Aspects of Chartism: The Sheffield Plot 11 January 1840 2

A less sympathetic account of the attempted Sheffield rising appears in a Victorian pamphlet reproduced in Reminiscences of Old Sheffield, Its Streets & Its People:

“The Chartist conspiracy, which culminated in the audacious attempt, in January, 1840, to give the town over to pillage, anarchy, and fire, is an event of which most of us have some recollection. The number of the conspirators and their, dupes has never been accurately ascertained, but probably amounted to several hundreds, exclusive of the much larger body of the moral-force Chartists, who shrank from the wild extremes of their hot-headed leaders, and also exclusive of the armed contingents expected from Rotherham, Eckington, and other places. The programme of the Chartists, and the arrangements made for carrying it out, are matters of history. Taking a hint from the Wesleyans, the Chartists met in ‘classes’ at the houses of their respective ‘leaders,’ scattered over the town. They had a general assembly-room in Figtree lane, and a secret council room at a public-house at the top of Lambert Street. Guns, cartridges, daggers, pikes, hand grenades, and ‘cats’ were provided in considerable quantities by the leaders and members of the council ; and the equipment of the conspirators was to be completed by pillaging the gun shops of the town, when the proper time came. The ‘cats’ were small spiked implements to scatter in the streets for the purpose of laming the cavalry horses, being so made that however thrown on the ground one spike pointed upwards. The conspirators were to meet in their class rooms on the night of the rising, proceed thence under the command of their leaders to a few general meeting places in the outskirts of the town, and then move in bodies to execute their atrocious designs. Some of the more daring classes were deputed to take possession of the Town Hall and the Tontine, which were to be the headquarters; others were detailed to fire the Barracks as soon as the military had been called out, and to burn other obnoxious places in the town. The rest were to fire the houses of the magistrates, their clerk, and other gentlemen of position living in the outskirts, the notion being that this would draw the authorities from the town to look after their own affairs. It was supposed that, thus deserted, the general body of the population would concede all that was asked, and that a decided success in the outset would so swell the ranks of the Chartists as to give them complete control over the town and district. The poor policemen were special objects of vengeance, all the conspirators having instructions to murder every policeman met with.

Though the information published at the time on all these points is full and complete, the circumstances attending the discovery and frustration of the plot, constitute an unpublished chapter in the annals of Sheffield; and the men to whom the town owes its rescue from a terrible danger are not only unrewarded, but to this day unknown to the general public as the detectors of the conspiracy. The object of my paper is not to recapitulate the facts published at the time, but to recount the yet unpublished details of this, for Sheffield, most fortunate detection. “The instrument in the great discovery was James Allen, then the keeper of the Station inn beer-house in Westgate, Rotherham, (and not to be confounded with James Allan, who at a later period was landlord of the Station inn in that town). He was shrewd and intelligent, a superior workman as a stove-grate fitter, and was employed by Messrs. Yates, Haywood and Co. The man who used that instrument was not the respected chief of the Sheffield police, nor any of his subordinates, but My. John Bland, then, and for many years afterwards, the active and intelligent chief-constable of Rotherham.

For some time before the plot was fully hatched, wild rumours, spread of the intention of the Chartists to possess themselves by force of the entire neighbourhood, drive out the rich, and divide the spoil. By many the rumours were regarded as the ravings of maniacs, and utterly disbelieved. But the reports that reached Mr. Bland as to the intentions of the Chartists at Rotherham assumed such consistency and pointed so persistently to one end, that he, happily for Sheffield and the entire neighbourhood, determined to investigate them. Unsuccessful in his first efforts, he went at length to Allen. Partly, no doubt, from fear on his own account, but mainly because, though an ardent Chartist, he shrank from the horrible measures in contemplation, Allen admitted that a Chartist organisation was being established at Rotherham, in conjunction with the more extensive organisation having its head-quarters at Sheffield ; and that the directors of the whole movement, in order to avoid the suspicion that would be likely to arise from too frequent meetings at Sheffield, occasionally came down to Rotherham and held their secret councils at his house. He added that they had begun to despair of peaceable measures; and that though he and others strenuously opposed all resort to violence, the whole tendency of their deliberations was towards a determined physical force movement.

As yet the conspiracy was a mere unshaped design. It gradually ripened, however, into a definite plot against life and property, as well as against law and order. The results of the repeated conferences were regularly reported to Mr. Bland by Allen, and the conspiracy no sooner assumed a distinct shape than Mr. Bland took Allen’s report of it in writing. With Allen’s consent he communicated it personally to the present Earl of Effingham, then Lord Howard, resident at the time at Barbot Hall ‘near Rotherham, and a West Riding magistrate. On the advice of his Lordship, Mr. Bland, and Mr. Oxley, the magistrates’ clerk, privately visited Mr. Hugh Parker, then the leading. Sheffield magistrate, and read the statement to him. The statement was to the effect that delegates from Huddersfield and other places had met those of Sheffield and Rotherham at Allen’s house; that they had finally resolved to carry the charter by violence; that the delegates from a distance had guaranteed the assistance of their respective districts to Sheffield; that the Tontine and Town Hall at Sheffield were first to be seized as head quarters; and that the town itself was to be taken possession of as a step to ulterior measures. The houses and places of business of obnoxious persons were to be sacked and burnt, no atrocity being thought too great that could pave the way for the charter. The story was laughed at and pooh-poohed by Mr. Parker and the Sheffield authorities, who refused to believe that any scheme so wild and atrocious could possibly be entertained.

Still the Chartists held their sworn councils day by day, chiefly in Figtree lane and Lambert Street, Sheffield. Allen’s moderation having excited their suspicion of him, they met less frequently at his house, and took him less into their secrets. He was, however, sufficiently acquainted with their designs to know that a force was to be mustered at Rotherham as well as at Sheffield, and that that force was to strike their first blow by seizing the Court House, and then sacking the residence of Mr. Henry Walker, at Clifton, and Lord Howard, at Barbot Hall. When things had reached this pass, Mr. Bland urged Allen again and again to ascertain where the ammunition and arms were collected for the final uprising. All Allen’s efforts to do this, however, were vain; he only knew that there were to be a number of such depots, and that the Chartists, when they rose, were to be plentifully armed with ‘cats,’ to protect them from the cavalry.

The time for the execution of the plot was evidently drawing near, but Allen was still kept ignorant of those details upon which alone the police could act in anticipation of the rising. It became clear that Allen must either go the whole hog as a Chartist or break down as an informant; and Mr. Bland, whose duty was plain-to fathom and frustrate the conspiracy at any cost-urged that a man could not possibly play the traitor in a better cause than in the frustration of so hopeless and atrocious a design. Allen at length strung himself up to the emergency, and it was arranged that he should go to the next council, declare himself a convert to the absolute necessity of the physical force movement, and offer to be ready at any time with 150 men upon a day or two days’ notice. This bold course re-established Allen in the confidence of the council. It was about the beginning of January, 1840. On the Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday evenings of the same week Allen attended sworn councils. On the Friday evening, January the 10^th, he reported that the crisis was to come on the following night, but that the Council of delegates were to meet at Sheffield at three o’clock on the Saturday to determine the precise hour of the rising, and the several rendezvous from which the various bands of insurgents were to start on their errands of death and destruction. The information most desired by Mr. Bland all this time was the names of the leading conspirators, their meeting places, and their arms and ammunition stores. Allen left Rotherham at one o’clock on Saturday to attend the final council meeting,-the understanding with Mr. Bland being that he was to return as quickly as practicable to Rotherham after the meeting, with the details which were so much longed for and by the possession of which alone the rising could be stopped before mischief was done. Lord Howard reached Rotherham at three o’clock, remaining with Mr. Bland in readiness to act upon a moment’s notice. Anxiously they waited hour after hour until past seven o’clock, and began to be terribly afraid that Allen’s pluck had failed him at the last push.

Between seven and eight o’clock, however, he arrived almost breathless with haste and trembling with fear. No wonder Allen was terrified; the ferocious character of the plot gave him little reason to hope for mercy at the hands of his old friends if it were discovered that he was the betrayer. He must never again show his head in this part of the country, for his life would not have been worth an hour’s purchase. Faithless to his wretched comrades, Allen was true to the active and energetic officer who had so cleverly turned him into an instrument for the frustration of the conspiracy. He had brought all the required information. The ‘classes’ were to meet at their leaders houses at ten O’clock on Saturday night.; were to carefully arm themselves were to repair to three or four specified points, and march thence to their appointed work, each class detailing a few of its number to empty the gun shops, in order to arm their comrades.

For a few moments the recipients of this information anxiously debated the question, ‘What is to be done?’ Evidently the great rising was to be at Sheffield. Its authorities had been aroused from their dream of incredulity by the further information which had been communicated to them from Rotherham, after their rejection of the first statement, and by the evident stir and excitement among the Chartists. But they were still in a great measure ignorant when and how the rising was to be effected; and it was of the most vital consequence that the intended rising should be frustrated before it had been made, not because there was the least chance of its ultimately succeeding, but because a temporary and partial success must necessarily be attended with the most dreadful results. The Rotherham police were not charged with the safety of Sheffield, but the conspirators were one body, and their success in the greater must have been dangerous to the lesser town. The plot was discovered, and for humanity’s sake, if for no other reason, Sheffield must be made aware of the extent and nearness of its danger and the means of preventing it. So reasoned Lord Howard, and manfully determined to be himself the messenger of mercy. Provided with a copy of the particulars of Allen’s information’ he mounted his horse and galloped at full speed to Sheffield, leaving Mr. Bland to take all necessary precautions to frustrate the Rotherham contingents, which were to arm at the gun shops and assemble near Brightside at twelve o’clock, under the command of Allen, or, in his absence, of such other leader as they might choose. His Lordship reached Sheffield towards ten o’clock, and found the police authorities on the qui vive, though quite unprovided with definite information. The intelligence was alarming but welcome.

