“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

John F. Kennedy (White House speech, 1962)

First published in the Tewkesbury Historical Society “Bulletin 23”, Mar 2014 and in “The Local Historian”, Jan 2014 (journal of the British Association for Local History)

The advent of the French Revolution in 1789 polarised opinion in England. Some saw it as positive: Charles Fox[1] described the storming of the Bastille as “How much the greatest event it is that ever happened in the world! and how much the best!”. His old friend Edmund Burke[2] initially did not know how to react to it: “England gazing in astonishment at a French struggle for liberty and not knowing whether to blame or to applaud”. He soon made up his mind and in his Reflections on the Revolution in France he accurately prophesied that the revolution would lead to anarchy, bloodshed, war and a dictatorship. However, the reasons he gave for this are open to debate – that the revolution was a rebellion against tradition and authority, motivated by ideas divorced from reality that ignored the complexities of human nature and society.

England experienced some anarchy itself at the hands of opponents of the events in France. Joseph Priestley[3] was a supporter of the revolution and he attended a dinner held at a hotel in Birmingham on 14 July 1791 to celebrate the second anniversary of the fall of the Bastille. The hotel was attacked by a ‘Church-and-King’ mob and four days of rioting followed, during which Priestley’s house, laboratory and church were burnt down along with four other non-conformist chapels, twenty-seven houses and several businesses. Local magistrates did little to stop the riots and were reluctant to prosecute the ringleaders. The military were not called in to restore order until the fourth day of rioting.

Partly in response to Burke, Thomas Paine[4] published his Rights of Man defending the French and American revolutions and stating his own political ideas which included: a call for the vote for all men over twenty-one, progressive taxation, family allowances, old age pensions, maternity grants and the abolition of the House of Lords.

Despite the increasing savagery in France, Fox, Paine and Priestley maintained their support of the French Revolution. They, along with radicals and reformers of all types, had the pejorative term ‘Jacobin’ applied indiscriminately to them. The name is taken from the Jacobin Club, probably the most extreme faction of the French revolutionaries.

Burke continued to be an implacable critic of the French but was sympathetic to the American revolutionaries. Paine fled England for France in 1792 to avoid prosecution for seditious libel when his book was banned. He was found guilty in absentia and being unavailable for hanging was declared an outlaw. However, he fared little better in France as his opposition to the execution of the French king led to Paine’s imprisonment and narrow escape from the guillotine. He was on a list of those to be beheaded, but guards failed to include him one night when gathering the next day’s victims. The fall and execution of Robespierre[5] a few days later no doubt saved Paine’s life.

In Britain the revolution in France spurred Radicals into action with calls for reform and the creation of various organisations to further their aims. The government and the establishment in general pulled in the opposite direction, treating any concession to reform as the thin end of the wedge of revolution. As Sir Samuel Romilly, the legal reformer said, the French Revolution had produced “among the higher orders … a horror of every kind of innovation”.

Such a clash of outlooks is evident in Tewkesbury in the 1790s. Following the deposed king of France, Louis XVI, being sentenced to death in January 1793, a number of reports appear in the Gloucester Journal newspaper of declarations of loyalty to ‘King, Constitution, Lords and Commons’. They include a speech made by Tewkesbury’s town clerk, Henry Fowke,[6] on 14 January 1793 at the opening of the borough assizes in which he examined “whether our Constitution does not most effectually secure the happiness of the subjects, than any form of Government hitherto known.” He went on to claim that they lived in what sounds rather like a Marxist Utopia: “Here are no exclusive ranks or orders, no unnecessary privileges or immunities. Each individual contributes, according to his ability’, to the support of the public burthens [burdens]”. He then condemned the events in France and called on his listeners to assist the magistrates “in case of tumults and insurrections”.[7] A number of reports appear in the Gloucester Journal newspaper of similar declarations, made throughout Gloucestershire, of loyalty to ‘King, Constitution, Lords and Commons’.

