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: 18 December 2008
The theory of a secret revolutionary tradition, closely woven into the fabric of early working-class activity and surfacing at particular moments of crisis, continues to fascinate historians. In their attempts to assess its validity much recent effort has been directed at the ten years following the introduction of the infamous Two Acts in December 1795. There has been intensive study of the secret societies in the metropolis and their counterparts in the West Riding of Yorkshire and of their relationship to the Irish rebels. Yet whilst it si now generally recognised that radicalism did not simply evaporate in the oppressive aftermath of the “gagging acts”, its nature and significance continue to provoke disagreement. This paper is a contribution to this debate and an attempt to help stitch together a convincing account of plebeian protest in a region which, despite its prominent position in the radical history of this period, has received little systematic attention.
1 Elliott, M., Partners in Revolution: The United Irishmen and France (London, 1982);Google Scholar id., “The ‘Despard’ Conspiracy Reconsidered”, in: Past & Present, No 75 (1977), pp. 46–61; Hone, J. A., For the Cause of Truth: Radicalism in London 1796–1821 (London, 1982);Google ScholarBaxter, J. L. and Donnelly, F. K., “The Revolutionary ‘Underground’ in the West Riding: Myth or Reality?”, in: Past & Present, No 64 (1974), pp. 124–32;Google Scholar J. R. Dinwiddy, “Debate: The ‘Black Lamp’ in Yorkshire 1801–1802”, ibid., pp. 113–23, and “A Rejoinder”, pp. 133–35; Donnelly, F. K. and Baxter, J. L., “,Sheffield and the English Revolutionary Tradition, 1791–1820”, in: International Review of Social History, XX (1975), pp. 398–423;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWells, R. A. E., Dearth and Distress in Yorkshire, 1793–1802 [Borthwick Papers, No 52] (1977).Google Scholar
2 For more general recent accounts of radicalism in this period see Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class, revised ed. (Harmondsworth, 1968);Google ScholarGoodwin, A., The Friends of Liberty: The English Democratic Movement in the Age of the French Revolution (London, 1979);Google ScholarWells, R., Insurrection: The British Experience, 1795–1803 (Gloucester, 1983);Google ScholarWilliams, G. A., Artisans and Sans-Culottes (London, 1968);Google ScholarCookson, J. E., The Friends of Peace: Anti-War Liberalism in England, 1793–1815 (London, 1982);CrossRefGoogle ScholarRoyle, E. and Walvin, J., English Radicals and Reformers, 1760–1848 (London, 1982), esp. chs 3–6;Google ScholarHarvey, A. D., Britain in the Early Nineteenth Century (London, 1978), esp. chs 3, 5;Google ScholarThomis, M. I. and Holt, P., Threats of Revolution in Britain, 1789–1848 (London, 1977), ch. 1;CrossRefGoogle ScholarStevenson, J., Popular Disturbances in Britain, 1700–1870 London, 1979), chs 7, 8;Google ScholarEmsley, C., British Society and the French Wars, 1793–1815 (London, 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Hay, W. R. to Portland, 18 05, 7 and 17 06 1801,Google Scholar Home Office Papers 42/62 (hereafter HO), Public Record Office, London; Examination of Melling, J., 27 11 1803, Privy Council Papers 1/3583 (hereafter PC), Public Record Office; Home Office to Fletcher, 26 March 1804, HO 42/78.Google Scholar
4 See especially Wells, Insurrection, op. cit., ch. 2; Hone, , For the Cause of Truth, op. cit., pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
5 On the cautious approach of Lancashire magistrates, see Th. Bancroft to Portland, 2 July 1798, HO 42/44; id. to Wickham, 9 July, HO 100/66/175; id. to King, J., 18 11 1800 and 9 February 1801, HO 42/53, 61;Google Scholarid. to Portland, 24 February, 1 March and 17 May 1801, HO 42161−62; Hay to Portland, 18 May and 7 June; Th. Bayley, B. to Wickham, 27 03 1798, PC 1/41/A136;Google Scholarid. to Lord Stanley, 1 April and 7 July, PC 1/41/ A139, HO 100/66. For details see Booth, A., “Reform, Repression and Revolution: Radicalism and Loyalism in the North-West of igland, 1789–1803’ (unpublished Lancaster University Ph.D. thesis, 1979), ch. 6, Appendix 3.Google Scholar
6 On the earlier reform activity in the town, see especially Booth, “Reform, Repression and Revolution”, chs 1–2; Knight, F., The Strange Case of Thomas Walker (London, 1957);Google ScholarHandforth, P., “Manchester Radical Politics, 1789–1794”, in: Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, LXVI(1956), pp. 87–106.Google Scholar
7 Walker, R. to Watt, J., 16 12 1795, Birmingham Central Library, Boulton-Watt Correspondence, Muirehead Box 4W. On this campaign the Manchester Gazette, Manchester Mercury and broadside collection in Manchester Central Reference Library are particularly useful sources.Google Scholar
8 Report of the North District Committee of the London Corresponding Society, 19 February 1796, PC 1/23/A138. On the general campaign Goodwin, The Friends of Liberty, op. cit., p. 390.
