Some of you may remember Peter Griffin, the Kings Stanley historian. If it wasn’t for his wonderful generosity, I wouldn’t have written what follows below and you wouldn’t be reading it.
I think it would have been around 2011 or so when I came home to discover three or four supermarket bags crammed with papers in the porch. Peter had generously dropped off loads of photocopies and print-outs of primary sources about local history: Chartism, in particular. These were the fruits of his meticulous research. It would be a labour of love to shape all of this into some sequential order. But it would take some doing.
What exactly was there? How would I find the time to read all this, let alone make handwritten notes after laboriously underlining and highlighting and then create a structure of coherent narrative and focussed analysis, with hours spent in back-breaking lucubration typing at a computer at a table?
Well, this is how it happened … I took papers with me, piecemeal, to work on the bus and studied the texts as much as I could before I felt queasy on a bus going around village lanes and bends; highlighting and underlining and then filling a notebook and then typing it all up. This paragraph only hints at the ocular pain involved.
I wrote a few original pieces to post on the Radical Stroud website but completely forgot about the below until the last few days. So, what you are about to read is hardly hot off the press but it is about to enter the public light of day for the first time. It’s not all honed yet by a long chalk: I just don’t have the time, energy or motivation to complete the job either. But someone will … here’s the baton …
But don’t bother to ask … for the life of me, I can’t remember what I’ve done with all the shopping bags …
But here’s the new piece for the Chartist Festival.
The Local and National Context to the 1839 Selsley Meeting
Timothy Exell, a liberal observer, “in about the beginning of 1838 some of the principal manufacturers made the greatest reduction on their weavers that has ever been known since the memory of man, and, if the Government does not interfere, I can see nothing but destruction at our heels…”
Lord John Russell’s 1839 Message to the Electors of Stroud: “Of the working classes who have declared their adherence to what is called the People’s Charter, but few care for Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, or Annual Parliaments. The greater part feel the hardship of their social condition; they complain of their hard toil and insufficient wages, and imagine that Mr. Oastler or Mr. Fielden will lead them to a happy valley, where their labour will be light and their wages high. They know not the general laws by which profit and wages are regulated.”
Henry Cartwright’s letter to Lord John Russell, from The Ham, near Stroud, March 11th, 1839. “My Lord…On Saturday Evening last a meeting of the Chartists was held in Stroud, at which curiosity induced me to be present. It was out of doors, and the platform was dimly illuminated by two lamps…the language of the two principal speakers (Messrs. Vincent and Burns) was of a most violent and inflammatory description, and falls, in my humble opinion, very, very little short of seditious and treasonable. I need hardly express to your Lordship their usual practice…of…a long tirade of abuse the most gross and false against your Lordship…its excess of vulgarity…Mr. Vincent stated openly that letters passing through the General Post Office, addressed to members of the Convention had been opened and read by your Lordship, and actually went so far as to pledge himself that Mr. Frost shall appear at the next election to contest…Stroud…I am sorry to say that an Association has been formed in this neighbourhood by the parties in question…the effect of such proceedings is likely to be most pernicious on the minds of our manufacturing population here, who are but too ready to listen…The Meeting was attended numerously and a great deal of feeling manifested…”
(Henry Vincent was a Chartist national leader who was being systematically spied on by the authorities; he was eventually imprisoned; the Chartist Convention met in London as a sort of alternative parliament; local areas formed Chartist Associations. The Stroud meeting was held at the Golden Heart: “Mr. Bradford, of the Golden Heart Inn, permitted them to have the use of the market room, but the meeting was held in the bowling green adjoining.” Btw, I think the Golden Heart stood where Subway now resides in Stroud.)
Henry Vincent (P.R.O. 525) “Sunday March 10 – Passed the day in Stroud. The population appear to be ripening into ultra-radicalism hourly…At the meeting on Saturday, when I asked the people how it was they sent such a little pettifogger as Russell to parliament, they exclaimed, ‘we did not send him – we had no votes – ‘…The people are very poor – wages being low, and work not over plentiful. The women complain bitterly of their sufferings, and express their determination of aiding the men in any measures…for…the entire overthrow of the present system of government. A meeting will be held in Stroud on Good-Friday, at which I shall be present.”
