Bristol Riots from 1793 – 2011

The Bristol riots refer to a number of significant riots in the city of Bristol in England.

Bristol Bridge Riot, 1793
The Bristol Bridge Riot of 30 September 1793 began as a protest at renewal of an act levying of tolls on Bristol Bridge, which included the proposal to demolish several houses near the bridge in order to create a new access road, and controversy about the date for removal of gates. Eleven people were killed and 45 injured, making it one of the worst massacres of the 18th century.

Queen Square Riots, 1831

The 3rd Dragoon Guards violently suppressing the Bristol Riots of 1831.

The 3rd Dragoon Guards violently suppressing the Bristol Riots of 1831.

The Bristol Riots of 1831 took place after the House of Lords rejected the second Reform Bill, which aimed to get rid of some of the rotten boroughs and give Britain’s fast growing industrial towns such as Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham, Bradford and Leeds greater representation in the House of Commons. Bristol had been represented in the House of Commons since 1295, however by 1830 only 6,000 of the 104,000 population had the vote.

Local magistrate Sir Charles Wetherell, a strong opponent of the Bill, visited Bristol to open the new Assize Courts, on 29 October. He threatened to imprison participants in a disturbance going on outside, and an angry mob chased him to the Mansion House in Queen Square. The magistrate escaped in disguise, but the mayor and officials were besieged in the Mansion-house.

The rioters numbered about 500 or 600 young men and continued for three days, during which the palace of Robert Gray the Bishop of Bristol, the Mansion House, and private homes and property were looted and destroyed, along with demolition of much of the gaol. Work on the Clifton Suspension Bridge was halted, and Isambard Kingdom Brunel was sworn in as a special constable.

The mayor requested the assistance of the cavalry as a precaution and a troop of the 3rd Dragoon Guards and a squadron of the 14th Light Dragoons were sent to Britol under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Brereton of the Dragoons. Brereton did not wish to incite the crowd and even ordered the squadron from the 14th out of the city after they had successfully dispersed a crowd. Seeing this as a victory, the riots continued, and eventually Brereton had to call on the 3rd and 14th to restore order, and he eventually led a charge with drawn swords through the mob in Queen Square. Four rioters were killed and 86 wounded, although many more are believed to have perished in the fires set by the rioters. Along with the commander of the 3rd Dragoons troop, Captain Warrington, Brereton was later court-martialled for leniency, but Brereton shot himself before the conclusion of his trial.

Approximately 100 of those involved were tried in January 1832 by Chief Justice Tindal. Four men were hanged despite a petition of 10,000 Bristolian signatures, which was given to King William IV.

Old Market Riot, 1932
On 23 February 1932 some 3,000 unemployed engaged in running battles with the police as they tried to march down to the city centre, led by the National Unemployed Workers Movement. Police baton-charged protesters outside Trinity police station and along Old Market.

St Pauls Riot, 1980
The St Pauls riot started on 2 April 1980 in the St Pauls district, when the police carried out a raid on the Black and White Café, known as “Britain’s most dangerous hard drug den,” located on Grosvenor Road in the heart of St Pauls. It is unclear why the riot started either due to the police ripping a customer’s trousers and refusing to pay, or they were simply attacked as they removed alcohol from the café. The riot continued for many hours and caused large amounts of damage including a Lloyds Bank and post office. Several fire engines and twelve police cars were damaged along with the shops. 130 rioters were arrested. The next day the Daily Telegraph headlined with,”19 Police Hurt in Black Riot” and blamed lack of parental care.

Hartcliffe, 1992
On 16 July 1992 there was a riot in Hartcliffe estate after two men who had stolen an unmarked police motorbike were killed in a chase with a police patrol car. The disturbance lasted for 3 days. Police were stoned and many shops in the Symes Avenue shopping centre were attacked and destroyed.

Stokes Croft Tesco Riot, April 2011
The contentious Tesco Express was vandalised during the riot.
On 21 April 2011, there was a riot in the Stokes Croft area of Bristol, following a raid by police on a squat named ‘Telepathic Heights.’ A protest ensued, and they withdrew, however at 9pm that evening, riot police blockaded the area and entered the squat. A crowd quickly gathered, with approximately 300 people defending the squat, and a further 1000 caught up in the mayhem. More than 160 officers were involved in the operation. The reason for the operation given by the police was that they held intelligence that petrol bombs were on the premises designated for the Tesco development opposite.
The riot eventually died down following the withdrawal of the police, after which the newly opened Tesco was attacked resulting in smashed windows and graffiti.

The night’s operation cost around £465,000 and involved 160 officers from 12 different forces including Avon & Somerset.

Local Labour MP Kerry McCarthy criticised the “heavy-handed” behaviour of the police and said that “[a Labour council candidate] was hit by a truncheon and I was shoved out of the way by a policeman at one stage.” McCarthy described the riot as “an anti-establishment protest: against capitalism and corporations, similar to what we saw in the march against the cuts in London where Starbucks and banks were targeted.”

A second set of riots took place a week later on 28/29 April. Tesco continued to insist that the protests were not fuelled by anti-Tesco feeling (despite opposition from protesters) and that it was only supported by a small handful of protesters.

The Tesco express reopened on 24 May 2011, causing further peaceful protests during the day.

National Riots, August 2011
In the early hours of the morning on Tuesday 9 August, it was reported that vandalism and looting occurred in Bristol in response to similar occurring elsewhere in the country, predominantly the 2011 England riots.

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, real life tales, Regency era, Victorian era, William IV | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Late Regency Happening: Tithe War in Ireland

The Tithe War (Irish: Cogadh na nDeachúna) was a campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience, punctuated by sporadic violent episodes, in Ireland between 1830 and 1836 in reaction to the enforcement of tithes on subsistence farmers and others for the upkeep of the established state church–the Church of Ireland. Tithes were payable in cash or kind and payment was compulsory, irrespective of an individual’s religious adherence.

Background
Tithe payment was an obligation on those working the land to pay ten per cent of the value of certain types of agricultural produce for the upkeep of the clergy and maintenance of the assets of the church. After the Reformation in Ireland of the 16th Century, the assets of the church were allocated by King Henry VIII to the new established church. The majority in Ireland who remained loyal to the old religion were then obliged to make tithe payments which were directed away from their own church to the reformed one. This increased the financial burden on subsistence farmers, many of whom were at the same time making voluntary contributions to the construction or purchase of new premises to provide Roman Catholic places of worship. The new established church was supported by only a minority of the population, seventy-five percent of whom continued to adhere to Roman Catholicism.

Emancipation for Roman Catholics was promised by Pitt during the campaign in favour of the Act of Union of 1801, which was approved by the Irish Parliament, thus abolishing itself and creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The king, however, refused to keep Pitt’s promises, and it was not until 1829 that the Duke of Wellington’s government finally conceded to the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act, in the teeth of defiant royal opposition. However, the obligation to pay tithes to the Church of Ireland remained, causing much resentment. Roman Catholic clerical establishments in Ireland had refused government offers of tithe-sharing with the established church, fearing that British government regulation and control would come with acceptance of such money.

The tithe burden lay directly on the shoulders of farmers, whether tenants or owner-occupiers. More often than not, tithes were paid in kind, in the form of produce or livestock. In 1830, given the system of benefices in the Anglican system, almost half of the clergy were not resident in the parishes from which they drew their incomes. These issues, more often than not, were inflamed by the senior Irish Roman Catholic clergy, who were now dependent on voluntary contributions due to the discontinuation of the Maynooth grant. Incensed farmers vehemently resisted paying for the support of two clerical establishments. Aided and abetted by many of the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy, they began a campaign of non-payment.

After Emancipation in 1829, an organized campaign of resistance to collection began. It was sufficiently successful to have a serious financial effect on the welfare of established church clergy. In 1831, the government compiled lists of defaulters and issued collection orders for the seizure of goods and chattels (mostly stock). Spasmodic violence broke out in various parts of Ireland, particularly in counties Kilkenny, Tipperary and Wexford. The Irish Constabulary, which had been established in 1822, attempted to enforce the orders of seizures. At markets and fairs, the constabulary often seized stock and produce, which often resulted in violent resistance.

A campaign of passive resistance was proposed by Patrick “Patt” Lalor (1781–1856), a farmer of Tenakill, Queen’s County, who later served as a repeal MP (1832–35). He declared at a public meeting in February 1831 in Maryborough that “…he would never again pay tithes; that he would violate no law; that the tithe men might take his property, and offer it for sale; but his countrymen, he was proud to say, respected him, and he thought that none of them would buy or bid for it if exposed for sale. The declaration was received by the meeting in various ways: by many with surprise and astonishment; by others with consternation and dismay, but by a vast majority with tremendous cheering.” Lalor held true to his word and did not resist the confiscation of 20 sheep from his farm, but was able to ensure no buyers appeared at subsequent auctions.

The “War” 1831–36
The first clash of the Tithe War took place on 3 March 1831 in Graiguenamanagh, County Kilkenny, when a force of 120 yeomanry tried to enforce seizure orders on cattle belonging to a Roman Catholic priest.

Encouraged by his bishop, he had organised people to resist tithe collection by placing their stock under his ownership prior to sale. The revolt soon spread. On 18 June 1831, in Bunclody (Newtownbarry), County Wexford, people resisting the seizure of cattle were fired upon by the Irish Constabulary, who killed twelve and wounded twenty; one yeoman was shot dead in retaliation. This massacre caused objectors to organise and use warnings such as church bells to signal the community to round up the cattle and stock. On 14 December 1831, resisters used such warnings to ambush a detachment of 40 Constabulary at Carrickshock (County Kilkenny). Twelve constables, including the Chief Constable, were killed and more wounded.

Regular clashes causing fatalities continued over the next two years, causing the authorities to reinforce selected army barracks fearing an escalation. Taking stock of the continuing resistance, in 1831 the authorities recorded 242 homicides, 1,179 robberies, 401 burglaries, 568 burnings, 280 cases of cattle-maiming, 161 assaults, 203 riots and 723 attacks on property directly attributed to seizure order enforcement. In 1832, the president of Carlow College was imprisoned for not paying tithes. On 18 December 1834, the conflict came to a head at Rathcormac, County Cork, when armed Constabulary reinforced by the regular British Army killed twelve and wounded forty-two during several hours of fighting when trying to enforce a tithe order reputedly to the value of 40 shillings.

The conflict had the support of the Roman Catholic clergy and the following quotation, from a letter written by the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, Dr. James Doyle to Thomas Spring Rice became the rallying cry for the movement:

“There are many noble traits in the Irish character, mixed with failings which have always raised obstacles to their own well-being; but an innate love of justice, and an indomitable hatred of oppression, is like a gem upon the front of our nation which no darkness can obscure. To this fine quality I trace their hatred of tithes; may it be as lasting as their love of justice!”

Outcome
Finding and collecting livestock chattels and the associated mayhem created public outrage and proved an increasing strain on police relations. The government suspended collections. One official lamented that “it cost a shilling to collect tuppence.”

