OLD MAN WITH A CAMERA
- HOME
- CONTENTS
- PHOTO GALLERY
- COMMENTS /FEEDBACK
- Hong Kong Street Art
- Gravesend, An Indian Princess and Tilbury
- Alcatraz : The Rock
- A Russian Tank in London
- TESTING PAGE
- Hastings Pier
- Postman's Park
- Tolpuddle Martyrs
- Gallery Index
- Gallery Myanmar
- Gallery Ship Canal
- Gallery Zurich
- Gallery San Francisco 01
- Village of Eyam
- John Babbacombe Lee The Man They Couldn't Hang
- Gallery Flatiron Building
- Others Index
- RICE PUDDING AND RADIO
- Romania, Vampires and Whitby
- CITY OF BUCHAREST
- BUCHAREST PARKS
- PELES CASTLE
- BRAN CASTLE
- BRASOV
- WHITBY
- WANCHAI BUILDINGS
- History
- TESTPAGE
- Salem : Witches Beware !
- SALEM ANSWER
- Salem Slide Show
- A Random walk around Toronto Sept 2018
- Stonehenge
- TEST TEST 01
- Sydney : Random Notes
- Freemantle
- PORTMEIRION
- Sydney : Random Notes
- IMAGE FIND PAGE
- PERTH - FLOWER STEALING KANGAROOS AND MORE
- BATH
- KEW GARDENS IN AUTUMN
- PERTH - FLOWER STEALING KANGAROOS AND MORE
- ALCHEMY
- PARIS SIGHTS
- Hobart : explorers, flags, yachts and a zoo!
- Frestonia - A Very British Revolution
- Gallery Template
- SAIGON SIGHTS 01
- EDINBURGH STORIES
- FRESTONIA
- FRESTONIA
THE TOLPUDDLE MARTYRS
|
Whilst driving down to Weymouth, a delightfully old-fashioned English seaside town (still has donkey rides !!!), I noticed a signpost for the village of Tolpuddle.
Apart from it's wonderful name, which always sounds like a place from "Lord of the Rings", it was, for many, the birthplace of worker's rights, particularly in the countryside, at a time when the ordinary agricultural worker was little more than a badly-fed slave.
The Tolpuddle Martyrs were 6 men who suffered a great injustice for the "crime" of trying to achieve a living wage and to do no more than work hard, live in peace and feed their families.
Their case was to receive a lot of attention, a surprising amount of protest and, eventually, the involvement of the King, before their lives could eventually return to some normality.
Apart from it's wonderful name, which always sounds like a place from "Lord of the Rings", it was, for many, the birthplace of worker's rights, particularly in the countryside, at a time when the ordinary agricultural worker was little more than a badly-fed slave.
The Tolpuddle Martyrs were 6 men who suffered a great injustice for the "crime" of trying to achieve a living wage and to do no more than work hard, live in peace and feed their families.
Their case was to receive a lot of attention, a surprising amount of protest and, eventually, the involvement of the King, before their lives could eventually return to some normality.
The Acts of Enclosure
The origin of the Tolpuddle Martyrs' story lies in a series of steps taken by the Government, allegedly, to improve the efficiency of farming in England by combining small areas of cultivation into larger, more viable operations.
The process started in the 16th century and, to some extent, continued to around 1914.
However, it was at the beginning of the 19th century that the effect was so dramatic in the countryside.
Theoretically, combining of land into larger plots was an admirable objective and, even, necessary if England was going to be wholly self-sufficient in food production.
It would encourage the use of new mechanical processes and allow better management of the land through crop rotation and other techniques.
The idea was that current occupiers of the land would be compensated and share in the gains from the improved efficiency.
However, in practice, the Acts became a tool for wealthy well-connected landowners to seize land with arrangements that left the farmworkers in a much worse, not better, situation. Compensation payments were minimal and, where alternative land was given, it was usually much poorer in quality compared with that which had been "enclosed".
More significantly, a lot of so-called "common" land was simply taken by the wealthy without any payment since those working such land usually did not possess any legal paperwork governing their ancient rights to use.
So, through apparently legal means, the rich became richer and the poor became poorer - a cast-iron guaranteed recipe for unrest
The origin of the Tolpuddle Martyrs' story lies in a series of steps taken by the Government, allegedly, to improve the efficiency of farming in England by combining small areas of cultivation into larger, more viable operations.
