.................................................... 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 col- lective 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 Laot but not least, f'lepae Do Not Quote Without the Sociologv Depflrtment of The University of Michigan provided 'Nritten Permission of the Author , essential finnncinl support during the completion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