There was no time to waste in idle fears, a few hours only remaining before the mischief would begin. A detachment of soldiers was called out immediately, and, with the aid of the civil power and the remarkably accurate information supplied from Rotherham of the full details of the conspiracy, happily succeeded in frustrating it. Holberry, the principal leader, was apprehended at his own house, No. 19, Eyre lane, before he left home to head the conspirators, considerable quantities of arms and ammunition being found in the garret of his house. Booker, Peter Foden, Thompson, and other leaders, were taken in the streets or at their own homes. The general meeting places of the conspirators were visited, and the ‘classes’ chased and dispersed as they arrived. All was confusion and dismay in the ranks of the baffled plotters; they fled in all directions, throwing away or hiding their arms, quantities of which were found in the neighbourhood of the dams and Crookes moor.

Thus ended, with the wounding of a few policemen and two or three innocent citizens, whom necessity had forced into the streets, a conspiracy which, but for its timely discovery, would probably have resulted in enormous mischief. “Allen, who was at once suspected by his comrades, was kept under the care of an armed guard at Rotherham for several days, until Earl Fitzwilliam had communicated with the Home Secretary, and procured his removal from this part of the country. Government, as was their duty, offered to provide Allen with the means of emigrating and setting up in life in the colonies, but he declined to leave England. Employment was found for him at his own trade in the South of England, where he remained for some time under an assumed name. At length he was recognised by a man who had known him at Rotherham, and his removal became necessary. Government provided for him elsewhere, but he never, after leaving the southern fender manufactory, communicated with Mr. Bland, or his friends here, and his fate is unknown. “Praises and rewards were bestowed on the Sheffield police and other officials, for their ability and zeal in the discovery and frustration of the plot. They monopolised the credit due of right to Mr. Bland in the main, and to his officers in a minor degree. Mr. Bland and his associates were tongue-tied. Though the conspiracy was defeated, Chartism was still a dangerous element in society. Lady Howard was so alarmed, that Lord Howard, yielding to her natural fears, bound Mr. Bland and his officers beforehand in a solemn promise to conceal the part he and they might take in the matter, in order to avoid the vengeance of the Chartists. Galling as must have been the knowledge that others were reaping the honours and rewards due to them, Mr. Bland and his subordinates religiously kept their promise until Lord Howard had left the neighbourhood and Chartism had died out. Sheffield officials in positions of the highest trust knew that there was some secret about the discovery, but could never fathom it. It was not until the resignation of Mr. Raynor that the least hint was publicly given that it was to Mr Bland ‘Sheffield was so much indebted in 1840. “

The events of 1840-1 and the failure of the plot hit Chartism hard. It never really recovered. Moral force came to the fore again, with the return of Gill, Beal and Ironside. Chartism was not as popular as it had been during the physical force years, either. In 1841-2, there was massive unemployment, but little popular protest. Many leading Chartists joined the Complete Suffrage Union. In May 1844, only 150 people attended a meeting held in Paradise Square.   Chartism was helped by the slump in trade and the European revolutions. Ironside emerged as the new leader in Sheffield. He and Thomas Briggs were elected to the Town Council. On 13^th March 1848, twelve thousand people attended a meeting in Paradise Square and elected Thomas Clarke, a moral force man, to the Convention. The rejection of the third Petition led to an increase in violence -- weapons were found in Sheffield and Barnsley. Interest was maintained via meetings. In Sheffield, Chartists came to dominate the town council, led by Ironside. Chartism in south Yorkshire began to disappear by the mid-1850s.

Aspects of Chartism: The Sheffield Plot 11 January 1840 1

A group of Sheffield Chartists led by Samuel Holberry[1] had collected weapons. They planned to meet and seize the Town Hall and the Fortune Inn, besides setting fire to magistrates’ houses. They were to be backed by men from Eckington, Rotherham and Barnsley, while riots were to take place in Nottingham and Dewsbury. Much secrecy surrounded the plan, and Holberry threatened to kill anyone who backed out. The plot was betrayed by James Allen, the landlord of the Station Inn, Rotherham. He overheard some of the plans and reported them to John Bland (the Chief Constable of Barnsley) and to Lord Howard (the Lord Lieutenant). Many arrests were made, including Holberry, who was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Allen was forced to leave the country, while Bland and Howard kept their roles quiet. In February 1840, five hundred special constables were sworn in at Sheffield alone to deter threats of rioting. R.G. Gammage, author of History of the Chartist Movement 1838-1853, writing in 1854, said[2]:

“At Sheffield things began to look ominous. Large meetings assembled in the open air at night, at which not a word was spoken. Several persons were arrested in connection with these meetings, which were dispersed by the military.” Gammage takes the story forward[3]: “About the same time [January 1840] a large number of the Chartists of Sheffield were arrested for conspiracy and administering illegal oaths. The principal witnesses against them were persons who professed to have been engaged with them in the conspiracy. One Thompson deposed that a large number of persons were formed into classes, and that they had provided themselves with arms, and fixed upon a plan for taking some, and firing other, parts of the town. That they had agreed to strike down every policemen and watchman that they might meet, and catch the soldiers before they could fire upon them. The barracks were to be fired, and the insurgents were to possess themselves of the Town Hall and Tontine, which they were to defend with the barricades. After the evidence had been given, Samuel Holberry, William Booker, Thomas Booker, John Clayton, Samuel Bentley, John Marshall, Thomas Penthorpe, Joseph Bennison, and William Wells, were fully committed for trial, Mrs Holberry, a very interesting woman, was also arrested; but the evidence against her not being sufficient, she was discharged.”

In the mean time, a further uprising was thwarted at Bradford, and further arrests were made. Gammage says of the trial[4]: “On Monday, March the 16^th [1840], the Yorkshire assizes commenced, before Mr Justice Erskine and Mr Justice Coleridge when the Sheffield Chartists were brought to trial. The court presented from the outset a very animated appearance; the gentlemen of the legal profession attending in large numbers both for and against the prisoners. Holberrry, the two Bookers, Duffy and Wells were first indicted for conspiracy and riot. By way of supporting the evidence against the prisoners, a large basket full of hand-grenades, and other combustible materials, was placed upon the table, and a great number of pikes and daggers were also produced. The evidence went to prove that these were found in possession of the prisoners at the time of their arrest. The charges appeared to weigh most heavily against Holberry, who did not, when arrested, deny, but on the contrary, admitted, that his object was to upset the Government, and he professed his willingness to die for the Charter. The principal witnesses for the prosecution were Foxhall and Thompson, who were admitted as Queen’s evidence, and who had taken an active part in the proceedings of the accused. The Attorney General prosecuted, and Sir Gregory Lewin, Mr Watson, and Mr Murphy defended the prisoners, and dealt in strong terms on the evidence of the witnesses; but after Justice Erskine had summed up, the jury found all the prisoners guilty. William Wells, John Clayton, John Marshall, Thomas Penthorpe, Joseph Bennison, and Charles Fox were charged with similar offences, and pleaded guilty. Robert Cox, George Gullimore, James Bartholomew, Joseph Lingard, Thomas Powls, and Joshua Clayford, who had been out on bail, were also indicted for riot and conspiracy. Mr Baines and Mr Wortley prosecuted; Mr Murphy and Mr Wilkins defended the prisoners in able addresses, and succeeded in procuring a verdict of acquittal. John Marsden was indicted for riot, and attempting to liberate from prison Peter Foden, one of the arrested Chartists, to which charge he pleaded guilty. William Martin was indicted for sedition. Messrs Baines and Wortley conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was most eloquently defended by Mr Watson, but the result was a verdict of guilty.

The assizes continued, with Feargus O’Connor next up before the court to face charges of newspaper libel. According to Hovell[5]: “He called, or proposed to call, fifty witnesses to prove that he had never advocated physical force, though it does not appear that this point was at all material to the question. He was condemned to eighteen months’ imprisonment, but actually served only ten, being released on account of bad health.”

The Bradford Chartists then faced the court charged with offences of riot and conspiracy. Gammage says[6]: “On the 21^st of March the Sheffield and Bradford prisoners were brought up to receive sentence. Holberry was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, and bound over in fifty pounds, and two sureties of ten pounds each, to keep the peace after the term of his imprisonment should expire. Thomas Booker was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, and bound to keep the peace in thirty pounds, and two sureties of ten pounds each. William Booker, his son, was imprisoned for two years, and bound over to keep the peace in the sum of twenty pounds. James Duffy was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, and bound over in the sum of twenty pounds and two sureties of ten pounds each. William Wells received a sentence of one year’s imprisonment, and was bound over in the sum of twenty pounds. Marshall, Penthorpe, and Bennison, were each sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

---

[1] On Samuel Holberry (1814-1842), see Joyce M. Bellamy and John Saville (eds.) Dictionary of Labour Biography volume iv, Macmillan, 1977, pages 93-96.

[2] R.G. Gammage History of the Chartist Movement 1838-1853, 1854, page 153.

[3] R.G. Gammage History of the Chartist Movement 1838-1853, 1854, page 173.

[4] R.G. Gammage History of the Chartist Movement 1838-1853, 1854, page 175.

