Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
This article has two purposes: to present some of the most basic facts about the Chartist Convention in 1839, and to offer a new structure for interpreting the Convention.
It is necessary to set forth the basic facts because historians have not bothered very much about them. The factual poverty of the historiography of the national Chartist movement was demonstrated recently by the publication of J. T. Ward's Chartism. Although the Convention of 1839 played a crucial role in the movement, Ward cannot tell his readers precisely who attended it or when it met. He states that fifty-four delegates attended it (p. 113), but in fact, seventy-one delegates attended the Convention. He incorrectly dates the adjournment for the simultanous meetings as 16 May (p. 123), and states that the Convention dissolved on 6 September (p. 133) when it met last on 14 September. Another sort of error in Ward's account involves the attendance of delegates. He asserts that Fletcher retired to Bury in March (p. 117), but Fletcher attended the Convention through July and sat in London on the Council in early August. He asserts Joseph Wood “left on 18 April” (p. 118); but no evidence exists that Wood attended the Convention after 18 February, and the evidence is overwhelming that he was not present at any time after 21 February. Ward says that Vincent and M'Douall were arrested in April (p. 121); in fact, Vincent was arrested just past midnight on the morning of 8 May, and M'Douall was taken by the authorities on 8 June. Ward asserts that Rider “led the summer resignations” (p. 125); he resigned on 2 May. Yet another source of error involves the sequence of events in localities as it affected the Convention and the delegates. Ward states that Richardson resigned to be replaced by Christopher Dean (p. 125); Dean was elected on 4 May, and Richardson resigned on 5 July. This dreary catalogue could be extended, but the point is clear.
1 I am indebted to Mr. Brock J. Austin of Fairfield, Connecticut for painstakingly double checking many of the facts about the Convention. I also am indebted to Mr. Richard Kay for assistance in compiling the attendance sheets for each day the Convention met.
2 Ward, J. T., Chartism (London, 1973)Google Scholar.
3 Gammage, R.G., History of the Chartist Movement, 1837-1854; (2nd edn. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1894)Google Scholar. The others all use a figure of 53 or 54 which comes from a list the Charter printed as delegates having taken their seats by the end of the second week (17 Feb., p. 55). This list was copied by Francis Place (British Library, Set 56, Vol. III.), and from one source or another has been used by subsequent historians: Beer, Max, A History of British Socialism, 2 vols. (London, 1921) II: 49Google Scholar; Hovell, Mark, The Chartist Movement (2nd edn.; Manchester, 1925), p. 121Google Scholar; Rosenblatt, Frank F., The Chartist Movement: In Its Social and Economic Aspects (New York, 1916), p. 154Google Scholar; West, Julius, A History of the Chartist Movement (London, 1920), pp. 121–122Google Scholar.
4 Beer (pp. 70, 72) and Hovell (p. 150) preceded Ward in asserting that the Convention adjourned on 16 May for the simultaneous meetings; West (p. 138) had the Convention sitting on Sunday, 14 July, when it did not meet.
5 Gammage (p. 109) dated Cobbett, Matthew, and Wade's resignations as early May; West misdated the arrests of Harney (p. 137), O'Brien, (p. 138), Frost (p. 139), and had Richardson taking part in a debate after he had resigned (p. 139); Beer misdates the trials of Lovett (p. 5) and Vincent (p. 9), Vincent's arrest (p. 9), and the resignations of Wade and Matthew, (p. 66-67); Hovell mistakenly thought Loveless never took his seat (p. 122), that Wood resigned on 18 April (p. 133), and that Richardson resigned towards the end of May (p. 154).
6 Gammage thought that the Crown and Anchor meeting of 16 March was held on the 11th (p. 108), an error that Beer (p. 65) and Rosenblatt (p. 158) repeat. Hovell had a Birmingham Journal editorial of 16 February following a letter Salt dated on 17 February (p. 126), had a 28 February meeting taking place on 2 March (p. 126), had a Morning Chronicle report appearing on 19 March (p. 128) when it was discussed on 18 March; and West dismissed the National Holiday when hundreds of Chartists and several delegates were arrested. “The strikers” he wrote, “kept the peace, and everything went off with perfect good humour and ineffectiveness” (p. 40).
7 West, pp. 107-108.
8 For a discussion of Chartist strategies and tactics, see Kemnitz, Thomas Milton: “Approaches to the Chartist Movement: Feargus O'Connor and Chartist Strategy,” Albion, V (Spring, 1973): 67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
