CRSO Working Paper No. 203 LANCASHIRE CHARTISM AND

...... LANCASHIRE CHARTISM AND THE MASS STRIKE OF 1842:

THE POL ITI CAL ECONOMY OF WORK1 NG CLASS CONTENT l ON

Brian R. Brown

University of Michigan

August 1979

A-. ' CRSO Working Paper No. 203 Copies available through: Center for Research on Social Organization University of Michigan 330 Packard Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 LANCASHIRE CIiARTISM AND THE MASS STRIKE OF 1842: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF WORKIEG CLASS CONTENTION

LANCASHIRE CHARTISM AND THE MASS STRIKE OF 1842: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF WORKING CLASS CONTENTION The study which follows ic concerned with a predomin~ntly working class movement for democrntic rights. It analyzes the economic, social., and political chsrocter of the movement for the People's Charter as it evolveci in Lancashire, Eneland Auring 1842. The Charter embodied six baflic demandfi: (1 ) Universal manhood suffrage; (2) Payment of Members of Parliament; (3) Annual P~yliaments: (4) Vote by ballot; (5) Equal electoral die- nrian R. Rrown tricts; and (6) Abolition of property qualifications for candi- July, 1979 detes. In analyzing Chartism, we have attempted to maintuin a balance between theoretical issues in the study of rfldical collective contention and historic~lonea about the overall nature of Chertism. We have tried.to meintnin the ~ctive,historic~l voice of the participants through extensive quotation whjle

* Mv intell~ctualdeht to ChuI'lefi Tilly will he ohvioufi throughout, hut I would nlso like to recognize my personal one as well. My friend Yousuef Coh~ntook time from his own dem~nding chores to help me out of some labyrinthine difficulties. Linda is qctually a coauthor and much, much more. Laot but not least, f'lepae Do Not Quote Without the Sociologv Depflrtment of The University of Michigan provided 'Nritten Permission of the Author , essential finnncinl support during the completion of thin study. Hopefully, the combination of dincourses reaults in an accurate and convinclna c~uaalexplanation of Chartism without, however, sacrificin~the more pernonal ~ndcontingent drnmas it involved. There mre three brosd movements in thia portion of the The nee of "Political Economv" in the title is not meant to ppper. The first uses the worka of Neil Smel~erand ~rl.sdrj.ch be fashionable. Rather, it sums up the two levels of socl~l Eneels to preaent two conerally advanced and conflictln~ phenomena th~tare most significant for both explaining and hiotorical interpretations of the nntlrre and dynnmice of understanding Lancashire Chartism. The over~llargument unfolds chartism.' The second develops the implicit theoreticnl per- by moving from structrlrnl economic factors through more immediate spectives contained in these interpretations. The finnl. one conjunctural ones to political processes and actions. Each revolves around. the auhst~ntiveevnl~iation of their re~pective movcment defines a critical and sirrnificnnt range of phenomena explanatory merits and the presentation of R more fully . for the explnn~tionof Chartism. They do so, however, in terms developed explan~tionof Lancashire Chartism. Ennentinlly, of an increasing level of explenetory adequacy with the political we move from the specifics of hi~toricalinterpret~tiona throuch dimension being the most informative. Structure defines the the theoreti.ca1 issues and prohlemntica embedded in them and, realm of si~nificnntnctors, conflict exeo, and modalities of finally, to the issue of their theoreticnl-hlstoricnl axplnna- contention. Conjunctur~lfactors operate primarily by creating tory adequacy. Our overall purpoae is to provide P comp?rative, specific conflicts and types of relations between those actors. historical-theoretic exnlanntion of bnncnahire Chnrtisrn in 1842. Finally, political circumst~ncesand actions influence levels Neil Smelser'a Social Change and the Induatrial Hevoli~tion of contention through their effect on mobiliz~tionand demohiliea- is a self-conscious attempt to expl.nin the dynamica of the tion. Yet, none of these levels or dimensions can be nccurately induetrial revolution within n ntructural-functional theory. understood or explained without the others. Stnictures, nitua- I am not concerned with the overall adequacy of hi^ nnnlysln. tions and self-conscious politicel actions wrre all parts of My interest i~ with his explanation of the "political turmoil"

