Barnstaple and John Delbridge

by Lauren Gilbert

A view of Barnstaple and its setting at low tide

Some years ago, I surprised my husband with a fishing trip in northwest Devon. We got off the train in Umberleigh, checked into a delightful hotel (with an equally delightful pub), and discovered...there was no fishing due to an unprecedented heat wave. Nothing daunted, we proceeded to explore the area. At dusk one evening, we witnessed the water rushing into a river at high tide, followed by a family of wild swans. The next day, we hopped back on the train and went on to Barnstaple. It was a fascinating town which we enjoyed exploring. My current work in process includes a gentleman who inherits a small estate in the vicinity of Barnstaple, so I decided to read up on its history.

Afred the Great

Barnstaple is what may be the oldest borough in England. The town was known in the 900’s, a typical Saxon stronghold. Known to the Romans as “Tunge abertawe” and to the Saxons as “Beardenstaple,” it was referred to as “Barum”, the Latin contraction, in documents of the era. It was created a burg (borough) by King Alfred. A mint was established, possibly by King Athelstan who also supposedly granted a charter with rights to hold a market and fair (If there were a charter, it has been lost-a charter dated 930 was proven a forgery and no other has ever been found). The earliest known coin was minted during King Eadwig’s reign (between 955-59). The mint was not a particularly active and ceased production in the 13th century.

King Athelstan I

It fell to the Normans about 1068, and the fall is discussed in the Domesday Book. It is believed that an original castle was built by King Athelstan, and strengthened after the Conquest. This may be the site of the known castle, built in wood in the 11th century by Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances. Stone walls were erected subsequently, probably by Henry de Tracey. By 1326, castle was a ruin; only the motte remains as a mound. It was the only port in the southwest of England, and by 1290, an important trade center located on River Taw; trading with Europe, Ireland and New World. Imports included tobacco, wine, spices. Barnstaple was licensed to export wool from the 14th century and was a member of the early merchant Guild of St Nicholas. Exports included woolen material and pottery.

Other industries included lace making, fishing, and ship building. Barnstaple was the 3rd richest town in Devon in the 14th century (behind Exeter and Plymouth). Its importance as a port grew during the 14th to 16th centuries, and the city was represented in the Naval Council. There was a petition to Mary I to build a quay and merchants' exchange on the river in 1555. Barnstaple was a “privileged port” as a member of the Spanish Company (authorized to trade in Spain and Portugal) in 1577. There were 12 merchants in Barnstaple listed in the charter.

Trade with America was also very important in the 16th and 17th centuries. Barnstaple had a rather exciting military past as well. In 1588, 3-5 outfitted ships, manned by locals, sailed to join Sir Francis Drake to help defend against Spanish Armada. In 1642, when the English Civil War erupted, Barnstaple was originally pro-Parliamentarian, but changed sides four times. Seriously damaged after the war, the city eventually resumed its normal business and trading activities.

Queen Anne's Walk

Queen Anne’s Walk was built in 1708 (a rebuilding of the original Merchants' Walk built in Tudor times) and completed in 1713, as a merchant exchange on the river with its own quay for loading and unloading ships. A statue of Queen Anne was placed on the colonnade. In the 18th Century, the wool trade ended and Barnstaple began to import Irish wool which was sent on for manufacture. The harbour silted up (a process which began as early as the 17th century) and trade gradually moved to Bideford although there was local shipping (agricultural) until the 20th century. However, the town still maintained its importance as a market town. It has been represented in Parliament continuously since 1295 (it had 2 representatives until 1885 when representation was reduced to one member). It remains an important business and shopping site and the main town in North Devon.

Delbridge Arms

A name that recurred in the history of the town during the 16th century was John Delbridge. Who was John Delbridge? He was born in Barnstaple. His exact date of birth is unknown; however, he was baptized July 9, 1564. John was the 2nd son of Richard Delbridge, a merchant of Barnstaple, and his wife Alice. 

John was a Puritan, and was educated at Emmanuel College Cambridge (he enrolled July 3, 1604 as a paying student or commoner, not as a scholar), and later entered the Middle Temple in London May 10, 1606. He was married to Agnes Downe of Barnstable on January 10th, 1585. Agnes was the niece of Bishop Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury. They had five sons and three daughters, but only one son and daughter survived John. He became a successful cloth merchant, importing and exporting goods by 1591. He was involved in the Newfoundland fishing trade and was a member of the East India Company (1611-21), the French Company (1611), the Virginia. Company (from 1612 to at least 1623), the North West Passage Company (1612), and the Somers Island Company (from 1615 to at least 1622). He was also a member of the Council for Virginia (1621). Clearly, he was a man of great influence with fingers in many pies.

John was involved in the American colonies, including providing passage for colonists to Virginia and Bermuda. His ship The Swan took 70 new settlers to Virginia in 1620 and all survived the voyage (he was apparently known for well supplied ships, and few deaths). He was an active trader particularly in imported tobacco. Clearly successful, John acquired property in Virginia as well as in England. He owned a house in Barnstaple and by 1632 had an estate at West Buckland (a manor which included an advowson (right to appoint a clergyman to serve that area)) about eight miles from Barnstaple. He also had an estate at Bishop’s Tawton. John became active in politics. His political career includes: working under Robert Cecil (Elizabeth I’s chief minister) in 1602-1606 (dates approximate); serving as Mayor of Barnstaple three times (1600-1, 1615-16, 1633-4). He was elected Member of Parliament for Barnstaple six times (elections in 1614, 1621, 1624, 1625, 1626 and 1628), in which capacity he served on various committees (with his known expertise in trade matters) and was very vocal on a wide range of bills at least occasionally in open defiance of the king’s wishes. (He served with Pentecost Dodderidge, a fellow merchant, at least three times, and Alexander St. John, Knight as well).

Agnes died in May of 1639, and was buried May 15th of 1639. John made his will on May 27th and died June 24, 1639 at his home at Bishop's Tawton, leaving the bulk of his estate to his surviving son Richard, with bequests to other relatives and to the poor. 

Unrest was brewing, leading to the Civil War which erupted in 1642. The events involving the war and its aftermath left John Delbridge in obscurity. I couldn't help but wonder if his Puritan faith and service in Parliament steered the loyalty of his city to the Parliamentary side of the conflict, at least at the start.