Fowke’s speech may have been prompted by a letter dated 12 January 1793 that was received by Thomas Brown, high-bailiff of Tewkesbury, at his Church Street address. The letter was spuriously signed by sixteen local worthies[8] and called for a public meeting to be convened to organise the petitioning of parliament for parliamentary reform, “without which we can plainly see that the peace and tranquillity of town and kingdom in general will be very short”. A report of the receipt and contents of this letter appeared in the Gloucester Journal accompanied by a denial from fourteen of the signatories that they had signed the letter. They offered a £50 reward [about £4,500 in current values] for information leading to the conviction of the authors of the forgery.[9]

Louis XVI was executed on 21 January 1793 and reference to this event was used by some Tewkesbury ‘Jacobins’ to menace the Tewkesbury Establishment in another letter sent to Thomas Brown. [Original spelling and grammar – as are all the direct quotes in this article.]

Mr. Baliliff,

The presant informs you that if (as the Tree of Liberty will shortly be planted in Tewkesbury) you or any of the Corporation of the above place should offer to interupt the proceedings attending the same that you shall suffer a more shamefull Death than that Tyrant Louis the 16th Did in France on Monday the 21st of this instant Janry. for we are Determined to regain our Rights Namely the Rights of Man at the peril of our Lives, And Damn the first Man that offers to stop us, for we will in a very short time Dine the whole of the Corporation of the Borough of Tewkesbury with less than a Sheeps Melt, so Damn ye farewell.

Buckhorse, Freedom, Liberty & Force

Tewkesbury, Jan. 31, 1793. [10]

It is difficult to know whether the reference to the ‘Tree of Liberty’ is merely rhetorical or refers to an actual intention to literally plant a tree. (The ‘Tree of Liberty’ was a symbol used by both the American and French revolutionaries.) The threat to ‘dine the Corporation with less than a sheep’s melt’ is also somewhat ambiguous! (Buckhorse perhaps refers to John ‘Buckhorse’ Smith, a famous pugilist of the time.) One hundred guineas reward [£105] was offered for the conviction of those responsible for this less literate letter. Others used the beheading of Louis XVI as a business opportunity: advertised in the same edition of the Gloucester Journal were, “Portraits of the Unfortunate King and Queen of France … price only 6d. [2.5p] … equal in every respect to prints sold at two shillings [10p].”

Following on from the aforementioned speech of Henry Fowke, a public meeting was organised by the town bailiffs to give an opportunity for the public to express their attachment to the king and the constitution. This large meeting was held at the Town Hall on 24 January 1793, chaired by Thomas Brown with speeches made by Henry Fowke and John Embury, the high sheriff of Gloucestershire. A declaration from this meeting was published. It stated, among other things, that “attempts have been made by wicked and evil-disposed persons, to delude and alienate the minds of his Majesty’s subjects” and that, “We regard the British Constitution as the most perfect form of government that human wisdom can devise”. The declaration also pledged the town to “suppress and punish all seditious, inflammatory, or treasonable publications or actions, written, printed, spoken or done against the King’s Majesty or the established government of our country”.[11]

At this meeting thanks were also given to “Protestant Dissenters of this place” for their “expressions of attachment to the King and Constitution” made at a meeting they held in December 1792 at their chapel in Barton Street (site of the recently closed Jehovah’s Witness Chapel). Other Protestant Dissenters in the county published similar declarations of loyalty – perhaps this was an organised effort to avert the possibility of attacks from ‘Church-and-King’ mobs such as occurred in Birmingham the year before.[12]

France had been at war with Austria and Prussia since April 1792 and, in February 1793, they formalised other enmities by declaring war on Spain, the Netherlands and Great Britain. This of course increased the fear of, and opposition to, home-grown Jacobins.