[5] Mark Hovell The Chartist Movement, Manchester University Press, 1918, page 187.

[6] R.G. Gammage History of the Chartist Movement 1838-1853, 1854, page 177.

Aspects of Chartism: South Yorkshire

Sheffield[1] relied heavily on the tool and cutlery industries, which were produced mainly in small workshops by “little mesters” (master craftsmen working in small workshops with a few others). In the 18th century as demand for knives began to grow, the Sheffield cutlery industry had the upper hand over all its rivals in the form of natural water power. Sheffield is built at the confluence of several rivers (the Don, Rivelin, Loxley, Porter and Sheaf) fed from the hills. Natural sandstone was also in abundance in the nearby peak hills. Sheffield sits at the edge of these hills making it an easily extractable resource. By 1740, Sheffield became the most extensive user of water power in Britain and probably Europe. By this time, ninety mills had been built (two-third of them for grinding). By 1850, these mills numbered well over a hundred. They could operate grindstones, forge-hammers and rolling mills, a vital part of the production route for knives. Another natural resource, coal which is used to feed the furnaces and forges was also readily available

The town was overcrowded and filthy. Working lives usually started at twelve years of age in Sheffield; in Barnsley’s mines, it was younger. Barnsley’s living and working conditions were generally far worse than other areas. There was a large population of Irish linen weavers in Barnsley. Major problems in this area were caused by the trade cycle, which hit the economy hard. Forms of trade unionism did exist, and memberships were large. The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act and the building of workhouses helped to spark off Chartism.[2] In 1830, the Sheffield Mechanics’ Anti-Bread-Tax Society was formed. This later allied with the Anti-Corn Law League. On 14^th October 1837, the Sheffield Working Men’s Association was formed and in 1837, the Barnsley Working Men’s Association was formed. The following year, the Rotherham Working Men’s Association was formed.

Chartism in Sheffield was slow to rouse and initially mild in character. As time went on, however, the mood grew increasingly angry, until, in the wake of the failed uprising at Newport, preparations were put in hand to seize control of the town for the Chartist cause. A successful rising in Sheffield would have been significant. An industrial centre with a history of steelmaking stretching back to the Middle Ages, the town was the second largest centre of population in West Yorkshire (after Leeds). Pigot’s 1834 Directory for the county records that between 1821 and 1831 the population had grown from 65,275 to 91,962. Mark Hovell records that on the day after a massive meeting of Manchester Chartists at Kersal Moor on the night of 25^th September 1838[3], “a similar demonstration took place at Sheffield, Ebenezer Elliott being in the chair”. Hovell goes on: “Sheffield definitely and Manchester largely were not strongly moved by the oratorical fireworks of Stephens and O’Connor. The speeches at Sheffield were conspicuously mild. Elliott declared that the objects the people had in view were, ‘Free Trade, Universal Peace, Freedom in Religion, and Education for all.’ Another speaker placed the Repeal of the Corn Laws in the forefront of his programme, followed by ‘a thoroughly efficient system of Education for all,’ ‘good diet for the people and plenty of it,’ and ‘facilities for the formation of Co-operative Communities’.”

By 1838, the memberships had increased sufficiently for the south Yorkshire Chartists to hold their own meetings. In September 1838, one such meeting was held in Paradise Square, Sheffield, with a reported crowd of 20,000 people[4]. Speakers included Ebenezer Elliott (the ‘Corn Law Rhymer’)[5], Michael Beal, Isaac Ironside[6] and William Gill. At this stage, the moral force, self-help Chartists, dominated Sheffield Chartism. After the rejection of the first petition and the collapse of plans for the ‘Sacred Month’, Ironside said that ‘Chartism became a desperate movement’. In Sheffield, there was a change of leadership. William Gill resigned because he said that he “did not want to represent a disunited people”. James Wolstenholme[7] who did not oppose violence replaced him. Elliott left because he got little support for the repeal of the Corn Laws. Gill, Beal and Ironside stayed away from meetings.

These early agitations appear not to have been notably successful, however. Hovell recorded that in March 1839[8]: “From Sheffield came a request that a delegate be sent to rouse the workers there. Very little success, the communication adds, had followed attempts to further the Chartist cause in Sheffield, but greater things were expected if the Convention sent a delegate. It was emphatically stipulated that a moral force man be sent.” In September 1839, the Sheffield trade unions decided that they “could not as trade unions support the Chartists or any other political party”.

In July 1839, numerous meetings led to fears of rioting, and magistrates warned the new leaders, Peter Fodden and Charles Fox, that they were breaking the law. The meetings continued. After a meeting on 12^th August 1839, seventy men were arrested. The arrests were followed by stoning of the Town Hall and continued violence. Meetings then went ‘underground’. On 12^th September 1839, an evening meeting attracted over two thousand people. Troops were used to disperse it and a running battle ensued. An account of these events appears in Reminiscences of Old Sheffield, Its Streets & Its People, where a group of men who had lived in the town in the 1840s are recorded in conversation during the 1870s[9].

One, named as Johnson, says: “On the 12^th September, 1839, the Chartists held a “silent” meeting in Paradise square, which was dispersed by the soldiers and police. The Chartists reassembled in ‘Doctor's field’, at the bottom of Duke Street, Sheffield moor, where they were followed by the soldiers and police, and 36 prisoners taken. At the Town Hall, next day, which was guarded by the dragoons, and the doors kept by policemen armed with cutlasses, I saw several anxious mothers inquiring for their missing ones. Amongst the rest was the mother of a young man who has since been an influential citizen in St. George's ward. He was tried at the assizes and acquitted. A night or two after the Doctor’s field meeting, hearing there was to be a Chartist meeting at Skye edge in the Park, my brother and I tried to find Skye edge, but not succeeding, met the Chartists coming away. They marched down Duke Street, singing lustily a Chartist melody: “Press forward, press forward, There's nothing to fear, We will have the Charter, be it ever so dear.-

“But, alas! on turning the corner at the bottom of Duke street, they caught sight of the helmets of the 1^st Dragoons, who were coming to meet them. Instead of ‘pressing forward’ we all ‘pressed’ every way but that, and in two minutes not a Chartist was to be seen. The dragoons on that occasion were under no less a person than Sir Charles Napier, at that time Commander of the Northern District; and I believe the incident is referred to in his life.”

On 25^th September 1839, Wolstenholme and the secretary emigrated. On 25^th November 1839, following the Newport Rising, the police broke up a meeting at the Fig Tree Lane meetinghouse, with Morton being arrested. In Barnsley there had been a greater threat to peace; a newspaper reported that “About three fourths of the population of Barnsley are Chartists, and of the most violent kind”. On 15^th July 1839, threats were made to remove money from the banks. Shopkeepers were also threatened. On 2^nd August 1839, troops were sent to Barnsley and the Riot Act was read. Serious trouble was averted.

---

[1] On Sheffield see, C. Binfield and D. Martin (eds.) The History of the City of Sheffield, 1843-1993, volume 1: Politics, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Sidney Pollard A History of Labour in Sheffield, 1850-1939, Liverpool University Press, 1959 has some useful material on the situation before 1850. D. Smith Conflict and Compromise: Class Formation in English Society, 1830-1914, a Comparative Study of Birmingham and Sheffield, London, 1982 is a valuable comparative study.

[2] David Hey Yorkshire from AD 1000, Longman, 1986, pages 181-301 provides the most accessible study of South Yorkshire.

[3] Mark Hovell The Chartist Movement, Manchester University Press, 1918, page 119.

[4] Chris Williams ‘Expediency, authority and duplicity: reforming Sheffield’s police, 1832-40’, in Robert Morris and Richard Trainor Urban Governance: Britain and Beyond since 1750, Ashgate, 2000, pages 115-127 is a valuable examination of the nature of politics in Sheffield in the 1830s.

[5] K. Morris and Ray Hearne Ebenezer Elliott: Corn Law Rhymer & Poet of the Poor, Rotherwood Press, 2002 is the most recent biography.

[6] On Isaac Ironside (1808-1870), see Joseph O. Baylen and Norbert J. Grossman (eds.) Biographical Dictionary of Modern British Radicals since 1770, volume 2: 1830-1870, Brighton, 1984, pages 259-261 and Joyce M. Bellamy and John Saville (eds.) Dictionary of Labour Biography volume ii, Macmillan, 1974, pages 201-207.

[7] John (or James) Wolstenholme was born in 1804 at Dunfields near Sheffield. He was a file-maker and delegate to the first Chartist Convention. He left Britain in September 1839, “for America, with all their tools, to escape arrest” (Sheffield Iris, 1^st October 1839) and was reported in Westbury, Connecticut. He is believed to have returned home in 1850.

[8] Mark Hovell The Chartist Movement, Manchester University Press, 1918, page 130.

[9] R.E. Leader Reminiscences of Old Sheffield, Its Streets & Its People, Sheffield, 1896, chapter xi.

Aspects of Chartism: London 2

In January 1837, George Julian Harney[1] started the East London Democratic Association (ELDA) in opposition to the LWMA. Harney and James Bronterre O’Brien[2] were alienated from the LWMA by its middle-class links, especially with Daniel O’Connell. The ELDA formed around Harney, O’Brien and O’Connor. In January 1837, with help from the veteran Spencean, Allen Davenport[3] and the radical tailor Charles Neesom[4], Harney began the ELDA to appeal to the depressed London trades. Its strength came from Spitalfields silk-weavers and East End dockers, the poor. The ELDA began to promote its moral and political position by disseminating the principles advocated by Thomas Paine. Like the LWMA, the ELDA developed out of the National Union of the Working Class[5].

