Norfolk: The ‘Bread or Blood’ Riots of 1816

By Haydn Brown.

Background:
During the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) it became difficult to import cheap grain into Britain which resulted in the price of bread increasing. Because wages failed to increase correspondently, many agricultural labourers were plunged into poverty. Then, following peace, the Tory government of the day, under Lord Liverpool, passed the Corn Laws to keep the price of grain artificially high. The consequences were that great social unrest quickly grew on the back of industrial and agricultural depression and high unemployment. The government had, effectively, increased taxation on imported wheat and grain to help pay for the costs of the Wars. Poor Laws had been designed to help alleviate financial distress of the poorer communities, but this system actually helped in keeping wages artificially low; the farmers knowing that labourers’ wages would be supplemented by the system.

Then there was the weather of 1815 when East Anglia suffered disastrously. After an “extremely changeable” January, came February which was “unseasonably warm and moist” which, in effect, lifted hopes that the season’s crops might recover. Some blame for this bad weather was attributed to the extraordinary eruption of Mt Tambora a ”super-colossal event”, the ash of which reduced the earth’s temperature by one degree; the years 1810 to 1819 were reckoned to have been the coldest since the 1690s. May and June of 1815 suffered heavy rainfall which in turn had the effect of ruining the harvest. Yet newspapers reported that both industrial and agricultural workers were already in “extreme distress”. The price of wheat increased by 33% between March and May and labourers were incapable of affording the prices of food.

As a consequence, rioting broke out in parts of East Anglia by the April and May of 1816. Areas particularly affected were in West Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. Apart from the significant disturbances in Littleport and Ely between Wednesday 22 and Friday 24 May 1816, riots had also broken out in Bury St Edmunds and Brandon in West Suffolk and Hockwold, Feltwell and Norwich in Norfolk on the previous Wednesday, 16 May of the same year. In fact, one of the first instances of rioting was on 17 April when a crowd assembled in Gedding and smashed some farming equipment. After that, Wattisham, Hitcham, and Rattlesden experienced disturbances on 24 April; Needham Market and Swaffham Bulbeck on 7 May; Bury St. Edmunds on 14 May; Brandon on 16-18 May Norwich on 16-20 May; Hockwold on 17 May; Feltwell on 18 May; Hockham on 19 May; Downham Market on 20-21 May 1816.

Rioting:
It was on the morning of 20 May when a meeting was held in Southery, Norfolk and a group, including a Thomas Sindall, left there and marched some eight miles or so through Denver to Downham Market; there they met with the magistrates at their weekly meeting at The Crown Inn.  The mob of some 1,500, mainly men but some women, besieged the public house and, it was said, the magistrates of Pratt, Hare and Dering just about escaped with their lives by hiding. Circumstances, one way or another, allowed them to reassemble and agree for a deputation of eight rioters to be allowed inside in order to make their pleas; namely, demands for work and two-shillings (£8) per day. The magistrates readily agreed; unfortunately for the rioters, the authority had already called for troops from Upwell. Captain William Lee’s Upwell Yeomanry Cavalry arrived at around 5 o’clock in the afternoon on what was the first day of the riot, and though heavily armed the troops behaved in a disciplined way; as a result, no lives were to be lost. The Riot Act was duly read by Reverend Dering, but instead of calming down the atmosphere further tussles broke out, which only stopped after arrests were made. A subsequent newspaper report stated:

”On Saturday morning seven persons were fully committed for trial; and on Sunday and Monday last many more prisoners were brought in, what have not been examined. The Upwell troop were ordered to Wisbech on Saturday morning to meet the March and Whittlesey troops, the magistrates and inhabitants being fearful of outrages; but all is at present quiet there.”

