1. See above, pp. 185–92.
1. H.O. 65.1; J. Ashton, Dawn of the Nineteenth Century in England (1906), p. 19; D. V. Erdman, Blake, Prophet against Empire, pp. 317–19; Hammonds, The Town Labourer, p. 291.
1. Fitzwilliam Papers, F.44 (d), (e).
1. Ibid., F. 45 (a).
1. Ibid., F.45 (a), (d).
1. Leeds Mercury, 1 August 1801; E. Baines, Life of Edward Baines, (1851), p. 51; Cambridge Intelligencer, 15 November 1800, 8 August 1801.
1. H.O. 42.66, printed in full in Aspinall, Early English Trade Unions, pp. 52–3. Original in Fitzwilliam Papers, F.45 (d).
2. R. Walker, to H.O. 28 June 1802 (enclosure), H.O. 42.64.
3. J. Dixon, 17 July 1802; W. Cookson, 27 July 1802; J. Lowe, 3 December 1802: all in Fitzwilliam Papers, F.45 (d).
4. L. T. Rede, York Castle in the Nineteenth Century, pp. 198–201.
1. Fitzwilliam Papers, F.45 (e). The informant, Fitzwilliam adds, is ‘a steady, industrious man, not young, I see but little reason to suppose this the idle tale of a flippant prater…’
2. Cf. London Gazette, 18 July 1780; ‘There was scarcely a gun fired but was pointed by Captain Nelson, of the Hinchinbroke, or Lieutenant Despard, chief engineer…’
1. For Despard’s early career, see Sir Charles Oman, The Unfortunate Colonel Despard (1922); J. Bannantine, Memoirs of E. M. Despard (1799).
1. Identical papers were found in Yorkshire in 1802; Fitzwilliam Papers, F.45 (d).
1. See, for example, C. F. Mortimer, A Christian Effort to Exalt the Goodness of the Divine Majesty, even in a Memento, on Edward Marcus Despard, Esq. And Six Other Citizens, undoubtedly now with God in Glory (1803), which quotes Matthew chap. 28, v. 12: ‘They gave large Sums of Money to the Soldiers, &c.’
1. See Cole and Postgate, The Common People, p. 163; H. W. C. Davis, The Age of Grey and Peel, p. 95.
2. At least one other of the conspirators, Charles Pendrill, was formerly a leading member of the L.C.S. Confined in 1798–1800 in Gloucester gaol with Binns, he was a journeyman shoemaker (a former master), of Tooley Street. Although cited in the trials as a leading conspirator, he was released under a general pardon after Despard and his associates had been executed; only to reappear in a similar conspiratorial rôle in 1817. See below, p. 715.
3. In 1801 several ‘United Englishmen’ were arrested at Bolton, and one, Callant, was later executed on a charge of seducing soldiers from their allegiance; W. Brimelaw, Political History of Bolton (1882), I, p. 14; G. C. Miller, op. cit., p. 404.
1. This account of the Despard conspiracy is based upon: J. H. Gurney, The Trial of Edward Marcus Despard (1803), esp. pp. 33, 36, 44–5, 72–3, 79, 115, 127, 137, 174, 269; T.S. 11.332; T.S. 11.333; ‘Narrative of John Oxlade’ (annotated by Place) in Add. MSS. 27809; Leeds Mercury, 27 November 1802; Morning Post, 22 February 1803; State Trials at Large, The Whole Proceedings at the Trials of Colonel Despard (1803), p. 78. Fifteen years later Oliver the Spy reported upon a conversation with one of the chief conspirators, Charles Pendrill: ‘He admitted the Soldiers were very deeply implicated, and very staunch.’ On one occasion about 200 soldiers mustered in arms in houses close to the Tower, ready to attempt the coup, and Pendrill ‘seem’d confident that the Tower might have been very easily taken at that time, and given up by the soldiers, had they mustered any thing like the Intention; but the numbers that appeared were too contemptible’. Narrative of Oliver, in H.O. 40.9.
1. Add MSS. 27809, ff. 16, 17. See also W. E. S. Thomas, ‘Francis Place and Working Class History’, Hist. Journal (1962), p. 61.