~hflrtbtcontention in 1842 Lancaohire. he see8 Chartiam as representing. Smelser'a banic ergument in that urbanizntion and industrializetion led to the disruption of the traditionel, farnilin1 economy of the workine clae~. The disruption caused by theee baaic proceoaes of ~ocialchance "...underlay much of the turmoil nmong operative8 and others 2 between 1825 and 1P5C." Srnelser emphasizes hovr the trm~lsitionto modern, urban-industrial '&&land generated the workers employed in mnnuf~ctureare won for... resistance to capitnl and bour~eoiaie,and all are "strains and tensions" which were then expressed in radical united upon this point, that they, 8s working-men ..., form a separate class, with sep~rateinterests and collective "movements" such as Chartism: prlnciplrfl, with a separate way of look in^ at th nee in contrast with that of dl property-owners... .$ In the late 1830's and 184@'n,...the spinners' and other factory operatives' involvement in social Enrrela givre the distinct impression that it was "inte~rn- explosions was limited, particularly when compared with their activities in the early 1830's [i.e., tion" into the urban, industrial capitalist order th~tdetenninrd thelr transitional period end the excessive activities of other groups in 1837- 22. One important reason for levels of Chartist contention. Whereas Smeleer emph~sieea this 18 that the factory operatives were gr~dually approaching the completion of a sequence of differen- proletarianization (the workine class aide of induetrialieation) tiation whereby their family and community structure was entering the industrid era on a new basis. By as the social backrrround for Chartiam, Fhgels stresses Contrast.. .the weavers and related eroups (1. e., those in their tr sitional phanej were grasping for thejr proletarinnism. In faat, Man offers a direct challen~eto very life. B" Smelser's type of areument in Capital when he AayE that "As soon Once the transition~lstreins of urbanization and industrinliza- ss the workincc class, stunned ~t firnt by the noine and turmoil tion had passed and workers had been integrated into urban- of the new uystem'of production, had recovered its sensen to indufltri~lsociety, "vieorous political turmoil", even in "years some extent, it beean to offer reeietence.. . .'I6 This argument of unevployment and distress" like 1842, was unlikely. 4 is the reverse of Smelser's. It sees the trenaition to indus- Engels painto a very different picture of the social basis trial employment me a period of relative quiet in terms of and dynamics of Chartist contention. He makes no mention of worker contention. urbanization or induatrinlization, of transitional strains or En~els'md Smelser's differences on the role of factory disruption^^. Instead, he points to the f~ctoryworkers of workers in Chartist contention are indicative of a more funda- industrial capitalism, their urban location, and the conseouent mental split. It involves the more general problem of the cl~ssconflicts of interest between 'them and their capitalist nature of society md collective contentionts relation to it. employern: Smelser's nrgl~mentaabout Ch~rti~mare most different from The factory operatives, and especially those of the cotton district, form the nucleus of the labor move- Enaels' in their emphasis on ~0cialchnnge as itfl hasic dster- ment. Lancaahire, and especially Mancheater, is the seat of the most powerful Unions, the central point minant. The emphasis on change is characteristic of u wide of Ch~rtism.... The more the factory system has taken possession of a branch of indastry, the more the ranae of "socl a1 mobilizntion" theorie~of radi~~lcollective working-men employed in it participate in the labor movement; the sh~rperthe opposition between working- contention. By briefly probinf: the theoretical asar~mptionn men and capitalists. the clenrer the proletarian conscio**snessin the working-men.. ., in eeneral, al.1 behind Smelser's ar~ument,we will be nble to situ~teour ..- analysis of Chnrtism in terms of a basic dispute about collec- . 1 t tive contention and the nature of society. Of course, evidence i one way or another about Lancashire Chartism in 1842 cannot The theoretical-historical perspective involved here la finally resolve the dispute, but it can indicate the direction essentially stnlcturd-typological. Urb~niZ~tionand indus- such a resolution is likelf to take. trialization are the transition~lprocesses linking rurnl, pre- If we take the slippery notion of "strains and tensionst1 industrial society to urban, industrial eociety. Societien to be the rou~hequivalent of the hardly less slippery one of m~kin~this transition are similar to groups c~ughtup in it. "social contradictiona~,then we will notice a sljeht conver- They are in a nonintegrated, contradictory state--part rurnl- gence between Smelser's structural-functional arguments about agrarian, p~rturben-industrial. They are in a transition~l radical contention and those of Marxists. Smelser, like most phase between two distinct St~cturdlord.era. Hence, the well.- Marxiste, does identify increases in radical contention with known arcument that trannitional eocietiee ere much more prone eocial contrridictions. Contrary to Marxists, however, he does to radical contention than either traditional or modern ones. not then look to structurd. C~RR~contrr?dictions for his In the case of both groups and societies, the critical explanation. Instead, hie search for explanation8 immediately variables accounting for radical collective contention are then turns to,procesees of structural change nuch as urbanization the proceases of social change, because chenee is both the and induotrialization. The basic reason behind this turn to consequence of and the producer of malintear~tionand contm- change is that Smelser'e overall conception of society sees it diction. It la, therefore, R population's or society's relation as an integrated, non-contradictory and fllndamentally conaensu~l to processes of structural change that defines its potential for system. If increasing radioal collective contention is, as radical collective contention. Once this relntion aneps, 8s Smeleer argues, the result of societal contradictions trains Smelser argues it did for factory workers in the late 183C'8, and tensions) and if societies are basically non-contradjctory the group or society censes to be transitional; and, consequently, aystems, then the explanation for the contention must somehow its propensity for radical contention rapidly declines. It has lie outside of the social system. Smelserls idrntification of then entered nn integr~tedand non-contradictoq atnte.' Smelser marginal, troneition~lor nonintegrated groups as the backbone sums this up when he says: of Chartist contention is the corollary of these arguments. It seems to me that it is less embnrrassing analytically to interpret cases of outright What applies to groups also applies to societies: because, confljct between the classes as dinturbed reactions to specific structural pressures r~therthan as the in functional theory, structural eocial change is the result of manifc ations of a permanent state of WA~between then. '!Emphasis added ) R social system's lack of integration. That is, soci~lchange char~cterizeea eocial System in Contradiction and in transitjon. One final comment on the theoretical implications of for him simultaneously integration into a contradictory, class Smelserts interpretation of Chartism is necessary before we conflictual society. These structured class contradictions move on to a briefer discussion of Engels' view. Smelser does are the axes around which collective contention crystallizes. not only see a population's relation to social change as deter- The contention ie between identifiable claoees locked into mining its propensity for radical contention. Ile nlso pees relatively persistent relntions of conflict over socinl resourcee. radical contention a8 being Amd~ment~llyabout social change. Engels would agree with Smelser that the factory worker of the Moreover, since social change is a stnlctural, systemic process late 1030's and early 184C'e was integrated into industrial of transitional develovment, radicd collective contention is capitalist society. This integration did not, however, signal interpreted as a largely reectionary or backward-looking the end of a contentious transitional period but marked the phenomenon. Support for movements such as Chartism arises be~inningof participation in e class related to other clnese~ "...among groups under pressure ..." i.e., from structural bv structured conflicts of interest. As that participntion change , "...the aims of which are to eafeeuard or restore those increases, intraclass bonds strengthen, intercl~ssinterest elements of the division of labour which ere directly under conflicts clarify, and collective contention expands. It i~ pre~sure."~The historian Kitson Clark, who shares ~meleer'b everyday involvement in indufltrinl capitalist society which emphasis on urbanization end industrialization as the critical lrenerates intraclass soliderity mnd intercle~sconflict. The factors defining working class contention, concretizes this ar~umentemphasizes class mobilization rather than ROC~R~ argument in relation to Chartism: mobilization, class based conflicts of interest rather than What the Chartists desired was no doubt to return strqgales against social processes as the keys to understanding to a society of small masters and skilled cr~ftsmen, or nt least a stay to the development of l~rge radical collective contention. We shall have more to say about factories nnd high capitalism.. . .lC this theory Inter; for now, its differences with Smeleer'~are In short, the contention is not between groups md claoses over apparent enough. the distribution of social resources but betneen groups and the Havine distinauished two alternative interpret~tlonaof processes of structural change themselves. A form of strug~le Chartism and related them to their theoretical bases, we now and contention which perhaps only Don Quixote could completely turn to the third, most important part of this section. From und erstand . now on, we will be concerned.with the empiricnl evalu~tionof Enaels' vieion is obviously of n radically different kind. theee oppofied theories and with the development of R compl.ete Intearation into the urban, industrial capitalist order is explanation for Chartist contention. First, however, a few be some indication of worker preaence at the action. The latter revarks about the data on wMd1 this 18 based. The socio- criterion wns considered minim~llymet unless the report in the econovic data is t~kenfrom the usual sources: the Censun, Northern Star indicated thnt the particip~ntewere other than Factory Inspectorst reports, and vurious secondary sources workers; e.g., rate-payers only, middle C~RBR,shopkeepers, etc. which I will identify ~t the appropriate points in the discus- The &r appeared to be quite assiduous in identifyine ~ction~ sion. Aa such, this information require8 no dlacus~ion. The in which workern were not involved since their exclusion from only really new deto presented is th~tconcerning worker the collective and political life of the country was its major collective activity and contention. This information was concern. In the absence of precise numbers of pnrtic$ants, the collected from the Northern Star and represents the firut numeric criterion was coneidered met whenever the report Rave oy~tematicenumer~tion of work in^ class collrctive activity an indication of participants above a "few" or "eeveral" by and contrntion for thie period of English history. Its presen- employinrr such terms as "n~rnerous~~,"well ~ttended", "respectably tation and cinalysio corrects a basic weakness of previous studies attended", etc. of working class action and Chartiem. Those studies, even when The collected events were then classified into two basic quantitativelv rieorous in other respects such as John Poster's cntegories: collective activity md collective contention events. is?lhave primarily relied upon impressionistic and illustrative For reaaona which will become appwent RS the analysis proceeds, information when it comes to the actual patterns and levels of I cho~enot to restrict the enumeration to only those events in working cl~ssaction and contention. Consequently, their which the pnrticipants collectively expressed some claim or analyses md discussions of the dynamics of workine class conten- demand. The collective activity category cont~fnsall events tion remain hypotheses at beat. Ilopefullv, the analysis offered in which such cl~imswere not voiced Therefore, they represent here will enable us to settle some questions about the natyre of instances when ten or more people, workers included, met for Chartism and workina class contention in eener~lat a level of celebrations, lectures, discuseions, and so on. They include evidential rigor previously unattained. events such as the meetings of benefit aocieties. dinners and The events recorded, 791 in all, cover in^ the period from dances celebrating Ilenry Hunt's birthday, gatherinas to discuss December 25, 1841, to December 16, 1842, or 51 weeks, h~dto the present distress of workers, scheduled lectures by Chartist meet two basic criteria for inclunion in the enumeration. They ngitators, and trade society meetin~s. In short, they represent hnd to involv,e presumably at least ten people and there had to an indicntion of the levels of working class collective life or mobilization and, as will become apparent later, are an impor- or the proportion o.? the 1R41 populntion livina in cities which tant element in the explanation of Chartist and other forms of by 1841 had lC,000 or more people; (2) Urbanization; i.e., the working class contention. percent chance in urbanism 1831-41; and (3) Industridism, Events of collective contention are those which included defined as the percent of the 1841 population that were textile workers and met Charles Tilly 'a Great Britain Study's criterion factory workers in 1838. Since the production of textile0 was for "contentious ~atherinee";i.e., all those "occasions in far and away Lancashire'a domin~ntindustry, the firrures on which ten or more persons outside the government gather in the textile factory worker^ give FI very accurate indic~tion'o? same place and make a visible claim which, if realized, would industrialism. The comparison is set forth in Table I. l3 effect the interests of some specific person(s) or group(s) outside their own numbers."12 For the purposes of this study, TABLE 1 these contentious gatherings were subdivided into two groups: Comp~riaonof Parishes with Chartist Contention in 1842 and those with none chartist contentions and non-Chartist contentions. The Chartist No. of category included dl those contentious gatherings in which the --Pa.rishes Ilrbanisa Urbanizfltion Industrialism visible claim made was for the enactment of the People's Charter Contentious Parishes 23 69.4% r7.3 9 .% into law. Obviously, non-Chartist contrntions were all those Non-contentious Parishes 38 6.1 +l.3 1.7 not involving a demand for the People's Charter. The entire Lancafihire and enumeration of collective activities snd contentions was aetzre- Stockport 61 59.6 +6.1 8.7 gated in terms of the parish in which the event occurred, end the parish totals were then convrrted into the ratrs of activity Clearly, the Rrea of Chartist contention wne Lnncn~hire'e and contention per 100,000 population in 1841. All the conver- most urban, urbanizing, and industrial reaion. Other incomplete sion involves, of course, is the standardization of the parishen evidence indicates that we should R~ROadd rapidly industrializing in relation to their population differences; a necesswy to this lifit of traits. The rateof growth in the number.of preliminerv to the comparative analysie we are underteking. textile factory workers, 1835 to 1838, in the contentious area Let's begin the snalyais by compnrine the parishes which was around 25$. Although precioe figurefl for this are not had Chartist contention in 1842 with those that did not. We do equally available for the non-contentious parishes, the evidence 80 in tens of three nocio-economic characteristics: (1) Urbanism, indic~testhat their experience was pretty well mixed between 1 low growth and lor de~line?~About a11 this aggregate level TABLE 2 l5 analysis tella UA is th~tChartist contention in 1847 WR8 a Social Change nnd Chartiut Contention phenomenon of the dynamic, modern sector of Lancashire society. Chartist Contention Table 1 does not provide anv a~siatancein distinguishinn the per lCC,CIOC relative merits of Smelser's or En~ela'interpretations. Urbanization, 1831-41 - .C7 ( -01)* Urbanization/industrialization and urbanism/industrialism were Industrialization, 1835-38 -.I5 (.C2) equally characteristic of the contentious Chartist reelon. Urban Growth, 1831-41 -.27 (.05]

