Regency Hoax: The Berners Street Hoax

Posted on August 13, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

220px-Theodore_Hook The Berners Street Hoax was perpetrated by Theodore Hook in the City of Westminster, London, in 1810. Hook had made a bet with his friend, Samuel Beazley, that he could transform any house in London into the most talked-about address in a week, which he achieved by sending out thousands of letters in the name of Mrs Tottenham, who lived at 54 Berners Street, requesting deliveries, visitors, and assistance.

On 27 November, at five o’clock in the morning, a sweep arrived to sweep the chimneys of Mrs Tottenham’s house. The maid who answered the door informed him that no sweep had been requested, and that his services were not required. A few moments later another sweep presented himself, then another, and another, 12 in all. After the last of the sweeps had been sent away, a fleet of carts carrying large deliveries of coal began to arrive, followed by a series of cakemakers delivering large wedding cakes, then doctors, lawyers, vicars and priests summoned to minister to someone in the house they had been told was dying. Fishmongers, shoemakers, and over a dozen pianos were among the next to appear, along with “six stout men bearing an organ.” Dignitaries, including the Governor of the Bank of England, the Duke of York, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Lord Mayor of the City of London also arrived. The narrow streets soon became severely congested with tradesmen and onlookers. Deliveries and visits continued until the early evening, bringing a large part of London to a standstill.

Hook stationed himself in the house directly opposite 54 Berners Street, from where he and his friend spent the day watching the chaos unfold.

Despite a “fervent hue and cry” to find the perpetrator, Hook managed to evade detection, although many of those who knew him suspected him of being responsible. It was reported he felt it prudent to be “laid up for a week or two” before embarking on a tour of the country, supposedly to convalesce.

The site at 54 Berners Street is now occupied by the Sanderson Hotel.

Posted in British history, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities | Tagged , | 9 Comments

Regency Celebrity: Henry Crabb Robinson, First Special War Reporter for The Times

Posted on August 12, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

220px-Portrait_of_H_Crabb_Robinson_(crop) Henry Crabb Robinson (1775–1867) was an English lawyer, known as a diarist.

Life
He was born in Bury St. Edmunds, England. He was articled to an attorney in Colchester. Between 1800 and 1805, Robinson studied at various places in Germany, meeting men of letters there, including Goethe, Schiller, Johann Gottfried Herder, and Christoph Martin Wieland. He then became correspondent for The Times in Altona in 1807. Later on he was sent to Galicia, in Spain, as a war correspondent in the Peninsular War.

On his return to London in 1809, he decided to quit journalism and studied for the Bar, to which he was called in 1813, and became leader of the Eastern Circuit. Fifteen years later he retired, and by virtue of his conversation and qualities, became a leader in society.

He was one of the founders of London University and traveled several times to Italy, as many of his contemporaries did. He died unmarried, aged 91. He was buried in a vault in Highgate Cemetery alongside his friend Edwin Wilkins Field. A bust of Crabb Robinson was made, and a portrait by Edward Armitage.

Works
His Diary, Reminiscences and Correspondence was published in 1869. It contains reminiscences of central figures of the English romantic movement: including Coleridge, Charles Lamb, William Blake, William Wordsworth, and others. They are documents on the daily lives of London writers, artists, political figures and socialites. In his essay on Blake, Swinburne says, “Of all the records of these his latter years, the most valuable, perhaps, are those furnished by Mr. Crabb Robinson, whose cautious and vivid transcription of Blake’s actual speech is worth more than much vague remark, or than any commentary now possible to give.”

In 1829 Robinson was made a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries (F.S.A.), and contributed a paper to Archæologia entitled “The Etymology of the Mass.”

His diaries were bequeathed to Dr Williams’s Library, because Robinson had been a member of the Essex Street Chapel, the first avowedly Unitarian congregation in England.

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

Regency Celebrity: Charles Manners-Sutton, Archbishop of Canterbury

Posted on August 9, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

220px-Charles_Manners-Sutton_(1755–1828),_Archbishop_of_Canterbury Charles Manners-Sutton (17 February 1755 – 21 July 1828) was a priest in the Church of England who served as Archbishop of Canterbury from 1805 to 1828.

Life
Manners-Sutton was the fourth son of Lord George Manners-Sutton, third son of John Manners, 3rd Duke of Rutland. His younger brother was Thomas Manners-Sutton, 1st Baron Manners, Lord Chancellor of Ireland. His father had assumed the additional surname of Sutton in 1762 on inheriting the estates of his maternal grandfather Robert Sutton, 2nd Baron Lexinton.

Manners-Sutton was educated at Charterhouse and Cambridge. He married at age 23, and probably eloped with, his cousin Mary Thoroton, daughter of Col. Thomas Thoroton and his wife Mary (Levett) Thoroton of Screveton Hall, Nottinghamshire, in 1778. Col. Thomas Blackborne Thoroton later moved to Flintham Hall, Flintham, near Screveton, Nottinghamshire. He was later known as Thomas Thoroton Hildyard. Both Thoroton and his stepbrother Levett Blackborne, Esq., a Lincoln’s Inn barrister, had long acted as advisers to John Manners, 3rd Duke of Rutland, and Col. Thoroton was often resided at Belvoir Castle, the ancestral seat of the Dukes of Rutland.

In 1785, Manners-Sutton was appointed to the family living at Averham with Kelham, in Nottinghamshire, and in 1791, became dean of Peterborough. He was consecrated bishop of Norwich in 1792, and two years later received the appointment of Dean of Windsor in commendam.

Archbishop of Canterbury
In 1805 he was chosen to succeed John Moore as Archbishop of Canterbury. During his primacy the old archiepiscopal palace at Croydon was sold and the country palace of Addington bought with the proceeds. He presided over the first meeting which issued in the foundation of the National Society, and subsequently lent the scheme his strong support. He also exerted himself to promote the establishment of the Indian episcopate. As Archbishop of Canterbury, Manners-Sutton appointed his cousin Evelyn Levett Sutton, a chaplain to Lord Manners, as one of six preachers of Canterbury Cathedral in 1811.

Legacy
His only published works are two sermons, one preached before the Lords (London, 1794), the other before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (London, 1797). His son Charles Manners-Sutton served as Speaker of the House of Commons and was created Viscount Canterbury in 1835. His grandson Henry Manners Chichester, by his daughter Isabella, was a prolific contributor to the Dictionary of National Biography.

Posted in British history, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, Victorian era | Comments Off on Regency Celebrity: Charles Manners-Sutton, Archbishop of Canterbury

Built in 1805: The Pontcysyllte Aqueduct, the Longest and Highest Aqueduct in Britain and a World Heritage Site

Posted on August 8, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

800px-WalesC0047 The Pontcysyllte Aqueduct (Welsh pronunciation: [ˌpɔntkəˈsəɬtɛ], full name in Welsh: Traphont Ddŵr Pontcysyllte) is a navigable aqueduct that carries the Llangollen Canal over the valley of the River Dee in Wrexham County Borough in north east Wales. Completed in 1805, it is the longest and highest aqueduct in Britain, a Grade I Listed Building and a World Heritage Site.

When the bridge was built it linked the villages of Froncysyllte, at the southern end of the bridge in the Cysyllte township of Llangollen parish (from where it takes its name), and Trevor (Trefor in Welsh), at the northern end of the bridge in the Trefor Isaf township of Llangollen parish. Both townships were later transferred to Wrexham County Borough following local government reorganisation.

The name is in the Welsh language and means “Cysyllte Bridge.” For most of its existence it was known as Pont y Cysyllte (“Bridge of Cysyllte”). Other translations such as “Bridge of the Junction” or “The Bridge that links” are modern, and incorrect, inventions, from the literal English translation of cysyllte being “junctions” or “links,” as the township of Cysyllte existed for centuries before the bridge was built.