This is not by any means a comprehensive history of Barnstaple or of John Delbridge; it does, however, serve to tickle one's fancy to look further into that fascinating town and its people.

Sources:

Holton, Denise and Hammett, Elizabeth. BARNSTAPLE THROUGH TIME. Stroud: Amberley Publishing, 2013. (Kindle Version); SECRET BARNSTAPLE. Stroud: Amberley Publishing, 2015. (Kindle Version)

The History of Parliament on-line. “Delbridge, John (1564-1639) of Barnstaple and Bishop’s Tawton, Devon.” HERE

GoogleBooks. Willis, Browne. NOTITIA PARLIAMENTARIA: Or A History of the Counties, Cities and Boroughs in England and Wales. 2nd Edition with Annotations. London: Robert Gosling, 1730. HERE ; Tudor and Stuart Devon: The Common Estate and Government : Essays Presented to Joyce Youngs. Edited by Todd Gray, Margery M. Rowe, and Audrey M. Erskine. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1992. HERE

Barnstaple Town Centre on-line. “History.” HERE

A Vision of Britain. “Descriptive Gazetteer Entry for Barnstaple” by John Marious Wilson in IMPERIAL GAZETTEER OF ENGLAND AND WALES (1870-72). HERE

Cambridge Alumni Database. “Delbridge, John.” HERE

View of Barnstaple taken by Lauren Gilbert (c) Lauren Gilbert

Images from Wikimedia Commons

Alfred the Great HERE

Athelstan HERE

Queen Anne's Walk HERE

Delbridge Arms HERE

~~~~~~~~~~
Lauren Gilbert, author of HEYERWOOD: A Novel, is working on her second novel set in Regency England, A RATIONAL ATTACHMENT. She lives in Florida with her husband. Please visit her website HERE.

Louisa Catherine Adams-The Fifth First Lady of the United States (Part III)

by Lauren Gilbert

Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams by Gilbert Stuart 1821-1826

Part I can be found HERE
Part II can be found HERE

As we’ve seen, Louisa Johnson married John Quincy Adams on July 26, 1797, and discovered her father, who went back to America with the rest of her family shortly afterwards, was in debt to the wide and did not pay her dowry of 5000 pounds. According to some sources, John Quincy turned the household accounts, normally handled by a wife, over to his valet and left her feeling  that he included her in his disillusionment with her father and family resulting from his being approached by Joshua Johnson’s creditors. Although they shared some interests, including reading, and were genuinely in love, theirs was a difficult union: two insecure and extremely sensitive people, one of whom considered himself the master, to teach and lead the other (John Quincy) while the other yearned to be a partner with a voice who was not afraid to stand up for herself (Louisa). On top of this, Louisa became pregnant almost immediately. By all accounts, this was a difficult pregnancy; John Quincy’s own diaries make frequent references to Mrs. Adams’ sickness. It is also pertinent to remember that Napoleon was making himself felt on the continent. They finally left for John Quincy’s posting in Berlin on October 18, 1797, requiring a difficult sea crossing and an equally difficult land journey to Berlin which took six days. Shortly after settling into a hotel, Louisa suffered the first of multiple miscarriages almost immediately after their arrival. It was a long-drawn-out and excruciatingly painful ordeal for which the doctors could do little. To his credit, John Quincy was a support and took great care of Louisa during this time, and the situation united them much more closely. They settled into lodgings, and Louisa began her recovery; John Quincy presented his credentials, was presented and immediately began participating in the Prussian court society. 

Louisa, left to herself in the lodgings, became very lonely as she received no visitors and no invitations, while John Quincy made no effort to have her presented at court. Discovering that Queen Louise was starting to think that John Quincy and Louisa were not married, John Quincy escorted Louisa to the theatre one evening when the King and Queen of Prussia were expected to attend, and Louisa drew considerable attention. Subsequently, she was presented to Queen Louise, with whom she became quite friendly. Close in age to Louisa, Queen Louise was renowned for her beauty and charm, and she was also extremely kind. Louisa’s background, between her family’s social activities and her involvement with Anglo-American circles with Mr. and Mrs. Pinckney in London, fitted her to shine in diplomatic society abroad. Her fluent French was also an advantage. Unbeknownst to John Quincy, she became a significant asset to him, especially since diplomacy was (as it still is) conducted in social settings almost as much as in conference rooms. While he was waiting for her to make a mistake and cause him embarrassment, Louisa was busy becoming a success, meeting people and smoothing his way. This would become a recurring theme throughout their marriage. In the meanwhile, John Quincy worried about her acquiring monarchical tendencies, too fond of pomp and circumstances for American tastes (especially his mother’s). Ironically, because John Quincy was the son of the American president as well as an ambassador, they were given a higher place in court protocol than may have been expected. Of course, this meant they had to entertain as well as attend court functions (which meant appropriate apparel for both) on an extremely limited budget and while Louisa continued to experience poor health. She apparently had difficult menstrual cycles and suffered multiple miscarriages which deeply pained her and John Quincy both. It was during this time that she developed the on-going health problems for which she was subsequently know, which included debilitating headaches and fainting spells.  

In February of 1801, they received news of two painful events: John Adams lost the presidency to Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy’s brother Charles died. The bright spot came on April 12 of 1801, when Louisa delivered a living son whom they named George Washington Adams, after yet another difficult and painful labour. Although she subsequently suffered a high fever and was very ill, she was recovering when John Quincy and his family were ordered to return to the United States. They left Berlin on June 17, 1801. Louisa was on her way to America, a place she had never visited even though she was a citizen. Apparently, during the trip, John Quincy also told her all about Mary Frazier and his failed courtship, which could not have helped her feel more confident. Upon arrival, John Quincy went to Massachusetts to his family home, and she took baby George and went to see her family in Georgetown, near Washington. The visit was not very happy by all accounts: Mr. Johnson’s financial problems were known, he was in poor health, and John Quincy’s absence was noted. In October, John Quincy came to get her and George to bring them home to John and Abigail Adams’ house.