In 1838, parliament introduced a Tithe Commutation Act for Ireland. This reduced the amount payable directly by about a quarter and made the remainder payable in rent to landlords. They in turn were to pass payment to the authorities. Tithes were thus effectively added to a tenant’s rent payment. This partial relief and elimination of the confrontational collections ended the violent aspect of the Tithe War.

Full relief from the oppressive tax was not achieved until the Irish Church Act 1869, which disestablished the Church of Ireland, by the Gladstone government.

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Ireland, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Regency Celebrity: John Bellingham, Assassin

220px-John_Bellingham_portraitJohn Bellingham (c. 1769 – 18 May 1812) was the assassin of British Prime Minister Spencer Perceval. This murder is the only successful assassination of a British Prime Minister.

Early Life
Bellingham’s early life is largely unknown, and most post-assassination biographies included speculation as fact. Recollections of family and friends show that Bellingham was born in St Neots, Huntingdonshire, and brought up in London, where he was apprenticed to a jeweller, James Love, at age fourteen. Two years later, he went as a midshipman on the maiden voyage of the Hartwell from Gravesend to China. A mutiny took place on 22 May 1787, which led to the ship running aground and sinking.

In early 1794, a man named John Bellingham opened a tin factory on London’s Oxford Street, but the factory failed, and the owner was declared bankrupt in March. It is not certain this is him, but Bellingham definitely worked as a clerk in a counting house in the late 1790s, and about 1800 he went to Arkhangelsk, Russia, as an agent for importers and exporters. He returned to England in 1802, and was a merchant broker in Liverpool. He married Mary Neville in 1803. In the summer of 1804, Bellingham again went to Archangel to work as an export representative.

Russian Imprisonment
In autumn 1803, the Russian ship Soleure (or sometimes “Sojus”) insured at Lloyd’s of London had been lost in the White Sea. Her owners (the house of R. Van Brienen) filed a claim on their insurance, but an anonymous letter told Lloyd’s the ship had been sabotaged. Soloman Van Brienen believed Bellingham was the author, and retaliated by accusing him of a debt of 4,890 roubles to a bankruptcy of which he was an assignee. Bellingham, about to return to Britain on 16 November 1804, had his travelling pass withdrawn because of the alleged debt.

Van Brienen persuaded the local Governor-General to imprison Bellingham. One year later, Bellingham secured his release and went to Saint Petersburg, where he attempted to impeach the Governor-General. This angered the Russian authorities, who charged him with leaving Arkhangelsk in a clandestine manner. He was again imprisoned until October 1808, when he was put out onto the streets, but still without permission to leave. In desperation, he petitioned the Tsar. He was allowed to leave Russia in 1809, arriving in England in December.

Assassination of the Prime Minister
Once home, Bellingham began petitioning the United Kingdom Government for compensation over his imprisonment. This was refused, as the United Kingdom had broken off diplomatic relations with Russia in November 1808. Bellingham’s wife urged him to drop the matter, and he reluctantly did.

In 1812, Bellingham renewed his attempts to win compensation. On 18 April, he went to the Foreign Office where a civil servant told him he was at liberty to take whatever measures he thought proper. On 20 April, Bellingham purchased two .50 calibre (12.7 mm) pistols from a gunsmith of 58 Skinner Street. He also had a tailor sew an inside pocket to his coat. At this time, he was often seen in the lobby of the House of Commons.

After taking a friend’s family to a painting exhibition on 11 May 1812, Bellingham remarked that he had some business to attend to. He made his way to Parliament, where he waited in the lobby. When Prime Minister Spencer Perceval appeared, Bellingham stepped forward and shot him in the heart. He then calmly sat on a bench. Bellingham was immediately restrained and was identified by Isaac Gascoyne, MP for Liverpool.

Trial and Execution
John Bellingham was tried on Friday 15 May at the Old Bailey, where he argued that he would have preferred to shoot the British Ambassador to Russia, but insisted as a wronged man he was justified in killing the representative of his oppressors.

He made a formal statement to the court, saying:
“Recollect, Gentlemen, what was my situation. Recollect that my family was ruined and myself destroyed, merely because it was Mr Perceval’s pleasure that justice should not be granted; sheltering himself behind the imagined security of his station, and trampling upon law and right in the belief that no retribution could reach him. I demand only my right, and not a favour; I demand what is the birthright and privilege of every Englishman. Gentlemen, when a minister sets himself above the laws, as Mr Perceval did, he does it as his own personal risk. If this were not so, the mere will of the minister would become the law, and what would then become of your liberties? I trust that this serious lesson will operate as a warning to all future ministers, and that they will henceforth do the thing that is right, for if the upper ranks of society are permitted to act wrong with impunity, the inferior ramifications will soon become wholly corrupted. Gentlemen, my life is in your hands, I rely confidently in your justice.”

Evidence was presented that Bellingham was insane, but it was discounted by the trial judge, Sir James Mansfield. Bellingham was found guilty and sentenced:

“That you be taken from hence to the place from whence you came, and from thence to a place of execution, where you shall be hanged by the neck until you be dead; your body to be dissected and anatomized.”

The sentence was carried out in public three days later. René Martin Pillet, a Frenchman who wrote an account of his ten years in England, described the sentiment of the crowd at the execution:

“Farewell poor man, you owe satisfaction to the offended laws of your country, but God bless you! you have rendered an important service to your country, you have taught ministers that they should do justice, and grant audience when it is asked of them.”
A subscription was raised for the widow and children of Bellingham, and “their fortune was ten times greater than they could ever have expected in any other circumstances.”

His widow remarried the following year.

Notes
In 1984, Patrick Magee made a serious attempt on the life of Margaret Thatcher in the Brighton Bombing. There were also serious attempts on the lives of King George III, Queen Victoria and King Edward VIII; and the Gunpowder Plot to bomb the Palace of Westminster.

Henry Bellingham, the current Conservative MP for North West Norfolk, is distantly related.

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Regency Celebrity: John Bellingham, Assassin

1835~Last English Execution for Buggery: James Pratt and John Smith

Recently, English law was changed to support the marriage of those of the same sex. Therefore, I thought I would point out a situation when buggery was still considered a crime.

Hangin_outside_Newgate_Prison James Pratt (1805–1835) also known as John Pratt, and John Smith (1795-1835) were two London men who became the last two to be hanged for sodomy in England, in November 1835. Pratt and Smith were arrested in August of that year after being observed having sex in the room of another man, William Bonill.

Arrest
William Bonill, aged 68, had lived for 13 months in a rented room at a house near the Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London. His landlord later stated that Bonill had frequent male visitors, who generally came in pairs, and that his suspicions became aroused on the afternoon of 29 August 1835, when Pratt and Smith came to visit Bonill. The landlord climbed to an outside vantage point in the loft of a nearby stable building, where he could see through the window of Bonill’s room, before coming down to look into the room through the keyhole.

Both the landlord and his wife saw through the keyhole sexual intimacy between Pratt and Smith; he then broke open the door to confront them. Bonill was absent, but returned a few minutes later with a jug of ale. The landlord went to fetch a policeman and all three men were arrested.

Trial and Execution
Pratt, Smith and Bonill were tried on 26 September 1835 at the Central Criminal Court, before Baron Gurney, a judge who had the reputation of being independent and acute, but also harsh. Pratt and Smith were convicted under section 15 of the Offences against the Person Act 1828, which had replaced the 1533 Buggery Act, and were sentenced to death. William Bonill was convicted as an accessory and sentenced to 14 years of Penal transportation.

James Pratt was a groom, who lived with his wife and children at Deptford, London. A number of witnesses came forward to testify to his good character.

John Smith was from Southwark Christchurch and was described in court proceedings and newspaper reports as an unmarried labourer, although other sources stated he was married and worked as a servant. At the trial, no character witnesses came forward to testify on his behalf.

On 5 November 1835, Charles Dickens and the newspaper editor John Black visited Newgate Prison; Dickens wrote an account of this in Sketches by Boz and described seeing Pratt and Smith while they were being held there:

“The other two men were at the upper end of the room. One of them, who was imperfectly seen in the dim light, had his back towards us, and was stooping over the fire, with his right arm on the mantel-piece, and his head sunk upon it. The other was leaning on the sill of the farthest window. The light fell full upon him, and communicated to his pale, haggard face, and disordered hair, an appearance which, at that distance, was ghastly. His cheek rested upon his hand; and, with his face a little raised, and his eyes wildly staring before him, he seemed to be unconsciously intent on counting the chinks in the opposite wall.
—A Visit to Newgate

The jailer who was escorting Dickens confidently predicted to him the two would be executed and was proved correct. Seventeen individuals were sentenced to death at the September and October sessions of the Central Criminal Court for offenses that included burglary, robbery, and attempted murder. On 21 November, all were granted remission of their death sentences under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy with the exceptions of Pratt and Smith. This was despite an appeal for mercy submitted by the men’s wives that was heard by the Privy Council.

Pratt and Smith were hanged before Newgate Prison on the morning of 27 November, in front of a crowd that was larger than usual. The size of the crowd was possibly because this was the first execution to have taken place at Newgate in nearly two years. The event was sufficiently notable for a printed broadside to be published and sold. This described the men’s trial and execution and included the purported text of a final letter that was claimed to have been written by John Smith to a friend.

Posted in British history, political stance, William IV | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Regency Celebrity: Gregor MacGregor, Purveyor of Fictional Poyais Land Schemes

200px-Gregorio_MacGregor Gregor MacGregor (24 December 1786 – 4 December 1845) was a Scottish soldier, adventurer, land speculator, and colonizer who fought in the South American struggle for independence. Upon his return to England in 1820, he claimed to be cacique of Poyais (also known as Principality of Poyais, Territory of Poyais, Republic of Poyais), a fictional Central American country that MacGregor had invented which, with his help, drew investors and eventually colonists.

Early Life
MacGregor was born in the family house of Glengyle in Stirlingshire, Scotland on Christmas Eve 1786 to Daniel MacGregor, a sea captain with the East India Company, and Ann Austin, a doctor’s daughter. Little is known of MacGregor’s early life, but apparently he had at least one sister.

In 1803, at the age of 16, he joined the British Army and served in an infantry regiment, the 57th Foot. By 1804, he had risen to the rank of lieutenant, an unusually rapid progression in the ranks. He married Maria Bowater, an admiral’s daughter, in June 1805, and they set up house in London while MacGregor spent much of his time in Gibraltar, where the 57th Foot was in training.

In July 1809, MacGregor’s regiment was sent to Portugal, as reinforcements for the Duke of Wellington’s second peninsular campaign to drive the French out of Spain. Accounts of MacGregor’s service in this campaign vary, but it is known that for a time he was seconded to the Portuguese army with the rank of major, and that he sold out of the British Army in May 1810, possibly because of disagreements with his superior officers. MacGregor and his wife then went to Edinburgh, where he assumed the title of “Colonel,” but by 1811, they were in London, and MacGregor was styling himself Sir Gregor MacGregor, while claiming falsely to have succeeded to the chieftainship of the clan MacGregor.

