The Tolpuddle Martyrs

The Tolpuddle Martyrs are an interesting bunch especially when I have family during the same time period living in Beaminster, which is close to where this occurred. They would have known about this event in time occurring. The other interesting part to the story of the Tolpuddle Martyrs were that they were sent back. Not a story that you hear about often in regards to the convict story. What I will be telling is not a complete account as there is others out there who would have the complete story

Labour relations in nineteenth century, England was changing dramatically, which would lead to conflict between the government, local landowners and the labourers who wanted fair treatment. In a time when wages were decreasing in Dorset, labourers wanted wages that could help them provide for their families instead of being below the poverty line where they would need assistance from their Parish. Poor Law became heavily relied upon when farm labourers had several children and their farm labouring wage was not enough to support the family. Small farms were becoming enclosed and creating bigger farms meaning people were forced off their land to work for the land owners. George Loveless in 1834 founded a union to help the local farm labourers with the falling wage situation amongst the local farms. The local government within Tolpuddle feared the impact the fledgling union would have in the local area. Trade unions were not illegal during 1834, although other movements appeared in earlier time periods that involved breaking machines, which took jobs away from labourers. The authorities wanted to use the case against the Tolpuddle Martyrs as an example by charging six men involved for taking false oaths including George Loveless. The punishment received was seven years transportation, where the trouble makers would hopefully not return. The local government and land holders sent a message to the community showing what could happen to the Martyrs could happen to them if they caused trouble.

Rural farmers knew agricultural labourers could be paid less wages since there would always be someone willing to work for the rate provided and sometimes the parish would supplement the income from the Poor Law Rates. Labourers felt they were being undercut when farming machinery appeared on farms and disturbances like the Swing riots would occur when people went around breaking machines. Labourers in England, especially those living within areas affected by downturns relied on the goodwill of their parish to help due to the labourers not earning enough to live comfortably. Farm labourers often had little in the way of food and would regularly go without food. There were numerous complaints about their living conditions, which went far back as the late 1780s if not further. It was not until the middle of the Nineteenth Century when conditions began improving for the labourers. Dorset agricultural labourers found their weekly wages in 1833 decreased well below the average agricultural wage in England. The falling wages hurt many workers who already lived in poverty situations especially when they had large families. Before 1834, farm labourers wanted liveable wages so they would not starve to death and to be treated fairly.

George Loveless was a ploughman and a Methodist, who would become the centre of the Tolpuddle affair during 1834, when the authorities would not tolerate his stand when creating a union in the town. George was one person amongst six, who would become known as the Tolpuddle Martyrs. The other Martyrs were George Brine, James Hammett, James Loveless John Stanfield and Thomas Stanfield. George Loveless had approached a local magistrate, William Morden Pitt searching for information about getting the wages raised for the local labourers. William Pitt would later inform magistrate James Frampton of the situation. The opposite occurred instead when wages were lowered. The wages lowered from 9 shillings to 7 shillings would make life tougher for labourers who were already struggling. The local farmers who were provided with the suggested wage of 10 shillings, offered 9 shillings before threatening to lower the wage lower than 7 shillings. Rural locations in England were isolated from the rest of the country, especially during the Nineteenth Century, where events could have been entirely different were they closer to larger cities and within easy reach of larger organisations like unions. The trial of R. v. Loveless in 1834 shows how an obsolete law, known as the Unlawful Oaths Act can still be used when they are not repealed. The case provides an insight into why trade unions began growing and difficulties the members had. Trade unions were not illegal in 1834 as the Combination Acts of 1799 – 1800 had been repealed in 1824, which could explain why the men from Tolpuddle had been charged under the Mutiny Act of 1797 for giving an ‘illegal’ oath. The authorities might have hoped the general agriculture labourer would not understand what they were being charged over.

The Mutiny Act of 1797 was passed during a time of war when mutiny was occurring on military vessels and was only meant to be temporary as an emergency measure. To be used against a union would be taking the Act further than it should be used outside of the period of war. The language of the law at this time was confusing and people had problems understanding the wording of the laws. Even to modern views it could be confusing let alone for someone living in the nineteenth century. There was the view locals did not have a fair idea regarding to legal cases in their local area. Before the 1830s, parliamentarians would most likely take the word of gentry that were land owners than speak to the farm hands or labourers. The land owners might not have the best interests of the labourers in hand at all. The labourers would be stuck with the plough on the farm and were mostly illiterate. It was felt the judge involved and the government handed down too harsh a sentence when other crimes received smaller sentences like a Master beating a child to death was given several months jail. The Martyrs were said to already be at sea when people questioned the sentence. Throughout the early 1830s farmers and landholders did petition the government informing them of the conditions the labourers had to endure, especially their poverty and unemployment. The government of the time were paying little attention to what was occurring.