9 Examination of Cowdroy, W., 15 04 1798, PC 1/42/A140;Google ScholarClare, D., “The Local Newspaper Press and Local Politics in Manchester and Liverpool, 1780–1800”, in: Transactions of the Lancashire and cheshire Antiquarian Society, LXXIII–LXXIV (1963–1964), pp. 101–23.Google Scholar
10 Shaw, J. to LCS, 3 03 1796, British Library, Additional Manuscripts 27,815, f. 28 (Place Papers); Report of the North District committee of the LCS, 19 February. These rumours were also current in London, Hone, For the Cause of Truth, pp. 31, 36Google Scholar. Professor Goodwin has stated that Shaw was a delegate from London. Shaw's letter of 3 March, however, gives the impression that he was a Manchester man and knew nothing of events in London.
11 J. Ellison to LCS, 26 April, British Library, Add. Mss 27,815, f. 49. The correspondence between the Manchester and London bodies is contained ibid., ff. 28, 49, 57, 60, 62, 73, 89, 92.
12 Manchester, , 19 11. Its other addresses to the public are in the issues for 30 April and 10 December 1796, 25 November 1797.Google Scholar
13 On the problems of the London society, see Hone, For the Cause of Truth, ch. 1. On mail interception Bradbury, J. to LCS, 11 06 1796,Google Scholar British Library, loc. cit., f. 60; id. to Barton, J., 13 07, f. 89;Google ScholarGazette, Manchester, 16 04, 18 06, 27 08, 17 09, 17 and 31 12.Google Scholar
14 Examination of Dixon, J., 5 05 1798, HO 42/45.Google Scholar
15 Gazette, Manchester, 25 11 1797.Google Scholar
16 Ibid., 22 and 29 July, 5 August; Goodwin, , The Friends of Liberty, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
17 Notably James Dixon and Richard Stansfield. Charles Bent may also have been a member of both bodies, and Thomas Devenney and James Coulter were also suspected of joint membership.
18 Examination of Devenney, Th., 17 04 1798, PC 1/24/A140.Google Scholar
19 Marianne Elliott is incorrect to attribute the birth of the United Englishmen to Irish delegates, Elliott, M., ‘Irish Republicanism in England: The First Phase, 1797∓9’, in: Penal Era and Golden Age, ed. by Bartlett, T. and Hayton, D. W. (Belfast, 1979), pp. 208–09. The same tendency to overstate the influence of the United Irishmen on the English societies runs through her book, Partners in Revolution, op. cit.Google Scholar
20 Examinations of Dixon, J., 03 1798, PC 1/41/A139;Google Scholar Examination of Dixon, J., 5 05; Further Information of Dixon, J., 7 05, PC 1/42/A143; Account of Irish Delegates, transmitted by Mr. Bayley, n.d., HO 42/45. Of the nine principal activists arrested at Manchester in April six were Irish. At Liverpool, despite rumours of Irish domination of the societies, most of the names given by the spy Barlow were English, Anon. to Home Office, 20 November, HO 42/45; Manuscript from Barlow, n.d., PC l/38/A123; Secret Information from Liverpool, PC 1/44/A164.Google Scholar
21 The societies in Scotland and London were forming at about the same time, Wells, , Insurrection, pp. 73–74;Google ScholarHone, , For the Cause of Truth, p. 48.Google Scholar
22 Goodwin, , The Friends of Liberty, p. 416.Google Scholar
23 See the names and addresses in Manuscript from Barlow; Secret Information from Liverpool. Some of the same names emerged from the trial of Thomas Lloyd and John Saxton. See the informations in Palatinate of Lancaster Assize Depositions, 7 July 1797, Public Record Office PL 27/7.The district was not in the centre of the cellar-dwelling area, but was unhealthy, depressed and prone to flooding, Taylor, I. C., “The Court and Cellar Dwelling: The eighteenth century origin of the Liverpool slum”, in: Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, CXXII (1970), pp. 67–90.Google Scholar