Venezuela and New Granada
In December 1811, his wife Maria died. By this time, MacGregor had heard about the independence movements in South America and the Captaincy General of Venezuela in particular. He sold his small Scottish estate and sailed for South America, arriving in Caracas in the spring of 1812. There he met Josefa Antonia Andrea Aristeguieta y Lovera, the daughter of a prominent local family and a cousin of Simon Bolívar. They were married on 10 June 1812. They eventually had three children, Gregorio (b. ca. 1817), Constantino, (b. ca. 1819) and Josefa Anna Gregoria (b. ca. 1821).

Upon his arrival in Caracas, MacGregor talked General Francisco de Miranda, the Commander in Chief of the new Venezuelan Republic’s army, into appointing him a colonel, and almost immediately became involved in a series of skirmishes that resulted in his promotion to brigadier-general. A month or so later, when General Miranda was captured and handed over to the royalist forces by Simon Bolívar, MacGregor and his wife fled to Curaçao on a British brig.

From Curaçao, MacGregor decided to go to New Granada (present-day Colombia) and join the liberation forces of General Antonio Nariño. For Josefa’s safety, he first took her to the British island of Jamaica and then sailed for Cartagena on the northern coast of New Granada. From there he made his way south to Tunja, where General Nariño put him in command of the military district of Socorro, near the Venezuelan border. During the year or so he spent here, he earned what became a lifelong reputation as an unreliable braggart. One local official wrote of him: “I am sick and tired of this bluffer, or Quixote, or the devil knows what. This man can hardly serve us in New Granada without heaping ten thousand embarrassments upon us.”

In 1814, the Spanish royalist forces routed General Nariño’s army and MacGregor took refuge in Cartagena de Indias, where he played a role in organizing the city’s defenses. In August 1815, the Spanish troops of General Pablo Morillo attacked the city and began a siege that lasted until December, when disease and starvation forced the city to surrender. On the night of 5 December, MacGregor helped to organize a mass escape aboard gunboats that blasted their way through the Spanish blockade and sailed for Jamaica.

In Jamaica, MacGregor was treated as a hero, but by the spring of 1816 he had moved on with Josefa to the neighboring island of Haiti, where Simon Bolívar was raising a new army. In April, MacGregor sailed with Bolívar’s fleet as a brigadier-general to Venezuela, landing on the island of Margarita before crossing to Carupano on the mainland. Both Bolívar and MacGregor ran into trouble after their forces split up, and MacGregor’s troops were eventually forced to retreat towards the town of Barcelona, fighting all the way. This difficult, month-long campaign earned MacGregor deserved acclaim and is probably the high point of his military adventures, which were otherwise marred by varying amounts of error, incompetency, and exaggeration on his part.

Green_Cross_of_Florida_FlagGreen Cross Flag of Republic of the Floridas
MacGregor claimed to be commissioned by representatives of the revolting South American countries to liberate Florida from Spanish rule. Financed by American backers, he led an army of only 150 men, including recruits from Charleston and Savannah, some War of 1812 veterans, and 55 musketeers in an assault on Fort San Carlos at Fernandina on Amelia Island. Through spies within the Spanish garrison, MacGregor had learned that the force there consisted of only 55 regulars and 50 militia men. He spread rumors in the town, which eventually reached the ear of the garrison commander that an army of more than 1,000 men was about to attack.

On 29 June 1817, he advanced on the fort, deploying his men in small groups coming from various directions to give the impression of a larger force. The commander, Francisco Morales, struck the Spanish flag and fled. MacGregor raised his flag, the “Green Cross of Florida”, a green cross on a white ground, over the fort and proclaimed the “Republic of the Floridas.”

Now in possession of the town, and seeing the need to make the appearance of a legitimate government, MacGregor quickly formed a committee to draft a constitution, and appointed Ruggles Hubbard, the former high sheriff of New York City, as unofficial civil governor, and Jared Irwin, an adventurer and former Pennsylvania Congressman, as his treasurer. MacGregor then opened a post office, ordered a printing press to publish a newspaper, and issued currency to pay his troops and to settle government debts. Expecting reinforcements for a raid against the Castillo de San Marcos in St. Augustine, MacGregor intended to subdue all of Spanish East Florida.

His plan was doomed to fail, however, as President James Monroe was in sensitive negotiations with Spain to acquire all of Florida.

Soon MacGregor’s reserves were depleted, and the Republic needed revenue. He commissioned privateers to seize Spanish ships and set up an admiralty court, which levied a customs duty on their sales. They began selling captured prizes and their cargoes, which often included slaves.

When about 28 August fellow conspirator Ruggles Hubbard sailed into the harbor aboard his own brig Morgiana, flying the flag of Buenos Ayres, but without the needed men, guns, and money, MacGregor announced his departure. On 4 September, faced with the threat of a Spanish reprisal, and still lacking money and adequate reinforcements, he abandoned his plans to conquer Florida and departed Fernandina with most of his officers, leaving a small detachment of men at Fort San Carlos to defend the island.

After his withdrawal, these and a force of American irregulars organized by Hubbard and Irwin repelled the Spanish attempt to reassert authority. The French privateer Luis Aury sailed into the port of Fernandina on 17 September 1817. Following negotiations with Hubbard and Irwin, Amelia Island was dubiously annexed to the Republic of Mexico on 21 September 1817, and its flag raised over Fort San Carlos. Aury surrendered the island to U.S. forces on 23 December 1817.

Cacique of Poyais
MacGregor returned to London in 1820, where he announced that he had been created cacique (highest authority or prince) of the Principality of Poyais, an independent nation on the Bay of Honduras. He claimed that native chieftain King George Frederic Augustus I of the Mosquito Shore and Nation had given him the territory of Poyais, 12,500 miles² (32,400 km²) of fertile land with untapped resources, a small number of settlers of British origin, and cooperative natives eager to please. He painted the picture of a country with a civil service, an army and a democratic government, which needed English settlers and investors.

At the time, British merchants were all too eager to enter the South American market that Spain had denied to them. In the wake of wars for South American independence, the new governments of Colombia, Chile, and Peru had issued bonds in the London Royal Exchange to raise money.

London high society welcomed MacGregor’s colourful figure, and he and his Spanish-American wife received many invitations. The Lord Mayor of London Christopher Magnay even organized an official reception in London Guildhall.

MacGregor claimed descent of clan MacGregor and that Rob Roy MacGregor had been his direct ancestor. MacGregor also claimed that one of his ancestors was a rare survivor of the Darien Scheme, a failed Scottish attempt of colonization in Panama in 1690s. In order to compensate for this, he said, he had decided to draw most of the settlers from Scotland. For this purpose, he established offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow. He also enhanced his allure by embellishing his exploits in the Peninsular War in the service of Francisco de Miranda and Simon Bolivar.

MacGregor was also introduced to Major William John Richardson and by the winter of 1821, he had made Richardson legate of Poyais. He moved to Oak Hall in Richardson’s estate in Essex, as befitted his station as a prince.

An office for the Legation of the Territory of Poyais was opened at Dowgate Hill in London. MacGregor threw elaborate banquets in Oak Hall and invited dignitaries, foreign ambassadors, government ministers and senior military officers.

In Edinburgh in 1822, MacGregor began to sell land rights for 3 shillings and 3 pence per acre (a worker’s weekly wage at the time was about 1 shilling). The price steadily rose to 4 shillings. Many people willing to help colonize the new land signed on with their families. By October 23, 1822, MacGregor had secured a £200,000 loan on behalf of the Poyais government, in the form of 2,000 bearer bonds worth £100 each.

That same year, “Sketch of the Mosquito Shore,” including the Territory of Poyais, supposedly written by Captain Thomas Strangeways, was published. It described the Poyais in glowing terms and boasted of the profit one could gain from the country’s ample resources. Poyais was described as a very anglophilic region with existing infrastructure, untapped gold and silver mines, and large amounts of fertile soil ready to be settled. The region was even free of tropical diseases. The book also claimed that British settlers had founded “St. Joseph,” the capital of Poyais, in the 1730s.

Eager Settlers
The Legation of Poyais chartered a ship called the Honduras Packet, and London merchants provisioned the ship with food and ammunition. Its cargo also included a chest full of Poyaisian currency that MacGregor had printed in Scotland. Many of the settlers changed their pounds to Poyais dollars.

On 10 September 1822, the Honduras Packet departed from the Port of London with 70 would-be-settlers, including doctors, lawyers, and bankers who had been promised positions in the Poyais civil service. Some had also purchased officer commissions in the Poyaisian army.

On 22 January 1823 another ship, the Kennersley Castle, similarly left Scotland for Poyais with 200 would-be-settlers and enough provisions for a year. When it arrived in the Bay of Honduras on March 20, it spent two days looking for a port. Eventually the Scottish newcomers encountered the settlers on the Honduras Packet.

The settlers found only an untouched jungle, and a few American hermits who had made their homes there. The capital of “St. Joseph” consisted only of ruins of a previous attempt at settlements abandoned in the previous century. The Honduras Packet was eventually swept away by a storm.

While some of the labourers began to build rudimentary shelter for themselves, the officers and civil servants decided to try to find a way out. Lieutenant-Colonel Hector Hall, would-be-governor of Poyais, left to look for another ship to take them back to Britain. The would-be-settlers began to argue, and the Kennersley Castle sailed away. Tropical diseases also began to take their toll. One settler, having used his life savings to gain passage, committed suicide.

In April, the Mexican Eagle, an official ship from British Honduras with the chief magistrate on board, accidentally found the settlers. Chief Magistrate Bennet told them that there was no such place as Poyais, and agreed to take them to British Honduras. By the time they arrived in British Honduras, the settlers were weakened, and many later died. All told, 180 of the 240 would-be settlers eventually perished during the ordeal.

Edward Codd, Superintendent for Belize, sent a warning to London, sending back any ships of would-be-settlers that were headed for Poyais. Those survivors who did not decide to remain in the Americas departed for London on August 1, 1823. More people died during that journey, and fewer than 50 came back alive to Britain. When they returned, city papers published the whole story.

Astonishingly, some survivors refused to label MacGregor as a culprit. One of them, James Hastie, who had lost two of his children to tropical diseases, published a book, Narrative of a Voyage in the Ship Kennersley Castle from Leith Roads to Poyais, in which he blamed Sir Gregor’s advisers and publicists for spreading false information. A group of survivors signed a declaration of their belief that had Sir Gregor gone with them, things would have turned out differently. Major Richardson sued the papers for libel and defended MacGregor against the charges of fraud. MacGregor, however, had left for Paris in October 1823.

Poyaisian Scheme in France
In France, MacGregor contacted the trading organization “Compagnie de la Nouvelle Neustrie” and commissioned it to solicit more Poyaisian settlers and investors in France.

