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 24th 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 17th 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 25th 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.
