What do old newspapers tell us about Chorley in 1820?
Megan Roberts 1 April 2020
Megan Roberts 1 April 2020
With so much time on my hands I decided to conduct a little experiment, and searched Findmypast’s newspaper library for references to Chorley in 1820 to see what it would tell me.
The two principal things it tells me are firstly that Chorley was a significant place in England at that time, and secondly that it was a relatively unremarkable year.
So why do I make the first claim? For two key reasons. There were weekly adverts for post-coaches and mail-coaches leaving from London, and in this part of the world the destinations were Kendal, Lancaster, Preston, Kirby-Lonsdale, Bolton, CHORLEY, Ormskirk and Garstang; every day. The second key reason occurred at the end of 1820 and concerned the very public support given by the town’s worthies to Caroline of Brunswick, the estranged wife, of King George IV, when she effectively successfully thwarted his attempts to divorce her. A public parade and dinner was given to celebrate this and this commentated on nationally. Full details of this is given later.
Most of the references throughout the year deal with the more mundane aspects of life, but which will be of interest to the family historian, such as births, marriages and deaths; business matters and falling foul of the courts.
Births, Marriages and Deaths
Note: these have been copied verbatim.
3 April the Lady of Thomas Robert Wilson France, Esq of Shawe Hill, near Chorley, of a daughter.
23 January Mr Jas. Gilmore of Walton, to Miss Dorah Birtwisle of Chorley
X June at Winwick by the Rev. Mr Hornby, James Harrison, Esq of Chorley, to Miss Eccles daughter of the late John Eccles, Esq of Lowerland Cottage, Ashton-in the Willows.
29 June at the Friend’s Meeting House, Morley, near Wilmslow, Mr James Frost of Macclesfield, timber merchant to Miss Sussanna, daughter of the late Mr Henry Barlow, of Chorley, in this county.
X July at the Parish Church of Dean, Mr Richard Smethurst, jun of Chorley, to Miss Mellor, of Horwich, all in this county.
25 May Mr Peter Stock, of Heskin at his son’s house in Chorley in the 82d year of his age; much lamented by his family and acquaintances.
23 June at Chorley, Mr Richard Andron, surgeon, aged 34
Another paper gave his name as Hudson and his age as 31.
August in Lancaster: A person of the name of Collier, from Chorley, a manufacturer, was found dead in bed, yesterday morning, at the Shovel Inn, in this town. He appeared to be about 50 years of age, had come to the Assizes the preceding day, and is supposed to have died in an apoplectic fit.
24 October in his 55th year, Mr Gartside, calico-printer, Cross Hall, near Chorley.
27 October at Eccleston, in the hundred of Leyland, Mrs Dorothy Silcock, in her 100th year, which she would have completed in December next.
W. Anderson and R. Lightollers, Chorley, Lancashire, cotton spinners – 24.
[the original announcement was made in the previous evenings Gazette. In some publications this appeared under a sub heading “Dividends to be made at Guildhall”. There were lots of individuals listed from all over the country, but no explanation of what the dividends relate to.]
- Thomas Bleasdale, Ironmonger Chorley
- Thomas Carr, Ironmonger Chorley
- Edward Heelis, liquor-merchant, Chorley
Dissolution of Partnerships:
- Heelis and Rice, Chorley and Wigan, spirit- merchants
The Rev. John Whalley Masters, Clerk Rector of Chorley was accused before the Arches’ Court, (the Arches Court, presided over by the Dean of Arches, is an ecclesiastical court of the Church of England), with simony. Simony is the buying or selling of ecclesiastical privileges, for example pardons or benefices. It was alleged that he had contracted for, and purchased the immediate presentation in the Vicarage of St. Nicolas, in Carisbrooke Castle, Isle of Wight. The case was dismissed with costs.
At the April Quarter Sessions held in Salford on the magistrates was a Colonel Silvester from Chorley.
Lancaster Assizes – August:
- Thomas Morris, 24, for stealing a quantity of spiritous liquors, at Chorley.