In March 1825, MacGregor summoned Gustavus Butler Hippisley, an acquaintance from the army, and appointed him a representative of Poyais in Colombia. Hippisley was asked to write about the Poyais affair in France in “Acts of Oppression Committed under the Administration of m. de Villele, Prime minister of Charles X,” from 1825 to 1826. MacGregor told Hippisley that he needed the help of the French government to obtain a formal renunciation of any (in reality nonexistent) claims Spain might have to Poyais and that he had met with French Prime Minister Jean-Baptiste de Villele. MacGregor and la Nouvelle Noustrie already had plans to send French emigrants to Poyais. Hippisley wrote back to London, castigating the journalists who had called MacGregor a “penniless adventurer.”

In August, MacGregor published a new constitution of Poyais; he had changed it into a republic with himself as the head of state. On August 18, 1825, he issued a 300,000 loan with 2.5% interest, through the London bank of Thomas Jenkins & Company. The bond was probably never issued. At the same time, la Nouvelle Noustrie recruited settlers to buy FFr100 worth of shares each.

When French officials noticed that a number of people had obtained passports in order to voyage to a country they had never heard of, they seized the la Nouvelle Noustrie vessel in Le Havre. The would-be-emigrants demanded an investigation; Hippisley was arrested, but MacGregor was nowhere to be found.

Hippisley and MacGregor’s secretary Thomas Irving were held in custody in La Force prison pending an investigation. Lehuby, one of the directors of la Nouvelle Neustrie, fled to Belgium. MacGregor went into hiding until he was apprehended on December 7, 1825. In January 1826, he made a proclamation to Central American states, written in French. The accused were later moved to Bicetre prison.

The trial began on 6 April 1826. MacGregor, Hippisley, Irving and Lehuby (in absentia) were accused of fraud based on the Poyais emigration program. The prosecutor was willing to drop the charges if the men were deported from France. Initially the court agreed, but changed its mind when Belgium agreed to extradite Lehuby.

The new trial began on July 10, 1826, and lasted for four days. MacGregor’s lawyer eloquently put the blame on anybody else but MacGregor. MacGregor was acquitted, and Hippisley and Irving were released. Lehuby was sentenced to 13 months for making false promises.

Lesser Poyais Schemes
In 1826, MacGregor returned to London, where the furor over his affairs had died down. He continued peddling modified, watered-down versions of his old schemes: this time he claimed that natives had elected him as the head of state and became just “Cacigue of the Republic of Poyais” and opened an office at 23 Threadneedle Street, without any diplomatic trappings. In the summer of 1827, he issued a loan worth £800,000 as 20-year bonds with Thomas Jenkins & Company as brokers. However, an anonymous handbill was circulated that warned against investing in “Poyais humbug.” MacGregor had to pass most of the unsold certificates to a consortium of speculators for a small sum.

Other Poyais schemes were equally unsuccessful. In 1828, MacGregor tried to sell Poyaisian land for 5 shillings per acre, but Robert Charles Frederic, the brother of King George Frederic, began to sell those same territories to lumber companies, with certificates that competed with MacGregor’s. When original investors demanded their long-overdue interest, he could only pay with more certificates. Soon other charlatans began to use the same trick – opening rival “Poyaisian offices,” which offered land debentures for sale.

By 1834, MacGregor was living in Scotland and had to issue a new series of land certificates as payment for unredeemed securities. In 1836 he wrote a new constitution for the Poyaisian Republic. The last record of any Poyais scheme is in 1837, when he tried to sell some land certificates.

In 1839, Gregor MacGregor moved to Venezuela where he received Venezuelan citizenship, and a pension as a general who had fought for independence. He died in Caracas on 4 December 1845.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Regency Celebrity: William Cobbett and The Political Register

220px-William_Cobbett William Cobbett (9 March 1763 – 18 June 1835) was an English pamphleteer, farmer and journalist, who was born in Farnham, Surrey. He believed that reforming Parliament and abolishing the rotten boroughs would help to end the poverty of farm labourers, and he attacked the borough-mongers, sinecurists and “tax-eaters” relentlessly. He was also against the Corn Laws, a tax on imported grain. Early in his career, he was a loyalist supporter of King and Country: but later he joined and successfully publicised the radical movement, which led to the Reform Bill of 1832, and to his winning the Parliamentary seat of Oldham. Although he was not a Catholic, he became a fiery advocate of Catholic Emancipation in Britain. Through the seeming contradictions in Cobbett’s life, his opposition to authority stayed constant. He wrote many polemics, on subjects from political reform to religion, but is best known for his book from 1830, Rural Rides, which is still in print today.

Early Life and Military Career: 1763–1791
William Cobbett was born in Farnham, Surrey, on 9 March 1763, the third son of George Cobbett (a farmer and publican) and Anne Vincent. He was taught to read and write by his father and first worked as a farm labourer at Farnham Castle. He also worked briefly as a gardener at Kew in the King’s garden.

On 6 May 1783, on an impulse he took the stagecoach to London and spent eight or nine months as a clerk in the employ of a Mr Holland at Gray’s Inn. He joined the 54th (West Norfolk) Regiment of Foot in 1783 and made good use of the soldier’s copious spare time to educate himself, particularly in English grammar. Between 1785 and 1791 Cobbett was stationed with his regiment in New Brunswick, and he sailed from Gravesend to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Cobbett was in Saint John, Fredericton, and elsewhere in the province until September 1791, rising through the ranks to become Sergeant Major, the most senior rank of NCO.

He returned to England with his regiment, landing at Portsmouth 3 November 1791, and obtained discharge from the army on 19 December 1791. In Woolwich in February 1792, he married Anne Reid, whom he had met while stationed at Fort Howe in Saint John. He had courted her by Jenny’s Spring near Fort Howe.

France and the United States: 1792–1800
Cobbett had developed an animosity towards some corrupt officers, and he gathered evidence on the issue while in New Brunswick, but his charges against them were sidetracked. He wrote The Soldier’s Friend (1792) protesting against the low pay and harsh treatment of enlisted men in the British army. Sensing that he was about to be indicted in retribution he fled to France in March 1792 to avoid imprisonment. Cobbett had intended to stay a year to learn the French language but he found the French Revolution in full swing and the French Revolutionary Wars in progress, so he sailed for the United States in September 1792.

He was first at Wilmington, then Philadelphia by the Spring of 1793. Cobbett initially prospered by teaching English to Frenchmen and translating texts from French to English. He became a controversial political writer and pamphleteer, writing from a pro-British stance under the pseudonym Peter Porcupine.

Cobbett also campaigned against the eminent physician and abolitionist Dr. Benjamin Rush, whose advocacy of bleeding during the yellow fever epidemic may have caused many deaths. Rush won a libel lawsuit against Cobbett, who never fully paid the $8,000 judgment, but instead fled to New York and back to England in 1800, via Halifax, Nova Scotia to Falmouth in Cornwall.

Political Register
The government of William Pitt the Younger offered Cobbett the editorship of a government newspaper but he declined as he preferred to remain independent. His newspaper The Porcupine bore the motto “Fear God, Honour the King” first started on 30 October 1800 but it was not a success and he sold his interest in it in 1801.

Less than a month later, however, he started his Political Register, a weekly newspaper that appeared almost every week from January 1802 until 1835, the year of Cobbett’s death. Although initially staunchly anti-Jacobin, by 1804, Cobbett was questioning the policies of the Pitt government, especially the immense national debt and the profligate use of sinecures that Cobbett believed was ruining the country and increasing class antagonism. By 1807 he supported reformers such as Francis Burdett and John Cartwright.

Cobbett opposed attempts in the House of Commons to bring in Bills against boxing and bull-baiting, writing to William Windham on 2 May 1804 that the Bill “goes to the rearing of puritanism into a system.”

Cobbett published the Complete Collection of State Trials in between 1804 and 1812 and amassed accounts of Parliamentary debates from 1066 onwards, but he sold his shares in this to T. C. Hansard in 1812 due to financial difficulties. This unofficial record of Parliamentary proceedings later became officially known as Hansard.

Cobbett intended to stand for Parliament in Honiton in 1806, but was persuaded by Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald to let him stand in his stead. Both men campaigned together but were unsuccessful, for they refused to bribe the voters by ‘buying’ votes; it also encouraged him in his opposition to rotten boroughs and the very urgent need for parliamentary reform.

Prison: 1810–1812
Cobbett was found guilty of treasonous libel on 15 June 1810 after objecting in The Register to the flogging at Ely of local militiamen by Hanoverians. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment in infamous Newgate Prison. While in prison he wrote the pamphlet Paper against Gold, warning of the dangers of paper money, as well as many Essays and Letters. On his release a dinner in London, attended by 600 people, was given in his honour, presided over by Sir Francis Burdett who, like Cobbett, was a strong voice for parliamentary reform.

‘Two-Penny Trash’: 1812–1817
By 1815 the tax on newspapers had reached 4d. per copy. As few people could afford to pay 6d. or 7d. for a daily newspaper, the tax restricted the circulation of most of these journals to people with fairly high incomes. Cobbett was able to sell only just over a thousand copies a week. Nonetheless, he began criticizing William Wilberforce for his support of the Corn laws, as well as his personal wealth, opposition to bull- and bear-baiting, and particularly for his support of “the fat and lazy and laughing and singing negroes.”

The following year Cobbett began publishing the Political Register as a pamphlet. Cobbett now sold the Political Register for only 2d. and it soon had a circulation of 40,000. Critics called it ‘two-penny trash,’ a label Cobbett adopted.

Cobbett’s journal was the main newspaper read by the working class. This made Cobbett a dangerous man, and in 1817 he learned that the government was planning to arrest him for sedition.

United States: 1817–1819
Following the passage of the Power of Imprisonment Bill in 1817, and fearing arrest for his arguably seditious writings, he fled to the United States. On Wednesday 27 March 1817, at Liverpool, he embarked on board the ship Importer, D. Ogden master, bound for New York, accompanied by his two eldest sons, William and John.

For two years, Cobbett lived on a farm in Long Island where he wrote Grammar of the English Language and with the help of William Benbow, a friend in London, continued to publish the Political Register. He also wrote The American Gardener (1821), which was one of the earliest books on horticulture published in the United States.

Cobbett also closely observed drinking habits in the United States. In 1819, he stated “Americans preserve their gravity and quietness and good-humour even in their drink.” He believed it “far better for them to be as noisy and quarrelsome as the English drunkards; for then the odiousness of the vice would be more visible, and the vice itself might become less frequent.”

A plan to return to England with the remains of the British radical pamphleteer and revolutionary Thomas Paine (died 1809) for a proper burial led to the ultimate loss of Paine’s remains. The plan was to remove Paine’s remains from his New Rochelle, New York farm and give Paine a heroic reburial on his native soil, but the bones were still among Cobbett’s effects when he died over 20 years later. There is no confirmed story about what happened to them after that, although down the years various people have claimed to own parts of Paine’s remains such as his skull and right hand.

