RURAL DISCONTENT IN DERBYSHIRE 1830·1850 Alan Frank Jones Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Sheffield January 2004 ii Alan Frank Jones RURAL DISCONTENT IN DERBYSlllRE 1830-1850 ABSTRACT Social protest, especially in agricultural regions, has occupie~ and caused considerable debate among, historians for many years. This thesis seeks to add to this debate, by looking at various forms of protest in Derbyshire between 1830 and 1850. This thesis examines three aspects of criminal activity: poaching, arson and animal maiming. It contends that none of these crimes can simply be categorised as acts of protest. In conjunction with an investigation of these three crimes, acts of protest such as strikes and episodes of reluctance to conform are also discussed. It argues that the motives behind various criminal activities and anti-authority behaviour were varied and complex. Arson and animal maiming were rarely co-ordinated, mostly they were individual attacks. However, on a few occasions both arson and animal maiming were directed against certain people. In the instances of poaching, there were more proven cases of gang participation than in either arson or animal maiming, with groups of men raiding game preserves. However, the great majority of raids were individual undertakings. What is more, poaching was carried out on a greater scale throughout the county than either arson or animal maiming. This thesis seeks to put these activities into the context of economic and social change in Derbyshire between 1830 and 1850. It maintains that there was a breaking down of the old social order. The composition of the ruling classes was changing with the relative growth of industry. In consequence, the responses of the authorities to social protest were changing. There was an increasing reluctance to offer aid to those less fortunate during times of need. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was gradually applied. If more slowly, efforts were made to improve policing. By 1850, though discontent was still evident, there was less resort to traditional forms of social protest. CONTENTS Page Abstract ii Preface iv Abbreviations vii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Aims 2 1.2 Primary Sources 9 1.3 Secondary Sources 14 1.4 Topography 15 1.5 Demography 17 1.6 Politics 18 1.7 Industry 18 1.8 Agriculture 22 1.9 Crime 26 2 ATTEMPTS AT MAINTAINING LAW AND ORDER 28 2.1 Policing 28 2.2 Civil Forms of Social Control 44 3 POACHING 48 3.1 An Insight into Poaching 48 3.2 Game Laws 49 3.3 Local Estates 61 3.4 The Gamekeeper 71 3.5 The Derbyshire Poacher 79 3.6 Tools of the Trade 86 3.7 Motives behind Poaching Offences 89 4 ARSON ]]4 4.1 A Fear of Fire 114 4.2 The Arsonist's Tools 118 4.3 Swing Riots in Derbyshire 119 4.4 Donations of Aid 128 4.5 Plug Riots 152 4.6 Changing Attitudes towards Arson Attacks 170 4.7 The Arsonist's Targets 178 4.8 Workhouses 181 4.9 Reasons for Arson Attacks 185 4 . 10 Threatening Letters 196 5 ANIMAL MAIMING 201 5. 1 What was Animal Maiming? 201 5.2 Animals Killed for Acquisition 203 5.3 Usual Suspects 209 5.4 Attacks on Animals as Acts of Protest 214 5.5 Animals Accidentally Maimed 229 5.6 Animals Maimed by those Requiring Pyschiatric Help 229 5. 7 Sentimentality-Truth or Myth? 235 6 Conclusions 238 Bibliography 243 Appendices 261 iv PREFACE My reasons for choosing this subject are three. First, Derbyshire is the county in which I live and therefore of personal interest. Second, and importantly, as a part-time student and full-time worker with a limited time in which to research, access to some primary sources was relatively easier than if I had chosen another county. Thirdly, and most importantly of all, is that poaching. arson and animal maiming in Derbyshire are under-researched, if at all researched. In comparison with similar academic work carried out in other counties, such as that by Archer in East Anglia, work on Derbyshire is minimal. Any investigation into an under-researched area can aid historians to gain a clearer insight into rural life in England. As Reed observes, 'a massive amount of original research at local, regional and national level is needed before the obvious short- comings of agricultural history and its derivatives can be fully exposed'. 1 At this point, it is worth mentioning some of those families, and their fortunes, who made up the ruling classes. This is important, as aspects of this thesis will show. Much of the land in Derbyshire was owned by a few families, made up of aristocrats and entrepreneurs, some of whom had been responsible for encouraging the growth of industry in the county. Among the aristocratic families were the Cavendishes of Chatsworth, the Lowes of Derby, Cokes of Brookhill, Hurts of Alderwasley, Morewoods of Alfreton and Miller Mundys of Shipley. The industrialist families included the Arkwrights, Strutts, Smiths of Chesterfield, Barrows of Staveley and Stephenson of Clay Cross. However, the status occupied in society by the aristocrats and industrialists did not guarantee financial soundness. For some there was economic stability, as achieved by Stephenson, the Strutts and Richard Arkwright; of the latter it 1 Mick Reed. 