^{page 65 note 1} For trade-union developments in these years, see S., and Webb, B., The History of Trade Unionism (London, 1920), ch. 3;Google ScholarCole, G. D. H., Attempts at General Union (London, 1953);Google ScholarPostgate, R. W., The Builders' History (London, 1923),Google Scholar chs 3–5; Oliver, W. H., “Organisations and ideas behind the efforts to achieve a general union of the working classes in the early 1830's” (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Oxford, 1954);Google Scholar id., “The Consolidated Trades' Union of 1834”, in: Economic History Review, Second Series, XVII (1964–1965), pp. 77–95Google Scholar; Musson, A. E., British Trade Unions 1800–1875 (London, 1972),CrossRefGoogle Scholar ch. 4. For the tailors, see Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class (London, 1963), pp. 255–57Google Scholar; Galton, F. W., Select Documents illustrating the history of Trade Unionism, I: The Tailoring Trade (London, 1896).Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} E.g., Wiener, J. H., The War of the Unstamped (London, 1969)Google Scholar; P. Hollis, The Pauper Press (London, 1970), pp. 43, 52, 53, 110, 116, 117, 133, 148, 176, 197, 198, 267.

^{page 66 note 2} Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Matter of the Petition of Frederick Young, and others [Parliamentary Papers, 1833, XIII], p. 453.

^{page 66 note 3} Public Record Office, London, HO 64/11, reports dated 20 and 25 November 1830.

^{page 66 note 4} Ibid., 13 August 1827.

^{page 67 note 1} HO 64/12, undated report filed before report for 11 September 1832; Poor Man's Guardian, 8 September 1832, p. 528.

^{page 67 note 2} HO 44/6. See also Parssinen, T. M., “The Revolutionary Party in London, 1816–20” in: Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, No 45 (1972), pp. 266–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 67 note 3} The following account of the tailoring trade is based on these sources: Gorgon, 26 September 1818, pp. 148–51; 3 and 10 October, pp. 157–60, 161–62; Select Committee on Artizans and Machinery [Parliamentary Papers, 1824, V], Reports of Minutes of Evidence (F. Place), pp. 44–46; Labourer's Friend and Handicrafts Chronicle, October 1821, p. 311; Weekly Free Press, 3 July 1830; Man, 24 November 1833, p. 159; 1 and 8 December, pp. 161, 173; Crisis, 30 November 1833, pp. 109–10; Pioneer, 15 March 1834, pp. 253–54; 19 April, pp. 309–10; 3 and 10 May, pp. 329–30, 334–35, 338, 343; True Sun, 29 April 1834, p. 1; 6 May, p. 2; 9 May, p. 1; Place Collection, Set 41, f. 17; Set 51, ff. 246–47; Set 52, ff. 87–89, British Museum; W. Lovett in London Dispatch, 6 July 1836, ibid., Set 56, f. 10; Place to Longson, 28 May 1834, British Museum, Add. Mss 35149, f. 293; Webb Collection of Trade Union Manuscripts, A XIV, ff. 44–66, London School of Economics; Red Republican, 16 and 23 November 1850, pp. 169–70, 177–79.

^{page 68 note 1} For tramping, see Hobsbawm, E. J., “The Tramping Artisan”, in: Economic History Review, Second Series, III (1950–1951)Google Scholar, reprinted in his Labouring Men (London, 1965), ch. 4.

^{page 70 note 1} Man, 24 November 1833, p. 159; 1 and 8 December, pp. 161, 173; Crisis, 30 November 1833, p. 110; Poor Man's Guardian, 4 January 1834, p. 428.

^{page 70 note 2} This limitation “will be the distribution of the surplus hours of the old system. It will give employment to one-sixth more hands during the four summer months, and one-third during the other eight months, a desideratum of the greatest importance.” G. Batson in True Sun, 1 May 1834, p. 3.

^{page 71 note 1} Man, 13 October 1833, p. 108.

^{page 71 note 2} Pioneer, 22 February 1834, p. 216; 8 March, pp. 234–35; Poor Man's Guardian, 31 May 1834, p. 134; Oliver, “The Consolidated Trades' Union”, loc. cit., p. 80.

