Newsletter
Thomas Smith and the Paris Commune
On the 150th anniversary of the Paris Commune it is appropriate to revisit the research by Peter Wyncoll on Thomas Smith (Marxism Today , December 1968 pp.372-379). Smith’s letters were subsequently reproduced in Royden Harrison’s ‘The English Defence of the Commune (1871)’, London 1971.
From March to June of 1871 Thomas Smith of Houndsgate, Nottingham wrote a series of letters to the Nottingham Daily Express about the Paris Commune. For Smith the Commune had great historical significance. For him it represented ‘… plainly a struggle between the two great forces of society, progress and repression, all are compelled to see what are the principles at stake.’
“The third Republic yet lives, but the reactionary Assembly are evidently prepared to destroy it by the same means – the disarmament of the people, the suppression of liberty of the press and speech, the maintenance of extreme centralisation and the power of the army. Now all the demands of the present movement, warned by experience, are directed to the creation of local bodies who shall act as a check on the central power” (the letter of March 25th 1871). Smith saw the struggle of the Commune as a fundamental one between the ‘decentralisation’ of the artisans and workmen against the ‘centralisation’ of the ‘privileged and priestly caste’.
When the Commune was suppressed at the end of May by overwhelming military odds, with the dreadful slaughter of between 20,000 and 30,000 men women and children, Smith wrote; ‘Once more the enemies of liberty and justice, the foes of human progress, are showing the world that, like the Bourbons, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing – that their only arguments are blood and murder, the rifle and the bayonet – and that they still believe in the power of force to stay the progress of thought’ (Letter of 7th June 1871).
Smith was active in collecting money for the Paris Commune Refugee Committee. When an appeal was launched in the International Herald Smith by Karl Marx, Smith sent a letter with a postal order for two pounds. ‘All my friends like myself are working men but I shall try to raise a little more.’ In August he sent a ‘further seven shillings’. This led to a correspondence between Smith and the the two men between July and November 1871. When Marx read Smith’s letters on the Commune he praised ‘a remarkable production.
With other working men, like Samuel Parker and Samuel Tyler, Smith set up a Nottingham branch of the International Working Men’s Association (I.W.M.A.) , claiming ‘four hundred affiliated members’ by the
summer of 1872. By March 1872 the branch had reprinted Smith’s letters to the Nottingham Daily Express as a pamphlet ‘Letters on the Commune, the Law of the Revolution; or the Logical Development of Human Society’. Any surplus that was made was to go to the Refugee Fund.
By December 1872 the Nottingham branch printed copies of its programme which was clearly influenced by the experience of the Commune. It set out ‘the principles of political and social revolution, as being the only principles that will advance the welfare of society as a whole, on which alone just and equal government is based.’ These included the rights of conscience, freedom of mind and duty to provide the means of education for all; personal freedom for all and the emancipation of women; emancipation of the land and ‘measures that shall make capital the servant of labour and not labour the servant of capital’; the right of self-government, universal suffrage, destruction of class rule and end of dominance of race over race and ‘protection of the rights of minorities by the principle of federalism and by decentralisation of power’. As Peter Wyncoll wrote ‘ All of Smith’s published writing was influenced either by the actual events of the Paris Commune, or by a tremendous admiration for the French people, and knowledge of their history’.
Many of his political friends were refugees of the Commune. As a leading centre of the hosiery trade Nottingham had attracted a number of refugee defenders of the Commune to work in the lace and clothing industries, and they quickly formed their own branch of the International in the town. Smith supported them, writing to Marx for a copy of the rules and programme and requesting ‘a dozen or two cards of membership of the International Association and I will try to start a branch in Commune refugees.’ ‘This French section of the International met weekly in the Black Bull public house. It seems to have been well organised under its secretary Charles Hazard, and as late as 1873 was still accepting into membership Commune refugees. At its meeting on March 29th 1873 the French section accepted into membership Etienne Masson, a recently arrived refugee, and in May of the same year Henry Bardout a refugee of the Commune and a member of the International since 1868 was unanimously elected a member of the Section. Communards like Hazard, Masson, Bardout must often have attended joint meetings with their English comrades, and there is no doubt that their presence in Nottingham helped to shape Thomas Smith’s ideas. Certainly there existed a strong sense of solidarity between Nottingham Internationalists like Smith, Parker and Tyler and the refugees of the Commune working in the town.
One of the exiled Communards, Citizen Gerband, found employment as a needlemaker in Ilkeston. He died in 1873 and the funeral of this ‘energetic defender of our cause and principles’ was a ‘demonstration of solidarity’ attended by members of the French Section, the Nottingham I.W.M.A. and the Labour Protection League. ‘Hundreds if not thousands assembled to see the funeral which was said to be one of the most imposing and respectful ever witnessed in Ilkeston.’