History
The aqueduct, built by Thomas Telford and William Jessop, is 1,007 ft (307 m) long, 11 ft (3.4 m) wide and 5.25 ft (1.60 m) deep. It consists of a cast iron trough supported 126 ft (38 m) above the river on iron arched ribs carried on nineteen hollow masonry piers (pillars). Each span is 53 ft (16 m) wide. Despite considerable public scepticism, Telford was confident the construction method would work: he had previously built at least one cast iron trough aqueduct – the Longdon-on-Tern aqueduct on the Shrewsbury Canal, still visible in the middle of a field, though the canal was abandoned years ago. Part of what was originally called the Ellesmere Canal, it was one of the first major feats of civil engineering undertaken by Telford, by then a leading civil engineer, supervised by Jessop, the more experienced canal engineer. The iron was supplied by William Hazledine from his foundries at Shrewsbury and nearby Cefn Mawr. It was opened on 26 November 1805, having taken around ten years to design and build at a total cost of £47,000. Adjusted for inflation this is equal to £2,930,000 as of 2013, however a structure of this type would cost more to build today due to other factors that did not exist in the early 19th century, such as higher wages (adjusted for inflation), safety measures, new regulations and taxes, financing fees, and so on.

At the time of the aqueduct’s completion, the canal terminated at a wharf slightly to its north. A feeder to bring water from the Horseshoe Falls beyond Llangollen was completed three years later in 1808, and at some point after 1820, the Plas Kynaston Canal was built to serve industry in the Cefn Mawr and Rhosymedre areas. There might have been another canal extension (“Ward’s”) but detailed records do not survive.

Structure
The mortar used lime, water and ox blood. The iron castings for the trough were produced at the nearby Plas Kynaston Foundry, Cefn Mawr, which was built by the Shrewsbury ironfounder and millwright William Hazledine in the hope of gaining the contract. The rib castings may have been made at Hazledine’s original works at Coleham, near Shrewsbury. The trough was made from flanged plates of cast iron, bolted together, with the joints bedded with Welsh flannel and a mixture of white lead and iron particles from boring waste. The plates are not rectangular but shaped as voussoirs, similar to those of a stone arch. There is no structural significance to their shape: it is a decorative feature only, following the lines of the stiffening plates in the castings beneath.

The supporting arches, four for each span, are in the form of cast iron ribs, each cast as three voussoirs with external arches cast with an un-pierced web to give greater strength, at the cost of extra weight. Using cast iron in this way, in the same manner as the stone arch it supersedes, makes use of the material’s strength in compression. They also give an impression of greater solidity than would be the case were the webs pierced. This impression is enhanced by the arrangement of strips of thicker stiffening incorporated into the castings, arranged in the manner of joints between voussoirs. Cast plates are laid transversely to form the bed of the canal trough. The trough is not fastened to the arches, but lugs are cast into the plates to fit over the rib arches to prevent movement. It was left for six months with water inside to check it was watertight. A feature of a canal aqueduct, in contrast with a road or railway viaduct, is that the vertical loading stresses are virtually constant. According to Archimedes’ principle, the mass (weight) of a boat and its cargo on the bridge, pushes an equal mass of water off the bridge.

The towpath is mounted above the water, with the inner edge carried on cast-iron pllars in the trough. This arrangement allows the water displaced by the passage of a narrow boat to flow easily under the towpath and around the boat, enabling relatively free passage. Pedestrians, and the horses once used for towing, are protected from falling from the aqueduct by railings on the outside edge of the towpath, but the holes in the top flange of the other side of the trough, capable of mounting railings, were never used. The trough sides rise only about 6 inches (15 cm) above the water level, less than the depth of freeboard of an empty narrow boat, so the helmsman of the boat has no visual protection from the impression of being at the edge of an abyss. The trough of the Cosgrove aqueduct has a similar structure, although it rests on trestles rather than iron arches. It is also less impressively high.

Every five years, the ends of the aqueduct are closed and a plug in one of the highest spans is opened to drain the canal water into the River Dee below, for inspection and maintenance of the trough.

The canal effectively ends after a short distance on the north side, apart from a feeder to the Horseshoe Falls on the River Dee via Llangollen. The terrain northwards appears to have been the main problem in preventing significant further extension: apart from one or more local spurs of perhaps a thousand yards serving industry south of Cefn Mawr and towards Rhosymedre, other traffic was handled by the Ruabon Brook Tramway, which climbed towards Acrefair and Plas Bennion, this was eventually upgraded to steam operation and extended towards Rhosllannerchrugog and Wrexham.

World Heritage Site
The aqueduct and surrounding lands were submitted to the “tentative list” of properties being considered for UNESCO World Heritage Site status in 1999. The aqueduct was suggested as a contender in 2005—its 200th anniversary year—and it was formally announced in 2006 that a larger proposal, covering a section of the canal from the aqueduct to Horseshoe Falls would be the United Kingdom’s 2008 nomination.

The length of canal from Rhoswiel, Shropshire, to the Horseshoe Falls including the main Pontcysyllte Aqueduct structure as well as the older Chirk Aqueduct, were visited by assessors from UNESCO during October 2008, to analyse and confirm the site management and authenticity. The aqueduct was inscribed by UNESCO on the World Heritage List on 27 June 2009.

In March 2010 it was reported that the site had attracted a thriving community of otters.

Posted in British history, buildings and structures, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Georgian Celebrity: William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne, the First Home Secretary and Later Prime Minister

Posted on August 7, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

240px-William_Petty,_2nd_Earl_of_Shelburne_by_Jean_Laurent_Mosnier William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne, KG, PC (2 May 1737 – 7 May 1805), known as The Earl of Shelburne between 1761 and 1784, by which title he is generally known to history, was an Irish-born British Whig statesman who was the first Home Secretary in 1782 and then Prime Minister 1782–1783 during the final months of the American War of Independence. He succeeded in securing peace with America and this feat remains his legacy. He was also well known as a collector of antiquities and works of art.

Lord Shelburne was born in Dublin in 1737 and spent his formative years in Ireland. After attending Oxford University, he served in the British army during the Seven Years’ War, taking part in the Raid on Rochefort and the Battle of Minden. As a reward for his conduct at the Battle of Kloster Kampen, Shelburne was appointed an aide-de-camp to George III. He became involved in politics, becoming a Member of Parliament in 1760. After his father’s death in 1761, he inherited his title and was elevated to the House of Lords and took an active role in politics. He served as President of the Board of Trade in the Grenville Ministry, but resigned this position after only a few months and began to associate with the opposition leader William Pitt.

When Pitt was made Prime Minister in 1766, Shelburne was appointed as Southern Secretary, a position which he held for two years. He departed office during the Corsican Crisis and joined the Opposition. Along with Pitt, he was an advocate of a conciliatory policy towards Britain’s American Colonies and a long-term critic of the North Government’s measures in America.

Following the fall of the North government, Shelburne joined its replacement led by Lord Rockingham. Shelburne was made Prime Minister in 1782, following Rockingham’s death with the American War still being fought. Shelburne’s government was brought down largely due to the terms of the Peace of Paris, which brought the conflict to an end and were considered excessively generous. He was an early advocate of free trade.

He was born William FitzMaurice in Dublin, Ireland, the first son of John FitzMaurice, who was the second surviving son of the 1st Earl of Kerry, himself a descendant of King Edward I. William’s brother was The Honourable Thomas FitzMaurice (MP) (1742-1793). Lord Kerry had married Anne Petty, the daughter of Sir William Petty, Surveyor General of Ireland, whose elder son had been created Baron Shelburne in 1688 and (on the elder son’s death) whose younger son had been created Baron Shelburne in 1699 and Earl of Shelburne in 1719. On the younger son’s death the Petty estates passed to the aforementioned John FitzMaurice, who changed his branch of the family’s surname to “Petty” in place of “FitzMaurice,” and was created Viscount FitzMaurice later in 1751 and Earl of Shelburne in 1753 (after which his elder son John was styled Viscount FitzMaurice).

FitzMaurice spent his childhood “in the remotest parts of the south of Ireland,” and, according to his own account, when he entered Christ Church, Oxford, in 1755, he had “both everything to learn and everything to unlearn.” From a tutor whom he describes as “narrow-minded,” he received advantageous guidance in his studies, but he attributes his improvement in manners and in knowledge of the world chiefly to the fact that, as was his “fate through life,” he fell in “with clever but unpopular connexions.”

