The Women of the British Army in America:
Part 2a - Sober, Industrious Women
The following article by Don N. Hagist, 22nd Regiment of Foot, appeared originally in the Brigade Dispatch (XXIV, No. 3, Summer 1993), a publication of the Brigade of the American Revolution and is reprinted here with his permission.
The Women of the British Army in America: A General Overview
Part 2a - Sober, Industrious WomenRestrictions on Marriage
Since a soldier's marital status could have an effect on his ability to serve, and since his wife could become a part of the regiment, it follows that the soldier's commanders would have some say over whether or not he should be allowed to marry. While we do not find any evidence that a soldier could be forbidden to marry, we do find statements such as the following:
The Commanding Officers of companies should be desired to prevent, as much as possible, the inconveniencies and ill consequences produced, by having too many soldiers married; for their wives are in general so abandoned, as frequently occasion quarrels, drunkenness, diseases, and desertions; they involve their husbands in debt; and too oft are the ruin and destruction of a soldier: it is therefore recommended, that the Non-commissioned Officers avoid entering into such engagements, without consulting their Commanding Officer; and that they use their utmost endeavours with the private men to prevent all such marriages as they think are detrimental to his Majesty's service.(1)
This passage sheds light on some of the problems that could be introduced by imprudent marriages. Since these types of problems would ultimately affect the regiment, the officers had a responsibility to attempt to influence their soldiers' marital choices.
Bennett Cuthbertson, author of a popular military textbook, devoted several paragraphs to the subject, which we reproduce here in their entirety:
CHAP. XXV
Of the Marriage of Non-commission-officers, and Soldiers, and the Methods for preventing improper ones as much as possible.
ART. I.
Officers being a sort of guardians to the Men in their respective Companies, should use every means that prudence can suggest, to prevent the distress and ruin which so often attends their contracting marriages with women, in every respect unfit for them.
II.
The principal method by which they can hope to guard against so great an evil, is to fix a standing order, for no Non-commission-officer, Drummer, or private man to marry without the consent of the Officer commanding the Company he belongs to, which he should not grant on any account, until he has first had a strict enquiry made into the morals of the Woman, for whom the Soldier proposes, and whether she is sufficiently known to be industrious, and able to earn her bread: if these circumstances appear favourable, it will be right to give him leave, as honest, laborious Women are rather useful in a Company.
III.
On the contrary, if he finds the woman's character infamous, and that she is notorious, for never having been accustomed to honest industry (which too often is the case of those on whom the Soldiers fix their affections) he should by no means give the least encouragement to a connection, which must, in a short time, inevitably destroy the ease and happiness of the Soldier, to whom he should represent these matters in the plainest terms, and recommend it strongly to him, not to think of persevering in a measure, which undoubtedly must hurt him in the esteem of his Officers, besides many other unsurmountable inconveniences: if after such an admonition he is imprudent enough to marry, in justice he deserves a punishment for his folly and disobedience.
IV.
It will also be another expedient towards preventing improper marriages, if, upon the arrival of a Company in a Town, application was made to the Minister of the Parish, to request he would not publish any Soldier's intended marriage in his Church, without first receiving a certificate from the Officer commanding the Company of its being agreeable to him: this is a piece of civility, few clergymen it is presumed, could reasonably object to, as an Officer can surely have no other motive for anxiety in such a case, but merely the welfare of the Soldier, of which he must incontestably be allowed a cooler judge than either of the parties desiring to be married, being uninfluenced by passions of any sort.
V.
A Soldier marrying with proper consent should be indulged, as far as can be in the power of Officers to extend their favour, whilst his behaviour and that of his Wife deserves it; but he who, contrary to all advice and order, will engage in a dishonourable connection, exclusive of any punishment he may receive for such contempt and insolence, should as much as possible be discouraged, by obliging him not only to mess, but lie in the quarters of the Company he belongs to, at the same time that his wife, is prevented from partaking of any advantage either from his Pay or Quarters: this severity of course must soon expell her from the Regiment, and be the certain means, of making other Soldiers cautious how they attempt such acts of disobedience.(2)
Unfortunately, we have yet to discover information which tells us the extent to which these directions were followed. We have seen that some wives did not accompany their husbands on service, so the regimental returns do not tell us the total number of men who were married.
For a soldier to be allowed to marry, it was expected that his future wife would be someone who could "earn her bread."(3) This was sensible for the woman, who could not be expected to subsist on her husband's meager pay and the half-ration allotted by the crown, especially if children were expected. It was also sensible for the army, to avoid the possibility of the soldier being distracted from his duty either by indebtedness or by his spouse's deviant behavior, both of which often resulted from idleness.
Many employment options were open to a soldier's wife. Some of the more readily documented occupations are presented below, and discussed in terms of the information that we find in period military manuals, orderly books, and other documents.