The Observeron of 26 May 1816 reported the following:

“NORWICH, MAY 22. —A Court of Mayoralty was, held on Friday morning, when strong measures to preserve the peace were determined on. At sun-set a Captain’s guard of the West Norfolk militia were marched into the Hall; the Norwich Yeomanry cavalry under Capt. Hudson, assembled at the Swan Inn; a detachment of the 1st Royal Dragoons were under arms at the Horse Barracks; and the magistrates, constables, and a number of the respectable inhabitants, at the same time were assembled at the Hall. These demonstrations had, to a considerable degree, the desired effect; nevertheless, a large mob collected, who shewed a bad disposition, by breaking a number of lamps, windows, &c. The Magistrates and their assistants therefore proceeded in a body to the Market-place, and the Riot Act was read: several of the mob having surrounded them and behaved in a disorderly manner, three were taken into custody, and the rest refusing to disperse, after some had been allowed to do so, the military were called in, and were on their appearance received with volleys of stones, and their horses alarmed by throwing a large fire ball; they, however, succeeded in driving their assailants out of the market and dispersing them in every direction; several who resisted were committed to the gaol, and before eleven o’clock, everything was quiet. We are sorry to add, that several of the Yeomanry Cavalry received cuts and bruises from the stones, and one gentleman was thrown from his horse, and the animal falling upon him he was severely injured, but is now in a convalescent state. On Saturday the Magistrates issued a Proclamation, and having the same forces ready for preserving the peace, the market and streets were cleared at an early hour, without any damage being sustained. On Monday morning the persons who had been taken into custody were brought up for examination, when two were committed to gaol, and several bound over to take their trials at the Sessions and Assizes.”

 A long article on May 27th dived into the economics of the issue. The Times, for instance, concluded that the government should not intervene in such a matter, and suggested that protestors were merely using high prices as a “pretence” for violence. However, The Times then placed the blame for “much of the disorderly conduct” on the Poor Laws. The paper suggested that the laws had led the poor to expect handouts, and when they did not get what they wanted they became unruly.

On 24th August 1816 the local papers had a field day on the back of their billboard announcement:

“This day is published A REPORT on The Trials of the Rioters at Downham and Feltwell. At the late Norfolk Assizes. To be had of the Printers of this Newspaper and all their Agents.”

Many column inches were devoted to the trial before Lord Chief Justice Gibbs:

“William Bell, Amelia Lightharness and Hannah Jarvis were indicted for having on the 20th inst. together with various other persons riotously and tumultuously assembled at the parish of Southery from whence they proceeded to acts of theft and violence in the town of Downham …….Frances Wiseman stated that she kept a pork and sausage shop: that in the afternoon of the 20th a mob assembled in front of her house: that she observed the prisoner Amelia Lightharness, looking in at the shop window, and that immediately afterward the same prisoner opened the latch of the door and brought in several of the mob , telling them ‘this was the shop for good pork’. The witness further stated that her shop formed part of her dwelling house: that Amelia Lightharness was the first that entered and at her instigation the mob ransacked the shop of the witness taking away forcibly a quantity of pork and sausages. The shop window was broken by the violence of the people.”

“Maria Palmer, William Buxton and Zachariah Stebbing severally corroborated the first witness and the latter proved that all the above-named prisoners entered the shop of Mrs Wiseman and concurred with the acts of violence there committed. Bell and Jarvis severally produced evidence of good character. Verdict – All Guilty.”

“Thomas Thody, Charles Nelson, Daniel Harwood, the same Hannah Jarvis, Elizabeth King, Margaret Jerry and Elizabeth Watson. These prisoners were indicted as forming part of the same unlawful riotous assembly at Southery as before mentioned and for proceeding to assault William Spinks, at Downham aforesaid, and stealing from his person a certain quantity of meal and flour. William Spinks stated that he was an apprentice to Mr Baldwin, a miller at Downham and at the time of the riot had charge of his mill. That on 20th May at about two in the afternoon , he saw a large number of persons approach the mill whilst he was on the road alone about a furlong off ; that upon his coming up to them , they demanded of him the key of the mill , which he delivered to them through the impulse of fear ; that the persons so assembled had sticks and cudgels ; that upon him delivering the key , they proceeded to lay violent hands on the meal , flour and sacks found therein , some part of which they threw about and destroyed and the other part they carried away with them . This witness together with George Gillingham, Susan Stebbing, Pleasance Laws, and William Baldwin or some of them identified the persons of all the prisoners, and proved that Charles Nelson was the first who entered the mill. Verdict – All Guilty.”