24 Further Evidence of Gray, R., 15 04 1798, HO 42/45; No 1 District Collector's Book, 1806: Manchester Record Office M9/50/10.Google Scholar
25 Papers relative to the Manchester treasons, 20 June 1797, PC 1/43/A152; printed card signed “The Trustees”, n.d., Ibid.; Jackson, J. to “the friends of freedom at Manchester”, 22 06Google Scholar, ibid.; Th. Chadwick to “the friends of freedom at Manchester”, ibid.; Cheetham, J. to “Gentlemen of the Union Society, Manchester”, n.d., HO 42/40;Google Scholar Examination of Ashworth, S., 16 04 1798,Google Scholar PC 1/41/A139. A society was also forming at Stockport, Voluntary Examination of Cockin, J., 8 04, HO 42/43.Google Scholar
26 Examination of Gray, R., 15 04,Google Scholar PC 1/41/A139. Most of these places already had a reputation for radical activity. On the Stockport society's growth see Glen, R., Urban Workers in the Early Industrial Revolution (London, 1984), pp. 128–30.Google Scholar
27 Further Information of J. Dixon, 7 June 1798; Bayley to Home Office, 26 March, PC /41/A136; Examination of R. Gray, 15 April; Examination of R. Gray, 17 April, HO 42/55; Further Examination of R. Gray, March, PC 1/3118. On the Scottish connection to English radicalism see also Examination of D. Cousbourn and J. Carne, 13 April, HO 102/16/206, 208−10.
28 Leeds, Mercury, 24 06 1797Google Scholar. See also Further Information of Dixon, J., 7 05 1798.Google Scholar
29 Minutes taken from R. Gray, 23 March, PC 1/3118; Examination of Gray, R., 15 04; Bancroft to Portland, 24 12 1797, PC 1/40/A132;Google Scholar Bayley to Home Office, 23 March 1798, PC 1/41/A136. Freemasonry was a favourite cover, not a source of recruitment as suggested by Goodwin, , The Friends of Liberty, p. 441Google Scholar. See Examination of R. Gray relative to E. Atkinson, 26 April, PC 1/42/A140; Examination of Towel, Th., 04, PC 1/41/A139;Google Scholar Diaries of Anna Walker, Vol. II, Wigan Record Office DDZ/EHC/1. See also Examination of Patterson, S., 17 04, HO 42/45;Google Scholar Further Evidence of R. Gray, 15 April; Bayley to Home Office, 28 March, PC 1/31/A136.
30 Information was hidden from novitiates as in 1801. Joseph Jackson, a Stockport cotton-spinner, revealed that only certain parts of some printed articles were read to him at his initiation, Voluntary Examination of Jackson, J., 3 05 1798, HO 42/43.Google Scholar Other members knew very little of the inner workings of the society. See Examination of S. Ashworth, 16 April; Examination of R. Gray, 15 April; Bancroft to Portland, 24 November 1797.
31 Wadsworth, A. and de Lacy Mann, J., The Cotton Trade and Industrial Lancashire (Manchester, 1911), p. 313;Google ScholarDaniels, G. W., “The Cotton Trade During the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars”, in: Transactions of the anchester Statistical Society, 1915–16, pp. 59–61;Google ScholarHelm, E., Chapters in the Manchester Chamber of Commerce (Manchester, 1902);Google ScholarEdwards, M. M., The Growth of the British Cotton Trade, 1780–1815 (London, 1967), p. 12.Google Scholar
32 Goodwin, , The Friends of Liberty, p. 416Google Scholar; Harvey, , Britain in the Early Nineteenth Century, op. cit., p. 86Google Scholar; Royle, and Walvin, , English Radicals and Reformers, op. cit., p.88.Google Scholar
33 Examination of Gray, R., 15 04 1798.Google Scholar
34 James Dixon told of twenty-five divisions of the society in Manchester, Further Information of J. Dixon, 7 May. See also “Notes 1 and 2, found at William Cheetham's in the one pair of stairs, 14 April 1798”, HO 42/40.