So, here I am back home in Rodborough, reading a letter to the Home Secretary, from Henry Burgh, “Rodborough, March 29th, 1839, 6p.m. My Lord I acknowledge receipt of Your Lordship’s Directions this morning. I have taken measures to have them put into Execution. Some of the Chartists came to Stroud yesterday Evening, and today about quarter past two about 500 marched up Rodborough Hill by my house with 9 Flags and a strange Band of Musick…I have stopped the Beer Shops and Publick Houses…There are several policemen placed…”
Imagine a wagon there on the common, with the famous Chartists, Henry Vincent and John Frost speaking to a crowd of 3,000 people. Commune with the past and pay your respects, then find yourself another seat on the common and read another missive from Henry Burgh, dated May 2nd 1839, addressed once more to the Home Secretary, one Lord John Russell. Henry, if I may be so familiar, starts off by writing about events in Trowbridge and Bristol before mentioning “reports of the Chartists having appointed a meeting on Selsley Hill on Whitmonday…I should also say that the Chartists hold meetings at Stroud, King’s Stanley and Cainscross and that I have heard a report that Firearms are secreted at Stroud. I beg on the part of my Brother Magistrates and myself that your Lordship will inform us where we may apply for the assistance of the Military, if necessary.” He concludes thus: “I have the honour to be My Lord Your Lordship’s most obedt. Humble Servant, HENRY BURGH.”
Now a letter to Lord Segrave, from J. Kingscote, headed “The Arsenal, Woolwich, May 3rd 1839.” It continues, ” My dear Lord, Though you may be perfectly aware…I think it right to tell you that in a letter I yesterday received from Glo’shire, I was informed that the ill feeling amongst the People is greatly increasing, specially at Wotton, and they are buying up all the guns they can get and that a sample of a Bomb, sufficient to blow up any House, has been sent from the North to Dursley – that there are also hundreds in Stroud who have become Chartists since the visit of Mr. _______ from London – My informant has forgotten his name…My humble opinion is that nothing will occur locally but a general rise I think not improbable…”
The validity of the informant’s evidence is corroborated by this extract from THE WESTERN VINDICATOR, Saturday March 23rd 1839. Vol 1. No.5 “RADICALS, Wootton – I shall endeavour to visit you shortly after Good Friday. I shall expect 2,000 Wootton people in Stroud on Good Friday. Mind and come. J. Beecham of the Cirencester Working Men’s association. To the Working Classes of Stroud, and the Clothing Districts of Gloucestershire. …Follow, then, the example of the men of Wotton-Under-Edge. Unite yourselves with the masses, by forming associations throughout your district…”
Henry Burgh, however, was not convinced about a Chartist threat in Dursley in his letter from Stroud on May 5th, signed “I have the honour to be Your Lordship’s most obedt. Servant”. He does provide evidence of strong support elsewhere, however: “I had heard that they were making hand grenades at Wotton-under-Edge where the greatest number of Chartists reside. I employed a person that I could rely on…and find that report not true, but they are making Pikes there and also at Stroud, Cainscross and King’s Stanley. There are no Chartists at Dursley but at Uley several. I think there are more than a thousand at the different Manufactories around Stroud and Wotton-under-Edge.”
Most of the evidence above would indicate physical force Chartists in the area but a letter from THOMAS Farr Junr. to Lord John Russell from Union Street, Stroud on May 13th, 1839 gives a different picture. “I am directed by a meeting of the Delegates…to inform your Lordship that they propose holding a meeting in the borough of Stroud on Monday next and that we are fully Resolved not to Infringe upon the Law by meeting with offensive weapons in our possession, by blocking up any Thorough-fare or by any other Illegal procedure…Of the legality of such meetings so conducted we cannot Entertain the slightest Doubt for we remember having attended numerous displays of the same kind during the period of the Reform Bill agitation, the success of which measure and the consequent rise of your Party to power those meetings were mainly instrumental in producing. And my Lord it is our humble opinion that the suppression of Public meetings and preventing the Expression of Public opinion…are calculated to produce the most mischievous if not Disasterous consequences.”
The next day saw this:
“May 14th, 1839”, “ROYAL COAT OF ARMS WHEREAS a Royal Proclamation has been issued against certain illegal meetings, we the undersigned magistrates…do hereby warn all persons from taking part in or being present at such Meetings. And we call on all well-disposed persons to be aiding and assisting us in our object, as well as by giving us information…And for the discouraging and preventing such unlawful practices, and for the protection of the public peace, we do hereby make known our determination to use our utmost endeavours to prevent, put down, and suppress such Meetings…”
The document was been signed by the great and the good, including such luminaries as HENRY BURGH, D. RICARDO, N.S. MARLING, Wm. H. HYETT, together with another seventeen representatives of the local ‘ruling class’.
