Every Woman Dreams...

Victorian Celebrity: Benjamin Wills Newton, the John Calvin of the 19th Century

Posted on October 4, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

Benjamin Wills Newton, (12 December 1807 – 26 June 1899) was an evangelist and author of Christian books. He was influential in the Plymouth Brethren. Although initially a close friend of John Nelson Darby, they began to clash on matters of church doctrine and practice, which ultimately led to the 1848 split of the brethren movement into the Open Brethren and Exclusive Brethren.

Early Days
Newton was born in Davenport near Plymouth, Devon, in a Quaker family. His father died shortly before Benjamin was born. Newton had no siblings. He studied at Exeter College, Oxford, where he obtained a 1st Class Classics degree in 1828 and became a fellow of the college.

Establishment of a Brethren Assembly at Plymouth
At Oxford, he abandoned Quaker beliefs and joined the Anglican Church. He was friends of Francis William Newman and George Wigram. Through Newman, he first met John Nelson Darby. Newton and his friends in Oxford became increasingly critical of the Anglican Church, especially in regard to its subjection to the sovereign state and the appointment of ordained clergy.

In December 1831, Wigram left the Anglican church and bought a nonconformist place of worship, Providence Chapel in Raleigh Street, Plymouth, Devon. Meetings were open to Christians from all denominations for fellowship, prayer, praise and communion.

In January 1832, Newton and Darby, although at the time, both Anglican clerics, shared communion with Wigram at such a meeting. By March 1832, Newton had left the Anglican Church, committed himself to the new fellowship and married a local girl, Hannah Abbott. The “Providence People” as they were known locally, grew quickly, became known as “The Brethren from Plymouth” and then were referred to as the Plymouth Brethren.

Around 1832 Darby also left a denominational/sectarian system, the Church of Ireland.

The predominant features of the Plymouth assembly in 1832 included:
**Rejection of clergy and adoption of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers
**Plurality of Elders – The elders were unpaid. Newton soon became an elder, and earned his living as a school teacher
**Weekly communion
**Separation from evil systems – e.g. not being in the armed forces or a member of any apostate denominational church

The Plymouth assembly was similar to an assembly in Dublin, Ireland, which was established in 1827 by Anthony Norris Groves, Darby and other Christians who sought a return of Christendom to New Testament principles. Like the Dublin assembly, which originally was anti sectarian in that it was open to all Christian believers, the Plymouth assembly in 1832 began defining qualifications for membership and an insistence that fellowship could only occur after severing any other fellowship with a denominational church. The shifting to a sectarian position was detected by Anthony Norris Groves, as shown in his letter to Darby in 1835.

Relations with John Nelson Darby
John Nelson Darby was the dominant force in the early Brethren movement. Newton saw him as his mentor, whilst Darby saw Newton as a prized disciple. It was Newton who had first invited Darby to the Plymouth Assembly in 1831 in order that the Plymouth assembly could be modelled on the assembly in Dublin. Darby, eager to evangelise and teach throughout Europe, appointed Newton as the primary elder in Plymouth. Although they were in agreement over many issues, such as the rejection of the pentecostal teachings of Edward Irving, by 1834, cracks began to develop in their relationship.

In 1834, a dispute arose over their friend, Francis Newman, who had started to hold heretical beliefs in regards to the divinity of Christ. Darby excommunicated Newman, but Newton allowed Newman to keep fellowship with the Plymouth assembly in the hope that Newman would be restored. In 1835, demonstrating his increasing independence of Darby, Newton stepped down as presiding elder, believing that elders should not be elected by the authority of man, as had been the case at Plymouth. Although no longer the presiding elder, his influence and leadership of the assembly continued to grow.