^{page 72 note 1} Most of the deposits at Owen's Labour Exchange were brought by individuals, but there also arose in connexion with it a number of societies, each consisting of members of a single trade, which produced goods for exchange in the bazaar. They used their funds to employ out-of-work members, and found the Exchange gave a ready market for the goods. These societies together formed the United Trades' Association, which in July 1833 took over from Owen's committee a leading share in the running of the Exchange. The UTA drew support from the same trades as joined the Consolidated Union, and actually suspended its meetings in February 1834 as many of its members were involved in the foundation of the union. For the UTA, see Crisis, April 1833 to March 1834; Oliver, W. H., “The Labour Exchange Phase of the Co-operative Movement”, in: Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, X (1958).Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 2} HO 64/15, account of receipts and expenditures.

^{page 72 note 3} Crisis, 12 April 1834, p. 4; 26 July, p. 128.

^{page 72 note 4} Ball to Roe, 5 and 15 April 1834, and anonymous undated report in HO 64/15; Oliver, “The Consolidated Trades' Union”, p. 84.

^{page 73 note 1} Browne to Owen, 5 March 1834, Owen Papers, No 679, Co-operative Union Library, Manchester.

^{page 73 note 2} Neal to Owen, 18 April 1834, Owen Papers, No 685. Neal was Chairman of the Amalgamated Tailors in the 1860's.

^{page 73 note 3} Pioneer, 19 April 1834, p. 307; 24 and 31 May, pp. 369, 380; Crisis, 19 April 1834, pp. 15–16; 24 May, p. 54.

^{page 73 note 4} Oliver, , “The Consolidated Trades' Union”; Webbs, History of Trade Unionism, pp. 114–50Google Scholar; Cole, G. D. H., The Life of Robert Owen (London, 1966), pp. 283–85Google Scholar; Cole, M., Robert Owen of New Lanark (New York, 1953), pp. 199–204Google Scholar; Cole, G. D. H., Attempts at General Union, pp. 122–50Google Scholar; Podmore, F., Robert Owen: A Biography (New York, 1907), pp. 447, 450Google Scholar; Harrison, J. F. C., Robert Owen and the Owenites in Britain and America (London, 1969), pp. 211–14Google Scholar; Cole, G. D. H. and Filson, A. W., British Working Class Movements: Selected Documents, 1789–1875 (London, 1965), pp. 270–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Saville, J., “J. E. Smith and the Owenite movement 1833–34”, in: Robert Owen: Prophet of the Poor, ed. by Pollard, S. and Salt, J. (London, 1971), pp. 115–38.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} Pioneer, 8 February 1834, p. 200; 31 May, p. 381.

^{page 74 note 2} Crisis, 19 April 1834, p. 14.

^{page 75 note 1} “We depend for deliverance entirely upon grand and national movements, and not upon the limited struggles of individual trades”. Pioneer, 3 May 1834, p. 330. Smith favoured embracing “the whole mass of producers, before hostilities are commenced”. Crisis, 3 May 1834, p. 29.

^{page 75 note 2} Crisis, 24 May 1834, p. 54.

^{page 75 note 3} Thus Morrison typically hailed the tailors' schemes for co-operative production as “the beginning of a new era – the beginning of the redemption of man”.

^{page 75 note 4} On 4 May a full meeting of delegates of the London trades recommended exclusive support for the True Sun. They also urged unionists not to buy the Times and to do their best to check its sale. Weekly True Sun, 11 May 1834, p. 290; Place Collection, Set 51, f. 72. In 1833 a hundred plasterers had walked in procession to the True Sun office and each bought a copy. Man, 29 September 1833, p. 99.

^{page 76 note 1} HO 64/19, report dated 18 March.

^{page 76 note 2} Pioneer, 29 March 1834, pp. 267–70; Poor Man's Guardian, 29 March 1834; Hall's reports in HO 64/15. Ideas of a general strike were circulating in the early 1830's, but hitherto they had been mainly political in conception, notably in Benbow's Grand National Holiday and Congress of the Productive Classes. It was usually combined with plans for simultaneous meetings and a national convention. But the failure of the Derby weavers and then the Dorchester sentence led to the spread of the idea as a trade-union weapon, to defeat the alliance of government and employers. All through April, Morrison's Pioneer called for a general strike, but the moderate view prevailed in the Central Committee. See I. Prothero, J., “William Benbow and the Concept of the ‘General Strike’”, in: Past & Present, No 63 (1974), pp. 132–71,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Parssinen, T. M., “Association, Convention, and Anti-Parliament in British Radical Politics, 1771–1848”, in: English Historical Review, LXXXVIII (1973), pp. 504–33.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 3} True Sun, 24 May 1834, p. 1.

