# Talk:Ely and Littleport riots of 1816

The idea for this article came about due to this edit to St James' Church, Stretham even though some details of the riot had appeared before here: Littleport so thank you Charles Matthews (talk · contribs) --Senra (Talk) 19:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(copied from Reference desk/Humanities 2/9/10)
I am developing the draft of an article on the Littleport riots of 1816 here. I have a statement summarised from a none WP:RS: "General unrest and riots such as that at Littleport may have been a factor in the government passing the Vagrancy Act 1824". Can anyone help find a RS for that statement or help derive a similar statement along the same theme? --Senra (Talk) 13:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the wikilink prefix Ely and Littleport riots 1816--Aspro (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yups. Sorry. Fixed --Senra (Talk) 14:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I would say that  that website is just padding their text out on pure  flight of fancy. Eight years is a long time to-update exiting acts and vagrancy acts pre-date by over a century. Also, the update appears to be concerning the behaviours of individual vagrants. See in blue: behaving in a riotous or indecent manner. I would have thought, that had   legislation been written up in response to the Littleport riots, then an Act like the Riotous Assemblies (Scotland) Act 1822 was more appropriate. Therefore, should anyone fail to find a lack of a RS, I will not be surprised. This comment should really go on the articles talk page but of course it does not exist yet.--Aspro (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I have no problem with you creating the comment on the article talk page. All comments welcome. The article will go to main space when it is in better shape :) --Senra (Talk) 15:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done sourced from here: "Imigration and Emigration:Riotous Littleport". BBC. 2004. Retrieved 1 September 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) --Senra (Talk) 19:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Preparation area for articles that should link to Ely and Littleport riots after moving the article to main space. If you feel any one or more of these should not be so linked, please say so --Senra (Talk) 18:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Edward Christian as Lord Chief Justice of the Isle of Ely at the trials of the accused
Littleport as the town involved
Ely as involved in the riots plus the trials held here
Sir Henry Dudley, 1st Baronet the fighting vicar, as a participant in quelling the riots
struck as  Done --Senra (Talk) 21:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

of 'gaol' as 'goal'. Interesting article! As regards the aftermath, I think the response to the riots effectively deterred agricultural unions in East Anglia, where unrest predominantly took the form of rick-burning through the middle half of the C19th.Dsp13 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Goal --> Gaol  Done thank you. Indeed, I am seeing news articles (both before and after) about rick-burning and thresher machine destruction (I'm guessing Ludite type responses?) - just need to be able to weave them into the article. Also waiting for Peacock (1965) to arrive for further background --Senra (Talk) 09:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On the first day of the trial after breakfasting at the Bishop's Palace in Ely, the Judges attended a sermon in Ely Cathedral by Henry Bate Dudley. The question of proper sourcing of the quote was asked and answered here:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities/Biblical quote. --Senra (Talk) 15:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Senra (Talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed from article as too much information

--Senra (Talk) 02:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent reading! Looking back 200 years ago, before the pogroms and Ruanda and (you name it), it seems incredible that no one was killed after two days of "these atrocities"... and that the few opponents faced the rioters almost safely. 
Just one note. It appears that at times the language of the article is too influenced by its old-timey sources - far more than is necessary to comply with verifiability guidelines. At times it becomes an almost carlylean epic: "The magistrates agreed; a hollow truce, as they had already called the yeoman cavalry from Upwell". "Intimated", rather than "raped", may be what the source said, but shall we follow the victorian code of speech here? 
Cheers, East of Borschov 09:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. Very useful. I did work hard to try to remove the Regency and Victorian English whilst summarising the sources. Your comment suggests I have failed. I am sorry. I probably need a little help. I am showing my lack of literacy here, but your examples are unclear, unless I miss your points entirely. In this context "...yeoman cavalry from Upwell" is a fact and "Intimidated" is a synonym for a fact. The rioters did not "rape" or indeed harm any citizens at all, although their worst offence was, to use the Regency language [Warren (1997) but first published c.1816], threatened vengeance to [Mr Martin's] life. I thought my summary word intimidated did the original prose justice. Please do continue to point out examples and I will do my best to either clarify or correct as appropriate. Once again, thank you --Senra (Talk) 15:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Ely and Littleport riots 1816/GA1

