No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
New Departures in Maintaining Public Order in the Face of Chartist Disturbances
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
Avoidance of emergency legislation
“The people had a right to free discussion. It was free discussion which elicited truth. They had a right to meet.” In these words at a civic reception in Liverpool on October 3, 1838, Lord John Russell proclaimed his belief in one of the basic freedoms of democracy, at the very time that Chartists were mobilising their forces and spreading their doctrine at meetings held throughout the country. This was an untimely declaration which drew upon him the deserved reproof of Sir Robert Peel; it unfortunately seems to have been put later to some rather unscrupulous use by the Chartists, an example of which went to furnish Sir James Graham with offensive material for his attack on the Government during the debate of January 29, 1840, on a motion of no confidence. None the less, even when the Chartist gatherings had attained an advanced stage of organisation, Russell with undaunted singleness of purpose affirmed the Government's resolve not to ask Parliament for additional powers or extraordinary measures, but to rely on the existing laws: “It would be very inadvisable to make any sudden change in the laws of the country and to introduce laws, the same as in some foreign countries, of exception for certain parties; because those laws have two bad effects—the one is that they excite the sympathy of a number of persons who otherwise would have no feeling in common with ill disposed and designing persons; and in the next place, because the people of the country in general, and even those who appear to be the worst disposed, do feel that there is a power and supremacy in the law, to which they are ready to yield obedience; and if a new law were introduced merely for the suppression of those societies, they would not feel that they were treated with the same justice with which they would have been treated if the ordinary laws of the country had been resorted to for their suppression and punishment.”
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1960
References
1 Life of Russell (1889), by Spencer Walpole, vol. 1, p. 341; see also Parl.Deb. (1839) 3rd ser., vol. 45, cols. 108–110.
2 Parl.Deb. (1839) 3rd ser., vol. 49, col. 1157; ibid. vol. 47 (May 13, 1839), col. 1026; ibid. vol. 49, cols. 1153–1154 (Aug. 2, 1839).
3 The Chartist Movement (reprint of 1943), by Hovell, Mark, p. 198.Google Scholar
4 By 2 & 3 Vict. c. 12.
5 See J. R. Fisher and J. A. Strahan, The Law of the Press, etc. (1891), pp. 168–169.
6 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96.
7 Quarterly Review (1839), vol. 65 (Dec. 1839), p. 283 at p. 297.
8 A History of the Chartist Movement (1920), by West, J., p. 148.Google Scholar
9 Politics and the Press, 1780–1850 (1949), by Aspinall., A. p. 384.Google Scholar
10 Parl.Deb. (1840) 3rd ser., vol. 51, cols. 854, 855–856.
11 60 Geo. 3, c. 1 (1819).
12 See “Copy of Letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department to Lords–Lieutenant of certain Counties, respecting Arming and Training” (179) Parl.Pap. (1839), Acc. and Pap., vol. 38, p. 1. The letter was sent to the Lords Lieutenant of Monmouth, Staffordshire, Cumberland, Westmorland, Wiltshire, Northumberland, Somerset and Lancashire.
13 Parl.Deb. (1839) 3rd ser., vol. 47, “The Chartists,” col. 682. He was contradicted by Thomas Attwood, who “did not believe there had been fifty muskets or fifty pikes bought in England”: ibid col. 1027.
14 See “Copy of Lord John Russell's Letter to the Magistrates etc.” (299) Parl.Pap. (1839), Acc. and Pap., vol. 38, pp. 1–3.
15 ibid
16 See “Copies of Letters of Lord John Russell to the Lord Lieutenants of certain Counties, suggesting the formation of Associations etc.” (299) Parl.Pap. (1839), Acc. and Pap., vol. 38, p. 3.
17 Presented by S. M. Phillipps, an Assistant Under–Secretary of State, Home Office; see (559) Parl.Pap. (1839), Acc. and Pap., vol. 38, p. 13.