^{page 77 note 1} The Times, 30 April 1834, pp. 2, 6; True Sun, 30 April 1834, p. 1.

^{page 77 note 2} Undated report in HO 64/15.

^{page 78 note 1} The Times, 29 April and 1 May 1834, p. 3; 9 May, p. 3; 28 May, p. 5; 30 May, p. 4; Mirror of Parliament, 1834, II, pp. 1314–16; Hansard, Third Series, XXIII, cc. 98–103.

^{page 78 note 2} Poor Man's Guardian, 10 May 1834, p. 107; Pioneer, 10 May 1834, p. 338.

^{page 78 note 3} Morning Herald, 5 May 1834; True Sun, 13 May 1834, p. 1.

^{page 78 note 4} Pioneer, 17 May 1834, p. 357.

^{page 78 note 5} Doc. XV, handbill in HO 64/19.

^{page 79 note 1} The Times, 26 May 1834, p. 5; True Sun, 4 June 1834, p. 1.

^{page 79 note 2} True Sun, 24 May 1834, p. 1.

^{page 79 note 3} Ibid., 4 June, p. 3.

^{page 80 note 1} According to Smith in Crisis, 12 July 1834, p. 109.

^{page 80 note 2} Pioneer, 26 June 1834, p. 420; Poor Man's Guardian, 12 and 26 July 1834, pp. 182, 197; Weekly True Sun, 6 July 1834, p. 354.

^{page 80 note 3} For accounts of this dispute, see Poor Man's Guardian and Weekly True Sun, August and September 1834.

^{page 80 note 4} Crisis, 14 June 1834, p. 76.

^{page 80 note 5} For conditions and activity in the early 1840's see English Chartist Circular, I, p. 205; II, pp. 5–6, 10–11; Northern Star, November 1843 through April 1845; Place Collection, Set 53, ff. 89, 127, 149–50.

^{page 80 note 6} Northern Star, 18 March 1848, p. 2; 25 March, p. 2; Reynolds's Political Instructor, 2 February 1850, p. 98; 6 April, p. 175; Holyoake, G. J. and Leblond, R., The Appeal of the Distressed Operative Tailors to the Higher Classes and the Public (London, 1850)Google Scholar; Mayhew, H., London Labour and the London Poor (London, 1861–1862), II, pp. 297–335;Google ScholarThe Unknown Mayhew, Selections from the Morning Chronicle 1849–1850, ed. by Thompson, E. P. and Yeo, E. (London, 1971), pp. 181–227.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 1} Charles Hodson Neesom (1785–1861) was a tailor by trade who grew up in Scarborough, but came to London in 1810 where he became a Spencean and was nearly involved in the Cato Street conspiracy. He was active in the National Union of Working Classes, the tailors' union and the “war of the unstamped”. Later he was a leading Chartist. Neesom knew Abel Hall from radical activities in the NUWC, and perhaps even from the post-war period.

^{page 81 note 2} The Rotunda had become the main radical meeting-place in London in 1830, when it was leased by Hall's friend, the notorious republican and infidel publisher Richard Carlile, for political and theological discussions. The large theatre could be hired for all manner of public meetings, including for a while the NUWC, the tailors' Grand Lodge, and later the London Central Committee of the GNCTU.

^{page 83 note 1} This refers to the famous device of the “document” in which employers made employees sign a declaration that they would not belong to a trade union. It was a tactic already used by builders in the North in 1833, and was widely used in the confrontation atmosphere of 1834.

^{page 84 note 1} I.e., vice-president. Hall, through unfamiliarity, has the names wrong. The president was James Woodham, the secretary Robert Guthrie, soon to be succeeded by John Browne.

^{page 84 note 2} I.e., National Union of Working Classes. Guthrie, William Duffey and George Petrie were all ultra-radicals, who were bitterly opposed to the more moderate leadership of Hetherington, Cleave and Watson. By 1833, all three had either quit or been expelled from the NUWC, and they looked instead to trade unions as the means of working-class emancipation.

^{page 86 note 1} This refers to the practice at tailors' houses of call of inscribing the names of members seeking work in a book. When a master sent to the house for men, he did not choose them, but had men sent to him in the order that names were inscribed in the book, so that those who had been waiting longest received work first. But at some of the tailors' houses there were two books, and those who had been members for a longer time were on the first book and always received priority in finding work. This had resulted in antagonism among the organised flints, and it was a prime objective of the United Order of Tailors that there should be a one-book system.