Ilesitetinaly, we might conclude that R certain iindeflne8 level *The figures in purentheses are the respective of "modernization" and/or "modernitytt was a necessary condition coefficients of determination. for Chartiat contention. In any event, the important issue in dispute is not the extension of Smrlser'u overall argument and preoents no explanation of whether or not Chartiet contention occurred but difficlllties. Industrialization ia the rate of chsnkd in the rather the explanation of variations in its level. Here we will purishfs number of textile factory workers, 1835-38.16 The restrict our an~lysisto the twenty-six parishes for which we definition of urbaniz~tionis ~lreadyfamiliar from Tahle 1. huve evidence that some collective flctivitv or contention took Smelser is obviously on the wrong track. Hie arcument that place. We will be focu~ingon the relation between the rate of urbanization and ind~EJtrializati0npositively influenced Chartist Chartist contention per lCC,CCO 1841 populntion and the socio- contention is false. Instead, they were neg~tivelyrelated to economic explanations proposed for variatione in that rate. it. Thnt is, the more a p~rishwas caught up in the processes Smelfler's argunent is that the rate8 of urb~lniz~tibnend of social change, the leas WRS its level of Chartist contention. industrialization were poaitivelv related to the level of The low values of the coefficients suagest thut the Chartist contention; i.e., the ereater the rate of aocial change, processes of aoci~lchange rjmelser identifies h8d little benrinf: the higher the levels of r~dicfllcollective contention. Tnble. 7 at all on Chnrtiat contention. Be that as it mav, the presumed presents the zero-order product moment correl.ntion coefficients soci~lcontr~dictiona of tronstional socteties were not the one8 between level of Chartist contention and urhanizution, indus- generating Chartist contention in 1842 Lancnshire. If anything, trialization and urban arowth. Urben ~rowthrefers to the rate they were operatine so as to reduce it. The relationship of a of change, 1831-41, in the populution of parish citiefi with population to system level proccsses of ch~n~eis just not.^ 10,000 or more people us of 1841. Its inclusion is a direct meuninaful one when it comes to drtcrminine levels of collective TABLE 3 contention. Apparently, there are much more sienific~ntmnd Industri~lism,Urbanism, and Chartist Contention prosaic f~ctorsat work than these svstem processes. It does not make sense to think of radical collective contention as Chartist Contention per 1OO.CCO structured by and framed interns of macro-processes of structural Urbanism +.07 (.O1) transformation. We can, in light of Table 2, confidently con- Industrialism +.52 (.27) clude that social change wus not the critical determinant of Textile P~ctoryWorker Chartist contention. per 1,COO acres +.6C (.36) Our knowing that Smelser is on the wrong track does not, of course, tell us that Engels was on the riaht one. If we are p~rticularcontention, the people in the city would have to be willing to ~cceptindustrialism and urbanism as f~irnpproximn- R "t~rfiet"R~OUP of the contention. In the cnse of Chartio*, tions of Engelst idea of the extent to which the factory has urbanism did not have R significant direct effect. Leter, we taken hold of an area, then Table 3 presents their relation to will see that it did, however, have aome indirect effect on Chartist contention. The table includes an fidditionfll explan~tory Chartist contention. variable--textile factory workers per 1,CCO acres in 183~!~It It was not so much livinrr in the city ae workin& in the indfcates the level of ffictory proletarian concentration in a f~ctorythat was importnnt for Chartiom. ThJa point is ~raphicnlly perish. A quick glance fit Table 3 points up its sharp contr~st illustrnted by FI comp~risonof Liverpool and Manchester. Liver- with Table 2. At least, all of the relations are in the direction pool was a commercial city without any textile factories; and, one would expect from Engelst analyois. The one insignificant in 1842, it did not have a sinale instance of Chartist contention. relutionship is hetween urb~niamand Chartist contention. This Manchester, on the other hand, hod over thirty thounand textile is somewhat surprising in light of existing evidence on the factory workers, roughly ten percent of its total. population, relntively strons: relation between urbanism and collective con- and thirty-three larae-scale Chartist contentions. Urh~nism tention. Actudly, the usual nrnument about urbanism and performs much like the other socioloeic~lvariables of urb~ni- collective contention is that the urhan environment significantly zation end urhan rrrowth. They Rre nll relatively insicnificant reduces the costs of organizing and mobilizinrr people for in relation to Chnrtiat contention. Conver~elv, the two contention. Obviously, for urbanism to be relevant to anv vari~bleaframed in terms of factory workers fire quite significant ' ?

-- -- IL-.,.r..r...-.I..- .-r--. -.r -...,. -.. -2,...... -r...: I... "L.... -,-..-- * ...... -~,,------.-.-.-.---...... in relation to it. Moreover, of these two, the level of a The first step is to 1~yout the quantit~tiveevidencr and parish'n proletarisn concentration is the more important. The hope that it will provide some leads to explanation. Tables 4 point is that Chartist contention wns not a gener~lsocial and 5 do this: Table 4, in terms of the sociologic~lframework phenomenon; it was, instead, grounded in R p~rticularclass advanced by Smelser; and T~ble5 in terms of the more fruitful - or Rroup defined primarily by their position within the economic economic and clas~one. Table 4 is representative of social otructure. To this point, then, all the evidence pointo to an mobilization theories of radical contention. To the vziriahlea area's economic structure and not to ito social otructurr or already considered, we have added literacy. It is taken Prom n processes as what was important for Chartist contention in 1842, study by Michziel Sanderson end represents the proportion of Engels was npparently on the right track. people able to oign their nnmes to parish marria~erecisters in The cvidence so far indicates that Chartist contention was 1837-39.'' Literacy, like urbsnization, industrialization, and a phenomenon structurrd by the economically determined class urban growth, occupies a central pl~cein theories of contention situation of textile jactory workers. But as Max Weber pointed thst emphasize social change or nocia1 mobilization. Its out long ago, the class situation doea not invariably result in expansion is just one more element of the transition to the collective contention. If it did, we would be hard pressed to "modemts world. Table 4 shows that these modernization theories account for either the fluctuetions in Chartist contention have little relevance to eny of the forms of worker collective durin~1847 or thst year's high levels of it in covparison with ~ctivityand contention in 1842. In fact, the stroneest reln- other years.'' The class situation of textile factory proletarians tions are in the opposite direction from what they predict. The was just that--a situation. Yet, if we have learned anything negative evidence reanrding literacy does, however, tell us about the dynamics of collective contention, it is that much soncthinc. Sanderson demonstrates that textile frctorv work more than sharin~an objective situation ie involved in itn wao among the mont illtter~teoccupations in Lancaahire ot this determination. N1 we know now is that there wae something in time?OOur own analysis shows that the correlation between the the situation of textile factory proletnrims which was directly percent of population textile facton workers and percent relevant to Chnrti~m. What we do not know is what thio some- 1iterat.e VIAS -.65. Once again, we are back to the f~ctor~ thing was md how it was relevant. Before we can nnswer three proletariat. questions, it will be necessarv to situate Chartist contention Table 5 prenenta'the rel~tionsbetween collective within the overall pattern of worker collective activity and activity/contention and proletarian concentretion, urbanism. contention. TABLE 5

Social Mobilizetion and work in^ Cl~ss Class Mobilizetion end Working Cl~sn Collective Activitv and Contention Activity and Contention

Chartist Non-Ch~rtist Collective Cha.rtist Non-Chartist Collective Cqntention Contention Activity Contention Contention Activity

Urbnnization -.C7 (.01) +.I6 (.~3) +.I7 (.C3) Proletarian Concentration +.60 (.36) +.80 (.64) . +.79 (.62)

Urbnn Growth -.27 (.C5) +.I1 (.02) +.I2 (.07) Urbanism +.p7 (.(!I) +.3R (.11) +.2P (.C8) Industrialization -.I5 ( .c2) -.iC ( .CI) -.37 (.I@) Collective Activity +.50 (.25) , +.68 (.46) . Literacr 1 (2) -.45 (.%C) -.27 (.C7) Non-Chartist Contention + .64 ( .41 )

activity nnd non-Chartist contention is only +.16.~' This eugeest~ It also shows the relationship hetween chartist contention, that in between the class situation of f~ctoryproletarians end non-Chartist contention ~ndcollective activity. (~llrelation- Chartiot contention was the process of cl~semobilization. The ships are non-spurious. ) The evidence is unambiguous. If one' time hn~come to shift away from economic ~tructureto the more wants to account for Chartist contention, C~RRRmobilization political end conjunctural factors which influence mobilizntion and not social mobilization is the key. Once annin, the weakest for contention. We may sum up by sayint? that industrial capitalism, explanatory fector is urbanism; hut, nevertheless, it does have bv concentratins factory proletarians, crenteF the foundstions nn independent effect on non-Chnrtist contention ~ndcollective for class mobilization and therefore for Chartist contention. activity. Proletarian concentration remeins the hest predictor How all of these connections occurred is what we will now be across the entire ranee of worker collective nctivity and concerned with. contention. There is, however, one sicnificant oualification. Ei~hteenforty-two was, to put it mildly, not s eood yeer. The ~inglebest predictor of Chartist contention is non-Chartist The textile industry was in a depression. R.C.O. M~tthewshas contention. The picture which beqins to emerce Prom Tnhle 5 ~rguedthat 1R41-42 were the only years between 1853 snd 1647 22 suggests an explanation of Ch~rtinmmuch'more complex thon 8 in which the industry WRS seriously depressed. He ehowfi that Simple, direct, Clnss Situation .+ Ch~rtistcontention argument in previous slumps manufact~~rershmd ~bfiorbed much of the cofite In fact, the second order partial between Chartist contention of diminishing mnrkets. Consequently, by 1842 they were nl.ready ~ndproletorinn concentration when we ttcontroltl for collective experiencin~considerable downward pressure on profits: "...many 73