Louisa’s entrance into the Adams’ family was not easy. John and Abigail made no pretence of sincere friendliness; with her foreign upbringing, she felt equally out of place with them. Abigail in particular disapproved of Louisa as a fine lady, and Louisa had no training to be the kind of housewife that Abigail would find suitable. Abigail was also concerned about Louisa’s poor health. Louisa herself was very aware of the differences between her upbringing as an American in England, and felt the differences keenly. Eventually, her intelligence, love of reading and genuine desire for approval won over John Adams and they did develop a close friendship. Her relationship with Abigail was much more difficult, as John Quincy developed a bad habit of discussing his household issues with his mother, then informing his wife of the decisions that he and his mother made. Louisa, of course, would make known her objections, and then ultimately go along. It cannot be a coincidence that her health issues, particularly the headaches and fainting spells continued. They moved into their own home in Boston, but issues did not improve as Louisa did not know how to manage the household, especially as she was expected to participate in the work of the household. Money was, as always , short, and John Quincy kept track of every cent and never hesitated to  show his aggravation. John Quincy was extremely busy with his law practice and in May of 1801 became a representative to the state senate. Louisa was left on her own increasingly. In February of 1803, he was appointed to the United States Senate by the legislature. Louisa, pregnant again, discovered she would be going to Washington just when she was starting to feel settled. Their second child was born July 4, 1803 and named John. The family arrived in Washington on October 20, 1803. This was the beginning of Louisa’s life as a political wife.

Their children were a special bone of contention. In the fall of 1805, John Quincy decided to leave their two sons in Massachusetts, without consulting Louisa and with Abigail’s complicity, while he and Louisa went to Washington.  Louisa was upset but went along. In addition to missing her children, she was experiencing a difficult pregnancy. Because of her pregnancy, John Quincy left her in Washington when he returned to Massachusetts for the summer (now without him AND her children). Sadly, her pregnancy resulted in a still birth.  Louisa finally made it home to Massachusetts in August 1806. The next term of Congress, she and the children stayed in Boston in miserable lodgings, again without consultation with Louisa. Clearly, John Quincy had no intention of allowing Louisa a voice, even though he consulted regularly with his mother. Equally clearly, Louisa made her anger at being so treated known, but went along anyway. During the summer of 1807, Louisa was pregnant again and she gave birth to a third son after yet another excruciating labour (the baby, named Charles Francis, was breech). When John Quincy took his family back to Washington for the 1807-1808 term, she was allowed to take the new baby; the two older children again stayed behind, this time boarding with John Quincy’s aunts (Abigail’s sisters) individually (George with Elizabeth Peabody and John with Mary Cranch). Louisa submitted, but not happily, and she did not agree that child rearing by proxy was good for her children. Given the number of miscarriages she had and the difficult labours she experienced, her attachment to her living children must have been particularly intense.  

Increasing political activity stemming from tension with Great Britain took John Quincy away even more and resulted him changing parties from the Federalists to the Republicans in support of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. This resulted in his resigning his Senate seat and the family returning again to Boston in 1808, only to face social ostracism. Even John and Abigail Adams were upset about his change. He went to Washington to conduct three cases before the Supreme Court, again leaving Louisa and his children behind. She had become  pregnant again but lost the baby early in 1809 while John Quincy was away,  when she slipped and fell on ice. They had argued before he left, and conducted a bitter exchange of letters, even after the miscarriage. In July of 1809, the Madison administration offered John Quincy the position of minister plenipotentiary to Russia, which he accepted. Despite their friction, John Quincy wanted Louisa with him. He made arrangement, again with Abigail, to leave the two older boys with an aunt and uncle, while Louisa and little Charles accompanied him. There is no indication Louisa had any participation in deciding who would go with them and who would stay behind. This time, Louisa’s sister Kitty was among the party to go so at least she had a family member with her when they took ship on August 5, 1809, beginning an eighty-day voyage.  

Their arrival was difficult, as they had only the clothing they stood up in as, after they got off the ship in Kronstadt, it floated back out to sea with all of their belongings. They had to go on to St. Petersburg. The beginning of John Quincy’s mission was not going well: the drinking water had affected everyone (diarrhea), and they discovered that their luggage had been ransacked when it was finally returned. Again, as an ambassador, John Quincy and his wife were expected to be part of the social scene and, again, John Quincy was focused on their lack of money. Even though he was much more than he had been in Prussia (Louisa Thomas indicates only the president was paid more [1]).  Unfortunately, the Russian court was vastly wealthier, the social duties were heavier (almost nightly), and the entire party needed complete new wardrobes-they had to keep up with the Joneses with a vengeance, so to speak.

John Quincy’s assignment included fostering good relations with the Russians and there was no way for him or for Louisa to evade their social responsibilities. The expenses of daily living, combined with the costs of wardrobe suitable for court brought Louisa’s anxiety about her dowry to the forefront again. However, in spite of the financial hemorrhage resulting, Louisa enjoyed parties and dancing. She did not enjoy the high status she had held in Prussia (thanks largely to her friendship with Queen Louise) but did succeed in charming the Russian court and once again being an asset to John Quincy. The high-waisted flowing style we now associate with the Regency era in England was popular in Russia, and Louisa became very creative in stretching her and Kitty’s wardrobe funds as much as possible, not least in sewing their own gowns. Both John Quincy and Louisa bemoaned the exorbitant costs of living in Russia at this time, while carrying out their duties. Louisa suffered another miscarriage in February of 1810, but got back into her routine as quickly as possible. In the spring of 1811, John Quincy was offered a position on the Supreme Court. However, he declined, using the fact that Louisa was pregnant as an excuse. On August 11, after an uneventful pregnancy and labour, she delivered a little girl, who was named after her mother, Louisa Catherine. Louisa and John Quincy were both entranced with their daughter. John Quincy had sent for their sons in March of 1812, but war being declared with Great Britain, their trip was postponed indefinitely. The vast distance delayed news between the United States and Russia, and Louisa was much more experienced with separation from her family and children, so she was able to take comfort of Charles and Louisa Catherine.  Sadly, Louisa Catherine became ill and, after a long illness died September 15, 1812, the same day Napoleon rode through Moscow.

 

