Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:18:01.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Loyalist Response to the Queen Caroline Agitations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

Jonathan Fulcher
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is curious that the unprecedented agitations in support of the rights of Caroline of Brunswick in 1820–21 have been represented as an “affair.” The word seems first to have been used by G. M. Trevelyan and was promptly seized on by Elie Halevy in his 1923 Histoire du peuple anglais au XIXe siècle. The labeling of this popular ebullience as an “affair” has consequently framed the development of its now not inconsiderable historiography. The episode was initially explained as a diversion from some main line of historical development, be it whiggish or Marxisant. More recently, historians have rescued the agitations from this condescension by showing how the radicals identified the king and the government's treatment of the queen as oppression and corruption at work. Since the common thread running through both whig and Marxisant accounts had been a concentration on the effects of the agitations on reform and radical politics, those attempting to put the episode back fully into their narratives emphasized the same factors. This time, however, it was to show that the agitations were not a diversion from the main line of reform politics. What follows is a further contribution to the process of giving greater attention to the queen's cause when telling the story of mass politics in this period, but one which concentrates on other neglected contexts and phenomena important for the explanation of this popular explosion. In the light of this, it may be necessary to change the way we refer to this episode.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , October 1995 , pp. 481 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Trevelyan, G. M., British History in the Nineteenth Century (1782–1901) (London, 1922), p. 191Google Scholar; Halevy, Elie, “L'affaire de la reine Caroline,” in his Histoire du peuple anglais au XIXe siècle, vol. 2, 1815–1830, 2d ed. (Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1927), pp. 73–87Google Scholar, and The Liberal Awakening, 1815–1830 (London, 1949), pp. 80–106Google Scholar.

2 Veitch, G. S., The Genesis of Parliamentary Reform (London, 1913)Google Scholar; Woodward, E. L., The Age of Reform, 1815–1870 (Oxford, 1938), p. 64Google Scholar: the “affair of Queen Caroline” was a “sordid incident”; Bryant, A., The Age of Elegance, 1812–1822 (London, 1950), pp. 391–96Google Scholar: the “Queen fever”; Maccoby, S., English Radicalism, 1786–1832 (London, 1955), pp. 370–75Google Scholar. See also Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class (Harmondsworth, 1980), p. 778Google Scholar, where he labels the 1820 demonstrations as “humbug”; he has since qualified this in his “The Very Type of the ‘Respectable Artisan,’” New Society 48 (May 3, 1979): 275–77Google Scholar: Thompson accepted I. Prothero's revisionist account of the Queen Caroline Affair, while maintaining that it “was a glorious ebullition of that peculiar English genre: humbug” (p. 276).

3 Hone, J. A., For the Cause of Truth: Radicalism in London, 1796–1821 (Oxford, 1982), pp. 351–52Google Scholar; McCalman, I., Radical Underworld: Prophets, Revolutionaries and Pomographers in London, 1795–1840 (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 162–77Google Scholar; Stevenson, J., “The Queen Caroline Affair,” in London in the Age of Reform, ed. Stevenson, J. (Oxford, 1977), pp. 117–48Google Scholar; Prothero, I., Artisans and Politics in Early Nineteenth-Century London: John Gast and His Times (Folkestone, 1979), pp. 132–55Google Scholar; Lacqueur, T., “The Queen Caroline Affair: Politics as Art in the Reign of George IV,” Journal of Modern History 54 (1982): 417–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Calhoun, C., The Question of Class Struggle: Social Foundations of Popular Radicalism during the Industrial Revolution (Chicago, 1982), pp. 105 ff.Google Scholar

4 Mrs.Arbuthnot, , Journal, ed. Bamford, F. and the duke of Wellington (London, 1950), 1:44Google Scholar, entry dated October 18, 1820. See also Calhoun, p. 106: the agitations were “arguably the largest movement of the common people during the early nineteenth century.”

5 For this language, see Epstein, J., “The Constitutionalist Idiom: Radical Reasoning, Rhetoric and Action in Early Nineteenth-Century England,” Journal of Social History 23 (1990): 553–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See Fulcher, J., “Gender, Politics and Class in the Early Nineteenth-Century English Reform Movement,” Historical Research 67 (1994): 57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Colley, L., “The Apotheosis of George III: Loyalty, Royalty and the British Nation, 1760–1820,” Past and Present, no. 102 (1984), pp. 94–129Google Scholar, and “Majesty,” in her Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1837 (New Haven, Conn., 1992), pp. 195–236Google Scholar.

