“There! you see!” cried Mary, in an ecstacy; “just as I said! Heir to Sir Walter Elliot! I was sure that would come out, if it was so. Depend upon it, that is a circumstance which his servants take care to publish, wherever he goes. But, Anne, only conceive how extraordinary! I wish I had looked at him more. I wish we had been aware in time who it was, that he might have been introduced to us. What a pity that we should not have been introduced to each other! Do you think he had the Elliot countenance? I hardly looked at him, I was looking at the horses; but I think he had something of the Elliot countenance. I wonder the arms did not strike me! Oh! the great-coat was hanging over the pannel, and hid the arms, so it did; otherwise, I am sure, I should have observed them, and the livery too; if the servant had not been in mourning, one should have known him by the livery.”
Persuasion, Chapter 12.
Last week I bored you all silly by my explanations of livery, the significance of livery colours and how they were worn in Jane Austen’s era by certain servants of the rich. Today I’d like to consider livery and coaches, for it is an integral part of the livery story and we ought to discuss it for the sake of completeness.
The passage from Persuasion quoted above is so gloriously funny-I love the way this glimpse of William Walter sets Mary Musgrove on to long descriptions of the Elliot Countenance -( shade of Mrs Austen and the Austen nose, perhaps?) – but it draws our attention to how livery was used, and how significant it was. Because Mr Elliot’s servant is in mourning for Mr Elliot’s dead wife, -he is wearing black, not the usual livery of a coachman- Mary Musgrove is unable to recognise the orange cuffs and capes of the Elliot livery. She was also frustrated in making a positive identification of her father’s errant heir by the fact that his Arms, painted onto the side panel of his curricle, are hidden from view by a great-coat.
If you were wealthy enough to afford a carriage and all its attendant expenses, and, of course, you were possessed of Arms, then you could have these painted on your coach to announce to the world just who was the owner of the vehicle. Jane Austen’s father, George Austen, at one point owned a carriage when they lived at Steventon, and this was decorated with teh Austen crest. In Jane Austen : A Family Record by Deirdre le Faye, we find these comments:
It seems that by now Mr Austen’s income was reasonably good, because entries in his bank account suggest that in the summer of 1784 he brought a chariot- a small carriage drawn by two horses and carrying three passengers- for the benefit of his wife and daughters.
(Page 50)
Anna Austen, the daughter of Jane’s eldest brother, James Austen, wrote about local rumours that spread about the carriage -which was either new or newly repainted-at the time of her uncle, Henry Austen’s marriage to Eliza de Feuillide in December 1797, and this is also quoted in Le Faye’s book:
About the time of Mr Henry Austen’s marriage with his first Wife his father set up a carriage which not unnaturally, joe on its panels( pic) the family crest; namely a Stag on a Crown Mural. The latter circumstance was accounted for, in his own way, by a neighbouring Squire, who reported that “Mr Austen had put a coronet on his carriage because of his son’s being married to a French Countess”.
THis is one of George Austen’s bookplates, and it is decorated with the Austen crest, quite as Anna Austen described it. This would have appeared on his coach, on the side door panel. The squire mentioned by Anna Austen- a Digweed?- obvious was not aware that Mr Austen was entitle to bear his own arms and crest. The glory of the Austen’s coach was short lived: in 1798 it was put away in storage for new taxes imposed on carriage owners made it far too expensive for George Austen to continue to maintain.
If we look at some images of carriage from the time, it will become clear as to where the Arms would have been on show. These images are all taken from my copy of William Felton’s Treaties on Carriages: comprehending coaches, chariots, phaetons, curricles, whiskeys, &c. : together with their proper harness (1794). Fenton was a London coachmaker and his book, in two volumes, gives us a mass of intricate detail as to how carriages in the late 18th century were made, complete with all their fittings.
The first we shall consider is a chariot, in this case a neat town chariot.
You can see, and do remember you can enlarge all these images by clicking on them, in order to examine the details, that the coat of arms of the owner and his crest are placed centrally on the door and side panel of the coach. You can appreciate that the arms and crest of the owner are clearly visible and would be very noticeable to any passer-by.
And here, below, is an image of an elegant Chariot, very elaborately decorated, but again with the arms of the owner clearly visible on the door panel.
Mr Elliot is riding from Lyme to Bath in a curricle, that smart gentleman-about-town’s vehicle so beloved of Charles Musgrove, who was eager to compare it with his own,
They had nearly done breakfast, when the sound of a carriage (almost the first they had heard since entering Lyme) drew half the party to the window. It was a gentleman’s carriage, a curricle, but only coming round from the stable-yard to the front door — somebody must be going away. It was driven by a servant in mourning.
Here is Felton’s impression of a Proper Curricle:
Here is Felton’s page illustrating the different ways in which Arms could be used to decorate a coach:
They range from the simple to the hideous in my very humble opinion.Here is his price list for adding such ornament to a vehicle :
So, that is why Mary Musgrove’s attempts to identify the owner of the curricle were stymied: in this case neither the arms nor the livery of the servant could help her because neither were on show.