For a time, relations with the LWMA were amicable, although their social compositions and areas of support were different. The ELDA claimed a membership of over 3,000 at the end of 1838. It had branches in the City, Tower Hamlets and Southwark. They met in public houses. The turning point seems to have been the Glasgow spinners’ strike, over which the Northern Star sided with the ELDA against O’Connell and the LWMA. O’Brien and Harney were physical force men who distrusted Place and the classical economists who appeared hostile to trades associations.

George Julian Harney was born in 1817, a cabin boy turned potboy. He was brought up in poverty. He was a bitter man with a desire for knowledge as a means of progress, thus he was involved with Hetherington and the unstamped press. He dressed like Marat[6]; his views were extreme republican; he was a militant ‘socialist’, almost a Jacobin. He said of the ELDA, “The Jacobin Club again lives and flourishes”. Harney advocated a revolution: “Your whole system requires revolution ... your commercial system requires revolution and nothing short of actual convulsion will effect a cure. Establish the Peoples’ Charter tomorrow, and the working man will not have one difficulty the less to contend with”.

He was certainly a pre-Marxist, internationally minded and wanted to create an international workers’ union. He was a friend of Engels. He organised Chartism in Sheffield, undertook lecture tours, and effectively was editor of the Northern Star between 1843 and 1850. He saw radicalism as a class struggle. In 1845 he founded the Fraternal Democrats, a European organisation. He also developed close ties between the LDA and Polish refugees.

James Bronterre O’Brien read for the Bar at Trinity College, Dublin. He was much influenced by Rousseau, Babeuf and Robespierre[7]. He reported for the Northern Star from London. With Harney and Ernest Jones, O’Brien sought an intellectual foundation for Chartism as a class struggle. He greatly influenced Harney, who was not born at the time of the French Wars and who was only fifteen in 1832 when the Reform Act Crisis was taking place.

In April 1838, the ELDA was reconstituted as the London Democratic Association (LDA) with an eight-point resolution covering the Charter and more. The LDA demanded the six points of the Charter as a right and the association attracted all kinds of people. It allied with the northern Chartists because the members of the LDA had little in common with the LWMA. There was thus a division in London Chartism because the aims, tactics and memberships of the LWMA and LDA were very different[8].

---

[1] A.R. Schoyen The Chartist Challenge: a Portrait of George Julian Harney, London, 1958 remains the best biography. Joseph O. Baylen and Norbert J. Grossman (eds.) Biographical Dictionary of Modern British Radicals since 1770, volume 2: 1830-1870, Brighton, 1984, pages 227-233 is a useful, brief biography.

[2] Alfred Plummer Bronterre: A Political Biography of Bronterre O’ Brien 1804-1864, London, 1971 is the standard work on this enigmatic figure. Joseph O. Baylen and Norbert J. Grossman (eds.) Biographical Dictionary of Modern British Radicals since 1770, volume 2: 1830-1870, Brighton, 1984, pages 375-383.

[3] On Allan Davenport (1775-1846), see Joseph O. Baylen and Norbert J. Grossman (eds.) Biographical Dictionary of Modern British Radicals since 1770, volume 1: 1770-1830, Brighton, 1979, pages 111-113.

[4] For Charles Neesom (1785-1861), see Joseph O. Baylen and Norbert J. Grossman (eds.) Biographical Dictionary of Modern British Radicals since 1770, volume 2: 1830-1870, Brighton, 1984, pages 367-369.

[5] Jennifer Bennett ‘The London Democratic Association 1837-41: a Study in London Radicalism’, in James Epstein and Dorothy Thompson (eds.) The Chartist Experience, Macmillan, 1982, pages 87-119 is the best study.

[6] Marat was an important leader during the French Revolution. He was assassinated by Charlottle Corday in 1793.

[7] Gwynne Lewis ‘Robespierre through the Chartist looking-glass’, in Colin Haydon and William Doyle (eds.) Robespierre, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pages 194-211 examines O’Brien and Robespierre in detail.

[8] David Large ‘London in the Year of Revolutions, 1848’, in John Stevenson (ed.) London in the Age of Reform, Blackwell, 1977, pages 177-211 assesses the strength of metropolitan Chartism and the responses of the authorities throughout 1848.

Aspects of Chartism: London 1

London was not a centre of new industry but a centre of traditional domestic and craft industries: glass, pottery, furniture, silks, and handloom weaving and so on[1]. Chartism in London reflected traditional English radicalism dating back to Cartwright in the 1770s and the London Corresponding Society in the 1790s[2]. Apart from the building trades and the brewing industry, much of London’s employment was in small units, geographically dispersed in small workshops. There were over four hundred different trades requiring different skills and offering different rates of pay. London was the world of declining craft industries. Artisans were the backbone of London Chartism[3]. Silk handloom weavers were the largest single group but other artisans were also involved. There were no factory hands in London. The plight of the silk weavers in Spitalfields played a part in London Chartism. O’Connor called them, “the originators, the prop and support of the Chartist movement”.

A radical tradition existed in London by the beginning of the nineteenth century.

• In the 1760s and 1770s, John Wilkes and the Society for the Supporters of the Bill of Rights (SSBR) argued for radical parliamentary reform.
• Major Cartwright published his Take Your Choice in 1776 calling for political reform.
• Artisan radicalism played a central role in the London Corresponding Society in the 1790s and in the mass platform after 1815[4].
• In the early 1830s, London was the most important centre of reforms, with experienced leaders[5].
• Newspapers, like The Times with a national readership were published in London.

Distress certainly existed in London in the 1830s.  There was increasing competition from the Lancashire cotton industry.  There was widespread and increasing mechanisation and an influx of cheap Irish labour. Both threatened the existing trades with ‘dilution’ (loss of wages and, more importantly, loss of status).  Wages in some trades had fallen from 25/- per week in 1800 to 5/- per week in 1838.  Politicians saw Chartism as nothing new but merely a continuation of the radical tradition in a time of distress. On 20^th January 1840, the Morning Chronicle said, “The Chartists are composed principally of shoe-makers, a few tailors, and carpenters”.

The London Working Men’s Association (LWMA)

William Lovett, Francis Place and Henry Hetherington formed the LWMA. It continued the eighteenth and early nineteenth century tradition of philosophical radicalism and they believed in constitutional reform as the answer for all social and economic ills. Reason was to rule all arguments and actions. They were moral force men.  They were concerned about the skilled artisan, not the factory masses and appealed to the “intelligent and influential portion of the working classes in town and country”. Many members of the LWMA wanted reform before the Charter was drafted and so movements in the trade cycle did not influence them. Factory workers dismissed the London Chartists as ‘middle-class agitators’. Certainly, the respectability of artisans, often were associated with Nonconformity, helped them in their dealings with the middle classes but hindered their dealings with the factory workers. They did not understand factories or factory hands and so had nothing in common with the north of England. The artisans objected to machines per se, which made it difficult to create a sense of unity between artisans, domestic outworkers and factory hands.

London was not so active in the first and second phases of Chartist for two main reasons.

• Because levels of employment in London were not subject to violent fluctuations in the economy as towns were in the north. Not all trades prospered or were depressed at the same time; hence, there never was one great mass of people suffering hardship at the same time.
• Because of its size. In 1841, the population of London was about two million. London’s working population was too big to act as a unity. In addition, it was divided into different areas by local government and geography. In reality, London was a number of towns, not one. Delegates from the provinces who attended the 1839 Convention were disappointed at the lukewarm atmosphere in London.

The LWMA supported optimistic Owenite Socialism. They had a strong belief in education and self-help and believed that the talents of working class men would surface, given the chance. Perhaps they were too optimistic and over-estimated the abilities of the working classes but their approach indicates the literacy of the membership of the LWMA. Henry Hetherington was a London printer who believed in cheap literature, especially newspapers. In 1821, he became involved with the first Owenites and in 1824 was associated with the founding of the London Mechanics’ Institute. He was also a leading member, with William Lovett, of the British Association for the Promotion of Co-operative Knowledge and the Metropolitan Trades Union. During the Reform Act Crisis in 1831, he formed the National Union of the Working Classes with Francis Place to spearhead the working-class campaign for a real Reform Bill.

In 1819, the government strengthened the newspaper stamp law to suppress publications such as Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register, Wooler’s Black Dwarf and Richard Carliles’s Republican. The result was to force up prices and restrict legal circulation but actually encouraged an ‘underground’ press. In 1830, several publishers led by John Doherty in Manchester and William Carpenter[6] in London openly challenged the law by publishing cheap unstamped papers. On 31^st July 1831, Hetherington followed suit by printing the 1d Poor Man’s Guardian. At its peak, the Poor Man’s Guardian sold 16,000 copies a week and had a wider readership. It has been estimated that for every paper published, at least twenty-five people read it, or had it read to them. The unstamped press flourished in London and the provinces. It gave working class radicalism a sense of purpose and fostered organisations, besides establishing a common sense of purpose by buying an unstamped (and therefore illegal) newspaper, contributing pennies to support those imprisoned for selling it or volunteering to go to prison

In 1834, a London jury declared the Poor Man’s Guardian to be legal but a slightly improved economic position undercut the impact of the paper in any case. In 1835, the Stamp Duty was cut from the 4d (set in 1815) to 1d. This allowed the ‘respectable’ press to compete with the working class press. Edward Royle comments, “The extraordinary thing about the Chartists is that they did manage to support one such paper, the Northern Star, against all the odds”.  James Bronterre O’Brien who became the editor of the Poor Man’s Guardian soon joined Hetherington. O’Brien established himself as the foremost theorist of working-class radicalism; he preached class-consciousness and political and economic rights for the workingman. He also tried to put the class struggle into its European context. The LWMA developed from the earlier activities of its leaders. Lovett was its secretary. Hetherington was the treasurer. The LWMA was intended to be exclusively for London working class men. The 1799 Corresponding Societies Act prevented the LWMA from setting up branch associations, so the newly formed, nationwide local associations were independent of the LWMA, although they were often founded because of the LWMA’s missionaries and propaganda.

