The Chartist Movement/Chapter 7

by Mark Hovell

CHAPTER VII

THE PEOPLE'S PARLIAMENT

(1838–1839)

There is something mysterious about the facility with which the Anti-Poor Law Agitation passed over into Chartism, with whose objects it had apparently nothing in common. During the summer of 1838, meetings, called to protest against the Poor Law Amendment Act, found themselves listening to speeches in favour of the Charter and assenting to resolutions in support of the National Petition. Some explanations may be hazarded. In the first place, the Anti-Poor Law Agitation had come to a crisis. It had prevented the Act from being enforced, with the result that, during the greater part of the period of trade depression (1836–42), out-relief was paid as usual. Thus the leaders had to face the question—whether to be content with this achievement or to go on agitating until the Act was repealed. The latter alternative, in view of Stephens's exhortations, might involve armed insurrection, unless—here was the crux of the matter—a national agitation, on the lines suggested by Birmingham and London, succeeded in putting political power into the hands of the people. Then the peaceful repeal of the Act would be easy. This reasoning will explain the eagerness of the northern leaders to justify to the Chartist Convention the possession of arms, and their immediate resort to arms and drilling as soon as the National Petition was rejected. The Northerners probably looked upon the Birmingham and London men as potential reinforcements in the event of extreme action. The Birmingham proposals for joint action would be welcome, both from this point of view and from the existing lack of organisation in the North—a defect which would be remedied by the creation of a central body like the proposed Convention. One last point may be hinted at. In November 1838 O'Connor at a meeting at Manchester said it was necessary to put a period to agitation, lest the enthusiasm should evaporate.^[1] Perhaps we shall not be wrong in assuming that enthusiasm for Poor Law repeal had already begun to evaporate, and to be replaced by discontent of another description.

However that may be, the growth of distress and privation during the year 1838 tended inevitably to weld the agitations together. Scotland was agitated by the prosecution of the Glasgow cotton-spinners, whose fate recalled the immortal Dorchester Labourers of '34. In South Wales, where the mining districts presented an unequalled field for agitation, the eloquence of Henry Vincent, backed by John Frost, a tradesman of Newport and a J.P. to boot, had an enormous effect. Vincent explained to the ignorant and half-barbarous miners how that they were despoiled of a large proportion of the wages, which they earned at such risk to themselves, for the purpose of supporting in idleness and luxury a degraded and despotic aristocracy. This explanation of the long familiar evils of truck and mining royalties naturally raised the Welshmen to an incredible pitch of indignation. It was the sole burden of Vincent's oratory, but, as a well-known authority has said,^[2] repetition of an assertion without attempt at proof or demonstration is the one essential of mob-oratory, and Vincent possessed a faculty of infinite variation upon one theme. South Wales was also to have, in 1843, its own peculiar form of rebelliousness in the curious "Rebecca riots," directed mainly against the payment of road tolls. Men, dressed as women, obeying the orders of a mysterious "mother Rebecca," smashed toll-bars and defied discovery. It was alleged that a lawyer, Hugh Williams of Carmarthen, was the instigator. He passed, like all other local agitators, into the Chartist ranks.

The Charter was put forward in May, and the Petition in August 1838. The former was distributed throughout the Working Men's Associations, and the latter was formally published at the great Birmingham meeting of August 6.^[3] From this moment the excitement began to rise to fever heat. At scores of meetings the Petition and Charter were adopted with immense enthusiasm. This was especially the case in the North. Everybody was carried away by the fire and fervour of the movement. The speeches became more and more inflammable and exulting. It is from this period that the gems of Stephens and O'Connor are derived. Attwood was in the seventh heaven, and even the less enthusiastic leaders of the London Working Men's Association began to imagine that the day of redemption was at last about to dawn. All the leaders were, in fact, overjoyed at the amazing response to their propaganda and allowed themselves the wildest prophecies as to future successes. Douglas's assurance that they would achieve success in three years was regarded as insane caution. Enthusiasm centred mainly in the election of the Convention from which the most extravagant results were expected.

The spirit in which the Northerners approached the crisis may be inferred from the speeches and events connected with the series of mass meetings which began to be held during the summer and autumn of 1838. The earlier meetings were called to adopt some sort of organisation. Thus a Manchester Political Union and a Great Northern Union at Leeds, comprising between them the country on both sides the Pennines, came into existence. The Poor Law Amendment Act has already sunk into the background. The Manchester Union proclaimed its abhorrence of violent language and physical force, but its first great demonstration on Kersal Moor, on September 24, was graced by the presence of Stephens, O'Connor, and others who were advocates of violent courses. This demonstration was one of the most remarkable of all Chartist meetings. The Leeds Times thought there were a quarter of a million people present, which is scarcely credible. There was an immense array of speakers, representing all parts of the Chartist world. The dominant note was struck by Stephens, who declared that the Charter was not a political question but a knife and fork question: not a matter of ballot-boxes but of bread and butter. This tone sounded throughout all the subsequent babble about arming or not arming, about natural rights and legal rights, which filled up the debates of the Convention. For Chartism was in these manufacturing areas a cry of distress, the shout of men, women, and children drowning in deep waters, rather than the reasoned logical creed of Lovett, or the fanatical money-mongering theories of Attwood. Impatience, engendered by fireless grates and breakfastless tables, was the driving force of much northern Chartism.

