“The correct article’

Press, 20 September 1985, Page 18

“The correct article’

By

JENNIFER QUEREE

In a letter to her family, in England in 1851, Charlotte Godley, writing from Lyttelton, recorded that her servant, Elizabeth, could not “make up her mind to be married in mere book-muslin; it must be silk; and another difficulty is that she must wear white satin shoes ...”

She later reported that Elizabeth had become “tremendously ladylike and grand (since her marriage) and I should think would hardly condescend to wear woollen stockings. Captain Parsons described her wedding as a ‘great effort,’ the bride appearing dressed all in white, veil, etc.”

Lady Barker, some years later, also commented on how well dressed all “the people” were —

“the decent clothes (even if no-one touches his hat to you), instead of the half-starved, depressed appearance, and too-often cringing servility of the mass of our English population.” Evidence for the remarkable (at least in contemporary English opinion) standards of dress attained by colonial immigrants of the working class can be seen in several of the wedding garments now exhibited at the Canterbury Museum. Materials used in these clothes are of very good quality, and the dresses and suits follow the fashions of the day to quite a large degree. The earliest wedding suit on show was worn by Samuel Fife, a shoemaker, for his marriage to Jessie Domett. The couple were married in St Peter’s Anglican Church, Akaroa, on January 30, 1857, by the Rev. William Aylmer, and the ceremony was witnessed by Captain James and Mrs Isabella Bruce, of the Bruce Hotel. The bridegroom was resplendent in black silk top hat, fashionable (and fairly well tailored) black dress coat, cream corduroy waistcoat with turquoise enamelled buttons, and trousers of matching cream corduroy. It is the trousers which, on close inspection, proclaim the social status of their wearer. They are of

a very antiquated cut, having “falls” instead of a fly fastening, a device which was adhered to by labourers and artisans, but which no fashionable gentleman had worn for at least 25 years. The wedding of Ellen Craze and Robert Thomson, on July 25, 1873, may also have been described by family and friends who witnessed the event, as a “great effort.” Robert, whose occupation is recorded in the register of St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church as labourer, was the son of Mary and John Thomson who farmed at Halkett. His well-cut morning suit of fine black cloth was the height of fashion for a wedding at the period.

His bride, Ellen, was a domestic servant, and it may be that the beautiful chestnut-brown silk from which her wedding gown was made was a gift from her employer. The

over-all appearance of this dress, trimmed with bronze satin piping, flounced and ruffled sleeves, and a small bustle overskirt, demonstrates an awareness of current fashion, but the basic cut of the bodice and skirt follows a style set some 10 years previously. The dress was very probably made by the bride herself, using a pattern drafted from the type of gown which she had been wearing for some years, and embellished in the latest in trimmings for the occasion.

Coloured gowns, such as that worn by Ellen Craze, were quite often chosen for weddings by the labouring and lower middle classes, for reasons of economy. Such a garment could be worn for many other occasions, and with skilful alterations and good housekeeping would last a number of years before becoming tod obviously ill-fitting or unfashionable. Another coloured wedding dress in the exhibition is that worn by Mary Jane Haddrell at St Luke’s Anglican Church, Christchurch, on April 29, 1882. She was the youngest daughter of Henry Haddrell, the publican of the Market Hotel in Market (now Victoria) Square. The bridegroom, David Ashby, was a flourmiller, who worked for the

firm of W. D. Wood. Miss Haddrell’s dress, probably made by a professional dressmaker, is of a fine quality,

pale grey silk taffeta, trimmed with dark beige silk ribbons. It was completely up to the minute in following the sheath-like style of the bustle dresses of the early 1880 s. The literature available suggests that it was not until the 1880 s that countryfolk artisans, and labourers in England wore anything much ressembling “fashionable” clothing for weddings, but it would appear that this was not the case in colonial Canterbury. For what they would have regarded as possibly the most important day in their lives, these young men and women were able to make a conscious effort to follow the fashions set by their social betters; and, on the whole, to succeed. Whilst Gertrude Jekyll, in turn-of-the-century England, deplored these unsettling trends — “Have these poor people so utterly lost the sense of the dignity of their ’own position that they can derive satisfaction from the performance of such an absurd burlesque?” — the working-class colonialists were undoubtedly, and rightly, proud of their sartorial accomplishments.