- 12 months in Preston house of corrections
- James Halstead, 35, for stealing a quantity of liquors at Chorley.
- 6 months in Preston house of corrections
- Thomas Walsh, 37, for stealing a cow, at Duxbury.
- Guilty – Death – Commuted to 12 months hard labour in Preston house of corrections
- John Dakin, 73, for stealing two pieces of cotton, at Charnock Richard.
- 1 month imprisonment
Caroline of Brunswick
If like me you know nothing of Caroline of Brunswick and the events that led the good folk of Chorley to champion her then the following is a potted history:
King George IV (1762 – 1830), perhaps better known as the Prince Regent, was famed for his excessive lifestyle which earned him the contempt of the people. In 1795, when the Prince was yet again in debt, his father would only agree to pay those debts on the condition that he married his cousin, Princess Caroline of Brunswick. Prior to this he had entered into an illegal marriage with Mrs Fitzherbert. The marriage to Caroline lasted about one year after which they separated.
George’s determination, following his succession to the throne in 1820, to finally obtain a divorce from his estranged wife, Caroline, sparked an opposition campaign, both in Parliament and in the country, which threatened the survival of Lord Liverpool’s Tory administration. It also led to extensive proceedings in the House of Lords, which took on the appearance of a state trial.
On 5 June 1820 Caroline, who had been living abroad for the past six years, arrived unexpectedly in England to claim her right to be crowned queen. The government, under intense pressure from the King, agreed to introduce a Bill of Pains and Penalties into the House of Lords, which would have annulled the royal marriage and deprived Caroline of her title. She thereupon became the unlikely beneficiary of a wave of indignant public sympathy, being perceived as a ‘wronged woman’ who was bravely struggling to uphold her rights against a callous political establishment. During the summer and autumn increasing numbers of Whig politicians gave Caroline their backing, overcoming in many cases the personal distaste that they felt for her.
Whig lawyers skilfully defended Caroline during the proceedings on the Bill in the Lords. Ministers found that increasing numbers of usually reliable peers were deserting them and, in the division on the Bill’s third reading, 9 November, their majority shrank to just nine. Liverpool, recognising that there was no possibility of carrying the measure through the Commons, decided to abandon it, to the King’s undisguised fury.
Jubilant scenes in the country greeted the news of the Bill’s demise, and, at subsequent public gatherings, including several county meetings, the government’s enemies became increasingly daring in their demands. Attempts were made to link the Queen’s cause with the popular clamour for retrenchment in government expenditure, and the issue of parliamentary reform was also raised, which seems to have been the key issue behind for her “supporters” in Chorley.
Support for the Queen abated with surprising suddenness. In the months that followed Caroline became an increasingly isolated figure and, when she tried to attend the king’s coronation in July, she was famously shut out of Westminster Abbey. Within a month she was dead.