Both John Quincy and Louisa were devastated by her death. John Quincy was able to find some comfort in his work, but Louisa’s grief did not abate. John Quincy’s response was to buy her a book by Benjamin Rush, MEDICAL INQUIRIES and OBSERVATIONS, UPON DISEASES of the MIND. Not exactly a sensitive gift. She blamed herself for her child’s death and missed her two sons left behind more than ever; these feelings rekindled her anger with John Quincy. He was relieved when he asked to be part of a peace commission, which resulted in his departure April 28, 1814 and which was to keep him away for several months, leaving Louisa and Charles in St. Petersburg. Her health was never robust. Ironically, during her time in Russia, Louisa and her mother-in-law drew closer than they had ever been by letter. John Quincy’s departure left Louisa in complete charge of the household, while expecting her to maintain her social responsibilities. After years of not being allowed to handle anything, it is not unreasonable to assume that Louisa doubted her own abilities. However, she rose to the occasion and even enjoyed being in charge. Their letters indicate that they seem to have reconciled their differences at least to some extent, and showed a mutual affection. However, the prospect of yet another Russian winter, this time with John Quincy away, put a further strain on her. The peace commission took longer than anyone anticipated, but peace with Great Britain was finally concluded in December 1814. At that point, John Quincy dropped a bombshell on her: he informed her that he would not be returning to Russia and ordered her to sell everything she did not want to keep for the best price possible, and bring their son to join him in Paris as soon as she was able.  This put Louisa in position for a journey that was a defining experience in her life, and an illustration of the strength and character of this fascinating woman.

Part IV will discuss Louisa’s journey from St. Petersburg to Paris, her further career in Washington as the wife of Secretary of State and as First Lady, and our conclusion.

Notes:

[1] Thomas, Louisa.  LOUISA  The Extraordinary Life of Mrs. Adams. P. 172.

Sources include:

See sources listed in Parts I and II and

Caroli, Betty Boyd.  THE FIRST LADIES from Martha Washington to Michelle Obama 4th edition.  New York: Madison Park Press (an imprint of Direct Brands, Inc.), 2009.

Heffron, Margery M. LOUISA CATHERINE The Other Mrs. Adams.  New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.

Roberts, Cokie.  LADIES OF LIBERTY The Women Who Shaped Our Nation.  New York: HarperCollins, 2008.

Thomas, Louisa.  LOUISA The Extraordinary Life of Mrs. Adams.  New York: Penguin Press, 2016.

Withey, Lynne.  DEAREST FRIEND A Life of Abigail Adams.  New York: Touchstone/Simon & Schuster, 2001 (originally published 1981 by the Free Press).

Image: Wikimedia Commons, HERE

About the author: Lauren Gilbert is the author of HEYERWOOD: A Novel, released in 2011.  A second novel A RATIONAL ATTACHMENT is in process.  She lives in Florida with her husband, with some roses (white ones are blooming) and gardenias, herbs and pineapples.  Please visit her website at www.lauren-gilbert.com for more information.

Louisa Catherine Adams-The Fifth First Lady of the United States (Part I)

by Lauren Gilbert

Louisa Catherine Johnson 1794

Best known for being the first and (until inauguration day January 20, 2017) the only foreign-born first lady, Louisa Adams did not see the United States until she had been married four years.  She was married to John Quincy Adams, son of John and Abigail Adams, in spite of their and her father’s disapproval, and her own doubts.  Known for ill health and physical delicacy, she was also capable of decisive action when the situation required.  In their long marriage (from July 26, 1797 to John Quincy’s death February 23, 1848), they had several periods of separation and serious points of disagreement; however, she did everything she could to further his career and their letters show an on-going attachment.  Her life was a long and fascinating life, filled with adventures, trials and successes.   What intrigues me most about her is her rather unique point of view and her inner dialogues.

Louisa Catherine Johnson was born February 12, 1775 to Joshua Johnson and Catherine Newth or Nuth.  She was the second child, and second daughter, born in a family of nine children (eight girls and one boy).  Born in Maryland, Joshua Johnson was an American merchant, whose business was originally located in Maryland, arrived in England in 1771 at the behest of his employer Charles Wallace to act as the representative of Wallace, Davidson and Johnson, an importing firm they started in Annapolis MD, trading tobacco and mercantile goods.  Catherine Nuth was an English woman and possibly the daughter of a shoemaker who was known for her beauty and wit.   In November of 1773, their first child Ann (known as Nancy) was born.  Joshua’s business practices were highly speculative.  In 1778, at the height of the hostilities between America and Great Britain, Joshua took his family to Nantes, France. Louise was placed with Nancy in a convent school where she learned fluent French and was exposed to the Roman Catholic faith.  The family returned to London after peace was established, about 1783. 

After their return to England, Louisa had to relearn the English language.  Louisa was enrolled in boarding school with two sisters, where she did not fit in well, coming out of a French convent school.    Her studies included mathematics, stitching and embroidery, drawing and (interestingly) philosophy.  While at school, Louisa experienced a period of illness (including fainting) after which she was removed from school and was placed with some family friends, John and Elizabeth Hewlett. Both were highly intelligent and rather radical.  John helped wean Louisa from the Catholic ideas she had acquired in France to a more normal Anglican tradition, and Elizabeth was a strong minded woman (not the passive, dependent type admired by Louisa’s father and portrayed in current literature).   When Louisa returned to school, she came under the influence of a teacher, Miss Young, who encouraged her to read widely and think for herself and to express her thoughts.  An intelligent girl, she developed an interest in science, read controversial authors of the day, and questioned herself and her beliefs as well as her place and the place of women in general in her world.  She spent her pocket money on books.   After a few years, she and her sisters were removed from school in 1788 due to her father’s facing bankruptcy, about which the girls were kept in ignorance.  The girls then had a governess.  After some dispute (including concerns about Joshua’s lavish lifestyle), Joshua’s business partnership was extended, but financial problems resulted in the partnership being dissolved in 1789.  Joshua established himself on his own.  However, things weren’t the same, at least in part due to a decline in the Maryland tobacco trade and increased manufacturing of goods in America. 

An interesting side note: a marriage record exists showing that Joshua Johnson married Catherine Newth on August 22, 1785 in Westminster.   She had been known as Catherine Johnson, wife of Joshua Johnson, for years, and all of their children’s births were recorded as legitimate accordingly; there is no indication that she was not Joshua’s wife.  Certainly, there is no indication that neighbours, friends or their children were aware of any irregularity.  However, there is also no known record of an earlier marriage.  At least five of their children were born before the recorded marriage in 1785.  If that was in fact their only marriage, discovery could have meant scandal if not ruin for Joshua Johnson and his family.  Joshua was appointed consul by then-President Thomas Jefferson to act for America in England in 1790 (an appointment which would have been very unlikely if there had been questions about his marriage).  This appointment required him to report information about British shipping and preparations for war and locations of British fishing and whaling fleets.  He was also to help American seaman who had been impressed by the British when possible and to provide local intelligence of a political nature.  In return, Mr. Johnson made it clear that being in that position was expensive and had no hesitation in pursuing remuneration from Mr. Jefferson and Congress.