8 Enclosed in Bridges (Lord Mayor) to Hobhouse, August 4, 1820, Public Record Office, Home Office papers 52/1, fol. 387. Prothero described one of Gast's speeches at this meeting as “pure royalism” (Prothero, p. 139). (Hereafter, all archival citations are to the Public Record Office, Home Office [HO] papers, unless otherwise indicated.)

9 For these loyalist responses since 1815, see Fulcher, J., “Contests over Constitutionalism: The Faltering of Reform in England, 1816–1824” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1992), esp. pp. 82–97, 211–21, 293–98Google Scholar.

10 Cobbett's Weekly Political Register (hereafter CPR), (July 29, 1820), col. 77.

11 Black Dwarf (October 25, 1820), p. 574Google Scholar.

12 Lacqueur, p. 458.

13 Brewer, J., Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III, 2d ed. (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 184 ff.Google Scholar

14 See Fulcher, , “Contests over Constitutionalism,” pp. 242–67Google Scholar.

15 Hodgskin to Place, October 17, 1820, British Library, Add. MSS 35153, fol. 178. Hodgskin was an early socialist who later influenced Marx. Place, radical tailor and the reform movement's self-appointed archivist, was active in reform politics throughout the period from the 1790s.

16 See An Appeal to Moral and Religious Men, on the Treatment of the Queen and Its Probable Consequences (London, 1820), p. 4Google Scholar: the pamphleteer observed at a meeting at Freemason's Hall “the enthusiasm of the ladies, by the expression of their countenances, the waving of handkerchiefs, aye, and by active applause”; An authentic account of the whole proceedings of the Saint Mary-le-bone meeting of the married ladies, and inhabitant householders of the parish to address Her Majesty on her return to these realms (London, 1820), p. 3Google Scholar.

17 Anne Cobbett to Miss Boxall, August 14, 1820, Cobbett Papers, Nuffield College, Oxford, box 30, 99/1.

18 Clarke, A., “Womanhood and Manhood in the Transition from Plebeian to Working-Class Culture, 1780–1845” (Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University, 1987), p. 13Google Scholar, and “Queen Caroline and the Sexual Politics of Popular Culture in London, 1820,” Representations 31 (1990): 47–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Clarke, , “Womanhood and Manhood,” p. 298Google Scholar; Davidoff , L. and Hall, C., Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780–1850 (London, 1987), pp. 149 ffGoogle Scholar; for the ways in which separate-spheres language could “serve women's interests,” see Colley, , Britons (n. 7 above), pp. 265–81Google Scholar. For critique of the “separate spheres” framework, see Vickery, A., “Golden Age to Separate Spheres? A Review of the Categories and Chronology of English Women's History,” Historical Journal 36 (1993): 383–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Colley, , Britons, p. 281Google Scholar: “If British women were being urged to remain at home more stridently in this period than ever before, it was largely because so many of them were finding an increasing amount to do outside the home. The literature of separate spheres was more didactic than descriptive.”

21 Fulcher, “Gender, Politics and Class” (n. 6 above).

22 Most recently, Tamara Hunt has played down the role of politics as the mobilizing force of the crowd in her assertion that many of those on the streets in support of the queen were not “political” in the normal sense of the word. See Hunt, T., “Morality and Monarchy in the Queen Caroline Affair,” Albion 23 (1991): 697–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 721. Although right to stress the importance of the moral dimension to the queen's affair, Hunt's rather rigid definition of politics obscures the intimate connection between immorality and corruption, the constant complaints of the radicals about the political system. The real power of popular constitutionalist arguments lay in their ability to explain in a fertile and flexible way a variety of phenomena as corrupt, and so point to reform of the system as the solution. There were no rigid divisions in these arguments between morality and politics. Connected through the notions of “independence” and “respectability,” these were to become an integral part of Gladstone's later success: see Biagini, E., Liberty, Retrenchment and Reform: Popular Liberalism in the Age of Gladstone, 1860–1880 (Cambridge, 1992), esp. pp. 50 ff.Google Scholar; Joyce, P., Visions of the People (Cambridge, 1991), p. 56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 See British Freeholder (August 12, 1820), p. 3Google Scholar, where it was asserted that the queen's cause was not political because she was the subject of the king.