Set out below are the transcripts of two newspaper articles, which are rather long and verbose:
Rejoicings at Chorley
Liverpool Mercury 1 December
Wednesday last was a memorable day for Chorley. The inhabitants, who are almost unanimous in their attachment to liberty and law, formed a grand jubilee in celebration of the Queen’s triumph. A flag was hoisted upon the Town-hall and during the whole fore-noon, the most busy preparations were visible. At noon all the factories were stopped, and their industrious population soon thronged the streets, attired in their best. The various male and female friendly societies of the town and neighbourhood assembled near the Town-hall, and half-past one, a grand procession was formed, with music sounding, colours flying, and voices cheering; and the whole arranged and attended by the most respectable gentlemen of the place, moved through all the streets of the town, and at each of the great roads proceeded nearly half a mile into the country and returned. Of the order of the procession we have not space to say much; but we must make honourable mention of the societies whose attendance and whose splendid colours gave a delightful animation to the scene, viz. the Chorley Friendly Society; the Independent Lodge of Odd Fellows, whose decorations, sashes, aprons, etc., were very handsome; Chorley Female Society; Princess Amelia Society; Duke of York Society; Duke of Clarence Society; Queen Charlotte Society; Farmers’ Friendly Society, etc., etc. Accompanying these were two bands of music, and the change ringers with their hand bells; together with a host of colours, large banners and inscriptions suitable to the spirit of the day. On One banner was a full length portrait of the Queen sweeping away the Bill of Pains and Penalties with a broom. On another, the Queen was represented, supported by Brougham and Denman, treading upon two serpents, named Majocchi and Demont. On another, she was seen trampling upon the Divorce Bill, holding “the Protest” in her hand, and resting on a rock inscribed “Fortitude,” etc. On another, she trod upon “conspiracy” supported by the altar of the constitution; motto, “Regina still in spite of them.” On another was a crown, supported by an altar inscribed “The Power of Public Opinion.” On another was Lord Liverpool, with a terrified countenance holding a green bag of “lies.” On another were the Scales of Justice, in which “Truth” outweighs the “Milan Commission.” A number of other colours bore various mottoes “The Queen’s Enemies to the block;” “Trial by Jury;” “Parliamentary Reform;” “The Ninth Commandment’” etc. A large green bag was carried on a pole, inscribed “Lies and Filth.” The beautiful colour which was used by the committee of the Liverpool procession, was also conspicuous; and small ensigns, a gaily dressed figure of the Queen, and the roses and ribbons worn by all the persons in the procession formed a brilliant spectacle. On returning to the centre of the town, the people were addressed by Mr. Brownbill, from the windows of the Royal Oak; he exhorted them to the most peaceful demeanour, even towards their few opponents, and recommended a rational enjoyment of the evening. Numerous festive parties crowded the inns and taverns: and at four o’clock about fifty most respectable gentlemen sat down to a sumptuous dinner at the Royal Oak, Mr. Brownbill in the chair. In the evening, although no illumination had been proposed, all the inns and public-houses in the town were brilliantly illuminated, with transparencies, etc and many private houses voluntary followed the example. A large bonfire was made in the market place, the green bag was burnt, and the firing of guns closed the proceedings of the day; the whole of which were begun, continued and ended in perfect peace.
At Whittle-le-Woods, near Chorley, on Monday week, there was a grand illumination and other rejoicings, in which thousands of warm-hearted Englishmen participated, without being subjected to any mean tricks by those who differed from them in opinion.
Public Dinner at Chorley in Honour of The Queen’s Triumph
Liverpool Mercury 15 December
The public rejoicings at this spirited town, consisting of a grand procession, illumination, bonfire, etc., were fully noticed in our paper of the 1st instant, but the following account of the public dinner which closed the proceedings of the 29th November, was omitted at the time for want of room.
A numerous part of the most respectable gentlemen of Chorley and the neighbourhood sat down to a sumptuous entertainment, provided by Mr. Eastwood, in the large Assembly room of the Royal Oak Inn, the whole house being brilliantly illuminated. N. Brownbill, Esq., presided; and an abundance of the best wines gave zest to a variety of loyal and constitutional toasts which he proposed from the chair.