Ambiguities remained, however, and Lord Segrave (see above) sought clarification from Lord John Russell in a letter three days later from Berkeley House, Spring Gardens. “My Lord, As I am about to proceed tomorrow morning, according to your Lordship’s directions into Gloucestershire, I beg to ask, on the part of myself and the Magistrates who may be called upon to act with me, for distinct instructions on the following point, on which some discrepancy of opinion may arise. If at the intended meeting of Chartists on Selsley Hill on Tuesday next, Persons should be present armed with sticks, Bludgeons, or other most offensive weapons, shall we…be justified in taking such weapons from them by force, even if such persons are not guilty of any breach of the peace…but are merely present…The Clerk of the Peace for the County…has distinctly expressed…we shall not be justified…on this point I request…your Lordship’s instructions this evening…”
Poor Segrave, his ink well runneth over, for the very next day he writes again from Berkeley House at “Two o’ clock p.m.” “I have received letters this morning from two Magistrates…it is clear that in the Manufacturing Districts they consider the state of things to be more serious than I at first apprehended. They are very desirous that a Superintendant of Police, or some Police Officer should be sent immediately…He ought to be at the Bell Inn, Dursley at one o’ clock on Monday next at latest…it is of the utmost importance that I should receive…the instructions I asked for yesterday.”
So what happens on the law and order front? Well, on May 17th, one William Morris (no, not that one) appears: “Who on his oath saith That a Tumult and Riot may be reasonably apprehended to arise and happen in the Town and Parish of Stroud…in consequence of a certain Meeting…convened by printed Handbills…to take place on Selsley Hill in the parish of King Stanley…the twenty first day of May…WILLIAM MORRIS Serjt. Of Police Sworn before us HENRY BURGH EDM. GILLING HALLEWELL W.H.HYETT Resworn before me the undersigned this twentieth day of May 1839 E.P CARRUTHERS”…and as a consequence “we the said Justices are of opinion that the ordinary officers appointed for preserving the peace are not sufficient…WE THE SAID JUSTICES…NOMINATE AND APPOINT the several and respective persons hereunder named…as Special Constables for the said Town and Parish of Stroud…” There follows a list of nearly 150 names.
On the same day, “Charles Jacomb…of Stonehouse” similarly “maketh oath and Saith” such that “tumult and riot may be reasonably apprehended in those parts of the several parishes of Stonehouse Randwick and King Stanley called Cainscross Ebley and Dudbridge within the Hundred of Whitstone…” In consequence, over 30 men were named as Special Constables. So, preparations were well in hand for the meeting to be held the next day on Selsley Hill.
GRAND DEMONSTRATION
To the Men and Women of Gloucestershire Take Notice! That a county MEETING
of the Inhabitants of Gloucestershire, will be holden on SELSLEY HILL In the Borough of Stroud, on Whit Tuesday, May 21st to take into consideration the best means to be adopted in order to secure the passing of the PEOPLE’S CHARTER And to give Effect to the present Agitation A Deputation from the “General Convention” consisting of Messrs. Carpenter, Mealing and Neesom, will attend, also Deputations from various Associations in the County. The Chair will be taken at 12 o’clock. We particularly urge the attendance of all those who value their Political Freedom, and who have at heart the welfare, prosperity and happiness of the Nation, and let them remember “For a Nation to be free, it is sufficient that she wills it.”
In order to remove any misapprehension respecting the legality of the Meeting, we beg to state that we shall be entirely regulated by the Motto
PEACE, LAW and ORDER.
and sincerely hope that all those who attend will be guided by the same principles.
Here’s an unsympathetic report of the meeting: ‘…the hour announced for the commencement of the proceeding was 12 o’ clock…The first party which reached the ground was a procession of the Working Men’s Association of Wotton-under-Edge and the Radical Women’s Association of the same place in some numbers and with music, and with Banners bearing inscriptions of “Liberty”, “Equal Rights and equal Laws”, “For a Nation to be free it is sufficient that she wills it”, and others of the same nature…The greatest number of persons on the ground was from three to four thousand…The whole meeting passed off in the most tame quiet and orderly manner…Mr. Beecham, secretary of the Working Men’s Association of Cirencester…spoke…in favour of what he called the People’s Charter…prophesying that a Firebrand would be raised in the land, taking care to remark that he did not recommend, but prophesied merely.
The 1st Resolution was moved by Thos. Farr Jnr. of Stroud, shoemaker…on Universal Suffrage…” that the principles embodied …are essential and that the Meeting will persevere in lawful agitation to obtain it.” It was seconded by a young man from Cheltenham named Meecham, of about 18 years of age who spoke of degradation of working men, of Poor Law Bastilles as worse than prisons, calling in the Almighty to inspire people with vigour and energy.