The Manchester demonstration was one of a series arranged to elect the delegates to the Convention. These delegates had to be elected by public meeting and not by definite organisations. Otherwise the Convention would become in the eyes of the law a political society with branches, which was illegal under the infamous Acts of 1819. The day following the Kersal Moor meeting, a similar demonstration took place at Sheffield, Ebenezer Elliott being in the chair. Sheffield definitely and Manchester largely^[4] 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." A huge demonstration at Bradford took place on October 18. Hartshead Moor was like a fair, a hundred huts being erected for the sale of food and drink. The Chartists declared that half a million people were present: a soberer estimate divides that number by ten. It was a fiery meeting. Everybody talked about arms, O'Connor upon the virtues of tyrannicide.

Similar meetings took place in practically every important manufacturing town between Glasgow, London, and Bristol, and the election of delegates proceeded rapidly. In October meetings were held for the purpose of collecting the funds destined for the support of the Convention. But the joy experienced at this rapid progress was clouded by apprehensions, for which a terrifying change in the character of the northern meetings was responsible. In October meetings began to be held at night in the murky glare of hundreds of torches, in various parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, on the pretext that the factory-owners objected to meetings during working hours, whereby much time was lost. The psychological effects of large crowds and excited speakers were emphasised by the eerie surroundings; it was but a short step from torchlight meetings to factory burning. The authorities were pardonably anxious and tried to put a stop to these meetings. But their action only increased the temperature of the speeches, which became inflammatory beyond words. Such meetings were held at Bolton, Bradford, Oldham, Rochdale, and Bury during October, November, and December. The arrest of Stephens at the end of December seems to have put a stop to them.

The increasing violence of the propaganda in Lancashire and Yorkshire began to instil misgiving and terror into the more moderate Chartists in London, Birmingham, and Scotland. Suggestive and inciting articles began to appear in the Northern Star. On September 8 a notice in capitals appeared: "The National Guards of Paris have petitioned for an extension of the Suffrage, and they have done it with arms in their hands."^[5] O'Brien was contributing inflammatory articles also. At Preston, on November 5, O'Connor talked about physical force without cease. He assured his hearers that the Government would not use force against their force because "they know that the wadding of the first discharge would set fire to Preston."^[6]

Very soon the breach between the preachers of violence and the preachers of peaceful agitation was already complete, and a campaign of denunciation had begun. O'Connor scoffed at the "moral philosophers,"^[7] Stephens denounced the Birmingham leaders as "old women," whilst younger and more reckless leaders, like Harney, who was to represent Newcastle-on-Tyne, loudly proclaimed their lack of confidence in such things as Conventions.^[8] The crisis came early in December. The Edinburgh Chartists had passed a series of resolutions condemning violent language and repudiating physical force. These "moral force" resolutions called forth a torrent of denunciation from O'Connor, Harney, Dr. John Taylor, and others. A furious controversy followed. Various Chartist bodies threatened to go to pieces on the question. There were fiery meetings in London and Newcastle to deal with the matter, and controversy of a highly personal description followed.^[9] On January 8 O'Connor went to Edinburgh to undo the effect of the resolutions, and on the 9th he persuaded a Glasgow meeting to rescind the resolutions, whereupon Edinburgh denounced Glasgow as "impertinent." A furious meeting at Renfrew, where John Taylor and a minister named Brewster were opposed, lasted till three in the morning.^[10] What Birmingham thought of all these proceedings on the part of O'Connor had better be left to the imagination. The excitement was raised still higher by the news that Stephens had been arrested at Manchester on a charge of seditious speaking and lodged in New Bailey gaol. The Ashton followers of Stephens had long ago threatened with dire punishment the men who should dare to lay hands on their hero,^[11] but they for the present contented themselves with threats and efforts to procure arms. Stephens was released on bail after a few days' confinement and was at liberty for some months. He was compelled to moderate his language for fear of damaging his case. Meanwhile a subscription was opened to conduct his defence.^[12] It raised over £1000. The conduct of the northern agitation fell more completely into O'Connor's hands.