1. Fitzwilliam Papers, F.44 (a), 45 (d); R. F. Wearmouth, Methodism and the Working-Class Movements of England, 1800–1850, p. 60. Compare T. A. Abdy to Duke of Portland, 20 December 1795, passing on information from ‘my own Gamekeeper, who from his situation has opportunities of learning more than I, as a Magistrate can…’: H.O. 42.37.
1. For the whole system of criminal information and its abuses, see L. Radzinowitcz, op. cit., I. pp. 333 ff.; Southey, Letters from England (1808, 2nd edn), I, p. 173; Hazlitt, ‘On the Spy System’, Works, VII, pp. 208 ff. For Nadin, see D. Read, Peterloo (Manchester, 1957), p. 65. For the bank note forgeries, see the Black Dwarf, 1816–18, passim; Duckett’s Dispatch, 9 February 1818; H. Hunt, Memoirs (1822), III, p. 483.
1. See, for example, A. F. Fremantle, ‘The Truth about Oliver the Spy’, Eng. Hist. Rev., XLVII (1932), p. 601; p. 601; R. J. White, From Waterloo to Peterloo, ch. 13.
2. Barlow, 16 November 1799, P.C. A.164. Barlow was not in fact dismissed at this point since (perhaps because he sensed how the wind was blowing) he commenced to send in long circumstantial accounts of illegal combinations.
3. A. B. Richmond, Narrative of the Condition of the Manufacturing Population (1825), p. 159. See also (for Oliver) the deposition of Charles Pendrill in Cobbett’s Political Register, 16 May 1818.
1. On the political spy system generally, see F. O. Darvall, Popular Disturbances and Public Order in Regency England (1934), chs. 12 and 14; Hammonds, The Skilled Labourer, ch. 12; F. W. Chandler, Political Spies and Provocative Agents (Sheffield, 1933); W. J. Fitzpatrick, The Secret Service under Pitt (1892).
2. Fitzwilliam wrote to Pelham of one spy: ‘…a most consummate Rascal, a fellow of as bad a character as can be found… Worthless as he may be, he may not be the worse Agent, for the purpose of getting into the secrets of the Disaffected’; 25 September 1802, Fitzwilliam Papers, F.45 (d).
1. Report of speech of Bagguley, in H.O. 40.4.
1. John Castle, 6 March 1817, T.S. 11.351.
1. Reports of Conant and Baker, 26 January 1812, in H.O. 42.119. (Copy also in Nottingham Reference Library.)
1. Frank Peel, The Risings of the Luddites (Heckmondwike, 1895 edn), pp. 269–70.
2. There is a little in Charlotte Brontë’s Shirley – nearly all from the ‘other’ side – and in A. L., Sad Times (Huddersfield, 1870) and in D. F. E. Sykes and G. Walker, Ben o’ Bill’s, The Luddite (Huddersfield, n.d.), and Frank Peel, The Risings of the Luddites (1st edn, 1880). See my introduction to the 1968 reprint of Peel.
1. W. Felkin, History of the Machine-Wrought Hosiery and Lace Manufactures (1867), pp. xvii, 240–41; Nottingham Review, 19 November 1852; W. H. Wylie, Old and New Nottingham (1853), p. 234. The influential member, in one account, was Alderman John Bradley. The discovery of these manuscripts would be of the greatest interest.
1. O. D. Rudkin, Thomas Spence and his Connections, pp. 122–3, 146–7; Add MSS. 27808.
1.C. Wilkins, History of Merthyr Tydfil (1867). By the same account, ‘religious men had the nails in their boots arranged to form T.P., that they might figuratively tread Tom Paine underfoot’.
2. Mayhew, op. cit., I, p. 318.
3. John Wilson, The Songs of Joseph Mather (Sheffield, 1862), pp. 56–7. Cf. B. Brierley, Failsworth, My Native Village, pp. 14–16.
1. Aspinal, op. cit., pp. 170, 174. My italics.
1. W. H. Reid, The Rise and Dissolution of the Infidel Societies, p. 20, declares that ‘the Clubbists’ thought ‘their business was to worm themselves into convivial societies of every kind’, in particular benefit societies.
1. P.C. A.161, 164. At about this time Major Cartwright was ‘much consulted in the formation of several infant societies’, called Union Societies. F. D. Cartwright, op. cit., I, p. 243.