18 Parl.Deb. (1839) 3rd ser., vol. 48, June 11, “Arming the People,” col. 134 at col. 135.
19 ibid
20 See Home Office to Dundas, May 28, 1839, H.O. 41/14.
21 See Home Office to the Mayor of Bolton, May 21, 1839, H.O. 41/14; ditto to the Mayor of Macclesfield, Nov. 26, 1839, H.O. 41/15; Potter to the Home Office, July 18, 1839, H.O. 40/43; Mayor of Leeds to the Home Office, July 25, 1839, H.O. 40/51, and July 26, 1839, H.O. 40/51.
22 See “Copy of a Letter addressed by Colonel Rolleston, M.P., to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, etc.” (464) Parl.Pap. (1839), Acc. and Pap., vol. 38, pp. 9–11.
23 ibid p. 10.
24 See “Copy of a Letter from Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department to Colonel Rolleston, etc.” (448) Parl.Pap. (1839), Acc. and Pap., vol. 38, p. 7.
25 2 St.Tr.(N.S.), App.G, p. 1025 at p. 1028.
26 Parl.Deb. (1839), 3rd ser., vol. 50 (Aug. 29), col. 483 at col. 484 (Chartist Prisoners).
27 See Wemyss to the Home Office, Sept. 24, 1838, H.O. 40/38.
28 R. G. Gammage, History of the Chartist Movement (1894), p. 94.
29 See the Spectator (1838), no. 546, p. 1173. See also Macoby, English Radicalism, 1832–1852 (1935), note 3 at p. 182 for an account of a meeting at Bolton on Oct. 29, 1838.
30 Home Office to Moseley, Dec. 22, 1838, H.O. 41/13.
31 Spectator (1838), no. 546, p. 1173; see also ibid (1838), p. 1155.
32 See the Attorney-General's comments upon the processions (mentioned above) which converged upon the appointed meeting place at Hyde on Nov. 14, 1838, in R. v. Stephens (1839), State Trials (1831–40), n.s., vol. 3, p. 1190 at pp. 1192–1193; see also the Spectator (1838), no. 546, p. 1173; and “Torchlight meetings and their consequences,” in the Manchester Guardian, Dec. 12. 1838.
33 Parl.Deb. (1845) 3rd ser., vol. 77, col. 987.
34 See letter from Battye, Brook and Walker to the Home Office, Jan. 22, 1840, H.O. 40/57.
35 See the Home Office's very interesting letter to Lord Newcastle, Dec. 21, 1838 (private), H.O. 41/13. See also Fowler's two letters to Lord John Russell, Jan. 16, 1839, and Feb. 22, 1839, H.O. 44/52, and the reports of Inspectors Hughes and Pearce dated Jan. 19 and 22, 1839, H.O. 44/52.
36 See, for instance, the letters of Paley, Thompson and Hird, magistrates, to the Home Office, Dec. 17, 1839, H.O. 40/51; and of the Bradford magistrates, ditto, Jan. 27, 1840, H.O. 40/57.
37 The factory inspectorate was instituted on the recommendation of the Commission inquiring into the employment of children in factories; see their “First Report etc.” (450) Parl.Pap. (1833), vol. 20, pp. 1–74. The Commission's recommendations were embodied in the Factory Act of 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 103).
38 Lord Shaftesbury, by J. L. and Hammond, B. (4th ed., 1936), p. 36Google Scholar; and The Times, May 22 and June 10, 1833.
39 Quoted by Hutchins, B. L. and Harrison, A., A History of Factory Legislation (2nd ed., 1911), p. 56.Google Scholar
40 “Fifth Report from the Sel.Com. on the Act for the Regulation of Mills and Factories, …” (419) Parl.Pap. (1840), vol. 10, p. 507, evidence no. 8205 at pp. 635 and 635–638. See also ibid nos. 8276–8277 at p. 640.
41 ibid p. 641.
