A Century of Female Revolution: From Peterloo to Parliament

Preface

It is difficult to assess what elements of nineteenth-century life were a result of Peterloo and which were complementary to the main event. There were so many facets to Peterloo, and so many ultimate achievement s of its aims which overlapped into areas not originally foreseen. For example, were the Public Health Acts of the 1870s or the Education Acts of the 1870s and 1880s a direct result of Peterloo? The whole of the nineteenth century was a time of great change. Initially it was the advance of the Industrial Revolution which caused changes, but Peterloo encapsulated the struggle of adaptation. For centuries there had been a wealthy landed ‘upper order’ of limited numbers and a ‘lower order’ of ‘the masses’, generally despised by the ‘upper orders’, but who nevertheless needed their labour in order to maintain their own comfortable lifestyles. Poverty was rampant, both in urban and industrial areas. Not unnaturally, those forced to live in poverty wanted something better. Not unnaturally, those who had had privileged lifestyles did not wish to sacrifice them. It is a problem which still affects much of the world today. Back in pre-history, before ‘class’ was invented, the first person to work out how to make fire for warmth and cooking, the first person to invent the wheel, the first people to weave or sew clothing, were just ordinary people, and may well have been women. Stone Age farmers lived in small settlements with dwellings of equal size. There were farmers, bakers, butchers, basket makers, potters and tool makers, but they were all obviously regarded as equally important to an interdependent society. There was also a system of social care. People with illness or disability lived to ages far beyond those at which they would have died had it not been for carers. That much is discernible from the archaeological record; but all this appeared to change when precious metals were first discovered, and suddenly settlements evolve into one large dwelling surrounded by a few hovels. Some burials are grander. Grave goods (precious objects a person might need for the next life) became more exotic. From that time, subsequent divisions between the groups of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ have persisted right down to the present day and throughout the centuries have caused grief, suffering, problems, uprisings and wars. Peterloo was just such an event. Initially a peaceful protest, it turned into a nightmare of violence and carnage but that was only the beginning.

Chapter 1

Background to Peterloo

In the early nineteenth century, despite the growth of the cotton industry, Manchester’s burgeoning population was not represented at all in Parliament, nor were Stockport or Saddleworth, although the government was very happy to acquire the wealth and profits being generated by ‘Cottonopolis’. At the same time, although Manchester did not have any parliamentary representation, there were ‘rotten boroughs’, deserted villages. Each of them could return two members of parliament who were usually local landed gentry. Thus, a comparatively tiny number could wield disproportionate power, so there was a crucial and pressing need for electoral reform. Old Sarum in Wiltshire, which had no inhabitants at all, and Dunwich in Suffolk, which had disappeared into the sea, are probably the bestknown examples of rotten boroughs. Only a tiny percentage of the male population had a vote, and many of these voters did not have a choice for whom they voted. There were also property qualifications which were necessary before anyone could stand for Parliament, reducing the availability of those who wanted to be electoral candidates. The basis of the three main political demands of the workers were: that one MP should represent each constituency, each constituency should be of equal size and that there should be universal suffrage.

Although there had been some talk of votes for women, universal suffrage would be intended for male voters only at this time. It was felt that once all men had the vote, votes for women might follow. Electoral reform was long overdue, but not unnaturally, this was fiercely resisted by the elite and entitled upper classes. The other main grievance at this time was the Corn Laws, introduced to maintain a high price for corn after the Napoleonic wars, so that the aristocracy could make handsome profits by keeping bread prices high. Repeal of the Corn Laws had become essential if everyone was to be able to afford to eat. Britain was producing goods at extremely low prices to the advantage of both home and foreign consumers. However, one million people employed in cotton manufacturing did not have the means of becoming consumers to half the extent they could have done if a minimum price for weaving was fixed. It was felt that both workers and manufacturers should have ‘wholesome regulations’ on weaving prices. As it was, over production resulted in under trading and weavers were laid off because their employers could not afford to pay them. Most weavers were either on part-time work or had no employment at all. Folk were struggling to feed themselves and their families, and to keep a roof over their heads, but protests went unheeded because they had no official voice in Parliament and therefore no say in government or legislation.