The London Corresponding Society [LCS] was formed in January 1792 with the purpose of obtaining the vote for every adult person. The founder and first secretary was Thomas Hardy, a London shoemaker. He showed an American friend, Colonel Smith, the society’s manifesto; Smith’s response was “Hardy, the Government will hang you”. Only nine men attended the first public meeting of the group, but within a

fortnight twenty-five members were enrolled, and within six months over 2,000 members were claimed. At its peak the society perhaps had 5,000 paying members. As its name suggests, a strategy of the society was to correspond with like-minded groups throughout the country, including sending unsolicited propaganda to likely sympathisers.

Tewkesbury Radicals were in receipt of such communications and had formed an organisation. Their secretary, John Lloyd, wrote to the LCS. The following are some key points from his letter:[13]

Fellow Citizen,            Saturday July 6th – 1793

Am commissioned by the Society as being Secretary, to thank you for your favour of the Letter & Pamphlets they are happy to find the existence of such associations as yours, for the attainment of so laudable a purpose as that of a Parliamentary reforms … We call it [the Tewkesbury organisation] the Society for Political & Moral information—we have a sett of Articles for the conducting of it—Monthly & Quarterly meetings for the proposing of Books, and setling the Secretarys accounts—We take in a periodical work call’d the Patriot—& a Town & Country newspaper … The burning of Thos. Paine Efigy together with the blessed effects of the present war has done more good to the cause than the most substantial arguments … scarcely an old woman but is talking politics …

Your fellow citizen & Cooperator in the glorious cause of Liberty        Jno Lloyd

Note the use of the French Revolution’s appellation of ‘Citizen’. The Patriot was a short-lived periodical (1792-94) that included political essays and correspondence with other reform societies with their addresses. It was published by Joseph Gales who fled the country in 1794 to avoid prosecution for conspiracy. He became a prominent man in America, including serving as mayor of Washington. The mention of the burning of an effigy of Thomas Paine is intriguing. It is unclear whether this is a reference to a burning in Tewkesbury, but perhaps such an incident followed the 24 January ‘King and Constitution’ meeting? Certainly, fifteen miles away at the village of Birdlip, a figure of Paine was paraded, hung on a gallows, shot and set on fire to the accompaniment of a band playing God Save the King.[14] The LCS replied to John Lloyd’s letter a month later. [Extracts from a surviving draft.][15]

Fellow Citizens             London 3rd August 1793

Your letter of the 6th July has been laid before the Committee of Del. of the L.C.S. & it is with great pleasure they see an infant Society starting up in Your part of the Country go on & prosper no assistance shall be wanting on our part as to information, instruction, or any other thing in which we can be useful to you … pay great attention to the instruction of your Neighbours in their political rights … if you thought it might facilitate your progress the London Corresponding Society empower us to inform you, that they will willingly incorporate your Society with ours, under the title of the Corresponding Society in Tewkesbury … We imagine some other societies in other parts of the country will fall into the same plan, and it need not be pointed out to you how much more forcible such a junction would render every thing that comes from us … Farewell, fellow citizens & firmly rely on the assistance and sincere friendship of the London Corresponding Society, in so good a cause.

Yours sincerely

Notice the advice to spread the word and to combine with the LCS and other organisations – actions that the government would interpret as conspiracy. The attitude of many in the establishment is illustrated by Edmund Burke’s comment that the LCS were “loathsome insects that might, if they were allowed, grow into giant spiders as large as oxen”.

The first move against the associations was in Scotland in October 1793. Two delegates from the LCS, Joseph Gerrald and Maurice Margarot, attended a meeting of reform groups there, were arrested along with others, found guilty of sedition and sentenced to fourteen years transportation.