Through 1872 the Nottingham I.W.M.A. branch was among the most very active in the country, supporting the struggles of workers locally and nationally and hosting the July 1872 Conference of the British Section of the I.W.M.A., chaired by Smith. However by 1873 the I.W.M.A. was in decline, with Samuel Parker writing to to the British Federal Council to explain that ‘this is in consequence of the employers not attempting to either reduce wages or alter working hours. Another cause is that the society to which I belong (ASE) has prohibited its members from belonging to it although the League rendered it good service both in the Nine Hour struggle and the wage question.’ Activists, including Parker, were also being sacked for advocating reform and it was increasingly difficult to organise meetings since the Corporation threatened to withdraw licences of landlords in public houses. International divisions in the I.W.M.A. were also reflected locally. While a majority supported the leadership by Marx a sizeable minority of the French branch were expelled after forming the Garibaldi Section which had ‘anarchist sympathies’. The I.W.M.A. would not survive the year.
Peter Wyncoll argued that the I.W.M.A., and the work of Thomas Smith, acted as an important bridge between the Chartists and the revival of Socialism in the 1880s, when John Burns stood as a socialist candidate in West Nottingham in 1884 and branches of the Social Democratic Federation had been established in the town. Memory of the Paris Commune would also continue. A celebration of the Commune was held in the Secular Hall in 1887. ‘Speeches on the Commune were delivered in English and
French. The Marseillaise was sung by Coutoux and Detre and amongst the decorations was a red banner inscribed “Vive la Commune” and as mottoes, the names Hyndman, Morris, Delescluze and Dowbrowski.’
Roger TannerThe First Lib-Lab Candidate?
Henry Broadhurst, Parliamentary Secretary of the TUC, was returned as the Lib-Lab candidate for West Nottingham in the election of 1886. The Liberal Party allowed such candidates an unopposed run and, if elected, they would take the Liberal whip with some latitude on employment legislation. (See an excellent treatment of this period in Philip Henshaw’s ‘Lib-Lab’ism in Nottingham 1880-1914’) This classic LibLabism involved a contradiction: it reflected a desire for the Labour Movement to have its own voice but gave itself a subaltern role as happy helpers to its richer betters.
Earlier than this the Labour Representative League (LRL) had put forward twelve trade unionists in the January 1874 general election and two of them, both miners’ leaders, were returned to Parliament. This slate operated under the title Working Man’s Candidate. In the same election David Heath stood for Nottingham. He was not on the slate but was described as Radical, Lib-Lab, Labour or Working Man’s Candidate.
Heath was born in Nantwich in 1827 or 1828. He became a solicitor's clerk in 1844 and moved to Nottingham in 1851, becoming clerk in the office of Michael Browne, the Borough Coroner and completed his articles in 1861. (John Rowley in Bellamy and Saville eds. ‘Dictionary of Labour Biography’ Vol. V 1979, pp.107-109) He joined the local Chartists and soon became one of the key local leaders alongside the bookseller James Sweet, William Hemm a mechanic and William Mott who ran a successful leather business.
Nottingham Chartism was in steep decline after 1848 but this central core continued to exert a significant influence upon local politics. As the Chartist rank and file shrank, the leaders were forced into an uncomfortable alliance with the Liberal Party. The Nottingham Liberals were controlled by the Number Thirty Club, which was named after the room in the Exchange Building where this affluent and influential group met and plotted their next moves.
Matters came to a head in the 1861 Parliamentary election when the Chartist group supported the charismatic but politically unreliable Sir Robert Clifton. Sweet had won a seat on the Town Council in 1854 and was a thorn in the side of No. 30, so much so that the Liberal hierarchy had him deselected for the November 1860 elections. There were protests from allies on the Council but Sweet remained out for a year (Nottingham Daily Express, 20 November 1860). No.30 imposed Lord Lincoln, son of the Duke of Newcastle who previously had been a Tory. The Chartists backed Sir Robert. Clifton’s manifesto was somewhat tepid: a small increase in the franchise, the secret ballot and the abolition of compulsory Church rates. Sweet, however, thought that he could be managed. “If Sir Robert gets in he will have to go on, or else I shall be very close behind him and give him a shove” (J. Bellamy and J Saville eds, Dictionary of Labour Biography, Vol. IV London 1977 p.172).
Relationships between No. 30 and the Chartists became toxic. Heath spoke to a meeting of the ratepayers of St Ann’s at the Oliver Cromwell pub at which he recalled the blessed memory of Feargus O’Connor. “He had been spoken to only a few days ago by one of the Whigocracy, and he said to him, “Heath I am surprised to find you associated with the scum of Nottingham.” Thank you, sir, said he (Mr. Heath), but you are glad occasionally to buy that scum” (Nottinghamshire Guardian, 1 November 1861). The Chartists fronted the Clifton campaign and energised their following, playing a major role in securing his election.