Mr. Johnson considered himself an American wholeheartedly, and there is an act recorded in the annals of the Maryland senate stating that he and his children were American citizens.  He intended, at some future point, to take his family to America and intended his daughters to marry Americans (preferably from the south).  Joshua had a very traditional view of the role of women.  However, his daughters were raised as proper English girls of well-to-do families were raised: they were educated, taught to sing, play an instrument and dance, how to speak French and how to supervise servants.  Although learning to manage servants included learning to cook and to make and mend clothes, the young ladies’  “work” was primarily decorative embroidery.  They were prepared for courtship and marriage, to be fine ladies who were cared for, not to be help meets.  She and her siblings experienced none of the alarms, privations and practical experience of girls raised in America during the Revolutionary period.  This difference in upbringing and outlook would affect Louisa’s entire life.  Louisa and her two  sisters Nancy and Caroline basically made their social debuts more or less at the same time, with Louisa being fifteen years old and Caroline a year younger.  Louisa was a pretty girl, more slender than was strictly fashionable, with large dark eyes.  Louisa was known to be shy and somewhat retiring but was very observant of what was going on around her.  In spite of Mr. Johnson’s financial fluctuations, the family entertained but, because no formal diplomatic relationship had been established between the United States and Great Britain, Johnson’s access to Parliament or court was restricted to secretaries and lower level officials, limiting his activities as consul as well as his family’s social access. 

It wasn’t until August of 1792, when Thomas Pinckney, appointed minister plenipotentiary, finally arrived in London with his wife Elizabeth that the social opportunities arose for the Johnson family.  Louisa became a favourite of Mrs. Pinckney and was allowed to visit and stay with her.  Mr. and Mrs. Pinckney were welcomed into Anglo-American society and, as a result, the Johnson family also had some access to that society, mingling with members of Parliament, artists and other notables.  Pretty, well dressed and well mannered, Louisa and her sisters were allowed to attend the social functions when invited, gaining a social polish and understanding of status.  Sadly,   Elizabeth Pinckney died two years after arriving in London, to Louisa’s sorrow.  Louisa, Nancy and Caroline all had beaus and flirtations. However, Mr. Johnson was quite selective on his daughters’ behalves, discouraging multiple suitors of each.  Although not wealthy, the young ladies were raised to expect a dowry of 5000 pounds each, so had no reason to expect that there would be difficulty receiving suitable offers.  (There is nothing to indicate that Mrs. Johnson or any of her daughters were aware of the vagaries of Mr. Johnson’s finances.)  Louisa did not seem to have been in a hurry to marry, enjoying the social activities and engaging a variety of individuals with her singing and conversation. Interestingly, she felt her intelligence and wide reading was not an asset for a young woman seeking a marriage partner, so she concealed that aspect of herself. It was as a polished young lady that Louisa met John Quincy Adams, resident minister to Holland and son of John and Abigail Adams.

In Part II, we will discuss Louisa’s marriage to John Quincy, her feelings and her experiences.

Sources include:

Britannica.com  “Louisa Adams American First Lady” by Betty Boyd Caroli, May 28, 2004. Here.

 Find-a-grave on line.  “Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams,” biography by William Bjornstad (no post date).  Here.

Firstladies.org  “First Lady Biography: Louisa Adams.” (No author or post date shown) Here.

Nps.gov  “Louisa Catherine Adams  (1775-1852).”  (no author or post date shown)  Here.

Smithsonian.com “Meet the First and Only Foreign-born First Lady: Louisa Catherine Adams” by Jackie Mansky, May 25, 2016. Here.

White House Historical Association on-line. “Louisa Adams.” (no author or post date shown.)  Here. 

Zocalopublicsquare.org  “From a London Alley to the White House” by Louisa Thomas, October 31, 2014.  Here. 

Heffron, Margery M. LOUISA CATHERINE The Other Mrs. Adams.  New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.

Thomas, Louisa.  LOUISA The Extraordinary Life of Mrs. Adams.  New York: Penguin Press, 2016. 

Image Credit
By Edward Savage [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Louisa_Catherine_Adams.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~

About the author: Lauren Gilbert is the author of Heyerwood: A Novel, released in 2011.  A second novel, A Rational Attachment, is in process.  She lives in Florida with her husband, with some roses and gardenia, herbs and pineapples.  Please visit her website here  for more information.

Smuggling Made Easy in the 1760s

by Allen Woods

As I worked through the initial research and plot ideas for The Sword and Scabbard: Thieves and Thugs and the Bloody Massacre in Boston, I was stunned at how common and easy it was to smuggle goods into the Colonies before the Revolutionary War. Some of the great American fortunes (including that of John Hancock) were founded on the profits from smuggled goods. Later, Customs disputes offered sparks that were fanned into blazing conflicts during the Stamp Act riots, the Bloody Massacre (the name happily used by Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty), and eventually the Revolutionary War itself.

How could a lower-level property crime like smuggling grow into a conflict that became a turning point in world history? My research essentially reinforced a suspicion I have held for decades. Although the technologies, fashions, and culture continue to change so quickly that many of us can't keep up, human nature–in its criminal and bureaucratic aspects–maintains a consistent thread throughout our societies. I found two basic reasons that smuggling played such a central role in colonial history: government officials susceptible to bribes and misguided government strategy in addressing the problem.

Bribing Officials was Business as Usual

John Hancock was just one of the American merchants whose fortune was partially a result of smuggling.

As the colonies became a market for English and international goods through the early 1700s, the English government looked to control imports and make a profit from them. Because they were still such a distance from the mother country and an unsavory place to live for most of the lords that might be appointed to a post, they turned to those already in residence there. Many were friends of the colonial merchant class and were unwilling to enforce duties on molasses and other imported goods.

One of the most notorious was Benjamin Barons, who actually led Boston merchants in opposition to Customs officials in several court actions. It was common knowledge that in Boston (and probably throughout the colonies) that an unwritten agreement allowed merchants to declare one-third of their goods and pay the import duty for that portion while Barons looked the other way.

After a full board of Custom Commissioners arrived in Boston in 1767 to try to fully enforce the laws, firebrand Captain Malcom boldly offered to file his manifest and willingly pay duty using the "customary indulgences." When the Commissioners indignantly refused, he came back a few days later announcing that he had arrived with an empty ship and that Customs was free to search it, since he had offloaded the cargo at a site unknown to Customs.