Cobbett arrived back at Liverpool by ship in November 1819.

England: 1819–1835

Cobbett arrived back in England soon after the Peterloo Massacre. He joined with other Radicals in his attacks on the government and three times during the next couple of years was charged with libel.

In 1820, he stood for Parliament in Coventry, but finished bottom of the poll. That year he also established a plant nursery at Kensington, where he grew many North American trees, such as the black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and a variety of maize, which he called ‘Cobbett’s corn.’ Cobbett and his son tried a dwarf strain of maize they had found growing in a French cottage garden and found it grew well in England’s shorter summer. To help sell this variety, Corbett published a book titled, A Treatise on Cobbett’s Corn (1828).

Meanwhile, he also wrote the popular book Cottage Economy (1822), which taught the cottager some of the skills necessary to be self-sufficient, such as instructions on how to make bread, brew beer, and keep livestock.

Cobbett was not content to let newspaper stories come to him, he went out like a modern reporter and dug them up, especially the story that he returned to time and time again in the course of his writings, the plight of the rural Englishman. He took to riding around the country on horseback making observations of what was happening in the towns and villages. Rural Rides, a work for which Cobbett is still known today, first appeared in serial form in the Political Register running from 1822 to 1826. It was published in book form in 1830. While writing Rural Rides, Cobbett also published The Woodlands (1825), a book on silviculture that reflected his interest in trees.

While not a Catholic, Cobbett at this time also took up the cause of Catholic Emancipation. Between 1824 and 1826, he published his History of the Protestant Reformation, a broadside against the traditional Protestant historical narrative of the British reformation, stressing the lengthy and often bloody persecutions of Catholics in Britain and Ireland. At this time, Catholics were still forbidden to enter certain professions or to become Members of Parliament. Although the law was no longer enforced, it was officially still a crime to attend Mass or build a Catholic church. Although Wilberforce also worked and spoke against discrimination against Catholics, Cobbett resumed his strident and racist opposition to the noted reformer, particularly after Wilberforce in 1823 published his Appeal in Behalf of the Negro Slaves in the West Indies. Wilberforce, long suffering from ill health, retired the following year.

In 1829, Cobbett published Advice to Young Men in which he heavily criticised An Essay on the Principle of Population published by the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus. That year, he also published The English Gardener, which he later updated and expanded. This book has been compared with other contemporary garden tomes, such as John Claudius Loudon’s Encyclopædia of Gardening.

Cobbett continued to publish controversial material in the Political Register and in July 1831 was charged with seditious libel after writing a pamphlet entitled Rural War in support of the Captain Swing Riots, which applauded those who were smashing farm machinery and burning haystacks. Cobbett conducted his own defence and he was so successful that the jury failed to convict him.

Cobbett still wanted to be elected to the House of Commons. He was defeated in Preston in 1826 and Manchester in 1832, but after the passing of the 1832 Reform Act, Cobbett was able to win the Parliamentary seat of Oldham. In Parliament, Cobbett concentrated his energies on attacking corruption in government and the 1834 Poor Law. In his later life, however, Macaulay, a fellow MP, remarked that Cobbett’s faculties were impaired by age; indeed that his paranoia had developed to the point of insanity.

From 1831 until his death, he farmed at Normandy, a village in Surrey a few miles from his birthplace at Farnham. As of early 2013, the expanded and modernized farmhouse, Grade II listed, was for sale at a price of £1,975,000. Cobbett died there after a short illness in June 1835 and was buried in the churchyard of St Andrew’s Parish Church, Farnham.

Parliamentary Career
In his lifetime Cobbett stood for Parliament five times, four of which attempts were unsuccessful:
1806 Honiton
1820 Coventry
1826 Preston
1832 Manchester
In 1832 he was successful and elected as Member of Parliament for Oldham.

Legacy
Cobbett is considered to have begun as an inherently conservative journalist who, angered by the corrupt British political establishment, became increasingly radical and sympathetic to anti-government and democratic ideals. He provides an alternative view of rural England in the age of an Industrial Revolution with which he was not in sympathy. Cobbett wished England would return to the rural England of the 1760s to which he was born. Unlike fellow radical Thomas Paine, Cobbett was not an internationalist cosmopolitan and did not support a republican Britain. He boasted that he was not a “citizen of world…. It is quite enough for me to think about what is best for England, Scotland and Ireland.” Possessing a firm national identity, he often criticised rival countries and warned them that they should not “swagger about and be saucy to England. He said his identification with the Church of England was due in part because it “bears the name of my country.” Ian Dyck claimed that Cobbett supported “the eighteenth-century Country Party platform”. Edward Tangye Lean described him as “an archaic English Tory.”

Cobbett has been praised by many thinkers of various political persuasions, such as Matthew Arnold, Karl Marx, G. K. Chesterton, A. J. P. Taylor, Raymond Williams, E. P. Thompson and Michael Foot.

Cobbett’s birthplace, a public house in Farnham named “The Jolly Farmer,” has now been renamed “The William Cobbett.”

The Brooklyn-based history band Piñataland has performed a song about William Cobbett’s quest to rebury Thomas Paine entitled “An American Man.”

A story by Cobbett in 1807 led to the use of red herring to mean a distraction from the important issue.

An equestrian statue of Cobbett is planned for a site in Farnham.

William Cobbett Junior school in Farnham was named in his honour, whose logo is a porcupine.

Cobbett’s sons were trained as solicitors and founded a law firm in Manchester, still called Cobbetts in his honour.

Posted in British history, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, Victorian era | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Regency Celebrity: William Cobbett and The Political Register

Regency Happenings: The Swing Riots

The Swing Riots were a widespread uprising by agricultural workers; it began with the destruction of threshing machines in the Elham Valley area of East Kent in the summer of 1830, and by early December had spread throughout the whole of southern England and East Anglia.

As well as the attacks on the popularly hated, labour-displacing, threshing machines the protesters reinforced their demands with wage and tithe riots and by the destruction of objects of perceived oppression, such as workhouses and tithe barns, and also with the more surreptitious rick-burning, and cattle-maiming. The first threshing machine was destroyed on Saturday night, 28 August 1830, and by the third week of October more than 100 threshing machines had been destroyed in East Kent.

The anger of the rioters was directed at three targets that were seen as the prime source of their misery: the tithe system, the Poor Law guardians, and the rich tenant farmers who had been progressively lowering wages while introducing agricultural machinery. If caught, the protesters faced charges of arson,riot, robbery, machine breaking, and assault. Those convicted faced imprisonment, transportation, and ultimately execution.

The Swing Riots had many immediate causes, but were overwhelmingly the result of the progressive impoverishment and dispossession of the English agricultural workforce over the previous fifty years, leading up to 1830. In Parliament, Lord Carnarvon had said that the English labourer was reduced to a plight more abject than that of any race in Europe, with their employers no longer able to feed and employ them.

The name “Swing Riots” was derived from the name that was often appended to the threatening letters sent to farmers, magistrates, parsons, and others, the fictitious Captain Swing, who was regarded as the mythical figurehead of the movement. The Swing letters were first mentioned by The Times newspaper on 21 October 1830.

Background
Early nineteenth-century England was virtually unique among major nations in having no class of landed smallholding peasantry. Probably one of the main reasons for the Swing Riots were the Enclosure Acts of rural England. Between 1770 and 1830 about 6 million acres (24,000 km2) of common land were enclosed. The common land had been used for centuries by the poor of the countryside to graze their animals and grow their own produce. This land was now divided up among the large local landowners, leaving the landless farmworkers solely dependent upon working for their richer neighbours for a cash wage. Whilst this may have offered a tolerable living during the boom years of the Napoleonic Wars, when labour had been in short supply and corn prices high, the return of peace in 1815 brought with it plummeting grain prices and an oversupply of labour. According to social historians John and Barbara Hammond, enclosure was fatal to three classes: the small farmer, the cottager and the squatter. Before enclosure the cottager was a labourer with land; after enclosure he was a labourer without land.

In the 1780s, workers would be employed at annual hiring fairs (or mops), to serve for the whole year. During this period the worker would receive payment in kind and in cash from his employer, would often work at his side, and would commonly share meals at the employer’s table. As time passed the gulf between farmer and employee widened. Workers were hired on stricter cash-only contracts, which ran for increasing shorter periods. First monthly terms became the norm; later contracts were offered for as little as a week. Between 1750 and 1850 the farm labourer faced the loss of his land, the transformation of his contract and the sharp deterioration of his economic situation; by the time of the 1830 riots, he had retained very little of his former status except the right to parish relief, under the Old Poor Law system.

Historically, the monasteries had taken responsibility for the impotent poor, but after their dissolution in 1536-9, it passed to the parishes. The Act of Settlement in 1662, had confined relief strictly to those who were natives of the parish. The poor law system charged a Parish Rate to landowners and tenants, which was used to provide relief payments to settled residents of the parish who were ill or out of work. These payments were minimal, and at times degrading conditions were required for their receipt. As more and more people became dependent on parish relief, ratepayers rebelled ever more loudly against the costs, and a lower and lower level of relief was offered. Three and a half “one gallon” bread loaves were considered necessary for a man in Berkshire in 1795. However provision had fallen to just two similar-sized loaves being provided in 1817 Wiltshire. The way in which poor law funds were disbursed led to a further reduction in agricultural wages, since farmers would pay their workers as little as possible, knowing that the parish fund would top up wages to a basic subsistence level.

To this mixture was added the burden of the church tithe. Originally this had been the church’s right to a tenth of the parish harvest. However the earlier collection of goods in kind had been replaced by a cash levy that was payable to the Church of England Parson and went to pay his (often considerable) wages.

The cash levy was generally rigorously enforced, whether the resident was a Church member or not, and the sum demanded was often far higher than a poor person could afford. Calls for a large reduction in the tithe payment were prominent among the demands of the rioters.

The final straw was the introduction of horse-powered threshing machines, which could do the work of many men. They spread swiftly among the farming community, threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of farmworkers. Following the terrible harvests of 1828 and 1829, farm labourers faced the approaching winter of 1830 with dread.

Rioting
Starting in the southeastern county of Kent, the Swing Rioters smashed the threshing machines and threatened farmers who had them. The riots spread rapidly through the southern counties of Surrey, Sussex, Middlesex and Hampshire, before spreading north into the Home Counties, the Midlands and East Anglia, moving on as far as Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.

Originally the disturbances were thought to be mainly a southern and East Anglian phenomenon, but subsequent research has revealed just how widespread Swing riots really were, with virtually every county south of the Scottish border involved. In all sixty per cent of the disturbances were concentrated in (Berkshire 165, Hampshire 208, Kent 154, Sussex 145, Wiltshire 208); whereas East Anglia had fewer incidents (Cambridge 17, Norfolk 88, Suffolk 40), while the southwest, the midlands and the north were only marginally affected.