42 See Parl.Deb. (1840), 3rd ser., vol. 55 (July 17), “Factory Inspector–Spies,” cols. 785 and 788.
43 Recollections of a Long Life (ed. by Lady, Dorchester, 1911), vol. 5, p. 281.Google Scholar
44 Parl.Deb. (1840), 3rd ser., vol. 55 (July 17), col. 801.
45 ibid col. 805. As an illustration he quoted the Thistlewood conspiracy.
46 See Police Order Book, Aug. 10, 1839; preserved in Metropolitan Police Records, New Scotland Yard.
47 British Police and the Democratic Ideal (1943), by Reith, Charles, pp. 248–249.Google Scholar
48 Report of Wilson, Dec. 1, 1839, H.O. 40/50; letter of Burgess (Head of the Birmingham Police) to the Home Office, Jan. 14, 1840, H.O. 65/10; report of John Pashley (a constable: P.C. 276), H.O. 40/56.
49 Shaw to the Home Office, Dec. 18, 1839 (private and confidential), H.O. 40/43; Dec. 20, 1840 (confidential), H.O. 40/54; Jan. 3, 1840, H.O. 40/54; Feb. 12, 1840, H.O. 40/54.
50 See warrant to the Postmaster-General, Feb. 8, 1839, H.O. 79/4. For a collection of such letters, see H.O. 40/53.
52 See the letter of Maberley, Secretary to the Post Office, to Fox Maule, Assistant Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Feb. 15, 1839, H.O. 40/53; and see the two letters of the Home Office to Maberley, Aug. 5, 1839 (secret), H.O. 79/4. For some interesting details see Maberley's letter to the Home Office, Nov. 20, 1839, H.O. 33/4; and the letter of the Home Office to Maberley, Dec. 27 and 28, 1839, H.O. 79/4.
53 Rev. B. Parsons, The Shaking of the Nations and the Downfall of Tyranny, included in a letter of Neale to the Home Office, June 17, 1848 (strictly private and confidential), H.O. 40/59.
54 See H.O. 40/44 and H.O. 44/52; Templeton's letter of Apr. 24, 1839, H.O. 40/43.
55 See letter to the Home Office, Apr. 24, 1839, H.O. 40/43; and letter to Laycock, Sept. 5, 1839, H.O. 41/15.
56 R. v. Joseph Rayner Stephens, 3 St.Tr.(N.S.) note (a) at p. 1199. See further the letter of Maude (a Manchester magistrate) to the Home Office, Apr. 25, 1839, H.O. 40/43; of the Clerks of Magistrates, Ashton-under-Lyme, ditto, May 1839, H.O. 40/37; of Templeton, ditto, Apr. 24, 1839, H.O. 40/43; of the Mayor of Manchester, ditto, July 25, 1839, H.O. 40/43; and the letter of Charlton and Hibbert, ditto, June 29, 1839, H.O. 40/37.
57 Lord John Russell, Parl.Deb. (1839), 3rd ser., vol. 49, col. 1155.
58 Parl.Deb. (1839), 3rd ser., vol. 49 (Aug. 5), “Public Discontent,” col. 1200 at cols. 1202–1203.
59 See a letter of the Home Office to the Mayor of Newport, Nov. 20, 1839, H.O. 41/15; a letter of Dudley to the Home Office, July 25, 1839, H.O. 40/44; and a letter of the Home Office to Dudley, July 27, 1839, H.O. 41/14.
60 See memorial of the Duke of Portland and of three magistrates, Nov. 7, 1840, H.O. 40/55.
61 See the letters of the Home Office to C. H. Leigh, March 23, 1839, H.O. 41/13 and that of Leigh to the Home Office, July 1, 1840, H.O. 45/49.
62 See the letter of the Home Office to Shaw (Commissioner of Police in Manchester), Aug. 14, 1839, H.O. 41/14 and the letter of Shaw to the Home Office, March 1, 1841, H.O. 45/46.