In spite of the dissension, the excitement, and the confusion, the organisation of the movement proceeded. The signing of the Petition and the collection of the "Rent" (an idea borrowed from O'Connell) went on merrily, and informal meetings of delegates took place at Manchester, Birmingham, and Bury with a view to clearing the way for the Convention. The month of January passed in comparative harmony, whether the result of Stephen's arrest following upon other evidences of the Government's watchfulness, or the consequence of suppressed excitement, is difficult to say. All attention was concentrated upon the 4th of February, when the Convention was to meet. Doubt and desperation, disquiet and uncertainty, struggled with hope and confidence for the souls of thousands of working men during the first five breathless weeks of the New Year. Was the New Year to bring the hoped-for reform or the half-dreaded insurrection?

The Convention met on February 4, 1839, at the British Hotel, Cockspur Street, Charing Cross.^[13] It consisted, nominally, of some fifty-three members, but as several did not attend, its effective strength was less than the forty-nine required to avoid the consequences of the Act of 1819, which placed certain restrictions upon the holding of adjourned meetings. It turned out, however, that the Convention was a legal assembly and was never in danger of prosecution under the Act mentioned. London was represented by seven members of the Working Men's Association, including Lovett, Cleave, Hetherington, and O'Brien, and by one William Cardo, a shoemaker of Marylebone. In addition the Association had "lent" Vincent to Hull and Cheltenham, and William Carpenter to Bolton. Similarly the London Democratic Association found places for Harney and Neesom, its chiefs, at Newcastle and Bristol. Thus London furnished a quarter of the whole assembly.^[14] Birmingham sent five representatives out of the original eight, including Collins, Douglas, Salt, and Hadley. From the North of England came a score, including O'Connor, MacDouall, who sat for Ashton-under-Lyne in place of Stephens, R. J. Richardson, who represented Manchester, Ryder, Bussey, Pitkeithly, who were the beginning of an O'Connorite "tail," and Richard Marsden, a handloom weaver from Preston. Scotland had eight representatives. Wales had two, Jones of Newtown in Montgomery and John Frost of Newport. Three from the hosiery districts, including Dr. A. S. Wade, Vicar of Warwick, and half a dozen from scattered towns like Hull and Bristol made up the tale. Only one agricultural area was represented, and that by courtesy only, and not by virtue of Chartist zeal. It was Dorset, which sent George Loveless, one of the famous labourers of '34. He never took his seat.

Nearly one-half the assembly belonged to the non-artisan classes. Some, like O'Connor and John Taylor, were sheer demagogues; others, such as O'Brien and Carpenter, were doctrinaire social revolutionaries. The Birmingham delegates, except Collins, were prosperous fellows who had drifted into political agitation. Hadley was an Alderman of Birmingham and a warden of St. Martin's Church in the Bull Ring. Douglas was the editor of the Birmingham Journal, and Salt was a lamp manufacturer on a considerable scale. Wade was a kind of Christian Socialist, a predecessor of Charles Kingsley. James Taylor was a Unitarian minister of Bolton, probably moved by sympathy with suffering to take part in the movement. There were several medical men, inspired, no doubt, by similar motives, several booksellers, a lawyer,^[15] and a publican or two.

Many Chartists, seeking after the event to explain the misfortune which attended the career of this assembly, attributed its failure to this large sprinkling of middle-class folk, but it must be said that the divisions and dissensions which ruined the Convention cannot be traced to the class divisions which prevailed. On the main points at issue the working men were divided as well as the "middle-class men." Place remarks that the class-war teaching was sufficient to frighten off the middle class as a body from the movement, but not sufficient to induce working men to elect leaders of their own kind to conduct their affairs.^[16] It was a sober, black-coated, middle-aged body which met on February 4, 1839.^[17] Harney, MacDouall, Vincent, and John Taylor were the youngest, as they were the most fiery, of the delegates. Neesom and Richards^[18] were already in their sixties, and quite a number were beyond fifty. Many of the delegates were married men with families already grown up. Truly not a very revolutionary-looking assembly.

On the same day there also met the first great Anti-Corn Law League Conference and the Imperial Parliament—three vastly different political assemblies almost within a stone's throw of each other. It was the portentous beginning of a triangular struggle which all but transformed the political and social character of the United Kingdom. The gage of battle was thrown by the successive rejection in Parliament of motions for Parliamentary Reform and for the Repeal of the Corn Laws. A ten years' war followed.

The first meetings of the Convention were purely formal. R. K. Douglas of Birmingham, who had had in hand the arrangements for the Convention, the Petition, and the "National Rent," acted for the time as chairman. It was decided to appoint a chairman daily in rotation. Lovett was of course appointed secretary, though O'Brien objected on the ground that he was "not in agreement with the men of the North as to the methods by which the Charter was to be obtained." The question as to the payment of delegates was left to the "constituencies" and their representatives for settlement. Douglas presented a report upon the Petition and the amount of rent subscribed and then vacated the chair in favour of Craig of Ayrshire, the first regular chairman.