The process started in the 16th century and, to some extent, continued to around 1914.
However, it was at the beginning of the 19th century that the effect was so dramatic in the countryside.
Theoretically, combining of land into larger plots was an admirable objective and, even, necessary if England was going to be wholly self-sufficient in food production.
It would encourage the use of new mechanical processes and allow better management of the land through crop rotation and other techniques.
The idea was that current occupiers of the land would be compensated and share in the gains from the improved efficiency.
However, in practice, the Acts became a tool for wealthy well-connected landowners to seize land with arrangements that left the farmworkers in a much worse, not better, situation. Compensation payments were minimal and, where alternative land was given, it was usually much poorer in quality compared with that which had been "enclosed".
More significantly, a lot of so-called "common" land was simply taken by the wealthy without any payment since those working such land usually did not possess any legal paperwork governing their ancient rights to use.
So, through apparently legal means, the rich became richer and the poor became poorer - a cast-iron guaranteed recipe for unrest
The immediate effect of this "land-grab" was to reduce the earnings of the farm-workers creating real poverty and hardship under the full control of the landowners.
Typically, at this time, the farm-worker earned around 9 shillings a week (equivalent today to approx GBP 20 or USD 27)
With even the most modest household having costs of approx 14 shillings a week, the whole family, including very young children, had to find work. This was very very tough life indeed
The landowners not only fixed the wages but also owned the worker's cottages so it would not be an exaggeration to say that, whatever the original objectives of the Enclosure Acts and the efficiencies gained, a average countryside worker was left as little more than a slave. (This was somewhat ironic because, at the time of these events, actual slavery was being abolished, by Parliament, throughout the British Empire)
Typically, at this time, the farm-worker earned around 9 shillings a week (equivalent today to approx GBP 20 or USD 27)
With even the most modest household having costs of approx 14 shillings a week, the whole family, including very young children, had to find work. This was very very tough life indeed
The landowners not only fixed the wages but also owned the worker's cottages so it would not be an exaggeration to say that, whatever the original objectives of the Enclosure Acts and the efficiencies gained, a average countryside worker was left as little more than a slave. (This was somewhat ironic because, at the time of these events, actual slavery was being abolished, by Parliament, throughout the British Empire)
The Seeds and the Fear of Revolution
Although the "Landed Gentry" enjoyed wealth, power and connections, they had concerns.
The French Revolution (1789) was still in living memory and the aristocracy in England certainly knew that their fine clothes would not look so good on someone without a head.
And, even more recently, in 1830-31, there had been a revolt by peasants in the south of England said to be initiated by a Captain Swing, who never actually existed but somehow "led" this uprising.
Machinery was destroyed as were several properties but, despite this, the movement attracted some support from the middle classes and other unexpected quarters. It ended with the usual round of imprisonments, transportation and executions but left a warning that the status quo was vulnerable.
This background is relevant to the Tolpuddle Martrys because a very small and modest gathering together of workers was now enough to frighten landowners into extreme reactions.
Although the "Landed Gentry" enjoyed wealth, power and connections, they had concerns.
The French Revolution (1789) was still in living memory and the aristocracy in England certainly knew that their fine clothes would not look so good on someone without a head.
And, even more recently, in 1830-31, there had been a revolt by peasants in the south of England said to be initiated by a Captain Swing, who never actually existed but somehow "led" this uprising.
Machinery was destroyed as were several properties but, despite this, the movement attracted some support from the middle classes and other unexpected quarters. It ended with the usual round of imprisonments, transportation and executions but left a warning that the status quo was vulnerable.
This background is relevant to the Tolpuddle Martrys because a very small and modest gathering together of workers was now enough to frighten landowners into extreme reactions.
6 The Tolpuddle Martyrs
By 1834, the conditions of the workers were intolerable, as they struggled to exist and often lost children to hunger.
It was then announced that the wages, rather than being improved, were to be cut by 33% to only 6 shillings a week. This almost amounted to a death sentence to the families.
This followed broken promises by landowners of improved payment conditions. This deception being made at least partly possible by local church leaders failing to provide expected support for the workers (church officials depended on the ruling classes for their income..so no surprise there...)
So, the 6 Tolpuddle Martyrs evolved from this scenario.