“The same Thomas Thody , the same Daniel Harwood, the said Amelia Lightharness, William Youngs, Edward Mellon, and William Galley were indicted as part of the same unlawful and riotous assembly at Southery and having proceeded to Downham, for breaking open the dwelling house and shop of Samuel Bolton, a butcher there, and stealing therein and carrying away a certain quantity of pork the property of the said Samuel Bolton, the said Samuel Bolton and another being in the house and being put in fear . Samuel Bolton stated that on the said 20th May he had given the mob some meat, in the hope of pacifying them; that about five o`clock in the afternoon of the same day, they came in a large body to his house and demanded more which he said he was unable to give them. Upon this occasion Thody, Harwood and a man named Fendyke who is still at large, appeared to be the ringleaders. Harwood said if witness did not give them more, they would have all there was in the shop. To this menace uttered by Harwood the witness replied, ‘he would be damned if they should’, and immediately closed and bolted the door, and went toward the kitchen for the purpose of finding two guns, with which he meant to defend his property. Before he had reached his guns however, the mob forced open the door and stripped the shop of all meat to the value of £5 or £6.”

“These prisoners were all identified as taking an active part on this occasion by the concurrent testimony of the last-named witness and Thomas Bolton, Zachariah Stebbing, and Ann Springfield. Verdict – All Guilty.”

”The same Thomas Thody, the same Daniel Harwood, Frances Porter , John Bell and John Blogg were indicted as parties to the same unlawful and riotous assembly, and for breaking open the dwelling house of John Parkinson in Downham aforesaid, no person being therein, and feloniously stealing and carrying away a quantity of flour and various articles of wearing apparel found therein. Hannah wife of the said John Parkinson who is a tailor and baker and keeps a general shop at Downham, stated that being terrified at the appearance of the mob, they had, on the said 20th May last, shut their shop, and retreated to the house of a neighbour. The mob did proceed to Mr Parkinson’s house and shop as was expected and after they were gone away, the witness with her family returned, upon which they found the house had been broken open and they missed from the shop there, waistcoats, shawls, shoes, flour and other articles.”

“The evidence of the last witness corroborated by her daughter Charlotte Parkinson, Richard Gamble, Thomas Mallett Bailey, Wm. Gamble, Charles Smith, and James Weston, was sufficiently clear to establish the charge against all the prisoners except John Bell who had not been seen in the house but had been afterwards met with a ham under his arm. The latter prisoner was therefore acquitted and the others found – all Guilty.”

”John Stearne was indicted for larceny only , he having on the said 20th May , demanded cheese of William Oakes of Downham. William Oakes stated that the prisoner came with a mob and demanded cheese, which he delivered to him through fear, observing at the same time that he himself wanted it as much as they did. Samuel Johnson, landlord at the Crown Inn, at Downham stated, that on the same day the prisoner Stearne brought a cheese to his house and divided it amongst the mob. Verdict – Guilty.

“The same John Stearne, the same Thomas Thody, and John Pearson, were indicted for breaking open the Crown Inn, in Downham, with other persons, for assaulting the said Samuel Johnson, the landlord, and for stealing from his person, meat, flour and other provisions. Mr Johnson identified the persons of the prisoners Thody and Pearson as having been the foremost of the party who first broke in by force, but the prisoner Stearne was not observed by him until he (Stearne) produced the cheese, which was sometime after the forcible entry. Stearne was therefore acquitted. The other prisoners were both found Guilty.”

“In addressing the Jury upon the several indictments for riot , the Chief Justice very clearly explained the law to them, that in tumultuous assemblies of this nature, not only the parties which commit any acts of violence are answerable to the law, but likewise all persons who by joining a mob give sanction to their unlawful proceedings were in the eye of the law equally guilty of any outrage which was committed by any of such mob…….… In allusion to the good characters which most of the prisoners adduced in their favour, with respect to the honesty and peaceable habits of their lives, the Judge emphatically observed, that nothing could more clearly show the necessity of suppressing such disorderly and mischievous proceedings as were subject of these trials. Persons who had heretofore acted honestly and had been good members of society, had now by deluding one another in the vain hope of redressing those grievances which their proceedings only tended to aggravate, evinced their peaceable dispositions by unlawfully assembling to the terror of well-disposed persons, and their honesty by forcibly seizing the property of others.”