entrepreneurs faced the further deteriorntion in trade in 1841-42 Taylor trevelled throughout Lancashire in 1842 spending much with their reserves nlready almost exhausted." 23 \Yhereas of his time in conversation with textile workers. The first "...entrepreneurs suffered gre~terproportion~l loss in money thing he noted was how their situation was leading them to ' earninrrs between 1837 amd 1840 thm the ~peratives...~~,in 1842 differentiate their interest8 from others' end to recognize they turned the balance and shifted the cost€ of diminishing the need for clsae action to puroue those interests. At Colne, trade onto the workers.24The result we.8 about twenty percent he found Chartism to be develop in^ with 'lfe~rfulrapidityu unemplovment, the imposition of short-term hours on en equal amon6 workers who had told him number of workers, and wane-rnte reductions which rnn~edbetween "We used to think that some thin^ better would turn up, but we have w~itedso lon~that hope it~elfis worn ten and twenty percent or more?5 In short, the conflict between out: we must do something for ourselves, hecaufle those above UR will never do anythina for ria." Con- the profits of capital and the wnges of labor had, hv 1847, nected with this subject, 1 maf'remark on the rapidity with which politicel intelligeve nppearR to be r?~chedan intense and open phage. promulgated in this district. The stnictursl conflict betwern capital and labor was con- At another place, Taylor aave the sick child of en unemployed juncturally converted into a transparent conflict between worker sixpence, which elicited from her father the sarcastic employers and workers. The result was the dual development of remark, "I am sure you are poor yourself, or you would not be increasing intraclass solidarity ~ndaccentuated intercless charitnble."2P Over and over agnin, Taylor emphasizes how their hostility. Structural conflicts became increasingly real and present difficulties were driving workers to a grenter relinnce trnnoparent through their translation into immediate ~ndcompel- on one another ond a greater disdain for ell those "above" ? 6 ling struggles eround basic nredfi. The lay-offs, 810~-downs, them. and wage reductions created basic contingrncies of material life Taylor sees how the m~terialsituntion of the worker8 led for the workers. The fact thet all of these contingencies could to the development of "...a dangerous and increasing chasm 29 be directly linked to the actions of employers meant immediate between the employers and the employed." Confirmina hie orn personification of conflicts. The over~lldevelopment might be difilike for Chartifits and other work in^ clnaa leaders, he characterized am the "evemdciying" of structural conflicts nevertheless perceived how this "chasm" provided them with through their reduction to contingencies of material life. fertile territory in which to work. We are fortun~teto hove a primary source thnt allows us The operatives, thus ~bandonedby their nature1 Yi. cuidefi, .were l?ft free to follow any leader8 that to catch a good glimpse into these developmentfi. Cooke offered,--Unionisto, Chartists, ~ndpolitical adventurers of every gr~deand description. 3e It was not only those who were.unemployed thnt joined the where nt le~stone of the speakers directly advoc~tedthe

Cherti~tmovement, but the larner numbers who had 6ome employ- Proplets Charter. The speakers involved were nenernlly 3 1 ment were gripped by "a fearful lookina forward to the future". Chartiet leaders and activists, and therefore it m~ke8ense Finnlly, one more quote which m~kesthe point with effective to nee these events ae agitation. The object of a~itationwan obviously to create support and ultimately Chertlet contention. I RRW mnny a wheel idle and many e chimney fimokeless; If we take the efficiency of that agitation to be measurable RR a consequence, I find the villoge for the mont part tenanted br a poverty-striken.population. Ilaving in terns of the ratio of aaitational gatherings to Chartist entered into conver~~tionwith some of the unemployed operatives, I found that h e, as elsewhere, they contentions, then we can evaluate how the economic ~ituation were determined Chartiats. 32; influenced that efficiency. We have unemplovment data for only We can see that Taylor has n ~ortof "contagion" model of ten parishes; nnd, when we look at it in relation to agitn- Chartjem in mind'!3 He points to how the economic situ~tionof tional efficiency, we get Table 634 It suggests that the 1@42 led to the strencthening of intr~cla~sbonds nnd the parishes where unemployment WRR greater were indeed more fertile heightening of interclass ho~tilitiee. How these, in turn, arounds for aeitation. Especi~ll~when onr notes that their created. the intere~tand socinl space (,uchasm") in which levels of proletarian concentretion were the reverse of wh~t Chartist a~itstioncould thrive. It ia extremely difficult to brina my level of sufficient quantitntive evidence to hem on TABLE 6 this issue. The only thine we can do is to provide R fragment Ilnemployment and the Efficiency of information which suggefits the Accuracy of the nrel~mentwe of Chertifit Agitation have been makine. The evidence relates to how the economic H~tioof conjuncture nnd its evnrydaying consequences influenced the Percent Actual Rnnrte Number of Proletarian Contentione Unemployed of Unemployment Psrishea Concentr~tion to PPJ~A~~o~R relative efficiency o? Chartist ~eitation. V/e cnn on1.y hypothe- size that the intermediate processes were the ones of intr~class bonding and interclass polarization th~tthe argument nu~gests. Taylor, however, provides ~oodevidence that they were. In nny event, we ere onerating in the renlm of attenu~tedplausibility.

The over five hundred inatmces of collective activity in the enurnerntion include two hundred twenty-three cntherincs one would expect. Chnrtist ~~itatorswere more then twice ns League WRS attempting the old strategy of mobilizing 0 workine likely to create Chartist contention in the group of perishes class "tail" to force the landholding aristocracy jnto nbolishin~ with higher unemployment. agricultural duties. The Chartists saw this ns a simple attempt The evidence of Table 6 not only su~~eatsthe n.ccuracy of to deflect workine class nction from the renl problem of

our arguments but also confirms the wisdom of Fer~ueOIConnor's nchjevine; political power to a nurrou; middle-class proernm. Northern Star article on "A l'ew ii'orcls on Propagandiem and They argued that the Corn Laws were just one example of class Organizu tionl' : legislation; that the declining condition of workers put the lie Our miesion is with the sons of poverty and suffering; to the League's argument that the expansion of markets resulting Prom them we must gain converts and disciples. Wherever oppresaion and tyranny exist on the part of from free trade would benefit ~0rkerAthrough incrensed ~roduc- the landlord, the master nnd the msnufacturor, there ehould our missionary be ,...takina advantage of it to tion; and that the chesper bread which would res~~ltfrom frre rnise scorn ~ndcontempt in the minds of the people ssainst the present nccursed system. When mRn suffers trade actually meant that employers would reduce w~aes.~~ from wrona nnd oppression his mind is doublv oprn to conviction of the divine principlrs of truth and justice.35 Our enumeration contains eighteen occasions on which the

The conjuncture1 circumstances of 1842 played R major role in League and the Chartists directly confronted each other st npubliclt the development of n "class for itself". A claoe which meetings. All the meetings were called on League initiative nnd perceived itself as bonded to~etherby R set of circumstences none were planned ns direct debates between Leaguers ~ndChartists. and interests thet were opposed to those of other classes. A Of the eighteen meeting^, the Chartists with worker support c~~RSwhich wan mobilizing around these interests ~ndoppositions mnnnged to defeat resolutions for rrpe~land pnss resolutions nnd which found in Chartiam a proeram and s message refracted for the Charter on twrlve occnsions. Three of the confrontations through their everyday lives. ended in compromise resolutions md three in Leatrue victories There was a aeries of events thnt graphicnlly illustrated ("able 7). Two-thirds of these confront~tionntook pl.ace in the duel importance of polarizing claes formations and u worker- February p~nd March. It was, of course, in February that Peel based politicnl organization for Chartist contention. Chflrtist~ introduced his budget in Parliament with itn call for a sliding were not the only orgmized political group seeking working scale on corn import duties. A proposal which was an~thema class allegiance in 1842. There wns also the manufnctlirer- , to the Lea~uewhich demanded nothing short of tots1 abolition. dominated md financed Anti-Corn LRWLeague. Its progrnm celled Here we see P direct example of the Psrliamentery flgend~ for the repeal of the Corn law^ ~ndfree trade in grnin. The initi~tinethe mobilization of an isnue-oriented political TABLE 7 Birch hod endeavored hard to convince you that your interests and the interests of the middle Chartist and Anti-Corn Law League cla~seswere the seme.... Then I want to know Confrontations and Their Result ' what is the reason they will not eive you the seme rights as they enjoy, if your interests are identi~al?~ Elumber of Chartist League Compromise Confrontations Victories Victories Resolutions That clinched it. Birch's resolution was defeated, and the