35 Examination of Ashworth, S., 16 04Google Scholar; Examination of Patterson, S., 17 04Google Scholar; Patterson, S. to Bayley, , 24 05, PC 1/42/A143. See also the notebook “found in Mr. Mime's back yard after Patterson had left the yard, 23 03 1798”, PC 1/41/A136. This contained the initials of seventeen members and was clearly a divisional record.Google Scholar
36 Rev.Waring, J. to Home Office, 15 02, PC 1/42/A 152.Google Scholar Similarly ridiculous were reports of 1,800 “put-up” in Wigan, , Bayley to Wickham, 31 03, PC 1/41/A136.Google Scholar
37 As in Goodwin, , The Friends of Liberty, p. 486.Google Scholar
38 Harvey, , Britain in the Early Nineteenth Century, p. 86.Google Scholar
39 See especially Elliott, Partners in Revolution, passim.
40 See Goodwin, , The Friends of Liberty, pp. 432–38Google Scholar; Wells, , Insurrection, pp. 75–76Google Scholar; Elliott, , Partners in Revolution, pp. 145–46, 174–82.Google Scholar
41 Further Evidence of R. Gray, 15 April 1798; Floud to Wickham, 14 April, PC 1/41/A139; Minutes taken from R. Gray, 23 March; Further Information of J. Dixon, 7 May. The printer and newspaper proprietor William Cowdroy, however, had certainly printed numbers of the United Constitutions for the society, Examination of W. Cowdroy, 15 April.
42 Examination of R. Gray, 15 April; Bayley to Lord Stanley, 1 April. See also Minutes taken from R. Gray, 23 March.
43 The infiltration of Joseph Tankard, a sergeant in the Galloway Fencibles quartered at Manchester, did much to confirm Gray's testimony. See the Information of J. Tankard, 15 April, HO 42/45; Examination of J. Murdoch, 14 April, PC 1/41/A139; Brownrigg to Wickham, 29 April 1799, HO 50/9; Examinations respecting Simmonds, April 1798, PC 1/41/A139; Lord Stanley to Earl of Derby, April; Bayley to Lord Stanley, 3 April, ibid.; Blackburn Mail, 5 July 1797; Examination of R. Henwood, 13 April 1798, PC 1/41/A139; Examination of J. Harrison, 26 April, PC 1/41/A140; Further Informatin of J. Dixon, 7 May. The authorities strongly suspected others, but lack of evidence precluded prosecution, Wickham to Brownrigg, 28 April, HO 51/152/172.
44 For opposing views on this, see Goodwin, , The Friends of Liberty, pp. 441–42;Google ScholarWells, , Insurrection, pp. 76–77, 126–27.Google Scholar
45 Bayley to Home Office, 26 March 1798; Examinations of Th. Hadfield and Ch. Radcliffe, 26 April, HO 48/10; Bancroft to Portland, 24 November 1797; Examinations of J. Nicolson and E. Rowbottom, 21 April 1798, PC 1/42/A140; Floud to Wickham, 22 April, PC 1/42/A140.
46 Examination of R. Gray, 19 March, HO 42/45.
47 Examination of Gray, R., 15 03, PC 1/41/A136Google Scholar. Other Irish agents had also stressed the strength of the Irish societies and their military preparedness, Examination of J. Dixon, 5 May. Confidence in invasion was therefore high among radicals in the North-West, see Examinations of J. Murdoch, April, HO 42/45; Bancroft to Portland, 7 January, PC 1/40/A133; Bayley to Wickham, 26 and 28 March, PC 1/41/A136; Examination of J. Tankard, 15 April. However, only in Cumberland did anything resembling a plan of revolution come to light, Senhouse to Portland, 28 April 1799; Lawson to Portland, 27 March, HO 42/47.
48 Examination of Patterson, S., 17 04 1798.Google Scholar
49 Information of Reeves, J., 12 04, HO 42/45; Enclosure in Bayley to Home Office, 23 03, PC 1/41/A136.Google Scholar
50 Bancroft, to Portland, 7 02, PC 1/40/A133.Google Scholar
51 Examination of R., 15 April 1798; Examination of J. Dixon, n.d. [1798], PC1/42/A 140.
52 Wells, , Insurrection, p. 77Google Scholar. On the talk of assassinations, see Colonel to Grinfield, 5 April 1798, PC 1/41/A139; Examination of R. Gray, 15.
53 Bancroft to Portland, 7 January. For evidence that this was also true in Manchester, see Mrs Greg to W. Rathbone, April, Rathbone Papers II 1/65, Liverpool University Library; Examination of J. Dixon, 5 May.