We are now getting errors in Inflation template. I see that the template has been updated today to display error messages (and has an option for turning it off). I have posted a request for help fixing the errors rather than just turning the messages off and ignoring them. Jojalozzo 18:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The errors were not just in this article. In other articles too (e.g. Little Thetford). I posted a query too but probably in the wrong place. Anyway, the errors are now fixed --Senra (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ely and Littleport riots of 1816/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


### Initial readthrough
On first pass, this looks pretty solid: well written, sourced, and comprehensive in its coverage. Many thanks for your efforts on it, which I see from the talk page have gone on for some years. I only have smallish concerns so far, noted below. Let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done some copyediting as I went for both style and grammar. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with, and please doublecheck me to be sure I haven't inadvertently added any errors.
"Topped up" is slightly informal and idiomatic; can another phrase be found here? Agreed replaced by supplemented. Is this OK? --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"In 1815 at least, " -- is "at least" needed in this sentence? Agreed  Done --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"weekly meeting at The Crown" -- Is "The Crown" an inn, or some type of government building? (This may be a dumb question--I'm an American editor, so might not know the lingo.) Agreed Not dumb in any way. It was unexplained. "The Crown" was, er, is a bar, drinking hole or perhaps even a dive bar; we call them pubs. First occurrence now qualified with public house  Done --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"The Special Commission[59] appointed judges were Mr Justice Abbott[60] and Mr Justice Burrough" -- this sentence is a bit grammatically confusing. Should this be "Special Commission-appointed", or is the main verb here "appointed"? Is it possible to move these footnotes to the end of the sentence to avoid the minor breaks they create? Agreed fixed? --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
This paragraph on the Special Commission also has a rather odd order to it; the Special Commission's justices are named, and only later is Lord Sidmouth's Special Commission explained. This might be clearer in a more chronological order. Agreed fixed? --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"Mr Hunt was counsel for Jeffereson, " -- two points. First, it's probably best to give full names for those defendants being mentioned for the first time in the article. Second, is this a typo for the defendant "Jefferson"? Was Jefferson defended by both lawyers? Agreed (a) Jeffereson is spelling error - fixed (b) Warren (1997) does not explain Hunt's full name. Warren (1997) p. 12 is as given. Warren (1997) pp. 12–44 describes Hart as defender for various parties. Jefferson is with Hunt on page 12 and later in the week he is defended by Hart. Rather than explain all this, I have removed Jefferson being defended by Hart - fixed --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"his Majesties government"-- should this be "his Majesty's"? Agreed  Done --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The all-caps approach to names in the table seems to me unnecessary, but it's not an important fix for GA. Agreed  Done --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The image File:A counciller-lwlpr10082-Thomas Rowlandson.jpg seems to be an unrelated illustration, and as such should be cut from the article--but perhaps I'm misunderstanding what this is an image of? Stet the caption for this image was in the text at one point but has been cut. The image is intended to show the reader what such a case may have looked like. The artist Rowlandson was of the time. I would prefer to keep the image. I have changed the caption. --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I still think the image is a bit borderline, but I suppose it would be okay with a better caption that clearly identifies what the image is; right now, it's unclear to the reader what the image is and why it's there in the article. Am I correct in understanding that this isn't a caricature of Abbott himself?  Perhaps you could caption it something like "An 18xx caricature of a judge, illustrating how a contemporary courtroom would have appeared", similar to the above images. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Changed caption to "Caricature of a councillor for the defence of the time. Print by Thomas Rowlandson; first published 1801". Is this OK? --Senra (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but looking at the image again, I'm just not comfortable with it. It seems a bit wrong to me to add an unrelated image when it's a caricature; it has the unintentional effect of implying that the defense counsel would have looked like this somewhat grotesque figure. (As a side note, is it 100% certain that this image is of a defense counselor, and not a "councillor"-- a member of a city council? The source is unfortunately a dead link, so I can't get more info on the image's provenance. This may be another dumb question, but thought I'd be sure.)
I'm not convinced that an image of a courtroom is needed here at all, but even if one is, I wonder if a more realistic or wideview image might be found--a photograph of a historic preserved courtroom in the modern day, or just a less cartoon-y view of a court? I think to meet criterion 6b this will need to be changed, but I'm willing to get a quick second opinion on this if you feel the image is important to the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Not agreed I feel that the image of a courtroom by a prolific (see also media) political cartoonist of the time adds to this article. I updated the link but the link still does not work. Find the image using Walpole LIbrary Search and the string "Rowlandson 1801". To move this forward, I have removed the image and updated the licenses on the other two images by adding {{PD-US}} --Senra (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a discussion on the issue could be started on the talk page to get a third opinion on it? I'm not opposed to it being re-added to the article if other users find it necessary/helpful, too. Anyway, thanks for your flexibility and your edits. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