24 See Fulcher, , “Gender, Politics and Class,” p. 66Google Scholar; for an interesting recent discussion of related issues, see Wahrman, D., “‘Middle-Class’ Domesticity Goes Public: Gender, Class, and Politics from Queen Caroline to Queen Victoria,” Journal of British Studies 32 (1993): 396–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 [Croker, J. W.], Letter from the King to his People (London, December 1820), p. 8Google Scholar.

26 Wooler, , in Black Dwarf (June 28, 1820), p. 896Google Scholar; Black Dwarf (My 5, 1820), p. 2Google Scholar.

27 Brunswick; or, True Blue (May 13, 1821), p. 305Google Scholar. By May, Croker's Letter had gone through twenty-three editions.

28 [Croker], p. 30.

29 For identical radical arguments about the necessity of women obeying their husbands, see Hunt, Henry, To the radical reformers … (Dorchester Gaol, October 25, 1820), p. 7Google Scholar. William Cobbett perceived women only as important auxiliaries to the male struggle; see CPR (July 29, 1820), col. 88. Even more radical reformers like Richard Carlile argued that “every honest and virtuous woman considers to be her duty, namely, to obey the voice of her husband”; Republican (May 10, 1822), p. 589Google Scholar.

30 See, e.g., the explicit identification by radicals of the queen with all women as wives. Under a woodcut of a virtuous-looking group of honest Englishwomen in a pamphlet entitled The Queen and Magna Charla (London, 1820), pp. 17–18Google Scholar, was the caption, explicitly authored by a man addressed to men: “These are the LADIES / Whose husbands and sons / Can wield for their safety / both sabres and guns; / our solace, our happiness / charm of our lives / our mothers / our sisters / our daughters / our wives.” Men were urged to protect these women “in the name of the nation, their queen and themselves from unmanly vexation.” See also Carlile, , in the Republican (November 24, 1820), p. 436Google Scholar, where he argued that it was a “manly” duty to protect the queen. William Hone reiterated this line: manly virtues must come to the rescue to protect women, otherwise the “degeneracy and decay” of “national morals” was all too likely; see Hone, William, The King's treatment of the Queen (London, 1820), p. 32Google Scholar.

31 The Declaration of the People of England to Their Sovereign Lord the King (London, 1821), p. 15Google Scholar.

32 Selections from the Queen's answers to various addresses presented to her … (London, 1821), p. 8Google Scholar.

33 For other examples, see Fulcher, , “Gender, Politics and Class” (n. 6 above), p. 67Google Scholar.

34 The Royal House that Jack Built (London, 1820), p. 22Google Scholar.

35 Wright, D. G., Popular Radicalism (London, 1988), p. 74Google Scholar.

36 It seems likely that “an English Woman” was not in fact a female, but the publisher of the tract, W. Wright, who like Weaver, Shackell, and Arrowsmith, proprietors of the notorious John Bull newspaper, was the publisher of several loyalist tracts and journals. See Davidoff, L., “Class and Gender in Victorian England,” in Sex and Class in Women's History, ed. Newton, Judith L., Ryan, Mary P., and Walkowitz, Judith R. (London, 1983), pp. 16–71Google Scholar, esp. p. 26; An Address to the Peers of England by an English Woman (London, 1820), pp. 5Google Scholar, 3.

37 This role of the consort had been established largely by Queen Charlotte, George III's wife; see Colley, , Britons (n. 7 above), pp. 268–72Google Scholar.

38 See, e.g., Blackwood's (November 1820), p. 210Google Scholar; Anti-Jacobin Review (September 1820), p. 69Google Scholar.

39 John Bull (January 14, 1821), p. 36Google Scholar.

40 John Bull (December 17, 1820), p. 6Google Scholar.

41 [Croly, George], Blackwood's (November 1820), p. 210Google Scholar.

42 Cookson, J. E., Lord Liverpool's Administration: The Crucial Years, 1815–1822 (Hamden, Conn., 1975), p. 270Google Scholar.

