vagant hopes which the Convention called into being. From all parts of the country addresses flowed in.[1] Some were read to the delegates amid scenes of the greatest joy. Newspaper articles dilated upon the great event.[2] Petitions were addressed to the Convention in legal form, as if to be presented to the House of Commons,[3] whereby the delegates were immensely flattered. Most significant of all was the large amount of National Rent which was subscribed. By March 7, £1350 had been received—more than enough to cover all expenses. Small and poverty-stricken districts subscribed incredibly large sums, deeming no sacrifice too great for the purchase of their own and their children's freedom. The hosiery village of Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, subscribed £20, whilst Leeds, the home of the Northern Star, subscribed but five.[4] This tremendous enthusiasm gave the delegates a very exaggerated conception of their powers and abilities and influenced their deliberations very unfavourably at times, whilst their failure to rise to the heights demanded of them transformed excessive optimism into the most dismal disillusionment.
The effects of this exaggerated self-esteem were visible when the vital question was raised—what was the purpose and competence of the Convention? It was brought forward on Tuesday, February 5, by J. P. Cobbett, but was shelved for the time being. The question was raised again on the 14th and this time it came to a discussion. The question at issue was, Is the Convention a petitioning and agitating body only, or is it a working-class Parliament, with the same authority over the working class as the Parliament at Westminster over the whole nation? Is it entitled to defy the law or even to use force to encompass its purposes? Cobbett upheld the first of these views and brought forward a series of resolutions declaring that the Convention was called merely to superintend the Petition, that it ought to sit no longer than was requisite for that purpose, and that it was not competent to decide upon any subsequent measures, especially anything that involved law-breaking, and so to bind its constituents to defy the law.[5] The majority was clearly opposed to this view. On the previous day O'Connor had declared that the Convention