A bigger dispute also began to arise in the 1830s over their differing views of future events predicted in the Bible. Although both were premillennialists, Newton believed the church would go through the tribulation, whilst Darby, who previously also believed in a post tribulation rapture, began to shift positions and became increasingly convinced in a pretribulation rapture. Newton also had a different view on dispensationalism and believed the present dispensation consisted of three concurrent parts. Firstly the dispensation from Noah to the 2nd coming of the Lord (Genesis 9 v1-6), secondly the Gentile dispensation commencing with Nebuchadnezzar and also terminating with the 2nd coming of the Lord, and thirdly the New Covenant dispensation. Newton was particularly critical of Darby’s belief that future events in chapter 24 of the Gospel of Matthew relate primarily to the Jews after the church had been secretly raptured and said that “the Secret Rapture was bad enough, but this [John Darby’s equally novel idea that the book of Matthew is on ‘Jewish’ ground instead of ‘Church’ ground] was worse.”

Newton interpreted 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 2 Thessalonians 2 v1-4 as proof of a post tribulation, non-secret rapture. He viewed Darby’s dispensational and pre-tribulation rapture teaching as “the height of speculative nonsense.” Unlike Darby, he also believed that the church is made up of both Jews, including Old Testament saints, and Gentiles who have been made one in Christ and that Darby’s scheme, followed logically, implied two distinct and separate ways to salvation.

Between 1835 and 1845, Darby spent much of his time in Continental Europe during which time the assembly in Plymouth had grown to over 1000 people with the condition of the assembly being likened to “heaven on earth.”

In 1840, a larger chapel in Ebrington Street, Plymouth, was built and used for the main worship services, while Providence Chapel was retained for smaller meetings such as evangelistic services.

In 1843, Darby briefly visited Plymouth, and tensions with Newton grew. Darby was dismayed by the state of the assembly which, in his absence, he perceived as having shifted away from the priesthood of all believers towards the establishment of official clergy. The doctrinal dispute over future events also was intensified by the publication of Newton’s book Thoughts on the Apocalypse in 1842 which, in the following year, received a hostile 490-page review by Darby.

In March 1845, Darby fled Switzerland, due to a threat of revolution in Geneva, and travelled directly to Plymouth to “battle for the soul of Brethrenism.” A war of words, escalating into a pamphlet war ensued. The battle was over eschatology, the priesthood of all believers together with the role of assembly leaders. Darby had by this time developed strong views against the formal recognition of elders.

Also at dispute was whether, as Newton believed, each assembly was independent and autonomous or, as Darby believed, were connected and integral parts of a universal body. Both Darby and Newton had strong, intransigent personalities, which exacerbated the situation. The dispute became personal with Darby exiting from fellowship with the Plymouth assembly and publicly accusing Newton of deception and dishonesty. The charges against Newton were investigated by the elders at Ebrington Street and were dismissed.

Although most of the Plymouth assembly, at this stage, supported Newton, Darby did have some support in the dispute, particularly from Wigram, by then living in London, who had earlier financed the purchase of both the Raleigh Street and Ebrington Street premises.

In December 1845, Wigram wrote to the Plymouth elders formally withdrawing his fellowship from Ebrington Street and revoking his loan of the Raleigh Street chapel. The use of Raleigh Street was given to Darby and his supporters, resulting in two local brethren assemblies at odds with each other. Both parties continued with the dispute and were eager to explain their position to other brethren assemblies, which were springing up throughout the country. In 1846 whilst Newton was travelling around London holding private meetings to partly answer charges levelled against him by Darby, a brethren assembly in Rawthorne Street, London, where Wigram was leader, requested Newton to attend a meeting so that the charges against him could again be looked into. Newton, backed by the Ebrington Street meeting, declined their persistent requests to attend, and was subsequently excommunicated by Rawthorne Street.

In 1847, the Darby party discovered that Newton, firstly in an article printed in 1835, had taught heretical doctrine in regards to the Person of Christ. The article was produced as a rebuttal to Edward Irving’s heretical teachings regarding the Person of Christ, which had gained popularity.