1 P 12 3 3 crowd declared for the Charter. The class fissures of society were an inescepable feature of the politic~llandscape. This was so much the case that the League decided to orgnnizntion. The Lea~le'smobilization and attempt to gain temporarily withdraw from the unrewarding arenR of public agita- worker support led in turn to the competitive mobilization of tion. We have fllready noted that two-thirds of the Leaeue/Chnrti~t the Chartists. This spiralling process of mobilization and confrontations occurred in February and M~rch. Durin~that period, counter-mobilization reoulted in heightened levels of contention the League lorit eight, won two, and two ended in compromise. The (see Figure 1, p.35) and in Chartist eaine. Anti-Corn LAWLeague met in Manchester on March 27 to evaluate The wav the polarized class divisions of 1842 entered into the progress of their a~itation. They decided that further open these Chartist victories can be illustr~tedby a Manchester agitation should he dr~StiC~llycurtailed' 'since experience showed meetinq. The League called the meetine bv placard; and, when 38 thet it was only benefiting the Chartist. The comhination of it finally got under way, there were ten thousand people an economtc situation that polarized the cleeses and a political assembled in Stephenson's Square. Mr. Birch of the Lengue organization committed to working-class interests destroyed the opened the meeting ststina that the abolition of the corn laws possibility of an "old style" rniddle class-work in^ clnsa conlition. by extending commerce would bring an end to the present distress. Nor was this overall play of class political. force^ one determined lie emphasized the unity of interests between manufacturers ~nd by the pure exie;encies of the moment,. It was the result of a workers on this question and the narrow class selfishness of lone-stnnding policy of the National Charter Association. At the aristocracy in opposine them. Mc then proposed a resolution the found in^ of that body in 1846, its constitution contnined committing the meeting to repeal of the Corn Laws. The Chartist the following injunction: James Leach then rose amidst the cheers of the crowd md argued The member^ of this Association shall RZFO ntt,end that England hod had numerous extensions of commerce, but the ell public Politic~lMeetings, and there, either by movine amendments, or hy other means, enforce e dis- workers were still in miserv. He then voiced oppo~itionto cussion of our rights and claims, so that none may remain in ienorance of what we want, nor hnve an Birch's resolution and proposed a counter-resolution for the

Charter by sayine: opportunity of propaeating or perpetuating political icmormce or delusion. 39 Behind the hlank numeric mask of the correl~tionbetween Readers familiar with nineteenth-century English history Chartist and non-Chartist contention, there was the politicnl bave, no doubt, noticed a elarine omission from the discufibion. renlity of mobilizing snd counter-mobilizina political organize- Nothine has heen aid about whnt ere generally taksn to be the tiona strucgling to achieve class nllegiances end to further most significant events of 1R42--the "Plug Plot Riotatl. In concrete intereots. Structurally defined groups cau~htup in Lancashire, et least, these "riotfi" are ju~tifieblyidentified a conjuncturally accentuated process of interest differentiation as industri~lEurope's first political mass strike. The reauon and polnrization, interconnected with conuciouuly directed we have pofitponed discussion of the Augufit strike until now was political organizations to create the Chartist contention of to ~llowits situation within the overall argument. We wanted 1842. Not structure alone, conjuncture alone, or politics done to be Rhle to Bee the eventu of Aunust su they fitted into the but all three together created the radical collective contentJon general political dynamics of 1847. The last uection developed Chartiam reprefiented. This indicate8 that if theories of a comperritive ~nalysisof the roots of Chartist contention, collective contention are to be my sood, they muut he framed emphasizing the process of claso mobilizntion and the role in terms of all three of these levels. And to do this, they politicul organization played in it. The utrike was directly must get down into the contingent ebb and flow of concrete related to these dynamics, hut it also presents a remarkable historical reality. As we proceed, this dictum will become example of their opposite: demobilization throueh repression. even more compelling. The general strike of August heean at Staleybridge on AC Au~ust5. Its immediate carlse w~othe nnnouncement of a WRRC reduction at Rayley's cotton factory. At that. the workers utopped work, left the mill and formed into a processJon. They then marched to the nearby towns of Aohton, Ilvde, and Oldham where virtually all of the t~xttleworkers turned out and joined the nlarch. The strike had hegun. Actually, it was not as spontaneous 8s it appears. In late July, some employern in

Ashton had threatened a wage reductJon. Thiu oet off FI ~eries of workerfi' meetings in Ashton, Staleybridge, and Hyde where identify two of these emisnerie~,both memhers of the ~ational they decided that., if the reduction actually occurred, they Charter Association, in Preston on the 12th where they would all go on strike. On Auaust 4, the Ashton employers eddressed workers on the need to m~kethe strike general. withdrew their thrent, but Bagley '6 nevertheless carried out Strikes end turn-outa did occur in Preuton on the Iyth, but a reduction on the 5th. The workers had therefore already there is not any evidence thet the delegateu from the South decided to fitrike for "e. fair day's wages for a fair day's 4 1 were directly involved. workv when Bayley's enacted the decision on the 5th. The argu- In any event, the Northern Star renort~strikes and tnrn- ment which clinched the demand for solidarity between towns was outs by the 12th of August ~t Rolton, Heywood, Rochdole, Bury, that given the logic of the competitive market, a reduction in Rurnl,ey, Stockport, and Todmorden. Bv the 15th, they had ~pread one would quickly have hecome a reduction for all. Apparently, further into nacup, Chorley, Wigan, and numerous other arens.n.2 the universal~.einglogic of the market also tends to univer~r.lize The strike had hy then become pretty much general throughout str~ggleswithin it. Lancashire. Its mode of extension conformed in large part to By the 9th of August, the strike was aener~lin the Ashton, the pattern in the Ashton area. A group of workers would fitrike, St~leybridge,Oldham, nnd Duckinfield Rreau. On that day, form into procession, and travel about turning out other work,eru. forty thor~smdof the strikers met in Ashton and decided to Between the IOth and the 15th of August, the utrike aluo took on m~rchon Mnnchester and confront the manuf~cturersdirect1.y a political character. Meetingfi of utrikeru added to their at the cotton exchange. More millsm turned out en route to demand for "a fair day's waeec" the demand that the People's Manchester; but, on srrival at the o~tskirtsof the city, the Charter become the 1a.w of the land. Votes to thie effect had police succeeded in deftly manouvering the crowd away from the occurred in A~hton,Staleybridge, Wigon, Mancheoter, Ilyde, exch~naeand to Grmby Row Fields where they held another Stockport, Oldham, Rurnley, Chorleg, and other places. The meetinn. After ~houtnn hour of speechmaking, they marched waqe strike of Aunuet 5 had, hy the 15th, hecome a political. back to their towns. Their presence in Me.nchester, however, maso strike. initiated a seriesof turn-outs there which would continlie off and Three points ahout the relation of the strike to prior on until late September. The Au~ust9 meetine in Ashton not developments should be made before we turn to a closer an~lyuis only produced the Manchester march. It also elected eix of ito internal dynamics. The firfit thing of note is its emissarleu who were to travel to north'Lancnshire and convince situation in relation to the overall p~ttern07 activity and workers there of the need for unity in the utrike. \~econ contention in 1R42. May, June, and July were months durina whlch worker collective activitv and contention were on the

upfiuree both in terms of instanceu and size. Figure 1 presents the three-week swings in worker activity ~ndcontention for the yea.r. The Bley-June-July upwerd trend coincides with the meeting of the National Chartist Convention 'in London, the prefientation of the National Petition dW?Iflnding the Charter to Parliament (Me8 1) and Parliament'fi quick and decisive vote , . a~ainctgiving the Petition consideration. It was a period of political mohiLization that culminated .in the direct presentation of Chartist demand8 to the qovernine bodies of England and their un~mbiguor~spolitic~l dereat. The incre~seof Chartist contention in June and July represented a.n intense mobilization in the Woke of political defeat. If the economic situation accentuated clase divisione at the level of material life, the political defeet of lay must have added salt to an alreagy festering wound. The June-,July rise in collective activity, non-Chartist and Chertist contention centered on this defeat. The collective activity gntherina~were dominated by di~cusnionsof the prefient miseries of the people end tho unjust system of clafiu legislation. The non-Chart.int contentions were primarily meetin~sexpressine confidence in end support of the Cllartifit I.~aderfihipand thanks to T.S. Duncomhe, M.P. for his upp port of the Charter in the t \ House of Commons. The Chartist contention^ centered on the ( 1/14

OF by I asloption two neaFuroF; ~roposed the National Conlrention in In V) V) V) V) V) V) a V) * M N d w the wake o!' defeat. Larce puljlic nleetines sent forth a VI c .-Ic 0 Memorial to the Quem calling for the dismissal of the Peel the mechanics, in early June; the fimitha, on June 15; nnd the ministry and appointment of one thst would make the Charter hammermen, in July. In the cace of the fustian cutters end a cabinet measure. The uecond measure WRR a Remonstrance to mechanics, delegates from the carpenters and joinern addre~sed the Nouse of Commonfi, the lanauage of which directly expresses their meetings in support of joining the NCA. At the meeting6 the class divifiions and wound8 of 1842. After opening with a of the smiths ~ndhammermen, delegates from hith the mechanic^ discussion of how the annual production of wealth is increasing, and carpenters and joiners advocated the moveP4' The period while the condition of the working class is worsening, the before Auaust, then, wfls one during which trade unlons were Remonstr~ncegoeu on to say that this ifi turning to the Charter; and, ao one did, it nttempted to recruit Rn anomely not to he accounted for but in the others to do likewise. monopoly of political Dower, the unjust usurpation of authority, and the conse~uentbad government of The arauments advanced in favor of joining the NCA were the nation; directly attuned to the economic situation of workers in 1042. That the great mafie of the people are denied the right of represent~tionin Parliament, and the We have already noted the pressure employers were putting on prefient flouse of Comaons, heing elected by R limited class, legislates only for the interents of that wages. The Northern Star reported wage reductions in 1842 ~t claes, to the y4ter ruin of the ereat majority of the people. ... Chorley, Colne, Crompton, Stockport, Blackburn, Manchester, Langu~geouch as this, during a period of intense mobilizetion Wigan; and this list must only scratch the surface. Moreover, and economic miserv, could not help but increnae clnso polarization. it was wage reductions that set off the Auaust strike. The The second important development in the May to July period argument Chartists msde to trode unionists nnd trade unionists was the recruitment of trade unionfi aE bodies into the National made to each other echoed a May addreas 05 Blackhurn'fi Chnrtjstfi Charter Asfiociation. This relatively new recruitment involved to the trade unions of that town. It argued that trade unions A simple and, in 1842, compelling fiet of arguments end a process were established to protect the wages md conditions of lnbor of linked recruitment. An example from Manchefiter will provide but that the present conditions and numerous wage reductions the necessary outlines. In early May, the Chartist McDougnll demonfitrated their feilure. The remedy was to join the NCA and A 5 addressed the carpenters end joiners of Manchester on the neces- "strike at the heart of theproblem--class legislation". The. sity of political power if unions were to be successful. The Manchester mschnnicfi mpde essentially the same argument to the carpenters end joinera then voted to enroll in the N~tionzl hammermen on July 12, saying that they Charter Association. The funtion cutteru followed in late May; had found that the tradee' unionn had not accomplished that for which they had been formed, namely the protectj.on of the labour of the working 3 9