I ought to tell you, however that, had Mr Elliot been in a larger coach, and had he and his servant not been in mourning for his unlamented wife, there was another way to discern the identity of the owner. Hammer clothes, which covered the coachman’s seat and which could be very decorative items, were also another way to identify the family’s livery, as they were often made in livery colours and could be embroidered with representations of the family’s coat of arms. Here is Felton’s description of them:
Hammer-cloths are among the principal ornaments in a carriage; they are a cloth covering to the coachman’s seat, made to various patterns agreeable to the occupier’s fancy. The fullness of the plaiting of the cloth , its depth and the quality of the trimmings thereon proportions the expense (sic-jfw) to almost any amount…
And here are some very elaborate examples:
John Cussans , in The Handbook of Heraldry, tells us that
The Colours of Hammercloths are regulated by the same laws as liveries.
Page 314.
Now, I have no reference for this but I doubt that a colourful hammer cloth covered in gold or silver lace and made in the heraldic colours of a family’s livery would be on show at a time of full mourning. If the servant who normally would have worn livery was dressed in black due to the custom of mourning, then I feel sure that a hammer cloth would also be subdued in hue. So if one had been on display it would still not have helped Mary Musgrove locate the owners identity in the inn- yard at Lyme. But as Mr Elliot was in a curricle and not a larger coach, no hammer cloth was to be seen. Poor Mary, therefore could only rely on her interpretation of The Elliot Countenance, and the information supplied to them by the waiter.





































































22 comments
January 26, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Jayne
So much to be learned from this post, as ever. Thank you Julie.
January 29, 2012 at 12:16 pm
jfwakefield
No, thank you Jayne. For taking the time to comment. I’m glad you found it interesting.
January 26, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Tina
The most intelligent thing I’ve done these last few weeks is subscribe to these posts. Thank you Julie for making my coffee breaks such interesting and truly enjoyable events. Now all I have to do is catch up on the little more than two years of information I’ve missed !!
January 29, 2012 at 12:16 pm
jfwakefield
*blush* thank you very much. That’s a comment to live up to ( no pressure!) and I do hope you enjoy trawling through the archives.
January 26, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Cathy Allen
Thank you, Julie. I agree with Jayne (above) — so much to be learned! It’s all fascinating. I was glad you identified the Hammer Cloth, as I’ve wondered about that for years, probably since I first saw a British Royal coach procession on TV. I couldn’t even say how long ago that was. I always thought they were a little strange, actually; why cover up the seat? But they do make for a grand show, for this anglophile, anyway! :-)
One short question: is there a difference between Arms and a Crest? Sorry if that’s ignorant, or you’ve already covered it.
January 29, 2012 at 12:32 pm
jfwakefield
The arms are the figures and colour depicted on the shield, and the crest is the figure above the shield. So in George Austen’s case his arms are the golden background with the red chevron and black lions paws, but his crest is the deer sitting atop the castle. Does that help?
January 29, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Cathy Allen
Yes, thank you! I used to think the terms were interchangeable. Now I understand a LOT more, and not just about Arms and Crests, thanks to you, Julie!
January 27, 2012 at 4:44 am
Vonnie Hughes
Really informative. Thank you for your excellent research.
January 29, 2012 at 12:13 pm
jfwakefield
Thank you, Vonnie, that’s really kind of you. I appreciate it.
January 27, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Kathryn Ann (@SeldomKate)
What a great series Julie,and so informative! How clever of Jane Austen to ensure that Mary Musgrove had such problems identifying her cousin by putting him in a curricle! My one question, from the title of Mr. Felton’s work: what kind of vehicles are “whiskeys”?
January 29, 2012 at 12:48 pm
jfwakefield
Thank you! A whiskey was defined by Felton as follows:
Whiskies are one-horse chaises of the lightest construction, with which the horses may travel with ease and expedition, and quickly pass other carriages on the road, for which they are called Whiskies. The principles on which they are built are the most simple and light; any thing which adds to the weight or complexity should, in this case, be particularly avoided; to give ease in riding and lightness in draught, are the main objects which ought to be attended to; they, being principally intended for lightness, need not be furnished with that extraordinary number of springs which are used for other carriages and from which the bodies are suspended; the springs of this carriage are fixed on the axle tree….
It was, therefore, a vey light, fast, one-horse vehicle, without a hood. Another name for it was a “Chair”
Does that help?
January 29, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Cinthia
As always, a very illuminating post, Julie. I have a question, though. Being as ignorant as the possible Digweed squire, I wonder, why it is that Mr. Austen was entitled to bear his own arms and crest? Could it be that he was a clergyman?