“Having convicted the ringleaders at Downham, sufficient had been done to answer the purposes of the prosecution on the part of the Crown, which could only be to show persons who were disposed to join in such tumultuous proceedings, that these transactions cannot take place with impunity, for a day of reckoning must come sooner or later.”

The Chief Justice then proceeded to pass sentence of transportation for seven years on John Stearne who had been indicted and convicted of larceny only. ……the charge against him not having been laid capitally.

“This being done the following prisoners , who had been capitally convicted of rioting, 16 in number (viz, William Bell, Amelia Lightharness, Hannah Jarvis, Thomas Thody, Charles Nelson, Daniel Harwood, Elizabeth King, Margaret Jerry, Elizabeth Watson, Lucy Rumbelow, William Youngs, Edward Mellon, William Galley, Frances Porter, John Blogg and John Pearson), were called before his Lordship to show cause why sentence of Death should not pass against them to die according to Law. The Chief Justice, then, in a very impressive manner passed that solemn sentence against them. His Lordship stated that on account of the good characters which some of them had borne, it would afford him high satisfaction if circumstances should appear to justify him in recommending their cases for a relaxation in the severity of their punishment. Nevertheless, he wished them not to be deluded into any ill-founded security. There were among them some who had excelled their fellows, and had stood foremost in the execution of their misguided and wicked actions. To these he could hold out no hope. His Lordship concluded by exhorting them all to use well the short time which might remain to them in this world, and to make their peace with Him before whom they must soon appear in the next.”

“Of the above 16 prisoners who received sentence of death, only two were left for execution, viz. Thody and Harwood“. All the others were reprieved, but being reprieved is not the same as being acquitted or discharged. After the ringleaders had been tried and convicted the following minor offenders were discharged on giving security for their good behaviour, viz. John Jerry, Harrison Bone, and John Bowers.”

Apart from these minor offenders, the remaining 14 sentenced to death and reprieved, were dealt with quickly and harshly. Of the Hilgay rioters William Young received one year’s hard labour. The Southery two Stearne and Bell got 7 and 14-years transportation. Of the Downham rioters Lucy Rumbelow received 6 months hard labour, Elizabeth Watson, at the age of 49, received a year`s hard labour, as did Margaret Jerry and Elizabeth King. The harshest sentences were given to Amelia Lightharness aged 23, Hannah Jarvis, aged 36, widow, and Charles Nelson, all of whom were sentenced to ‘Transportation for Life’.

Referring specifically to the Downham Market riots and the subsequent trial, Elizabeth Howard, principal contributor to the Downham Market History site, writes: “At the end, on that hot August Saturday, on Norwich Castle hill, there was a delay. A rumour of a reprieve – “and the execution not taking place until half past one, gave strength to that rumour.” But no urgent galloping horse, no urgent running man brought a reprieve. The due process of the law continued inexorably. A cynic might believe that a public hanging as late as half past one on a summer Saturday afternoon would guarantee to attract a bigger public audience, the better to educate them in the ways of the law versus the law breaker. Castle Hill was crowded with the curious and the ghoulish and the thrill seekers.

Daniel Harwood faced the hangman and “suffered with firmness the dreadful sentence of the law”. The Cambridge Chronicle went on to say that Harwood aged 22, “had been led away by bad example and in a moment of intoxication.” Harwood “was to have been shortly married, and that the unhappy object of his choice is now pregnant by him.” Thomas Thody the second of the Downham rioters held in Norwich Castle “when brought out, evinced great fear, which he expressed by convulsive shrieks and was obliged to be supported by several men.” He left a wife and two children.

