"Radical Nottingham"
February 2003 Meeting Report
Guest Speaker - Professor John Beckett
The February 2003 meeting of The Keyworth & District Local History was held in the Centenary Lounge, Keyworth on 7th February 2003. The meeting itself was something of a milestone in the Society’s history in that it marked its 10th Anniversary. It was, therefore, particularly pleasing that we should have such an auspicious speaker in the form of Professor Beckett from Nottingham University.
The talk that he presented to the Society was entitled “Radical Nottingham”. It came as something of a shock to be informed that Nottingham had quite a notorious reputation for political radicalism which often found expression in very serious public disorder. In fact, we were told, the unrest had gained such serious proportions that in 1792 Nottingham had the unenviable reputation of being the first provincial town to have barracks built inside it to house troops for the maintenance of public order, (the barracks were situated, not surprisingly, on Barrack Lane in the Park Estate).
Outbreaks of “Radicalism” occurred at five distinctly separate times in Nottingham between 1790 and 1872. These outbreaks of “Radicalism” tended to be of a very violent nature. An example from the 1790’s illustrated the climate of the day. Apparently a gentleman had lived in the town, (Nottingham), for seventeen years and during that time there had been seventeen riots! Notable worthies of the day reflected that Nottingham was considered to be “a disorderly, radical city” with “an uncontrollable spirit of riot”. Nottingham gained such a notorious reputation throughout the land that often the first question asked of travellers from Nottingham was “was the town quiet when you left?” Indeed Nottingham became a by-word for civil unrest and trouble of one sort or another.
The first period of civil unrest related by Professor Beckett was during elections in 1790. Nottingham returned two candidates to Westminster. The two sitting candidates offered themselves for re-election, the Whig Robert Smith, (of the local banking firm), and the conservative independent Daniel Parker Coke. The campaign was decidedly heated. The day before the polls opened, 17th June 1790 all of the windows in Smith’s Bank near the Exchange were broken by a mob. When both candidates were re-elected windows in the Exchange building itself were smashed. Such large numbers of windows were smashed that eyewitnesses to the events told of the area around the Exchange building being a “sheet of glass”. The whole scene must have resembles something of a battle as, first, special constables sworn in to subdue the rioters drove them from the town only, in turn, to be driven out themselves when the rioters re-grouped and re-assaulted the town. Many of the participants received injuries, one person; apparently an innocent bystander was shot dead by the special constables.
The current unrest in France with the Revolution there made the Authorities in Westminster fearful of the events in Nottingham, thinking perhaps that the revolutionary spirit may have crossed the Channel and taken a hold here. However, with the advent of war with France in 1793 the whole mood of the town changed. Patriotism came to the fore and the town threw its whole weight into the war with France. The transformation was so great that the famous radical of the day Tom Paine, famous for his book “Rights of Man” had his effigy burnt in Nottingham in 1794. It was on the strength of this patriotic fervour that Sir John Borlase Warren was elected. Sir John had made a name for himself in the Royal Navy, notably the victory at Quiberon Bay in 1795. As is often the case military success did not mean political prowess and Sir John was a failure as a politician. However, his name lives on at the public house that bears his name at Canning Circus.
The next bout of radicalism was brought about by the industrial depression, which began to surface towards the end of the Napoleonic Wars. This radicalism took the name of Luddism, after the fictional character Ned Ludd, and was primarily concerned with the unfavourable effects that the Industrial Revolution was having on the working classes employed in Nottingham’s predominant industry, the hosiery trade. Attempts by the owners to force wages down were met by violent opposition. The main violence was directed against the hated knitting-frames that were frequently smashed. The depressed wages of the hosiery workers led to food riots in 1811 – 1812. The situation deteriorated to such an extent that a curfew was introduced in 1811 whereby all townspeople had to be off the streets by ten o’clock at night. There was also a reward of £200 for information leading to the arrest of “Frame-Breakers”. An interesting aside to this period is that one of Nottingham’s Town Clerks’s had the surname of Enfield, a relative of the comic Harry Enfield.
The next bout of trouble flared up in the 1830’s with the controversy surrounding the Great Reform Bill of 1832. The radical support in Nottingham for the Bill was considerable. When the Mayor organised a public meeting in support of the Bill in March 1831 over 9,000 people signed a petition to be sent to the King advocating political change. In the early stages most public meetings were peaceable events but when the Bill was thrown out in October 1831 the mood of the townsfolk turned very nasty. The timing of the Bill’s dismissal coincided with the annual Goose Fair. The Fair in those days lasted for ten days and the popularity of it ensured that the town’s population was greatly increased. The Mayor called a public meeting to be held in the Market Square on Monday 10th October, (traditionally a day off for the hosiery workers), to discuss the towns reaction to the disappointment. The previous night, (Sunday 9th October), had seen rioting in the town and in anticipation of trouble the 15th Hussars were placed on standby. Some estimates put the number gathered in the Market Square as high as 20,000 people so the opportunity for mayhem was considerable indeed. The meeting went off relatively peacefully and had pretty well broken up when a faction of the crowd went to Colwick Hall to vent their frustrations on the property of it’s owners John Musters a Tory magistrate and opponent of the Bill. The mob tried, unsuccessfully, to set fire to the Hall. After that they returned to Nottingham and tried, again unsuccessfully, to burn the House of Correction down and to free the inmates. Their next target was Nottingham Castle and their actions then have become a part of Nottingham folklore.