man; and, therefore, they had come to the conclusion the most mobilized and politicelly contentious workine cles~ that nothing short of a participation in the meking 46 of the laws.. .would effective1.y protect their lahor. areas to tho~ewhich were lene mobilized end contentious. The economic conjuncture'of 1042 was a major element leading to The political mass strike of August wan nn ecologicnl ~xemple the pre-Aup;ust politicization of the trade union movement. Not of the leadership functions of a class "vanrruard". It was,

only workers hut working C~RREorg~nizetions were heina mobilized for e while, very successful; but, eo we fihall see in a moment, ~ndpoliticized during the Mag to July period. there was an even more orgnnized and powerful opponent. Sever-

The third point we have to muke brine^ us back to the theleas, the three points vie heve been me kin^ about the immediate events of the mass strike of Auaust, 1842. Fhen one rel~tionof the August strike to previoun politico-economic looks at the centers of diffusion for the strike; i.e., those developments dovetail nicely with Rosa Luxemburg's obnervation tovms where strikes originated and from which workers then formed that into turn-out "mobs" and extended it into other aretm, one thine With the spreading, clarifying end involution of the politicel strug~lethe economic strue8le not is apparent: "hey were towns whose pre-Auaust levels of worker merely does not recede, but extends, organizeC.end becomes involved in equal measure. Between the two collective activitv and contention were remarkably hi~h. Aehton, there ie the mont complete reciprocal actj.on.47 Staleybridge, Rochdale, Burnley , Bury, Stockport, and Oldham had The time h~scome to take a closer look at the internel levels of collective activity and contention around two time8 dynnmics of the Augunt politicel meus strike. The focu~will greeter than the remaining active/contentious areafi. Table 7 be on them in relation to an actor that he6 been conspicio~~sly preoents the evidence for this. The strike expanded out from absent until this point--the state. We will show how state organized repression dramatically reverned the pattern of TABLE 7 strike expansion and ultimetely produced the rapid demobiliza- Comparison of Centers of Strike Diffusion And Remaining ~ctive/Cont,entiousAreas tion of Lancashire workers. Before turning to the evidence on In Terms of Collective Activity and Contention Per lCC,CCO repression, a few backaround rem~rksare necessary. The

Collective Chartist Non-Chartist Auaust strike extended from July 26 to Auguot 30. Earlier, Activity Contention Contention we noted that the trike beceme increasingly Charti8t from the Towns of Strike Diffusion 66.9 9 .c 8.7 lOth to the 15th of Auaust. Actually, the decisive moment Other ~ctive/Contentious thet tied the strike to the Charter came on Ausust 12. Tho+, Areas 3C .3 4 .E( 5 .6 wnF the d~ywhen more than two hundred delegates, representing twenty-five trades and more than twenty localities, mat in August, 1842 was characterized bv both circumstances. The Manchester and voted to strike for the people!^ ~harter.~' turn-out action represents a tactic which is well adapted to AU~UR~12 also marked the end of the llome Office's non- this type of situntion. It involves a group of workers on repressive stance toward the strike. With the exception of strike forming themselves into a "mob" and marching from factory Mancheater, Lancashire was a very poorly policed county. If to factory to stop other workers from working. A basic aspect local ,authorities were to deal with any large-ecale disturbances, of the turn-out action is, of couree, the more or less explicit they had to rely on the military. Its domestic activities were. threat of violence against those who refufic to join the ntrlke. however, controlled by the Home office. On August 13, at the Of the forty-eiaht cases of turn-out actions in the enurnere.-

Home Secretary's request, the Queen isoued R proclamation tion, only four involved direct violence again~tother workers. offering a I150 reward for the apprehension and conviction of The nonsl pattern waa for the turn-out mob to confront the the "authors, abettors, or perpetrators" of nny act of turn-out owner or mannger of a mill and demand that he stop the works violence. The Home Secretary forwarded instructions to the and turn-out his employees. The demand would be accompanied hy military covmanders end mkgistr~tesof Lancashire thnt they threats to "tear down the mill" or to give the owner-mana~er R should forcihly resist any further turn-out acti'ons and 'lprotect good heating. If the workers turned out either on their own Englishmen in the pursuit of their lawful oc~a~ations."~~ (most common) or on their bosses' initiative, there was not nny Consequently, the July 26-Augu~t 3C strike period divides nicely violence or property damage. Re~istanceto the turn-out's into two segments. July 26 to August 12 was a predominently demands led to the sma.shing of windows, the stopping of machinery repression-free period, end Auaust 13 to Auaust 30 WRS one of by drawing out the boiler plu~s(hence, "Plug Plotu), or the , 0 active state repression. 5 more or less violent thrustincr aside of the manaeer md forcible Vle have already discussed the critical role turn-out mobs entry into the mill to drive the workers out. The action did not, played in extending the strike. Now, we will look at the however, extend to the de~tructionof machinery or mill. It wan dynsmics of turn-out actions and repression's effect on them. directed only at insurine the cass~tionof lnbor. The turn-out ~ctionrepresents a variant of what Eric I!obsbawm Since "lahor power" was about the only ~ignificantreuource has cnlled "collective bargaining by ~'iot'~.~'When workers Lancashire workers had at this time, the distribution of control lack the orgnnizational resources of,large unions, the strike over it WRE crucial for the pursuit of working clasfi demands. is a very difficult action to pursue. It is even more diffi- Our earlier analysis of the striko'u diffuoion indicated that cu1.t if attempted during a period of hieh unemployment. the turn-out action wafi a menns for "vnngusrd" workers to achieve control over this collective resource for purposes of this in the turn-out actions on which we have evidence. Pirot, contention. Their effectiveneos ultimately depended on having some definitions:

relatively free access to other worker0 and beina able to A turn-out action iti a collective action by one persuade or coerce them or their employer^ into compliance with srroup of workers on strike to attempt to prohibit the working of another employed group of workers. their demands. This effectiveness In turn rested on the absence A successful turn-out action occurfi when the prcvi- of a countervailing force capable of denying them that access. ously employed workers immediately cease workine on The high unemployment of 1842 meant that there was an enormous a direct result of the first group of workers' turn- out action. A turn-out failure occurs when the pool of workers whose material situation could quickly m~kethem employed workers remain ~t work in the face of the into strikebreakers. The workern1 lack of "strike funds" there- turn-out action. fore dave employera a decided advantage in that throlngh wages An enforcinp; turn-out action is a turn-out action they controlled access to the means of suhoiatence. It was which occurs at a workplace that had either been probably this fact which directed the turp-out's threats and previously on strike or the target of a previous violence toward the employers. They were their most immediate successful turn-out action hut is now hack in ogeration. rivalu in the strungle for control over the collective labor Strikes taken by worker6 on their own initiative ond povrer of the working class. Control by the turn-outs meant without the immediate presence of a turn-out moh are commitment of that resource to the struggle for politic~l not counted as turn-out actionu. democracy. Control by the employers meant the weakeninrr of that Police action0 are defined as any active intervention struggle. by the repressive agento of the tote into on onaoin~ The change in repreaeive policy of Auwst 13 provided, in turn-out action. the shape of the military, a countervail in^ force capable of Table 8 presents the basic figures on the number of turn- prohibiting turn-out access to other workers. Ultimat~ly,it out actions of all types ond the number where there were police returned dominant control over the collactlve labor power of the actions. The Home 0fff.ce policy change of the 13th was much working class to the employers while simultaneouely maintainine more than symbolic. The prooortion of turn-out actions with the dominance of property in the atate. That is, it deatroyed active police intervention WRO more than four times greeter in a serious democratic challenge to the existlng liber~l~tate and the fiecond, repressive period. Obviously, the confi~uretion its restricted property franchise. We can read the record of of forces at turn-out actionfi wafi quite different depending on TABLE 8 Police Actions and Turn-Out Actions Success and Failure of Turn-out8 With and Without Police Action