Many signs testify to the enormous enthusiasm and extravagant hopes which the Convention called into being. From all parts of the country addresses flowed in.^[19] Some were read to the delegates amid scenes of the greatest joy. Newspaper articles dilated upon the great event.^[20] Petitions were addressed to the Convention in legal form, as if to be presented to the House of Commons,^[21] 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.^[22] 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.^[23] The majority was clearly opposed to this view. On the previous day O'Connor had declared that the Convention would not be sitting if the people thought they could do no more than petition. This probably represents the view of the majority, at any rate of the working-class delegates, who regarded themselves as bound to make the Charter into law by any means whatsoever. MacDouall declared that if the Convention was not to proceed to ulterior measures, he would go home at once. A few delegates, led away by the revolutionary atmosphere attaching to the name of Convention, even dreamed of permanent sittings and Committees of Public Safety. The resolutions were rejected by thirty-six votes against six. Cobbett thereupon quitted the Convention. This was the first of many defections.^[24]

How exaggerated a notion some of the delegates had of their own importance appears from the motion, passed on the 13th on the proposition of O'Brien, that the House of Commons be invited to meet the Convention at the Crown and Anchor Tavern on the 27th of February to disabuse the minds of the members of that House as to the character and intentions of the Convention.^[25] Delegates wrote "M.C." after their names after the fashion of "M.P." They imagined that they had sufficient influence to meet the House of Commons on equal if not superior terms. They repeatedly argued that they had been elected by a much greater number of voters than those who sent men to Westminster, consequently they were entitled to at least as great a share of power as Parliament.

There was for the time being considerable hesitation about specifying the exact means to be adopted in the event of the rejection of the Petition by the Commons, but as the Petition was not yet presented there was no immediate need of a decision on that point. Meanwhile a declaration of war upon the Anti-Corn Law League and all its ways was proclaimed. This is one of the few questions upon which complete unanimity was displayed. O'Brien was the chief advocate of this policy, and made a speech in his best and most virulent style.^[26]

Following this the Convention busied itself with the discussion of its procedure and rules. A week was thus spent, at the end of which a pamphlet was issued bearing the title "Rules and Regulations of the General Convention of the Industrious Classes, elected by the Radical Reformers of Great Britain and Ireland in Public Meetings assembled, to watch over the National Petition and obtain by all legal and constitutional means the Act to provide for the just representation of the People, entitled the 'People's Charter.'" The detailed rules bear out the title. In this document the Convention becomes a peaceful agitating body; there is no mention of anything else.

Despite this official avowal of law-abiding intentions, the advocates of violent courses were becoming more and more conspicuous. They were aided by doleful reports about the Petition, which made success by peaceful agitation seem very remote indeed. The Birmingham delegates had not attended the Convention since the opening of the session, excusing themselves on various pretexts. A letter from Salt, dated February 17, relates that he has just heard with great concern that there is no probability that the Petition will have more than 600,000 signatures. "In this case we can no longer call it a 'National Petition.' The assumption on which we have proceeded proved false: our position is entirely changed, and I have not yet any very definite idea of the measures it will become our duty to adopt."^[27] The Birmingham Journal followed this with the suggestion that the Convention should dissolve until the Petition became more largely signed.^[28] This was ill news indeed and came as a great shock to the sanguine spirits of the Convention. More serious still perhaps was the obvious fact that the Birmingham delegates had lost their nerve and were preparing to abandon the whole business. The Convention, which had hoped to present the Petition before the end of February, and so provoke an early decision upon the question of further measures, was compelled to postpone the event for two months. Finally May 5 was fixed as the day for the presentation of the Petition. The Convention was thus required to nurse the excitement and enthusiasm of its followers for nine weeks longer, without committing itself too far. This was no easy task, but more difficult still was the preservation of unanimity within the Convention itself.

Early in March dissension began to grow threatening. On the 2nd the London Democratic Association, a violent and reckless body, held a meeting at which Harney, Ryder, and Marsden were the chief speakers. Inflammatory speeches were the order of the day. The Convention was denounced for its delays and its cowardice, and three resolutions were carried and then communicated to the Convention itself.

That if the Convention did its duty, the Charter would be law in less than a month: that there should be no delay in presenting the Petition: and that all acts of injustice and oppression should be met by resistance.