After the health of the King, Mr. Brownbill, rose and said “Let us now, Gentlemen, not only further evince out loyalty, but give a pledge that we will step forwards in defence of female innocence, whenever we see it invaded, and especially, if we be again called upon to redeem that pledge, in the instance of out noble-minded Queen. And, Gentlemen, I will not disguise my opinion, that we shall, ere long, have that test applied to use; for her Majesty herself seem to have no doubt that her diabolical persecutors will avail themselves of the first opportunity to renew their vile attempts to degrade her. Should that be the case, I doubt not but we shall all be found at out posts, ready to use every lawful and constitutional means in our power to protect her. If ever a female stood in need of the exertions of Englishmen to defend her, surely that woman is our present Queen. Had I the ability, I would not tire and disgust you by wading through the filthy details of the late proceedings against this much insulted individual. When first she consented to leave her native land, to live amongst us, she, no doubt, came in the full expectation of enjoying matrimonial felicity, and many gratifications in the exalted station which she appeared destined to fulfil; but alas! How much was she mistaken! Shortly after the celebration of her marriage she was driven from the society of her husband, without the imputation of crime. This heartrending circumstance was soon followed by a more serious one. She was charged with a crime, which, had it been substantiated, would, probably, have brought her head to the block. That conspiracy, however, she escaped; the perjury of the witnesses who were brought against her having been detected by those who were deputed to inquire into her conduct; witnesses selected, not from the ‘lower orders’ but from what are generally denominated the ‘higher orders’ of society. And were this miscreants punished? No; they have been rewarded for their perjury. After having had innumerable insults heaped upon her for a series of years, she, in an unguarded hour, was prevailed upon by that canting hypocrite Canning, to leave her adopted country for one where she was led to expect she would be permitted to live in peace; but in this expectation she was again woefully mistaken, for especial care was taken to prepare her way by the foulest reports against her honour. These reports, evidently coming from ‘high authority’ were greedily swallowed by multitudes of gaping tale-bearers. Spies were sent from this nation, to the neighbourhood of her residence, most amply supplied with English gold, the hard earnings of English industry, to pay for the propagation of the most malignant falsehoods against her. With these powerful means they succeeded in hiring a titled villain who, after he had been introduced into her family and confidence, soon effected their purpose of stealing her private papers. Not content with this, they bribed a confidential clerk of her solicitor, who from time to time conveyed to them many of the documents entrusted to his mater’s care, hoping thereby to further their diabolical views. During several years, by indefatigable exertions they collected together a set of wretches for witnesses selected from discarded servants and disappointed speculators upon plunder from her finances. Great wages, and the hope of still greater, induced these people to trump up a set of the most disgusting and improbable tales, of which the inconsistency was sufficient to blast their credibility.
It is worthy of remark, that with all the allurements which the Milan commissioners had at their command, they could not procure one person in a respectable situation of life to come forward and corroborate their malicious statements. Notwithstanding the difficulty of proving a negative, this much-injured Lady has brought forward witnesses, who have been, and some of the stare are inmates of her household; persons of unimpeachable honour, and whose veracity cannot for a moment be doubted and how do they, one and all, sum up their testimony? Why! By declaring in the most unequivocal manner, that they had never seen any thing in her conduct to warrant the charges against her, not even to lead them to suspect her of the least impropriety of behaviour. Add to these things, her disdainful refusal of the bribe offered at St. Omers, and her subsequent conduct, and then, who can wonder at the effect produced upon every impartial mind.
Gentlemen, the late proceedings against the Queen ought to have been resisted not only as regarded her rights, but as they ***** a deadly blow at out liberties. They formed a dangerous precedent. How should we feel, if this meeting out ours were to be made, at the next assembling of the Honourable Houses, an illegal one, and a severe penalty attached to it? These considerations will, I trust have due weight upon our minds. Some highly-respectable friends for the Queen have declined joining us in this day’s festivity, and have given what appears to me a very insufficient reason. They suspect that something will be said on the subject of reform which will not accord with their views of it. Admitting that reform is necessary, they say that it is wanted only among the people; and not in the formation of the two Houses of Parliament; for the late abandonment of the Bill of Pains and Penalties by the House of Lords produces sufficient evidence to them, that there is virtue enough in that House to stop every injurious or improper measure. God forbid, that we should think that there are no virtuous and public-spirited individuals among them; but I must say, that the majority of that Honourable House, have, in the case alluded to, taken the most singular way of showing their virtue that I have ever heard of; for, after having voted in favour of the first, second, and third readings of that obnoxious bill, they instantly, at the mandate of one of the servants of the crown, agreed to give up the proceedings altogether. This agreement appears to me to have been produced, not by their own virtue, but by virtue of the people, who have so loudly and unanimously expressed their opinions on that subject. This circumstance certainly furnishes strong evidence that reform is needful, not so much among the people, as elsewhere. Who can believe, that, if placemen and pensioners were excluded from the House of Lords, and the Commons were sent up by the people at large, we should have been disgusted by the abominable and wicked events which have recently taken place? I rejoice to learn from the Queen’s answer to the Earl of Liverpool, that she is determined to face her enemies with the same undaunted spirit that she has hitherto displayed; relying, as she says, upon the continued support of a generous people. In this reliance, I am well assured she will not be disappointed.”