Number of $1 of Turn-Out Number of Turn-Out Actions Actions with Turn-Outn Without Turn-Outs With Period Turn-Out Actions With Police Action Police Actions Police Action Police Action 7/76-8/12 26 4 15 Period -Success Failure --Success Failure R/I ~-P/?c 22 14 6 4 7/a6-8/30 48 18 38 Turn-Out Actions Enforcing Turn-Out Actions All Turn-Outs whether they occurred between July 26 end August 12 or between Aueuat 13 ~nd3C. The problem is to di~cernwhat, if any, Turn-Out Actions effect this changed configuration of forces had on the success Enforcing Turn-Out Actions rate of turn-out actions. All Turn-Outs We have sufficient information on thirty-eight turn-out ections to determine whether they were successes or fellures. Turn-Out Actions Table 9 presents this information in relation to police action Enforcing Turn-Out Acti0nS or repression. The evidence is ttnamhiguous. Fully @8$ of the All Turn-Outs turn-out failures can be attributed to police action. Through- out the entire strike, there were only two succnssful turn-out actions where there was also police action. In fact, the two to deny turn-out workero access to nnd control over the collective cases of failure without police action were the result of labor power of their class. manufacturers deployina their own armed guards. The ,significance The distinction between turn-out ections end enforcing turn- of the changed repressive policy adopted by the Ilome Office j.8 out actions permits a better pernpective on the role rcpres~ion apparent in the drop in the turn-out success rate from 752 in played.. Succefisful turn-out ~ctionsrepresented increafies in the the July 26-Auaust 12 period to 3Yb in the second, repressive mobilization of working clafis resources for collective contention. period. Clearly, the repressive forces of the stote opernted Enforcing turn-out actions, on the other hand, were attempts to maintain an ~lre~dyobtained, level of .reeource mobilization in final address on Au~ust27, nnnouncinn an end to the strike the face of actual declines. The effects of the changed repres- saying they must wait,until they h~ddeveloped sufficient orgeni- sive policy can now he seen in a somewhat different light. The zation ~nd resource^.^^ That is, ~fterAugust 10 repression was reletively repression-free period was one in which Lancashire r~pidlydemobilizing the Lancnfihire work in^ class. workers ochieved impressive ~ainsin regource mohi1.iz~tion for Ilow rapidly can be seen by n elence back at Figure 1 (p. 35). the pursuit of their economic and political demands. There were Both collective ~ctivity~nd enpecially contention dipped to only two enforcin~actions durine that period, and they were their lowest yearly level. This fact Roes a lone way toward succes~ful. In short, the non-repressive July 26-Auaust 12 period justifying the emphasis we have been placing on political lender- mirrored the entire May to July expansion of resource mobiliz~tion fihip, organization, and agitation 8s critic81 to mobllizntion end and contention with little evidence of decline. contention. Starting on Au~ust17, repression was not only The thirteen turn-out actions which occurred in the second, directed aeainst turn-outs but was also reflected in the Inme- repressive period all happened hetwean August 17 and 18. Their scale ~rrestof trade union end Chartist leaders. Thefie arrests success rate was 46% compared to 725 in the former period. would continue into October with trials at Salford, Liverpool, and Cleerly, mobilization was becoming a much more difficult and Yorlc, involving more than three hundred defendants. The core co~tlyendeavor. In fact, after Au~ust18 the workers were no 'chartist leadership was bound over for trial et Lancashire in longer increasin~their level of resource mobilization at all. the followine spring. When one comperes the list of defendants Instead, they were attempting to maintain previously achieved with the list of people who had taken leading roles,in tho co1l.e~- mohilization levels. An attempt which repression made into 0 tive eatherings of the year, it is cl.ear that the arresto had failure. After August 18, enforcing turn-outs dominated the emascnleted Lancashire's workine cl~ssleadership. A~itatfonand scene; and police actions insured that RQ:J of these effort8 to mobilization had, in fact, ceafied to be the primary concern of maint~inmobilization failed. The lesson had been driven home the National Charter Associ~tion. On September 24, its Executive by the 2Cth when speakers at a strike meetine in Middleton .Council defined the oraanization's primary task ~fithe rnisine of warned the workers not to interfere with those returning to work, defense funds for the arrested.54 The politic~lforcefi of The issue beceufie "the authorities waild come down on them"." repression hnd overwhelmed the political .forces of mobilizntion was finally sealed when the Trade Delegates meetinn that had and had, therefore, largely destroyed the basis of workinr! class declared the strike for the Charter on August 12 issued its activity nnd contention. The clearing of Chartistfi from the political landscape is ~raphically,if somewhat dirrconcert~dl.y, fit into an overall realization of the nature of cnpitaliam wa- apparent in the October 27 reversal of: the Anti-Corn Law put forth in a Northern Star editorial: Leagueto pofiition on public agitation. At a Manchester meet in^ Our opinion is'that strikes have Blweys heen injuriouu to the vrorkmen, and thes'always will be so, until the . that day the League decided, contrary to its March 22 position, people have one of two things--the power of leeisl~tioh,~~ or a confirmed UNIVERSALITY of action and organizntion. that public ~gitationshould he politic^ ohvious~g A second basic difference between these Striker: wag the involveu seizing one's opportunities. purposes for which workeru employed force. In 1811-17 nnd 1876, A few final remarks about the strike of 1842 are ~pposite the workers destroyed new machinery in nn attempt to heLt itfi since they return us to the factorv worker issue. A comparison further introduction. In 1842, the moat they did in relntion to of the strike of 1R42 with Luddifim (1811-12) and the Lancashire machinerv was to pull out boiler pl11ns so AS to enforce the hnndloom-weaversf "strike" of 1826 is enlight~ning.~~Without solidarity of the strike. Once again, the difference focusea on going into detail, we mny note some of th~significant differences the 1042 turn-outs' goal of enforcing a class soljdarity in com- between these cases of large-scale working class ~ction. The parison with earlier attempts to thwart or pursrre specific first point concerns the breadth of action. In 1011-12 snd 1R76, developments and grievances. Moreover, the fact thet the two workers selectively directed their attacks against low quality, earlier actions were by outworkers and wesvere shorrld lend con- low paging and/or recently mechanized firms. Thst is, they siderable wei~htto our contention that factory proletarianr: attcmpted either to brina specific employers into line on the were the critical group in 1842. Behind the shiftins modalities questions of waces and product quality or to eliminate new produc- of action was the structural shift to inductrial capitnlicm ~nd tive machinery. Eighteen forty-two had none of this selectivity. the confieouent change in the social base of worker contention. The workers attempted to turn-out all mills irrrg~rdlessof wage Taken in conjunction with the nttempts to ~rniversulizethe strike, differenti~lsor levels of mechpnization. The workers in 1P42 the absence of mechine destruction in IR42 indjcatea the involve- were attempting to monopolize the control of labor power through- ment of workers who were verv much a part of industrial c~pitrliat out the labor market. In thi~sense, the strike of lP47 society. reflected the universalization of lnbor aF a commodity the One final compnrison is nlso worth notine. The "economic" , workern' recognition of this through their nttempt to monopolize actions of 1811-12 end 1e26 often imperceptibly blended into its control in the market. The workers' recognition of the food riots. In 1842,on the other hand, there were only three usel.eesness of focusing on specific employers and the way it or four instnnces of att~ckson food retai1ers:and none of these involved the characteristic action of fixing a "just priceu. FOOTNOTES This is important because it indicates the movem~nt away from 1. N. Smelser, Social Change and the Industrial Revolution conflicts between consumers and producers in the commodity market (1959); F. Enncls, The Condition of the Working-Class in F;ngland (1844). A brief Rummary of the hi~toricaldisp~~tes to conflicts between labor and capital in the labor market. A surroundinrr Chartlsm is F.C. Mather, Chartism (Ilintoric~l Associetion Pavphlet no. 61, 1972). transformation in the arenas of conflict that MAX Weber identified , . 2. Smelser, OP. cit., pp 194-201, quote on p 199. as following from the development of industrial capitalism .58 This shift wan one of the major structural reasons for the relative failure of the Anti-Corn Law Learrue to gain sirrnificant worker support. Essentielly, they were attempting to form a middle class-working class coalition on the bash of their mutu~l 7. Two hrieP article0 summarize and review these theories. The interests as consuqers vis-e-vis food producers. James Leach first favorable one is Ted Gurr, "The Revolution-Social Change Nexus: Some Old Theories and New Hypotheses". The second, summed up the historical blindness of this position at a Novemher 11 critical one is Charles Tilly, "Doefi Modernization Rreed Revolution?" Both are in Comp~rativePolitics V. 5 (19731, meetine when he said that "cheaper food isn't the issue but r~ther pp 359-82 and 425-48. 5 9 better wages are the real question". In tho labor market, the 8. Smelser, op. cit., p 394. Anti-Corn Law League did not have much of a chance in 1842. All of this indicates that Lord Abineer, who presided at the Literpool 1C. The Making .of Victorian England (1962), p 135. trial of some turn-outs and Chartists, was pretty accurate when 11. Class ~truLgleand the Industrial Revolution (1974). A recent work which.is critical of Foster and is more sg~tematicin he said its treatment of the nctual patterns of workina-cless contention is David Gadian, "Class Consciousness in Oldham and other They might feel some compassion for workmen, who on North-west Industrial Towns, lP30-lR5C", Hifitoricnl Journal, the invention of new machinery, endeavored to toke 21 (1978) pp 161-72. Gadian, however, does not pray ~ttention vengence on whet they supposed to be the cnuee of the to v~rjationsbetween towns in termo of thcir levelc of worker lose of labour...but that workmen should conspire contention or put enough emphasis on the politicel proceosea together, march through the country, a d euepend all of mobilization and demobil izntlon. labour, was n thing altogether new.. . 12. From Mobilization to Revolution (1978). p 276. \Yhat was new was the emergence of the industrial proletariat as 13. All data on Urbanism, Urbanizetion, and Urban Growth are from the backbone of workine class contention for political democracy. J.T. Danson and T.A. Welton, "On the Population of Lancashire and Cheshire, and its local distribution during the Fifty- E.P. Thompson is right.in areuine that Chartism wns the expression Years, 1801-1851", Transactions ilistoric Society of Lancaahire and Cheshire, vols 9-17 1846-57--185 -60 . The information of R working clnss "...no longer in the mnking hut already made."61 on tpxtlle factorv workefa, lR3R is fkm eesaional Pa~era(11~). 1839, XLII (Returns from Factory Inspectors). All calcu~ntlona ere my own. 14. Data on the rate of'chanrre in textile factory workers 1035-38 Source is the same as in n. 13, above. is from '1I.B. Rod~ers;"The r~ancashireCotton Industrv in 1e4C" Transactionn..and Papers, Institute of British Geographers, For fluctuations during 1E42, see Figure 1, p 35. A quick 28 (14601, pp 135-53. samplinrr of lR4P indicates levels of Chartidt contention about two to three times lower than in 1842. 15. All correlations reported in the text were done without the parishen of Chipping and Radcliffe which were extreme deviants. "Literacy and Social Mobility. in the Induntrial Revol.utjon Their sm~llpopulations (1675 ~nd5099 respectively) me~nt in England", Past and Present, 56 (19741, pp 75-1C.4. that when their rew figures were'converted into rates per 100,CCQ they were extremely high. Chippin& had three collective activity events and one non-Chartist contention. Radcliffe had. Reven collective activity events and one Chartist contention. I have not undertaken e corn lete partial correlational.-cpuoal ' When converted into rates per lCO,CC(! Chipping's collective analysis for two reasons: f1) the small number of cnsee; end activity w~s176.5 and its non-Chartifit contention wafi 58.8. (2) the inabilitv to rule out reciprocel caunation. In fact, Radclitfe'u figures were 137.3 and Chartist contention was 19.6. reciprocal causation was, as our ~~SCUBR~O~will lndicntc, 0 All of these fiaures were the hishest ones achieved, and the paramount reality in regard to Chartist and non-Chartist ones for collective activity and non-Chartist contention were contention. extremely high. The average retefi for the other 24 parishes were: collective activity - 30.4; non-Chartist contention - 6.8; -A Study in Trade-Cycle Iliatory (1954), esp. pp 127-51 . and Chartist contention = 5.5. The way Chippina and Radcliffe distorted the correletions we will discuss in the next few peqes . cnn be seen in the matrix immediately helow (the figures in parentheses ere the coefficients which were obtained when Chipping and Radcliffe were excluded: Chartist Non-Chartist Collective ~eusionalPaoers (llC), 1842, XXII return^ from Factory Contention Contention Activity Inspectors). Urbanization -.lc(-.07) -.C5(+.16) - .004(+.17) On the relntion between the tranflpflrency of clefis division^ NO CIIANGE and cl~saconflict, uer Anthony Ciddens, The Clase Structure UrbRn Growth JmTr llrbnniorn -.GI (+.C7) +.03(+.38) -.C9(+.78) gencies may result in-class consciousnes~in his "What is Clasfi Conaciousness?" (1934). Vladimir Akimov also han much of intere~tto say, see Jonathan E'rankel (ed.) Vladimir Akj.mov Text.l.le Workers on the 1)ilemmas of Russion Marxism 1895-19C3 (lB9). per1,c~~acres +.45(+.60) +.31(+-8c) +.29(+.79) Notes of a Tour of the Manufactury Districts (1842), p R4. Collective ~ctivitg+ .35(+ ,501 + -7C(+ -66) Non-Chertist Ibid., p PC. Contention + .05(+ .64) u,p 2%. In liuht of their small number of events end their large impact on the over811 pattern of relationships, their exclusion seemed warranted. The twenty-four remaining parishes are: Ashton, Blackburn, Rolton, Bury, Chorley, Dalton, Dean, Eccles, Lancaster, Leigh, Liverpool, Manchester, Middleton, Preficot, Preston, Prestwich-cum-Oldllm, Rochdele, Sefton, Stockport, IJ&, pp 155-56. Ulverstone, Wnrrinrrton, Whalley, \Viean, and Ormskirk. On contagion models of conflidt see Kenneth Pouldinlp;, Conflict 16. Data on the rate of change in textile factorv workers 1P35-3P and Defense (1962), pp 123-42. ("Inclustrialization") in avaiIable for twelve parishes in Rodgero cit. They are: Ashton, Blackburn, Rolton, Buw, ---.-Lancantbr%. ---.> Prestwich-cum-Oldham, Preston, Rochdale, Stockport, ~hallb~,~nd Vliann. The high unemployment parishes were Blackburn, M~nchefiter, "The Machine Breakers" in Labouring Men (1964) pp 7-10. Preston, Rochdde, Whallev, and Wiaan. The low were A~hton, Bolton, Burv, and Oldham. Unemployment was defined ns Number of textile factory workern, lR41 not work in^ Number workina, 1841 . Source: Censional Papers (WC)1047, XXII. NS, 9/3/42. Northern Star (E),5/28/42. -NS, 9/24/42. Details on the Anti-Corn LRWLe~gue mR 'be found in Normen -NS, 10/29/42. McCord, The Anti-Corn Law League (19587. Information on Luddism is from F.O. DRIVFII.~; .PO ular Disturb-. (19-?; M.I. Thomas, NS, ' 6/25/42. - Crowd in Ilis-tory NS, 3/26/42. -weoverst fitrike hf - ll~ndloomWeavers Reprinted in D. Thompson, The Early Chartist (1962), p 293. (19691, pp 197-204. I am presentine a verv brief introduction to the events oT the strike. Those who feel the justifiable need for more extensive narration ahould conoult A. Rose, "Plug Riots", "Class, S~R~UAand Party", in V1.G. Runciman, ed ., Wr, Transactionfi Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarim Society pp 47-48. The point here is that structural phenomnn hove '1 1957 1. great importance for the forms of action but less for its levels. NS, 8/20/42 and 9/17/42. -NS, 11/12/4?. E,1~/22/42. NS, 5/14/42. The ma kin^ of the Enallah Working, Class (19631, p 729. NS, 5/28/42; 6/4/42; 6/15/42: 7/16/42. For more cletail on this process of trade union recruitment, see F.C. Mathar,"The General Strike of 1842", Exeter Pavers in Economic History, 6 (19721, pp 5-28.

