|
This is a very interesting and quite long letter written by Marie Antoinette Stuart of London to James Dunlop Esqr W.S., Hawe Street Edinburgh.
It has six postal markings which trace the journey of the letter.
It began when it was posted in the London Twopenny Post Receiving House, and they applied their boxed, two-line T.P Brixton Road which was in the Town Lists of that system at this time. That office would have applied the manuscript charge mark to be collected by the addressee, in this case 1/1, the cost of sending a single page letter over the distance of ... .
From there it was stamped with the transfer date stamp in red, which is on the fold of the letter but shows NIGHT JA – 14 1834. On being transferred to the London General Post, it received their evening duty circular date stamp in black, JA 14 1834 with the letter K at the top, the identifying letter of that particular hand stamp. The General Post would have applied the Additional ½ stamp for a letter going across the border into Scotland. This type had only a framed 1 over 2 with the dividing diagonal line between those two numbers.
The final postmark was applied in Edinburgh and was their receiving stamp applied in red ink, and shows JAN 16 1834 with letters C and V either side of the day.
So that is the postal side dealt with, now to the letter which is beautifully written on the first page.
Dear Sir
I duly received yours yesterday and can only answer it by referring you to a former letter of mine to you in which I distinctly stated the utmost it so is in my power to pay my creditors viz £100 including Marshall’s claim. The remaining portion of my Legacy has been already appropriated as before stated to you.
I have informed you that they disposed of my furniture amongst them without my ever getting any amount from them, and which you seem to lose sight of altogether in your frequent applications to me in their behalf. With respect to Marshalls applying to you for his claim against me, I did all that laid in my power to do before leaving Scotland, by giving an order to the Trustees for payment of the same, so that I think instead of applying to me, they ought to be applied too on the subject, more particularly as the business has never yet been concluded and still seems to be in that same unsettled state as ever.
In consequence of which James has been very much inconvenienced and is now getting quite tired of waiting. If Marshall proceeds against me here, what will he gain by such proceedings. Why drive me into the Kings Bench, and what then.
Note: the writing on the second page is more difficult to read, as the writer is very agitated, and she seems to be writing much faster, and taking less care with the penmanship, so there are a few words with are questionable in this transcription.
I cannot do more for them than I can. If you cannot as you state interfere in the arrangement with them it is of no use putting me to the expense of postages on that subject. I have not a farthing more left than £100 including Marshalls claim.
Who said that the whole Legacy ought to be given up, as it was (you state) intended to be the case. I never knew that it was. If I chose I could have received more from Mother, I was quite as well aware as yourself at sometime that the whole funds would have been mine had I prevented him from making a will.
John told me in his last moments that it was you that advised him not to leave me more than £50 per annum and you desired him not to tell me, and would then have alter’d it had I pleased. I deny that ever it was intended my creditors should have more than £100 as I only asked for £1000, taken £100 for the Creditors and the balance for myself supposing at that time that after their selling my house, furniture, it would have been sufficient which you do not seem wishful to interfere in, excepting with the composition in cash.
As this is about the time my Annuity is due I trust soon to hear from you with James compliments
I am
Dear Sir
Marie Antoinette Stuart
Note: This signature is so clearly legible that I made an internet search for the name to see if I could find anything about her, but the only results were for Marie Antoinette and Marie Stuart, so if any reader knows anything about this lady we would be delighted to hear from you, through the e-mail on our front page.
The reference to the Kings Bench was the court held in London for debtors and bankrupts, and was originally held in the presence of the monarch at the time.
|