Newton believed that Christ, although perfect, experienced sufferings before the day of Crucifixion, not for the sake of others, but due to his association, through his mother, with Adam and his descendents and more specifically with the apostate nation of Israel. Therefore, according to Newton, Christ suffered hunger and pain and had a mortal body. Darby and his supporters seized the opportunity to condemn Newton as a heretic. Although Newton apologised and retracted his “Adamic error,” and withdrew for consideration his views on the sufferings of Christ, some of the elders at Ebrington Street began to lose confidence in him.

Darby was not satisfied at this, allegedly due to the lack of repentance shown by Newton or as Henry Groves, the son of Anthony Norris Groves, another eminent Brethren leader said, Darby was “bent on ruling” and wanted rid of his rival. Darby’s persistence in the matter and Newton’s refusal to retaliate, but rather to “turn the other cheek,” resulted in Darby successfully winning over the elders who had supported Newton, leaving Newton isolated. On December 7, 1847, Newton permanently left the brethren movement and moved to London where he established an independent meeting.

The feud ultimately led to the division of the Plymouth Brethren in 1848 when George Muller, the co-leader of Bethesda chapel, a brethren assembly in Bristol, allowed visitors from Ebrington Street into fellowship in Bristol and was slow to comply to Darby’s ultimatum for all assemblies to condemn Newton’s heresy. Darby, in response, excommunicated all those in fellowship at Bethesda. The assemblies, which supported Darby’s action, became known as the Exclusive Brethren and those which rallied behind George Muller and Bethesda chapel, and subsequently also excommunicated, were named Open Brethren.Ironically, in 1858, Darby also was accused of holding a similar heresy to that of Newton’s in regards to the sufferings of Christ.

Post Brethren Years
Newton married Maria Hawkins in 1849, his first wife having died in 1846. His only child died at the age of 5 in 1855.
Throughout the next 50 years, he remained active as a Christian teacher and writer. After leaving the Plymouth Brethren, he set up an independent chapel in Bayswater, London. He later lived in Orpingon, Kent, followed by Newport, Isle of Wight. For the last 3 years of his life he lived in Tunbridge Wells.

Although labelled as an evil-doer and a false teacher by the Darbyites, other people view Newton as the John Calvin of the 19th century and believe the Brethren movement may have done better if it had followed his teaching rather than Darby’s dispensationalism, and Darby’s belief in the any moment pre-tribulation secret return of the Lord for the secret rapture of the saints to heaven, and for the Lord to return publicly with the church 7 years later for the commencement of a 1000 year reign.

His friends and supporters during years of relentless vilification by the Darbyites included Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, George Muller and Charles Spurgeon.

Historian Roy Coad notes, “He lived until 1899, retreating into a little circle of two or three churches of his own, and leaving a devoted following, mainly among Strict Baptists.”
As a writer he produced more than 200 published works. His great gift was exposition of the Scriptures and, particularly, unfulfilled prophecy.

Posted in British history, real life tales, religion, Victorian era | Tagged Anthony Norris Groves, Benjamin Wills Newton, Edward Irving, Francis William Newman, George Wigram, John Nelson Darby, Providence Chapel, Providence People | Comments Off

Victorian Celebrity: George Wigram, Founder of the Plymouth Brethren

Posted on October 3, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

George Vicesimus Wigram (29 March 1805 – 1 February 1879) was an English biblical scholar and theologian.

Early Life
He was the 20th child (hence his middle name) of Sir Robert Wigram, 1st Baronet, a famous and wealthy merchant, and the 14th child of Lady Eleanor Wigram, Robert’s 2nd wife (an aunt to Charles Stewart Parnell). His family were all capable and several of his siblings became illustrious in their own chosen fields: Sir James Wigram became a judge and Vice-Chancellor; Joseph Cotton Wigram became Bishop of Rochester, Loftus Wigram was a barrister and politician, and Octavius Wigram was prominent as an insurance underwriter in the City of London.