43 One of Thomas Tooke's tactics used to gain signatures for his famous “free trade” petition of London merchants in 1820 was to use loyalty and the fears of a resurgent radicalism as a means of persuading them to sign; see Hilton, Boyd, Corn, Cash, Commerce: The Economic Policies of the Tory Governments, 1815–1830 (Oxford, 1977), p. 174Google Scholar.

44 John Bull (December 24, 1820), p. 12Google Scholar.

45 Quarterly Review (October 1822), pp. 213–14Google Scholar.

46 Courier (January 13, 1821).

47 Black Dwarf (March 28, 1821), p. 456Google Scholar.

48 See Fulcher, , “Contests over Constitutionalism” (n. 9 above), p. 301Google Scholar.

49 John Bull (January 6, 1822), p. 445Google Scholar. John Bull ([September 30, 1821], p. 333)Google Scholar coined the phrase “whig-radical” as a way of defining this realignment. See also Anti-Jacobin Review (August 1820), p. 67Google Scholar.

50 The mantle of patriotism was hotly contested in this period; see Colley, , Britons: (n. 7 above), pp. 318–19Google Scholar, and “Whose Nation? Class and National Consciousness in Britain, 1750–1815,” Past and Present, no. 113 (1986), pp. 97–117Google Scholar. On patriotism and its meanings in this period, see Taylor, M., “John Bull and the Iconography of Public Opinion in England, c. 1712–1929,” Past and Present, no. 134 (1992), pp. 93–128Google Scholar, p. 126: “The language of patriotism was actually available to most political and social groups throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.” See also Taylor, M., “Radicalism and Patriotism, 1848–1859” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1990)Google Scholar. Compare Cunningham, H., “The Language of Patriotism, 1750–1914,” History Workshop 12 (1981): 8–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Wickwar, W., The Struggle for the Freedom of the Press, 1819–1832 (London, 1928), p. 162Google Scholar.

52 John Bull (November 18, 1821), p. 389Google Scholar.

53 True Patriot (May 15, 1824), p. 6Google Scholar.

54 Ibid., p. 2. See also Colley, “Apotheosis of George III” (n. 7 above).

55 See British Guardian and Protestant Advocate (January 7, 1824).

56 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, 2d ser., vol. 249 (November 10, 1820)Google Scholar, cols. 1744, 1746.

57 See Hobhouse, H., The Diary of Henry Hobhouse (1820–1827), ed. Aspinall, A. (London, 1947), pp. 47–48, 50Google Scholar.

58 See A report of the speeches and proceedings at the meeting of the county of Northumberland (January 10, 1821), p. 9Google Scholar.

59 CPR (November 11, 1820), col. 1199.

60 See Brightfield, M. F., Theodore Hook and His Novels (Cambridge, Mass., 1928)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Hook was caricatured by Disraeli as Lucien Gay, Nicholas Rigby's (i.e., Croker's) satellite and wit, in Coningsby.

61 John Bull (January 27, 1822), p. 468Google Scholar. See also the Oppositionist calling on loyalists to fight radicals with “our weapons,” quoted in Sanders, M., “The Issue of Parliamentary Reform in England during the 1820s” (M.Ph. diss., University of London, 1987), pp. 251–52Google Scholar.

62 Arbuthnot, 1:89, journal entry dated April 25, 1821.

63 Croker, J. W., Diary, ed. Jennings, L. J. (London, 1885), p. 246Google Scholar, entry dated January 11, 1822.

64 Real John Bull (London, 1821)Google Scholar.

65 Aurora Borealis (September 30, 1821). The government was certainly less involved in providing direct financial assistance to popular loyalist newspapers in the early 1820s than they had been in 1817–18 by funding Gibbons Merle, editor of the White Dwarf, and William Shadgett, editor of Shadgett's Weekly Review of Cobbett, Wooler and Sherwin, so this claim was a little far-fetched. See Aspinall, A., Politics and the Press, c. 1780–1850, 2d ed. (Brighton, 1973), pp. 99–100Google Scholar; and for George Harrison's proposals regarding the government's response to radicals through the press, see Torrance, J. R., “Sir George Harrison and the Growth of Bureaucracy in the Early 19th Century,” English Historical Review 83 (1968): 52–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Aurora Borealis (May 13, 1821), p. 61Google Scholar; Imperial Weekly Gazette and Westminster Journal (May 12, 1821).