Although there are no records of it, it is hard to believe that Barons took these illegal actions without some type of payments from the merchants who were his friends and turned a handsome profit from this international trade. Bribing government officials was business as usual throughout the colonies at the time, and almost certainly in England and Europe as well. It is a criminal practice that continues today in ports and entries around the world and allows the flow of everything from illegal drugs to immigrants and slaves to counterfeit goods.

New Rules Promote Competition among Officials, Not Better Enforcement

After the French and Indian War in the colonies ended in 1763, British officials noted how much money they had spent defending the colonies and how little they got back in import duties. Customs revenues were only a fraction of the actual trade and barely enough to pay the salaries of the appointed officials, let alone offset military costs from the war. Prime Minister George Grenville moved to enforce colonial Customs law by sending Royal Navy ships to patrol coastal waters and giving them the power to seize and sell ships involved in smuggling.

Unfortunately, this move promoted competition between the Navy and Customs officials. Instead of watching for smugglers, the two groups spent much of their energy watching their bureaucratic rivals. (Today, there are multiple stories in the U.S. and around the world where competition among law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI and local officials, prevents efficient law enforcement.)

The heart of the dispute, as is so often the case, was money. Customs officials themselves could make a huge profit if they seized a ship and sold it and its illegal cargo. The Commissioner responsible would personally get one third of the proceeds, hundreds of pounds from a single ship, about as much as their yearly salary. Grenville made this the reward for naval captains as well, whose compensation was small enough to motivate them to seek the "prize money" offered for successful battles during a war or seizure of illegal ships and merchandise during peace.

The unfortunate result was that the two groups didn't pool their resources. Customs officials in the colonies had no ships or troops to seize ships outside of a harbor, while naval captains had no access to the network of Customs informers that could have pointed them at likely targets. In some cases, a dispute over which group had rights to a seized ship landed in court. The end result was that the new rules designed to enforce Customs duties after 1763 probably hindered Royal efforts as much as it enhanced them. The Navy kept an eye on Customs agents and Customs agents kept an eye on the Navy–and neither kept a closer watch on American smugglers.

Smuggling: An American Tradition

After Customs seized John
Hancock's sloop Liberty
(similar to the above)
and turned it into a Royal
Navy vessel, colonists
in Rhode Island took
it back and burned it.

By the time John Hancock publicly declared he wouldn't pay the new Customs duties on his ships in 1768 and arranged for Customs officials to be held while a ship filled with Madeira wine was illegally unloaded in Boston Harbor, he was simply following an American tradition that had been established over several decades of trade in the colonies. It was a tradition that was supported by British actions during the period, sometimes intentionally but more often inadvertently. When a British ship of the line seized Hancock's Liberty, the colonists responded with direct attacks on some Customs officials and their property. The occupation of Boston by British troops followed soon afterward, setting the stage for the Boston Massacre and the string of events that ultimately led to the Revolutionary War. It was this economic struggle over taxes in the form of import duties that resulted in the War of Independence and the call for freedom in the colonies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Allen Woods has been a full-time freelance writer and editor for almost 30 years, writing everything from magazine and newspaper features to sales training for corporate clients. Recently he has specialized in social studies and reading textbooks for all ages. The spark for The Sword and Scabbard came while doing research for an American history text. He lives 100 miles from the site of the Boston Massacre and plans a series which will follow Nicholas and Maggie through the Tea Party, Lexington and Concord, the Revolutionary War, and beyond. He welcomes comments at the Blog or Events pages of the book web site www.theswordandscabbard.com.

Purchase

“Nor Spare Any Expense to Secure Canada…”: Marquis de la Galissoniere’s Advice for Opposing England

By Rosanne E. Lortz

A cliff notes version of history will tell you that England, later called Britain, began its rise to empire during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 demonstrated that the English were not afraid to tangle with the toughest of them, and the colonies founded in the New World throughout the next few decades began to spread English influence far and wide.

England was not the only one to establish colonies in North America, however. France set up its own colonies in Canada and New Orleans. As England's longstanding enemies from the old continent, the French extended this rivalry to the new one. As luck would have it (or perhaps climate temperature), the French colonies in the New World did not thrive to the same level as the English colonies did. But although the French colonies did not send streams of gold to their home country, they did help out in at least one significant way--by being a thorn in England’s side.

Roland-Michel Barrin de la Galissoniere

The Marquis de la Galissoniere was the French governor of New France from 1747 to 1749. He was a well-liked, well-educated man who encouraged scientific pursuits in astronomy and cartography. In December of 1750, following his departure from the French Colonies in North America, he wrote a memoir explaining the significance of France’s New World holdings.

The letter focuses mostly on the colony of Canada, with only a few mentions of the large territory of Louisiana. The Marquis' assessment of Canada's amenities was not always complimentary. He called Canada “a barren frontier” that “has always been a burthen to France.” But despite this, he did not recommend that the colony should be abandoned. “By its position…it constitutes…the strongest barrier that can be opposed to the ambition of the English.”

How did the Marquis know that Canada was a barrier against English opposition? “We may dispense with giving any other proofs of this," he wrote, "than the constant efforts they have made, for more than a century, against that Colony.”

La Galissoniere pointed out that Canada alone “is in a position to wage war against them [the English] in all their possessions on the Continent of America.” As a strategic base for attacking the English, Canada must be preserved.

Even though the English possessed greater numbers in America, the Marquis noted that the French soldiers from Canada were able to do quite well against the English militarily. The first reason for that was “the great number of alliances that French keep up with the Indian Nations.” The second reason was because of the large number of French Canadians who, “are accustomed to live in the woods like the Indians, and become thereby not only qualified to lead them to fight the English, but to wage war even against these same Indians when necessity obliges.”