63 Prisoners for Libel (1840); on this paper see below, n. 69.
64 See G. J. Holyoake, Life of J. R. Stephens (1881), pp. 143–145, and R. v. Stephens, 3 St.Tr.(N.S.), p. 1190, note (c) at p. 1208 and note (a) at p. 1209.
65 R. v. Badger and Cartwright (1843) 4 Q.B. 468 at p. 474.
66 Rosenblatt, F. F., Social and Economic Aspects of the Chartist Movement (New York, 1916)Google Scholar, vol. 73 of the Columbia Univ. Studies in History, Economics and Public Law. pp. 205 and 206.
67 See petitions on behalf of Chartist prisoners presented by Lord Brougham and others in Parl.Deb. (1839), 3rd ser., vol. 49, July 8, col. 437; Aug. 2, col. 1188; vol. 50, Aug. 22, col. 483; (1840), vol. 51, Jan. 24, col. 508; vol. 54, May 27, cols. 647, 648; June 2, cols. 895, 908; vol. 55, July 3, col. 408; (1840), vol. 53, April 14, col. 1103; vol. 55, July 10, col. 618; July 17, col. 771; (1841), vol. 58, May 25, cols. 740, 745–749. Much detailed information is also given in a number of White Papers. See for instance “Copy of the proposed Rules respecting Prisoners in York Castle, etc.” (422) Parl.Pap. (1840), Acc. and Pap., vol. 38, p. 613; “A Copy of Correspondence … respecting the Treatment of Mr. Feargus O'Connor, etc.” (395) ibid p. 615; “Return of the Rules, stating the Treatment, before and after Conviction, of Persons confined in Fisheton Gaol, (and) … the Gaols of Ilchester and Wilton, … from 1833 to the present Time” (426) ibid p. 631; “Copies of any Memorials or Correspondence relating to the Treatment of William Lovett and John Collins, etc.” (44) ibid p. 751; and “Copy of the Rules and Regulations adopted in the County Gεol of Warwick” (455) Parl.Pap. (1839), Acc. and Pap., vol. 38 p. 459; “Prisoners for Libel etc.” (600) Parl.Pap. (1840), Acc. and Pap., vol. 38, p. 691.
68 “Chartism” in Fraser's Magazine, Jan.–June 1848, vol. 37, p. 579, at pp. 585–586.
69 See “Prisoners for Libel” (600) Parl.Pap. (1840), Acc. and Pap., vol. 38, p. 691. The full title of the paper runs to more than 300 words but it can be abbreviated to: “A Return from each Gaol and House of Correction in the United Kingdom from January 1, 1839 to June 1, 1840, stating: (1) The Name of every Person confined for Charges for Printing and Publishing Seditious or Blasphemous Libel, or for Attending any Seditious Meetings, or for any Offence of a Political Nature; the Nature of the Charge; the Term of Sentence suffered, (2) The Treatment before and after Conviction…. (4) Comparative Treatment of Persons Confined for Misdemeanour before and after Conviction or Sentence.”
70 In the Return, the total is given as 380, which is evidently a misprint; Parl.Pap. (1840) Acc. and Pap., vol. 38, p. 693. The Return gives an aggregate figure for all persons confined to prisons only. It has therefore been found necessary to compile other aggregate figures on the basis of material scattered over some 33 pages of the Return. This was a laborious process and slight errors may have crept in. But they would not invalidate the general conclusions.
71 According to Fox Maule, the Under–Secretary of State, “about 467 persons were tried for offences connected with chartism, and of that number 379 were convicted”; Parl.Deb. (1841), 3rd ser., vol. 58, col. 751. It is not clear, however, whether this figure includes persons convicted in Wales. According to W. J. Linton, 443 Chartists “were imprisoned for different periods in 1839 and 1840”: Memoirs (1895), pp. 36–37.