The tactics varied from county to county but typically, threatening letters, often signed by Captain Swing, would be sent to magistrates, parsons, wealthy farmers or Poor Law guardians in the area. The letters would call for a rise in wages, a cut in the tithe payments and for the destruction of threshing machines, otherwise people would take matters into their own hands. If the warnings were not heeded local farmworkers would gather, often in groups of 200 –400, and would threaten the local oligarchs with dire consequences if their demands were not met. Threshing machines would be broken, workhouses and tithe barns would be attacked, and then the rioters would disperse or move on to the next village. The buildings containing the engines that powered the threshing machines were also a target of the rioters and many gin gangs, also known as horse engine houses or wheelhouses, were destroyed, particularly in southeast England.

Other actions included incendiary attacks on farms, barns and hayricks in the dead of night, as it was easier then to avoid detection. Although a lot of the actions of the rioters, such as arson, were conducted in secret at night, meetings with farmers and overseers about the grievances were conducted in daylight.

Despite the prevalence of the slogan “Bread or Blood,” only one person is recorded as having been killed during the riots, and that was one of the rioters by the action of a soldier or farmer. The rioters only intent being to damage property. Similar patterns of disturbances, and their rapid spread across the country, were often blamed on agitators or on “agents” sent from France, where the revolution of July 1830 had broken out a month before the Swing Riots began in Kent.

Despite all of the different tactics used by the agricultural workers during the unrest, their principle aims were simply to attain a minimum living wage and to end rural unemployment.

Aftermath

Charles Grey, 2nd Earl of Grey

Charles Grey, 2nd Earl of Grey

Eventually the farmers agreed to raise wages, and the parsons and some landlords reduced the tithes and rents. But many farmers reneged on the agreements and the unrest increased. Many people advocated political reform as the only solution to the unrest. This included Earl Grey, who speaking in a debate in the House of Lords in November, who suggested the best way to reduce the violence was to introduce reform of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, replied the existing constitution was so perfect that he could not imagine any possible alternative that would be an improvement. When that was reported, a mob attacked Wellington’s home in London. The unrest had been confined to Kent, but during the following two weeks of November it escalated massively, crossing East and West Sussex into Hampshire, with Swing letters appearing in other nearby counties.

On 15 November 1830 Wellington’s government was defeated in a vote in the House of Commons. Two days later, Earl Grey was asked to form a Whig government. Grey assigned a cabinet committee to produce a plan for Parliamentary reform. Lord Melbourne became Home Secretary in the new government.

Melbourne

Melbourne

During the disturbances of 1830–32, Melbourne acted vigorously and sensitively, and it was for this that his reforming brethren thanked him heartily. Melbourne blamed local magistrates for being too lenient and the government appointed a Special Commission of three judges to try rioters in the counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Dorset, Wiltshire and Hampshire.

The landowning class in England felt severely threatened by the riots, and responded with harsh punitive measures. Nearly 2000 protesters were brought to trial in 1830–1831; 252 were sentenced to death (though only 19 were actually hanged), 644 were imprisoned, and 481 were transported to penal colonies in Australia. Not all the rioters were necessarily farm workers, the list of those punished included rural artisans, shoemakers, carpenters, wheelrights, blacksmiths, and cobblers.

William Cobbett

William Cobbett

The authorities had received many requests to prosecute radical politician and writer William Cobbett for the speeches he had made in defense of the rural labourer; however it was for his articles in the Political Register that he was eventually charged with seditious libel. He wrote an article entitled The Rural War that was about the Swing Riots. He blamed those in society who lived off unearned income at the expense of hard-working agricultural labourers; his solution was Parliamentary reform. At his trial in July 1831 at the Guildhall, he subpoenaed six members of the cabinet, including the Prime Minister. Cobbett defended himself by going on the attack. He tried to ask the government ministers awkward questions supporting his case, but they were disallowed by the Lord Chief Justice. However, he was able to discredit the prosecution’s case, and at great embarrassment to the government, he was acquitted.

The ‘Swing’ riots were a major influence on the Whig Government. They added to the strong social, political and agricultural unrest throughout Britain in the 1830s, encouraging a wider demand for political reform, culminating in the introduction of the Reform Act 1832; and also to the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 ending “outdoor relief” in cash or kind, and setting up a chain of workhouses across the country, to which the poor had to go if they wanted help.

Rioting[edit source | editbeta]

Typical ‘Swing’ letter
Starting in the south-eastern county of Kent, the Swing Rioters smashed the threshing machines and threatened farmers who had them.[22] The riots spread rapidly through the southern counties of Surrey, Sussex, Middlesex and Hampshire, before spreading north into the Home Counties, the Midlands and East Anglia.[4] Moving on as far as Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.[4] Originally the disturbances were thought to be mainly a southern and East Anglian phenomenon, but subsequent research has revealed just how widespread Swing riots really were, with virtually every county south of the Scottish border involved.[23] In all sixty per cent of the disturbances were concentrated in (Berkshire 165, Hampshire 208, Kent 154, Sussex 145, Wiltshire 208); whereas East Anglia had fewer incidents (Cambridge 17, Norfolk 88, Suffolk 40), while the south‐west, the midlands and the north were only marginally affected.[24]
The tactics varied from county to county but typically, threatening letters, often signed by Captain Swing, would be sent to magistrates, parsons, wealthy farmers or Poor Law guardians in the area.[25] The letters would call for a rise in wages, a cut in the tithe payments and for the destruction of threshing machines, otherwise people would take matters into their own hands.[25] If the warnings were not heeded local farmworkers would gather, often in groups of 200 – 400, and would threaten the local oligarchs with dire consequences if their demands were not met.[25] Threshing machines would be broken, workhouses and tithe barns would be attacked and then the rioters would disperse or move on to the next village.[25] The buildings containing the engines that powered the threshing machines were also a target of the rioters and many gin gangs, also known as horse engine houses or wheelhouses, were destroyed, particularly in south−east England.[26] Other actions included incendiary attacks on farms, barns and hayricks in the dead of night, as it was easier then to avoid detection.[25] Although a lot of the actions of the rioters, such as arson, were conducted in secret at night, meetings with farmers and overseers about the grievances were conducted in daylight.[1]
Despite the prevalence of the slogan “Bread or Blood”, only one person is recorded as having been killed during the riots, and that was one of the rioters by the action of a soldier or farmer.[1] The rioters only intent being to damage property.[25] Similar patterns of disturbances, and their rapid spread across the country, were often blamed on agitators or on “agents” sent from France, where the revolution of July 1830 had broken out a month before the Swing Riots began in Kent.[27]
Despite all of the different tactics used by the agricultural workers during the unrest, their principle aims were simply to attain a minimum living wage and to end rural unemployment.[25]
Aftermath[edit source | editbeta]

Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey
Eventually the farmers agreed to raise wages, and the parsons and some landlords reduced the tithes and rents.[3] But many farmers reneged on the agreements and the unrest increased.[3] Many people advocated political reform as the only solution to the unrest. [3] This included Earl Grey, who speaking in a debate in the House of Lords in November suggested the best way to reduce the violence was to introduce reform of the House of Commons.[28] The Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, replied the existing constitution was so perfect that he could not imagine any possible alternative that would be an improvement.[29] When that was reported, a mob attacked Wellington’s home in London.[30] The unrest had been confined to Kent, but during the following two weeks of November it escalated massively, crossing East and West Sussex into Hampshire, with Swing letters appearing in other nearby counties.[31]

Lord Melbourne
On 15 November 1830 Wellington’s government was defeated in a vote in the House of Commons. Two days later, Earl Grey was asked to form a Whig government.[30][32] Grey assigned a cabinet committee to produce a plan for parliamentary reform.[32] Lord Melbourne became Home Secretary in the new government.
During the disturbances of 1830–32, Melbourne acted vigorously and sensitively, and it was for this that his reforming brethren thanked him heartily.[32] Melbourne blamed local magistrates for being too lenient and the government appointed a Special Commission of three judges to try rioters in the counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Dorset, Wiltshire and Hampshire.[8]
The landowning class in England felt severely threatened by the riots, and responded with harsh punitive measures.[1] Nearly 2000 protesters were brought to trial in 1830–1831;[1] 252 were sentenced to death (though only 19 were actually hanged), 644 were imprisoned, and 481 were transported to penal colonies in Australia.[1][33] Not all the rioters were necessarily farm workers, the list of those punished included rural artisans, shoemakers, carpenters, wheelrights, blacksmiths and cobblers.[1]
The authorities had received many requests to prosecute radical politician and writer William Cobbett for the speeches he had made in defence of the rural labourer; however it was for his articles in the Political Register that he was eventually charged with seditious libel.[4][34]He wrote an article entitled The Rural War that was about the Swing Riots. He blamed those in society who lived off unearned income at the expense of hard-working agricultural labourers; his solution was parliamentary reform.[35][36] At his trial in July 1831 at the Guildhall, he subpoena’d six members of the cabinet, including the prime minister.[4] Cobbett defended himself by going on the attack. He tried to ask the government ministers awkward questions supporting his case, but they were disallowed by the Lord Chief Justice. However, he was able to discredit the prosecution’s case, and at great embarrassment to the government he was acquitted.

The ‘Swing’ riots were a major influence on the Whig Government. They added to the strong social, political and agricultural unrest throughout Britain in the 1830s, encouraging a wider demand for political reform, culminating in the introduction of the Reform Act 1832; and also to the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 ending “outdoor relief” in cash or kind, and setting up a chain of workhouses across the country, to which the poor had to go if they wanted help.

Posted in British history, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, Victorian era | Tagged , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Regency Happenings: Felling Mining Disasters, 1812, 1813, 1821, and 1847

The Felling Colliery (also known as Brandling Main) in Britain, suffered four disasters: 1812, 1813, 1821 and 1847. By far the worst of the four was the 1812 disaster, which claimed 92 lives on 25 May 1812. The loss of life in 1812 disaster was one of the motivators for the development of the miners’ safety lamp.

Colliery Description
Felling, Tyne and Wear is now part of Gateshead, but at the time of the disasters was a separate manor in what used to be County Durham.. Mining of the upper seams had continued throughout the 18th century. Following borings starting in 1758, the main pit was opened in 1779. The first seam to be worked was the High Main, which ceased production in 1811. Shortly before the High Main was exhausted, the pit was deepened to reach the Low Main, which came into production in May 1811, just a year before the disaster. The Low Main lies 94 fathoms (560 ft; 172 m) below the surface and is 3 feet (0.91 m) thick. Subsequently two other seams, the Bensham (or Maudlin) and the Hutton were won.

To ensure adequate ventilation two shafts were dug, John Pit and William Pit. John Pit was the main access shaft and was the down-cast shaft where fresh air was drawn into the pit. A steam engine was provided for winding gear, and in 1812 there was a standby horse-whim for when the steam engine was out of use.