The 4th Duke of Newcastle owned the Castle, though it was largely derelict at the time and uninhabited. The Duke’s reactionary views were very well known and these infuriated the crowd to the extent that the Castle was set alight. A curious set of circumstances now came into play, which ensured the destruction of the Castle. The Castle was outside the town boundary and came under the jurisdiction of the County. Hence, for the troops to be called out to try and restore order County Magistrates needed to be involved. However, the necessary Magistrates were at a Masonic meeting and could not be disturbed. The result was that the mob was unhindered in their criminal activities. The Castle was fired and reduced to a burnt-out shell. Even though it was pouring with rain at the time thousands turned out to watch the blaze and the flames could be seen from miles away. After venting their fury of the Castle the mob resumed it’s activities and walked to Beeston the following day intent on more mischief on the property of anti-reformers. In the aftermath of the fire and subsequent investigations not one single person was convicted for the attack on Nottingham Castle! The Castile itself remained a burnt-out wreck for forty years before the City bought it and renovated it. The Duke himself obtained £20,000 compensation from the town for the outrage. However, with the passing of The Reform Act of 1832 the townspeople’s grievances were quelled and relative peace returned to Nottingham.
The fourth outbreak of radicalism occurred with the advent of “Chartism” in 1837-1838. The early promise of the 1832 Reform Act began to pale in the second half of the 1830’s. Chartism derived its name from the “Charter” of rights and political reform that it’s adherents supported. One of its founders and main supporters was Feargus O’Connor who in 1847 had the distinction of being the only Chartist M.P. to be elected to the Houses of Parliament. In keeping with Nottingham’s radical reputation it was one of the two seats in Nottingham that he represented. Prior to that there had been some notable disturbances in the town when disgruntled supporters of the Chartist movement vented their frustration on property in the town. The most memorable of these disturbances occurred in 1842 when an angry crowd of around 5,000 people rioted at Mapperley after the candidate of their choice in the General Election had been very narrowly beaten. The crowd gathered on Mapperley Hills and when their mood turned nasty the troops were called out and the Riot Act read. A full-scale altercation took place in which over 400 people were arrested by the troops, (which further incensed the crowd). The fracas was popularly known as the Battle of Mapperley Hills and mock battles were staged for some years afterwards as a celebration of the event. However, as political reform progressed slowly so Chartism slowly became less of an issue until by the 1870’s it had ceased to be relevant.
The final bout of radicalism, (and consequently civil unrest), occurred in the 1860’s. The principal cause of the troubles began when, in 1861, the Earl of Lincoln was put forward as a prospective member for Nottingham. Unfortunately the Earl was the son of the Duke of Newcastle who was a most hated figure with the working classes on Nottingham. Sir Robert Clifton, of Clifton Hall, stood in opposition to the Earl of Lincoln and the stage was set for some serious shenanigans. Sir Robert had a dubious reputation, local worthies referring to him as “of scampish notoriety”. When the election took place it was marked by violence and civil unrest. Troublemakers and ruffians were hired from outside the town to cause mayhem and riot. Some of these hired thugs were known affectionately as Nottingham Lambs, (a misnomer if ever there was one); whose nickname belied their viciousness. The self same thing occurred again in 1865 when Sir Robert stood for re-election. When supporters of Sir Robert Clifton’s opponents came to the town they were set upon by Sir Robert’s hired “Lambs” who incited the crowd to riot. This they succeeded in doing to such a degree that troops was called in from as far away as Sheffield to try to restore order. Twenty-one men were arrested for their part in the unrest but all were discharged with “a promise of good behaviour”!
With the advent of the secret ballot in 1872 the scope for intimidation at elections diminished greatly and the scenes of public disorder became, pretty much, a thing of the past. Also the fact that the counting was conducted at three separate locations helped to thin out the crowds. In fact, Nottingham far from being a hotbed of Radicalism became something of a Tory safe seat and it wasn’t until after the Second World War that Nottingham returned a Labour Party M.P. As with all reputations though, once Nottingham had acquired its radical reputation it was many, many years before it shook it off, for many years being thought radical whilst actually being very much a Tory seat.