There was no social security system, just the hated Poor Laws, which meant that if folk couldn’t support themselves, they would end up a pauper in the workhouse, where conditions were spartan and the unremitting menial chores hard and repetitive. It was a fate many dreaded. Out of this situation was born the need and desire for urgent reform to alleviate the hunger and suffering of those with no work, and those working long hours for low wages. Reform movements grew, asking for a democratic parliamentary system to be established, and the means to earn a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. There had been unrest about the dire economic situation for some time. The cost of the Napoleonic Wars caused economic hardship in Britain and wages had fallen sharply in the northern towns of Cottonopolis. Even before the battle of Waterloo (15 June 1815) there had been poverty, distress and much resentment of how working-class people were treated which, in turn, had led to radical outlooks and the formation of radical clubs. In 1812, the year of Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow, Major John Cartwright had formed the first Hampden Club in London. His brother was Edmund Cartwright who had designed and built the power loom in the mid-1770s; this may have influenced John Cartwright’s ideas as much as it influenced radical thought in northern industrial cities. These clubs aimed to bring together more moderate members of the middle classes with radical working-class people.

The first Hampden Club outside London was formed in 1816 at Royden on the Wirral by William Fitton. This was followed by a rash of Hampden Clubs in the Manchester area including: Middleton Hampden Club, formed by Samuel Bamford; Oldham Hampden Club, formed by Joseph Healey; Manchester Hampden Club, formed by John Knight and Joseph Johnson. The authorities were wary of these clubs and arrested John Knight in 1813 to make the point. Nevertheless he persisted in his beliefs that there should be universal suffrage, a secret ballot and annual parliaments. Initially, however, his efforts were constantly thwarted by endless arguments over how much property a potential voter should own. His idea was that universal suffrage should mean just that. All men should be entitled to a vote whatever their financial or property-owning status. For the most part, women were not generally included in the concept of universal suffrage at this time. There were also clubs in Rochdale, Ashton-under-Lyne and Stockport. Political issues were debated and radical newspapers, like the Manchester Observer and Black Dwarf were read.

1815 was not a good year, especially for the working classes. The Corn Laws had been introduced that year to protect the landed gentry against cheaper foreign imports of grain, but this had only served to increase the price of grain by decreasing the supplies, which was causing severe problems for the poor.

In 1813, a House of Commons Committee had recommended excluding foreign-grown corn until the price of domestically grown corn increased to 80 shillings (£4 – equivalent to £260 in 2018) per quarter (8 bushels): or currently equivalent to around £1,102 per tonne of wheat.

Augustus de Morgan, 1830

There were a number of reasons for this and they were neatly summed up by historian Asa Briggs (1959).

First, it would guarantee the prosperity of the manufacturer by affording him outlets for his products. Second, it would relieve the Condition of England question by cheapening the price of food and ensuring more regular employment. Third, it would make English agriculture more efficient by stimulating demand for its products in urban and industrial areas. Fourth, it would introduce through mutually advantageous international trade a new era of international fellowship and peace. The only barrier to these four beneficent solutions was the ignorant self-interest of the landlords, the ‘bread-taxing oligarchy, unprincipled, unfeeling, rapacious and plundering’.

What could possibly go wrong?

In April 1815 there was a huge volcanic eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia which caused extreme weather conditions worldwide, followed by ‘the year without a summer’ in 1816 when thick fog covered the land for months; there were severe frosts, heavy rain fell in the summer months and temperatures dropped catastrophically. The harvests were ruined and there was widespread famine. Although there was some improvement by 1817, it was not enough to remedy the food situation and most workers were desperate. However, the basic problem was that the price of bread was rising at the same time as manufacturers were cutting wages. Richard Cobden (co-founder with John Bright of the Anti-Corn Law League in 1838) praised the following speech made by a hard-pressed working-class man.