William Pit was the up-cast or furnace pit and had a fire burning at its base. The rising hot air drew air though the mine from the down-cast pit. Above each of the two pits were pulleys, those over John Pit were 6 feet (1.8 m) in diameter. The pulleys for the horse-whim were mounted on a crane and kept out of the way, being swung over the pit mouth when required. This arrangement proved fortuitous in the aftermath of the disaster.

From the base of the pits a number of headings were first driven. Between the headings were driven stentings. An excavated area was called a board, broken up by walls. To ensure the air circulated throughout the mine some boards were blocked off with stoppings either of brick or timber. Openings in some of the stoppings allowed the movement of men and materiel. When not being used the openings were closed by traps.

In an era before the invention of the safety lamp, the only practical source of light was a candle. Where explosive gas was suspected, a Spedding mill was used. A steel cylinder was revolved at high speed against a flint and the resulting shower of sparks gave some light. Although safer than candles, the Wallsend colliery explosion of 1785 had shown that mills could cause explosions.

1812 Disaster
At 11:30 on Monday, 25 May 1812 the first explosion occurred. For half a mile around the earth shook and the noise was heard up to four miles away. Large clouds of dust and small coals were thrown up from both William Pit and John Pit. As well as the small particles, the coal baskets and pieces of wood were blown out of the pits and landed nearby. The dust fell like a shower for up to a mile and a half downwind. The pit-heads or shaft-frames carrying the pulleys at both pits were blown off, set on fire and the pulleys broken. At William Pit the up-cast fed to a horizontal flue on the surface which led to a stack. Coal dust was distributed three inches thick within this flue which then burnt to a “light cinder.”

The pulleys for the horse-whim at John Pit were mounted in a crane kept swung away from the shaft. As a result they were undamaged and could be swung over the shaft. Men on the surface applied themselves in place of the horses and brought 33 survivors and two corpses out of the colliery. Three of the survivors subsequently died. 87 men and boys were left below ground.

45 minutes after the initial explosion, at 12:15, a rescue team descended the shaft. Because of the firedamp they used Spedding mills to light their way. It was noted that the sparks fell “like dark drops of blood” due to the foul air. Having attempted two directions and being forced back by difficulty breathing they retreated to the pit bottom. The party ascended, but while two were still below and two were in the shaft a second explosion occurred. Haswell and H. Anderson were the two left below and they hung onto a pit prop whilst the blast lifted them and turned them.

The rescue team all agreed that there was no possibility of the men left below ground being alive. Two explosions, blackdamp (locally called choak-damp [sic]), fire and the lethal afterdamp made any rescue attempt impossible. The suggestion was made that the pit be stopped up to extinguish the fire. However local recollections of three men who had survived for 40 days in a pit near Byker led to shouts of “Murder” and obstruction.

Closure
On the following day, Tuesday, a crowd gathered around John Pit and accusations of cowardice were thrown around. Eventually the leaders of the crowd were won around. The owners offered “no expense should be spared” in executing and scheme of rescue but they refused to offer a reward since “they would be accessary to no man’s death by persuation or a bribe.” William pit was closed over with planks.

On the Wednesday Mr Straker and William Haswell (the viewer and the overman) desended John Pit. The sparks from the Spedding mill were extinguished by the blackdamp and Haswell began staggering within 7 yards (6.4 m) due to the effects of the gas. Straker helped him to the shaft where it was still difficult to breathe even in the current of air. Two further men descended but could not move more than a few yards from the base of the shaft and their clothes had the smell of stinkdamp upon them. Smoke was seen ascending from John Pit, a sure sign of the fire below and so the base of John Pit was sealed with clay and planks laid over the mouth. Two days later William Pit was further sealed with clay.

Reopening and Recovery
The pit was cautiously reopened on 4 July. The issuing gas was collected in bladders and tested. At first it exploded when released near a candle flame but by the 8 July it was diluted enough not to do so. The pits were then opened fully on the seventh and allowed to vent. In the morning of the eighth, Straker, Anderson, Haswell and six others descended William shaft and found the air cool and wholesome.

Work on recovering the victims and securing the mine then started. All work was performed using Spedding mills for light. As the workers moved through the mine all the various stoppings and traps had to be repaired to force the air current to fully ventilate it.

The parish priest for Jarrow and Heworth was the Reverend John Hodgson (1779-1845). As well giving comfort to the bereaved, he was instrumental in persuading them to accept a common, speedy burial. The bodies had lain for seven weeks in the pit while the fires were extinguished and were badly decayed. Dr. Ramsay gave his opinion that if the bodies were returned to their homes for a normal wake and burial “putrid fever” might spread throughout the neighbourhood.

Between 8 July and 19 September the business of recovering the dead and repairing the mine continued. Hodgson details the decayed and putrid state of some of the corpses. The recovery teams placed the bodies in coffins in the mine, there was a fear that the bodies might fall apart.

Identification was a problem. Mothers and widows failed to identify most of the bodies “they were too much mangled and scorched to retain any of their features.” Most were identified by clothes, tobacco-boxes, shoes and other items.

Finally on Sunday 20 September, 117 days after the explosion, the pit was inspected by candle light. The furnace below William Pit was relighted and the whole mine brought back into production. One body has never been found.

Analysis
The cause of the first explosion is not known for certain. The most probable cause was firedamp, there being no evidence of large amounts of coal dust in the air, the other significant risk.
After the first explosion the trap doors used for ventilation and the internal wall in the vicinity of the underground crane were observed to be in a good state by the men who escaped. Indeed, even the lamp at the crane was still burning. When the mine was reopened the area was found to damaged: “the stoppings and trap-doors were blown down, the roof fallen and as great marks of destruction as in any other part of the mine.” The area was near John Pit, the down-cast shaft where fresh air was entering the mine at its greatest velocity. Hodgson realised that this was significant and supposed that “the atmospheric current … intercepted the progress of the first explosion, and prevented it from igniting the fire damp here.”

Hodgson then proceeds to assume that the “choak-damp”, perhaps here thinking of afterdamp rather than blackdamp, pressing upwards from the seat of the explosion forced a pocket of firedamp to where the coal was burning and set off the second explosion. However two paragraphs down he observes that the dust in the barrow-ways was burnt to a cinder. That coal dust raised by an initial explosion could be the cause of a further explosion was only starting to be understood in this period.

Aftermath
The tragedy inspired Hodgson to raise public concern about the hazards of mining. Public interest was fed by a short (16 page) pamphlet written by him and published prior to the second disaster in late 1813. Hodgson wrote for an interested public, not for practical miners, and as such explains mining terms and procedures. His description and analysis of the two explosions was historically significant as one of the first to attempt a scientific analysis of such events.

On the 1 October 1812 the Sunderland Society was set up consisting of clergymen, doctors, owners and mine managers.  One of the doctors was W.R. Clanny (1776 – 1850) who had already produced a first, impractial, safety lamp. Also present was George Stephenson who at that time was enginewright for the collieries at Killingworth. The society aimed for:

greater publicity for accidents and their causes
the scientific study of ventilation
the development of safety lamps.

Stephenson designed a safety lamp, known as the Geordie lamp, with air fed through narrow tubes, down which a flame could not move. It also led Sir Humphry Davy to devise another safety lamp, the Davy lamp, in which the flame was surrounded by iron gauze. The gauze had to have small spaces so that a flame could not pass through, but could admit methane, which then burned harmlessly inside the lamp. The height of the luminous cone above the flame gave a measure of the methane concentration in the atmosphere.

1813 Disaster
On 24 December 1813 at 01:30 the colliery again exploded, this time with the loss of 9 men and 13 boys along with 12 horses. All the dead were in the headways by William Pit (the upcast pit). Those in the boards away from William Pit were saved. The (Newcastle Courant 1813) reported the supposition that “the hydrogen [sic] took fire at the crane lamp, in the south headways.”

The southern boards were crossed by several fissures (dykes) from which periodic discharges of gas came through apertures called blowers. The blowers could make “the coals on the floor dance round their orifices, like gravel in a strong spring.” The discharges were deal with by the strong current of air, strong enough to extinguish candles.

None of the mine was found to be damaged by fire so after retrieval of the bodies and inspection of the mine it was reopened. On the 30 December workmen found fire in part of the waste and as a result the mouths of the shafts were stopped up for a while.

1847 Disaster
On Tuesday 22 June 1847, shortly after 21:00, another explosion occurred at Felling Colliery. Six miners were killed, four outright and two died of their injuries over the following two days. The surgeon employed by the mine owners tried, unsuccessfully, to treat the injured. Two of the dead were killed immediately by a fall of rock from the roof, the other two by afterdamp. As well as the human cost, eighteen horses were killed either by the explosion or by the afterdamp.

One of the survivors, Peter Gibbon, saw from his safety lamp that the air quality had changed. He commented to the man he was working with, George Chapman, “Do ye mind what a current of air there was!” Chapman had not noticed anything, but being at that time in charge of the pit he went off to investigate. Chapman was subsequently rescued, but died the following day. After an hour Gibbon tried to escape but broke his lamp and in the darkness was blocked by a roof fall. He was eventually rescued. That, although significant damage was done, some of the men neither heard nor felt and shock was commented upon in newspaper reports.

The viewer, Mr Foster, stated to the Newcastle Guardian that Davy lamps were employed throughout the colliery and that all the men were given written instructions in their use. The old areas of the colliery released a lot of foul air, but there was “not a better ventilated colliery on the Tyne.” Foster reported that 60,000 cubic feet (1,700 m3) per minute was drawn down the shaft, a fact confirmed at the coroner’s inquest by Mr Foster, the viewer.

The colliery overman, John Greener, told the coroner that he had gone down the pit after the explosion and “found the separation stoppings blown down, and the stables on fire.” He penetrated up to 600 yards (550 m) from the shaft before being overcome by foul air and forced to retreat and go home.

On the Thursday evening, two days later a coroner’s inquest was opened and adjourned until a full inspection could take place. The inquest reopened on the following Wednesday. The principal witness was the viewer, Mr Thomas Forster. He confirmed much that had earlier been reported; the pit was well ventilated and Davy lamps were in use.

The seat of the explosion was found by Mr Foster to be an underground engine used to haul coals to the pit base. The engineman had added fresh coal to the fire and closed the damper before going off shift at 16:00. The damper should have remained slightly open to allow burnt gas from the fire to escape up the chimney. It was supposed that the damper had been closed fully and partial combustion had occurred effectively generating town gas (“acting as a retort”). The gas eventually escaped and the resultant explosion caused major damage to the boiler and flue.

Four viewers from other pits all corroborated Foster’s conclusions. The engineman, George Hope, said that he put on around 3½ pecks of small coals and “left the damper open about an inch and three-quarters I always leave my fire this way.” The coroner’s jury returned a verdict of “Accidental Death.” The jury recommended that a pin was placed in the damper so stop it closing to less than four inches (100 mm).