Shelburne was one of the first British statesmen to advocate free trade, his conversion to which he attributed to a journey he made to London in 1761, when he accompanied Adam Smith. In 1795, he described this to Dugald Stewart:

I owe to a journey I made with Mr Smith from Edinburgh to London, the difference between light and darkness through the best part of my life. The novelty of his principles, added to my youth and prejudices, made me unable to comprehend them at the time, but he urged them with so much benevolence, as well as eloquence, that they took a certain hold, which, though it did not develope itself so as to arrive at full conviction for some few years after, I can fairly say, has constituted, ever since, the happiness of my life, as well as any little consideration I may have enjoyed in it.

Military Career
Shortly after leaving the university, he served in 20th Foot regiment commanded by James Wolfe during the Seven Years’ War. He became friends with one of his fellow officers Charles Grey, whose career he later assisted. In 1757, he took part in the amphibious Raid on Rochefort, which withdrew without making any serious attempt on the town. The following year he was sent to serve in Germany and so distinguished himself at Minden and Kloster-Kampen that he was raised to the rank of Colonel.

Following the death of George II and the accession of his grandson George III in 1760, Shelburne was appointed Aide-de-Camp to the new King. This brought protests from several members of the cabinet as it meant he was promoted ahead of much more senior officers. In response to the appointment, the Duke of Richmond resigned a post in the royal household. In 1760, he was returned to the British House of Commons as member for Wycombe, while from 1761 simultaneously represented Kerry in the Irish House of Commons, which was then a separate body. However, following the death of his father in 1761, he succeeded him as 2nd Earl of Shelburne in the Peerage of Ireland and 2nd Baron Wycombe in the Peerage of Great Britain, he ceased to sit in either House of Commons and moved up to the House of Lords. He was succeeded in Wycombe by one of his supporters, Colonel Isaac Barré, who had a distinguished war record after serving with James Wolfe in Canada.

Early Political Career
Shelburne’s new military role close to the King brought him into communication with Lord Bute, who was the King’s closest advisor and a senior minister in the government. In 1761, Shelburne was employed by Bute to negotiate for the support of Henry Fox. Fox held the lucrative, but unimportant post of Paymaster of the Forces, but commanded large support in the House of Commons and could boost Bute’s powerbase. Shelburne was opposed to Pitt, who had resigned from the government in 1761. Under instructions from Shelburne, Barré made a violent attack on Pitt in the House of Commons.

During 1762 negotiations for a peace agreement went on in London and Paris. Eventually a deal was agreed, but it was heavily criticised for the perceived leniency of its terms as it handed back a number of captured territories to France and Spain. Defending it in the House of Lords, Shelburne observed “the security of the British colonies in North America was the first cause of the war” asserting that security “has been wisely attended to in the negotiations for peace.” Led by Fox, the government was able to push the peace treaty through Parliament, despite opposition led by Pitt. Shortly afterwards, Bute chose to resign as Prime Minister and retire from politics and was replaced by George Grenville.

Shelburne joined the Grenville ministry in 1763 as First Lord of Trade. By this stage, Shelburne had changed his opinion of Pitt and become an admirer of him. After failing to secure Pitt’s inclusion in the Cabinet, he resigned office after only a few months. Having moreover on account of his support of Pitt on the question of Wilkes’s expulsion from the House of Commons incurred the displeasure of the King, he retired for a time to his estate.

Southern Secretary
After Pitt’s return to power in 1766, he became Southern Secretary, but during Pitt’s illness his conciliatory policy towards America was completely thwarted by his colleagues and the King, and in 1768, he was dismissed from office. During the Corsican Crisis, sparked by the French invasion of Corsica, Shelburne was the major voice in the cabinet who favoured assisting the Corsican Republic. Although secret aid was given to the Corsicans, it was decided not to intervene military and provoke a war with France, a decision made easier by the departure of the hard-line Shelburne from the cabinet.

In June 1768, the General Court incorporated the district of Shelburne, Massachusetts, from the area formerly known as “Deerfield Northeast” and in 1786, the district became a town. The town was named in honour of Lord Shelburne, who, in return sent a church bell, which never reached the town.

Opposition
Shelburne went into Opposition where he continued to associate with William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. They were both critical of the policies of the North government in the years leading up to the outbreak of the American War of Independence in 1775. As the war progressed Shelburne co-operated with the Rockingham Whigs to attack the government of Lord North. After a British army was compelled to surrender at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777, Shelburne joined other leaders of the Opposition to call for a total withdrawal of British troops.

Prime Minister
In March 1782, following the down fall of the North Government, Shelburne agreed to take office under Lord Rockingham on condition that the King would recognise the United States. Following the sudden and unexpected death of Lord Rockingham on 1 July 1782, Shelburne succeeded him as Prime Minister. Shelburne’s appointment by the King provoked Charles James Fox and his supporters, including Edmund Burke, to resign their posts on 4 July 1782. Burke scathingly compared Shelburne to his predecessor Rockingham. One of the figures brought in as a replacement was the 23-year-old William Pitt, son of Shelburne’s former political ally, who became Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Peace Negotiations

Shelburne’s government continued to negotiate for peace in Paris, using Richard Oswald as the chief negotiator. Shelburne entertained a French peace envoy, Joseph Matthias Gérard de Rayneval, at his country estate in Wiltshire, and they discreetly agreed on a number of points, which formed a basis for peace. Shelburne’s own envoys negotiated a separate peace with American commissioners, which eventually led to an agreement on American independence and the borders of the newly created United States. Shelburne agreed to generous borders in the Illinois Country, but rejected demands by Benjamin Franklin for the cession of Canada and other territories.

Downfall
Fox’s departure led to the unexpected creation of a coalition involving Fox and Lord North which dominated the Opposition. In April 1783, the Opposition forced Shelburne’s resignation. The major achievement of Shelburne’s time in office was the agreement of peace terms, which formed the basis of the Peace of Paris bringing the American War of Independence to an end.

His fall was perhaps hastened by his plans for the reform of the public service. He had also in contemplation a Bill to promote free trade between Britain and the United States.

Later Life
When Pitt became Prime Minister in 1784, Shelburne, instead of receiving a place in the Cabinet, was created Marquess of Lansdowne. Though giving a general support to the policy of Pitt, he from this time ceased to take an active part in public affairs.

Family
Lord Lansdowne was twice married:
First to Lady Sophia Carteret (26 August 1745 – 5 January 1771), daughter of the 1st Earl Granville, through whom he obtained the Lansdowne estates near Bath. They had at least one child:
John Henry Petty, 2nd Marquess of Lansdowne (6 December 1765 – 15 November 1809), who sat in the House of Commons for twenty years as member for Chipping Wycombe before inheriting his father’s marquessate. He married Mary Arabella Maddox (died 24 April 1833), the daughter of Rev. Hinton Maddox and the widow of Duke Gifford, on 27 May 1805; they had no sons.

Secondly to Lady Louisa FitzPatrick (1755 – 7 August 1789), daughter of the 1st Earl of Upper Ossory. They had at least two children:
Henry Petty-FitzMaurice, 3rd Marquess of Lansdowne (1780–1863), who succeeded his half-brother in the title.
Lady Louisa FitzMaurice (born bef. 1789)

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Georgian Celebrity: William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne, the First Home Secretary and Later Prime Minister

Regency Celebrities: Samuel Hood, 1st Viscount Hood – British Admiral and Mentor to Horatio Nelson

Posted on August 6, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

502px-Northcote,_Samuel_Hood Samuel Hood, 1st Viscount Hood (Butleigh, 12 December 1724 – London, 27 January 1816) was a British Admiral known particularly for his service in the American War of Independence and French Revolutionary Wars. He acted as a mentor to Horatio Nelson.