54 King, to Bayley, , 21 02, HO 43/10/288; Bayley to Wickham, 23 03, PC 1/40/ A133; Minutes taken from R. Gray, 23 March.Google Scholar
55 Floud, R. to Wickham, , 10 04, and id. to Wickham, 13 and 14 04, PC 1/41/A139.Google Scholar
56 Id. to Wickham, , 17 04, PC sol;42/A140.Google Scholar
57 Examination of S. Patterson, 17 April.
58 See the Manchester Mercury for April onwards; Harrop, J. to Freeling, 16 04, HO 42/213; Bayley to Wickham, 15 09, HO 100/66/233.Google Scholar
59 Bancroft to Portland, 9 July, HO 100/66/175.
60 Veitch, G. S., The Genesis of Parliamentary Reform (London, 1913), p.340.Google Scholar
61 On London see Hone, , For the Cause of Truth, pp. 87–90;Google ScholarWells, , Insurrection, p. 152.Google Scholar
62 Such men as William Cheetham of Manchester, Joseph Jackson of Chadderton, Thomas Taylor of Royton, John Magee and James Moorhouse of Stockport, John Beswick of Bolton and James Robinson of Hollinwood.
63 Orr, G. to King, , 12 and 20 09 1799, PC 1/44/A161Google Scholar; id. to King, 12 October, HO 100/87/310; Notes on the Irish residents at Liverpool, enclosed in R. Fletcher to Pelham, 18 November 1801, PC 1/3534.
64 Chester, , 17 06 1798, 26 03 1799;Google ScholarCorry, J. to Portland, , 14 05, PC 1/43/ A152;Google ScholarWhinney, T. to Lees, , 29 03, HO 100/86/226Google Scholar; Huddleston, W. and Church, Ch. to Portland, , 17 06, War Office Papers 1/769/539Google Scholar; Benn, Huddleston and Church to Home Office, 2 May, HO 100/66. See also the lists of persons sailing from Ireland in HO 42/43–44. Many rebels also went to London, Wells, Insurrection, p. 166.
65 Enclosure in Littleholes, E. to Wickham, , 14 01 1799, HO 100/85/69.Google Scholar See also enclosure in Shaw, J. to Castlereagh, , 26 03, HO 100/86/228.Google Scholar
66 Wickham, W. to Cooke, , 13 03 HO 100/86/61Google Scholar. On the agent Orr, see Hone, For the Cause of Truth, pp. 61–62.
67 Thompson, , The Making of the English Working Class, op. cit., p. 546.Google Scholar
68 For the pro-Thompson position, see Baxter and Donnelly, “The Revolutionary ‘Underground’ in the West Riding”, loc. cit.; Foster, J., Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution (London, 1974), pp. 38–39;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWells, , Insurrection, pp. 48–53, 170–71.Google Scholar For criticism of his views, see Dinwiddy, “The ‘b;Black Lamp’ in Yorkshire”, and “A Rejoinder”, loc. cit.; Thomis, M.I., The Town Labourer and the Industrial Revolution (London, 1974), p. 186;Google ScholarGoodwin, , The Friends of Liberty, pp. 455–64;Google ScholarBythel, D., The Handloom Weavers (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 207–11; Glen, , Urban Workers, op. cit., p. 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69 Apart from Orr's information, see Bancroft, to Portland, , 11 04 1799Google Scholar, HO 42/47; id. to Wickham, 29 April, PC 1/44/A155; Bayley, to King, , 8 05 1800, HO 42/50.Google Scholar
70 Bancroft, to Portland, 18 03 1801, HO 42/61.Google Scholar
71 Id. to Wickham, , 29 04 1799Google Scholar; Manchester Mercury, 1 August 1801; Information of Howard, J., 18 05 1801, HO 42/62Google Scholar; Hatton, to White, 30 07 1801, HO 49sol;3Google Scholar; Palatinate of Lancaster Assize Indictments, 1801, Public Record Office PL 26/57.
72 “On Combinations”, enclosure in Bayley, to Home Office, 7 11 1799, PC 1/45/ A164.Google Scholar For the handbill literature, see Radcliffe, W., Origin of the New System of Manufacture (London, 1974), pp. 73–77; PC 1/44/A155 and 1/45/A164; HO 42/47.Google Scholar
73 Diary of Timothy, , 10 1799Google Scholar, Lancashire County Record Office, Preston; Diary of William, 23 October, November, Oldham Public Library; Th., , Autobiographical Memoirs (Liverpool, 1843), pp. 67–68. For the increasing difficulties in many trades in these years, see the entries in the diaries of Cragg and Rowbottom; Bayley, (Manchester) to Home Office, 21 10 1800, HO 42/51Google Scholar; Ch. Prescot (Stockport) to Portland, 25 September; B. Markland(Blackburn) to Home Office, 28 September, HO 42/50; J. Hartley (Colne) to Home Office, November, HO 42/53; Ashton, T.S., An Eighteenth-Century Industrialist: Peter Stubs of Warrington (Manchester, 1939), p. 122;Google ScholarRedford, A., Manchester Merchants and Foreign Trade (Manchester, 1934), p. 144;Google Scholar R. Hodgkinson (Bury) to Lord Lilford, 31 October, Lilford Muniments, Lancashire County Record Office, DDL 1/57; H. Bateson, “Saddleworth during the French Revolution”, newspaper cutting in Oldham Public Library.