After reading some extracts from Queen’s answer as reported in the public papers of the day, <r. B. concluded by proposing “The health of Queen Caroline; Regina still, in spite of them.”
This toast with received with indescribable enthusiasm; and was followed by “The Sovereignty of the People.” “Parliamentary Reform; the only means of securing the dignity of the crown, and the welfare of the people.” “Lord Eskine; and the Trial by Jury.” “The honest Englishman; Alderman Wood.” “The legal Advisers of the Queen; and may they never cease their labours until they have brought her persecutors to ***** punishment.”
Mr Hawkshead make some excellent remarks on the unconstitutional nature of a Bill of Pains and Penalties, and expressed his satisfaction that the voice of an enlightened people had defected its tendencies, by putting an end to its existence. Such a mode of legislation actually made a crime from the purpose of punishing it. He had read of the ancient lawgiver, whose decrees were written in very small characters, and placed in so high a situation, that they could not be read by the people, who, nevertheless, were punished if they did not obey them; but ministers had proceeded in a far more cruel way, for, in the former case, people might, by getting a ladder, arrive at the real nature of the laws which were given to them, while the people of England did not know but that any part of their conduct to-day might be made illegal to-morrow, and they be subjected to punishment. This was a doctrine, so monstrous, that he could not abstain from giving his decided voice against it; and he was proud that his countrymen had shown such a strong opposition to ex post facto laws, that the minister, fearing that the public opinion would be too strong for him, had withdrawn the wicked bill against the Queen. Or, perhaps, though he had got the Lords to consent to the reading of that bill, he might fear, that in the Commons, he should meet with some portion of that virtue which had destroyed the income tax. At all events, her Majesty’s triumph was a triumph for the people.
The toasts proceeded. “Sir Francis Burdett; the radical friend of the constitution.” “Col. Williams; the upright magistrate and intrepid opposer of venality and oppression.” “The Rev. Mr. Shepherd.” “Abraham Crompton, Esq.” “Ottiwell Wood, Esq.” “The Liberty of the Press; and success to the Liverpool Mercury.” On this toast being given with great applause.
Mr. John Smith rose, and thanked the company on the part of Mr. Egerton Smith and himself. In the first sentiment of the toast he heartily united with the friends of liberty by whom he was then surrounded; and for the latter part, he was too grateful to abstain from sincerely returning thanks, and expressing a hope that the Mercury would long maintain their good opinion. “I attend here” said Mr. S. “in order to publish some account of your splendid jubilee this day, and were this a town meeting, on deliberative public business, I should remain silent, being no itinerant orator, and conceiving that every town should manage its own affairs. But, being invited to this festive board by your worthy and patriotic Chairman, and so kindly received, and, indeed called forward by the company, I will not conceal from you how much I unite with you upon this great occasion. I need say little upon the case itself, which has ended in the heartfelt triumph; but I will say, that an ordinary jury would have sent it out of court in the first week of the trial. Look at Majocchi’s credibility. He swore, at first, that he knew nothing of the English language; and he afterwards acknowledged that he had lived twelve or eighteen months in the West of England. Would any jury have listened another moment to such a man? Sacchi’s evidence was equally credible. I recollect it was once said by a barrister, in accounting for the absence of a witness, that he had a hundred reasons to state in excuse, the first of which was, that the man was dead. Oh, said his Lordship, we