As a young man George Wigram obtained a commission in the army. One of his postings was to Brussels. He spent an evening exploring the Waterloo battlefield, and it was here he had a religious experience that changed his life. He wrote of it thusly, “Suddenly there came on my soul a something I had never known before. It was as if some One, Infinite and Almighty, knowing everything, full of the deepest, tenderest interest in myself, though utterly and entirely abhorring everything in, and connected with me, made known to me that He pitied and loved myself.” This led to his resigning his commission in the army, and in 1826, he entered Queens College, Oxford, with the intention of becoming an Anglican clergyman.

Christian Career
At Oxford he met John Nelson Darby and Benjamin Wills Newton. Dissatisfied with the established church, Wigram and his friends left the Anglican church and helped establish non-denominational assemblies, which became known as the Plymouth Brethren. He had considered joining Anthony Norris Groves and his mission to Baghdad in June 1829, but changed his mind just prior to the faith mission set off.

After leaving Oxford University, Wigram, using his family wealth, in 1831 bought church premises in Plymouth, and there established a Brethren assembly. During the 1830s Wigram also financed the establishment of assemblies in London.

Wigram had a keen interest in the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible, which was of great interest to the emerging Brethren assemblies. In 1839, after years of work and financial investment, he published The Englishman’s Greek and English Concordance to the New Testament, followed in 1843 by The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance to the Old Testament. He also edited the influential Brethren periodical Present Testimony and Original Christian Witness for many years (from 1849 to his death with posthumous issues running to 1881). This periodical superseded the Brethren’s first magazine, The Christian Witness.

Besides his literary work his oral ministry was considered to
be marked by an attractive freshness: a contemporary remarked that his “very face became radiant as he spoke.” Many of his addresses have been preserved and published in the two volumes Memorials of the Ministry of G.V. Wigram and Gleanings from the Teaching of G.V. Wigram. These were collected by the erstwhile Lewisham Road Baptist Church Minister, Edward Dennett.

With Wigram’s help, Darby became the most influential personality within the Brethren movement. Wigram is often referred to as being Darby’s lieutenant, as he firmly supported Darby during moments of crisis. In 1845 he supported Darby in his doctrinal differences with Benjamin Wills Newton in the Brethren assembly at Plymouth. In Darby’s 1848 dispute with George Müller, Wigram again sided with Darby in relation to the reception of believers who had previously been in fellowship with Newton, and on Müller’s reluctance to publicly denounce errors by Newton in regards to the sufferings of Christ (errors which Newton had already retracted). He also helped Darby fend off accusations of heresy, also in regards to the sufferings of Christ, in articles written in 1858 and 1866, which some considered were very similar to Newton’s errors two decades earlier.

Married Life
Wigram married Fanny Bligh in 1830, the daughter of Thomas Bligh, whom Wigram had known as a girl in Ireland; she died in 1834. His second marriage was to Catherine, the only daughter of William Parnell of Avondale. Their London home was 3 Howley Place, Harrow Road, London. In 1867, Wigram visited Canada. His wife Catherine joined him there two months later, but became ill and died a short time later. The family physician was Limerick-born Dr Thomas Mackern. Wigram was 62 years old. Four years later his daughter Fanny Theodosia, child of his first wife, died.

Travels
Wigram travelled in the UK, preaching and teaching in large Brethren assemblies. He visited Switzerland in 1853 and again in Vaud Canton in 1858. In later life, he went abroad to minister to the many overseas assemblies of the Brethren, including Boston and Canada in 1867. Writing in November 1871, from Demerara, British Guiana, he said, “I came out in my old age, none save Himself with me,” Jamaica 1872. This led to further travel, visiting Australia and New Zealand in 1873-75 and again in 1877-78.

Besides travel he maintained a wide correspondence with labourers in emerging Brethren assemblies. Among these were Louis Favez of Mauritius.