Right to Left
James Loveless
James Hammett
George Loveless
Thomas Stanfield
John Stanfield
James Brine
George Loveless was the leader, a self-educated ploughman and lay preacher. He was articulate and, although believing strongly in the rights of individuals, he was neither an aggressive nor rebellious individual.
He had been asked, by comrades, to form a union to protect member's interests and allow for collective bargaining with landowners.
Basically, that's what he did creating a union called " The Tolpuddle Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers"
By 1834, the conditions of the workers were intolerable, as they struggled to exist and often lost children to hunger.
It was then announced that the wages, rather than being improved, were to be cut by 33% to only 6 shillings a week. This almost amounted to a death sentence to the families.
This followed broken promises by landowners of improved payment conditions. This deception being made at least partly possible by local church leaders failing to provide expected support for the workers (church officials depended on the ruling classes for their income..so no surprise there...)
So, the 6 Tolpuddle Martyrs evolved from this scenario.
Right to Left
James Loveless
James Hammett
George Loveless
Thomas Stanfield
John Stanfield
James Brine
George Loveless was the leader, a self-educated ploughman and lay preacher. He was articulate and, although believing strongly in the rights of individuals, he was neither an aggressive nor rebellious individual.
He had been asked, by comrades, to form a union to protect member's interests and allow for collective bargaining with landowners.
Basically, that's what he did creating a union called " The Tolpuddle Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers"
They held meetings under a sycamore tree (which still thrives in the village) when an indoor venue was not available.
It is unclear how many members there were but it seems that a "normal" attendance at the meeting could reach 40 people. This meant that at least 30% of all the local families were represented.
I was surprised to learn that, by this time, it was completely legal to form and operate such a trade union or similar body, although their exact activities would be monitored by any who feared the development of workers rights
George and his other early members were very keen to say that they only wanted to work for better conditions within the law and certainly rejected any suggestions that they might be as aggressive as the earlier mentioned Captain Swing movement.
This gave no comfort to the landowners, particularly the dominant local figure, James Frampton.
Frampton's family had occupied a dominant position in the community for 500 years.
Wealthy, well connected in the Government, a magistrate (local judge) and even a Colonel in the local branch of the British Army.
He believed that he ruled by divine right and considered that the lives of the working class were of no value whatsoever except to enrich him.
He had already proved himself as a strict and cruel person who had happily supported the worst punishments of the day in earlier cases of worker dissent.
I have read articles defending Frampton as someone who just saw it as his duty to maintain a sense of order in his community but, frankly, I don't buy it.
Before and during the Martyr's trial he demonstrated a cruel and merciless behaviour that could not be justified by his upbringing.
Thus by means of spies, he learned enough to know that George and his supporters could become, in his mind, a dangerous opponent.
With his power, it was very easy for him to have the leaders of the union, being George and 5 others, arrested.
It is unclear how many members there were but it seems that a "normal" attendance at the meeting could reach 40 people. This meant that at least 30% of all the local families were represented.
I was surprised to learn that, by this time, it was completely legal to form and operate such a trade union or similar body, although their exact activities would be monitored by any who feared the development of workers rights
George and his other early members were very keen to say that they only wanted to work for better conditions within the law and certainly rejected any suggestions that they might be as aggressive as the earlier mentioned Captain Swing movement.
This gave no comfort to the landowners, particularly the dominant local figure, James Frampton.
Frampton's family had occupied a dominant position in the community for 500 years.
Wealthy, well connected in the Government, a magistrate (local judge) and even a Colonel in the local branch of the British Army.
He believed that he ruled by divine right and considered that the lives of the working class were of no value whatsoever except to enrich him.
He had already proved himself as a strict and cruel person who had happily supported the worst punishments of the day in earlier cases of worker dissent.
I have read articles defending Frampton as someone who just saw it as his duty to maintain a sense of order in his community but, frankly, I don't buy it.
Before and during the Martyr's trial he demonstrated a cruel and merciless behaviour that could not be justified by his upbringing.
Thus by means of spies, he learned enough to know that George and his supporters could become, in his mind, a dangerous opponent.
With his power, it was very easy for him to have the leaders of the union, being George and 5 others, arrested.
The Charges
The first problem faced by Frampton (pictured left) was the inconvenient fact that the accused union members had not broken any current laws.
However, a man of Frampton's influence and philosophy was not going allow such a minor consideration to interfere with his plans.