In May 1794 over thirty radicals were arrested, including the LCS leaders Thomas Hardy and John Thelwall along with John Horne Tooke, a leader of another radical association, the Society for Constitutional Information; Tooke was also active in the LCS. These three were tried separately for treason in October. Hardy (whose wife had died in childbirth while he was in prison, after her home was menaced by a ‘Church-and-King’ mob) was found not guilty. The jury foreman fainted after delivering the verdict and, upon his release, a crowd drew Hardy’s carriage through the streets. At his trial, Horne Tooke called Prime Minister William Pitt as a witness, and pointed out that the objects of the societies were the same as those of the meetings for reforms that Pitt himself had attended and promoted in the past. After a long trial,

Horne Tooke too was acquitted. The prosecution also failed to gain a conviction in the trial of John Thelwall. The cases against the others arrested were then abandoned.

Partly to recover authority after these failed prosecutions, faced with the possibility of invasion by France, and with bread riots occurring due to bad harvests and high food prices, draconian laws were introduced. The Suspension of Habeas Corpus Act 1794 allowed the arrest and imprisonment of persons ‘on suspicion’ without requiring charges or a trial. The Treasonable Practices Act 1795 extended the definition of treason to include speaking and writing, even if no action followed, and it became treasonable to bring the king or his government into contempt. The Seditious Meetings Act 1795 required any public meeting of more than fifty persons to be authorised by a magistrate – most magistrates deemed political reform meetings to be illegal.

One victim of these ‘Gagging Laws’ (as they became known) was Kidd Wake, a 26-year-old bookbinder and printer from Gosport. On 29 October 1795 he, with others, shouted out “No King, No War”, as King George III drove by in the state coach in London en route to parliament. On the return journey the same behaviour occurred and a window in the coach was broken. Wake was sentenced to five years hard labour; for three months of the sentence he had to stand in a pillory for an hour on market days – and on release pay a £1,000 surety for good behaviour for ten years. He served the full sentence in Gloucester Gaol.[16]

Other notable political prisoners held at Gloucester Gaol were John Bone, Secretary of the LCS in 1797 and also a Secretary of the London Reforming Society; John Binns and Charles Pendrill, leading LCS members; Robert Keir, a radical activist; John Harriott Hart, publisher of The Independent Whig. Others considered as state prisoners by the governor were, Michael Doyle, John Crathorne and John Nicholas.

According to James Bennett, the Gagging Laws caused panic among Tewkesbury’s Jacobins.[17]

The vigorous measures adopted by the government, at this memorable crisis, against those prohibited associations, which professed to have in view only the ‘improvement of the constitution in Church and State,’ had the effect of greatly alarming the more timorous of the members resident in this borough, insomuch that several of them literally ran away from their homes and their families, and hid themselves for many days in woods and secret places, until their fears of ‘capture and imprisonment’ had somewhat subsided.

Apart from John Lloyd, we have two other names for likely members of the local association. The return address inscribed on Lloyd’s letter to the LCS is “Mr. Simons Junior, near the Plough Inn, Tewkesbury”, and also written on the envelope is “Citizan Simons”. In LCS records, mention is also made of a letter from “Tompkins of Tewkesbury” (declining to adopt the LCS name).[18]

In fact it is likely that there were two distinct groups of Radicals in Tewkesbury: those in the Association and a less articulate, bellicose group responsible for the threatening letters. An associate of either group may have been William Yarnell (after whom Yarnell’s Alley in Tewkesbury was named as the family happened to live at the street end). John Rogers in his Alleys History described him as a sober Baptist, but “an advanced Radical” who during the French Revolution “gloried in the liberty the French people were enjoying and longed that Englishmen might enjoy the same”.[19]

We do not know whether ‘Jacobin Yarnell’ (as he was known) was involved in another of the threatening letters, sent this time to George Phelps, chief magistrate of Tewkesbury To the Worshipfull the Bailiffs of the Borough of Tewkesbury, Gentlemen

We hereby Inform you That If you Do not Convene a Meeting of the Inhabitants of This Town on Friday Next or thereabouts, to Consider of the Propriety of Petitioning his Majesty for an Immediate Peace you shall meet with that Reward you so Justly deserves Namely a Leaden Bullit Trough your Brains, and be damned if you shall not have that the first time we Catch you out after the abovementioned Day if our Request is not complied with. So Damn you take Care what you are about if you would wish to save your sapless Brains from being blown out by, Gentlemen,

Revenge, Force, Mallice, Determination.