### Checklist
On the home stretch! Looks like image concerns are the only remaining issues. Thanks again for all your work on this.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ely and Littleport riots of 1816. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609152757/http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C36C6418-DEFD-4ED1-B050-9984100DF110/0/HistCensusEastCambs0106.xls to http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C36C6418-DEFD-4ED1-B050-9984100DF110/0/HistCensusEastCambs0106.xls
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813021558/http://calm.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/ArchiveCatalogue/dserve.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqCmd=Browse2.tcl&dsqDb=Catalog&dsqKey=RefNo&dsqItem=K283/L/1 to http://calm.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/ArchiveCatalogue/dserve.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqCmd=Browse2.tcl&dsqDb=Catalog&dsqKey=RefNo&dsqItem=K283/L/1#HERE
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ely and Littleport riots of 1816. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://calm.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/ArchiveCatalogue/dserve.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqCmd=Browse2.tcl&dsqDb=Catalog&dsqKey=RefNo&dsqItem=K283%2FL%2F1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100911152119/http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/parade/abj76/PG/works/fool.shtml to http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/parade/abj76/PG/works/fool.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Does not this newspaper suggests the 'militia' were not a few gentlmen and inhabitants of Ely, but a significant number (two dozen) of recently stood down members of the Cambridgeshire Militia armed from the armoury? Probably a rather more effective body than the same number of untrained civilians.