'Class and Conflict in Rural England: Some Reflections on a Debate', in Mick Reed and Roger Wells (eds.), Class, Conflict and Protest in the Eng/ish CountrySide, 1700-1880 (London: Frank Cass, 1990), p.2. v has been said: he proved to be if anything more shrewd, and certainly better mannered than his father. He sold his interests in most of his father's and his own cotton mills (with the exception of Cromford and Masson), and invested his capital in land and in government stocks.2 By and far away the largest landowners in Derbyshire were the Cavendish family. William Spencer Cavendish, sixth Duke of Devonshire (1790-1858), was head of one of the great and powerful families in the country. A modern historian has outlined his position: indeed, the glittering and spacious inheritance into which the sixth duke entered had been growing almost every generation since the days of Bess of Hardwick. As a result the Duke could boast four great country houses: Chatsworth itself, nearby Hardwick Hall, Bolton Abbey in Yorkshire and Lismore Castle in Ireland. In addition, there were three London palaces: Chiswick House, Burlington House and Devonshire House. All this was supported by land in Ireland and eight English counties, yielding a current income of £70,000 a year in 1813-15.3 Although this estate looked exceedingly affiuent, in fact the Duke had inherited heavily mortgaged properties. The sixth Duke himself did not help the financial stability of his estate, he spent lavishly and extravagantly; 'his love of building, travel, collecting, and display amounted almost to a mania'. Such was the extent of this spending, that by the 1830s interest payments and annuities were eating up over half of the Duke's income. The result of this financial shortfall forced the Duke into selling off certain properties to ease his financial burden. This strategy failed, again due to the Duke's unremitting spending, and by the 1840s his debts rose to just under one million pounds. As a result of these debts further properties were sold off and it was the 1850s before the estate's finances were brought under control. 4 2 Gladwyn Turbutt, A History ofDerbyshire, 4 vols (Cardiff: Merton Priory, 1999), vol.4, p.1508. 3 David Cannadine, Aspects ofAristocracy: Grandeur and Decline in Modern Britain (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), pp.l67-68. 4 David Cannadine. 'The Landowner as Millionaire: The Finances of the Dukes of Devonshire. c.1800- c.1926', Agricultural History Review, 25 (1977), 77-91 (pp.79-82). VI Chatsworth was not the only Derbyshire estate facing economic problems, in the south of the county estates also suffered, particularly that of the Curzon family at Kedlestone Hall. The downturn of economic fortunes of this estate was again due to the owner's extravagances, but this time not on buildings and travel. Mingay describes how the love of sport was often accompanied by a mania for gambling: the landed aristocracy spawned a breed of wealthy young men, made up largely of heirs to estates, known in the parlance of the day as "bloods", "bucks" and "plungers". In the country they thought of nothing but horses, hounds and guns; in town they gathered at their clubs, dined, drank, and spent expensive and noisy evenings over cards, interspersed with amorous adventures of a disreputable character and occasional forays to Newmarket, Goodwood or Ascot.s Gambling debts proved to be a major reason for the financial downfall of this southern Derbyshire estate and as a result: if Kedleston was in some ways built as a Tory "power house" to compete with its Whig neighbour, Chatsworth, the Curzon family estates were never a match for the vast territorial possessions of the Cavendishes. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, gambling debts and intestacy lowered their reserves - but equally there was no money to embark on alterations or additions and it was fortunate that very few, if any, of the contents were then sold.6 The gambling debts referred to were run up by Nathaniel (1751-1837), who because of the extent of his debts was forced to flee the country and live abroad. In 1846 the Sitwell fam~ly joined Derbyshire's struggling gentry and due to a decline in their economic fortunes they also moved abroad, this time to Germany.