Magistrates within the English counties were powerful men especially when they were wealthy landowners themselves like James Frampton, who could be considered to be an anti-unionist, who was worried about the reoccurrence of the swing from the creation of the union in Tolpuddle. The magistrates in rural England held in their hands the power over life and death. Some within the English government held the view the lower and labouring class needed an example of what happened when people resisted the law and upset the status quo. If the government relaxed their position, then the people would view this as a form of weakness to be exploited. Many trade unions were going under the guise of friendly societies and the government discussed the role of such groups. One issue the law offices of the crown were trying to work out was the illegal oaths taken in Tolpuddle on the 10th of March 1834. They wanted to know if people could be punished for using the oaths. The jury in the Tolpuddle trial consisted of local farmers who would have had a stake in the outcome of the trial. There were no ministers or general workers amongst the jury, which would mean the men, would not be before their peers. The authorities were against the Martyrs for proclaiming an oath. An oath taken was viewed as treason towards the country at the time and was used against them during the court case. On the 24^th February 1834, the six farm workers were marched 7 miles in chains from Tolpuddle to Dorchester where they would stand trial. George Loveless and the other men were charged under the Unlawful Oaths Act of 1797 in 1834. The authorities used the 1797 Unlawful Oaths Act instead of using the 1799, Unlawful Societies Act, which would have bought a lighter penalty. In Dorchester Prison the men had their heads shaved and were in miserable conditions. The trial would begin on the 17^th of March in 1834 and the crown would use the evidence from Edward Legg and John Lock against the Tolpuddle Martyrs, which also revolved around the oath that was taken. Edward Legg provided information that he was read a passage in a bible before being told the labourers would pay a fee to enter the union and were expected to strike when ordered to do so.

Unions were formed between miners and manufacturing workers in northern England where movements were common. There were magistrates in southern rural parts of England who kept a close eye on union movements. The local authorities would move to quash such movements located within their area, which included friendly societies like in Tolpuddle. Delegates from the trade union Grand National Consolidated Trade Union visited Tolpuddle in 1833. One of the group who had been arrested had written a letter to the Grand National looking for guidance and hoping they would visit. The reason for the visit was to talk about the falling wages and how to resist them. They urged the labourers to create an organisation of their own. The in November of same year, the labourers formed what would be known as the Friendly society of Agricultural Labourers or the Agricultural Union. George Loveless wanted to establish a union as the local farm labourers would be members and withdraw their services as one to force the local farmers to bargain with the labourers for better conditions. Villages viewed trade unions differently compared to towns since both had different requirements and life was vastly different. Other issues included the closing of commons and how poor relief was dealt out to people. The Tolpuddle story was used to inspire trade unionists in the 1830s and the 1840s, when used as an example of the consequences of what could happen and was one of the better known events involving unionists. The main consequence of the Tolpuddle Martyr event meant agricultural unionism within Dorset was killed off for the next four decades.

After the agricultural labourers in Tolpuddle formed a union their wages had been reduced. The local land owners wanted to move quickly and make an example out of the labourers in fear the group would riot and cause uprisings. The severity of the punishment handed down to the Tolpuddle group had mixed feelings. Many from different counties had signed petitions, which were handed to parliament and The King. Others were unsympathetic to the plight. One parliamentarian did proudly mention the trade union in his county had vanished. It took two years of public outcry and petitions from different parts of England against the severity of their sentence. At one stage 1,563 signatures were presented to the government.

The consequences for the events that took place in Tolpuddle in 1834 were many. The six Tolpuddle martyrs involved with the creation of the union were sent to a prison hulk to wait for their time, where they would be transported to Australia. Their charge was the maximum of seven years transportation that could be given. After being sentenced to transportation it had been mentioned there was a book in the possession of George Loveless with the names of other members of the union. The authorities wanted to enquire with the local farmers to speak with the union members. The threat used was for the labourers to either quit the union or be dismissed from their employment. The authorities were warned communication with union members in such a way might bring trouble and unions were not illegal unless they did something that was. The Australian colonies seemed to be used to remove trouble makers from the community and deposit or exile them nearly a world away out of sight and out of mind to the government’s relief. There was the belief that farmers and landlords belonged to one class and those who were considered to be labourers to be in another class. This would cause tensions between all groups including the labourers who wanted to make something of their lives. George Loveless and the other Martyrs were considered to be pioneers to the labour movement. The only problem would be they were not the first trade unionists. The trade union by August 1834, ceased to exist in Dorset, although the cause for the labourers remained alive even when they were sent to Hobart Town and Sydney.