The honeymoon between the Chartists and Clifton did not last once the serious issue of the American Civil War emerged. A number of warships had been built for the Confederacy in Britain. There was a move to refuse delivery of the boats, but Clifton came out in favour of sending the warships to the Southern States. Clifton spoke on the civil war in America at a public meeting. “it was the duty of England to keep the pressure upon France and America as a means of stopping the fratricidal war and of raising that blockade
which had taken the bread out of our children’s mouths. (Cries of “No, no; we’ll not have it;” “we’ll have no connection with slave-holders;” and uproar.) Sir Robert Clifton: Do you wish the struggle in America to go on? (Cries of “No, no,” “Yes, yes,” and continued uproar.) Mr. Mott: Yes; until every slave is emancipated. (Cheers.) … in reply to Sir Robert Clifton’s remark as to turning the slaves out like dogs, he asked who had any right to make them slaves in the first instance?” (Nottinghamshire and Midland Counties Daily Express,3 February 1864). The split between Clifton and the Chartists was total by the time of the 1865 election. Sweet was back on the Town Council and Heath had won St Anns ward; both as Liberals of an independent character. Clifton stood as an Independent, but in coalition with the Tory candidate. The ’65 election was characterised by thuggery and bribery. Heath and Sweet were in the thick of physically defending the Liberal campaign against the Clifton “lambs” (NMCDE 28 June 1865, NG 30 July 1865).
Heath acted as a solicitor for local unions and built a thriving practice. In 1867 he stood for election as County Coroner. This time No. 30 was on his side. Heath was nominated by the Liberal Cox and seconded by the old Chartist George Harrison. Another local Chartist leader W. Mott campaigned for him. The opponent F .W. Parsons won on a show of hands but a poll was demanded. “We learn that the expenses of the contest assumed such a character and extent, that the profits or honour of the office could never compensate for the outlay, which would have amounted to between £3,000 and £4,000. It is as well therefore that the affair was compromised by the withdrawal of Mr. Parsons, who retired from the contest, on receiving a portion of the expenses already incurred by him; deeming it wiser to sacrifice the rest than to expend a sum equivalent to the value of the annuity equal to the coroner’s emolument, which it appeared likely to cost. We wonder how those venal electors feel who were anticipating golden rewards for their votes. It serves them right” (NG 8 February 1867). The expected expense of the election was not due to TV ads but greased palms. Heath was unopposed due to the deep pockets of the Liberal Party.
The Tories cried foul. A “stormy meeting” was held in the Assembly rooms to discuss the election of D. W. Heath as Coroner for the Southern Division of the County. There was strong argument that Heath’s election had been achieved by bribery which would render it invalid. The meeting was divided and raucous (NMCDE 2 March 1867). A formal attempt to unseat Heath failed and he continued as Coroner until his death in 1880.
Heath showed little gratitude for this grubby favour from No. 30. He remained his own man on the Town Council and spent a lot of his time in courts defending trade unions and trade unionists. In 1871 Heath chaired a meeting supporting the Newcastle strike for a 9 hour day. Heath argued “Let working men be thoroughly combined and all their energies devoted to their Unions, and they would not then have to live amid class legislation or under a wealthy Parliament, where the interests and desires of the working classes were denied” (NG 11 Aug 1871). A later meeting of the 9 hours movement, with Heath in the chair, welcomed a delegation from Newcastle who had been victorious. Heath said that 9 hours was good for men and women. The latter worked from 8 in the morning to 8 in the evening. “They would never find wealth to give them what they required unless they put themselves in a position to demand it” (NG 3 November 1871).
Heath had represented the ward of Saint Ann’s for nine years and was re-nominated for the municipal elections of 1872. The chair proposed Heath and said that he was fit to represent the whole town in Parliament (“long and continued cheers”). Heath had succeeded in rejecting a proposal on the Council that Nottingham become a military town which would bring in the Contagious Diseases Act which “violated the fair fame and degraded women to worthlessness”. He was in favour of the 9 hours movement and the decrease of “hours of female labour in their factories and warehouses.” He called on the working classes to support him: (cries of ‘We will’, and ‘We’ll send you to Parliament’) (NMCDE, 28 October1872). Heath had his eye on the next General Election. It seemed unlikely, however, that the local Liberal establishment would back him.