The Memorial to 1812
A memorial to the 91 victims was placed in St Mary’s Churchyard where most of the coffins were placed in a common grave. The monument has a square base with a square pyramid above. On each of the four faces is a brass plaque:

In Memory of the 91 Persons Killed in Felling Colliery 25 May 1812

PHILLIP ALLAN……. AGED 17.
JACOB ALLAN……………14.
ANDREW ALLAN…………..11.
JOS: ANDERSON………….23.
THO: BAINBRIDGE………..53.
MATT: BAINBRIDGE……….19.
THO: BAINBRIDGE………..17.
GEO: BAINBRIDGE………..10.
THOMAS BEARS…………..48.
GEORGE BELL……………14.
EDWARD BELL……………12.
JOHN BOUTLAND………….46.
WILL: BOUTLAND…………19.
MATT: BROWN……………28.
JOHN BURNITT…………..21.
JAMES COMBY……………28.
JAMES CRAIGS…………..13.
THOMAS CRAGGS………….36.
THOMAS CRAGGS…………..9.
CHRIS: CULLY…………. 20.
GEORGE CULLY…………..14.
WILLIAM DIXON………….35.
WILLIAM DIXON………….10.
JOHN A.DOBSON………….13.
ROBERT DOBSON………….13.
PAUL FLETCHER………….22.
WILL GALLEY……………22.
GREG GALLEY……………10.
MICH GARDINER………….45.
WILL GARDINER………….10.
ROBERT GORDON………….40.
JOSEPH GORDON………….10.
THOMAS GORDON…………..8.
ISAAC GREENER………….65.
ISAAC GREENER………….24.
JOHN GREENER…………..21.
RALPH HALL…………….18.
ROBERT HALL……………15.
RA HARRISON……………39.
ROB HARRISON…………..14.
JOHN HARRISON………….12.
ROB HASWELL……………42.
JOHN HASWELL…………..22.
EDW HASWELL……………20.
BEN HASWELL……………18.
WILL HUNTER……………35.
JOHN HUNTER……………21.
MICH HUNTER……………18.
ROB HUTCHINSON…………11.
WILL JACQUES…………..23.
JOHN JACQUES…………..14.
JAMES KAY……………..18.
GEORGE KAY…………….16.
JOHN KNOX……………..11.
GEO LAWTON…………….14.
ROB C LECK…………….16.
CHRIS MASON……………34.
GEO MITCHESON………….18.
JOHN PEARSON…………..64.
JOHN PEARSON…………..38.
GEO PEARSON……………26.
EDW PEARSON……………14.
ROB PEARSON……………10.
MATT PRINGLE…………..18.
JOS PRINGLE……………16.
GEORGE REAY…………….9.
EDW RICHARDSON…………39.
WILL RICHARDSON………..19.
THO RICHARDSON…………17.
THOMAS RIDLEY………….13.
GEORGE RIDLEY………….11.
THOMAS ROBSON………….18.
GEORGE ROBSON………….15.
WILL SANDERSON…………43.
MATT SANDERSON…………33.
JOHN SURTEES…………..12.
JOHN THOMPSON………….36.
BENJ THOMPSON………….17.
JERE TURNBULL………….43.
JOHN TURNBULL………….27.
NICK URWIN…………….58.
JOHN WILKINSON…………35.
JOHN WILSON……………52.
JOHN WILSON……………30.
JOS WILSON…………….23.
CHAR WILSON……………20.
JOSEPH WOOD……………39.
JOHN WOOD……………..27.
JOSEPH YOUNG…………..30.
THOMAS YOUNG…………..34.

Posted in British history, buildings and structures, Great Britain, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, Victorian era | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Regency Celebrity: William Waldegrave, 1st Baron Radstock

220px-Admiral_William_Waldegrave,_1st_Baron_Radstock_(1753-1825)_by_James_Northcote William Waldegrave, 1st Baron Radstock GCB (9 July 1753 – 20 August 1825) was the Governor of Newfoundland and an Admiral in the Royal Navy.

Waldegrave was the second son of John Waldegrave, 3rd Earl Waldegrave and Elizabeth (née Gower). Joining the navy at age 13 in 1766, Waldegrave rose rapidly through the ranks, receiving his own command, the Zephyr in 1775, and being promoted to Vice-Admiral in 1795. He was the third in command on the British side at the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in February 1797, and was offered a baronetcy for the role he played in the battle. Waldegrave declined the offer (on the grounds that as a son of an earl, he already held a higher station), and was appointed the Governor of Newfoundland, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, on 16 May 1797.

During Waldegrave’s time as Governor, he was chiefly concerned with military matters, as a French squadron had burned Bay Bulls just a year prior, and Newfoundland was still quite exposed. Another key problem was desertion, as soldiers deserting to Newfoundland were generally sheltered by the island’s inhabitants. A naval mutiny occurred shortly after Waldegrave’s appointment and had to be stopped; Waldegrave also took steps to ensure that soldiers garrisoned in St. John’s did not try anything similar. In military matters, he was often at odds with his commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Skinner.

Waldegrave made several attempts to restrict the power of the merchants on Newfoundland, and also to bring law and order to the island. Although his efforts against the merchants were largely ineffective, Waldegrave was successful in having a chief justice appointed who would reside year round. Waldegrave also undertook various humanitarian projects, especially to help the poor. He established a “Committee for the Relief of the Poor,” and contributed generously to the fund. Between 1797 and 1798, nearly 300 people received assistance from this fund.

Waldegrave finished his term as governor in 1800 and was created an Irish peer as Baron Radstock. In 1802, upon his retirement Waldegrave was promoted to full admiral. In 1815 he was appointed a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath.

Waldegrave was married in 1785 to Cornelia Jacoba van Lennep. They had three sons and six daughters:
**V-Adm. Granville George Waldegrave, 2nd Baron Radstock (1786–1857), married Esther Paget and had issue
**Hon. Emily Susanna Laura Waldegrave (5 November 1787 – 12 April 1870), married Nicholas Westby
**Maria Waldegrave (26 December 1788 – 1791)
**Hon. Isabella Elizabeth Waldegrave (18 August 1792 – 21 October 1866)
**Hon. Harriet Ann Frances Waldegrave (20 October 1793 – 26 July 1880), unmarried
**Capt. Hon. William Waldegrave (7 June 1796 – 29 December 1838), married Amelia Allport
**Hon. Caroline Waldegrave (4 October 1798 – 7 January 1878), married Rev. Carew Anthony St John-Mildmay and had issue
**Hon. Augustus Waldegrave (4 February 1803 – November 1825), killed in a hunting accident near Mexico City
**Elizabeth Frances (24 November 1799 – August 1800)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Regency Celebrity: William Waldegrave, 1st Baron Radstock

Regency Celebrity: Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth

245px-John_Singleton_Copley_-_Henry_Addington,_First_Viscount_SidmouthHenry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth, PC (30 May 1757 – 15 February 1844) was a British statesman, and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1804.
Henry Addington was the son of Anthony Addington, Pitt’s physician, and Mary Addington, the daughter of the Rev. Haviland John Hiley, headmaster of Reading School. As a consequence of his father’s position, Addington was a childhood friend of William Pitt the Younger. Addington studied at Winchester and Brasenose College, Oxford, and then studied law at Lincoln’s Inn.

Political Career
He was elected to the House of Commons in 1784 as Member of Parliament (MP) for Devizes, and became Speaker of the House of Commons in 1789. In March 1801, William Pitt the Younger resigned from office, ostensibly over the refusal of King George III to remove some of the existing political restrictions on Roman Catholics in Ireland (Catholic Emancipation), but poor health, failure in war, economic collapse, alarming levels of social unrest due to famine, and irreconcilable divisions within the Cabinet also played a role. Both Pitt and the King insisted that Addington take over as Prime Minister, despite his own objections, and his failed attempts to reconcile the King and Pitt.

Prime Minister
Addington’s period as Prime Minister was most notable for his reforms that doubled the efficiency of the Income tax and for the negotiation of the Treaty of Amiens, in 1802. While the terms of the Treaty were the bare minimum that the British government could accept, Napoleon Bonaparte would not have agreed to any terms more favorable to the British, and the British government had reached a state of financial collapse, owing to war expenditure, the loss of Continental markets for British goods, and two successive failed harvests that had led to widespread famine and social unrest, rendering peace a necessity.

By early 1803 the United Kingdom’s financial and diplomatic positions had recovered sufficiently to allow Addington to declare war on France, when it became clear the French would not allow a settlement for the defenses of Malta that would have been secure enough to fend off a French invasion that appeared imminent. Addington’s management of the war was characterized by the cultivating of better relations with Russia, Austria, and Prussia, that later culminated in the Third Coalition shortly after he left office. Addington also strengthened British defenses against a French invasion through the building of Martello towers on the south coast and the raising of more than 600,000 men at arms.

Loss of Office
Addington was driven from office in May 1804 by an alliance of Pitt, Charles James Fox and William Wyndham Grenville, 1st Baron Grenville, who decided that they wanted Cabinet offices for themselves. Addington’s greatest failing was his inability to manage a parliamentary majority, by cultivating the loyal support of MPs beyond his own circle and the friends of the King. This combined with his mediocre speaking ability, left him vulnerable to Pitt’s mastery of Parliamentary management and his unparalleled oratory skills. Pitt’s Parliamentary assault against Addington in March 1804 led to the slimming of his Parliamentary majority to the point where defeat in the House of Commons was imminent.

Addington remained an important political figure, however, and the next year he was created Viscount Sidmouth. He served in Pitt’s final Cabinet as Lord President of the Council to 1806, and in the Ministry of All the Talents as Lord Privy Seal and again Lord President to 1807.

Home Secretary
He returned to government again as Lord President in March, 1812, and, in June of the same year, became Home Secretary. As Home Secretary, Sidmouth countered revolutionary opposition, being responsible for the temporary suspension of habeas corpus in 1817 and the passage of the Six Acts in 1819. His tenure also saw the Peterloo Massacre of 1819. Sidmouth left office in 1822, succeeded as Home Secretary by Sir Robert Peel, but remained in the Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio for the next two years, fruitlessly opposing British recognition of the South American republics. He remained active in the House of Lords for the next few years, making his final speech in opposition to Catholic Emancipation in 1829 and casting his final vote against the Reform Act 1832.

Foundling Hospital
As Prime Minister, in 1802, Addington accepted an honorary position as vice president for life on the Court of Governors of London’s Foundling Hospital for abandoned babies.

Residences and Land

Addington maintained homes at Up Ottery, Devon and Bulmershe Court, in what is now the Reading suburb of Woodley, but moved to the White Lodge in Richmond Park when he became Prime Minister. However he maintained links with Woodley and the Reading area, as commander of the Woodley Yeomanry Cavalry and High Steward of Reading. He also donated to the town of Reading the four acres (16,000 m²) of land that is today the Royal Berkshire Hospital, and his name is commemorated in the town’s Sidmouth Street and Addington Road as well as in Sidmouth street in Devizes.

Death
Henry Addington died in London on 15 February 1844 at the age of 86, and was buried in the churchyard at St Mary the Virgin Mortlake, Greater London.

Posted in British history, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments