Talk:Priestley Riots/Archive 1

Name of page

My reading has only ever referred to the 1791 riots as the Birmingham riots. Is there a reference for the "Priestly" Riots? Should there be a separate page for the "Birmingham Riots"? Kitb 14:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Birmingham Historian, Number 12 names the event as the Priestley Riots. Oosoom ^Talk to me 22:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

this should be merged with joseph priestley208.107.138.228 17:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Priestley was one of many victims but was not present at the outbreak. This was a significant and destructive event in Birmingham's history and there are detailed contemporaneous accounts of the events. The article could do with expanding. Oosoom ^Talk to me 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No - as above. Also, though now known by Priestley's name, they were not just about him. Andy Mabbett 11:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, as per above. Luwilt (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal

Featured on Anglican Portal as of 20 Feb. 2008. -- SECisek (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some comments

Just some questions.

• In the Lead who does their refer to?

• It refers to the "riots" - do you think it should be "its"? Are the riots singular or plural? Awadewit (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• How about the rioters main targets...

• Changed. Awadewit (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Public Library purchases - does this mean buying libraries or books?

• Books. Clarified. Awadewit (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Can you check the spelling of Revelers, Proceeded and totaled (US vs UK English?)

• I totally forgot to convert the article to BE (I write in AE). The only one I don't understand is "proceeded". Awadewit (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• I might be an idiot but I'm not sure about the double e. GrahamColm^Talk 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• proceed in AE. Do you know of an online BE dictionary? Awadewit (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• No it's me that's going mad - getting confused with procedure, sorry. GrahamColm^Talk 18:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've wikilinked William Withering - he's a local hero.

Thanks for an excellent read. Things are much quieter here in Birmingham these days! Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 17:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I took a read and the article looks great. There is one area of confusion for me which is the very first paragraph. It's loaded with words/terms unfamiliar to to me and thus daunting. Specifically, "religious Dissenters," "storming of the Bastille," "Test Act," "Corporation Act," and "French Revolutionary ideals." While every single one of these wikilinks I really wanted to stay on track with reading this article. I tried rewording to add a word and there to better explain things but there was too much data in the introduction. A thought is to tighten the introduction up and to move some detail into the body of the article. For example, here's the existing and then a revised sentence:

• Both local and national issues stoked the fires of the riot, from disagreements over public library book purchases and a local celebration of the storming of the Bastille to controversies over Dissenters' attempts to gain full civil rights by repealing the Test and Corporation Acts and their support of French Revolutionary ideals.
• Both local and national issues stirred the passions of the rioters, from disagreements over public library book purchases, to controversies over Dissenters' attempts to gain full civil rights and their support of the French Revolution.

As you can see, quite a bit got chopped out. I modified the last part about "French Revolutionary ideals" clicking on the link took me to French Revolution which does not explain what the "ideals" were. I'd going ahead with the edit but it's getting late for me and I would also want to weave the things I trimmed out into the body of the article and that'll take thinking. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 08:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the eternal problem with writing about the 1790s - introducing readers to all of these concepts is never easy. I remember my undergraduate professors trying to do it and failing miserably. I had to read about these things several times to really get a grasp on them. Nevertheless, I will take a stab at expanding on this later today. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've adopted your sentence and added a few more explanatory phrases and sentences to the main body. See what you think. Awadewit (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A few points

A few points after reading this artcle and supporting it at FAC.

• I felt the context section, though it mentions the Gordon riots in passing, could broaden its scope beyond Birmingham, particularly in relating the situation to that in places like Manchester and Sheffield with a similar political and social make up, and to other riots in the country, such as those in Nottingham and Bristol, which were economic in nature, relating to food prices, tolls, or whatever. Also to other "church-and-king riots", includi''Italic textng the Gordon riots.

• A lot could be added to this section, such as information about the Revolution Controversy. However, I haven't developed a good principle to use to decide what to include and what to exclude, so I kept it to a minimum. Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Much more has been added on the Revolution Controversy now. Awadewit (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would argue that the unique political, social, and economic (see Jacobs, Economy of Cities pp87f) make-up of Birmingham means that comparing it to other large cities (or less anachronistically, towns) in England is at best horrendously complicated, and at worst rather fruitless. There may well be better social and economic comparisons for Birmingham across the pond, but by 1791 the politics had somewhat diverged (except perhaps amongst the most radical dissenters ;-)). 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 ⓊⓉ 14:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I feel the article betrays a slight political bias in favour of the dissenters. I accept fully that the local mnagistrates, etc. were complicit in the riot, but I am not sure it's fair to imply that the king and the government were also. Two places where I noticed bias: While the riots were not initiated by William Pitt's administration, the national government was slow to respond to the Dissenters' pleas for help. and Although eventually forced to send troops to Birmingham, George III said "I cannot but feel better pleased that Priestley is the sufferer for the doctrines he and his party have instilled, and that the people see them in their true light." To be fair, the army in those days could not suddenly swoop into troublespots, as it does now (er, New Orleans, excepted). It takes a great deal of time to rustle up the horses and equipment and set out as a unit. The government and the king would have acted as fast as they could: such delays as there were would certainly have been in execution and not in giving the orders. In fairness, I think the whole of what George said should be shown, rather than the part where he gloats over Priestley's fate. A government has to act to quell all disorder, even if they despise the victims (Margaret Thatcher even had to defend Salman Rushdie). One can be cynical, of course. But the government could not have been happy with the subsequent behaviour of the Birmingham magistrates.