The 2nd Resolution was proposed by a man named Witts, a mechanic of Wotton-under-Edge, who urged organisation and the refraining from exciseable articles; the following are the terms of this Resolution – “That the meeting places unbounded confidence in the Convention and pledge themselves to support all legal and constitutional orders of that body.” (Btw, the Convention will be explained later, below, in a section on the national context to Chartism.) It was seconded by a young man called Spackman of Cheltenham, who spoke of the movements of Government as a plan formed to disgust and degrade the people and their object in sending soldiers to Stroud to excite people in order to have an opportunity of cutting their throats – speaks of the soldiers as with the people, but dare not speak.
The 3rd Resolution…”that it is highly important this County be represented in the Convention…a Delegate be appointed as soon as possible” was moved by Henry Lacey of Wotton-under-Edge…talking of Government’s opposition to people’s rights, then attacks on trial by jury and right of public meeting, their employing spies and attempting to enforce Rural police – calls Poorhouses “Damnable Whig Bastiles”, denounces separation of man and wife demanding as a remedy full representation, a Government of knowledge, no aristocracy, no priesthood and the people as supreme…
Neesom, the Delegate, was the next speaker…universal suffrage shall be the law of the land without delay…unparalleled distresses of the people…Poor Law…”damnable ”
Mealing Delegate for Bath follows …”You have made up your minds that universal suffrage shall be the law of this land – you will have ballot and no surrender, peaceably if you can, but forcibly if you must.” Tells people not to be alarmed at the Soldiers and to pledge themselves not to cease agitation but to appear at all places wherever called on.
Lacey…alluded to Vincent’s arrest… (cheers given for Vincent, groans for Ld. J. Russell)
Thanks are then given to the chairman, a democratic song is sung by some men and women of Wotton-under-Edge and the meeting disperses…’
The Gloucester Journal on the 25th May cast a sardonic eye on Chartism, talking of “misguided Chartists” with “insane projects” which are “injudicious” and “wicked”. ”We hope all persons capable of reflection who have joined their standard, will at once abandon the mad notions of obtaining political privileges by seditious and insurrectionary means, and that they will in future trust to the arguments of reason and right for the advancement of their cause, rather than resort to threats of violence and civil war”. The ‘Journal then goes on to belittle the meeting at Selsley Hill before commenting that “Fearing, however, that something of a mischievous nature might arise…the county magistrates , in addition to a warning to well disposed persons to keep away from the meeting and cautioning all others of the consequences of attending assemblages of an illegal nature, they procured the aid of a troop of Lancers and some troops of the Gloucestershire Yeomanry Cavalry…In addition…a great number of special constables were sworn in…on the ground on horseback…” The ‘Journal goes on to accept that “the formidable nature of the precautions” deterred and intimidated, otherwise “very probably a larger muster of Chartists would have been made had it not been for these preventative measures…The cavalry and constables in the evening returned to their homes, and we have the satisfaction of not having to record a single breach of the peace…”
Blimey, what do we make of this farrago of contradiction, paradox and confusion? Well, we can make out the way that the stumbling consciousness of our betters makes sense of the world in such a way to suit their selves; and we can also see that illogicality and inconsistency matters nought when it buttresses power and profit.
So, on the one hand the Gloucester Journal and its ilk ridiculed Chartist meetings such as Selsey for a disappointing turn-out whilst simultaneously, but inconsistently, praising authorities for creating an atmosphere that at best, inhibited attendance, and at worst, intimidated attendance. Equally, Chartists are told in no uncertain terms that their 6 Point demands are utterly unrealistic; yet simultaneously instructed that the only way to obtain their demands is through peaceful, patient, stoical endurance. The authorities praised peaceful “moral force” Chartism because it was impotent and condemned “physical force” because of its potential potency. Yet, how amazed would Chartists be today: we have 5 of the Chartists’ 6 Points; we have democracy – and yet we have an accelerating inequality unknown since Victorian times. We are still peacefully, patiently, stoically enduring. Political democracy has not led to the social and economic transformation imagined as necessary by those much-maligned women and men on Selsley Hill and elsewhere. This is why Marx used the term Political Economy. It is time to use it again as part of standard speech and discourse.
But before we do, we must stay in the past and study further the aftermath of the Selsley Hill meeting. And what better way to do that can there be, than to return to our old friend, “Your Lordship’s Most obt. Servt. Segrave Lieut. Co. Gloucester”?
“Berkeley Castle, May 22nd. 1839
My Lord,
I have the honour…to forward a report…of the Chartist meeting yesterday on Selsley Hill. The report is drawn up by the officer Otway who was sent to Dursley on Monday last by your Lordship’s directions. It is impossible to speak too highly of his intelligence and activity…It seems evident that in this part of the County the stronghold of the Chartists is Wotton-under-Edge and its immediate vicinity. There, I fear, a bad spirit prevails.”