Firstly, he found with some help, a "grey area" in the law whereby, although trades unions were now legal, some legislation, from the previous century, relating to the taking of oaths had somehow been left in place.
There seems to have been some uncertainty as to whether this legislation applied and even some members of the Government expressed doubts to Frampton.
Nevertheless, Frampton now had his starting position in place and was even able to extend the charges in an even more outrageous way by bringing in other largely irrelevant laws designed to prevent ship mutinies.
Given that Tolpuddle is approximately 15 miles inland, this seems astonishing.
The reason that Frampton took this further step was to allow for a much greater punishment should any trial result in the expected guilty verdict.
Bringing in this "mutiny" law mean that the accused would be liable to 7 years transportation instead of a maximum prison sentence of only 3 months under the original proposal.
This shows what an incredibly vindictive individual George and his companions were facing.
I have the feeling from some articles that the Government was somewhat conflicted in this case. They will certainly have wanted to support Frampton, in principle, but may also have felt some apprehension that the law was being manipulated to such a considerable degree. But such apprehension seems to have soon been put aside and there was no real effort to stop Frampton in his quest to destroy the idea of unionism in his domain.
The first problem faced by Frampton (pictured left) was the inconvenient fact that the accused union members had not broken any current laws.
However, a man of Frampton's influence and philosophy was not going allow such a minor consideration to interfere with his plans.
Firstly, he found with some help, a "grey area" in the law whereby, although trades unions were now legal, some legislation, from the previous century, relating to the taking of oaths had somehow been left in place.
There seems to have been some uncertainty as to whether this legislation applied and even some members of the Government expressed doubts to Frampton.
Nevertheless, Frampton now had his starting position in place and was even able to extend the charges in an even more outrageous way by bringing in other largely irrelevant laws designed to prevent ship mutinies.
Given that Tolpuddle is approximately 15 miles inland, this seems astonishing.
The reason that Frampton took this further step was to allow for a much greater punishment should any trial result in the expected guilty verdict.
Bringing in this "mutiny" law mean that the accused would be liable to 7 years transportation instead of a maximum prison sentence of only 3 months under the original proposal.
This shows what an incredibly vindictive individual George and his companions were facing.
I have the feeling from some articles that the Government was somewhat conflicted in this case. They will certainly have wanted to support Frampton, in principle, but may also have felt some apprehension that the law was being manipulated to such a considerable degree. But such apprehension seems to have soon been put aside and there was no real effort to stop Frampton in his quest to destroy the idea of unionism in his domain.
The Case and the Trial
The manipulation of the charges and the subsequent trial irregularities took many forms.
Firstly, using a couple of informers with only a distance relationship with honesty, Frampton sought to show not only were illegal oaths taken by union members but that they contain death threats and almost satanic procedures which would have been at home in a 1930's horror movie.
In fact, some form of loyalty oath had been taken but certainly not in the dramatic way as described by the informers.
Further, the average person in England, at that time, would have no idea that any anti-oath law from the previous century remained on the books.
A Grand Jury was convened to consider the case to determine if the matter should proceed to a prosecution (Actually, it was only while writing this story that I realised the UK once had Grand Juries. In fact they existed in law until 1948 although they had become a redundant function exactly 100 years earlier when different pre-trial processes were introduced... Quiz question..who still has Grand Juries ??? ...well America, of course and the only other place... Liberia ! ..at least according to Wikipedia)
The Grand Jury proceedings were a farce ... members included relatives of Frampton and others with a strong interest in suppressing worker's rights. As if that wasn't enough, Judge Williams exceeded his authority by advising the jury that a serious crime had been commited.
He continued to identify the dangers of trade unionism in general and in the particular case of the accused.
As he had been a judge for a total of 2 weeks!, it would be a kindness to say he may not have realised what he could and could not say. However, the sceptic in me doubts this to be the situation.
Having practically forced the Grand Jury to indict, guess who was to be the judge at the resulting trial ?.... step forward Judge Williams himself.... Apparently, he deliberately chose to undertake this task, obviously a man with a strong sense of civic duty !
It seems unnecessary to continue listing the various distortions of justice in this case but, for completeness..here are just a couple more worth mentioning.
The accused were unable to speak for themselves during the formal trial proceedings under the laws at this time (they would have only been able to speak if they had no lawyer.)