Stamford Mercury 31st May 1816 page 1 RIOTS.
Riots We are much concerned to state that fresh disturnces the most serious nature have taken place in Norfolk and the Isle of Ely, on the alleged ground of high price of beer, bread, and meat, and the low of labour, want of employment, &c.?The following are some of the particulars (more will be found in - inner pages). On Monday the 20th, a number of persons of the laboring class "assembled at the village of Southery, in Norfolk, and immediately proceeded for Downhnm, between which places (about seven miles distance) ed the laborers and others from their houses and *to join them; when arrived at the latter place the amounted to nearly fifteen hundred; they imdiately commenced their riotous proceedings, by ening the sliojis of the millers and bakers, and taking ay flour, bread, &c.; at Mr. William Baldwin's mill, great sacks of wheat meal were thrown into the rd, and spoiled. They then proceeded to the pubans, and demanded ale, which was brought in pails the street, the rioters forcing many of the inhabitts to drink with them. They then went to the Crown, and drove the Magistrates (who were holding their weekly sitting) into the street; and who, with great difficulyty, escaped. Afterwards they proceeded to the butchers, whose shops they cleared. During this time the tradesmen in general were in state of dreadful anxiety, expecting the rioters would make an attack upon their premises; but they were prevented the appearance the Upwell troop of cavalry, when the Magistrates, escorted the troop, read the Riot Act, and the greatest possible confusion ensued; several gentlemen narrowly escaped with their lives, brick-bats, stones, clubs bellying about, in every direction. With the aid special constables, however, ten men and four women were taken, and put into confinement, and the rest gradually dispersed. Fortunately no lives were lost. - Capt. Lee (who commanded the troop) ordered the men to use the back of their swords, thereby preventing the carnage that must have otherwise ensued. -The following morning. Tuesday, brought greater terror to the inhabitants than the preceding day, as it was generally reported that the rioters were preparing to attack the town with redoubled vigour; the Magistrates directed the inhabitants to arm themselves with whatever could be procured, and in a short time the town wore very formidable appearance; the inhabitants, with the cavalry, then proceeded to meet the rioters, who armed themselves with guns, pitch-forks, clubs, and other weapons, ready for a general attack, when an agreement was made by the gentlemen to allow them an advance of wages, and to release those persons already taken, which induced them to return peaceably to their homes. The greatest praise is due to every individual of the troop, for their exertions on the above occasion. Thursday night, alarming advice was received at Lord Sidmouth's Office a desperate insurrection having broken out in the Isle of Ely; that an immense body of armed Fen-men had attacked the house of the Rev. Mr. Vachel, a Magistrate, resident at Little Newport, which they destroyed, after despoiling it of its most valuable property, having brutally turned Mrs. Vachel and her daughters out of the house, to seek an asylum, at twelve o'clock on Wednesday night. 
" CAMBRIDGE, May 24.-Great alarm has been excited here by the appearance of numerous knots of strange countrymen, coming in with large sticks, for two or three days past. Our Mayor, Colonel Mortlock, apprehensive that this might have been preparatory to intended entry of the fen rioters, convened the Magistracy the Town-hall this afternoon, who swore in 300 of the principal inhabitants as special constables. The Vice-Chancellor, and heads of houses, also assembled, resolved to put arms into the hands of the students of their respective colleges, if found necessary. " Sunday, Eleven o'clock, A.M.  Our alarm has considerably subsided, from intelligence just brought in from Ely, stating, that the main body of the insurgents were attacked on Friday morning (after the Riot Act had been read without effect), and completely routed. Sir Henry B Dudley and the Rev. H.  Law. two Magistrates of the isle, arriving with Captain Wortham's Troop of Yeomanry early on Friday morning, and learning that the rioters had determined to set fire to Littleport that night, and the town of Ely on the night following, called out the small detachment of the Ist Dragoons consisting of 18 men, commanded by Capt. Methuen, and sending 24 of the disbanded Militia, who were armed from the country depot by Lieut. Woolert, pushed on to Littleport, where, taking the insurgents by surprise, their defeat was speedy and complete. The savage rioters soon began to fire upon the Magistrates and the troops, from barricaded houses near the river, when the latter were ordered to fire into them. The conflict, though short, was sharp. The insurgents soon began to fly from every part of the town over the Fens, and were pursued in every direction : only two the rioters were killed (one of them a Chief), and a few wounded - 104  were taken prisoners, and more are hourly bringing ; fortunately the soldiers had only two or three slightly wounded. The inhabitants of the country now began to stir their own defence, and accompanied parties of the military scour the district, and in consequence great quantities of wild-fowl swivels, and other guns, pikes. &c. have been brought in. The Magistrates speak in high commendation of the steady conduct of the three Officers, and soldiery, on this service. Major-General Sir John Byng, K. C. B. appointed to the command of this disturbed county, arrived few hours after the affair, and a reinforcement, consisting of three troops of the Ist Royal Dragoons, three companies of the regiment, and two pieces of flying artillery, were hourly expected at Ely, by forced marches. A considerable inclination to Riot manifested itself at Ramsey, Huntingdonshire, for several days, and had increased so much on Tuesday last, that it was judged prudent to call out the Huntingdon Volunteer CavaTry, who proceeded Warbovs immediately, but as their assistance did not appear absolutely necessary, they returned to Huntingdon, where they remained under arms during the whole Tuesday night, and tranquillity having been restored Ramsey, the corps was dismissed on Wednesday morning. One man has been committed To Huntingdon gaol, for rioting at Ramsey, and against three others warrants have been granted. Extract of a letter from reshingfield, Essex. May 24.?" That spirit insurrection which has broke out in Suffolk, has appeared in our parish. I have just returned from the place where the rioters have assembled, to the amount of 200, armed with implements of agriculture as their weapons. Last night they destroyed Mr. John Smith's threshing-machine; this morning they visited Mr. Robert Smith's farm at Byton-hall, and destroyed plough on a new construction that did not please them; they then came to Bardfield, to derstoy Mr. Messent's machine, and were coining here to the same, but the people of Bardfield surrounded the barn, and prevented their attacking it, while many of us tried to persuade them to home again ; and happy say they have dispersed for the present." Accounts received on Saturday from Manchester state, that some thousands of the lower orders the people were assembling about twenty miles distant fioin Manchester. The intelligence was received in that town by express from a Magistrate residing the vicinity of the tumultuous assemblage. Advices of these new movements were immediately forwarded Government. Saturday considerable body cavalry, with several pieces of artillery, passed through lottenham, their way to assist in quelling the disturbances. Fenlandier (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The page currently says the 5 hanged men were executed on Friday 28 June 1816, citing Warren, Philip (1997), 'Report of the trials for rioting at Ely and Littleport 1816'.
But a digital copy of a contemporary broadsheet from Cambridge University Library
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-BROADSIDES-B-00081-00006/1
states that the 5 hanged men were executed two weeks later on Saturday July 13, 1816.
Note the wording of
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Ely-Littleport-Riots/
says 'scheduled': "The executions of the five men were scheduled to take place on Friday 28 June."
Is it possible that the hangings were scheduled to take place on 28 June, actually took place on July 13, but recorded in some key book(s) as 28 June that has then been taken as the definitive source? NeilMcNeilface (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)