67 Halevy, , Liberal Awakening (n. 1 above), pp. 101–2Google Scholar.

68 Other than those already noticed, see An Address to the Peers of England (n. 36 above); Cobbett's Guardian (1822). See also Declaration of the People of England (n. 31 above); Intended speech of the Attorney General … (London, 1820)Google Scholar; A letter to the Right Hon. Earl Grey on certain charges advanced by his Lordship (Durham, 1821)Google Scholar; The antidote … containing lectures upon two anonymous pamphlets … (London, 1820)Google Scholar. On William Wright, one of the most productive of loyalist publishers, see Smith, M. Colding, “They Have Destroyed Me; The Queen Caroline Pamphlets: A Collection of Early Nineteenth-Century Pamphlets in the State Library of Victoria” (M.A. thesis, State Library of Victoria, 1990), p. 34Google Scholar.

69 Aurora Borealis (September 30, 1821). For the Beacon and its connections to government, see Melville to Sidmouth, October 13, 1821, Devon County Record Office, Sidmouth Papers, Special Subjects, 152M/02.

70 Hazlitt, W., The plain speaker: opinions on books, men, and things (London, 1826), pp. 429–30Google Scholar.

71 Courier (July 4, 1821).

72 James Diamond to Bathurst, September 6, 1821, HO 44/10, fols. 114–18.

73 Aurora Borealis (June 10, 1821).

74 Edinburgh Review (hereafter Ed. Rev.) (June 1822), p. 114Google Scholar. Palmerston was certainly a contributor and may have helped establish this association.

75 News (February 3, 1822).

76 Blackwood's (January 1821). See also Smith, pp. 32–33.

77 Courier (June 6, 1821), and (October 8, 1821). See Aspinall (n. 65 above), pp. 64–65.

78 National Register (June 3, 1821), p. 172Google Scholar; Ed. Rev. (June 1822), p. 117Google Scholar.

79 Ed. Rev. (June 1822), p. 114Google Scholar.

80 See Aspinall, p. 151.

81 Sidmouth to Sir William Elford, December 17, 1820, Devon County Record Office, Sidmouth Papers, 152M/Main Series: Political.

82 Courier (January 1, 1821). See also Cookson (n. 42 above), p. 282, where he refers to the contests over public meetings. However, Cookson's notion of public opinion is not sufficiently alive to the volatility and contested nature of terms which the government used to characterize it. Here it is stressed that “respectable” public opinion could for the government as much mean “loyal” as it could refer to a class-based sense of their political constituency.

83 Sidmouth to Lascelles, January 3, 1821, HO 40/16, fol. 8.

84 Dover had seen some of the “worst excesses” of the crowd over the comings and goings of the queen and hostile Italian witnesses brought in for her trial.

85 For these, see HO 54/1, respectively, fols. 61, 123, 113, 115, 68, and 133. For Bristol see also R. Jenkins, Sheriff of Bristol, to Sidmouth, December 8, 1820, HO 52/1, fol. 591.

86 See Halevy, , Liberal Awakening (n. 1 above), pp. 81–82Google Scholar, n. 3.

87 B. Rudd to R. Blanshard, January 6, 1821, HO 44/7, fol. 17.

88 Tyrconnel to Hobhouse, January 5, 1821, HO 44/7, fol. 15.

89 Tyrconnel to Sidmouth, January 20, 1821, HO 52/2, fol. 56. See also Blanshard to Sidmouth, January 1, 1821, HO 52/2, fols. 4–7.

90 Rev. C. Hope to Sidmouth, January 2, 1821, HO 52/2, fol. 20.

91 Radical handbill enclosed in Rev. C. Hope to Sidmouth, HO 52/2, fol. 22, dated January 1, 1821.

92 F. Fortescue to Sidmouth, March 21, 1821, HO 44/7, fol. 221.

93 Capt. Jones R.N., to Sidmouth, January 6, 1821, HO 52/2, fol. 31

94 See Sidmouth's note on the corner of Capt. Jones R.N., to Sidmouth, January 6, 1821, HO 52/2, fol. 32.

95 Even the government was split; see the papers on Canning's resignation, Canning MSS, packet 74A.

96 National Register (January 14, 1821); Examiner (January 14, 1821), p. 30Google Scholar.

97 Russell to Moore, January 7 and 8, 1821, quoted in Bourne, K., Palmerston: The Early Years, 1784–1841 (London, 1982), p. 217Google Scholar.