The history of London’s working-class movements is to be sought in its trade societies and in the world of taverns, clubs and friendly societies[7]. Chartism in London grew out of the richness of artisan club life, not out of a ready-made mass movement for factory reform or the abolition of the Poor Law Amendment Act. London’s organisation peaked in 1842: by 1848 with the accession of Irish support, London produced more energy and posed more of a threat to government than it had in 1839.

London was essential to the success of Chartism because it was there that the government was centred. The disappointing level of the Chartist response in London was widely discussed during the 1839 Convention. “Unless the metropolis be set working, all agitation elsewhere is useless. ...A demonstration in the streets of London comes before the very eyes of those who make the laws. An atmosphere of agitation here does not dissipate without first involving the two houses of legislation in its influence. A hundred demonstrations in the country are only heard of through the newspapers.”  Lovett tried to liaise with radical MPs like Hume and Burdett, to gain parliamentary support: a rare example of Chartists trying to link with middle and upper class men. However, radical MPs opposed trade unions although they supported parliamentary reform. This created a split between London and northern Chartists because it seemed that the LWMA also opposed trade unions. Lovett was open to severe criticism for this from, for example, Feargus O’Connor. Lovett was not concerned because he was more interested in individual self-help, which was less popular in the north. His attitude did lose northern support for the LWMA because the north was keen on trade unions. O’Connor exploited northern fears that trade union activity could become secondary to political activity.

The LWMA’s philosophy was limited because it was the end of the eighteenth century radical tradition and had little in common with the north or northern Chartists. The LWMA leaned consistently to a policy of working with men of any class who were prepared to help them to achieve the People’s Charter. The LWMA was established in 1836 because of two things.  The ‘betrayal’ of 1832 taught the artisans to be independent of middle-class leaders.  The collapse of the Grand National Consolidated Trade Union in 1834 left an opening for a political movement, if it emphasised the necessity of making basic political reforms (with which the working classes agreed) rather than social reforms and theories (upon which they differed). The LWMA intended to concentrate its energies on securing political reform and appealed to public opinion. The LWMA was extremely small. The total number of members admitted between June 1836 and 1838 was only 279. Its object was to agitate for four things.

• Parliamentary reform
• Freedom of the press
• A system of education
• The collection and publication of information on social and industrial problems

 

Year	Date	Event
1836	26th June	LWMA founded
	October	LWMA had already adopted resolutions containing five of the six points of the Charter
1837	24th January	All six points were embodied in a Charter prepared for submission to the Commons
	January	East London Democratic Association was founded by Harney
	28th February	First LWMA meeting
	March	LWMA missionary activity began. By the end of the year, they had founded over 100 Associations. Worsening of the economic situation
	31st May/ 7th June	Statement of the six points was issued by a meeting of 6 LWMA members and 6 radical MPs
1838	April	The LDA was reconstituted in opposition to the LWMA
	May	The People’s Charter was published
1839	27th January	Charter newspaper was published in London
	4th February	General Convention met in London
	13th April	Democrat newspaper was published by Harney in London
	10th July	The Convention returned to London from Birmingham
1842	12th April	National Convention met in London

 

Francis Place, the Charing Cross tailor, was also heavily involved in the LWMA. He kept a radical bookshop in the back room of his workshop. He had successfully worked for the repeal of the Combination Acts (1824). He set up the National Association for the Protection of Labour, an attempt at a trade union to help the working class men to help themselves. He campaigned for the 1832 Reform Act hoping that the working class would get something from it.

---

[1] Two recent studies of London provide the necessary context: Roy Porter London: A Social History, Penguin, 1996, especially pages 239-278 and Francis Shepherd London: A History, Oxford University Press, 1998, pages 250-320.

[2] On the radical history of London see, John Stevenson (ed.) London in the Age of Reform, Blackwell, 1977.

[3] David Goodway London Chartism 1838-1848, Cambridge University Press, 1982 is a major study of London.

[4] J. Ann Hone For the Cause of Truth: Radicalism in London 1796-1821, Oxford University Press, 1982 supports the view of continuity between working class radicalism in the 1790s, during the French wars and after 1815.

[5] D.J. Rowe ‘London Radicalism in the Era of the Great Reform Bill’, in John Stevenson (ed.) London in the Age of Reform, Blackwell, 1977, pages 149-176 is useful on this issue. D.J. Rowe (ed.) London Radicalism 1830-43, London, 1970 is a valuable collection of primary materials from the Place Manuscripts.

[6] William Carpenter was born in 1797 in London. He was a printer/editor, an ‘unstamped press agitator and later a ‘moral force’ Chartist. He was the editor of The Charter, in 1839-40. He left London for New York in 1850s but returned home after short stay ‘with hard luck stories for the London press’. He died in London in 1874.

[7] Peter Clark British Clubs and Societies 1580-1800: The Origins of an Associational World, Oxford University Press, 2000 contains a massive amount on the development of societies in London.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

What do you think of chicken and how often do you eat it?  Probably once or even twice a week I suspect.  Do you think about where your chicken has come from of how it was reared?  Probably not.  Should you be thinking about this?  Well, probably yes but would it actually make any difference to your eating habits?  As a society, we want good, cheap food and most people are more concerned about that that where the food actually comes from.  It would be nice of all the chickens we ate were free-range and had a good standard of life during their often short existence but if you're trying to feed a family on a low income with little likelihood of any substantial increase in pay and free-range chicken costs more then think again. 

Am I the only person who is getting increasingly annoyed by the growing number of foodies on the television telling us what we should and should not eat or environmentalists who pontificate about our (it never seems to be their) carbon footprint?  It's all very well for them.  They're often very (and I mean very) well-paid for what they do and can afford to live their lives according to their prejudices.  They can fly and then offset their carbon footprint by planting trees.  If you have a contrast with a supermarket worth over £1 million, then you can live the way you want.  That is not an option for most people.  I strongly object to being told how I should live my life and that the decisions I make are wrong.  Wrong they might be from an ethical point of view, but they are my decisions made within the monetary parameters within which I live.  Unlike most of those who pontificate on food matters, I come from a farming background so I'm fully aware of the difficult decisions that have to be made between animal welfare and profitability.  It's not that the foodies are wrong, it's just the self-satisfied arrogance in which they put forward their case that offends.  So the answer to the question 'why did the chicken cross the road?' is clear.  It's to get away from the foodies who think they know best!

Aspects of Chartism: Nottingham

During the middle of the eighteenth century, a large chartered hosiery company lost its privileges and a large amount of its trade went to Nottingham, which already was known for its production of both silk and cotton hosiery. Much of the labour was performed in domestic workshops. Between 1823 and 1849, the social and work situation of the handloom weavers and stockingers of Nottingham was reduced dramatically. Because of the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act and the large-scale immigration of Irish workers who were moving in to English factories, there was mass pauperism among the people of Nottingham. Distress certainly existed and Sir Charles Napier blamed the Poor Law for the discontent in Nottingham in 1839. In the 1830s, the weavers and framework knitters tried to establish a union, which would put a halt to the decline in their earnings, but it was never an effective organisation[1].

Leaders

The early leaders of Chartism in Nottingham were Dean Taylor, Henry Vincent, James Sweet and Charles Sutton. Dean Taylor and Henry Vincent were Chartist speakers who were said to have a “magical” effect and frequently they were interrupted by vociferous shouting. These two men played a vital role in creating a great popular feeling, a mixture of Christianity and Chartism.

James Sweet was a Nottingham shopkeeper and was a considerable asset to local Chartism and in fund-raising for the National Rent. Charles Sutton was the publisher of the Nottingham Review, which campaigned against the Corn Laws. He wrote of the ‘unparalleled mass of unrest, distress, privation and consequences among the poor’. Feargus O’Connor was elected MP for Nottingham in the 1847 general election.

Development of Chartism

Taking their lead from the London Working Men’s Association, many Chartist organisations held weekly lectures and reading classes. In time some of these classes became separate debating societies whole others concentrated on building up extensive libraries and newsrooms with the help of donations from (Church) ministers, landowners and MPs. Nottingham Chartists developed educational provision[2].

Certain actions of the Nottingham Chartists could be seen as violent. On 18^th January 1840, there was an attempt to seize the town hall, following the example set by Chartists in York. In 1842, it was reported that Nottingham Chartists were arming themselves. Rioting, resulting in four hundred arrests followed this. There was another side to Nottingham Chartists, for whenever money was needed for the National Rent, a fund set up to help supporters of Chartism who had fallen on hard times, or the ill, sick, victims and widows in need, there were considerable contributions from the town. The anti-Poor-Law campaign and the Anti-Corn Law campaign were often linked to Chartism and other radical movements in Nottingham. For example, an anti-Corn Law petition came from the ‘United Artisan and Mechanics of Nottingham’ in January 1838 although this organisation died out with the repeal of the Corn Laws.