These resolutions caused an immense hubbub in the Convention, which spent three whole days in discussing the conduct of its three traitorous delegates, who narrowly escaped expulsion. It is significant that the three outspoken advocates of violence found only three other supporters within the whole convention. One of these was Frost, the future rebel of Newport.^[29]

Though the majority of the Convention was unwilling to avow a policy of violence, individual members were not so timid in the use of threats. The policy adopted by many of the northern delegates, especially O'Connor and his followers, was to adopt an official caution in the Convention and reserve their violence for public meetings. Thus whilst on the 7th of March Harney and his colleagues were officially condemned, nevertheless on the 16th several members of the majority on that occasion joined Harney in a carnival of denunciation which had as its scene a public meeting at the Crown and Anchor Tavern. This meeting produced some significant speeches. Sankey, a doctor from Edinburgh, moved a resolution declaring that the Convention had a right to adopt any means whatsoever in order to carry the Charter, and that every meeting had a right to censure or approve any act of the Convention. Mere petitioning would not carry the Charter, which would be rejected, however many signatures it had, unless they were "the signatures of millions of fighting men who will not allow any aristocracy, oligarchy, landlords, cotton lords, money lords, or any lords to tyrannise over them longer." Rogers, a mild-mannered tobacconist, spoke of signing the Petition in red, but hoped they would achieve their object without bloodshed. O'Connor spoke in the same sense as Sankey. Millions of petitions would not dislodge a troop of dragoons. He warned the delegates that they would have a duty imposed upon them by the people after the Petition was presented. There would be martyrs. If the Convention should separate without doing something to secure the Charter, the people would know how to deal with the Convention, Harney wound up the evening by declaring that by the end of the year they would have universal suffrage or death.^[30]

If this meeting was intended to scare away from the Convention all the moderates, it was not unsuccessful, as the sequel showed. It was followed by a furious debate in the Convention on the 18th, dealing with the Rural Police Bill then before Parliament.^[31] A long series of tirades was brought to a climax by Dr. Fletcher of Bury. "He would not recommend the use of daggers against a Rural Police, but he would recommend every man to have a loaded bludgeon as nearly like that of the policeman's as possible; and if any of these soldiers of the Government, for soldiers they would really be, should strike him, to strike again, and in a manner that a second blow should not be required. … If resistance was necessary to oppose the Rural Police Bill, resistance there would be."

The next day, the 19th of March, the Morning Chronicle published accounts both of the meeting of the 16th and of the debate of the 18th. Fletcher was apparently horrified to realise how terrific his speech looked in cold print, and denounced the paper for having garbled it. The same paper printed a letter from Wade, dissociating himself from the sentiments expressed on the previous Saturday. Nevertheless from the Rural Police the discussion drifted on to the question of arming. As a justification, the Convention ordered the collection of certain articles in the Morning Chronicle. After the Bristol Riots of 1831, that journal^[32] advocated the arming of respectable householders to defend life and property in such crises. Although this measure was not without justification in the pre-constabulary days, the Convention regarded it as on a par with its own proposed resistance to the introduction of police. When, however, the articles were collected, they were, on O'Connor's suggestion, put on one side.^[33]

So the weeks passed without any decisive event. The Petition was not presented, and two months had gone. Constituencies were paying their delegates^[34] and were looking anxiously for some return for their sacrifices. "Had we not been buoyed up," wrote the poor folk of Sutton-in-Ashfield, thinking of their £20, "by the hope that our sufferings would ere long have been ameliorated by the adoption of the People's Charter, the people would ere now have been driven to desperation."^[35] We can well believe Place when he declares that the general tone of the Chartists during March showed a certain loss of confidence, or at least reaction from over-sanguine expectations.^[36] They had expected a much more rapid march of events, but the Convention, partly through its own better knowledge, partly through its disunion, and partly through inexperience and lack of real leaders, had been induced to postpone the crisis. Events over which the Convention had no control produced further delays, and the Petition was only laid before Parliament on June 14, while the discussion on it did not take place until July 12. It was like postponing a declaration of war for six months. The army began to lose heart and the enemy grew stronger. This was just what O'Connor had prophesied and Harney dreaded.

Nothing perhaps contributed more to damp the original enthusiasm of the Convention than the revelation that, so far from being a dominant majority in the nation, Chartists were only a struggling party. This revelation was made by the reports of some of the fifteen missionaries, sent out at the end of February to agitate the districts not yet attacked by Chartism. On March 8 Salt reports from Birmingham. He has visited Willenhall, Stourbridge, Bilston, and Kenilworth, the three former in the heart of the Black Country, and has not even been able to get together a meeting. Wolverhampton, Darlaston, West Bromwich are little better. But Salt was not a good missionary. He had an eye to his lamp factory all the time. He notes that the middle-class folk are standing aloof, and thinks that without the aid of a few middle-class men, who have leisure to instruct, nothing can be done for a long period.^[37] This to a body which is full of bitter anti-middle-class feeling! When Salt and Hadley reported thus to the Birmingham Union, they were but ill received.^[38]

From the south-west came reports from Duncan, Lowery, and Vincent. The two former were in Cornwall.