^{page 86 note 2} This was Owen's “Institution of the Industrious Classes”, where the Owenites had their meetings and regular lectures, and where were situated the National Equitable Labour Exchange and the Miscellaneous Lodge of the Consolidated Union.

^{page 87 note 1} With the King's refusal to act on the memorial and pardon the six labourers, the London Central Committee decided on and organised a mass petition to him. The Executive ordered a levy of 2½d per head, of which 2d would go to the six families, and ½d towards the expenses of the campaign. This raised £55 5/9d in London, and extended much wider than trades in the Union.

^{page 87 note 2} Presumably Woodham had gone out in rotation.

^{page 88 note 1} The Roebuck was the house of No 2 Branch Lodge, to which Hall belonged. The president was a foreman, Seagar, the secretary an Irishman, Michael Hayes, and the delegate, who attended the Grand Committee, was named Taylor.

^{page 88 note 2} Sometimes Hall saw Stafford or wrote direct to him, but often he reported through the policeman Brand. Brand's name is usually erased from the reports.

^{page 89 note 1} The magistrates could always bring pressure on landlords to refuse the use of their public-houses to radicals or unionists, by threatening to withdraw their licenses.

^{page 89 note 2} This refers to the great trade-union demonstration on 21 April, when 40–50,000 unionists marched in procession to present to Melbourne the petition signed by over 200,000.

^{page 91 note 1} Rowland Detrosier grew up in Manchester, where he was a deist, a radical journalist, and a brilliant educational lecturer to working men. He came to London in 1831, and was a leader in the National Political Union and the London Mechanics' Institution. He was attracted to Owenism, and acted as an intepreter for the Saint-Simonian mission in 1833–34. In 1833–34 he lectured regularly at Owen's Institution and the Hall of Science in Finsbury. Crisis, August 1833 through March 1834; 12 April 1834, p. 5; Williams, G. A., Rowland Detrosier: A working-class infidel 1800–1834 [Borthwick Papers, No 28] (York, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 1} The mysterious “Douglas” was the receiver of funds and petitions for the Executive. His existence is doubtful.

^{page 96 note 1} Although this is Hall's first mention of secessions, there had been press reports of some as early as 13 May.

^{page 97 note 1} Absconding officials were familiar enough in trade-union history. Browne denied the charge, and after several investigations he was cleared.

^{page 98 note 1} The meaning is unclear, but it seems to be that there was no restriction on the number of hours worked in the day, a prime objective of the union. In fact, many men went back at whatever terms were offered when they decided that the strike was lost. According to the Morning Herald of 31 May, 1400 went back at the start of this week and signed the document. Many of them accepted piece-work, which meant that they would earn much less than 6d per hour.

^{page 98 note 2} I.e., the tailors'.

^{page 99 note 1} See p. 94, note 1. This is the only mention of Douglas as a person, and it is not based on direct knowledge. The name first appears as an official of the Union in Pioneer, 22 March 1834, p. 260. It was probably a pseudonym; cf. Galton, The Tailoring Trade, p. lxxxiv; Oliver, “The Consolidated Trades' Union”, p. 80.

^{page 99 note 2} This was a lodge of whitesmiths. The Bell would long be a centre of engineering trade unionism in particular, and London trade unionism in general.

^{page 100 note 1} This refers to a meeting of master builders at the City of London Tavern, partly to consider reducing wages. Poor Man's Guardian, 24 May 1834, p. 130. After defeats in the country, London was now the only remaining centre of power left to the Builders' Union, and the employers were planning a confrontation. This came in August with the presentation of the “document”; a fierce struggle ensued and the Builders' Union was shattered.

^{page 104 note 1} This suggests a total of 1500 strikers.

^{page 104 note 2} Thomas Goldspink, an ex-committeeman of the NUWC, was a carpenter, and a leading figure in the Builders' Union and the Central Committee.

^{page 104 note 3} There were several radicals called Savage, but this is undoubtedly John Savage, who when a linen-draper had been the leader of the Marylebone parochial reformers who gained control of the vestry. He was an early member of the NUWC, active in reform agitation, leader in 1833 of resistance to the Assessed Taxes, and on the first committee of management of Owen's Labour Exchange. In 1834 Savage was a publican, his house being a great radical centre.