Women as Sutlers
An essential adjunct to the military of the 18th-Century was the sutler. Dictionaries from the period define the term as follows:
Sutler. n.f. [soeteler, Dutch; sudler, German.] A man that sells provisions and liquour in a camp.(4)
SUTLER, in war, one who follows the army, and furnishes provisions for the troops. They pitch their tents, or build their huts, in the rear of each regiment, and about head quarters.(5)
The popular military writers of the day tell us that women were allowed to employ themselves in this role. Unfortunately, we are not given the details of how this occupation was sustained, that is, how the sutlers were to procure their wares, or the booths or tents used to sell them. What is clear is that they were an integral part of the encampment(6) and of the military organization, and as such were subject to regulation:
No non-commissioned officer's or soldier's wife is to suttle or sell liquors without permission; and leave will be granted to such as are particularly recommended by commanding officers of companies, and who will pay due attention to all orders concerning them.
That no sutler offer to harbour any body in the line of the regiment without the Major's leave.
No more than one grand sutler and five petty ones will be allowed; and any sutler who refuses to change the men's money, or ask reward, shall be drummed out of the camp.(7)
We see from this that it was considered wise to limit the number of sutlers (remember that the military texts usually contain recommendations, not regulations; regulations of this nature were usually established locally and could vary), and control their activities by the granting of permission. Permits would only be granted to women who had shown that they would follow orders. Further, the sutler was required to operate a sound business, and not to "harbour" soldiers.
Orderly books show us not only that these recommendations were put into use in America, but that abuses occurred as well. In Halifax during the Summer of 1776, orders were given that women suttling in the barracks without leave were to be turned out of the barracks and their rations stopped.(8) Successive orders given in Boston during 1775 give a clear picture of the army's attempts to regulate the consumption of liquor, the soldiers' efforts to continue to drink, and the womens' efforts to ply their trade:
Altho' Canteens have been allowed the several Regiments for the convenience of the soldiers, there are notwithstanding still complaints of soldiers wives keeping dram shops in the different parts of the town, where the men get intoxicated in a very extraordinary manner, and two soldiers have been killed (with the poisonous liquors they sell) in one night.
The Commanding officers will make enquirey amongst their Regiments, and give in a return of such women as hire rooms in the town to sell drams, where they live, and from whom they hire the rooms.(9)
When Soldiers are found frequenting houses occupied by soldiers wives who sell liquor without license, from whence the greatest irregularities proceed, and the liquor sold in such houses proves fatal to many soldiers, the commanding officers will direct such persons to be carried before a Majestrate with proper witnesses who will order them to be fined, and proceeded against in other respects according to law.(10)
All persons belonging to, or followers of the Army, are forbid to sell spiritous liquors, excepting at the Regimental Canteens, one and only one of them is to be allowed for each Regiment subject to the regulation of the Officer Commanding it; and as the appointment of the Sutler depends upon the Commanding Officer of the Corps, it is expected that hence-forward they will be answerable for the sobriety of the Soldiers under their Command, all other sources for Spiritous liquors but that of the Canteen, being effectually stopped up...(11)
The Commanding Officers of Corps not to allow their Sutlers to sell liquors to Soldiers, or any other persons who do not belong to their respective Corps; Upon a conviction of a disobedience of this order, the liquors will be destroyed, and the delinquent not to have leave to sell any in future.
Women belonging to the Army convicted of selling Spiritous liquors, will be confined in the Provosts till there is an opportunity of sending them from hence."(12)
The Commanding Officers of Corps to Suppress all Dram Shops in their Respective Districts that are not Licensed by Brig.-Gen. Robertson.(13)
In order to maintain sobriety and safety, the army established regimental canteens so that the dispensation of spirits could be controlled. To sell liquor more freely, soldiers' wives rented rooms and opened shops. When the shops were ordered closed, it appears that women attempted to expand the canteens. Then it was asserted that only one canteen was allowed for each regiment, and only one sutler allowed to operate it (but it is not stated whether the sutler could employ others). Presumably the regimental canteens were regulated to guard against drinking to excess, because the soldiers found that they could drink more by visiting the canteens of other regiments. To prevent this, it was required that each canteen serve only its own regiment, with dire consequences for the sutler who failed to obey. Finally, all dram shops were required to be licensed, regardless of who ran them.
We can speculate that women who sold liquor illegally procured the cheapest product available, or perhaps made it themselves; this would explain the concern about its potentially dire effect on the health of soldiers.
The situation appears to have been similar in other garrisons. Soon after the British occupied Rhode Island, permission was given for women to keep shops as long as they did not sell liquor:
No Soldier's wife is upon any account to keep a shop, without permission in writing signed by the Commandant, or Deputy Commandant of the Town, for which they must be recommended by the Officer Commanding the Corps to which they belong. The General is concerned that no recommendation will be given to any women without a certainty that she will not make a bad use of it, by selling spiritous Liquors.(14)
We can assume that the women shopkeepers did not abide strictly to this order, since their privilege was revoked a year later:
Whereas the great Drunkenness that prevails among the Soldiers, proceeds from the Soldiers wives being allowed to keep little Shops out of the districts of their Regiments, the Commanding Officers will give directions that they are not permitted to live out of the quarters of the Regiment they belong to.(15)
We assume that the selling of liquor was restricted to regimental canteens, as it was in Boston. When private soldier Bartholomew Gilmore of the 22nd Regiment of Foot was court martialed in July of 1779, it was mentioned during the testimony that he and several comrades from his regiment had been drinking in the canteen of the Regiment von Ditfurth, one of the German regiments in the Rhode Island garrison.(16) In another incident, three soldiers of the 22nd, Murtoch Laughlan, Charles Neal and Robert Pearce, were tried by a Court Martial for stealing 12 sheep. McDonald testified that after the sheep were stolen and divided up among 6 men involved, "one had been given, by joint consent to the Wife of Joseph Lovel, for some Rum."(17) It is not stated whether Mrs. Lovel was in fact a licensed sutler.