There had been at least two attempts to halt the executions. Thomas William Coke of Holkham had written to Chief Justice Vicary Gibbs suggesting that the men, Thody and Harwood had been of previous good character and would certainly regret their actions and return to a quiet life. Pathetically, Daniel Harwood’s father Thomas had written to suggest that this was a tragic case of mistaken identity; his boy had been christened Dan, as the parish register of Gooderstone would show, not Daniel. He would get the parish register to the Chief Justice to prove it. And there was a long 70-plus signature petition from the townspeople of Downham asking for clemency. Privately, Chief Justice Vicary Gibbs reported to Coke of Holkham that these two had to hang, but the other rioters would be reprieved. It was reasonable. It was exemplary. No blood had been shed, but the townspeople had been terrified and their property had been stolen and severely damaged. The two would act as a deterrent to others who might consider rioting and smashing up and stealing the property of law-abiding citizens. The acquitted would go home and feel lucky to be alive.

Transportation:

The transportation of convicts to Australia was big business and many shipowners contracted their vessels to the Government. Ships of the Royal Navy used as transports tended to be in the final seaworthy years of their lives. Charles Nelson sailed out on the HMS Shipley with John Pearson He was fortunate and sailed from Woolwich on 20th November 1816, just a matter of months after the August sentencing in Norwich. They may well have been held in a prison hulk on the river Thames during that 3-month waiting period. For the women Amelia and Hannah, they had to wait before they were embarked on the ludicrously named ship ‘HMS Friendship’. They are reported removed from Norwich Castle in June 1817 and put on board the Friendship” now at Deptford awaiting orders to sail to the Bay.”

The convict ship Friendship departed England on 3 July 1817 – not to be confused with the First Fleet ship of 1788 of the same name, which had been beached for want of healthy crew to operate her. While off the coast of Madeira Captain Armet of the Friendship received on board six Spaniards and an American sailor who had almost perished being in just a small boat. They were pirates from South America and were later transhipped to an American vessel to be landed at Bonavista.  After departure the ship then, on the night of 22nd September 1817, anchored off the coast of Africa. During the next morning, the cable parted from her anchor and the ship was in danger of being driven on to the breakers. This accident was averted and on the 15th October she arrived at St. Helena where she remained for a week before departing again for New South Wales, where it arrived in Port Jackson on 14 January 1818 with one hundred and ninety-seven female prisoners aboard; three women died on the passage – Ann Beal, Sarah Blower and Martha Thatcher. Jane Brown also died having thrown herself overboard.

The Shipley had a very smart crew and master and for Charles Nelson and John Pearson, a good ship`s surgeon in George Clayton who managed to get all convicts to Australia in reasonable health and without too many punishments. In fact, he writes in his journal that he was able to release most of the convicts during the journey of one and then both leg irons. Nevertheless 176 days with or without leg irons was a daunting prospect for convicts and guards alike. Charles Nelson and the HMS Shipley arrived at Sydney on 20th August 1817 and the last sight of him is in 1844 when he finally got his pardon. Twenty-eight years after his conviction and sentencing in Norwich, he was finally a free man again.

Bad luck followed Amelia and Hannah all the way to Australia, where they arrived on 14th Jan 1818. Governor Macquarie wrote in his journal that Friendship “arrived 7th Jan re-quarantine on suspicion of contagious diseases.” and “re-arrival with female convicts with reports of prostitution on board”, also “26th Feb charges were brought against Capt. Armet and Peter Cosgreave the surgeon.” By 20th Feb Amelia and Hannah were embarked on the Duke of Wellington for yet another voyage into the unknown, this time and finally to Tasmania.

 

There were four further sightings of Amelia Lightharness. Firstly, she married in 1820 a Samuel Cash in Hobart. Female convicts in the female Factories were offered to the men of the colony who could drop a handkerchief or similar at the feet of the female convict they had chosen. But then her ticket of leave was taken from her in 1823 because of “immoral conduct and living in a disorderly house.” Clearly her marriage to Samuel Best was not long lasting nor a success. Her ticket of leave was finally restored in 1832 and she died in 1834. She would have been about 40 years old. Hannah Jarvis did a little better. Internet posted family histories in Australia indicate that her two children born circa 1801 and 1804 in Norfolk finally joined her in Tasmania. She died in the newly named New Norfolk, in 1853.