Heath defended two trade unionists who were accused by a fellow lace maker at Messrs Bollens and Tidwell of using threatening and abusive language in a case that became very important to the local union movement. The workers asked for a pay rise and went on strike. The employer brought in a private detective from London. Some non-union men including the complainant Henry Nelson took the jobs of the strikers. The detective was employed as a smith’s labourer and mingled with the strikers. Nelson had come to work and had been abused by four or five union men. Nelson did not know who had abused him but the detective said that it was the defendants. The detective Charles Worledge had been in constant communication with the borough police. Heath said that Worledge had said to a striker that for £5 he would “smash the ‘black sheep’s’ heads”. He had tried to get strikers to look for the black sheep or scabs
and get them out on strike. Worledge denied that he intended to extort money. The case was dismissed by the magistrates. Heath said that proceedings would be taken against Worledge. Heath came out of this case with great credit. (NMCDE 22 January 1873)
The Heath campaign to become a Parliamentary candidate gathered pace. There was a large meeting of trade unionists at the Assembly rooms to present a silver epergne to Heath in recognition of the services he had rendered to the unions of Nottingham. The Levers and the Operatives Lace Unions had initiated this testimonial. W. H. Leatherland spoke for the Operatives Union: “Mr Heath was the guiding star of trade unions, for he always sought to lead them in the right path.” He had led them through the new legislation. The motto on the epergne was semper paratus “always ready to assist”. “As this was a trade union gathering he hoped they would not go into political questions, for if politics were once touched upon they began to boil over.” This appeal to avoid politics might appear strange. What he meant was that the party politics of Tory and Liberal should be avoided as should religious issues since these divided and distracted workers from concentrating on a working class agenda. Heath had advised men who had been out of work but when they were back lacemakers received demands to pay income tax. Heath had fought this case and got the number of demands reduced by 500. This was done for free. Leatherland referred to Parliament passing the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The CLAA weakened the unions and the right to picket (Johnathan Spain in eds Biagini and Reid Currents of radicalism, Cambridge 1991 pp 111-121). It had a similar but far smaller impact than the Taff Vale judgement which catalysed the formation of the Labour Party. Leatherland argued that “they should have representatives in the House who would advocate their interests”. There had been a petition asking Heath to stand but he “did not know what Mr. Heath’s intentions were… in the present chaos of parties, he thought the working men should start a party of their own, so that their views and interests might be made known…” Heath then spoke and attacked the Act: “if the trades were united, and he was then asked to become their leader in the fight he was ready to lead them… By forming themselves into a party of their own they would at no distant period become a great power in the country.” They should “leave the two great political parties alone” (NG 7 March 1873). There is a difficulty in disentangling mere campaign rhetoric from the settled opinions of Heath. However, this call for an independent working class voice differs from later Lib-Labism and owes more to the suspicion of middle class reformism that was a component of his Chartist past and his involvement with the quasi Marxist Ernest Jones in the election campaigns of 1857 and 1859.
Later that month a crowded meeting in the Mechanics’ Hall heard Joseph Arch speak on the agricultural labourer. Heath presided and spoke in favour of manhood suffrage in town and country: “The landowners lived in palatial dwellings and their stables were in a better condition than the cottages of the labourers.” The Liberal Party were not in favour of a Heath candidacy and Heath was more interested in relying on union support. It was alleged that Heath had put himself at the service of the extremist Sneinton Market interest (NG 21 March 1873). The reference to Sneinton Market was to suggest that Heath was a Republican since this was the haunt of the hardline Republicans.
There was large meeting to support the candidacy of Heath for Parliament with W. H. Leatherland of the Operative Lacemakers’ Society in the chair who did not see this as a political movement but as “a measure of self-defence”. He noted prosecutions under the CLAA and said it was time that “a new party was formed in order that labour might be represented in Parliament”. Mr Hoe secretary of the Levers’ Lace Trade Association moved adoption of Heath. This was supported by Mr Stanton secretary of the Building Trades’ Council. Heath spoke of his 30 years of active political life. Most men were now electors. He wanted the formation of a “popular people’s party, and to fight the battle of popular freedom and progress.” He stood by the principles of Feargus O’Connor. He stood for universal suffrage in town and county. He attacked the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He referred to the recent case when an employer brought a spy down from London to use against the workers. Mr Richards of the Ironfounders Association proposed Heath as a proper person to represent them in Parliament. Mr Nelson secretary of the Tailors’ Association seconded the motion which was supported by Mr Allcroft of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and Mr Martin of the General Union of Carpenters and Joiners. Heath would vote for the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act and the Game Laws. He stressed that they should unite and not let religious or political differences divide them. Heath said he was proud of being connected to the Chartist movement. Heath was in favour
of a free, unsectarian, and complete national education and, most importantly for the unions, for the repeal of the CLAA: “The people would never be properly represented until they stood by their own class, and allowed Tories and Liberals and the wealthy to stand by themselves” (NMCDE 18 June 1873, NG 20 June 1873). Heath had the support of a large number of union activists; but whether the union rank and file would follow their lead, or, indeed, if the union movement was sufficiently big, would be decided at the election count. Heath recommenced his campaign in the Autumn and spread his net wider than just the unions when he delivered a speech to the local branch of the Irish Home Rule Association on “Ireland’s Right to Self- Government”. A resolution was moved supporting the candidature of Heath at the next election (NMCDE 21 October 1873).