There was to be further evidence of a bad spirit elsewhere in the county during 1839, however. Just over a month later, a J.P. by the name of Peter Leversage wrote to Russell about another meeting held at Selsley Hill. It involved a sermon written by the nationally famous Chartist preacher, the Reverend Stephens (‘a Sermon supposed to be one of the notorious Stephens’ was to be read there). ‘I got a couple of Gentlemen on whom I could depend to attend, they represent the Meeting to have consisted of about 120 persons nearly all of whom were men, and that a printed Sermon supposed to be by Stephens was there read by a person named Evans, a foreman in a pin manufactory at Lightpill near Stroud.
…Similar Meetings are I am informed held at different places in the neighbourhood of Stroud every Sunday.’
“An infidel Church and an infidel Government – compared the Bishop of London to Judas Iscariot…an oppressor…the Poor Law…wives were separated from their Husbands…all who died in the Workhouses were taken out in wheelbarrows to Surgeons for dissection…under existing circumstances people were authorised to repel force by force, quoting Scripture as authority – That an old statute was still in existence by which no Cottage was allowed to be built without 4 acres of land attached to it (speaking of an equalisation of property) – That the Church must very shortly be put down.”
Fine fellow, the Reverend Stephens; did he, I wonder, see the Cheltenham Examiner (issue number 1) on the 17th July? If he did, he would have read that “The trade of Stroud remains in the same dull and unsatisfactory state…A large number of workmen are consequently out of employment, and many hundreds are emigrating from the beautiful vale of Stroudwater to the woods of Australia. Wages are unprecedentedly low…the shopkeepers complain bitterly of the badness of the times…pauperism is extensive. The large manufacturers are with a few exceptions the only ones who pay their workmen in money, the truck system being very prevalent. Bitter complaints are made by the workmen on this score…” The Examiner goes on to blame the Corn Laws for the unemployment – rather than capitalism, per se (Explanations below for the Corn Laws and consequent furore).
Five days later, HENRY BURGH sends another letter to you know who from “Your most obedient Servant.” He writes of “Mr. Leversage” who “ gave information of the Meeting on Selsley Hill and elsewhere to read Stephens’ sermons on Sunday mornings. Those meetings have at present ceased.
I saw Vincent pass through Stroud for Cheltenham on Thursday where he preached in the afternoon being now a licensed preacher,” (Well, how serendipitous is that? What a lucky coincidental chance that their paths should cross…) “he came to Stroud on Saturday and in a fly to Wotton underedge on Sunday and preached and held forth in that place, he is to return here tomorrow and one of his Agents applied for the” (Subscription) “Rooms at three Guineas which were refused.
If the Troop of the 12th Lancers are not wanted at any other place urgently May I beg the favour of your Lordship to permit them to remain at Stroud for some time.”
This sense of anxiety about the local lower orders is confirmed by a letter, two days later, from HENRY BURGH, E.P CARRUTHERS, W.H. STANTON and PETER LEVERSAGE to “the Rt. Honble. Lord J. Russell Secretary of State, Whitehall.” It would seem that the triumphalist feelings evinced by the likes of the local magistrates after what they saw as the Whitsun damp squib, have now changed back to paranoia. They write of a “Meeting held last night, in a Field near the Town, by Vincent the Chartist, which was most numerously attended…the workpeople in this neighbourhood have until recently conducted themselves in a peaceable and orderly manner but…very injurious effects have been produced upon them by the insidious harangues of the Chartist leaders, and that unless some legislative measure be passed…Parliament giving power to the Magistrates to disperse or prevent these Meetings the most lamentable consequences may be anticipated…”
Henry Burgh’s next letter reveals more anxiety about local Chartism in general, and about Mr. Vincent in particular, dated July 24th, 1839:
“My Lord…Vincent held forth in a field last night near Stroud…He left off about half past 10 o’clock p.m. and the Mob separated without doing any mischief.
Vincent is now gone to King’s Stanley and has given notice that he shall give a Lecture there at 1 o’clock p.m.
I consider that it will be absolutely necessary that some Military should be stationed at Stroud as the man’s followers amount to a large number.
I have the honour to be Your Lordship’s most humble and obedient servant HENRY BURGH.”
Our final letter writer, PETER LEVERSAGE, thinks “it right to inform your Lordship that a meeting of Chartists was held in the village of King’s Stanley…on Wednesday last at one o’clock in the day.” –
“Vincent of notoriety addressed the meeting for about two hours…the only available civil power at our command was two police and a few village Constables, the latter not being a very efficient body, we thought it advisable to request the officer commanding the 12th Lancers now in Stroud to have an Officer and 20 men in readiness should a riot or disturbance take place. We also sent a person whom we could depend upon, to attend and report what took place there. He states that Vincent spoke for two hours “but gave utterance to no sentiment that could be characterised as dangerous, or calculated to lead to a breach of the peace”, also “that the meeting consisted from 300 to 500 persons, the greater part being women and children and they all quietly dispersed at the conclusion of Vincent’s address after singing what was called a Hymn.