We find that to do good we will have to go over each place twice, for the People have never heard of the agitation and know nothing of political principles; it is all uphill work. Were we not going to it neck or nothing, we should never get a meeting; the tradespeople are afraid to move and the working men want drilling before entering the ranks.^[39]

Moir and Cardo had similar experiences in Devonshire.^[40] Vincent was nearly murdered by a mob at Devizes. This was a specially severe blow, considering Vincent's hitherto unbounded popularity and success as an agitator. At the head of a procession Vincent had entered the ancient borough-town and mounted a waggon in the market-place. According to Vincent's account, Lancers, Yeomanry, and special police were mobilised to do honour to the event. Hardly had he mounted the waggon than a horn was blown and a volley of stones hurled. Vincent was knocked clean out of the waggon by a stone which struck him on the head. A body of bludgeon-men stormed the waggon and in a moment the market-place was a scene of riot. The Chartist banners were captured and recaptured, and Vincent, with Roberts^[41] and Carrier, was with difficulty rescued by the special constables. An hour later a mob assembled in front of their lodging and threatened to burn them out. The High Sheriff intervened and had them escorted out of the town by the constabulary and others. The mob rushed the escort and seriously mauled the three unfortunates, so that Vincent collapsed and had to be carried off in a gig.^[42]

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.^[43] It was reported that Leeds had only just commenced to take part in the agitation.^[44]

One of these missionary reports deserves reproduction here; it is from old John Richards, agitating in the Potteries, dated March 22, 1839.

I arrived in the Potteries on Wednesday night. The Councill of the Union were assembled and received me with hearty and Deafening Cheers as soon as order was Again restored. Thursday Night was Appointed for me to Address A Meeting, and I Assure A more Enthusiastic meeting never Assembled. I stated the object of the Council of the pottery political Union in sending for me home to be to Compleat the Agitation in the Potteries and to Extend it to the Neighbouring Towns. Attended the following places. Last week Tunstal on Monday, Lane End on Tuesday, Burslem on Wednesday, Stoke on Thursday, Congleton on Saturday, Sandbatch on Monday.^[45] Open-air meeting at one o'clock, Tuesday Night Fenton; Wednesday night Leek. At Congleton Sandbatch and Leek have formed political Unions formed Committees and Set them to work to obtain Signatures and Collect National Rent and I hope with a good prospect of Success … As regards the Condition of the different towns I have visited, I can only say that poverty destitution and Its accompanying feature Squalid Misery form the principal feature. At Leek and Sandbatch I found the Inhabitants fully Convinced that everything was wrong and yet Ignorant of the Means to Cure the evils … to these people I pointed out that the root and cause of the privations of the Sons of Labour lay in the want of the Franchise. This was news to them. … At Leek I found the workmen reduced to the Lowest degree possible for Human nature to endure. Many were the Men who publickly Stated that with fifteen hours Labour per Day the Utmost they could earn was from 7 to 8 Shillings per Week. I do not wonder that men thus Situate Should make use of Strong language. Rather do I wonder that they keep in any bounds, but this I do Say that If something be not Speedily done to give a greater Plenty to the working Man, Something of A very fearfull Import must follow. Nor will It be possible for me, let me do my Utmost, to keep that Peace you know I so much long to be kept by the Operatives of England. … Shall have to Visit those places ere I see you. Shall Impress on them the Motto Peace Law Order, but I fear all will be of no avail, this being the Language used in those places—Better to die by the Sword than perish with Hunger.^[46]

More powerfully than by the none too encouraging reports of the missionaries was the Convention disturbed by a series of resignations. On March. 28 Dr. Wade resigned. He was opposed to the continual talk about arms. A few days later the Birmingham delegates all resigned. The meeting at the Crown and Anchor was the immediate cause of their withdrawal, as it showed that the Convention was ready to "peril the success of Radical Reform on an appeal to the last and worst weapon of the tyrant and oppressor."^[47] The Convention spent some hours in denouncing the conduct of the Birmingham people. The latter had indeed played an ignominious part in the movement. They had gone into it, hoping to launch their currency scheme upon the rising popular tide. They had expected rapid success. Instead, they found that leadership had passed out of their hands and that success was remote. They had talked vaguely about physical force, but shrank from associating with the men who were really determined to use it. They therefore pleaded business reasons for not attending the Convention (which, it is true, was likely to take up far more time than they could spare without deserting their business altogether, as Cobden did) and at a favourable opportunity withdrew altogether from a movement whose course filled them with apprehension. Collins manfully defended them against their enemies in the Convention, some of whom had apparently been stirring up opposition to Douglas, Salt, and Hadley in Birmingham itself. The consequence was that the Chartist cause in that city fell into the hands of a reckless and unscrupulous crew, a fact which later turned out very disastrously.^[48]