January 29, 2012 at 7:22 pm
jfwakefield
You, as ignorant as a country squire? I think not ;)
The fact that Geroge Austen was allowed our bear Arms had little to do with his profession. He he inherited that right through his family lineage, for as you have probably guessed there are stict rules about the descent of the right to bear such arms. The closest I can get to a very precise answer is this, taken from A Chronology of Jane Austen by Diedre Le Faye:
The Austens or Austins were sheep farmers in the Weald of Kent. In 1574 the College of Arms allowed the Astyn family at Yalding to bear the coat-of-arms of “argent on a chevron between three lions gambes erased sable three bezants”; other Austen families bear similar arms, including the crest: “on a mural crown or, a stag secant attired or”.
Jane Austen’s paternal ancestry can be traced back with reasonable certainty to the sixteenth century as under
(1) William ASTYN of Yalding Kent( died 1522) and his wife Elizabeth.
So, it follows therefore, that George Austen’s arms were derived from this original grant in 1574, and through the twists and turns of descent altered from the original grant to those that he bore.
Does that help at all?
January 29, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Cathy Allen
Oooh! I wondered about this, too, so thanks for the answer!
January 29, 2012 at 8:15 pm
jfwakefield
I do apologise, Cathy I had not anticipated that this point was not familiar territory. I should have explained it before. Basically Geroge Austen’s arms – the design- derived from the original grant in the 16th century. As you can see they had many similar elements. Time altered them to the ones he was entitled to bear. The lowest rank of person allowed to bear arms was “gentleman”. Does that help clear up my omissions, Cathy?
January 30, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Cathy Allen
Yes it certainly does, thanks very much! :-)
Reading your reply, something occurs to me that you may not know about, here in the U.S. Being a “class-less” society (More and more this is true in more ways than one, unfortunately!) we, of course, don’t have “Arms.” BUT, for a price, there are companies who will make one up for you, and help you pretend that it is ancient and allowed. The first time we got an advertisment in the mail for one of these companies, I was a teenager, and very taken with the idea (lifelong anglophile that I am), thinking it had some merit. Happily, one of my parents talked me out of it!
:-) And, there are also companies that will “sell” us British titles of the nobility! As W.C. Fields said, “There’s a sucker born every minute!” :-)
Thanks again, Julie.
January 30, 2012 at 5:54 pm
jfwakefield
We have those companies here too. They are rather misguided. But….you do have families in the USA who have the right to bear arms. Mostly they originated on the east coast, and have been in the USA for centuries. But you do have them. You also have institutions that have the right to them too ;)
January 30, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Cathy Allen
LOL — I should have known you’d know more about this than I do! How funny! Thanks, yet again! :-) (still chuckling!)
January 31, 2012 at 4:16 am
Cinthia
It does help a lot. Thanks for the explanation, Julie. I really wondered about it, more so because of precedence.
I was really afraid that Mrs. Elton could presume to have such a right (I once had a discussion regarding that Emma as a single woman had precedence before that woman because Mr. Woodhouse might have been a gentleman entitled to bear arms and therefore she was just a step above the wife of a clergyman).
This also would place Jane Austen in Emma’s hypotetical position, right?
January 31, 2012 at 5:13 am
jfwakefield
I think it’s not too much of an assumption to think that Mr Woodhouse was possessed of arms. His family was second in consequence only to the Knightleys and was long established. Certainly the Knightleys had arms, I doubt not.
Mr and Mrs Elton both had backgrounds in trade. It is highly unlikely that they had the right to bare arms. I suspect Maple Grove’s inhabitants might make an application to the College of Arms one day but that does not concern us here.
According to early nineteenth century tables of Presedence of Women in England, Daughters of Esquires lawfully bearing Coat Armour who are Gentlewomen by Birth, ( Emma)have higher rank ( but only one ranking above, note!) than Wives of Gentlemen by office, function, or profession as Clergymen, attournies at law etc.(Mrs Elton)
However, had Mr Elton been asked to be a Justice of the Peace, prior to Emma’s marriage with George Knightley, and given Elton’s contact with Mr Knightley in the Vestry that’s not much of a stretch, then Mrs Elton would out rank Emma. On her marriage to Mr Knightley, who is the longer serving J.P., Emma would regain her place slightly above Mrs Elton.But if Mrs Elton was only the wife of a clergyman, Emma would then rank much higher in social rank than Augusta. mrs Elton would have to give Presedence to her. However much that rankled ;)
Jane Austen was the daughter of a gentleman who could lawfully bear arms, so yes, technically, that was her ranking in the world. Her lack of money, however, meant that from their lives in Southampton onwards she led a circumscribed social life. In that case her rank mattered little, practically, in my opinion. I do think the status of gentle woman mattered to her but probably mattered more to her family. This, I think explains her reluctance to be known as an author of published novels. And why the inscription on her gravestone omits her literary success.
February 1, 2012 at 3:21 am
Cinthia
Wonderful! thanks for clarifying that much, Julie :)
February 1, 2012 at 11:46 am
jfwakefield
My pleasure, Cinthia. It was quite like the old days ;)