---

[1] Malcolm Thomis Politics and Society in Nottingham 1785-1835, Blackwell, 1969 provides the necessary background.  Peter Wyncoll, Nottingham Chartism, (Nottingham Trades Council), 1966, is a succinct discussion.

[2] James Epstein ‘Some Organisational and Cultural Aspects of the Chartist Movement in Nottingham’, in James Epstein and Dorothy Thompson (eds.) The Chartist Experience, Macmillan, 1982, pages 221-268 is a most useful paper.

Aspects of Chartism: Manchester 3

The second phase of Chartism had to begin with a reorganisation that laid more emphasis on structure and less emphasis on personalities. This took place between July 1840 and June 1841. On 20^th July 1840, a National Delegate Conference was held in Manchester with James Leach in the chair. Leach was as violent as O’Connor was. Eventually, out of a host of rival schemes, there emerged the National Charter Association. The NCA, with the same title but with varying purpose, dominated Chartism for the rest of its existence as a political force.  In August 1841, O’Connor was released from York prison and agitation immediately grew. During the autumn, O’Connor made a triumphal tour of northern England. On 27^th September, a great demonstration in O’Connor’s honour was held in Manchester. Between 2,500 and 3,000 members of Chartist Associations and Trade Unions marched in procession. It was a striking example of renewed Chartist strength, but divisions existed between the supporters of O’Connor and O’Connell - mainly Irish - because O’Connor opposed the Anti-Corn Law League and O’Connell supported it. O’Connor’s supporters arranged for the police to attend their meeting to prevent violence from O’Connell’s supporters. The curious spectacle ensued of a Chartist meeting assembling under police protection.

During the winter of 1841-42, Chartism made rapid progress as cotton operatives turned to political reform in the hope of relieving their economic distress. The north of England dominated the new Chartist movement and found important allies in the craft trade unions. Sixty-four trade union delegates attended a Chartist meeting in March 1842, which shows a revival of the combination of working-class political and industrial organisations that had been prominent in 1838-9. Donald Read noted that, “Despite this widespread support the National Petition achieved nothing. It was thrown out by parliament, and once more Chartism was left to face its own ineffectiveness. Once more cotton operatives began to despair and to realise that Chartism could not bring relief to their distress; and once more the movement went into a rapid decline”.[1]

Despair did not lead to an apathetic acceptance of distress, but to direct industrial action. At the 1842 National Convention, the second Petition was the work of the NCA and certainly displayed class hostility in the preamble. There were riots in Manchester after its rejection, followed by the Plug Plots in the summer of that year. It was a time of economic distress and almost fifteen per cent of the houses in Stockport were empty. Some wit had erected a placard that said “Stockport to let”. There were soup kitchens in Manchester. On 7^th August, a protest meeting, attended by between 8,000 and 10,000 operatives, was held on Mottram Moor against the threatened reduction in wages. They passed a resolution for the Charter and for a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. By 9^th August, the cotton industry virtually was at a standstill and the plugs were smashed from the boilers to stop production. On 11^th August, two hundred trade delegates met in Manchester and demanded a ten-hour working day and fair wage rates for weavers and factory workers.

The strike was spontaneous, not the beginning of a planned revolution. Neither was there any causal connection between Chartism and the strikes because the strikers were more interested in work and wages than in politics. The Chartists merely exploited the situation. The problem was that they were divided. The Plug Plots suggested that the workers were not hostile to factories or industrialisation but were opposed to low wages and poor conditions. By smashing the plugs, they hindered production and thus damages their employers’ profits, to make the bosses ‘feel the pinch’ too. This was different from the handloom weavers in London who objected to machines per se. Manchester was more violent than elsewhere in Lancashire because the plight of the workers was worse. The strikes had fizzled out by the end of August, although men had been arrested and trials again were held. One such trial was that of Richard Pilling[2] at the Spring Assizes in Lancaster; others were those of Lloyd and Warden.

Chartism in Manchester never really revived after 1842 because of a revival of trade prosperity after 1843 that removed the economic stimulus for Chartism. Many operatives turned to economic action, especially the Ten-Hour movement, trade unions and anti-Poor-Law agitation. Some workingmen also began to see the value of the Anti Corn Law League following Peel’s economic reforms. The Plug Plots were overcome for several reasons.  First, the refusal of the masters to capitulate to violence. The workers had either to go back to work or to starve.  Secondly, the strategic placing of two thousand troops and six artillery regiments in the Manchester area. Sir Charles Napier was important here. He was a humanitarian and a sympathiser with the plight of the workingmen. He wanted to use his troops as a preventative force and adopted tactics such as keeping the troops moving so that there seemed to be more of them than there were. He held artillery drills in public parks so that people could see the effectiveness of the weapons and soldiers. Consequently, there were no serious disturbances in Manchester.  Finally, the effective use of the provincial police, which had been established in 1839

The trade depression returned in 1845 and 1847 was a terrible year. The Manchester Examiner of 15^th May 1847 reported 84,000 operatives on short time, 24,000 operatives unemployed and 77,000 operatives working full time. Also, Irish immigration had increased because of the potato famine, there was a cholera epidemic and O’Connor was touring the country selling his Land Plan.  In March 1848, rioting occurred in Manchester and attacks were made on a workhouse and several mills but this was the work of boys and youths. The Chartist leaders helped the authorities to put down the riots. In April 1848, a series of meetings was held to support the National Petition which was presented to parliament on 10^th April and on that day, nearly every Lancashire town held a meeting. After the rejection of the third petition, Chartism in Lancashire gradually declined [3].

---

[1] Donald Read ‘Chartism in Manchester’, in Asa Briggs (ed.) Chartist Studies, Macmillan, 1959, page 57.

[2] For Richard Pilling (1799-1874), see Joyce Bellamy and John Saville (eds.) Dictionary of Labour Biography, volume vi, Macmillan, 1982, pages 216-223.

[3] William Henry Chadwick was born in 1829. At the age of 14 he was already an accomplished speaker and had been enrolled as a Wesleyan preacher. At the age of 19, in 1848, he was appointed as corresponding secretary of the Manchester Chartists. He continued his activity for the Charter and was one of those arrested and put on trial at Liverpool in 1848. He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment arising out of a speech in Stevenson’s Square in which he told the crowd that they would “never be free men until they had a sword hung by their side”. Chadwick became active in the trade union movement and was one of those who assisted the cotton operatives in their efforts to raise their wages. Later he helped the agricultural workers when they were trying to form a union under the leadership of Joseph Arch. He died in 1908.

Aspects of Chartism: Manchester 2

At every stage in the rise and decline of Chartism, the class issue is paramount, aggravated usually by economic distress: this is obvious even from the 1790s. At that time, Thomas Walker and other middle class reformers set up the Manchester Constitutional Society that failed partly because of the ‘loyal opposition’ of the working classes. During the Napoleonic Wars, there was a good deal of economic depression in Manchester and the working classes began to demand political reforms as a means to socio-economic improvement. In 1817, the March of the Blanketeers took place, followed in 1819 by the Peterloo Massacre. In 1830, the Manchester Political Unions were very active and in the 1830s, Manchester had a number of active opposition groups: trade unions, the 10-Hour Movement and anti-Poor-Law agitation. These merged into Chartism. R.J. Richardson[1] was secretary to both the Manchester Operatives Trade Union and the South Lancashire Anti-Poor-Law Association in the mid-1830s. He became secretary of the new Manchester Political Union and an active Chartist in 1838. Donald Read says that, “Lancashire Chartism represented a desperate and despairing attempt by the operatives to improve the grim conditions of industrial life.”[2]

On 22^nd March 1837, a meeting in favour of all six points of the Charter was held in Stockport although the Charter was not mentioned by name. This was the first meeting in the Manchester area. It was followed in April 1837 by a meeting was held in Manchester to petition for annual general elections, a secret ballot and universal suffrage. In July 1837, after the end of official proceedings for the nomination of candidates for the general election, O’Connor and O’Brien addressed the working class remnant in favour of ‘democratic principles’ - probably the Charter. On 5^th December 1837, the Salford Reform Association passed resolves in favour of short parliaments, a secret ballot and universal suffrage. Apparently, this Association was not ultra-radical.

In 1838, two Chartist bodies were founded in Manchester: the Manchester Political Union and the Manchester Universal Suffrage Association. On 24^th September 1838, a monster meeting was held on Kersal Moor near Manchester. It was the greatest of a series of large-scale Chartist meetings held during the summer of that year and it had a dual purpose. It was intended firstly to demonstrate the strength of Chartism and secondly to elect delegates for the Chartist National Convention. As a demonstration, it was a huge success. It attracted an impressive display of speakers and delegates from all Chartist areas including the London Working Men’s Association, Birmingham, Newcastle and Leeds. John Fielden took the chair and Joseph Rayner Stephens and Feargus O’Connor were the main speakers. Various estimates of the numbers present have been made. The Manchester Guardian estimated an attendance of 30,000 but the Morning Advertiser said that 300,000 were there. Archibald Prentice, after careful calculation reckoned that the true number was 50,000.

For the rest of 1838, regular meetings were held throughout the area; many by torchlight. These processions and meetings alarmed the middle-classes by their violent speeches and threats. The physical force element predominated, although evidence suggests that they alienated many of the working classes. By spring 1839, Chartism had lost much of its unorganised support. Chartist leaders had also begun to quarrel among themselves. On 6^th May 1839, a special meeting of the North of England delegates had to be called to revive the spirit of union within Chartist ranks. It became a rally of the physical force element that went on to look at ‘ulterior measures’. Those in attendance virtually repudiated the National Petition, even before parliament rejected it. The threat of physical violence surfaced. The Manchester Guardian of 24^th April had already reported that William Benbow said, “Every man and every boy of twelve years of age should have a stiletto a cubit long, to run into the guts of any who should attempt to oppose them.”