On April 9 the Convention plunged into a discussion upon the right of the people to possess arms. R. J. Richardson of Manchester, who had a taste for antiquarian research, introduced the question in an interminable oration loaded with citations of every conceivable description. He moved for a committee to inquire into the existing state of the law upon the subject. The debate which followed reached the very climax of futility, and exhibited a hopeless division amongst the delegates. Sankey, who had distinguished himself at the Crown and Anchor by his bold words, now betrayed a strong disposition to eat them. Amid the fog of discussion the practical good sense of the Scotsman, Halley, sounds strangely welcome. What, he wanted to know, was the practical value of the resolution? Were they going to prepare for a campaign? Had they a large enough following in the country? To these questions no answer was vouchsafed, for none could be given. Nobody knew why the discussion was opened, and only half a dozen moderates like Halley, and two or three firebrands like Harney, had courage to commit themselves to any definite views at all. This debate especially deserved the censure passed by the London Dispatch that the Convention was more concerned to show how clever it was than to further the cause with good suggestions and sound measures.^[49] The discussion ended in a declaration of the Convention's opinion that it was lawful to possess arms. It had the effect of encouraging the collection of arms in various parts of the country, a proceeding which did not escape the notice of the Government.^[50]

On April 18 Wood of Bolton resigned, having become a Poor Law Guardian, to the great horror of his constituents. Clearly the Anti-Poor Law excitement was subsiding. He delivered a Parthian shot at the Convention by informing his people that if they wanted a physical force revolution they must elect a different Convention. On the 22nd, Matthew, one of the Scottish delegates, resigned also.

A resolution was introduced by O'Connor on the 22nd, suspending all missionary work and requiring the attendance of all delegates till the Petition was presented. Place says this was dictated by a fear that Government was preparing to pounce upon the missionaries,^[51] a view which Vincent's arrest early in May serves to support, but it was also due in part to the diminishing attendances of the remaining delegates. O'Connor's speech was another example of indirect terrorism, intended to scare away the remaining moderates. He denounced those who had resigned as "deserters," and declared that the lukewarmness of certain delegates would only cause a greater impatience on the part of those who, being without breakfasts and dinners, were anxious that the Convention should show them how they were to be had. It was useless for the Convention to sit there philosophising. The delegates would have to act or their constituents would think they were enjoying themselves on their salaries. When the Petition was rejected, as it would be, they would have to declare a permanent sitting^[52] and invite the country to address the Convention in order that they might consider in what way they could best carry out the objects of their just cause. Unless the Convention brought itself morally into collision with other authorities, it would do nothing to show its own importance.

He then proceeded to hint that the middle-class folk in the Convention were the cause of its lukewarmness. He talked vaguely of a general strike as an alternative to physical or moral force. The operatives would "meet the cannon with the shuttle and present the web to the musket." O'Connor knew none but cotton and woollen weavers. He finally denounced moral philosophers as the bane of their cause, and declared that the delegates who had deserted were paltry cowards.

This speech indicates an important change of attitude of the Convention on the vital question of "ulterior measures," i.e. measures to be adopted after the Petition was rejected. May 5 was very near, and the Convention would have to have some definite measures with which to face its followers in the country. But some delegates were definitely opposed to any appeal to arms; others who had been valiant in speech were none too pleased to find that they might have to vindicate their valour in conflict with soldiers and police; others who might be perfectly willing to sacrifice themselves had scruples against sacrificing others also; yet others were anxious to make better preparations before provoking an outbreak. Amidst this clash of opinion, one course seemed to recommend itself to the delegates—the least admirable course of all. Already it had been decided to hold a series of mass meetings during Whit-week. It was now decided to leave to the Chartists in mass meeting assembled the decision which the Convention had not will enough to take for itself. As Bussey, a reputed firebrand from the West Riding, remarked, it was dangerous for the Convention to be ahead of the opinion of its constituents. This was the result of the deliberations on the 22nd and 23rd.^[53] The following day was spent in excited recrimination between the extremists on both sides, and no business was done.

On May 7 the Convention completed the first stage of its work by handing over to Attwood and Fielden, who were to present it, the great Petition. It contained 1,200,000 signatures. It was rolled upon a huge bobbin-like structure and placed upon a cart. The Convention marched two abreast as escort, and delivered it at Attwood's house. This consummation had not been accomplished without an eleventh-hour hitch. Attwood and Fielden had demanded that the Convention should pass a resolution condemning violent language and physical force. This produced an excited debate in the Convention, and the resolution was not passed. Apparently the matter was compromised, but Attwood had still another scruple. He objected to the Charter on the ground that it would give two hundred representatives to Ireland out of six hundred, which he considered too great a proportion. However, the Petition was deposited at his house and he was left in charge, scruples and all.

The Petition had long since ceased to be the focus of Chartist thoughts and hopes. Very few delegates continued to express the opinion that it might be seriously considered by the Commons, and even they cherished the hope against their better knowledge. The Convention devoted itself to the consideration of "ulterior measures." Soon after the Petition was handed over to Attwood, the Convention quitted London for Birmingham after a session of three months. With the arrival in Birmingham a new phase of the movement began, in which the evils of dissension, recklessness, and lack of proper leadership worked themselves out to a dismal and ignominious end.