Biography
Early Life
The son of Samuel Hood, vicar of Butleigh in Somerset, and prebendary of Wells and Mary Hoskins, daughter of Richard Hoskins, Esquire, of Beaminster, Dorset. In 1740 Captain (later Admiral) Thomas Smith was stranded in Butleigh when his carriage broke down on the way to Plymouth. The Rev Samuel Hood rescued him and gave him hospitality for the night. Samuel and Alexander were inspired by his stories of the sea, and he offered to help them in the Navy. The Rev Samuel Hood and his wife would not allow any more sons to join the Navy as “they might be drowned.” Their third son, Arthur William became Vicar of Butleigh, but died of fever in his 30’s. Another son was drowned in the local river Brue as a boy.

Early Career
Samuel, older brother of Alexander Hood, 1st Viscount Bridport, entered the Royal Navy in 1741. He served part of his time as midshipman with George Brydges Rodney on the Ludlow and became a lieutenant in 1746. He was fortunate in serving under active officers and had opportunities to see service in the North Sea during the War of the Austrian Succession.

In 1754, he was made commander of the sloop Jamaica and served on her at the North American station. In July 1756, while still on the North American station, he took command of the sloop HMS Lively.

Seven Years War
At the outbreak of the Seven Years War in 1756, the navy was rapidly expanded which benefited Hood. Later that year, Hood was promoted to Post Captain and given command of HMS Grafton. In 1757, while in temporary command of Antelope (50 guns), he drove a French ship ashore in Audierne Bay, and captured two privateers. His zeal attracted the favourable notice of the Admiralty, and he was appointed to a ship of his own.

In 1759, when captain of the Vestal, he captured the French Bellone after a sharp action. During the war, his services were wholly in the Channel, and he was engaged under Rodney in 1759 in the Raid on Le Havre, destroying the vessels collected by the French to serve as transports in the proposed invasion of Britain.

He was appointed in Commander-in-Chief, North American Station in July 1767. He returned to England in October 1770.

In 1778, he accepted a command, which in the ordinary course would have terminated his active career, becoming Commissioner of the dockyard at Portsmouth and governor of the Naval Academy. These posts were generally given to officers who were retiring from the sea.

American War of Independence
In 1778, on the occasion of the King’s visit to Portsmouth, Hood was made a baronet.
The war was deeply unpopular with much of the British public and navy. Many admirals had declined to serve under Lord Sandwich, the First Lord of the Admiralty. Admiral Rodney, who then commanded in the West Indies, had complained of a lack of proper support from his subordinates, whom he accused of disaffection.

The Admiralty, anxious to secure the services of trustworthy flag officers, promoted Hood to rear-admiral on 26 September 1780, and sent him to the West Indies to act as second in command under Rodney, who knew him personally. He joined Rodney in January 1781 in his flagship Barfleur, and remained in the West Indies or on the coast of North America until the close of the War of American Independence.

The expectation that he would work harmoniously with Rodney was not entirely justified. Their correspondence shows they were not on friendly terms; but Hood always did his duty, and he was so able that no question of removing him from the station ever arose. The unfortunate turn for the British taken by the campaign of 1781 was largely due to Rodney’s neglect of Hood’s advice. If he had been allowed to choose his own position, he could have prevented the Comte De Grasse from reaching Fort Royal with the reinforcements from France in April.

Battle of the Chesapeake
When Rodney decided to return to Britain for the sake of his health in the autumn of 1781, Hood was ordered to take the bulk of the fleet to the North American coast during the hurricane months. Hood joined Admiral Thomas Graves in the unsuccessful effort to relieve the army at Yorktown, when the British fleet was driven off by the French Admiral, the Comte de Grasse, at the Battle of the Chesapeake.

When he returned to the West Indies, he was for a time in independent command owing to Rodney’s absence in England. De Grasse attacked the British islands of St Kitts and Nevis with a force much superior to Hood’s squadron.

Hood made an unsuccessful attempt in January 1782 to save them from capture, with 22 ships to 29, and the series of bold movements by which he first turned the French out of their anchorage at Basseterre of St Kitts and then beat off their attacks, were one of the best accomplishments of any British admiral during the war.

Battle of the Saintes
In 1782 Hood took part in a British fleet under Rodney, which defeated a combined French and Spanish fleet, which was planning an invasion of Jamaica. The French commander De Grasse, who had been responsible for the victory at Chesapeake was captured and taken back to Britain as a prisoner. Hood was deeply critical of Rodney for not pushing home his victory against the retreating enemy fleet. Had they pursued, he suggested, the British might have taken additional prizes and destroyed the French naval presence in the Caribbean.

Battle of the Mona Passage
Eventually Hood was ordered to chase enemy ships at the Mona Passage, and with his division of 12 ships, he captured 4 ships on 19 April thus completing the defeat.

While serving in the Caribbean, Hood became acquainted with, and later became a mentor to Horatio Nelson who was a young frigate commander. Hood had been a friend of Nelson’s uncle Maurice Suckling. In 1782, Hood introduced Nelson to the future King William, Duke of Clarence, who was then a serving naval officer in New York.

Peace
Hood was made an Irish peer for his role in the victory at the Battle of the Saintes on 9 and 12 April near Dominica.

During the peace, he entered the British Parliament as Member for Westminster in the election of 1784, where he was a supporter of the government of William Pitt the Younger. In 1786, he became Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth holding that post until 1789. He was promoted to vice-admiral in 1787, and in July 1788, was appointed to the Board of Admiralty under John Pitt, 2nd Earl of Chatham, brother of the Prime Minister.

French Revolution
Defence of Toulon
On the outbreak of the French Revolutionary War in 1793, he became Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Fleet. His period of command, which lasted from May 1793 to October 1794, was very busy.

In August 1793, French royalists and other opponents of the revolution took over the town and invited Hood, whose fleet was blockading the city, to occupy the town. Hood, without time to request for instructions from the Admiralty in London, moved swiftly to take command of the port.

There were two main reasons for the British move. It was hoped that Toulon could be a centre of French resistance to Paris, and also to take possession of the French Mediterranean fleet of fifty-eight warships, which lay in the harbour. It was hoped that depriving the French revolutionaries of their maritime resources would cripple the revolution.

He occupied Toulon on the invitation of the French royalists, in co-operation with the Spaniards and Sardinians. In December of the same year, the allies, who did not work harmoniously together, were driven out, mainly by the generalship of Napoleon. Hood ordered the French fleet burned to prevent them falling back into the hands of the revolutionaries, a task carried out by Captain Sidney Smith. Afterwards, Hood and his British force withdrew to maintain their blockade of the coast, while the French republicans reoccupied the city.

Corsica
Hood then turned to the occupation of Corsica, which he had been invited to take in the name of the King of Britain by Pasquale Paoli, who had been leader of the Corsican Republic before it was subjugated by the French in 1769. The island was for a short time added to the dominions of George III, chiefly by the exertions of the fleet and the co-operation of Paoli.

While the occupation of Corsica was being effected, the French at Toulon had so far recovered that they were able to send a fleet to sea. In June, Hood sailed in the hope of bringing it to action. The plan, which he laid to attack the French fleet near Golfe-Juan in June, may possibly have served to some extent as an inspiration, if not as a model, to Nelson (who has been recorded as saying that Hood was “the greatest sea officer I ever knew”) for the Battle of the Nile, but the wind was unfavourable, and the attack could not be carried out.

In October, he was recalled to England in consequence of some misunderstanding with the admiralty or the ministry, which was never explained. Richard Freeman, in his book, The Great Edwardian Naval Feud, explains his relief from command in a quote from Lord Esher’s journal. According to this journal, “… [Hood] wrote ‘a very temperate letter’ to the Admiralty in which he complained that he did not have enough ships to defend the Mediterranean.” As a result Hood was then recalled from the Mediterranean. [Freeman, p. 145].

Later Career
Samuel Hood was created Baron Hood of Catherington in 1778 by King George III, an Irish Baron in 1782, and Viscount Hood of Whitley, Warwickshire, in 1796 with a pension of £2000 per year for life. He became Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth again in June 1792. In February 1793, he became Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Fleet. In 1796, he was named Governor of the Royal Naval Hospital at Greenwich in London, a position which he held until his death in 1816. He was elected as Tory Member of Parliament for Westminster from 1784 to 1788 and from 1790 to 1796, and was Member for Reigate between 1789 and 1790, serving with his younger brother Alexander under Pitt the Younger.