For the women who rioted, the punishment was vastly disproportionate to the crime. They never again achieved their freedom and had to endure one of the longest, hardest voyages of any having to call in at St Helena for desperately needed water and supplies before sailing on to Sydney. And as if that was not the worst, their captain and surgeon were capable of acts of abuse against a captive group of women. Is it any wonder that Jane Brown “threw herself overboard and was drowned?” Despair was the most likely reason not as given in the Ship News,” from a sudden irritability of temper.” If Chief Justice Gibbs and the law of the land believed that hanging was the worst punishment, they should have researched the lives of those transported, for women for the most part it was a far worse punishment than death.

And of the rest? John Pearson who travelled with Charles Nelson on the Shipley to Australia, does not appear again in any record. The two, John Stearne and William Bell both from Southery, who were sentenced to seven and 14-years transportation seem not to have made it on to a ship. Australia`s wonderful convict database has no sighting of either of them. Perhaps their sentences were commuted to imprisonment here. Of the other names, Lucy Rumbelow seems to have survived to 1861 still living locally; Elizabeth King, Elizabeth Watson and Margaret Jerry are glimpsed in the first census living locally quiet poor lives. Of the men, John Shinn appears in the 1841 census living in Downham. Harrison Bone is a shepherd living in Brancaster, Spencer Rayner, William Galley, and William Youngs live in the villages around Downham, heads down, unremarked and unremarkable.

The riots had unsettled the Government and over the next twenty years, a gradual humanising of the law and ideas of welfare for the poor started to emerge. By 1834 the Poor Law Amendment Act had been passed. The destitute poor were to be housed in Union workhouses, but they were also to be fed, sheltered, clothed, to have a rudimentary education for children, some medical care, and protection and work. By the mid-1840s the dreadful Corn laws had been repealed, but not before nearly one third of the population of Ireland had died of starvation or been lost to emigration; in fact, parishes all over the country had forcibly emigrated their largest and poorest families.

Downham survived the mob of the “insurgent fenmen” and, in modern parlance, maybe lessons had been learned, maybe a distant memory of the sudden terror of an armed mob in the town inclined the magistrates and property and landowners to be a little more understanding in the future. And in a small way the tradesmen could hold their heads up in pride for having created a petition signed by 70-plus of them asking the Chief Justice for clemency. Perhaps the ordinary man in the street knew not only about being hungry, but about the terrors of transportation and the loss of freedom, the inescapable exile.

THE END

Sources:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ely_and_Littleport_riots_of_1816www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/poorlaw/speen.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Poor_Laws
https://www.historicalclimatology.com/blog/bread-or-blood-climate-insecurity-in-east-anglia-in-1816
www.downhammarkethistory.co.uk/downham-riots-1816/
http://www.downham.blogspot.com/2013/04/downham-riot-1816.html

May 1816: Disturbances in Norfolk, Suffolk and Devon

https://www.jenwilletts.com/convict_ship_friendship_1818.htm
National Archives , Kew
British Newspaper Archive : AJ Peacock , Bread or Blood , 1965: National Portrait Gallery, London : National Archives of Australia : TROVE.
“Disturbances in Norfolk And Suffolk.” The Times, May 23, 1816, pp. 3. The Times Digital Archive
“Monthly Agriculral Report.” The Observer, Feb 04, 1816, pp. 4, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Guardian and The Observer.
“Monthly Agricultural Report.” The Observer, May 05, 1816, pp. 4, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Guardian and The Observer.

NOTICE: ‘Norfolk Tales, Myths & More!’ is a ‘non-commercial’ Site which publishes only informative and/or educational items in the hope of broadening an appreciation of the history and heritage of the wonderful County of Norfolk. In pursuing this aim, we endeavour, where necessary, to obtain permission to use another owner’s material, as well as our own. However, for various reasons, (i.e. identification of, and means of communicating with such owners), contact can sometimes be difficult or impossible to established. NTM&M never attempts to claim ownership of such material; ensuring at all times that any known and appropriate ‘credits’ and ‘links’ back to our sources are always given in our articles. No violation of any copyright or trademark material is intentional.