Tewkesbury July 28th 1795

Superscribed to Geo Phelps Esq &c. to be left at

Mr. Hartleburys Grocer

High Street Tewkesbury

One hundred guineas reward [£105] was offered for the conviction of those responsible for this letter along with a pardon for any accomplices who might name the author or authors.[20]

A more respectable person sympathetic to the French Revolution was Philip Francis, who had served the government in the Secretary of State’s Office, the War Office and in India (where, in 1780, he fought a duel with the Governor-General of Bengal, Warren Hastings). In his later years he became Sir Philip Francis when awarded the Order of the Bath. He was a friend of both Fox and Burke but argued with the latter when Burke showed him a draft of Reflections on the Revolution in France. Francis maintained that France had never had an effective constitution and told Burke that the revolution had been against “intolerable oppression”. He visited Paris in the summer of 1791 as a supporter of the revolution – praising the regime on his return. He was MP for Yarmouth on the Isle of Wight and afterwards for Bletchingley in Surrey. In parliament, he spoke strongly in favour of Wilberforce’s motion in 1791 to abolish the slave trade (the motion was defeated 163-88). He voted against the Seditious Meetings Act and for a negotiated peace with France. In 1792 he was a founding member of the Friends of the People, an upper-class, more respectable radical association, most of whose aims were similar to the LCS. He campaigned for parliamentary reform calling for the abolition of rotten boroughs, parliamentary seats to be made available to hitherto unrepre-sented large towns, householder franchise, single member constituencies and payment for MPs. He is also thought to have been the author of the ‘Letters of Junius’, a series of anonymous polemical articles published in the Public Advertiser newspaper from 1769 to 1772.

In September 1795 Francis presented a petition to the Home Secretary on behalf of five Tewkesbury women convicted of taking part in a bread riot at Tewkesbury Quay.[21] Later that month, he and another non-local radical, Peter Moore, published their intention to stand for election as MPs in the next general election. This announcement prompted the publication of a pamphlet from “An Elector”, who asked “Shall we be represented by Strangers or Neighbours … Are we to respect the pretensions of Men who have the effrontery to ask our votes, for no other purpose than to serve themselves?”.[22]

The election came in 1796, the poll taking place from 25 May until 30 May. As well as Francis and Moore, James Martin and William Dowdeswell stood for Tewkesbury’s two seats. The returning officers were Rev. James Robinson and William Buckle, bailiffs of Tewkesbury; monitoring their activities was Samuel Whitcombe, the ‘election assessor’. Moore and Francis attempted to have the votes of ‘inhabitant householders’, i.e. certain tenants, included in the poll, but the returning officers rejected their votes. The declared result was Martin 296, Dowdeswell 296, Moore 168, Francis 100. The eliminated votes would have added nearly 250 to the totals for Moore and Francis and won them the seats.

Early in 1797 Moore and Francis petitioned parliament claiming that inhabitant householders were entitled to vote and that certain other voters were not. They also questioned the impartiality of the election officials, describing the returning officers as being “particular friends” of their opponents and the assessor as being “the private election agent of Mr. Martin”. In their counter-petition, Martin and Dowdeswell attacked Moore in particular:

… no expense been spared to render Mr. Moore the favourite of the mob and to induce the lower classes of the people to favour his views as a candidate … regular clubs and associations have been constantly kept on foot at his [Moore’s] expense and this has not a little increased the ferment which pervades the town.

They also denigrated the Rev. William Smith, rector of Birtsmorton and curate of Ashchurch, a supporter of Moore and Francis: “every measure which the respectable part of the inhabitants have put forwards, they have uniformly found a vigorous opponent in Rev. Smith”.