He lived long enough to see Britain triumph in the Napoleonic Wars and was chief mourner at Nelson’s funeral.

A peerage of Great Britain was conferred on his wife, Susannah, as Baroness Hood of Catherington in 1795. Samuel Hood’s titles descended to his youngest son, Henry (1753–1836), the ancestor of the present Viscount Hood. Lord Samuel Hood and his wife had two other sons: Samuel and Thomas. Samuel died in infancy, and many sources suggest Thomas also died similarly, but it is now known Thomas survived until 1800 or so.
There are several portraits of Lord Hood by Lemuel Francis Abbott in the Guildhall and in the National Portrait Gallery. He was also painted by Joshua Reynolds and Thomas Gainsborough.

Legacy
A biographical notice of Hood by McArthur, his secretary during the Mediterranean command, appeared in the Naval Chronicle, vol. ii. Charnock’s Biogr. Nay. vi., Ralfe, Nav. Biog. i., may also be consulted. His correspondence during his command in America was published by the Navy Records Society.

The history of his campaigns will be found in the historians of the wars in which he served: for the earlier years, Beatson’s Naval and Military Memoirs; for the later, James’s Naval History, vol. i., for the English side, and for the French, Troudes, Batailles navales de la France, ii. and iii., and Chevalier’s Histoire de la marine française pendant Ia guerre de l’indépendance américaine and Pendant Ia République.

In 1792, Lieutenant William Broughton, sailing with the expedition of George Vancouver to the Northwest Coast of North America, named Mount Hood in present-day Oregon, and Hood’s Canal in present-day Washington, after Hood. Two US Naval ships were named after Mount Hood, which could be considered mildly ironic as Hood had served against the United States during the American War of Independence.

Two of the three ships of the Royal Navy named HMS Hood were named after him as well, including HMS Hood, sunk by the Bismarck in 1941 during World War II.

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Regency Celebrities: Samuel Hood, 1st Viscount Hood – British Admiral and Mentor to Horatio Nelson

The 1816 Opening of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, Bringing Coal to the Busy Western Ports

Posted on August 5, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

The Leeds and Liverpool Canal is a canal in Northern England, linking the cities of Leeds and Liverpool. Over a distance of 127 miles (204 km), it crosses the Pennines, and includes 91 locks on the main line. It has several small branches, and in the early 21st century a new link was constructed into the Liverpool docks system.

History
Background
In the mid-18th century the growing towns of Yorkshire including Leeds, Wakefield, and Bradford, were trading increasingly. While the Aire and Calder Navigation improved links to the east for Leeds, links to the west were limited. Bradford merchants wanted to increase the supply of limestone to make lime for mortar and agriculture using coal from Bradford’s collieries and to transport textiles to the Port of Liverpool. On the west coast, traders in the busy port of Liverpool wanted a cheap supply of coal for their shipping and manufacturing businesses and to tap the output from the industrial regions of Lancashire. Inspired by the effectiveness of the wholly artificial navigation, the Bridgewater Canal opened in 1759–60. A canal across the Pennines linking Liverpool and Hull (by means of the Aire and Calder Navigation) would have obvious trade benefits.

A public meeting took place at the Sun Inn in Bradford on 2 July 1766 to promote the building of such a canal. John Longbotham was engaged to survey a route. Two groups were set up to promote the scheme, one in Liverpool and one in Bradford. The Liverpool committee was unhappy with the route originally proposed, following the Ribble valley through Preston, considering that it ran too far to the north, missing key towns and the Wigan coalfield.

A counter-proposal was produced by John Eyes and Richard Melling, improved by P.P. Burdett, which was rejected by the Bradford committee as too expensive, mainly because of the valley crossing at Burnley. James Brindley was called in to arbitrate and ruled in favour of Longbotham’s more northerly route, though with a branch towards Wigan, a decision which caused some of the Lancashire backers to withdraw their support, and which was subsequently amended over the course of development.

An Act was passed in May 1770 authorising construction, and Brindley was appointed chief engineer and John Longbotham clerk of works; following Brindley’s death in 1772, Longbotham carried out both roles.

Ainscoughs mill in Burscough

Ainscoughs mill in Burscough

Construction
A commencement ceremony was held at Halsall, north of Liverpool on 5 November 1770, with the first sod being dug by the Hon. Charles Mordaunt of Halsall Hall. The first section of the canal opened from Bingley to Skipton in 1773. By 1774 the canal had been completed from Skipton to Shipley, including significant engineering features such as the Bingley Five Rise Locks, Bingley Three Rise Locks and the seven-arch aqueduct over the River Aire. Also completed was the branch to Bradford. On the western side, the section from Liverpool to Newburgh was dug. By the following year the Yorkshire end had been extended to Gargrave, and by 1777 the canal had joined the Aire and Calder Navigation in Leeds.

On the western side it reached Wigan by 1781, replacing the earlier and unsatisfactory Douglas Navigation. By now, the subscribed funds and further borrowing had all been spent and work stopped in 1781 with the completion of the Rufford Branch from Burscough to the River Douglas at Tarleton. The war in the American colonies and its aftermath made it impossible to continue for more than a decade.

In 1789 Robert Whitworth developed fresh proposals to vary the line of the remaining part of the canal, including a tunnel at Foulridge, lowering the proposed summit level by 40 feet, and a more southerly route in Lancashire. These proposals were authorised by a fresh Act in 1790, together with further fund-raising, and in 1791, construction of the canal finally recommenced south-westward from Gargrave, heading toward Barrowford in Lancashire.

In 1794 an agreement was reached with the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal company to create a link near Red Moss near Horwich. However by this time, the competing Rochdale Canal had begun construction and was likely to offer a more direct journey to Liverpool via Manchester and the Bridgewater Canal. The company’s experiences running the two sections of the canal had also shown that coal, not limestone, would be its main cargo, and that there was plenty of income available from local trade between the settlements along the route.

With this in mind in the same year, the route was changed again with a further Act, moving closer to that proposed by Burdett and the planned canal link did not materialize. Yet more fund-raising took place, as the Foulridge Tunnel was proving difficult and expensive to dig. The new route took the canal south via the expanding coal mines at Burnley, Accrington and Blackburn, but would require some sizable earthworks to pass the former. The completion in 1796 of the 1,640 yards (1,500 m) long Foulridge Tunnel and the flight of seven locks at Barrowford enabled the canal to open to eastern Burnley.

At Burnley, rather than using two sets of locks to cross the shallow Calder valley, Whitworth designed a 1,350 yards (1,234 m) long and up to 60 feet (18 m) high, embankment. It would also require a 559 yards (511 m) tunnel nearby at Gannow and a sizeable cutting to allow the canal to traverse the hillside between the two. It took 5 years to complete this work, with the embankment alone costing £22,000.

Once completed, the canal opened to Enfield near Accrington in 1801. It would be another 9 years until it reached Blackburn only 4 miles away. Following the French Revolution, Britain had been at war with France from 1793 to 1802. The peace proved temporary, with the Napoleonic Wars beginning the following year. High taxes and interest rates during this period made it difficult for the company to borrow money, and the pace of construction inevitably slowed.

The Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal company proposed another link from Bury to Accrington. This new link would have been known as the Haslingden Canal. The Peel family asked the canal company not to construct the crossing over the River Hyndburn above their textile printworks; such a crossing would have required the construction of embankments, and reduced the water supply to their factories. Consequently Accrington was bypassed and the Haslingden Canal was never built.

The latest plan for the route had it running parallel to, and then crossing the isolated southern end of the Lancaster Canal, but common sense prevailed and the Leeds and Liverpool connected with the Lancaster Canal between Wigan and Johnson’s Hillock. The main line of the canal was thus completed in 1816.

There had been various unsuccessful negotiations to connect the canal to the Bridgewater Canal at Leigh but agreement was finally reached in 1818, and the connection was opened in 1820, thus giving access to Manchester and the rest of the canal network. The Bridgewater Canal, like most of Brindley’s designs was for narrow boats of 72 feet (22 m) length, whereas the Leeds and Liverpool had been designed for broad boats of 62 feet (19 m) length. There was naturally a desire by the narrow boats to reach Liverpool and the locks of the westerly end of the canal were extended to 72 feet (22 m) in 1822.