It must be confessed that the Convention had not accomplished great things. Considering the exertions made, the Petition had not been very extensively signed. Though 1,200,000 looks a respectable figure enough, yet it compares unfavourably with the later Petition of 1842.^[54] Through the missionaries the Convention had accomplished something. In fact, this was the most hopeful and successful side of its work, but it was not developed enough. The truth is that the leadership of the movement was never thoroughly in the hands of the Convention. The latter was being driven by the excitement and impatience of its followers. The longer it delayed, the greater grew the pressure from behind, until the Convention was wrecked by forces which it could no longer control.

1. Additional MSS. 27,820. p. 292.
2. Le Bon.
3. Its terms had already been made public two months before.
4. Manchester itself was not unlike London, possessing a strong middle class, e.g. Cobden, and a class of superior artisans who shared middle-class Radical views. But Manchester itself was sometimes swamped by the influx from the smaller towns, which were unanimously Chartist.
5. The Padiham Chartists had a banner with the motto, "Sell thy garment and buy a sword" (Northern Star, October 27, 1838). [Much on this page is a repetition of p. 111.]
6. Additional MSS. 27,820, p. 287.
7. Ibid. 27,820, p. 292.
8. Ibid. 27,821, p. 5.
9. Northern Liberator, January 19, 1839.
10. Additional MSS. 27,821, pp. 13-16.
11. Northern Star, October 27, 1838.
12. Northern Liberator, January 19, 1839.
13. After two days its meetings were transferred to Bolt Court, Fleet Street, "in the Hall of the Ancient and Honourable Lumber Troop" (Life and Struggles, p. 201; Gammage, p. 105). See the contemporary description of it by the French féministe. Flora Tristan, quoted in Dolléans, i. 286-7. Where not otherwise noted the authority for the debates in the first Convention is the Charter newspaper.
14. It was a matter of £ s. d. Delegates who lived in London cost less than those sent to London.
15. James P. Cobbett, son of the great William.
16. Additional MSS. 27,822, p. 83.
17. Northern Star, November 2, 1839.
18. Of the Potteries.
19. Letter-Book of Convention, Additional MSS. 34,245, A and B.
20. E.g. The Charter, February 10, 1839.
21. Additional MSS. 34,245, pp. 27 and 103.
22. Ibid. 34,245, A, p. 84.
23. Charter, February 10 and 17, 1839.
24. Charter, February 17, 1839.
25. Ibid. October 17, 1839. Additional MSS. 27,821, p. 33.
26. Charter, February 17, 1839.
27. Additional MSS. 34,245, A, pp. 41-2.
28. Ibid. 27,821, p. 40.
29. Charter, March 10, 1839.
30. Morning Chronicle, March 19, 1839; Charter, March 24, 1839.
31. The opposition to the Bill was due largely to the belief that the police were intended to enforce the New Poor Law as well as to provide additional soldiery against a possible insurrection. The speakers mostly had the example of France before their eyes, the police being suspected of being nothing but spies and informers.
32. November 1831.
33. Charter, March 31, 1839.
34. E.g. Craig was paid £6 a week (Northern Star, September 7, 1839). The two Manchester delegates were promised £5 a week each, but did not get so much.
35. Additional MSS. 34,245, A, p. 84, March 1.
36. Ibid. 27,821, p. 58.
37. Ibid. 34,245, A, p. 107.
38. Ibid. 27,821, pp. 65-9.
39. Ibid. 34,245, A, p. 120, also p. 148.
40. Additional MSS. 34,245, A, p. 128, B, p. 33.
41. W. P. Roberts, later the "miners' attorney-general." Webb, History of Trade Unionism, pp. 164-6.
42. Additional MSS. 34,245, A, p. 228.
43. Ibid. 34,245, A, p. 188, April 2.
44. Ibid. p. 198, April 3.
45. A report of March 28 states that Richards had to cover all these distances on foot. Additional MSS. 34,245, A, p. 173.
46. Additional MSS. 34,245, A, p. 147. The punctuation of the original has been slightly amended to make the meaning clear.
47. Charter, March 31, 1839; April 7, 1839.
48. Charter, April 14, 1839.
49. May 19, 1839.
50. The Aberdeen Chartists wrote to Dr. Taylor, asking whether the constitutional maxims quoted in the debate applied also to Scotland, as they had passed a resolution in favour of arming (Additional MSS. 34,245, A, p. 260).
51. Ibid. 27,821, p. 93.
52. An improvement of an earlier passage in the speech in which O'Connor suggested that they should sit till the funds were exhausted.
53. Charter, April 28, 1839.
54. Richard Carlile in a pamphlet preserved in Home Office Papers (40-43), p. 8, says that the Petition of 1839 compared very badly with that of 1817.