The Mass Strike (Harper ed., 1971) p 48. For ~n':analysis of the close relation between vol.itica1 conflicts end trike waves in Prance, see Edward Shorter and Charles Tilly, Strikes in France 1030-1968 (1974) pp lC4-146. -NS, 8/13/42. MO, 41 /17 (8/15/42 1. Descriptions of the repressive npparatus and its operation may be.found in X.C. lidwinter "~aw.and'0rderl.n E8rl.v Vic- torian'lancashire", Uothwick Pa ers, no. 34 (196P and F.C. Mather, Public Order in the haeQof the Chartilts 11966). WORKING PAPERS OF THE CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

The Center for Research on Social Organization is a facility of the Department of Sociology, University of Michigan. Its primary mission is to support the research of faculty and students in the department's Social Organization graduate program. CRSO Working Papers report current research and reflection by affiliates of the Center; many of them are published later elsewhere after revision. Working Papers which are still in print are available from the Center for a fee of 50 cents plus the number of pages in the paper (98 cents for a 48-page paper, for example). The Center will photocopy out-of-print Working Papers at cost (approximately five cents per page). Recent Working Papers are:

193 "Sociology, Meet History," by Charles Tilly, February 1979, 97 pages.

194 "Administrative Regulation and Industry: A Sociological Perspective," by James B. Lowenthal, Michael A. Berger, and Mayer N. Zald, March 1979, 157 pages.

195 "Sinews of War," by Charles Tilly, March 1979, 25 pages.

196 "Trends in Policy Making and Implementation in the Welfare State: A Preliminary Statement," by Mayer N. Zald, May 1979, 20 pages.

197 "Social Movements and National Politics," by Charles Tilly, May 1979, 30 pages.

198 "The Effect of Roles and Deeds on Responsibility Judgments: The Normative Structure of Wrongdoing," by V. Lee Hamilton and Joseph Sanders, July 1979, 71 pages.

199 "The Institutional Contexts of School Desegregation: Contrasting Models of Research and Practice," by Mark A. Chesler, James E. Crowfoot, and Bunyan I. Bryant, July 1979, 123 pages.

200 r rends in American Political Sociology," by William A. Gamson, July 1979, 11 pages.

201 "Social Movement Industries: Competition and Cooperation Among Movement Organizations," by Mayer N. Zald and John D. McCarthy, August 1979, 32 pages.

202 "Proletarianization: Theory and Research," by Charles Tilly, August 1979, 20 pages.

Request copies of these papers, the complete lists of Center Working Papers and other reprints, or further information about Center activities from: Center for Research on Social Organization University of Michigan 330 Packard Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109