72 See 4 St.Tr.(N.S.), App. C, pp. 1407–1408.
73 Fox Maule in Parliament; see Parl.Deb. (1841), 3rd ser., vol. 58, col. 752. They were: John Frost, William Jones, Zephariah Williams, Charles Walters, John Res, John Lovett, Richard Benfield and Jenkin Morgan, all tried for high treason in connection with the rising at Newport; committed on Nov. 5 and tried on Dec. 31, 1839. Francis Roberts, John Jones and Jeremiah Howell, convicted in August 1839 for unlawfully assembling, and demolishing a house during a riot in Birmingham; sentenced to death under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 8; R. v. Howell and Others, 9 P. & C. 437; 173 E.R. p. 901; 3 St.Tr.(N.S.) 1087. Their sentences were commuted to transportation largely owing to the exertions of Joseph Sturge; see H. Richmond, Memoirs of Joseph Sturge (1864), p. 61.
74 It should be noted, however, that almost all offenders sentenced to imprisonment were also ordered to enter into recognisances, with or without sureties, to keep the peace for varying periods, often for as long as five years. In a number of cases the imprisonment was with hard labour. The sureties were usually high.
75 Parl.Deb. (1840), 3rd ser., vol. 51, col. 853.
76 Parl.Deb. (1839), 3rd ser., vol. 49, cols. 246–247, and ibid (1846), 3rd ser., vol. 84, cols. 896 and 900.
77 General Sir W. Napier, The Life and Opinions of General Sir Charles Napier (1857), vol. 2, p. 135.
78 See vol. 2 of my History of the English Criminal Law (1956), pp. 215–224.Google Scholar
79 See Lord John Russell's speech, Parl.Deb. (1839), 3rd ser., vol. 49 at col. 730.
80 Lord John Russell, Parl.Deb. (1839), 3rd ser., vol. 47, col. 1025.
81 ibid col. 621.
82 Teichman, Major Oskar, “The yeomanry as an aid to civil power, 1795–1867,” Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research (1940), vol. 19, no. 73, p. 127Google Scholar at pp. 138, 139 and 140; Thorn to the Home Office, July 16, 1839, H.O. 40/53; ditto, July 18, H.O. 40/53; ditto, July 25, H.O. 40/53; ditto, Aug. 14, H.O. 40/44; ditto, Aug. 16, H.O. 40/53; ditto, Aug. 24, H.O. 40/53.
83 See Teichman, loc. cit. note 8 at p. 141. For the strength and distribution of the yeomanry, see “Return of the Number of Troops or Corps of Regiments of Effective Yeomanry of Great Britain according to the last Muster Roll, 4th June, 1839,” Parl.Pap. (1839), Acc. and Pap., vol. 12, p. 308.
84 See the letter from the Home Office to the Mayor of Carlisle, May 11, 1839, H.O. 41/14.
85 See Maude (from Manchester) to the Home Office, Apr. 25, 1839, H.O. 40/43; Harewood, May 1, 1839 and enclosure, H.O. 40/51; Maude, May 5, 1839, H.O. 40/43; Jarvis, Aug. 6, 1839, H.O. 40/44; Shaw, Dec. 27, 1840, H.O. 40/54.
86 See Scholefield, May 10, 1839, H.O. 40/50; Bradford Magistrates, Aug. 12, 1839, H.O. 40/51; Magistrates of Atherton, May 22, 1839, H.O. 40/37; Superintendent Beswick to the Mayor of Manchester, H.O. 45/268. And Home Office to Evans, May 6, 1839, H.O. 41/13.
87 Parl.Deb. (1839), 3rd ser., vol. 49, cols. 727 and 728.
88 See Balcarres's letter to the Home Office, Aug. 13, 1839, H.O. 40/37.
89 Parl.Deb. vol. 50, col. 255.
90 ibid vol. 49, col. 737.