…Although the addresses do not lead to actual breaches of the peace, I am bound to state my opinion that they leave the minds of the class of persons who attend in a very unsettled and excited state…In the Evening of Wednesday Vincent held another meeting at Nailsworth near Minchinhampton.”
Our final evidence for the summer of 1839 comes, once more, from the pages of the Cheltenham Examiner, from the 14th of August. The newspaper informs us that “A report is current that an anonymous letter has been received by Messrs Marling, of the Ham Mills, desiring them to close their mills on Monday the 12th inst. to give their people an opportunity of keeping the sacred month.” It concludes with saying “that unless the request is complied with they are marked men.” So, what was the “Sacred Month” and what did it signify?
The “Sacred Month” was the interesting idea of a general strike: the idealistic plan for a national downing of tools and hands in the event of parliament rejecting the 6 Points. The name is deeply redolent of that mid nineteenth century religious fervour that could infuse material politics with a heavenly seeking of justice here on the mundane plane. It was a name that also hinted at the divisions within Chartism, already indicated by the local discussions, reports and debates above: the divisions between Physical Force Chartism and Moral Force Chartism. We will now explore this schism in a national context.
The Chartist divisions were rather more in the eyes of observers on occasions and the three great petitions of 1839, 42 and 48 indicated some degree of unity. These petitions were in favour of the 6 Points and gained considerable support: 1.25 million people signed up in 1839, many of whom were women even though the campaign was not aiming for their enfranchisement; 3.3 million signed up in 1842 (the scroll ran to 6 miles in length) and 5.7 million signed in 1848.
It is the 1848 petition that has attracted opprobrium, in particular. Parliament took three days only to say that the petition had only 1,975,476 signatures and that, “ It is further found, that a large number of the signatures were consecutively written in the same hand. It was also observed that a large number of the signatures were those of persons who could not be supposed to have concurred in its prayer; among those were the name of her Majesty, signed Victoria Rex, the Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, &c., &c. There was also noticed a large number of names which were evidently fictitious, such as ‘Pugnose,’ ‘Longnose,’ ‘Flatnose,’ ‘Punch,’ ‘Snooks,’ ‘Fubbs,’ and also numerous obscene names, which the committee would not offend the house of its dignity by repeating but which evidently belonged to no human being.”
Chartists pointed out that it would be impossible to count the signatures so quickly on a petition that required the strength of five persons to heave it into the hands of the authorities. The authorities thought that as so many signatures were in a female hand, this reduced the validity of the petition even further. Contemporaries and unsympathetic historians often focused on this petition so as to make Chartism appear comedic. We should focus, however, on the fact that millions of people signed up to a document that would lead, in all probability, to the eventual abolition of capitalism. Millions of people were signing up to a revolutionary pledge and if we take the 1842 petition as an indicator, then about 33% of the relevant population signed up for a legal revolution. But we must also remember that a rapidly rising population (about a 50% increase in 40 years) has a relatively high proportion of young people whose signatures would not be sought; then again, in many areas, the signatures of women were not sought; then we must also factor in not just the intimidating strength of the ruling classes but also the degree of illiteracy within the working class; the consequence is, in my view, a remarkably healthy commitment to the ultimate transformation of the polity, economy and society. I have always wondered why this has never been pointed out, ever since my first encounter with Chartism in the 6th form. Be that as it may, we must now look at the first petition.
It was presented to Parliament in the first week of May in that year and contained the following words:
“Unto the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, the Petition of the undersigned, their suffering countrymen,
HUMBLY SHEWETH,
“That we, your petitioners, dwell in a land where merchants are noted for enterprise, whose manufacturers are very skilful, and whose workmen are proverbial for their industry.
The land itself is goodly, the soil rich, and the temperature wholesome; it is abundantly furnished with the materials of commerce and trade; it has numerous and convenient harbours; in facility of internal communication it exceeds all others.
For three-and-twenty years we have enjoyed a profound peace. Yet with all these elements of national prosperity, and with every disposition and capacity to take advantage of them, we find ourselves overwhelmed with public and private suffering.
We are bowed down under a load of taxes; which, notwithstanding, fall greatly short of the wants of our rulers; our traders are trembling on the verge of bankruptcy; our workmen are starving; capital brings no profit and labour no remuneration; the home of the artificer is desolate, and the warehouse of the pawnbroker is full; the workhouse is crowded and the manufactory is deserted.
We have looked upon every side, we have searched diligently in order to find out the causes of a distress so sore and so long continued.
