Miss Leeson's Advertisement

(Part of the story of Jane Austen’s aunt, Jane Leigh Perrot)

Miss Leeson was a shopwoman, we would now say a shop assistant, in a lace shop in Bath Street when Jane Leigh Perrot was accused of shoplifting in August 1799. We know very little about her. We are not told her Christian name: she must have been the eldest, or only, daughter in her family. I have a feeling that she was a lady who, having failed to find a husband, was reduced to taking a job as a shop assistant.

We do not know where she was when Jane L-P was in the shop. The plan of the shop in the Taunton pamphlet (John Pinchard) shows the movements of Elizabeth Gregory, Charles Filby and Sarah Raines, the apprentice, but tells us nothing about Miss Leeson. Charles Filby, when he was cross-examined by Mr Bond, said: “Miss Raines and Miss Leeson were in the shop, Miss Raines at the bottom of the shop working with her needle, Miss Leeson behind some muslin at the bottom of the shop with her back towards prisoner (Jane L-P).” (1) This is almost certainly untrue: there is nothing on the plan of the shop; the triangular back of the shop would have been over-crowded; and Miss Leeson would have been working with her back to the light, which is most unlikely. I do not believe it.

There is some information about Miss Leeson in anonymous letters to James L-P from writers who gave their initials but not their full name. C.H—B.L – Humanists -- refer to William Gye

 “in whose dining room it was planned at past 12 at night on the 8th of August last… Miss Leeson much objected the next day to the proceeding… Do not be surprised if Miss Leeson, Filby and the rest, do not turn the Table upon him who urged the Prosecution for Extorsion only.” (2)

James L-P received another letter, dated Bath Feb 12 1800, from one G.L.R., not further identified. “I know that in a room in the Greyhound the girls in the shop in Bath Street have been tampered with, & and such promises made them

if they would appear as witnesses against her, and such threats if they would not, that they have been drawn in to give their promise to do so.”3

On 13 February 1800 the Bath Chronicle published the following advertisement:

A LADY,

Whose education, morals, and temper, are such as entitle her to the confidence of Parents,

WISHES to find a situation as GOVERNESS to one or more Young Ladies, -- or Companion to a Lady who wants an useful and confidential person. She is capable of superintending a Widower’s or single Gentleman’s family of respectability; -- has no objection to being with Invalids, and can bear confinement.

Letters, addressed to H. Y. Z., at the Flower Shop, Union Passage, Bath, will be immediately attended to.

Personal application will be vain.(4)

This is a most unusual advertisement.(5) There is no mention of a reference or recommendation. Presumably, she left her previous employment without a reference. It does not say what her previous employment was, or with whom. She was not proud of it or did not think it would help. She was prepared to take any situation, governess, companion, or housekeeper. She was desperate. She was a lady of high morals. She would not condone any immoral or illegal activity. She wished to remain anonymous, H. Y. Z., and a personal application will be vain (in vain).

I think that the Lady was Miss Leeson. She had been threatened in the room in the Greyhound and, under pressure, had agreed to give evidence. But she did not return to work the following morning and placed her advertisement in the Bath Chronicle instead. Personal application will be in vain. Mr Filby and Mr Gye, do not come knocking at my door. I will not let you in.

Glocester Journal, Monday 16 August 1802:

Arrivals at Cheltenham Spa since our last.

Mrs Thornville and Miss Leeson.

David Pugsley,

16 May 2026. 

David Pugsley, MA, BCL, Oxon; Hon LLD, Rouen, Hon Archivist of the Western Circuit, is a legal historian with a speciality in famous West Country trials.

NOTES: 

1. Taunton pamphlet, 23-4. This is almost certainly untrue.
2. MacKinnon, Grand Larceny, 127-8. According to MacKinnon the letter was dated Bath 30 April 1800, that is, one month after the trial. That seems most unlikely. Filby had disappeared, and Miss Leeson had left for a new job. The content of the letter suggests that it was written in early February, just before the letter from G.L.R. (see below). “Most sincerely do I hope that these Villains may meet with a complete Exposure; and I am not the only Person, by several, who see through their wicked scheme & wish for their downfall.” MacKinnon, 26.
3. MacKinnon, 25.
4. Front page, second column.
5. Compare similar advertisements on 19 June and 7 August 1800.