Hymnology
Wigram contributed to the hymnology of the Brethren assemblies in a number of ways. He edited the anthology Hymns for the Poor of the Flock (1838). This collection contained hymns by Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley, William Cowper, Thomas Kelly and others; and an appendix was added, chiefly to include a number of hymns by Sir Edward Denny that had just been written.

The four earliest of John Nelson Darby’s were also inserted. 18 years later (1856) Wigram compiled A Few Hymns and some Spiritual Songs for the Little Flock to replace the previous collection. This hymnbook was revised by Darby in 1881, William Kelly in 1894, and again by T.H. Reynolds in 1903.

Wigram also wrote a number of hymns, and these include the following
** Well may we sing, with triumph sing
** Oh, what a debt we owe
** The Person of the Christ
** What raised the wondrous thought

Death
Wigram died in 1879 at the age of 74 and was buried with his daughter in Paddington Cemetery by the side of Sir Edward Denny. It has been said that the large concourse of people there sang a hymn in deference to his wish expressed in his lifetime, so that all might understand that he owed all to the sovereign mercy of God. The hymn sung was: “Nothing but mercy’ll do for me, / Nothing but mercy – full and free, / Of sinners chief – what but the blood / Could calm my soul, before my God.”

Posted in British history, buildings and structures, real life tales, religion, Victorian era, William IV | Tagged Benjamin Wills Newton, Charles Nelson Darby, George Wigram, John Nelson Darby, Joseph Cotton Wigram, Loftus Wigram, Plymouth Brethren, Sir James Wigrram, Sir Robert Wigram | Comments Off

England’s 1835 Highway Act Codifies the Laws Relating to Highways

Posted on October 2, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

The Highway Act 1835 (5 & 6 Will 4 c 50) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was one of the Highway Acts 1835 to 1885.

Parish Boards
The Highway Act 1835 placed highways under the direction of parish surveyors and allowed them to pay for the costs involved by rates levied on the occupiers of land. The surveyor’s duty was to keep the highways in repair, and if a highway was out of repair, the surveyor could be summoned before the courts and ordered to complete the repairs within a limited time. The surveyor was also charged with the removal of nuisances on the highway. A highway nuisance could be abated by any person, and could be made the subject of indictment at common law.

The board consisted of representatives of the various parishes, called “way wardens” together with the justices for the county residing within the district. Salaries and similar expenses incurred by the board were charged on a district fund to which the several parishes contributed; but each parish remained separately responsible for the expenses of maintaining its own highways.

The amending acts, while not interfering with the operation of the principal act, authorize the creation of highway districts on a larger scale. The justices of a county could convert it or any portion of it into a highway district to be governed by a highway board, the powers and responsibilities of which would be the same as those of the parish surveyor under the former act.

New Road Offences
The Highway Act 1835 specified as offences for which the driver of a carriage on the public highway might be punished by a fine, in addition to any civil action that might be brought against him:

***Riding upon the cart, or upon any horse drawing it, and not having some other person to guide it, unless there be some person driving it.
***Negligence causing damage to person or goods being conveyed on the highway
***Quitting his cart, or leaving control of the horses, or leaving the cart so as to be an obstruction on the highway.
***Not having the owner’s name painted up.
***Refusing to give the same.
***Driving animals or a ‘carriage of any description’ on the footway.
***Not keeping on the left or near side of the road, when meeting any other carriage or horse. This rule did not apply in the case of a carriage meeting a foot-passenger, but a driver was bound to use due care to avoid driving against any person crossing the highway on foot. At the same time a passenger crossing the highway was also bound to use due care in avoiding vehicles, and the mere fact of a driver being on the wrong side of the road would not be evidence of negligence in such a case.
***The playing of football on public highways, with a maximum penalty of forty shillings.

Section 72
Section 72 provides: “If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon.”