We can discover none, in nature, or in providence.
”
Heaven has dealt graciously by the people; but the foolishness of our rulers has made the goodness of God of none effect.
The energies of a mighty kingdom have been wasted in building up the power of selfish and ignorant men, and its resources squandered for their aggrandisement.
The good of a party has been advanced to the sacrifice of the good of the nation; the few have governed for the interest of the few, while the interest of the many has been neglected, or insolently and tyrannously trampled upon.
It was the fond expectation of the people that a remedy for the greater part, if not for the whole, of their grievances, would be found in the Reform Act of 1832.
They were taught to regard that Act as a wise means to a worthy end; as the machinery of an improved legislation, when the will of the masses would be at length potential.
They have been bitterly and basely deceived.
The fruit which looked so fair to the eye has turned to dust and ashes when gathered.
The Reform Act has effected a transfer of power from one domineering faction to another, and left the people as helpless as before.
Our slavery has been exchanged for an apprenticeship to liberty, which has aggravated the painful feeling of our social degradation, by adding to it the sickening of still deferred hope.
We come before your Honourable House to tell you, with all humility, that this state of things must not be permitted to continue; that it cannot long continue without very seriously endangering the stability of the throne and the peace of the kingdom; and that if by God’s help and all lawful and constitutional appliances an end can be put to it, we are fully resolved that it shall speedily come to an end.
We tell your Honourable House that the capital of the master must no longer be deprived of its due reward; that the laws which make food dear, and those which, by making money scarce, make labour cheap, must be abolished; that taxation must be made to fall on property, not on industry; that the good of the many, as it is the only legitimate end, so must it be the sole study of the Government.
As a preliminary essential to these and other requisite changes; as means by which alone the interests of the people can be effectually vindicated and secured, we demand that those interests be confided to the keeping of the people.
When the State calls for defenders, when it calls for money, no consideration of poverty or ignorance can be pleaded, in refusal or delay of the call. Required, as we are universally, to support and obey the laws, nature and reason entitle us to demand that in the making of the laws, the universal voice shall be implicitly listened to. We perform the duties of freemen; we must have the privileges of freemen. Therefore, we demand universal suffrage. The suffrage, to be exempt from the corruption of the wealthy and the violence of the powerful, must be secret.”
I remember Chartism being described in my school days as “A knife and fork question, A bread and cheese question”: the idea that the rise and fall in support for Chartism was intrinsically linked to the pattern of boom and slump in the economy. Thus, the Chartist petitions appeared in the depressed years of 1839, 42 and 48; when jobs were around, political mobilisation dropped. There were other reasons for the patterns of support for Chartism in its varying and differing guises, however, and one of these was the impact of an organisation called the Anti-Corn-Law League.
The League offered competition as well as opposition during the late 30s and within the first part of the decade known as “The Hungry Forties”: the Anti-Corn Law League took away a great deal of potential radical support from Chartism. The League was the first national pressure group in this country’s history and it was directed from middle class, industrial, Manchester, knowingly nicknamed “Cottonopolis”. The League wanted the repeal of the 1815 Corn Laws, a protectionist measure that kept the price of domestic corn artificially high by keeping out cheap foreign imports. This, of course, kept the price of the staple working-class diet, bread, correspondingly high. In consequence, the Corn Laws were seen as the symbol of aristocratic dominance and a reality harmful to both worker and free trade capitalists. Despite this, however, some Chartists saw the League as at best diversionary and at worst, an organisation that wanted cheaper bread only so that industrial wage cuts might follow. The laissez-faire response of the League to this argument was based upon supply-demand economics: agrarian countries would export more corn to Britain and so would therefore have more money to buy British industrial goods, so demand for labour would increase and so, in consequence, would wages.
This ideological conflict was revealed in two meetings held by the Anti-Corn Law League in Stroud in 1839 and 1841. So intense was this difference of opinion in 1841 that a Chartist agitator took the stage and disturbed the formality of the proceedings, “shabbily dressed, (he) forced himself upon the platform and with the cheers of the crowd made himself joint-chairman.” This indication of Chartist rather than bourgeois Anti-Corn Law League support is further shown when the Quaker, Mr Fewster, took the floor after Anti-Corn Law League speakers were shouted down. “ Perhaps they thought the clothiers were selfish people—(“yes they are”)—perhaps they thought farmers were selfish and that the upper classes were selfish (“yes, yes”). Why so they were, and so were they who called out “yes, yes.”
But he then went on: “We were all selfish people; for he must tell them that selfishness was in the heart of man, and there it would remain and rankle in his bosom till the evil principle was subdued by a higher principle from above . . . Suppose . . . the staple trade of this district could be increased. Suppose instead of a thousand pieces of cloth 1,500 pieces should be required, was it not plain that those who made the cloth must be benefitted?”