Nottingham was a two member constituency. The Tories would put forward two candidates. But the Liberal candidates had a number of potential candidates for selection. Heath refused to put himself into that selection process, well aware that he would not be chosen, and replied that he would be bound by the decisions of the trade unions. Heath said “Let the Tories and Liberals and Radicals fight amongst themselves, but let working men stand together and plump for Heath” (NMCDE 27 November 1873). This was seen as a declaration of war by the Liberals since Heath was not asking his supporters to use their second vote for a Liberal. A meeting of his supporters in December endorsed that position and concluded: “Mr Heath had the entire confidence of several trade councils and organisations in Nottingham. Heath stood for the working class having distinct representation in the House of Commons …” (NMCDE 17 December 1873).
Heath’s candidacy finally splintered the unity of the old Chartist group and Hemm and Mott remained loyal to the Liberal Party which chose R Laycock who was a Radical and H Labouchere as its candidates. The meeting to support these candidates was tumultuous. “The Chairman on rising was greeted with cheers, hisses, and cries of ‘David’, ‘David Heath’ … ‘Bring us David’… Cries of Laycock and Heath”. The chair spoke: “I have heard the name of Mr. Heath mentioned repeatedly; and I wish to tell you he was asked, with the rest, whether he would put himself before a meeting of the Liberal party, and accept its decision whether or not he would stand. Mr Heath’s first reply was to the effect that if the Liberal Party would name a colleague he would be happy to stand with him, thus leaving it to be implied he would not submit his own name, and that the Liberal Party must accept him whether they would or not…he was put out of the running, and this is the reason why he is not brought forward. The two candidates are as good friends to the working classes”. Laycock then spoke against the CLAA but people called for him and Heath to stand. Labouchere then also claimed to be a Radical. Mott asked both about the Contagious Diseases Act and both were opposed. Hemm asked whether they would vote for an extension of the franchise to female householders? Labouchere said yes but Laycock no. There was a vote on the proposition of Hemm that they be selected. It was declared to be carried amongst shouts of “We’ll have David Heath” (NMCDE 30 January 1874). The dog that did not bark in the night was Sweet; but the old Chartist core was totally broken.
Heath addressed a meeting where the chairman, opposed “a certain clique” who had chosen two candidates but “working men had seen the error of being led astray… There had been some action behind Mr. Heath’s language, and on this account they should support him.” Heath said that the merchants and manufacturers of the town had taken a stand against him. Heath said “a man was a better man for belonging to a union.” He was for free unsectarian State education, “removing it from the creed mongers” (NMCDE 31 January 1874).
The Liberals offered Heath that he would be their candidate in South Nottinghamshire, a not very promising constituency, since Heath “appears to be a bit in the way in the borough.” The old scandal over the coronership was then raised. “We stood by him for the coronership, and by the bold front we made for him the Tory ran away… A collection shall be made to return him free of expense” (NMCDE 2 February 1874). Heath rejected these douceurs. The complicated situation of the Liberals was then made more complex when Richard Birkin, a prominent manufacturer, decided to stand as a “moderate” Liberal. He was unhappy with the radicalism of Gladstone.
The Liberals now had to fight on two fronts. Heath was seen as the main threat. A meeting of St Mary’s Ward electors was addressed by Labouchere and Laycock. The latter said that both supported trades unions but Heath “only professed to represent one section of the community, namely the trade unions”. Laycock said that there were many Irishmen present and both of them were “in favour of home rule, properly understood.” It was becoming obvious that Heath was making inroads into both the union and Irish voters. The latter might not have had the proper understanding that the Liberals possessed.
The Liberal candidates then spoke at the Mechanics Hall and Labouchere attacked a Heath placard which said “Plump for Heath”. This was an appeal for voters to waste one of their two votes. The chairman supported the two and disapproved of Birkin talking about non-local candidates. Birkin was supported by Mr Thackeray the elected president of the Liberal Association: “Mr Heath had come forward as the candidate of a class”. This was felt to be too narrow a section of the town. Mott urged Liberal unity and support for Laycock and Labouchere.
Heath spoke to the Irish electors to cries of “Plump for Heath”. He said that he came forward “in the interests of the trade societies of the industrial classes of the town… The Liberals had asked him “if he were selected, whether he would stand with another candidate, and he replied that he would do nothing without the sanction of the trade societies – (cheers) - and that did not please them…if he had accepted their proposal he should not have been selected.” He was in favour of a 9 hour day for women and men and that children should not be employed in factories (NMCDE 3 February 1874).