This clause is referred to by the current Highway Code:
Rule 62: (use of cycle tracks).
Rule 64: “You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.”
Rule 145: “You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.” (The offence of driving on a bridleway is covered by a later act)
Rule 157: (The Department for Transport cited this section in 2006 when it ruled that Segways could not be legally used on pavements in the United Kingdom.)

Posted in British history, political stance, William IV | 3 Comments

Bristol Riots from 1793 – 2011

Posted on October 1, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

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 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 Bristol Bridge Riot 1793, Hatcliffe 1992, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Brereton, National Riots 2011, Old Market Riot 1932, Queen Square Riots 1831, St Pauls Riot 1980, Stokes Croft Tesco Riot 2011 | 1 Comment

Late Regency Happening: Tithe War in Ireland

Posted on September 30, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

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 Patrick "Patt" Lalor, Roman Catholic Emancipation Act, Tithe War | 1 Comment

Regency Celebrity: John Bellingham, Assassin

Posted on September 27, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

John 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 British Prime Minister Spencer Perceval, John Bellingham, Mary Neville, Soloman Van Brienen | Comments Off

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

Posted on September 26, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

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.

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 James Pratt, John Smith, Offences against the Person Act 1828, William Bonill | 1 Comment

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

Posted on September 25, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

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 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

Posted on September 24, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

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 Catholic Emancipation, Corn Law, tax-eaters | Comments Off on Regency Celebrity: William Cobbett and The Political Register

Regency Happenings: The Swing Riots

Posted on September 23, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

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
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
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
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 Captain Swing, Elham Valley, Kent, Poor Laws, Swing Riots, threshing machines, tithe system | 7 Comments

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Search for:

Follow Me!

Recent Posts

Scottish Jig vs Highland Fling + the Upcoming Release of “Lyon on the Inside” from Dragonblade Publishing, Arriving 17 June 2026

Traitor Tuesday: Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: Thomas Jefferson, the Signer Who Wrote the Declaration of Independence

Scottish Words for Kicking Someone’s Behind + the Upcoming Release of “Lyon on the Inside” from Dragonblade Publishing, Arriving 17 June 2026

Purchasing Commissions During the Napoleonic Wars

RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES: Could Someone, for example, Disinherit a Second Son?

Recent Comments

Regina Jeffers on Scottish Words for Kicking Som…
kayelem on Scottish Words for Kicking Som…
Regina Jeffers on Scottish Words for Kicking Som…
collinshemingway on Scottish Words for Kicking Som…
Regina Jeffers on RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES: Cou…