74 On this and the reasons for it, see Booth, A., “Food Riots in the North-West of England, 1790–1801”, in: Past & Present, No 77 (1977), pp. 88–89Google Scholar. Also, agricultural returns for Bury, Wigan, Lancaster, Ashton-under-Lyne, Colne, and Stockport, , 11 1800, HO /53–54.Google Scholar
75 Manchester, Gazette, 29 03 1800, 7 03 1801.Google Scholar
76 Hodgkinson, to Lilford, , 24 01 1801, Lilford Muniments, loc. cit.Google Scholar
77 Bateson, “Saddleworth during the French Revolution”.
78 Rowbottom, 30 October, 31 December 1800; 19 April 1801; Chester, 5 December 1800; Hodgkinson to Lilford, 24 January 1801.
79 Rowbottom, , 20 12 1800, 28 01 and 7 02 1801Google Scholar; Bayley, to Home Office, 21 10 1800Google Scholar; id. to Portland, 21 March 1801, HO 42/61; Manchester, 13 July 1799. There was a similar crime wave in Yorkshire, , Wells, , Dearth, and Distress, in Yorkshire, , op. cit., p. 24.Google Scholar
80 Hodgkinson, to Lilford, , 22 03 1801, Lilford Muniments.Google Scholar
81 See Booth, , “Food Riots in the North-West of England”, loc. cit. On London, Hone, For the Cause of Truth, p. 93;Google ScholarStevenson, J., Popular Disturbances in England 1700–1870 (London, 1979), pp. 176–79.Google Scholar
82 A.B. to Home Office, 22 March 1801, HO 42/61.
83 Th. to Peel, 12 March, HO 42/61. See also Hodgkinson to Lilford, 22 March; Bayley to Portland, 30 November 1800, HO 42/53; Manchester, Gazette, 27 12; Bancroft to King, 9 02 1801, HO 42/61; Bayley to Home Office, 21 10; Mayor of Wigan to Portland, 20 09, HO 42/51.Google Scholar
84 Bayley, to Portland, 21 03 1801, HO 42/61.Google Scholar
85 A.B. to Home Office, 22 March. On the tension in Lancashire in this month, see also the letters of Bancroft and Ainsworth in HO 42/61; Hodgkinson to Lilford, 22 March.
86 Wells, , Insurrection, pp. 187, 195–209.Google Scholar
87 On Cartwright, see J.W. Osborne, John Cartwright (London, 1972), especially chs 5–7. Cartwright had close contacts with Christopher Wyvill, the Yorkshire reformer. See the correspondence between them in Wyvill, Ch., Political Papers (6 vols; York 1794–1802), V–VIGoogle Scholar; Dinwiddy, J.R., Christopher Wyvill and Reform, 1790–1820 [Borthwick Papers, No 39] (1971), especially pp. 10–12.Google Scholar