2. T. Bayley to H.O., 6 November 1799, in P.C. A.164.
3. ‘Observations on Combinations among Workmen’, in P.C. A.152. See below, p. 573.
1. S. and B. Webb, History of Trade Unionism, p. 83. See also above, pp. 278–84.
2. See M D. George, ‘The Combination Acts’, Economic History Review, 1936, VI, pp. 172 ff. A useful summary of the legal position before and during the Acts is in Aspinall, op. cit., pp. x–xxx.
1. Beckett to Fitzwilliam, 28 January 1803, Fitzwilliam Papers, F.45 (e).
1. Cited by M. D. George, op. cit., p. 175.
1. For an excellent example, see the opinion of Spencer Perceval, then Attorney General, 5 October 1804: ‘If Government attends to this application on the part of the boot and shoemakers, similar applications must be expected from every other trade, and it will lead to an opinion that it is not the business of the masters of the trade who feel the injury to prosecute, but that it is the business of Government.’ Aspinall, op. cit., pp. 90–92.
2. T. A. Ward, op cit., pp. 216–19.
1. [G. White and Gravener Henson], A Few Remarks on the State of the Laws at present in Existence for regulating Masters and Workpeople (1823), p. 86.
2. Fourth Report… Artizans and Machinery (1824), p. 281.
4. R. W. Postgate, The Builders History, p. 17.
5. See R. F. Wearmouth, op. cit., Part III, ch. 2.
1. See A. B. Richmond, op. cit., p. 77.
2. [E. C. Tuffnell], Character, Objects and Effects of Trades’ Unions (1834; 1933 edn), p. 67.
3. Rules in Brit. Mus. press-mark L.R. 404.a.4. (52). See also the great variety of forms in The Book of Oaths (1649).
4. H.O. 42.119.
1. For the masonic tradition, and for the rôle of ritual and initiation ceremonies generally, see E. J. Hobsbawm, Primitive Rebels, ch. 9.
2. See facsimile in J. B. Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, facing p. 20.
3. MS. Diary of Anne Lister (Bankfield Museum, Halifax), 31 August, 9 September 1832.
1. Leeds Mercury, 15 December 1832. See also ibid., 4 August, 8 December, 22 December 1832, and (for Tester) Leeds Times, 7 and 14 June 1832. I have quoted these passages at length since they qualify the otherwise admirable account in Cole, Attempts at General Union, chs. 7 and 16.
1. Other oaths were based on Ezekiel XXI (see above, p. 431) and Numbers XXX, v.2 and Deuteronomy XXIII, v.21–3. See E. J. Jones, ‘Scotch Cattle and Early Trade Unionism in Wales’, Econ. Journal (Supplement), 1926–9, I, pp. 389–91.
1. Leeds Times, 19 April 1834. The Chairman, Thomas Barlow, added: ‘I am glad to hear that for some time back you have discontinued taking oaths.’
2. Nottingham City Archives, 3984 I, 22 June 1812.
3. Leeds Times, 7 June 1834. For examples, see Postgate, op. cit., pp. 21–2.
1. An excellent example of this deep-seated fear is to be found in Mrs Gaskell’s treatment of trade unions in her compassionate Mary Barton (1848)
2. Wallas, op. cit., p. 239.
1. Ibid., p. 204.
2. Place’s full account is in Wallas, op. cit., ch. 8; Webbs, op. cit., ch. 2; Postgate, op. cit., ch. 2.
1. See above, p. 279 and (for the croppers and stockingers) below, pp. 595–6.
2. Records of the Borough of Notingham, VIII, p. 156; Webbs, History of Trade Unionism, pp. 61–2; T. K. Derry, ‘Repeal of the Apprenticeship Clauses of the Statute of Apprentices’, Econ. Hist. Rev., III (1931–2), pp. 77, 85.
1. Wallas, op. cit., pp. 207–10; op. cit., p.100, n. 1. Moore’s (and Henson’s) Bill was certainly cumbersome and tactically ill-judged. It proposed to repeal close on 400 Acts and sections of Acts (including the obnoxious Master and Servants legislation which was employed for many years after the Combination Acts were repealed); and to enact measures 1) obliging employers to give employees a formal ticket stating wages and conditions of labour, 2) limiting overtime, 3) abolishing truck, 4) facilitating actions by employees against their employers for recovery of wages, 5) setting up machinery for arbitration. There were a number of minor clauses covering annual hirings, embezzlement of materials, tools, &c. See Parliamentary Papers (1823), II, pp. 253 et seq.; Hansard, new series, VIII, 366.