When looking at the consequence of the Tolpuddle affair it had been thought the growth of trade unions had been stunted for a period of forty years. The role of the Tolpuddle Martyrs tends to range from being overlooked in history to having a bigger role than what was actually occurring during the time period. The Tolpuddle Martyrs could even have a lasting effect on the local labourers, which could be felt to this day. The Tolpuddle Martyr event in Dorset united many workers as they came to the defence of the Martyrs. An activist within parliament, William Cobbett thought the Tolpuddle event might galvanise the workers to start a revolution within England, although he had his own views on what was happening during this period of time and could have had his hand in many pots since. William was himself within the political environment as a parliamentarian in London during 1834. After the trial in April, the men were transported from Dorchester to Salisbury in irons. They then travelled further to Portsmouth where they would be placed on a prison hulk. By the 25^th of May the first ship carrying George Loveless had left England for Hobart arriving in September and the others arrived in Sydney in August. The reputations of the Martyrs did follow them to the colonies. It would take nearly two years for the men to be released and sent back to England in June 1837, although not all returned at the same time.  James Hammett would be the only one who would live in Tolpuddle upon their return, while the others farmed in Essex before migrating to Canada where they would spend their lives.

Labour relations in England were tricky around the time of the Tolpuddle affair, especially when many farm owners thought they had large amounts of power over the common agricultural labourer who could be fired for mentioning the pay conditions of other farms. Protests during this period had been common with swing riots where machines were destroyed as they were thought to be taking employment away from the labourers who would be left destitute and have no employment. The local magistrates usually had conflict of interests especially if they were local land owners. They had power over people in their parishes, which meant they could dictate what they thought would be in the people’s best interests. The farmers thought they were justified when threatening to lower the wages of the labourers who could not survive on anything lower wages. Trade unions were becoming popular and when George Loveless and others formed a union in Tolpuddle, the local government intervened trying to convict them of getting people to administer an illegal oath, which was meant to be for something else that included mutiny and treason within the military. The local government wanted to make the Tolpuddle farmers an example to the rest of the country and other labourers to put them back in their own place to show literally who was boss. There were unexpected consequences in regards to sending the Tolpuddle Martyrs to the colony by transportation as people petitioned the government for George Loveless and the other men to be returned from transportation. Trade unions might have been stunted for a short time period in Dorset, but the trial of the Tolpuddle Martyrs would have been forever immortalised as an event, where the common worker won against the might of the landowner and the government. The Tolpuddles have cemented their place in the history books and were likely more effective than many of the riots that took place in the past like the swing riots even though many of those were sentenced to transportation like George Loveless and the others who were with him. The impact of the events in Tolpuddle could have had a lasting impact on other industries within Dorset and nearby villages.

Bibliography

Dickson, Ralph ‘The Tolpuddle Martyrs: Guilty or not guilty?’, The Journal of Legal History, 7, 1986, pp. 178-187.

Donnelly, F. K. ‘Ideology and Early English Working-Class History: Edward Thompson and His Critics’, Social History, 1, 1976, pp. 219-238.

Dyck, Ian ‘William Cobbett and the Rural Radical Platform’ Social History, 18, 1993, pp. 185-204.

Griffiths, Clare ‘Remembering Tolpuddle: Rural History and Commemoration in the Inter-War Labour Movement’, History Workshop Journal, 44, 1997, pp. 144-169.

Hammond, J.L. ‘The last labourer’s revolt’, The village labourer, 1760 – 1832: a study in the government of England before the Reform Bill, eds. J.L. Hammond and Barbara Hammond, London, Longmans, 1911, pp. 216 – 247.

Hurst, Gerald B. ‘The Dorchester Labourers, 1834’, The English Historical Review, 40, 1925, pp. 54 – 66.

Moore, Tony Death or Liberty, Millers Point, Murdoch Books, 2010.

Steedman, Carolyn ‘At every bloody level: A magistrate, a framework-knitter, and the law’, Law and History Review, 30, 2012, pp. 387 – 422.

Wells, Roger ‘Rural rebels in Southern England in the 1930’s’, Artisans, peasants and proletarians 1760 – 1860: Essays presented to Gwyn A. Williams, eds. Clive Emsley and James Walvin, London, Croom Helm, 1985, pp. 124 – 165.

Wells, R. ‘Tolpuddle in the context of the English Agrarian Labour history’, British Trade Unionism 1750 – 1850: The formative years, ed. John Rule, London, Longman, 1988, pp. 98 – 142.