88 Cookson, , The Friends of Peace, op. cit., p. 187.Google Scholar
89 Bayley, to Portland, 21 03 1801.Google Scholar
90 Id. to Home Office, 18 November 1800, HO 42/53.
91 Major Clayton to Home Office, 5 November, HO 42/53. On the Yorkshire meetings, see Wells, , Insurrection, pp. 186, 194–95Google Scholar; Donnelly, and Baxter, , “Sheffield and the English Revolutionary Tradition”, loc. cit., pp. 406–07.Google Scholar
92 Wells, , Insurrection, p. 203.Google Scholar
93 Bancroft to King, , 9 02 1801Google Scholar; Watson, H. to Bayley, , 15 11 1800, HO 42/53Google Scholar. In particular James Moorhouse and John Magee were back at work, Bayley to Portland, 15 and 16 November 1800, HO 42/53; Bancroft to King, , 15 12, HO 42/55Google Scholar. See also Bayley, to King, , 1611 1799, PC 1/45/A164, for early evidence of a renewal of radical activity in Stockport.Google Scholar
94 Bayley to Home Office, 18 November, and Bancroft to King, 10 and 18 November, HO 42/53; id. to King, 15 and 20 December, HO 42/55; id. to King, 9 February 1801; id. to Portland, 24 February; Singleton, J. to Home Office, 24 03, HO 42/61.Google Scholar
95 Bancroft to Portland,7 and 14 March, and Portland to Bancroft, 14 March, HO 42/61. Bancroft noted that the men “upon being sworn are numbered and every man who can swear ten is to be a Sergeant.” The case of William Gallant was to provide more details. See Informations of P. Doran, 28 March, 3 April, and Informations of William, 3 April HO 48/10; Information of Daniel Porter, 5 April, HO 42/61. Another veteran radical, John Beswick, had also been arrested with a copy of the United oath on him, Hay to Portland, 12 March, HO 42/61. For his earlier activities, Bancroft, to Portland, 24 11 1797; id. to Portland, 10 05 1798, HO 100/66/97.Google Scholar
96 For their aims see Examination of Bent, Ch., 18 03 1801Google Scholar, and Fletcher, R. to Portland, 6 04, HO 42/61Google Scholar; Manchester, Gazette, 18 04. The cold logic of printed addresses sometimes gave way to demagoguery in the actual meetings, Bancroft to Portland, 2 May, HO 42/62.Google Scholar
97 Thompson, , The Making of the English Working Class, p. 517–20Google Scholar; Dinwiddy, , “The [Black Lamp] in Yorkshire”, pp. 121–22.Google Scholar
98 Wells, , Insurrection, pp. 209–13Google Scholar; Elliott, , Partners in Revolution, p. 284.Google Scholar
99 Th. Coke to Portland, 7 and 18 April 1801, HO 42/61; Bancroft to Portland, 2 May; Hay to Portland, 4 May, HO 42/62.
100 Examination of Th. Bennett, 21 May, and Examination of Nadin, J., 20 05 1801, HO 48/10Google Scholar. See also Hay to Portland, 4 and 13 May, and Bancroft to Portland, 2 and 27 May, HO 42/62.
101 Copy of the Commitment […] of those arrested on 18 March 1801, HO 42/61; Chester Courant, 24 March. The spy Hilton claimed that Bent had read this out to the audience, Information of Hilton, E., 18 03, HO 42/61.Google Scholar
102 Further Evidence of Gray, R., 15 04 1798Google Scholar; Further Information of Dixon, J., 7 05.Google Scholar
103 Notably John Rushworth Robert Gill, John Bennett and John Scorr. SeeFletcher, to Pelham, , 31 07 1802Google Scholar, HO 42/66; Examination of Halliwell, G., 18 03 1801Google Scholar, HO 42/61; Examination of Nadin, J., 20 05; Recognisance olls, 1801, Lancashire County Record Office QSB1/1801 (Gill).Google Scholar
104 Bancroft to Portland, 27 May; Examination of Th. Kay, 4 April, HO 42/61.
105 Examination of Th. Bennett, 21 May.
106 Bancroft to Portland, 17 May, HO 42/62.
107 Examination of Nadin, J., 20 05.Google Scholar
108 Hay, to Portland, 18 05.Google Scholar
109 Bancroft, to Portland, 2 05;Google Scholar Information of Shawcross, J., 11 05, HO 48/10.Google Scholar
110 Examination of Bent, Ch., Coleclough, R., Halliwell, G., 18 03, HO 42/61Google Scholar; Examination of Bennett, Th., 21 05.Google Scholar
111 Dinwiddy, J., “Luddism and Politics in the Northern Counties”, in: Social History, IV (1979), p. 49.Google Scholar
112 Examination of Coleclough, R., 18 03 1801Google Scholar, and Information of Hilton, E., 18 03, HO 42/61.Google Scholar
113 Examination of Nadin, J., 20 05.Google Scholar
114 Examination of Halliwell, G., 18 03Google Scholar. See also Information of Hilton, E., 18 03Google Scholar. The caution was due to the knowledge that there were likely to be spies at the meeting. Indeed a toast had been drunk wishing “Damnation to all spies and informers”.
115 Hay to Portland, 18 May.
116 Examination of Th. Bennett, 20 May, and Informations of P. Doran and W. Bowman, 3 April, HO 48/10; Hay to Portland, 18 May and 17 06.
117 Cobbett's Parliamentary History, XXV, c. 1306: Second Report of the Commons Committee of Secrecy, 15 May 1801. For the printed rules on the appointment and duties of the Conductors and the oath of allegiance, see ibid., c. 1301: Report of the Lords Committee.
118 This test had first been discovered at the Britannia Inn meeting of 18 March in the pocket of the leading speaker, Charles Bent, Hay to Portland, 18 May.
119 See Wells, , Insurrection, pp. 213–15, for the impact of the London radicals.Google Scholar See also J. A. Busfield to Fitzwilliam, 14 April, Fitzwilliam Papers, f. 45/12, Sheffield Central Library.
