that she saw M^rs Hickson at five oclock in the morning crying very much at her husband’s having slept out all night and that he had not then returnd. M^rs Davies further said that on the night of (she believes) the 15^th she heard a noise on the roof of the armoury room of the Spur Barracks that she looked out of the window of her Bedroom and saw Serjeants Banjey and Hickson and another Serjeant whom she did not know getting over into the Tower she informed her husband (Serj^t Davies) of it who answerd it was none of her business to interfere M^rs Hickson was standing under the armoury when seeing her husband in liquor in such a situation said to him if he did not come down immediately he would fall into the ditch and said she would scream if he did not make haste, this circumstance happen’d about five minutes past twelve oclock at night and that Serj^t Osborne saw the Warf guard and that there had been a race on the river.

Serj^t Davies says his wife related it to him at the time she alluded to and that he had great difficulty in preventing her from reporting it in the morning

Serjeant Bangey says the whole charge laid against him is without the smallest foundation

Serjeant Hickson says that he has never slept but one night out of the garrison and that Serj^t Banjey and Hickson had both leave and he return’d about five oclock in the morning of the 10^th of June

Serj^t Major Sefton recollects both Serjeants having had leave and likewise their having been present at roll call on the Evening of the . . . day on which the boat race took place

M^rs Hickson denies Mrs Davies having seen her any whilst her husband was on the tiles he never having been out of the Garrison and night but that of the 10^th of June when he had leave and that he returned about five in the morning

M^rs Margaret Baker of the Lion office informs the Court that she is not acquainted with either parties but she was induced to come forward on this occasion on remarking several times the bad behaviour of M^rs Davies towards M^rs Hickson and M^rs Bangey particularly she saw her once catch hold of M^rs Bangey by the hair of her head and beat her most cruelly and threaten Serj^t Bangey with a knife and that she was continually making use of improper and abusive language to them in the Barracks

M^rs Bangey says her husband never slept out but one night whch he had leave that M^rs Davies was always abusing her in consequence of Serj^t Bangey having had a half of Serj^t Davies room allotted him and that once she beat her severely and tor the bed Curtains and she heard likewise her likewise [sic] say to Serj^t Davies that she had a scheme in her head that would work the whores and their husbands meaning Bangey and Hickson and that she would willingly sacrifice her life to be revenged on them

Serj^t Osborne informs the Court he was Serjeant of the Warf Guard on the 13^th inst and that he walked on the warf from dusk till after one oclock in the morning and he was certain no person landed nor does he think it possible any person could have climb’d over the wall without his knowledge as it was a clear moon lit night

Charles Moore was Sentry at the . . . Battery from twelve till two and saw no person land

James Shipley was sentry at the guard Room from ten till twelve and is certain no person got over the wall at that time and that no body landed on the warf

Thos Arnold was the Sentry who released the evidence and is certain that from twelve till two o clock in the morning of the 13^th no person either landed at the warf or got over the wall

Corpl Henry was Corporal on the Warf guard on the 13^th inst and return’d with the relief at five minutes past twelve and was certain no person had been on the warf about that time

The Court are unanimously of opinion that the charge brought by M^rs Davies against Serjeants Bangey and Serj^t Hickson is unfounded and Malicious.

15 June 1799

John Thomas of H.R.H. the Dukes Compy Confined by orders of the Commanding officer, for behaving in an indecent & unsoldierlike manner in Hyde Park the 11^th Inst

M^r Woodward assistant Surgeon to the Reg^t Informs the Court that he was in Hyde Park on the 11^th Inst, where he saw the Prisoner standing naked near the road where Carriages pass about a Quarter of an hour—that on the appearance of any Ladies towards that part of the road the Prisoner shouted out to them & behaved in other respects very indecently but particularly so to some Ladies who were in a carriage, which he followed & shouted out for them to look at him—that they put up the blinds of the Carriage to prevent seeing the indecent behaviour of the Prisoner—but that he continued to shout out & called to them to pull up the blinds of the Carriage that the next day he reported the Prisoners indecent behaviour to the Adjutant of the Battalion.

Coporal Dobidee of L Colo Worthey’s Company corroborates the Evidence given by M^r Woodward The Prisoner says in his defence, that he did not consider that he was acting wrong in bathing in the River in Hyde Park and that he is sorry if he offended any one and begs the mercy of the Court.

The Court is of opinion that the Prisoner is Guilty of the Crime laid to his charge and does Sentence him to receive One Hundred Lashes upon his bare back with a Cat of nine Tails by the Drummers of the Regiment at such times & in such proportions as the Commanding officer shall direct . . .

I approve the proceedings of this Courtmartial [sic] but at the request of the court & in consideration of the conduct of the Prisoner, being made from ignorance than intention remit the Corporal Punishment he has been adjudg^d to receive.

23 December 1799

John Courtenay of Lt Col Wortleys Company Confined by Order of the Commanding Officer for absenting himself from the Regiment from 19 March 1798 to 21 December 1799.

Sj Reed informs the Court that the Prisoner was absent from the Regiment the time specified in the Charge, & that the Prisoners Wife came to the Prosecutor informing him that her husband wished to return to his Regiment, & he told her he could do nothing in it, that she had best go to MG Ludlow, which she did, who told her the sooner her Husband came to the Regiment, the better & the Prisoner delivered himself up to the prosecutor the Day following, when he was immediately confined in the Savoy Prison.

The Prisoner being put upon his Defence acknowledges the Crime laid to his Charge & says he has been serving on Board his Majesty’s Ship the Neptune of 64 Guns the whole time

The Prisoner having called upon Serj [. . .] for his Character, says he behaved himself as a soldier previous to his Desertion.

The Court has duly considered the Evidence for the Prisoner are of Opinion that he is Guilty of the Crime laid to his Charge & do sentence him to receive Two Hundred Lashes, upon his Back, with a Cat of Nine Tails by the Drummer of the Regiment [. . .]

I approve the Sentence [. . .] but in consequence of the Prisoner having delivered himself up, and his former good Character during the seven years he has been in the Regiment remit the Corporal Punishment.

26 May 1804

Thomas Wardle of Colonel Disneys Company Confined by order of the Commanding Officer for unsoldierlike Conduct in producing a false Certificate of his Marriage in the Month of December 1803, acting in disobedience of orders by getting Married the 23^d May 1804, & refusing to be Confined when ordered by Serjeant Dillenger on the 20^th Instant

Serjeant Dillinger informs the Court that in the month of December last the Prisoner applied to him to ask Permission from the commanding officer for him to...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• PART I Experiences of Courtship and Marriage
• PART II Economic Survival
• PART III Impact of War
• PART IV Sex Outside of Marriage
• PART V First Person Accounts
• PART VI Fictional Representations