The supposedly impartial election assessor, Samuel Whitcombe, gave evidence to the parliamentary committee that reviewed the case. He stated that Moore and Francis had made frivolous objections to the placement of the polling booth and their speeches at the opening of the poll “addressed themselves to their friends the Mob … tended to produce Tumult and Disorder, if not to excite the populace to still greater enormities”.

The parliamentary committee disagreed with both sides as to who was entitled to vote; they ruled that the franchise extended to freemen and freeholders only and confirmed that Martin and Dowdeswell were legitimately elected.[23]

Philip Francis did not leave Tewkesbury immediately after the election as he is recorded as being the steward for the Tewkesbury Races held in August 1796. He was probably further detained when Mr. Ridler,

landlord of the Hop Pole inn, sued Moore and Francis to recover £300 spent at the Inn during the election. The case was heard at the Gloucester Assizes in August 1797. Newspaper reports state that the judge, having found them guilty, criticised the defendants for standing for election at Tewkesbury, “perfect strangers as they were to the town, they come there to disturb the peace, and to oppose two neighbouring gentlemen of the highest character and respectability – not by fair and honourable means, but by buying the votes of the Electors”.[24]

Both Moore and Francis were eventually returned to parliament: Moore for Coventry in 1803, and Francis in 1802 for the ‘pocket borough’[25] of Appleby in Westmoreland under the patronage of Lord Thanet. The disdain that Francis had for electoral practices of the time can be seen in a sardonic letter that he wrote to his sister after his Appleby election.[26]

I was unanimously elected by one elector to represent this ancient borough in Parliament … there was no other Candidate, no Opposition, no Poll demanded, Scrutiny or Petition. So I had nothing to do but to thank the said Elector for the Unanimous Voice with which I was chosen … On Friday morning I shall quit this triumphant scene with flying colours and a noble determination not to see it again in less than seven years … my Elector intends to hang himself in November, and then I shall elect myself: and that will do as well.

The excesses of the regime in France, the rise of Napoleon and his crowning of himself as emperor of France in 1804 extinguished most of the support that people in England may have had for the French Revolution. In Tewkesbury a final demonstration of anti-French sentiments was in 1814 following the abdication of Napoleon and the restoration of a Bourbon monarch in the guise of Louis XVIII. On 23 June a proclamation of peace was publicly read by Henry Fowke, the Abbey bells rang for most of the day and bands of music paraded the streets. In the evening the town was illuminated and a fire-balloon was released into the air that hovered over the town for a quarter of an hour and eventually landed four miles away in Whitefield. Every poor man in Tewkesbury received a shilling and every poor woman sixpence. A procession through the town was held, headed by an effigy of Napoleon carried on a platform. Those in the parade included veterans of the Napoleonic Wars. The erstwhile ‘Emperor of France’ was taken to a gallows erected at the north end of the High Street near to the Black Bear inn, hanged then burned. A Tewkesbury needle maker, John Lewis, was dressed as the king of France and carried through the town. A banquet and ball was then held at the Town Hall and Lewis made a speech from the balcony promising to reign righteously. For the rest of his life he was known as ‘King Lewis’ – however, this did not help him avoid ending his days in the workhouse and receiving a pauper’s burial in 1863 aged 83.[27] The real Louis XVIII died in 1824 from problems caused by excessive obesity, gout and gangrene – the only king of France to die during the 19th century while reigning.

As for the French Revolution, did it achieve anything – what was its effect on subsequent political developments? When asked similar questions in 1972, the Chinese Communist leader, Zhou Enlai answered, “It is too early to tell”![28] Maybe it still is, although it did finally abolish feudalism, and its example perhaps tempered the future conduct of both reformers and their opponents during the following century.