The election result was a triumph for the Tories: W. E. Denison 5,263, S. Isaac 4,790, R. Laycock 3,732, H. Labouchere 3,545, D. W. Heath 2752 and R. Birkin 1,074. On polling day there were groups of Blue lambs (Tory hired thugs) throwing herrings that they had looted from a waggon and stones at supporters of other candidates but also at the police. Windows were smashed in Carrington St. and Goosegate and Arkwright St. Police reinforcements had to come in from the County and Derby. The Blue lambs had had a field day (NMCDE 5 Feb 1874).
There was confusion as to how to assign a name to Heath’s candidature which described him as labour, working man’s candidate and Radical. Out of Heath’s 2752 votes, 1,528 were cast solely for him, which indicated considerable dissatisfaction with the other political positions (NG 6 February 1874). The political inquest included the view that the Liberals should have simply chosen Heath and the Radical Laycock to run together. The influential Liberal councillor J. E. Minnitt opposed that, arguing that the Liberal committee was mainly moderate and wanted to balance the Radical Lycock: “The fate of Mr Heath, Mr Odger, and others shows that trade unionists cannot, or do not care to, return special representatives, and where the undoubted ability and energy of Mr Heath have failed, no other person is likely to venture”. That prediction, outside of mining constituencies, proved accurate for the immediate future (NMCDE 17 February 1874).
Not unsurprisingly, many Liberals felt that he had let in the Tories. Heath’s position as a Liberal Town councillor became increasing uncomfortable. Things came to a head at the February Town Council meeting over a minor issue relating to the report of the Gas Committee and councillors dog piled on Heath asking him to resign from the Committee. Only one councillor identified that the row flowed “from some feeling against Mr Heath” (NG 6 February 1875). Heath did not bother to stand for re-election. Heath remained active as coroner but also in defending the unions in court. In October 1874 Heath appeared on behalf of the Lace Union at Barnstable where 19 men and 3 women lace workers appeared in court. They had been locked out of Miller’s factory for joining the Nottingham and Chard Unions and were charged that they “unlawfully conspired to impoverish John May Miller… and to restrain the freedom of trade … and unlawfully and riotously did assemble together to disturb the peace”. It was alleged that there had been a deal of swearing and calling out of Baa, baa black sheep. Heath argued that there was no evidence of the central charge of conspiracy. This was “an attempt to fetter the freedom of the working man”. The magistrates censured the behaviour of the accused but the charge of conspiracy was not proved. “The announcement was received with deafening applause…The defendants, the delegates from the union, Mr.Heath and the magistrates were successively cheered as they left the hall, and to a late hour the streets were in a state of excitement” (The Bee Hive 31 October 1874).
Heath went on to even greater local renown in winning a case that finally stopped frame rent being levied on framework knitters. Parliament had passed the Hosiery Manufacture (Wages) Act 1874 which stated that: “All contracts to stop wages, and all contracts for frame rents and charges, between employer and artificers, shall be and are hereby declared to be illegal, null and void”. This did not totally stop frame rents and the local Arbitration Board was lethargic in supporting the legislation. The Union went to court to force implementation of the Act by individual employers. Heath prosecuted on behalf of the union in what was a decisive case. William Black a bag hosier was charged with deducting frame-rent and charges. It appeared that this was with the acquiescence of the hosiery employer Messrs Warner and Cartwright. Heath said that Black “had been put up to fight the battle of Messrs Warner and Cartwright”. That firm, according to Black, had said that “the union could not hurt them”. Heath won and frame rent was finally dead (NMCDE 16 March and 20 March 1875).
Heath did not step into the political arena again but continued as a legal friend to the unions until his death in 1880. In the 1874 election, Heath stood for a new party “in order that labour might be represented in Parliament.” He also claimed “he would do nothing without the sanction of the trade societies”. Did this prefigure the dawn of the Labour Party? Perhaps, more likely, it was the last rays of a setting Chartism that had sometimes encouraged an independent working class politics.
Julian AtkinsonChartism in Heanor
The first evidence of support for Chartism in the Heanor area appeared in the Chartist newspaper ‘The Northern Star’ which, in its 23rd April 1839 edition, reported the formation of a local Working Men’ s Association. The report stated that the following resolutions were agreed:
1. “1. That it is the opinion of the meeting that the present system of representation is founded on unjust principles… that the distress under which the working, trading and commercial classes are now labouring arises from the want of Universal Suffrage and other principles contained in the People’s Charter, namely Vote by Ballot, Equal Representation, Payment of Members and Annual Parliaments.
2. That we the working men of Heanor, do pledge ourselves to form a branch of the Working Men’s Association . to support the National Convention, that is now sitting.
3. That this meeting views with disgust and contempt the proceedings of the miscalled representatives of the people against that persecuted friend of the people, the Rev J.R. Stephens.”
(19th Century Serials Edition (NCSE) Facsimiles Northern Star, 1837-1852, p.3.)