La Galissoniere encouraged the French to maintain this military superiority in the colonies since it was impossible for them to achieve naval superiority over the English. By the mid-eighteenth century, the English Navy had already become a formidable power and a danger to France. “If anything can, in fact, destroy the superiority of France in Europe, it is the Naval force of the English.”

La Galissoniere was well aware of the difficulty of defeating the English at sea. Though by no means a famous admiral, he did win one naval battle against the English a few years after his stint as governor in the New World. Étienne Taillemite calls the battle a “very modest success” which “created a stir in France out of all proportion to its real importance.” No doubt the stir surrounding the victory was due to the infrequency of such occurrences.

“No other resource remains then,” said La Galissoniere, acknowledging the impossibility of French naval supremacy, “but to attack them [the English] in their possessions; that cannot be effected by forces sent from Europe except with little hope of success, and at vast expense, whilst by fortifying ourselves in America and husbanding means in the Colonies themselves, the advantages we possess can be preserved, and even increased at a very trifling expense, in comparison with the cost of expeditions fitted out in Europe.”

Financing a war in Europe was expensive, but financing a war in the colonies was cheap! La Galissoniere goes on to explain how French attacks on the English colonies would also protect Spain’s colonies in Mexico. (In the year 1750, Spain was an ally whose gold France was hoping to profit from.) Following this, he concludes his memoir with this pithy paragraph:

All that precedes sufficiently demonstrates that it is of the utmost importance and of absolute necessity not to omit any means, nor spare any expense to secure Canada, inasmuch as that is the only way to wrest America from the ambition of the English, and as the progress of their empire in that quarter of the globe is what is most capable of contributing to their superiority in Europe.

This memoir written by the Marquis de la Galissoniere is a small but clear window into the politics of the mid-eighteenth century. It shows how the interactions between various European colonies played into the power struggle on the European continent, and how the French were willing to maintain a colony that was “a burthen” if that colony would in any way thwart “the ambition of the English.”

________________________________

Rosanne E. Lortz is the author of two books: I Serve: A Novel of the Black Prince, a historical adventure/romance set during the Hundred Years' War, and Road from the West: Book I of the Chronicles of Tancred, the beginning of a trilogy which takes place during the First Crusade.

________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Marquis de la Galissoniere Memoir on the French Colonies in North America December 1750." American History: From Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1701-1750/marquis-de-la-galissoniere-memoir-on-the-french-colonies-in-north-america-december-1750.php (Accessed September 4, 2014).

Taillemite, Etienne. "Barrin De La Galissonière, Roland-Michel, Marquis De La Galissonière." Dictionary of Canadian Biography. http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/barrin_de_la_galissoniere_roland_michel_3E.html (Accessed September 4, 2014).

Witch Hazel: A Gift from America

by Lauren Gilbert

Species Hamamelis Virginiana, commonly known as witch hazel, is native to America.  It is a common deciduous shrub or small tree found on the American east coast from Quebec to Minnesota to Florida (there are other American varieties and a couple of Asian varieties as well, which will not be addressed here).  It is an understory plant, found wild in forests.  It is slow-growing, commonly reaching five to fifteen feet tall (although taller specimens are known, one reaching 30 feet).

It has a smooth brownish-grey bark, long slender branches growing in Y formations, and decorative leaves. The leaves are oval with scalloped edges and inverted-V veining that can reach up to 6 inches in length.  Their color runs from a deep green during the summer to gold in the fall.  It likes partial sun to light shade.   It blooms in the fall (late September-October) and can bloom into December (in the south, as late as March).  The blooms are yellow, and consist of four twisted ribbon-like petals.  The flowers have a light fragrance.  The plant is not self-pollinating, so must attract pollinators such as insects.

The flower is interesting as, when temperatures dip, the petals twist tighter to protect itself; when the temperatures are warmer, the petals relax more to allow available pollinators access.   In spring, it produces fruit of a fuzzy light brown capsule shape, which has one to two shiny black seeds. The fruit ripens in the summer time, and then in fall, when ready, the seed pod literally explodes, shooting the seed over 20 feet away.  The seed takes two years to germinate (assuming they aren’t eaten by birds).  These seeds are white and oily on the inside and are edible, supposedly tasting somewhat like pistachios.  This plant is unusual as it can have leaves, flower and fruit on the limb all at one time.

It is unclear how the name “Witch hazel” was derived; a popular theory is that it is derived from the word wych which is Old English referring to pliant or bendable branches (root word of wicker) and hazel because the early colonists thought it was related to species Corylus (hazel) due to similarities of bark & leaves.  It is also known as Hazel Nut, Snapping Hazel, Winterbloom, and Spotted or Striped Alder.

American Indians were familiar with this plant and used it medicinally.  The Menominee tribe (who were located in what is now modern Wisconsin) boiled it in water, creating a decoction that was rubbed on the legs to keep them flexible and on the back to relieve back pain.  The Osage (modern Midwest) used it for tumors, skin ulcers and sores.  The Iroquois (modern New York and Canada) brewed a strong tea that was used to combat dysentery, colds and coughs, as a blood purifier, and as an astringent.  The Mohegans (modern Connecticut) made a decoction used to treat bruises, cuts and bites.  Bark, leaves and twigs were used fresh and dried.  I could not find a reference to names by which the various tribes may have known this plant, but it was obviously widely known and used.

English colonists saw the witch hazel and noted its similarity to plants/trees at home, such as the hazel tree (species Corylus) whose flexible branches were used in wattle, fencing and baskets.  In 1588 Thomas Hariot indicated that Indians were using “wich-hazle” to make bows.

Dowsing was an ancient practice where Y shaped branches used to seek water.  Indians did this, and the practice was known in England and Europe.  Supposedly, the Mohegans introduced colonists in their range to dowsing with witch hazel branches.  The branches of the Witch Hazel with their slender Y-shaped configuration were similar to elm branches used for this purpose in England.  One theory links the “witch” part of the name to dowsing, which was considered a form of witchcraft.

Early colonists would have had the chance to observe the Indians making and using their remedies.  This knowledge was accumulated and applied.  Over time, the medical uses evolved. Witch hazel was known for its astringent qualities.  Bark or leaves were made into a bitter tea that would supposedly stop internal bleeding or dysentery.  The tea was also applied as a poultice to ease burns, scalds, insect bites, tumors and inflammation.  Balm was made with an extract of the bark which was soothing to sores and minor burns.  It was also used in a liniment.  The tea was also used as a treatment for hemorrhoids via an enema or compress.