98 See CPR and Black Dwarf, for early November, as well as the daily press generally.

99 Examiner (January 21, 1821), pp. 38–39Google Scholar; see also CPR (January 13, 1821), cols. 131 ff.Google Scholar, and (January 20, 1821), cols. 143 ff.

100 Independent (March 17, 1821), p. 165Google Scholar.

101 Imperial Weekly Gazette and Westminster Journal (January 6, 1821), p. 4Google Scholar.

102 See n. 96 above.

103 Lloyd to Hobhouse, January 11, 1821, HO 44/7, fol. 49.

104 Sharp to Sidmouth, November 23, 1820, HO 52/1, fol. 545.

105 See MSS Loyal address of R. Blanshard, North Allerton [January 1821], HO 52/2, fol. 14. For larger numbers of addresses see Courier (February 1–15, 1821); Black Dwarf (January 3, 1821), pp. 30–34Google Scholar: “Miserable Progress of the Loyal Addresses”; Brunswick; or, True Blue (February 11, 1821); Examiner (January 7, 1821), pp. 13–14Google Scholar, and (January 14, 1821), pp. 24, 29–30.

106 Brunswick; or, True Blue (May 20, 1821).

107 Courier (February 8, 1821).

108 Blackwood's (February 1821), p. 585Google Scholar, and (March 1821), p. 690.

109 See HO 40/15, fols. 105 ff., esp. fols. 116, 170; and HO 52/1, fols. 516 ff.; HO 79/4, fol. 70.

110 James Lyon to Sidmouth, April 24, 1821, HO 40/16, fol. 266.

111 Lloyd to Hobhouse, May 8, 1821, HO 40/16, fols. 285–86.

112 Norris to Hobhouse, March 18, 1821, HO 40/16, fol. 172; Belchem, John, “Orator” Hunt: Henry Hunt and English Working-Class Radicalism (Oxford, 1985), p. 150Google Scholar.

113 Shegog to the Home Office, November 6, 1820, HO 40/15, fol. 39.

114 See Selections from the Queen's answers (n. 32 above).

115 J. A. Hone (n. 3 above), p. 317.

116 John Bull (February 4, 1821), p. 61Google Scholar.

117 T. Hunt (n. 22 above), p. 719.

118 George, M. D., English Political Caricature, 1793–1832: A Study in Opinion and Propaganda (Oxford, 1959), pp. 199–200, 205Google Scholar.

119 CPR (July 28, 1821), col. 84; see also John Bull (January 7, 1821), p. 28Google Scholar (February 18, 1821), p. 77, and (February 25, 1821), p. 84.

120 J. A. Hone, p. 317.

121 John Bull (July 15, 1821), p. 244Google Scholar.

122 See George, p. 189.

123 Croker, , Diary, July 19, 1821, p. 196Google Scholar.

124 The Bury cotton weavers address proclaimed that they would not celebrate the coronation, as it was too close to Peterloo and the government's treatment of the queen; “Cotton Weavers,” July 11, 1821, HO 40/16, fol. 388.

125 Lloyd to Hobhouse, July 28, 1821, HO 44/8, fol. 312; for a similar situation in Manchester, see Norris to Sidmouth, July 26 1821, HO 40/16, fol. 397.

126 Black Dwarf (July 18, 1821), p. 75Google Scholar. For Newcastle coronation riots, see Black Dwarf (July 25, 1821), p. 143Google Scholar.

127 Blackwood's (June 1821), p. 337Google Scholar.

128 National Register (August 19, 1821). For an excellent account of the riots accompanying the queen's funeral cortege, see Prothero (n. 3 above), pp. 147–53.

129 Colley, , Britons (n. 7 above), pp. 329–31Google Scholar; Clark, J. C. D., English Society, 1688–1832: Ideology, Social Structure, and Political Practice during the Ancien Régime (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 398–99Google Scholar.