Talk:Coldbath Fields riot

Purpose of meeting
Hi!

I found this article very good. There's only one question on the text. It's this:-

"The meeting was to oppose the new police force and to call for the extension of the electoral franchise to a wider section of the male public.[6]" with the source being a reference to "Arming the British Police: The Great Debate".

Would it be more correct to say that the meeting was "to call for the extension of the electoral franchise to a wider section of the male public"?

The meeting poster you display (marvellous find!) makes no reference to the police but only to the Rights of the people, generally understood to mean universal (make) franchise.

The thing is, I suspect that the source you used for this will necessarily emphasise the aspect of the police, but might not be historically accurate as far as the primary intentions of the meeting go.

So I looked at the wiki article on the National Union of the Working Classes which is linked to in the article. It only says:

"On Monday, 13 May 1833, at 2 p.m.,[27] The National Union of the Working Classes organised a public meeting on Thomas Cubitt's Calthorpe Estate[28][29] near Gray's Inn Road in Coldbath Fields in Clerkenwell, Islington against the Reform Act 1832.[30][19][31][32][33]"

...but the entire history of that Union and the founders is concentrated on universal suffrage, and I would wager quite a large amount that the five references provided ( [30][19][31][32][33]) for that meeting would give one the view that the meeting was essentially called over the question of universal suffrage, so that we could use those same references, rather than the police one, with my proposed revision "to call for the extension of the electoral franchise to a wider section of the male public" without meeting any great objection by a wiki editor.

Jyst to add I've no doubt that the organisers took the view of the police force ascribed to them, but I feel my proposed revision is likely more accurate. Whereas the police representatives and sympathisers at that time would be bound to bring up the opposition to the new force and represent it as the primary reason for the meeting, therefore justifying why they attacked (or were attacked) at the meeting.

Thoughts? Andysoh (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andysoh, thanks for your interest in the article; it's been a while since I wrote it. I haven't got time at the moment to have a proper look around but I would be interested in hearing what other sources have to say. characterises it as an "anti-police riot" - Dumelow (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andysoh and Dumelow, I wrote most of the Rotunda radicals article, although not the bit about Coldbath Fields. Only one of the references in that section goes into any detail about the NUWC's reasons for calling the meeting. This is no 19, which takes you to the Francis Place papers on the NUWC. Towards the end of his (extremely long) para 81, Place quotes the resolution that was carried after discussion over several NUWC meetings, prior to them calling the public meeting. It says:

"That the conduct of the pretended reformed House of Commons clearly demonstrates that to look for any amendment in the political condition of the Working classes untill they possess the power [of] electing their own representatives would be little short of absolute insanity; and that this union conscious that such right will never be obtained so long as this country be cursed with a pampered Monarchy, an indolent aristocracy, and a bloated hierarchy, earnestly implore their brethren throughout the whole country to prepare themselves for a Convention of the people as the only mode by which they can devise means to extricate themselves from the grievous misrule under which they have too long and too patiently been suffering."

There is no mention of the police, and I think it is misleading to describe the purpose of the Coldbath Fields meeting as "to oppose the new police force and to call for the extension of the electoral franchise to a wider section of the male public". The reference supplied for this in Dumelow's article (no 6) is not the book by Robert Storch, but "Arming The British Police: The Great Debate" by Roy Ingleton. The pages referred to in that book are not accessible online, but I note that its author is a retired police officer, which may raise doubts as to his neutrality over such a contested event. If Robert Storch's book makes a similar claim, and provides a reliable source to back it up, it could be added to the article.RedKite (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi both. I am not particularly well read in this area.  The objectives quoted by RedKite from Place above seem fairly limited to extending suffrage, and do not mention the police.  I am happy for the change suggested by Andysoh to be made - Dumelow (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks everyone. It looks like we have a consensus. I've waited awhile just in case, but on the basis of what RedKite quotes and thanks to Dumelow, I think my guess was right and I'll go ahead and make the change. Andysoh (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)