25^th May 1839 was Whit Saturday. There is evidence from this second Kersal Moor meeting to suggest the decline of Chartism. Extremists in charge of the Manchester Political Union had high hope for the meeting and about 30,000 attended - many for the horse races afterwards. The Chartists turned their attention to planning a ‘National Holiday’ (a general strike).

On 25^th June 1839, a delegate meeting was held in Rochdale, which decided to create a better organisation. This demonstrated the weakness of Chartism. Many delegates were arrested in July and August and few were left to organise the “National Holiday” intended for August. The plan was abandoned by the National Convention but was attempted by some men in Bolton. Some local Chartist leaders tried to achieve a strike and forced some factories to close. This shows what limited support they had. If the operatives had supported Chartism, they would not have gone to work in the first place. Handloom weavers supported Chartism long after the factory workers gave up. These were the poorest and most distressed of the working population of Lancashire and were more prepared to adopt desperate measures. By September 1839, the Chartists themselves were admitting failure. Apathy was widespread among the factory workers. In November, the Newport Rising took place. The Lancashire leaders may have also planned similar risings but they failed from lack of support. Donald Read says, “The comparative failure of the second Kersal Moor meeting the collapse of the National Holiday and the apathetic local response to the Newport Rising all showed how rapidly the Chartism position had declined in 1839. The first phase of the Chartist movement in Lancashire was almost over. The final blow came in the spring of 1840 when most of the Chartist leaders were imprisoned. The Chartist organisation was concentrated in the person of the leaders; without them it collapsed.”[3]

---

[1] On Reginald Jones Richardson (1803-?) see, Joseph O. Baylen and Norbert J. Grossman (eds.) Biographical Dictionary of Modern British Radicals since 1770, volume 2: 1830-1870, Brighton, 1984, pages 433-435. Born in 1803, R.J. Richardson was a master joiner from Salford. He also kept a bookshop. When he was 23 he took part in demonstrations against the introduction of power looms. Eleven years later, he was secretary of the South Lancashire Anti-Poor Law Association and the flowing year, in September 1838, he was the chief organiser of the Kersal Moor meeting. When the carpenters contributed union funds to build Carpenters’ Hall in Manchester, Richardson acted as one of the trustees for the money. He was a man of more than usual education and he was an avid reader all his life. He wrote a pamphlet in prison called The Rights of Women in which he strongly advocated female suffrage. In April 1838, Richardson issued a placard calling a meeting at which the Manchester Political Union was formed. This became the Manchester section of the National Charter Association. In 1838, Richardson was the Manchester delegate to the National Convention but was replaced by Christopher Dean. He was one of the active trade unionists as secretary of the Operatives Trade Union who took the cause of the charter to the organised workers. He was an advocate of physical force and was arrested on a charge of seditious conspiracy in 1839. He was sentenced to nine months in Lancaster Castle. On his release, he went to Scotland to work as editor of the Dundee Chronicle, a Chartist paper. He died in 1861.

[2] Donald Read ‘Chartism in Manchester’, in Asa Briggs (ed.) Chartist Studies, Macmillan, 1959, page 42.

[3] Donald Read ‘Chartism in Manchester’, in Asa Briggs (ed.) Chartist Studies, Macmillan, 1959, page 50.

Aspects of Chartism: Manchester

Manchester was the heart of the cotton zone[1], and society in early industrial Manchester was centred almost exclusively on its cotton industry. In 1835, between 66% and 75% of Lancashire’s male population was engaged more-or-less directly in production or sale of cotton textiles. It was a pure factory town, owing its entire existence to cotton[2]. Not only was it the “showpiece of the industrial revolution”, it was also “the greatest mere village in England” (Daniel Defoe). There was a blend of fascination with the industrial revolution and a fear of what it had created. In 1844, Engels went to Manchester to gather information as evidence for the distribution of wealth. Karl Marx later used his work for his book, Das Kapital.

In Manchester,[3] the economic basis of class-consciousness was laid in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Masters and men faced each other in hostility; tension existed in booming cotton factories as the gulf in the class system developed. All that was needed to turn that consciousness into conflict was an economic or political crisis. This is what happened on occasions between 1790 and 1850. Lancashire was vulnerable because cotton relied on imported materials; any trade disruption hit hard. Manchester was also the home of economic radicalism. Traditionally it was an area of radicalism. In the 1790s, the Manchester Corresponding Society was set up and established its own newspaper, the Manchester Herald. The Peterloo Massacre had taken place there in 1819. In 1821, the newly established Manchester Guardian campaigned for David Ricardo’s economic reforms and the Anti-Corn Law League started in the town, which was the home of the “Manchester School” of free traders.

Economic Conditions in the 1830s

By June 1837, some 50,000 workers in Manchester alone were either unemployed or on short time because of the collapse in trade.  As factories increased in numbers, so the spread of machinery caused distress for hand spinners and weavers[4].  There was a strong Irish element from immigration on a large scale. By 1841, some 34,000 Irish people had moved to the Manchester area and accepted poor pay and conditions because the worst in England was better than the best in Ireland. They tended to depress wages and conditions for English workers leading to growing anti-Irish sentiments.  Masters believed in the operation of a free market and were more interested in profits than philanthropy. However, there were some ‘good’ employers. Thomas Ashton at Hyde and the Greggs at Styal had built model villages for their workers.  Chartism in Manchester[5] was not really a political battle: it was more concerned with wages, factory conditions, working standards, living conditions, trade unions, and opposition to the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act. There were strong Owenite socialist undertones.

Joseph Rayner Stephens emphasised the economic basis of Chartism: “This question of universal suffrage is a knife-and-fork question, a bread-and-cheese question.” Stephens attacked management as unnecessary. He said the idea of complementary roles was nonsense and the concept that profit making by the masters benefited the whole community was selfish claptrap: “the truth was, the working men were all white slaves”. Stephens and his colleagues said that labour, not capital, was the most important element in industry and they exploited the opposition between masters and men. Working class men were told that democratic representation would ensure work and wages and Cook Taylor said in 1842, “In Lancashire, the cry for the Charter means the list of wages for 1836”. Donald Read noted, “Emphasis on the essential opposition between masters and men was thus the fundamental device of the Lancashire Chartist leaders”. The leaders had tried the same approach with some success during the period of activity of the Trade Unions, the anti-Poor-Law campaign and the Ten-Hour agitation of the mid-1830s. All of these movements filtered into Chartism. The cotton-masters had opposed all of these working-class movements very strongly[6].

In 1838, the cotton-masters began the Anti-Corn Law League that the Chartists saw as a great rival from the start. The workers refused to accept its motives and arguments as being sincere. The Chartists said that free trade might lead to greater profits and cheaper bread, but that then wages would be reduced and working class men would be no better off. The Anti-Corn Law League looked like a campaign for greater profits. In addition, the masters had opposed working-class movements and furthermore had been involved in the ‘Great Betrayal’ of the 1832 Reform Act. All of this enhanced the fear and hatred of the middle classes by the working classes.

Generally, the Chartists divided into protectionists - the smaller group - and qualified free traders. The protectionists believed that the evils of industry were because of the spread of machinery, not because of agricultural protectionism. They said that more trade would lead to more machinery and thus to lower wages. The qualified free traders said that the repeal of the Corn Laws was desirable but wanted other taxes and impositions, which hit the poor, removed also. Hostility existed between these groups, and between both groups and the Anti-Corn Law League.

Other divisions between masters and men came from the following areas.  The national debt that the working classes believed meant that the labour of the poor went into middle class pockets.  There was widespread concern in Manchester about the failure of the 1832 Reform Act - the ‘Great Betrayal’ - to deliver manhood suffrage and the subsequent introduction of the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act.  The demands of the Chartists were viewed as unacceptable. The middle class thought that the poor should educate themselves, not demand political ‘rights’.  The Chartists posed an apparent threat to property because of their violent actions.  The Chartists’ fear of the new Manchester police force, set up in 1839 after Manchester’s incorporation in 1838. The police officers were called ‘Blue-bottles’ and ‘Bourbon police[7]‘.  The incorporation of Manchester in 1839, which had been opposed by members of both the middle- and working-classes  Donald Read comments, “the feeling of class conflict, if not its rationalisation ... underlay the whole story of Chartism in Lancashire”[8].

---

[1] John Walton Lancashire: a social history, 1558-1939, Manchester University Press, 1987 is the best introduction to the subject especially pages 141-197. S. Peter Bell (ed.) Victorian Lancashire, David & Charles, 1974 contains several useful papers on Lancastrian politics.

[2] Edward Baines History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain, London, 1835 is a near contemporary account of the industry. S. J. Chapman The Lancashire Cotton Industry: A Study in Economic Development, London, 1904 remains an important study but should be supplemented with S.D. Chapman The Cotton Industry in the Industrial Revolution, Macmillan, 1972.

[3] For nineteenth century Manchester, see Gary S. Messinger Manchester in the Victorian Age: The Half-Known City, Manchester University Press, 1985 and A.J. Kidd and K.W. Roberts (eds.) City, class and culture: Studies of cultural production and social policy in Victorian Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1985. A detailed bibliography covering various aspects of Manchester’s history in the nineteenth century can be found in Kidd and Roberts (eds.), pages 218-271.