This was then followed by a speech from Charles Hooper, a popular employer who paid decent wages. But even he had to put up with an interruption: “If they want revenue, let them tax steam—let them tax machinery.” Hooper said that opposition to mechanisation was delusional but this view was opposed by the Chartist Charles Harris, who said that if “… any new machinery was introduced which took away the labour of any man, that man should have a percentage allowed to him out of the income of that machinery sufficient to maintain him.” Mr Harris emphasised that when the People’s Charter became law then mechanisation would be for the benefit of all rather than the few.
He carried on with a prescient hint of an appreciation of the Marxist concept of false consciousness: he pointed out that workers who were seduced by the League’s arguments were examples of either a “willing slave” or a “hired fool”. He went on to say that the middle classes who supported the League “wanted cheap bread only because they wanted cheap labour….” Thus, the clear implication of this admittedly scant evidence is that Chartism commanded a great deal of support within Stroud. This is backed up statistically by the fact that 3.7 thousand people signed up for the petition in Stroud out of a population of some 10,000. And as Lindsey German and John Rees point out in their “A People’s History of London”, nationally, 3.315 million people signed up for the 1842 Petition: “over half the adult population of Britain.”
If only Timothy Exell hadn’t been such a stern opponent of Chartism; if only Lord Ducie hadn’t mobilised the clothiers in support of the League; if only the Anti-Corn Law League hadn’t been as critical of Chartism as it was of aristocratic protectionism; if only there wasn’t such an overwhelming snobbish rejection of the idea ordinary people should have the vote; if only a collectivist, non-capitalist route to “Great Expectations” could have been accepted, rather than an individualist, competitive, meritocratic one…then, who knows? The world’s entire history might have turned out differently…no Imperialism, no World Wars, no Fascism, no Stalinism, no ecological catastrophes …that’s how important the defeat of Chartism was…As it was, Chartism had fewer supporters in 1848 for the 3rd petition…the ruling class’s offensive had been successful: an offensive all the more effective as it was a consequence of zeitgeist-snobbery rather than a calculated, coordinated strategy. As one historian commented on our locality: “A modern working class, like its preindustrial predecessors, deferred to the social leadership of its masters.”
But before we bid adieu to Chartism, we should take a short trip out of the valleys and go beyond Gloucester on the road to Ledbury. In the vicinity of Corse and Staunton, there is a community at Snig’s End, with a large pub, The Prince of Wales. This is a settlement of epochal importance in working class history and national significance in the story of Chartism. As you travel along the A417 towards Ledbury, it would be easy to miss the symmetrical bungaloid settlements on your left. There is a rectilinear pattern to the housing that suggests suburban planning and an idiosyncratic modification to the dwellings that implies suburban home improvements. How wrong one would be! This is Snig’s End. One of the monuments to the Chartist Land Scheme.
As we have seen before, there was a fundamental division within Chartism. There were also varieties of Chartism that might reflect local enthusiasms: Teetotal Chartism, Non- Conformist Chartism and so on. The Land Scheme was a national rather than local enthusiasm and represented a sort of wish to escape to a supposed agrarian Golden Age. It was a Chartist strain that rejected industrialism and operated as a sort of lottery. Members would pay in subscriptions; these funds would pay for the purchase of settlements where lucky Chartists and their families could escape from the horrors of the city and establish communities of smallholders. So, the Chartist National Land Company built 80 odd cottages on 268 acres here at Snig’s End.
I visited the site and the pub at the tail end of the last century. It was a gloomy mid-November afternoon, just the sort of atmosphere to walk around these fields of broken dreams. I seem to recall calling in at the pub and reading, or imagining, that the Chartist Physical Force leader, Feargus O’Connor spoke here. The pub was originally a Chartist school – and, again, it seems entirely correct to pay one’s respects here and raise a glass to what was and what might have been. The National Lottery today is about conspicuous consumption; back then, the Chartist Land Scheme was about inconspicuous non-consumption: a plot of land for vegetables, pigs, poultry and the gleaning of fuel.
The excellent website www.utopia-britannica.org.uk provides further information about Snig’s End and nearby Lowbands. Lowbands was a model settlement of 23 cottages built around the lanes, with a schoolhouse, a common meadow, and with the provision of working horses, seeds, fruit trees, manure, firewood, individual water supplies and privies. The provision was similar at the larger Snig’s End settlement. One further wonderful fact to try and remember: the cart that carried the 3rd Petition to parliament in 1848 was made at Snig’s End and was pulled by Snig’s End horses. There is an exhibition at nearby St. Margaret’s.