The problems caused by the sale of liquor are obvious - not only in terms of sobriety, but from soldiers plundering in order to pay their drinking debts. Similar problems could be caused by the suttling of any goods, as illustrated by the following extract:
There being great Reason to suppose, that Soldiers are encouraged to plunder Fields and Gardens, by Soldiers Wives, and other small Retailers, purchasing from the Vegetables so stolen..."(18)
In response to this problem, sellers were required to be able to account for the acquisition of their wares, or they would be held by the provost.
In some cases, the sutler enjoyed a privilege which was typically not allowed to women, and often not even allowed to junior officers:
"No follower of the Army can be allowed a Horse Except the Sutler of Each Regiment."(19)
Whether a horse was allowed would of course depend on the particular circumstances of the army at the time; the allowance of horses for each regiment varied on different campaigns depending on the availability of both horses and forage.
None of the orders above pertain to armies on campaign. We cannot say whether these women sutlers did, or were allowed to, ply their trade outside of garrisons and regular encampments. An order given to the 1st Battalion of Light Infantry on campaign in New Jersey leads us to believe that sellers of liquor, at least, were not welcome:
"any Woman detected in Bringing Rum into Camp is immediately to be sent to Provost."(20)
Notes
1. Simes, Thomas. A Military Guide for Young Officers, London, 1781, p. 164.
2. Cuthbertson, Bennet. A System for the Compleat Interior Management and Èconomy of a Battalion of Infantry. Dublin, 1768, p. 156 - 158.
3. For a discussion of the restrictions on soldiers' marriage, refer to part 1 of this article, Brigade Dispatch, Vol. XXIV No. 3.
4. Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language. London: W. Strachan, 1755.
5. Smith, George. An Universal Military Dictionary, London, 1779; reprinted by Museum Restoration Service, Ottawa, 1969.
6. LochJe, Lewis. An Essay on Castrametation, London: T. Cadell, 1778.
7. Simes, Thomas. The Regulator, London, 1780. This extract is from the section titled, "Of the Colonel, and his Duties", p. 156.
8. Orderly book, Marine garrison at Halifax, June - August, 1776, New York Public Library mss. Undated entry.
9. General Orders, America, W. O. 36/1, Public Record Office, London. Mss. p. 68, undated entry, probably late January 1775.
10. Ibid. Mss. p. 69, undated entry, probably early February 1775.
11. Ibid. Entry for June 22, 1775.
12. Ibid. Entry for October 14, 1775.
13. "General Sir William Howe's Orders." Collections of the New York Historical Society, 1883. Entry for January 23, 1776.
14. General Orders, Rhode Island, W.O. 36/2, PRO. Entry for December 23, 1776.
15. Ibid, orders for December 11, 1777.
16. Judge Advocate Papers, W.O. 71/90 p. 26-34. Notice that there must have been no order about serving soldiers from other regiments at this time.
17. Judge Advocate Papers, W.O. 71/85 p. 159-166, Dec. 22, 1777. They were found guilty and sentenced to be lashed. The General William Howe, the Commander in Chief, ordered the sentences to be carried out, but Howe also signified in public orders that he disapproved of the punishment, since the crime warranted capital punishment. The Diary of Frederick MacKenzie, Harvard University Press, 1930. Entry for February 23, 1778.
18. Newport Gazette, August 26, 1779.
19. Orderly Book of Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Mawhood, 17th Regiment of Foot, October 11 - December 28, 1776. New York Historical Society manuscripts. Entry for November 22, 1776.
20. Orderly Book of the 1st Battalion Light Infantry (British), August 4 - October 13, 1778. Presidential Papers of George Washington, Series 6B Vol. 6, Library of Congress. Mss. p. 83.
Document ID: lybrwmn3
Return to Canadian Resources
Return to Resource Center
The Genealogy Forum - Main Page
Beginners' Center | Internet Center | Message Boards
Surname Center | Reunion Center | File Library
Genealogy Forum News
Shop With Us
Genealogy Forum.com is a production of
Golden Gate Services, Inc. of Armada, Michigan.
© 1998 - 2006 All Rights Reserved. Brenda Jean Bova, President.
The Genealogy Forum is a member of the National Genealogical Society.
Tree logo provided by MeadPond Designs and is the trademark of GenealogyForum.com.© 2006 Some graphics By Carol, All Rights Reserved
If you have any questions or comments,
please contact GenealogyForum@aol.com