Archives

April 2026

March 2026

February 2026

January 2026

December 2025

November 2025

October 2025

September 2025

August 2025

July 2025

June 2025

May 2025

April 2025

March 2025

February 2025

January 2025

December 2024

November 2024

October 2024

September 2024

August 2024

July 2024

June 2024

May 2024

April 2024

March 2024

February 2024

January 2024

December 2023

November 2023

October 2023

September 2023

August 2023

July 2023

June 2023

May 2023

April 2023

March 2023

February 2023

January 2023

December 2022

November 2022

October 2022

September 2022

August 2022

July 2022

June 2022

May 2022

April 2022

March 2022

February 2022

January 2022

December 2021

November 2021

October 2021

September 2021

August 2021

July 2021

June 2021

May 2021

April 2021

March 2021

February 2021

January 2021

December 2020

November 2020

October 2020

September 2020

August 2020

July 2020

June 2020

May 2020

April 2020

March 2020

February 2020

January 2020

December 2019

November 2019

October 2019

September 2019

August 2019

July 2019

June 2019

May 2019

April 2019

March 2019

February 2019

January 2019

December 2018

November 2018

October 2018

September 2018

August 2018

July 2018

June 2018

May 2018

April 2018

March 2018

February 2018

January 2018

December 2017

November 2017

October 2017

September 2017

August 2017

July 2017

June 2017

May 2017

April 2017

March 2017

February 2017

January 2017

December 2016

November 2016

October 2016

September 2016

August 2016

July 2016

June 2016

May 2016

April 2016

March 2016

February 2016

January 2016

December 2015

November 2015

October 2015

September 2015

August 2015

July 2015

June 2015

May 2015

April 2015

March 2015

February 2015

January 2015

December 2014

November 2014

October 2014

September 2014

August 2014

July 2014

June 2014

May 2014

April 2014

March 2014

February 2014

January 2014

December 2013

November 2013

October 2013

September 2013

August 2013

July 2013

June 2013

May 2013

April 2013

March 2013

February 2013

January 2013

December 2012

November 2012

October 2012

September 2012

August 2012

July 2012

June 2012

May 2012

April 2012

March 2012

February 2012

January 2012

December 2011

November 2011

October 2011

September 2011

August 2011

July 2011

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2010

November 2010

October 2010

September 2010

August 2010

July 2010

Categories

Act of Parliament

acting

Africa

Age of Chaucer

Always Austen

America

American History

Anglo-Normans

Anglo-Saxons

anthology

Appalachia

architecture

aristocracy

art

Austen actors

Austen Authors

ballads

Barbara Kyle

Bells

birthdays

Black Opal Books

blog hop

book excerpts

book release

books

British currency

British history

British Navy

buildings and structures

business

Canterbury tales

castles

Chaucer

Christmas

Church of England

citizenship test

commerce

company

contemporary

contemporary romance

contest

customs and tradiitons

dancing

Declaration of Independence

Do You Remember?

Dorset

Dragonblade Publishers

drama

Dreamstone Publishing

dueling

eBooks

editing

education

Education in NC

Edward III

Elizabeth I

Elizabethan drama

Emma

England

estates

etymology

euphemisms

excerpt

exploration

family

fashion

film

film adaptations

finance

food

food and drink

George IV

George Wickham

Georgian

Georgian England

Georgian Era

giveaway

gothic and paranormal

Great Britain

Gretna Green

Guest Blog

Guest Post

heraldry

herbs

hero

heroines

historical fiction

history

holidays

horology

Industrial Revolution

Industry News/Publishing

Inheritance

interview

inventions

Ireland

Jane Austen

JASNA

King Arthur

kings and queens

language choices

laws of the land

legacy

legends

legends and myths

Levirate marriage

lexicon

literature

Living in the Regency

Living in the UK

love quotes

Mansfield Park

manuscript evaluation

marriage

marriage customs

marriage licenses

medicine

medieval

military

modern adaptations

music

mystery

Napoleonic Wars

Northanger Abbey

paranormal

peerage

Pegasus Books

Persuasion

Peterloo Massacre

playwrights

poetry

political stance

Pop Culture

presidents

Pride and Prejudice

primogenture

publishing

quotes

reading

reading habits

real life tales

Realm series

Regency era

Regency personalities

Regency romance

religion

research

review

romance

romantic verse

royalty

Scarsdale Publishing

science

science fiction

Scotland

Sense & Sensibility

series

servant life

servants

Seven Years War

Seven Years' War

Shining Light on Our Ladies

South Wales

spooky tales

sports history

St. Andrew

suspense

tall tales

tea

terminology

Thanksgiving

theatre

titles of aristocracy

toys and games

tradtions

travel

trilogy

Tudor

Tudors

Ulysses Press

Uncategorized

Vagary

vampires

Victorian era

vocabulary

Wales

war

War of 1812

weaponry

weather

West Virginia

Whigs

White Soup Press

William IV

witchcraft acts

word choices

word origins

word play

world history

writing

Meta

Create account

Log in

Entries feed

Comments feed

WordPress.com

	Regina Jeffers on Scottish Words for Kicking Som…
	kayelem on Scottish Words for Kicking Som…
	Regina Jeffers on Scottish Words for Kicking Som…
	collinshemingway on Scottish Words for Kicking Som…
	Regina Jeffers on RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES: Cou…