  1. [1]Charles James Fox (1749-1806) radical Whig politician, Foreign Secretary in 1782 and 1806. [Back...]
  2. [2]Edmund Burke (1729-1797) Irish born politician, perhaps best described as a ‘liberal conservative’. [Back...]
  3. [3]Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) scientist (discoverer of oxygen), dissenting clergyman and philosopher. [Back...]
  4. [4]Thomas Paine (1737-1809) radical political activist, republican and deist. [Back...]
  5. [5]Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre (1758-1794) the most fanatical leader of the French Revolution. [Back...]
  6. [6]Henry Fowke (1758-1818) born in Barbados, attorney and freeman of Tewkesbury, at various times: town clerk, deputy recorder of the town, a bailiff, coroner, churchwarden and director of the poor. [Back...]
  7. [7]Gloucester Journal, 21 Jan 1793. [Back...]
  8. [8]The signatories were: W. Dillon, J. Spilsbury, J. Barnes, T. Hudson, H. Prior, R. Edwards, J. Pynock, A. Woollams, T. Easthope, J. Nind, T. Cooper, C. Banister, G. Prior, C. Chandler, W. Disston, J. Stephens. [Back...]
  9. [9]Gloucester Journal, 4 Feb 1793. [Back...]
  10. [10]Gloucester Journal, 4 Feb 1793. [Back...]
  11. [11]Gloucester Journal, 28 Jan 1793. Similar sentiments had been expressed in an address to the King by the Borough in 1791, Gloucestershire Archives TBR/A1/8 Chamber Book (council minutes) 1785-1835. [Back...]
  12. [12]Gloucester Journal, 31 Dec 1792 contains a report of the meeting of the Protestant Dissenters. [Back...]
  13. [13]The National Archives, also published in William Cobbett & John Wright, The Parliamentary History of England, from the earliest period to the year 1803: Vol 31 (available to view online via Google Books). [Back...]
  14. [14]Frank Booth, Robert Raikes of Gloucester, 1980. [Back...]
  15. [15]The National Archives, also published in William Cobbett & John Wright, The Parliamentary History of England, from the earliest period to the year 1803: Vol 31 (available to view online via Google Books). [Back...]
  16. [16]J.R.S. Whiting, Prison Reform in Gloucestershire 1776-1820, 1975, contains a full account of Wake’s time in Gloucester Gaol along with the details of the sojourns of other political prisoners held there. [Back...]
  17. [17]Bennett, Tewkesbury Yearly Register & Magazine Vol II [Bennett’s Register]; James Bennett (1785-1856) bookseller, freeman and historian of Tewkesbury. [Back...]
  18. [18]Place Papers, British Library, add MSS 27811. [Back...]
  19. [19]John Rogers, A Short History of the Old Alleys, Courts and Lanes of the Borough of Tewkesbury, 1905, published by ‘Collections’ in 1995, transcribed from Rogers’ notes. [Back...]
  20. [20]London Gazette, 11 Aug 1795, available on-line from www.gazettes-online.co.uk [Back...]
  21. [21]Derek Benson, ‘The Tewkesbury Bread Riot of 1795’, THS Bulletin 22, 2013. [Back...]
  22. [22]Election pamphlet, Gloucestershire Archives TBR/E30. [Back...]
  23. [23]Gloucestershire Archives TBR/9125/2/6410. [Back...]
  24. [24]Oxford Journal, 26 Aug 1797. [Back...]
  25. [25]A borough whose representation was controlled by a single person or family. [Back...]
  26. [26]Julius West, A History of the Chartist Movement, 1920. [Back...]
  27. [27]Gloucester Journal, 27 Jun 1814 and Rogers (the 1995 publication erroneously names John Lewis as Lemes). [Back...]
  28. [28]Zhou Enlai, otherwise Chou En-Lai (1898-1976) Chinese Communist leader and premier of the People’s Republic of China. His comment was in answer to Richard Nixon, President of the USA. However, it is thought by some that due to translation problems he may have been referring to the 1968 French student riots. [Back...]

No Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.