How did it get to England? Witch hazel was one of the first plants adapted to ornamental use in European gardens.  It was known in private botanical collections in London, possibly as early as the mid-17^th century.  The Oxford English Dictionary shows the name “witch hazel” in use in the mid-16^th century.  It is not known exactly when or by whom the plant was first brought to England.  However, in the 18^th century, it was one of many American plants that became known and popular in English garden circles.  “Hazel nut” (one of the common names for witch hazel) is listed in 1826 edition of Culpeper’s Complete Herbal  (additions to Culpeper’s work occurred in editions subsequent to the initial publishing date of 1653).  It was recommended for cough and the drying of mucus from the head; it is also recommended for stopping menstruation and diarrhea.   This corresponds with the known uses for witch hazel.   (It is worth noting that I found no similar medical uses for the English hazel and hazel nuts or philberts.)

Peter Collinson

Peter Collinson (1694-1768) was a Quaker born in London.  A woolen draper by trade, his passion was the study of plants and botany.  Largely self-taught, his trade links allowed him to obtain plant samples from all over the world, and his personal plant collections at his homes at Peckham and later at Mill Hill were remarkable.  (His Mill Hill property is now the site of the Mill Hill School). His trade links with the American colonies and his connection to the Pennsylvania Quaker settlements led him to correspond with Benjamin Franklin, and he became a supporter of the American Philosophical Society which was founded by Franklin in 1743 by Benjamin Franklin and John Bartram (who was a botanist and fellow Quaker).  Collinson introduced German information about electricity to Franklin in 1745, which resulted in Franklin’s electrical experiments, elevating the study of electricity to a science.  

Under the Patronage of Sir Hans Sloane, Collinson became a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1728, and published his first paper in 1729.  He had helped with Sir Hans Sloane’s collection of natural curiosities by importing specimens for him from around the world-this may be considered Collinson’s contribution to the British Museum which was founded in 1753 based on the Sloane collection.  He was acquainted with the work of Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish naturalist, with whom he became acquainted about 1735 and with whom he corresponded.  Collinson was elected to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1747. 

Collinson had a wide clientele for plant specimens, including the Royal family, Lord Bute, the Duke of Bedford and other wealthy and influential persons. (It is not too much to say that he and the plants he introduced were known to Lancelot “Capability” Brown as many of these people were Brown’s clients.)   He is widely considered to have been influential in introducing the witch hazel to English garden circles.

John Fothergill (1712-1780) was a British physician, philanthropist, and naturalist; he was also a Quaker.  A London physician, he published widely on medical topics, and was very interested in botany.  He was acquainted with Collinson, John Bartram and Benjamin Franklin among others, and was very interested in issues pertaining to the American colonies.  He and Collinson became good friends, and Collinson introduced him to the works of Linnaeus.  He became good friends with Franklin after treating him in London in 1757.  Fothergill had a large botanical garden and studied plants extensively, and is supposed to have introduced a genus of witch hazel into England.  He also became a member of the Royal Society and a member of the American Philosophical Society.

In the mid-1840’s, Theron Pond of Utica, NY was supposedly shown witch hazel’s uses and a means of creating an extract by an Oneida medicine man.  He saw the practical applications of this product and entered into an agreement with the Oneida tribe to make the extract.  He developed it into a skin product called “Golden Treasure” and successfully marketed it.  After he died, it became known as Pond’s Extract.

About the same time (mid-19^th century), a steam-distilled witch hazel product was developed; alcohol was added, and the resulting product was popular for skin conditions and also for varicose veins (it acted as a constrictor and relieved the itching associated with them).

A popular ingredient in toilet water, after shave and other similar products, witch hazel is still in use.    My personal favorite product is an alcohol-free, rosewater-based toner.  Witch hazel  is one of a few plant substances approved by the FDA for use as an ingredient in over-the counter medication.  (Many non-prescription hemorrhoid treatments contain witch hazel.)

***

Images from Wikicommons:

Witch Hazel botanical http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Hamamelis_virginiana_-_K%C3%B6hler%E2%80%93s_Medizinal-Pflanzen-070.jpg

Picture of Peter Collinson: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Peter_Collinson_FRS.jpg/318px-Peter_Collinson_FRS.jpg

Source materials include:

Bremness, Lesley.  HERBS.  Eyewitness Handbooks.  London: Dorling Kindersley Limited, 1994.

Culpeper’s Complete Herbal & English Physician. Manchester: J. Gleave and Son, Deansgate, 1826.   (c)Harvey Sales, 1981, Spain.  Reproduced from an original edition published in 1826.

Websites:

Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada website. “Hamamelis virginiana L. (Witch Hazel).”  http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/science-publications-and-resources/resources/canadian-medicinal-crops/medicinal-crops/hamamelis-virginiana-l-witch-hazel/?id=1300905460520

American Philosophical Society Website.  “John Fothergill Letters.”  Background note.  http://www.amphilsoc.org/mole/view?docId=ead/Mss.B.F82-ead.xml

The Atlantic website.  “The Mysterious Past and Present of Witch Hazel” by John-Manuel Andriote November 6, 2012.  http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/11/the-mysterious-past-and-present-of-witch-hazel/264553

Dooyoo website.  “The Witch doctor... Witch Hazel.”  http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/health-products/witch-hazel/1703477

The Green Woman’s Garden.  “Witch Hazel Hamamelis virginana.”    http://greenwomansgarden.com/node/36

The Mill Hill Preservation Society website.  “The Peter Collison Heritage.”   http://www.mhps.org.uk/collinson-garden.asp

Moonwatcher’s Encyclopedia of Herbs website.  “Witch Hazel Hamamelis virginian L.”  http://www.nyctophilia.net/plants/witchhazel.htm

Mother Earth News website.  “Witch Hazel Uses and History.”  January/February 1985.  http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/witch-hazel-uses-zmaz85zsie.aspx#axzz2cHXoieko

Positive Medicine website.  “Witch Hazel Water.”  http://www.positivemedicine.co.uk/products/flower-waters/witch-hazel-water/prod_91.html

Quakers in Britain website.  “Peter Collison (1694-1768).”  http://www.quaker.org.uk/peter-collinson-1694-1768

Stephen Foster Group website.  “Witch Hazel Hamamelis Virgiana”  by Stephen Foster. http://stevenfoster.com/education/monograph/witchhazel.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lauren Gilbert, author of HEYERWOOD: A Novel, lives in Florida.  She uses witch hazel daily.