Operation
The canal took almost 40 years to complete, in crossing the Pennines the Leeds and Liverpool had been beaten by the Huddersfield Narrow Canal and the Rochdale Canal. The most important cargo was always coal, with over a million tons per year being delivered to Liverpool in the 1860s, with smaller amounts exported via the old Douglas Navigation. Even in Yorkshire, more coal was carried than limestone. Once the canal was fully open, receipts for carrying merchandise matched those of coal. The heavy industry along its route, together with the decision to build the canal with broad locks, ensured that (unlike the other two trans-Pennine canals) the Leeds and Liverpool competed successfully with the railways throughout the 19th century and remained open through the 20th century.

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

Let There Be Light…London’s First Streetlights

Posted on August 2, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

Old_Street_Light_-_LamplighterIn describing London at the end of the 1600s, Francis Maximilian Mission, author of Nouveau voyage d’Italie: avec un mémoire contenant des avis utiles à ceux qui voudront faire le mesme voyage (New travel from Italy: with a report containing of the opinions useful to those which will want to make the mesme travel), said, “They set up (at every tenth house) in the streets of London (Mr Edward Hemming was the inventor of them about fifteen or sixteen years ago), lamps, which, by means of a very thick convex glass, throw out great rays of light which illuminate the path…They burn from in the evening until midnight, and from every third day after the full moon to the sixth day after the new moon.”

Mission had erred in his estimation of the use of lighting in the early 18th Century, but the City, obviously, impressed the French writer and traveler. As early as the 17th Century, the law enforced street lighting from Michaelmas (September 29) to Lady Day (New Year’s Day until 1752, but with the adjustment of the calendar from Julian to Gregorian, April 6) each evening until midnight.

In 1417, Sir Henry Barton, Mayor of London, ordained “lanterns with lights to be hanged out on the winter evenings between Hallowtide and Candlemasse.” Paris led the way with lighting the streets. A 1524 order said inhabitants were to keep lights burning in windows, which faced the street. With the regulations of 1668 to improve London’s streets, the residents were “encouraged” to hang out their lanterns each evening. In 1690, an order required residents to hang their own lights before their homes. By an Act of the Common Council in 1716, all housekeepers, whose houses faced any street, lane, or passage, were required to hang out, every dark night, one or more lights, to burn from six to eleven o’clock, under the penalty of one shilling as a fine for failing to do so.

The before mentioned Edward Hemming attempted to set up lights in 1685 Cornwall as an example of his plan to light London with whale-oil lamps. Needless to say, the Companies opposed Hemming’s plan. Those who made tallow chandlers, tinsmiths, and horners saw Hemming’s proposal as a threat to their livelihood.

thomson_lamp

The historian, James Peller Malcolm, recorded that “Globular lights were introduced by Michael Cole, who obtained a patent in July 1708.”  Malcolm went on to describe “a new kind of light, composed of one entire glass of globular shape, with a lamp, which will give a cleaner and more certain light from all parts thereof.” Supposedly, Cole first exhibited the light outside a St James coffee house in 1709.

Cesar de Saussure, who has left an amusing and detailed description of his journey from Yverdon, Switzerland, through the German States and then across the North Sea from Rotterdam to London, describes the London streets of 1725 as, “Most of the streets are wonderfully well lighted, for in front of each house hangs a lantern or a large globe of glass, inside of which is placed a lamp which burns all night. Large house have two of these lamps suspended outside their door by iron supports, and some houses even four.”

The most commonly used fuels until the late 18th Century were olive oil, fish oil, beeswax, whale oil, sesame oil, nut oil, etc. From parish to city parish, a system was put into place to raise a rate from “eligible” households for lighting the streets. Later, a similar system was used for financing paving the streets and establishing a watch. A series of Acts of Parliament established the necessity for proper lighting for London’s streets. A 1736 Act gave the City of London the power to charge the inhabitants for lighting the streets throughout the year.

From Dan Cruickshank and Neil Burton’s Life in the Georgian City, we learn, “The aldermen and common council began by determining how many houses there were in the City, valued them, decided how many lamps were needed and what they would cot to erect and maintain, and then determined what proportions of the total each rateable inhabitant would have to pay. There were, it was calculated, 1,287 houses with rent under £10 per annum; 4,741 with rent between £10 and £20 per annum; 3.045 with rent between £20 and £30 per annum; 1,849 with rent between £30 and £40 per annum; and 3,092 with rent of £40 and upwards per annum. ‘In all, 14,014 houses, then inhabited and chargeable.’ The reference to rent should not be confused with actual rent paid. Rates were calculated on the value of a house that was expressed in terms of the rent it was worth. This is not to say that the occupier was actually paying that rent: he could have been a freeholder, a most rare thing in the eighteenth-century city, paying no rent; a lessee paying merely a nominal ground rent to the landlord; or a sublessee on a short lease paying a rack rent. The committee then established that the number of lamps required was 4,200, exclusive of those wanted in ‘public buildings and void places.’ This was based on the decision that lights should be ‘fixed at 25-yd distance on each side of the way in the high streets, and 35 in lesser streets, lanes, etc.’ The money was calculated and raised in the following manner: The several wards of the City agreed for the lighting them at an average of 41s. per annum per lamp, at which rate the expense of 4,200 lamps amounted to £8,610. The fixing of those on posts and irons, averaged at 14s. 6d. each [equaled] £3,045. ‘Houses under £10 [rent] paid 3s. 6d. per annum; under £20 paid 7s. 6d.; under £30 paid 8s.’ under £40 paid 9s. 6d.; upwards of £40 paid 12s.’”

In 1726, Stephen Hales procured a flammable fluid from the distillation of coal. From the distillation of “one hundred and fifty-eight grains [10.2 g] of Newcastle coal, he stated that he obtained one hundred and eight cubic inches [2.9 L] of air, which weighed fifty-one grains [3.3 g], being one third of the whole.” However, Hales results passed without notice for several more years.Mulberry_Street_NYC_c1900_LOC_3g04637u_edit

Posted in British history, buildings and structures, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, Regency era, Uncategorized, Victorian era, White Soup Press | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Regency Unrest: The Ely and Littleport Riots of 1816

Posted on August 1, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

396px-Proclamtion The Ely and Littleport riots of 1816, also known as the Ely riots or Littleport riots, occurred between 22 May and 24 May 1816 in Littleport, Cambridgeshire. The riots were caused by high unemployment and rising grain costs, much like the general unrest which spread throughout England following the Napoleonic Wars.

The Littleport riot broke out when a group of residents met at The Globe Inn. Fuelled by alcohol, they left the inn and began intimidating wealthier Littleport residents, demanding money and destroying property. The riot spread to Ely where magistrates attempted to calm the protests by ordering poor relief and fixing a minimum wage. The following day, encouraged by Lord Liverpool’s government, a militia of the citizens of Ely, led by Sir Henry Bate Dudley and backed by the 1st Royal Dragoons, rounded up the rioters. In the ensuing altercation at The George and Dragon in Littleport, a trooper was injured, one rioter was killed, and at least one went on the run.

Edward Christian, brother of Fletcher Christian, had been appointed Chief Justice of the Isle of Ely in 1800 by the Bishop of Ely. As the Chief Justice, Christian was entitled to try the rioters alone. The government, in this case via the Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, nevertheless appointed a Special Commission, consisting of Justice Abbott and Justice Burrough. The rioters were tried in the assizes at Ely during the week commencing June 1816. 23 men and one woman were condemned, of which five were subsequently hanged. General unrest and riots such as that at Littleport may have been a factor in the government passing the Vagrancy Act of 1824 and subsequently the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829.