will dispense with the other ninety-nine. Now I have a hundred reasons why Sacchi should not be believed; the first is, he was not present at the scenes he pretended to describe. But let us examine the probability of his evidence. He deposed to certain scenes in the travelling carriage, of so licentious a nature, that I should be ashamed to use his words; indeed the description is only fit to be uttered by King’s Attornies-general, and Right Reverend Bishops; but let me ask you, is it possible that his evidence is true? Saying nothing of an hitherto-virtuous woman commencing to be a harlot at the age of 46, and becoming very prudent again at 49, though she lived with her paramour three years afterwards; I assert that all nature denies the fact, that any persons, living in continual adultery, as they were sworn to be, for months together, would behave, in the open day, and upon a journey, in the manner which Sacchi describes. It is really wasting time to confute such witnesses as these or the others, who, as Cobbett observes, would persuade us that the Ocean was the Elysium of Love, and that it was quite natural to be “sea-sick and amorous.” You must have remarked, Gentlemen, that all the witnesses declare that they never told any individual respecting her Majesty’s profligacy, until examined by the Milan Commission: and yet the Attorney-general declares that all the facts charged against the Queen were matter of public rumour and perfect notoriety, long before that commission was formed. How is this to be accounted for? Why, I have no doubt, the witnesses spoke the truth on this point, for it was not until they were “examined,” that they knew what they must depose against the Queen, and therefore they could not tell. And yet, upon such rumours and such evidence do the miserable opponents of the Queen pretend to found their opinions, These opponents are, however, very few, and one thing must be said of them: they are generally men, who, as Mrs, Chapone observes, have known only the worst part of the sex, and cannot therefore judge fairly. Mark the character of her traducers.
Shew me a dozen of them in your own neighbourhood, and if I could get access to midnight secrets, and to the parish books, I would convince you that half a score of them were the worst moral characters living. But the great body of English people has pronounced a verdict, and she who rejected £50,000 a year; who quitted the society of her alleged paramour; who ran the risk of degradation by an improper tribunal; and who faced all the powers of a corrupt government, in order to obtain a fair trial and to demand justice, has been triumphantly victorious, and has obtained a place in the hearts of all good men. Her sufferings, her persecution, her generous and high-spirited character, appealed to all that was noble in the human breast; armed as she was in the power of nature, of justice, and of truth, she appealed not in vain; and I rejoice that I am an Englishman, when I reflect on the energies which my country has displayed on her behalf. All the efforts of ministers and their creatures have been subdued, and she may now laugh at the impotent attempts which have been made to degrade her, whether by the Archbishop who struck out her name from our public prayers, by the poor raving parson at Liverpool, or still lower (how much lower can I descend?) even by the sapient clerical custoa of the church bells, in Chorley. It is amusing to observe the implicit manner in which the clergy in general follow the tactics of their superiors. Even in a small village in the north, when the people were rejoicing and illuminating, the curate prevented the ringers from getting into the steeple, declaring that there was more occasion to mourn than to rejoice. The sexton took him at his word, and crept unperceived into the belfry. In a short time the solemn passing bell was heard, and the villagers came to enquire who was dead. ‘Why,’ said the sexto, from the window, ‘the green bag to be sure!’
