More Information and Stories

‹ Back

Coffee originates from Ethiopia with the first coffeehouse appearing in London in 1652. Though western Europe had been trading with Ethiopia for at least a millennia at this point. The introduction of coffee to England was far later. This was due to the belief that coffee was an islamic drink that was not expected to mix with a christian society. Though once coffee was drunk outside of England on the trading routes, this was soon introduced to England. 

The coffeehouse that Charles Henry Josiffe would have ran would have been a significant place similar to the medieval example of an alehouse. These would have been important to both middle and lower strata as a place to express and share ideas. 

By the 19th century the coffeehouses turned more into alcoholic drinking establishments gone of the days where the new drink of coffee was so favourable. Coffee as a drink had survived turmoil and was a drink shared amongst classes especially during a period of rapid industrialisation. This was due to the discovery that coffee could improve alertness and productivity meant that one drink united the classes by drinking this. Habermas suggests that this saw the breakdown of class barriers in the nineteenth century with people going to hear people speak about ideas or to meet people. Therefore, Charles Henry and the 'Joseph Tavern’ was an important part of changing social narratives.

The issue with alcohol for publicans and coffee house owners was the still taxes and the margins of profit that could be made at the tavern was small. The court summons for Charles Henry convey the strict legislation surrounding alcohol. As publicans and coffeehouse owners although were respected members of the community they came under the harshest scrutiny. This was because they were the heart of the community thus the way that Charles Henry was summoned to court would have become a public matter. 

For Charles Henry to be accused then charged within the debtors court this would have been publicly humiliating. As this was his livelihood and this would not have just affected him but his reputation in the wider community of the Strand. Further, when he was summoned to the court this would not have just affected him but also his mother but also wife and children. The way that his life was turned upside down and was once a well respected member of the community. To suddenly a person with his possessions and his tavern taken from him meant that he would have lost everything. Debt and debtors jail was a severe threat for many in Victorian Society meaning that many including Charles Henry would have done everything they could have done to avoid court and this threat. Even if his ‘bail was not extended’ there would have still been significant social consequences that would have followed him.

Finally, Charles Henry’s life would have been destabilised by this event and may have perhaps been a factor later in his death. Through minor ostracisation Charles Henry would have felt pressure to be a good citizen to his community. However, the matters that occurred in Joseph Tavern on the strand would not have left him as a reminder of the fact that he could have spent a considerable amount of time in debtors jail.

Therefore, the importance of both coffee and alcohol to a community such as the one Charles Henry served. This had a darker side with substantial consequences for the owners of taverns as conveyed by the life of Charles Henry. 

The case: c15/769/M25, as obtained from the National Archives

Meux v Josiffe.

Documents: Bill, interrogatories.
Plaintiffs: Sir Henry Meux bart. a person of unsound mind by the Right Honorable Ernest Augustus, Charles Brudenell Bruce (commonly called Lord Ernest Bruce), Richard Arabin the Committees of his estate and the said Ernest Augustus Charles Brudenell Bruce, Richard Arabin, Dudley Coutts Majorbanks and Richard Berridge.
Defendants: Charles Henry Josiffe and John Charles Joseph.
Amended Order 1860. Maria Littlewood, William Whitemore, William Christopher Nevett added as defendants.

M25 is reference for debtors and repayments this dispute that Charles Henry had to face. The issue was that the person who bought Charles Henry to face justice, Sir Henry Meux (2nd baronet) suffered significant episodes of mental illness in the 1850s to early 1860s. He was a prominent brewer and owned Meux&Co brewers which he had inherited from his father. Meux did not like the fact that Charles was competition, he had issues with his behaviour notably in a tavern in St James’. Meux was still a member of parliament even when the earlier trial stated ‘he was incapable of taking care of himself’. Therefore an interpretation can be taken whereby Charles Henry was caught in a crossfire with the elites in society purely because he had served drinks through the ‘Joseph tavern’.

Though it meant that he would come under far more scrutiny due to this especially in the case of Meux. It did not affect only Charles Henry but his cousin John Charles Joseph who was also on the debtors records. This illustrates that it affected a significant amount of the family due to the absence of income when the trial took place as well as before and after the trial.

Overall, this meant as demonstrated by the case of Meux v Josiffe, when Meux went down so did Charles Henry purely because Meux held the power for the distribution of his beer. Therefore, it was publicans like Charles Henry who paid the real price. He would have lost respect and livelihood due to the rich taking what they wanted which must have had a major impact on his family and himself. This conveys how even when Charles had control over his own tavern and his family, elites like Meux could take this away at any point. As the tavern would have been prevented from serving the community meaning that both coffee and beer could not provide a stable income. This did not have an impact for Meux as he had money but publicans like our Charles Henry did not.