Background
In 1815, the government increased taxation on imported wheat and grain to help pay for the costs of the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815). Poor laws, such as the Speenhamland system, were designed to help alleviate financial distress of the poorer communities, but such systems helped to keep wages artificially low as the farmers knew labourers’ wages would be supplemented by the system. Basic commodities, like cereals and bread, became heavily over-priced, creating widespread social unrest. The worst hit were the families of the men returning from the Battle of Waterloo (1815), who arrived home at a time when unemployment was already high. One reply to a questionnaire circulated by the Board of Agriculture in February, March, and April 1816 reported that “the state of the labouring poor is very deplorable, and arises entirely from the want of employment, which they are willing to seek, but the farmer cannot afford to furnish.”

In early 1816, a quarter (28 pounds) of wheat cost 52 shillings (£153), rising through 76 shillings (£223) in May to 103 shillings (£303) in December. Average wages for the period remained static at 8–9 shillings (£24–£26), per week. In 1815, a pound of bread was quoted at over 4 shillings (£12) and predicted to rise to over 5 shillings (£15).

Rioting
Preceding Events in the Region
There was rioting in the first months of 1816 in West Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. On 16 May riots broke out in Bury St Edmunds and Brandon in West Suffolk and also in Hockwold, Feltwell, and Norwich in Norfolk.

On the morning of 20 May, a meeting was held in Southery, Norfolk. The group, including a Thomas Sindall, marched through Denver to Downham Market to meet with the magistrates at their weekly meeting at The Crown public house. Sindall was the only person known to have been at both the riots at Downham Market and Littleport. He was killed by troopers at Littleport. The mob of 1,500, mainly men but some women, besieged The Crown until the magistrates agreed to allow a deputation of eight rioters inside to make their pleas: to have work and two-shillings (£6) per day. The magistrates acceded to these demands, but they had already called the yeoman cavalry from Upwell, who arrived at 5 P.M. Backed by the troops, the Riot Act was then read in the market place by Reverend Dering, causing further tussles, which subsided after arrests started to be made.

At the Norfolk and Norwich Assizes in August, nine men and six women were sentenced to death. Thirteen of those sentences were commuted, and two of the Downham rioters, Daniel Harwood and Thomas Thody, were hanged on the afternoon of 31 August 1816.

Littleport
Littleport is a large village in Cambridgeshire with a population in 1811 of 1,847. It is just under 11 miles (18 km) south-south-west of Downham Market and just over 4 miles (6 km) north-north-east of Ely.

On 22 May 1816, a group of 56 residents met at The Globe Inn in Littleport to discuss the lack of work and rising grain costs. Fuelled by alcohol, the residents directed their anger at local farmer Henry Martin. He had been overseer of the poor in 1814 and was not well liked by the parishioners. One man went to get a horn from Burgess, the lighterman, and started blowing it outside The Globe Inn, gathering hundreds of villagers to join the first group, and the riot commenced.

The rioters began at Mingey’s shop, where stones were thrown through the windows, and then they invaded Mr Clarke’s property and threw his belongings into the street. Next, at Josiah Dewey’s place, the Reverend John Vachell and his wife arrived to try to calm the rioters. Vachell had been vicar of St George’s since 1795 and was also a magistrate; he was an unpopular man, as he dealt harshly with even minor offences. He read or tried to read the Riot Act without effect, as the crowd “told him to go home.”

The rioters next visited the premises of disabled 90-year-old Mr Sindall, throwing his furniture into the street; his housekeeper, Mrs Hutt, was intimidated by a rioter wielding a butcher’s cleaver. After stopping at the place of Mr Little, “a nice old gentleman,” who gave the mob £2 (£118), they continued to Robert Speechly’s and demolished his furniture. Next they broke into the house of Rebecca Waddelow looking for Harry Martin, her grandson. He had seen them coming and escaped out the back. Rebecca Cutlack was visiting at the time, and they robbed her and removed property worth between £100 and £200 (£5,877–£11,754).

At about 11 P.M., the rioters arrived at the house of the Reverend John Vachell, who, after threatening to shoot anyone who entered his house, was disarmed when three men rushed him. He fled on foot with his wife and two daughters towards Ely. After Vachell had left, the rioters destroyed his goods and chattels and stole some of his silverware. Vachell was later to sue the Hundred of Ely for the damages under the Riot Act. He received over £708 (£41,610), an award which was challenged in the press, as many people complained about the size of the resulting district levies used to pay for it. The rioters then stopped a post-chaise returning with Hugh Robert Evans senior and Henry Martin from a Turnpike Trust meeting in Downham. They robbed Evans of 14 shillings (£41) before allowing them both to proceed. On reaching Ely, Evans alerted the magistrates who sent a carriage for Reverend Vachell, which collected him and his family walking towards Ely.

Ely
Ely, Cambridgeshire, is a city with an 1811 population of 4,249 people. The city is nearly 15 miles (24 km) north-north-east of Cambridge and 67 miles (108 km) north-north-east of London. When Vachell arrived in Ely, he alerted fellow clergymen and magistrates Reverend William Metcalfe and Reverend Henry Law who dispatched Thomas Archer, as a messenger, to Bury.

The rioters in Littleton had in the interim stolen a wagon and horses from Henry Tansley and equipped it with fowling guns, front and back. Most of the Littleton mob, armed with guns and pitch-forks, then began the march to Ely, arriving three-quarters of a mile (1.2 km) north of the city between 5 and 6 A.M. on 23 May. The Reverend William Metcalfe met them, read the Riot Act, and asked what the mob required. On being told that they wanted “the price of a stone of flour per day” and that “our children are starving, give us a living wage,” the Reverend agreed but stated that he would have to converse with the other magistrates. He asked everyone to return to Littleport, but they marched on. Metcalfe implored them to go to the market place and many did go there, where they were joined by Ely citizens. Recognising the needs of the rioters, the Ely magistrates, the Reverends William Metcalfe, Peploe Ward and Henry Law drafted a response, offering poor families two-shillings per head per week and ordering farmers to pay two-shillings (£6) per day wages. On hearing the proclamation, the mob cheered. The magistrates then “gave the men some beer, told them not to get drunk and tried to persuade them to go home.” Some took the advice, whilst others continued the rampage, intimidating shopkeepers, millers and bankers and stealing from some. However, most of the rioters, marching with their wagons and guns, left the city for Littleport before the arrival of the military from Bury.

Meanwhile, the magistrates delegated Henry Law to go to London to discuss the matter with Lord Sidmouth, the Home Secretary. On the way, Law stopped at the barracks of the Royston troop of volunteer yeomanry cavalry and requested they go to Ely. Law was unable to convince Sidmouth of the seriousness of the situation, and Sidmouth asked Reverend Sir Henry Bate Dudley to return with Law and report on the matter.

Restoring Order
A detachment of 18 men of the 1st Royal Dragoons, commanded by Captain Methuen, arrived in Ely from Bury on May 23 in the late afternoon. They marched through the streets as a show of force, remaining all night. The following afternoon, 24 May, the troops marched on Littleport, led by Sir Henry Bate Dudley and John Bacon, a Bow Street constable. They were followed by the Royston troop of volunteer yeomanry cavalry summoned earlier by Henry Law, and a militia of gentlemen and inhabitants of Ely.

Before arrival at the Ely Road, a small detachment of troops were ordered across the Hemp Field to enter the village from the east. The larger group then charged at a hard gallop down the Mill Street incline through to Main Street. The rioters were found making a stand in The George and Dragon near the west end of Station Road. The militia were called to the front when the rioters would not come out after being ordered to by Bate Dudley. Thomas South, shooting from a window, hit trooper Wallace in the forearm. The militia got the rioters out of the public house and assembled them in the street, surrounded by the troopers. Thomas Sindall attempted to take a musket from trooper William Porter but was not successful. Sindall ran away, and when he did not stop after being called on to do so by Porter, he was shot through the back of the head. Thomas Sindall was killed; he was the only person known to be at both Downham Market and Littleport. The result of this shooting was to subdue the rest of the rioters. Those captured were taken to Ely gaol and the rest of the rioters were rounded up.

The home secretary, Lord Sidmouth, had dispatched three troops of cavalry (100 men), two six–pounder cannons and three companies of the 69th (South Lincolnshire) Regiment of Foot under Major General Byng to help capture the leading rioters.