Turning to the follies of the church on this question, Gentlemen, you cannot but perceive, that the effect of the whole proceeding against the Queen has been to increase the friends of liberty. The confidence of even Tories was much shaken, when Lord Castlerengh asserted that the postponement of the coronation was not at owning to the affairs of the Queen. Such a bare-face assertion opened the eyes of ‘the party,’ and that noble Lord and his colleagues can scarcely by believed now in any statement. When, too. Lord Sidmouth saw no reason to interfere with Franklin, who had written seditious placards; and when, at the same time, the boy who distributed the placards was fined £5 for the offence, more converts were made to the cause of justice; and I rejoice to find from the papers to-day, that a Grand Jury has cast a strong censure upon the ministers by finding a true bill for High Treason against this ministerial plot-maker. Surely, the men who make plots against the people, who persecute innocence, who suborn perjury, whether in 1806 or 1820, who advise thanks for Manchester outrages, and who bring the Sovereign himself into danger, must be deserted by all honest Englishmen. Nay more, I trust they will be brought to justice and until they are so, let every man keep up the hue and cry after them. But after all, Gentlemen, the one thing needful is Parliamentary Reform. With that the Queen and the county would never have been oppressed; without it, there is no prospect but national ruin. Had the House of Lords acquitted the Queen, in opposition to ministers, the Tories would have made out a fine argument against the necessity of that retrenchment amongst the Lords which reform would effect, by pointing to the justice and independence of that House. But events have proved the existence of undue influence most thoroughly. The bill was read a third time, upon the most ridiculous evidence, and yet the Lords gave up all their consciences and duty, by unanimously throwing out the bill, at the mere request of a minister. Thanks to Lord Grey! He had given such a body-blow to Lord Liverpool that he staggered while he clung to the bill; but when he saw John Bull with an indignant countenance, a brightening eye, and a resolute attitude, ready to complete his fall, he bent beneath his fears, and gave up the unhallowed contest. If public opinion be thus powerful, how invaluable must be fair representation of the people in Parliament? Let us seek this by an union amongst all sincere Reformists, whether or limited or extended views. Let a line be marked out, upon which the real Whig Reformists and the Radicals may meet, and we shall soon have a happy country, because we shall obtain a cheap Government. Triennial Parliaments and household suffrage would, I think, be the medium which would be soonest agreed upon, although ideas of expediency induce some to seek a less, and justice teaches many to seek a greater, change of out system. It has been often said by our opponents that the people would elevate to power demagogues, rather than men of rank and character. I deny this, and I appeal to the experience of any man, whether in all public meetings, in all matters of importance, the people do not always prefer the aristocracy as their leaders, if they can obtain their assistance? Yes, and the whole form of our Government, whatever abstract opinions may prevail, is preferred, and would be strengthened, by Englishmen, through an effectual Reform. I, for one, must declare, that while I shall be happy to witness the perfection of Republicanism in America, I am most desirous of securing in England the perfection of our Constitution, exemplified by a Government of King, Lords, and Commons, IN THE FULL AND PROPER MEANING OF THOSE WORDS!”
Among other toasts of the evening, were the health of Mr. Ryley, who made a very excellent address to the company; the Lancashire Witches; The Friends of Freedom in Preston; the worthy Chairman, Mr. Brownbill; the Vice-president, Mr. Livesey, who returned thanks; and others which we do not have room to particularise. Mr. Tomlinson and other Gentlemen, also, delivered their sentiments; and the evening passed off in the greatest mirth and good feeling.
As can be seen from the speeches given that was resentment towards members of the clergy for not supporting the Queen, however, others felt the opposite as can be seen from the postscript of a letter sent from “A Whig of the Old School” living in Preston, to the Editor of The Morning Chronicle on 6 December 1820 which reads as follows:
“P.S. Our Vicar and Churchwarden are now endeavouring to procure the dismissal of our Parish Clerk on four very grave charges, viz, naming his Infant daughter Caroline, assisting to ring the bells on the news arriving that the Bill was thrown out, wearing silk stockings on a Sunday, and going to Chorley last Wednesday to attend the dinner there.”
- British Press
- Champion (London)
- Chester Courant
- Lancaster Gazette
- Liverpool Mercury
- London Gazette
- Manchester Mercury
- Morning Chronicle
- National Register (London)
- Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser
- Star (London)
- Windsor and Eton Express
 This refers the all the “evidence” that George IV’s emissaries had collected in Milan to be used against Caroline in the Bill of Pains and Penalties Trial and which was stored in a Green Bag.
 Persons appointed to positions, especially ones in the government, as rewards for political support.
 Income Tax was introduced in 1799 as a temporary measure to cover the cost of the Napoleonic Wars. Today, it remains a temporary tax, which expires on April 5 each year, and has to be renewed as a provision in the annual Finance Bill. Income Tax was formally repealed in 1816, a year after the Battle of Waterloo, but it was reintroduced in 1842 to deal with a massive public deficit.