91 M. D. Hill, Repression of Crime (1857), p. 2.
92 Letter of Dec. 12, 1838, H.O. 40/39.
93 Halevy, E.. History of the English People, 1830–1841 (1927), p. 57.Google Scholar
94 See his letter of Dec. 2, 1838, to Melbourne, in Russell Papers, G. & D. 22/3.
95 Parl.Deb. (1839), 3rd ser., vol. 49, col. 620.
96 ibid col. 1150.
97 For more details see Jackson's letter to the Home Office, Feb. 27, 1839, H.O. 40/53. See also Hill's letter to the Home Office of May 1, 1839, H.O. 40/53.
98 See Lieut–Gen. Sir W. Napier, The Life and Opinions of General Sir Charles James Napier (1857), vol. 2, pp. 22, 73 and 7.
99 Beer, M., A History of British Socialism (1927), vol. 2, p. 3.Google Scholar
1 Parl.Deb. (1840), 3rd ser., vol. 52 (March 9) “Supply: Army–Estimates,” col. 1081 at col. 1094.
2 See, for instance, Parl.Deb. (1839), 3rd ser., vol. 49, July 26, “The Chartists,” cols. 914–915.
3 See Hovell, op. cit. p. 175, and Beer, op. cit. pp. 96–97.
4 Lieut.-Gen. Sir William Napier, The Life and Opinions of General Sir Charles J. Napier (1857), vol. 2.
5 Life and Opinions, vol. 2, p. 66.
6 Letter of Sir Richard Jackson, Dec. 19, 1838, H.O. 40/39.
7 Life and Opinions, vol. 2, p. 63.
8 ibid p. 79.
9 ibid p. 44.
10 ibid p. 66.
11 ibid pp. 71–72.
12 ibid p. 11.
13 ibid p. 155.
14 ibid p. 81.
15 ibid p. 116.
16 ibid p. 39.
17 ibid p. 64.
18 See Napier's letter of May 17, 1839, H.O. 40/53; and Life and Opinions, vol. 2, p. 49.
19 See Wemyss's letter to the Home Office, Feb. 24, 1839, H.O. 40/43; and Napier's letter, July 29, 1839, H.O. 40/53.
20 Home Office correspondence, Dec. 5; 1838, H.O. 41/13, and Napier's letter to the Home Office, June 24, 1839, H.O. 40/53.
21 Butler, J. R. M., The Passing of the Great Reform Bill (1914), p. 422.Google Scholar
22 Dr. J. Mitchell, one of the assistant commissioners, in “Reports from Assistant Hand Loom Weavers Commissioners,” part 2 (43.–I), Parl.Papers (1840), vol. 8, p. 184.
23 Parl.Pap. (1839), vol. 19, p. 1.
24 “Reports,” Parl.Pap. (1840), vol. 8, pp. 184–185.
25 Life and Opinions, vol. 2, p. 65 (entry dated July 26, 1839).
26 See Ward, John William, Letters to “Ivy” (1905), p. 146.Google Scholar On the Ratcliffe murders and their significance in the movement for the reform of the police, see my History of the English Criminal Law, vol. 3 (1956), p. 315Google Scholaret seq.
27 “Second Report from the Select Committee appointed to consider the expediency of adopting a more uniform system of police in England and Wales, etc.” (715) Parl.Pap. (1852–53), vol. 36, p. 163, evidence no. 3638 at pp. 253–254.
28 2 & 3 Vict. cc. 15, 44, 47, 64 (local), 71, 87, 88, 93 and 95.
29 Parl.Deb. (1839), 3rd ser., vol. 49, col. 691. See also the remarks of Lord Brougham and Disraeli during the debate on the County and District Constables Bill, ibid cols. 602 and 731.
30 Parl.Deb. (1839), 3rd ser., vol. 49, col. 1385.
31 See vol. 1 of my History, p. 566 et seq.
32 Parl.Deb. (1839), 3rd ser., vol. 49, cols. 728, 735, 736, 737; vol. 50, col. 7; vol. 49, col. 705.