It does sound to me as if the local militias in Birmingham were called out by this chap Aylesford and other magistrates: so clearly the entire magistracy did not turn a blind eye or connive. These local militias were very unreliable and probably wouldn't have stood fast against their own community: this is not necessarily the magistrates' fault.

• Yes, the article does favor the Dissenters, but so does the scholarship. I cannot rectify that, I'm afraid. The scholarship sympathizes with the Dissenters and often looks at the events from their POV, so the article does, too. I've tried to be as NPOV as possible, but with so few sources, it was very difficult. Reading the few articles on this that exist, however, it does seem that the Dissenters were left to defend themselves. Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• And indeed the bias goes all the way back to the primary source material: William Hutton's house was smashed up in the riots. 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 ⓊⓉ 14:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps something could be said about the tradition of political toasting? I know from reading a biography of Hogarth that these dinners were far from innocuous: they were political acts, as is shown by the way this one was publicised and by the fact the diners were not dissuaded by the threat of disruption. People who hold a provocative pro-Revolutionary public event must expect to trigger disorders, the first step in any revolution.

• This is one of those things I could easily explain, but I wouldn't know where to source it. However, I should mention that such dinners were not expected to cause disruptions nor precipitate a revolution - for example, the 1789 dinner and toast that helped spark the writing of Reflections on the Revolution in France. These were generally staid affairs that were often portrayed by the opposition as more revolutionary than they were. Each has to be taken on a case-by-case basis, however. I'll look around for some sources on this. Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's probably important to note that the toasts of July 14, 1791, backed revolutions abroad (viz France (Hutton, pp425f, #2), America (#10), and Poland (#11)), but the King (#1), evolutionary reform of the constitution (#7) and of Parliament (#8), the Prince of Wales (#9), and the prosperity of Birmingham (#17) at home. #12, #13, and #16 were even about peace. Okay, there's a long tradition of circumlocutions to avoid charges of treasonous libel (cf the run-up to the English Civil War), but the over-hyped portrayal point is valid. 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 ⓊⓉ 14:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• they were greeted by 60 or 70 protesters who eventually dispersed while yelling, rather bizarrely and confusingly, "no popery". Even if this comes from a source, I think we should be wary of accepting such langage. It is not bizarre or confusing to me at all: dissenters and papists had been lumped together in the public mind ever since Jacobean times: both were seen as threatening the "church and king".

• It does come from a source (Rose). Dissenters and Papists were not always linked together and it is odd that the crowd was attacking a pro-French Revolution, Dissenting crowd by yelling "no popery". Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Schofield (The Enlightened Joseph Priestley (2004), p267) suggests that this was directed against Priestley and William Russell's support for the Catholic Relief Bill of April 1791. The remark's provenance in relation to these riots seems to be a speech made by Samuel Whitbread in the House of Commons in 1792, in which he ascribes it to "one person" (sorry, can't find the precise ref at the moment). Nor can I find a reference to suggest that Whitbread misspoke (the obvious solution). 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 ⓊⓉ 14:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I felt the article ended somewhat abruptly, without placing the riots in relation to what happened later, whether that be to Priestley's departure, to the effect of the war with France (1793) upon dissenting ebullience, or to the government's tightening up on radicalism and stiffening up of local militias and yeomanry in measures to avoid similar events and any repercussions from the French revolution. Also, I felt there was no real account of immediate ripple-effect disturbances, and calls by magistrates in other towns for military reinforcements, etc.

• Again, there is no real scholarship on how the riots affected all of these things. If I did this, I would be performing serious synthesis. New research needs to be done in this area. An entire article needs to be written on "The effects of the Priestley Riots". Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• I'll have a dig around in some books on this one. 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 ⓊⓉ 14:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• hardy sympathisers. What does this mean? Is "hardline" intended?

• No - I meant "hardy", in that they were willing to go the dinner and support the cause, despite the unrest that might happen. Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

might use "determined" or "resolute". Johnbod (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Used "resolute". Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hutton is twice described as a stationer and historian.

• Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the eighteenth century, Birmingham became notorious for its riots. In 1714 and 1715, the townspeople attacked Dissenters during the trial of Henry Sacheverell. It might be worth clarifying that this trial did not take place in Birmingham: I was thrown for a second.

• Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• a. k. a.. I find that an ugly usage, especially to see at the beginning. Just a matter of taste, but I prefer to avoid abbreviations where possible.

• I believe this is decreed somewhere in the MOS. Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Someone else has changed this. Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• The imagequotes are narrowing the quotes for me again. Did Scartol and Mark Kupper manage to devise a work-round?

• Mostly fixed. One has now done funky things. Will ask for help. Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Qp10qp - Do the imagequotes look ok now? If not then could you please provide a picture, or description, of what you mean by "narrowing the quotes?" Thanks. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 08:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• It still looks weird for me, on Firefox. See Image:PriestleyRiotsScreenShot.png. Awadewit (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've just unindented it. Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

qp10qp (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the copy editing and your comments - insightful as always! Awadewit (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)