[4] Donald Bythell The Handloom Weavers, Cambridge University Press, 1969 is a detailed study of the cotton industry and has a great deal to say about the impact of technological change on Manchester.

[5] Donald Read ‘Chartism in Manchester’, in Asa Briggs (ed.) Chartist Studies, Macmillan, 1959, pages 24-64 and E. and R. Frow Chartism in Manchester, 1838-58, Manchester, 1980 provided the basis for examining Chartism in the town. Paul Pickering Chartism and the Chartists in Manchester and Salford, Macmillan, 1995, has superseded them both. Pickering includes a valuable biographical section in his book on pages 189-213.

[6] V.A.C. Gatrell ‘Incorporation and the pursuit of Liberal hegemony in Manchester 1790-1839’, in Derek Fraser (ed.) Municipal reform and the industrial city, Leicester University Press, 1982, pages 15-60 provides an important context for emerging middle class consciousness.

[7] A reference to the use made by the police in France under the Bourbon monarchy until it fell during the July Revolution of 1830. In France, the police force was used as an instrument of political oppression.

[8] Donald Read ‘Chartism in Manchester’, in Asa Briggs (ed.) Chartist Studies, Macmillan, 1959, page 41.

Aspects of Chartism: Leicester

There was a remnant of Luddism, centred on Leicester and Loughborough and the craft industries. Its strength came from the economic plight of the hand frame knitters[1]. Domestic industry was unable to compete with the factories. Leicester Chartists had no sympathy for or with Yorkshire woollen or Lancashire cotton Chartists because they had nothing in common with them[2]. It was a small movement, more akin to the London silk-weavers. They objected to the industrial revolution per se. The problems came from mass-production and factories superseding crafts.

In 1836, the Leicester Radical Working Men’s Association was formed from several strands of discontent: political disillusionment from the 1832 Reform Act; the struggle for the unstamped press; fear of the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act; and, economic depression.  The Association had a programme for universal suffrage, secret ballot and triennial parliaments.  In 1834, the framework knitters’ attempt to form a union failed, and wages continued to fall. By the spring of 1838, they could earn 7/- for a full week’s work. Stocking weavers could earn 4/6d.  In February 1838, it was decided to re-form the union because in 1837 the new workhouse to accommodate 500 paupers was begun in Leicester. The horrors of the workhouse were visible to thousands of framework knitters who were intermittently or permanently unemployed. Also in 1838, the People’s Charter was launched, providing the necessary inspiration for Leicester Chartism. In August of that year the Loughborough Political Union was formed. It was a traditional radical organisation, but by October had 7,000 members. The Leicester Political Union was formed in October 1838 based on the six points plus grievances over indirect taxes, Corn Laws, Poor Law and mistrust of the middle classes

They appear to have believed that gaining the Charter would solve all these problems. On 19^th November 1838, the Charter was official adopted in Leicester. O’Connor was the star speaker, but it rained. Two thousand people attended, carrying banners displaying slogans such as

• Peace, Law and Order.
  
• Labour is the source of all wealth
  
• It is better to perish by the sword than by hunger
  
• No Poor Law Bill
  
• Away with oppression and justice for Ireland
  
• The rights of the people and nothing less
  
• The restoration of Poland
  
• Liberty and Prosperity

They had a real medley of causes and it is difficult to determine what “Chartism” here meant. Leicester Chartism was a mixture of practical working-class grievances, Socialism and non-conformist liberal Christianity but November 1838 marked a break with the middle-class liberals. During the winter of 1838-9, there was violent language against the middle-classes in Leicester. There were also reports that Loughborough framework knitters were buying arms and raising funds to sent delegates to the National Convention.

Leaders of Leicestershire Chartism

John Markham initially was a shoemaker, then an auctioneer and furniture broker. He was self-educated, shrewd and level-headed. He was probably the most statesmanlike of the Leicester Chartists. He was not violent, although he could be provoked into violent language.

Thomas Cooper[3] went to Leicester from Greenwich in November 1840 to work for the Leicester Mercury. At that point, he had scarcely heard of Chartism but was appalled at the plight of the stockingers. He rapidly identified himself with Chartism and wrote a few articles or the struggling Chartists paper, The Midlands Counties Illuminator. He was dismissed by the Leicester Mercury for this. Cooper took over the Illuminator and became secretary of the Leicester Chartist Association. He began to conduct open-air preaching, lecturing and moved into journalism. There was a marked increase in Chartist membership from 460 in October 1841 to 732 by December 1841. Cooper was a Baptist preacher and cobbler by trade and had an insatiable appetite for all kinds of reading. Initially he supported O’Connor and was verbally violent; an intellectual Luddite but too violent for Leicester and not violent enough for the National Charter Association. He set up the Shakespearean Association of Leicester Chartists, which met in the Shakespeare Rooms in Leicester. It had c. 3,000 members by the end of 1842. In August 1842, at the same time as the Plug Plots, there was a turnout of colliers. Cooper was arrested in Manchester; by the time, he returned to Leicester the Chartist organisation had collapsed. He left Leicester for good in March 1843; he broke with O’Connor in 1845 over the Land Plan and joined Lovett’s education scheme.

John Skevington was regarded as the natural leader of Chartists in Loughborough. He appears to have used his influence to prevent violence. He was arrested in August 1842 and was blamed for causing coal strikes. His arrest caused a clash between the police on the one hand and the miners and Chartists on the other. Skevington was a Methodist preacher and a democrat. He died in 1850.

Many Chartist leaders were framework knitters: Finn was prominent in 1838 with his plan for co-operation between workers and employers to regulate conditions in factories; Buckley was the most active Chartist leader after 1846. Even Chartist leaders who were not framework knitters were fully aware of and sympathetic to the demands of the stockingers.

Further Developments

In 1842, the Chartists were split between Markham and Cooper although in August 1842 the mass strikes and meetings which were attended by 5,000 to 6,000. The Riot Act was read and stones were thrown at the Yeomanry. This caused the ‘Battle of Mowmacre Hill’. The strikes collapsed within a week. Chartist activity in Leicester declined after 1842 as it did elsewhere. However, although the turnouts, demonstrations and anti-Poor Law riots ended, the organisation remained intact.

In 1844, a public meeting was held, addressed by White, and the Chartist Adult Sunday school was formed. In 1846, Thomas Wheeler was sent as the Leicester delegate to the National Convention in Leeds and was elected as the secretary to the Convention. In addition, Feargus O’Connor’s Land Plan got enthusiastic support. The divisions healed after Cooper left and new leaders emerged: Henry Green (a grocer) and George Buckby (the framework knitters’ leader).

In 1848, there was a Chartist revival, with a meeting of about 80,000 people all of whom seemed to support the Charter. Buckby was sent as their delegate to the National Convention but there was another split between Markham and Green who wanted an alliance with the middle classes while Buckby and Warner who wanted to follow an independent physical force line. George Bown, a veteran radical for over fifty years, published Physical Force in which he advised workers to “get arms”. Police began arresting the leaders. Chartism continued for another five years (to 1853) with meetings, agitations and so on. Chartists became involved in borough elections and turned their attention to other and potentially more fruitful activities.

Comments

There is a close connection between Chartism and the framework knitters. There seems to be a direct link between the strength of Chartism and the state of the hosiery trade. This explains the importance of Chartism in Leicester during the trade depression of the late 1830s and early 1840s.  Local Chartist leaders were framework knitters and Chartism appealed to framework knitters because other ways of remedying their depressed condition had failed.  Legislation passed by the Whigs had failed the working classes.  Opposition to the Poor Law provided a strong link between the distress of the stockingers and support for Chartism. Religion was a common denominator in Leicester. Many Chartists were Nonconformists and Markham, Skevington, Cooper and Finn were preachers. The Chartist leaders used the Methodist ‘class’ idea for their groups.

---

[1] William Felkin History of the Machine-wrought Hosiery and Lace Manufacturers, 1867; 2^nd ed., with introduction by S.D. Chapman, David & Charles 1976 is the most useful near-contemporary history of hosiery. F.A. Wells The British Hosiery Trade, London, 1935; 2^nd ed., revised and extended, London, 1972 is the best modern study.

[2] J.F.C. Harrison ‘Chartism in Leicester’, in Asa Briggs (ed.) Chartism Studies, Macmillan, 1959, pages 99-146 remains the most detailed examination. The book by A. Temple Patterson Radical Leicester. A History of Leicester, 1770-1850, London, 1954 is broader.

[3] Thomas Cooper The Life of Thomas Cooper, 1872, reprinted with an introduction by John Saville, Leicester, 1971 is a major autobiography by a key player in 1842. Robert J. Conklin Thomas Cooper the Chartist (1805-1892), Manilla, 1935 is the most recent full-length biography. Stephen Roberts’ work on Cooper is the most recent and accurate: ‘Thomas Cooper in Leicester 1840-1843’, Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society, volume 61, 1987, ‘Thomas Cooper: Radical and Poet, c.1830-1860’, Bulletin of the Society for the Study of Labour History, volume 53 (1), 1988, ‘The Later Radical Career of Thomas Cooper, c.1845-1855’, Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society, volume 64, 1990 and ‘Thomas Cooper: A Victorian Working Class Writer’, Our History Journal, volume 16, 1990. Joseph O. Baylen and Norbert J. Grossman (eds.) Biographical Dictionary of Modern British Radicals since 1770, volume 2: 1830-1870, Brighton, 1984, pages 155-159 is shorter.