When provisions are high, the people have so much to pay for them that they have little or nothing left to buy clothes with; and when they have little to buy clothes with, there are few clothes sold; and when there are few clothes sold, there are too many to sell, they are very cheap; and when they are very cheap, there cannot be much paid for making them: and that, consequently, the manufacturing working man’s wages are reduced, the mills are shut up, business is ruined, and general distress is spread through the country. But when, as now, the working man has the said 25s left in his pocket, he buys more clothing with it (ay, and other articles of comfort too), and that increases the demand for them, and the greater the demand … makes them rise in price, and the rising price enables the working man to get higher wages and the masters better profits. This, therefore, is the way I prove that high provisions make lower wages, and cheap provisions make higher wages.

Bright and Thorold Rogers

The year was overshadowed by the death in childbirth of Princess Charlotte, the only legitimate child of the Prince Regent. The baby was a boy, but he was stillborn. Princess Charlotte was popular, and her death highlighted yet again the dangers of childbirth. At the beginning of 1817, Thomas Wooler, a London-based journalist, founded a new radical journal named Black Dwarf. It became a successful publication which was supported by Sir John Cartwright, who had founded the Hampden Clubs, which were, in turn, supported by Black Dwarf. Wooler compared the Hampden Clubs to the Quakers.

Those who condemn clubs either do not understand what they can accomplish, or they wish nothing to be done … Let us look at, and emulate, the patient resolution of the Quakers. They have conquered without arms – without violence – without threats. They conquered by union.

Wooler was arrested on charges of ‘seditious libel’ in May 1817, but was acquitted. Like many before him and after him, Wooler argued that the real culprit was capitalism.

Let him abandon the labourer to his own protection; cease to oppress him, and the poor man would scorn to hold any fictitious dependence upon the rich. Give him a fair price for his labour, and do not take two-thirds of a depreciated remuneration back from him again in the shape of taxes. Lower the extravagance of the great. Tax those real luxuries, enormous fortunes obtained without merit. Reduce the herd of locusts that prey upon the honey of the hive, and think they do the bees a most essential service by robbing them. The working bee can always find a hive. Do not take from them what they can earn, to supply the wants of those who will earn nothing. Do this; and the poor will not want your splendid erections for the cultivation of misery and the subjugation of the mind.

Early in 1817 an electoral reform bill had been drafted by workers and there were meetings held in Manchester with a view to petitioning the Crown directly for reform and relief. However, in January 1817, the Prince Regent’s coach had been attacked by rioting London workers. Consequently, the Prince Regent was not in a receptive frame of mind and this resulted in the passing of the Treason Act 1817 and the Seditious Meetings Act 1817, engineered by Lord Sidmouth and known as the ‘Gagging Acts’. Habeas Corpus was suspended for fourteen months (January 1817 – March 1818); meetings of over fifty people were banned, and magistrates could arrest anyone suspected of ‘seditious libel’. As a result, there were vitriolic attacks upon those whom the Establishment saw as ‘the scum of the earth’. Consequently, there were several uprisings around the country, notably in Stockport, Leicester, Birmingham, London Smithfield and at Pentridge in Nottingham. There were also a couple of ‘Blanket Marches’, one in March 1817 composed of Manchester workers, and another in the autumn of 1818 composed of both male and female weavers from Manchester, Stockport and Ashton-under-Lyne. Both were organised in Manchester. The idea was that thousands of workers should march to London to protest about lack of jobs, enforced starvation and to demand a right to vote so that they had some say in how the country was run. The name ‘blanket’ came from the fact that participants carried blankets for sleeping on the route because they were uncertain of accommodation, and most could not afford it anyway.

Neither of these marches ever reached London; the cavalry and local forces of law and order saw to that. Ringleaders were arrested and imprisoned, and the rest forced to return home before they had barely gone a few miles. There was a general sense of unrest in the country as anger and resentment built up over the injustices meted out to the working classes as the upper classes desperately tried to preserve the status quo. Charles Dickens, who was 7 at the time of Peterloo, later wrote that in July 1818,

the Manchester Spinners, restless under their distress, had begun to realise the necessity of organization and of united action. Unable to resist the oppressions of greedy wealth,