Two rioters were hidden in Lakenheath by a labourer who eventually betrayed them for £5 each (£294). One rioter, William Gotobed, a bricklayer, escaped and was eventually pardoned a few years later. He returned to Littleport after seven years and then went to America. The rioting spread to nearby areas such as Little Downham, Cambridgeshire, although such areas were not as badly affected. It took until 10 June before the areas were finally cleared of trouble and all of the rioters had been captured.

Trial
The assizes for the 82 persons, 73 of whom were in prison and nine on bail, lasted from Monday 17 June 1816 through to the following Saturday.

Special Commission
Since 970 AD, and until 1837, the Bishop of Ely retained exclusive jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters, and was also keeper of the records (Custos rotulorum). As part of this right, the Bishop appointed a Chief Justice of the Isle of Ely; Edward Christian had held the post since 1800. In these special assizes, the crown, via Lord Sidmouth, created a Special Commission. Sidmouth appointed two judges, Mr Justice Abbott and Mr Justice Burrough to preside over it. Christian, nevertheless, felt he should attend and indeed was in attendance throughout. After the trial Christian said, “It was suggested to me in London, … that it would be more conducive to the great object of the Commission, … if I declined my rotation of duty, and left the trial of all the prisoners to them [the appointed commissioners].”

Execution
On Friday 28 June 1816 at 9 A.M., the condemned men, William Beamiss, George Crow, John Dennis, Isaac Harley and Thomas South, were driven from the gaol at Ely market place in a black-draped cart and two horses costing five-pound five-shillings (£309) accompanied by the bishop’s gaol chaplain, John Griffin, in a hired chaise and pair costing 13 shillings (£38). In submitting his expenses on 29 June, chief bailiff F. Bagge noted, “We have no power of pressing a cart for the purpose, and ’tis a difficult matter to get one, people feel’s so much upon the occasion.”

The men arrived at the gallows at Parnell pits around 11 A.M., and were hanged after praying with the crowd for some time. Griffin was unofficially given the ropes, which cost one-pound five-shillings (£73), after hanging, which he kept; he left a collection to his housekeeper, who sold them as a cure for sore throats. Following the hanging, the bodies were placed in coffins and displayed in a cottage in Gaol Street, where many people came to visit. They were buried the next day in St Mary’s Church, Ely, with the vicar’s blessing. As a warning to others, a stone plaque was installed on the west side of St Mary’s Church; it concludes, “May their awful Fate be a warning to others.”

In 1816, there were a total of 83 people executed in England: 80 men, including the five Littleport rioters, and three women.

Aftermath
A few days after the execution, the ten condemned prisoners who had had their sentences commuted to twelve months’ imprisonment were transported to the prison hulk Justitia, moored at Woolwich on the River Thames. Such ships were used as holding areas prior to convicts being transferred to a regular vessel for penal transportation to, at this time, Australia. Residents of Ely tried to hold meetings to complain at this apparent extension of the prisoners’ sentences. Despite, or because of, media attention—newspapers of the time took sides depending whether they supported the government or not—the prisoners were returned to Ely gaol; it may all have been a simple mistake by the clerk of the assizes.

On 3 April, 1816, lieutenant-colonel William Sorell was appointed lieutenant-governor of Van Diemen’s Land, now Tasmania. He sailed on the Sir William Bensley, the same ship transporting the rioters sentenced to penal transportation. Leaving England on 9 October 1816, the ship arrived in New South Wales 152 days later on 10 March 1817. Soon after, Sorrel sailed to Hobart arriving on 8 April 1817, where he distinguished himself as the third lieutenant-governor.

The Reverend John Vachell stayed on as vicar of St George’s Littleport in title until 1830; he appointed a curate, George Britton Jermyn from 1817. Some of the St George’s church registers were destroyed during the riots. The remaining registers start from 1754 (marriages), 1756 (burials), and 1783 (baptism). General unrest and riots such as that at Littleport may have been a factor in the government passing the Vagrancy Act of 1824. Due in part to some difficulties in enforcing the law and to continued public unease, the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 was created, leading to the first modern police force.

Posted in British history, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, Victorian era | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Regency Unrest: The Ely and Littleport Riots of 1816

Regency Era Unrest: The Spa Fields Riots, the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, and the Treason Act of 1817

Posted on July 31, 2013 by Regina Jeffers

The Spa Fields Riots were public disorder arising out of mass meetings at Spa Fields, Islington, England, on 15 November and 2 December 1816. Revolutionary Spenceans, who opposed the British government, had planned to encourage rioting and then seize control of the government by taking the Tower of London and the Bank of England. Arthur Thistlewood and three other Spencean leaders were arrested and charged with high treason as a result of the riot; James Watson was on trial during June 1817 with Messrs Wetherell and Copley as their defence counsel. Watson was acquitted and the other three were released without trial.

The first Spa Fields meeting, on 15 November 1816, attracted about 10,000 people and passed off peacefully in the main. Its official object was to seek popular support for the delivery of a petition to the Prince Regent, requesting electoral reform and relief from hardship and distress. Henry Hunt addressed the meeting and was elected to deliver the petition, along with Sir Francis Burdett, although the latter subsequently declined to go.

The second meeting, on 2 December, was called after Hunt was refused access to the Regent to deliver the petition, and may have been attended by 20,000 people. Hunt spoke as planned, and most of the crowd listened to him, but some disorder broke out according to the Spenceans’ agenda. A group of protesters moved away from the main crowd, accompanying James Watson and his son toward the Tower of London, looting a gun shop along the way. They were met by troops at the Royal Exchange and dispersed or were arrested. One man was stabbed during the disturbances, and a John Cashman was later found guilty of stealing weapons from the gun shop, and sentenced to death. The main witness to the ‘plotting’ was a government spy, John Castle, who had infiltrated the Spenceans. He may have been working as an agent provocateur, and his character and reliability were discredited at the trial of the first accused, James Watson. Watson was acquitted and the case against the other arrested men was dropped.

Henry Hunt’s role in the events is disputed. He claimed afterwards not to have known about an uprising and tried to distance himself from events.

The Spa Fields meetings were one of the first cases of mass meetings in public, and contributed to the government’s conviction that revolution was possible and action must be taken. The Gagging Acts were passed in February and March 1817, and the Blanketeers march followed in the same month.

The Treason Act 1817 (57 Geo 3 c 6) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It made it high treason to assassinate the Prince Regent. It also made permanent the Treason Act 1795, which had been due to expire on the death of George III.

All the provisions of this Act in relation to the Treason Act 1795, except such of the same as related to the compassing, imagining, inventing, devising or intending death or destruction, or any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maim or wounding, imprisonment or restraint of the persons of the heirs and successors of George III, and the expressing, uttering or declaring of such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices or intentions, or any of them, were repealed by section 1 of the Treason Felony Act 1848.

Sections 2 and 3 were repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1873.

The Acts of 1817 and 1795 were repealed by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1817 (57 Geo. III, c. 3) was an Act passed by the British Parliament.

The Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, introduced the second reading of the Bill on 24 February 1817. In his speech he said there was “a traitorous conspiracy…for the purpose of overthrowing…the established government” and referred to “a malignant spirit which had brought such disgrace upon the domestic character of the people” and “had long prevailed in the country, but especially since the commencement of the French Revolution”. This spirit belittled Britain’s victories and exalted the prowess of her enemies and after the war had fomented discontent and encouraged violence: “An organised system has been established in every quarter, under the semblance of demanding parliamentary reform, but many of them, I am convinced, have that specious pretext in their mouths only, but revolution and rebellion in their hearts”.

The Act was renewed later in the parliamentary session (57 Geo. III, c. 55). In autumn 1817 Sidmouth went through the list of all those detained under the Act and released as many as possible, personally interviewing most of the prisoners. He also tried to alleviate some of their conditions: “Solitary confinement will not be continued except under special circumstances.” The Act was repealed in February 1818 by the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1818 (58 Geo. III, c. 1).

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, Victorian era | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Regency Era Unrest: The Spa Fields Riots, the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, and the Treason Act of 1817