120 Fletcher, to Portland, 6 06, HO 42/61.Google Scholar See Manchester Mercury, Chester Courant and Blackburn Mail, April-July. On the wave of arrests, see especially “Calendar of Crown Prisoners [ ‖] in Lancaster Castle”, 24 March, Lancashire County Record Office QJC/19; Examinations of Buckley, J., Stanfield, J. and Jackson, J., 3 05, HO 48/10Google Scholar; Fletcher, to Portland, 6 07, HO 42162Google Scholar; Hatton, to White, , 6 08, HO 49/3Google Scholar; Court Order Book, 1801, Lancashire County Record Office QSO.
121 Hay to Portland, 7 June, and Fletcher, to Portland, 6 06, HO 42/62Google Scholar. The same was true of Yorkshire, Bancroft, to Portland, 23 07, HO 42/62.Google Scholar
122 Bancroft to Portland, 2 May, 9, 23 and 29 June, and Fletcher, to Portland, 31 July, HO 42/62. For Robinson's activities in 1797 see above, p. 278.Google Scholar
123 Fletcher, to Portland, 6 07 July 1801.Google Scholar For the reasons for this difference of opinion, see Hone, , For the Cause of Truth, p. 96.Google Scholar
124 Fletcher, to Portland, 28 07, HO 42/62. See his note “To the Friends of Freedom at Manchester, 20 June 1797”, PC 1/43/A152.Google Scholar
125 Id. to Portland, 28 July; to Pelham, 31 August and 2 November, HO 42/62; to Pelham, 7 January and 3 April 1802, HO 42/65.
126 Manchester, , 10 10 1801Google Scholar. See also Rowbottom, , 10, 8 11.Google Scholar
127 Rowbottom, , 16 11. The trade revival continued in the following year, Report from the Select Committee on Manufactures, Commerce and Shipping [Parliamentary Papers, 1833, VI], q. 9437; Blackburn Mail, 26 May 1802; Daniels, “The Cotton Trade During the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars”, loc. cit., p. 63.Google Scholar
128 Fletcher to Pelham, 7 and 27 January, 3 April, 31 July 1802, HO 42/65. See also the many letters from Liverpool to Home Office, ibid. Ireland was still felt to be the scene of the “first burst of Rebellion”.
129 Fletcher, to Pelham, 7 01 and 3 03Google Scholar. Cheetham, one of the State prisoners of April 1798, had been released in March 1801, and was soon “very forward to renew his evil Practices and to avow his bad Principles”, Bayley to Portland, 11 April, HO 42/61.
130 Fletcher, to Pelham, 3 04 1802Google Scholar; Donnelly, and Baxter, , “Sheffield and the English Revolutionary Tradition”, p. 409.Google Scholar
131 Fletcher to Pelham, 7 July 1802, HO 42/65.
132 J. Notary to Bruce Mr, 7 February 1803, in M.W. Patterson Sir, Francis Burdett and his Times (2 vols; London, 1931), I, p. 169.
133 Fletcher to King, 8 April 1802, HO 42/70.
134 See Fletcher's letters to King and Pelham in HO 42/72, 73, 77, 80–82. On the growing state of watchfulness at Liverpool letters in HO 42/67, 68, 71.
135 Fletcher to King, 24 December 1805, HO 42/83. He was immediately ordered to dismantle his spy network, enclosed note from King, ibid.
136 Hay to Portland, 7 June 1801.
137 Elliott, Partners in Revolution, passim.
138 Wells, Insurrection, ch. 12. On the French invasion of 1797, see Jones, E.H. Stuart, The Last Invasion (Cardiff, 1950)Google Scholar. For the reaction to the invasion of 1797 in the NorthWest, see Recollections of a Nonagenarian (Liverpool, 1863), PP. 53–55.
139 On the attempts of this small band of activists to turn events to their advantage, see King to J. Leaf, 24 May 1803, HO 42/70; Fletcher to Home Office, 23 November 1804, HO 42/79; id. to King, 16 February 1805, HO 42/80; id. to King, 16 January and 7 March, HO 42/82; Chippendale to Fletcher, 29 January 1806, HO 42/87; id. to Fletcher, 25 December 1807, in Fletcher to Home Office, 27 December, HO 42/91; Fletcher to Home Office, February 1808, HO 42/95. On the Luddite disturbances Dinwiddy, “Luddism and Politics in the Northern Counties”, bc. cit. Copies of the United oath were found at the scene of the attack on Westhoughton factory, Leigh Monthly Magazine, 1845, p. 3.
You have
Access