Unfortunately, the Secretary of the Working Men’s Association, John Wale, drowned in the fish pond at Heanor Hall on 26th May 1839. The 21-year old native of Shepshed Leicestershire was buried in Heanor on 29th May at a funeral attended by over 1000 people (NCSE Op Cit 8 June 1839 page 5), a remarkable number given that the population of the time numbered less than 2700 (Bagshaw History, Gazetter and Directory of Derbyshire 1848) This sad occasion did not prevent the local radicals from forming a Chartist branch in Heanor around December 1840, following a visit by Mr. Mason, the Chartist Midlands Counties lecturer, on 19th December. The Northern Star reported that an association was formed and names were given after he “lectured to a crowded audience on the various sources of existing evils, recommending the Charter as the only remedy for their removal...” (NCSE Op Cit 26 December 1840 p1 the number of people signing up is unclear in this copy.)
There is no further reference to Heanor until 1841, when The Northern Star reported that Heanor had been invited to send a delegate to a meeting at Derby to discuss the ‘engagement of Mr. Bairstow for the ensuing month as a missionary for the organisation ‘with a request that the supporters in Belper, Brompton, Chesterfield, Duffield, Heanor, Holbrook, Ilkeston, and Milford be asked to contribute to the cost and that by doing so the members of the above places may be entitled to a share of the above service’ (NCSE Op Cit 12 June 1841 page 5). The spread of Chartism was dependent on itinerant lecturers or “missionaries”. During this period, I have been able to identify four such lecturers who visited Heanor including John Mason, referred to above, who helped establish a Chartist branch in Heanor. The other three visited Heanor on a regular basis as part of the Derby area circuit of lecturers. These were Jonathan Bairstow (also referred to above), an Irishman from Queenshead near Bradford who is quoted as saying ‘Derbyshire… is not flat as a pancake. It’s jagged and towering mountains rather resemble the Alps or Apennines. The County is thus none the easier for Missionary exertion - though certainly healthier’ . Between April and November 1841 he spoke at 92 meetings in Derbyshire in 33 separate communities including six in Heanor, the fourth most visited area. His visits to Heanor were on 28th April, 11th May, 20th July, 8th and 27th September and 23rd November. He also visited Alfreton, Belper, Ilkeston
and Ripley amongst other local places. Dean Taylor, described as being an early leader of Nottingham Chartism, visited Heanor on 11th July 1841 (this was at 3 High Street, Heanor) and 27th April 1842. The last identified lecturer to visit Heanor was John West, a Macclesfield silkweaver, described as a national and local leader who visited on 5th July and 10th August 1842. It is important to note that chartist lecturers were dependent upon the Chartist press to publicise their tours, and the announcements in the press allowed the local branches to organise a venue, post placards, raise money and encourage attendance. The 24th December 1841 edition of The Northern Star identified a Mr. Hepworth Earnshaw as the contact in Heanor for the Chartist branch (Popular Political Oratory and Itinerant Lecturing in Yorkshire and the North east in the age of Chartis, 1837-1860, Janette Lisa Martin, thesis, University of York, Jan. 2010, p.64).
Feargus O’Connor, radical reformer, Chartist leader and owner of The Northern Star, visited Derby on Tuesday 22nd February, 1842. Although there is no direct mention of Heanor Chartists attending this meeting or his later one in Ilkeston, it is hard to believe that they would not have, given that during his visit to Nottingham on 25th February 1842, (Derbyshire Miscellany, v.8, April 1978 part 4, p.129 with ref. to Asa Briggs (ed.) Chartist Studies, 1965) he was welcomed by a large procession; amongst those in the welcoming procession was a band from Heanor (Economic & Social Change in a Midland Town: Victorian Nottingham 1815-1900 by Roy Church p. 139) and it was the Heanor band which was allowed to close the procession (Peter Wyncoll, Nottingham Chartism, p.36)
Later, in July/August 1842, a general strike, sometimes referred to as the “Plug Riots”, took place. Greatly influence by Chartism, it started amongst the miners in Staffordshire and quickly spread through the North, and there are a several references to Heanor Chartists taking part. Public meetings were held to pass resolutions to strike for the Charter in Nottingham (8th August), Leicester (17th and 18th August), Loughborough (19th August), Derby (16th August), and Belper (19th August) …during the week the local Chartist activists in the more important of the framework knitting villages, including Calverton and Mansfield in Nottinghamshire and Duffield, Ilkeston and Heaner (sic) in Derbyshire held public meetings at which resolutions were passed to strike for the charter” (The Strike for the People’s Charter 1842, p. 77 Anthony David Smith thesis LSE 2002). A delegates meeting held on 18th August confirmed the strike in the East Midlands and the strike started the next day. The strike in the East Midlands lasted ten days. The 25th August edition of The Derby Reporter newspaper shows that the strike in Southern Derbyshire was different from that in Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire as:
“the hose and glove framework knitters and nail makers of Belper, Duffield, Ilkeston and Heaner (sic) had turned out for wages in an independent strike on 15th August and had then turned out the framework knitters at Derby, before changing the aim of the strike to the Charter. The strike in South Derbyshire was more concentrated in the industrial villages than in Derby itself because from an early stage the authorities were able to prevent public meetings and prevent turnout processions entering Derby from outside”. (Ibid. p.80)
This was done by occupying meeting places like Holbrook Moor with hundreds of special constables, yeomanry and dragoons or by using charging Cavalry to scatter people who were part of a turnout procession. It was this proactive role of the magistracy in preventing mass meetings and turnout processions that resulted in the strike collapsing in the Midlands. This is supported by an account of the events in a history of the Derbyshire yeomanry in its entry for 1842 which is worth quoting at length:
“It was that disturbances were threatened which originated in an extensive strike. The disorder in the Midlands manufacturing districts became most alarming… parts of the county were in like manner, particularly Staffordshire and Derbyshire. Rioters in some cases destroyed property, in others obtained bread, provisions and money, by intimidation; their object being to cause a general suspension of
labour. A political colouring was given to the disturbances by an attempt to direct the movement in favour of what was called the ‘People’s Charter’. A large meeting of malcontents having been announced to be holden (sic) on August 16th, at Holbrook Moor, near Belper, the Civil Authorities demanded the assistance of the military, and the Derby and Chaddesden Troop under the command of Captain Story assembled at 5 am on that day, and with a Troop of the 2nd Dragoon Guards under the command of Captain Midmay, marched at 6.30am for Holbrook Moor. The same morning at half-past, the Radbourne Troop, under the command of Captain Chandon-Pole, marched into Derby, and, with the Militia Staff, under the command of Captain Dixon, and a Recruiting Party, commanded by Captain Dawes, who was in command of the whole force, were charged with the duty of maintaining the peace of the Town, another Meeting having been intended to be held on Chesterd (sic) Green. The Troops sent to Holbrook were accompanied by the following Magistrates:- Sir Henry Sacheverall Wilmot, Bart, of Chaddesden, Mr.F. Hunt, then of Duffield, Dr Peach, of Langley, Mr Jedediah Strutt of Belper, and Mr E.M. Mundy MP of Shipley. The precautions thus taken were happily sufficient to prevent any breach of the peace; the Meetings at Holbrook dispersed on the arrival of the Derby and Chaddesden Hussars. At Derby every precaution was taken to preserve order; the Duke of Devonshire, the Lord Lieutenant of the County, arrived about one at the County Hall, to confer with the County Justices. Soon after the hour, information was brought that 600 Colliers were marching into Derby. The Police, with special Constables, were placed so as to stop their entrance by St Mary’s Bridge which stood where Exeter Bridge is now built. The Radbourne Troop, command by Captain Chandon-Pole, was stationed in Lodge Lane. The Colliers, on finding this, retired; and so, peace and order were maintained. On August the 23rd, tranquillity had sufficiently recovered to allow the Radbourne Troop to be withdrawn, and the Mayor (Mr Douglas Fox) and the Magistrates of the Borough passed a vote of thanks to the Officers and Men of the Troop “for the very efficient duty they had performed, and for the very prompt manner in which they had assembled”. On the 25th similar votes of thanks were passed and conveyed to Captain Mildmay, of the 2nd Dragoon Guards, and to the Officers and Men of the Derby and Chaddesden Hussars, and their services were considered no longer needful’. (A record of the Volunteer Cavalry of Derbyshire, from tee first formation of that force in the year 1794 til the amalgamation of the independent troops into a corps on 1st April 1864’ by Charles R Colville, Bemrose & Sons, Google Books, pp. 31-32)
This was probably the peak of Chartist activity in our area. It was a very cyclical movement with its peaks being 1839, 1842 and 1848. It has been difficult to find any reference to local Chartist activity after 1842, although the radical spirit in Heanor had not gone away as demonstrated by a report in The Northern Star in March 1848 which stated that a Mr. Fowler had contributed 14 shillings and sixpence to the defence of Feargus O’Connor’ s Parliamentary seat (O’Connor had been elected Chartist MP when he won a Nottingham seat in 1847). It is unclear from the report whether this was a personal donation or on behalf of the Heanor branch. The sum referred to is the modern equivalent of around £70 and was the 5th highest donation out of forty-seven reported. The last reference to Chartism in the area is in April 1848, the date set for the ‘Great Chartist Demonstration’ when, at the request of the Mayor of Derby, the local yeomanry patrolled the streets to ensure no disturbances took place (A History of the Volunteer Cavalry of Derbyshire…, op cit p.34).
Paul Jones