1. Wallas, op. cit., pp. 210, 217.
1. Wallas, op. cit., pp. 213–14, 228; Webbs, op. cit., pp. 106–7; Reports of Select Committee on Artizans and Machinery (1824), passim.
2. As early as January 1824 the Black Dwarf issued a general appeal for petitions in support of repeal; many scores of such petitions from trades clubs throughout the country flooded in in the first months of 1824. It is of interest to speculate how far members of Government (such as Huskisson) tolerated Hume’s Bill as a means of ditching the Bill of Peter Moore. See Black Dwarf, 17 January 1824; Mechanics’ Magazine, 24 January, 7 February 1824; Journals of the House of Commons, LXXIX, 1824; Huskisson in the debate of 27 May 1823, Hansard, new series, VIII (1823).
1. Wallas, op. cit., p. 204.
2. The Sheffield cutlers sent Place a handsome gift, while the Lancashire operative cotton-spinners held a dinner at which Hobhouse, Hume and Place were toasted, and a toast was also drunk to ‘The Cotton Manufacturers of Manchester; and may peace and harmony long prevail between them and their workpeople.’ See Trades Newspaper, 24 July 1825.
3. See below, ch. 16.
1. The Hammonds’ The Skilled Labourer remains the best account of the background to Luddism, ch. 4, ‘The Cotton Workers’, ch. 6, section 4, ‘The Shearmen or Croppers’, ch. 8, ‘The Framework Knitters’, and chs. 9 and 10 on Nottingham and Yorkshire Luddism. Frank Peel’s The Rising of the Luddites (for Yorkshire) is the most lively regional study. F. O. Darvall’s Popular Disturbances and Public Order in Regency England draws extensively but unimaginatively upon the Home Office papers.
2. The two terms were interchangeable, although ‘croppers’ was more commonly in use in Yorkshire and ‘shearmen’ in the West Country. Sometimes also the generic ‘cloth-dressers’ or ‘cloth-workers’ was used.
1. Loc. cit., p. 296. A clear elucidation of these processes is in W. B. Crump, The Leeds Woollen Industry, 1780–1820 (Leeds, 1931), pp. 38–51.
2. ‘Observations on Combinations’, 1799, P.C. A.152.
3. Committee on the Woollen Trade (1806), pp. 239, 289, 297.
1. Leeds Mercury, 15 January 1803.
2. Manchester Exchange Herald, 21 April 1812, cited in Darvall, op. cit., pp. 60–61,106.
1. ‘Observations on Combinations’, P.C. A.152. See also Committee on the Woollen Trade (1806), esp. pp. 235, 264–5, 369; W. B. Crump, op. cit., pp. 46, 317–18, 327; Hammonds, The Skilled Labourer, pp. 171–80; Aspinall, op. cit., pp. 40 ff.
2. There had, however, been gig-mills in the vicinity of Huddersfield for twenty years, which were ‘totally stopt from working’ by ‘an arrête of the workmen’ in 1802: Cookson to Fitzwilliam, 30 August 1803, Fitzwilliam Papers, F.45(d).
1. Aspinall, op. cit., p. 52; Fitzwilliam Papers, F.45(d).
2. Bowen to Duke of Portland, 20 December 1797, H.O. 42.41.
3. Hammonds, op. cit., pp. 172–3.
4. D. M. Hunter, op. cit., p. 21.
1. See the interesting letters of ‘A Looker On’ and ‘A Merchant’ in Leeds Mercury, 15, 22, 29 January 1803.
2. See E. A. L. Moir, op. cit., pp. 254 and 258–9; W. E. Minchinton, ‘The Beginnings of Trade Unionism in the Gloucestershire Woollen Industry’, Trans. Bristol and Glos. Archaeol. Soc., LXX, 1951, pp. 126 et seq.; Rules & Articles of the Woollen-Cloth Weavers Society (Glouceser, 1802).
1. Committee on the Woollen Trade, 1806, pp. 232, 239, 277, 347, 355, Appendix 13; Hammonds, op. cit., pp. 180–86; Aspinall, op. cit., pp. 66–7.