Judge Williams proceeded (probably working to Frampton's script) to tell the jury, mainly composed of "middle class" land-owning farmers, of how their lives would be wrecked if people like the Tolpuddle Martyrs were allowed to go free.
Of course, a guilty verdict was a foregone conclusion and duly delivered
Our friend Judge Williams nearly over-stepped the mark before sentencing the convicted men when he made some extra-ordinary remarks suggesting that the trial was not about the individuals accused but was needed to send a message to other potential trouble-makers. There was quite some unrest amongst various people at this absolutely incorrect statement but, after a short delay of 2 days, sentencing took place.
The final dishonest act of Judge Williams was to declare that the law did not allow any flexibility in the sentences and that he was forced to sentence that the accused would serve 7 years transportation. This was a lie. He had every discretion available and could have awarded as little as a few months transportation.
Transportation
As this features heavily in this story, I thought I would look up some of the background to this punishment.
I guess everyone knows the basics : condemned prisoners were sent overseas to work in British colonies and, based on listening to many folk songs, we can also assume that 7 years was the "normal" period.
As far as I can see, this practice became common in the 18th century and ended in the middle of the 19th century. During this period, for example, 165,000 convicts were sent to Australia.
I could find 3 main reasons for the popularity of transportation.
Firstly, the colonies needed a labour force as they grew and developed. That which was provided by settlers was insufficient so why not allow the "import" of free and available prisoner/workers.
Secondly, the prisons in England were greatly overcrowded, not least because they were used not only for "criminals" but also for people in debt.
London, alone had an astonishing 32 prisons and in those, debtors actually accounted for the majority of occupants. So, sending potential occupiers halfway around the world was a nice simple solution to the problem.
The third reason was the most interesting, in my view.
With no internet or Premier League, the main entertainment for the common people was a nice day out having fish and chips while watching a public hanging. (OK I lied about the fish and chips)
With around 100 such events in the UK each year, there was no shortage of "fixtures"
You may like to see some of the offences for which you could be hanged at different times in the 18th and 19th century :
As this features heavily in this story, I thought I would look up some of the background to this punishment.
I guess everyone knows the basics : condemned prisoners were sent overseas to work in British colonies and, based on listening to many folk songs, we can also assume that 7 years was the "normal" period.
As far as I can see, this practice became common in the 18th century and ended in the middle of the 19th century. During this period, for example, 165,000 convicts were sent to Australia.
I could find 3 main reasons for the popularity of transportation.
Firstly, the colonies needed a labour force as they grew and developed. That which was provided by settlers was insufficient so why not allow the "import" of free and available prisoner/workers.
Secondly, the prisons in England were greatly overcrowded, not least because they were used not only for "criminals" but also for people in debt.
London, alone had an astonishing 32 prisons and in those, debtors actually accounted for the majority of occupants. So, sending potential occupiers halfway around the world was a nice simple solution to the problem.
The third reason was the most interesting, in my view.
With no internet or Premier League, the main entertainment for the common people was a nice day out having fish and chips while watching a public hanging. (OK I lied about the fish and chips)
With around 100 such events in the UK each year, there was no shortage of "fixtures"
You may like to see some of the offences for which you could be hanged at different times in the 18th and 19th century :
However, just as you can have too much of a good thing, people began to grow restless and less enthusiastic to watch those of their own class being hanged for very minor offices.
This unrest was sensed by the Government and so transportation was promoted as a kind of humane alternative to death. It is matter of debate as to whether this is an appropriate description.
Transportation ended largely for the simple reason that settlers in the relevant countries, such as Australia were finding that the territory was now attracting willing immigrants who hadn't impersonated a Chelsea pensioner or damaged Westminster Bridge so they no longer needed to an open-door immigration policy and could pick and choose who came to them (How our Brexit supporters would have been jealous...)
This unrest was sensed by the Government and so transportation was promoted as a kind of humane alternative to death. It is matter of debate as to whether this is an appropriate description.
Transportation ended largely for the simple reason that settlers in the relevant countries, such as Australia were finding that the territory was now attracting willing immigrants who hadn't impersonated a Chelsea pensioner or damaged Westminster Bridge so they no longer needed to an open-door immigration policy and could pick and choose who came to them (How our Brexit supporters would have been jealous...)
After the Trial
Given the balance of power and influence in England, at this time, the mistreatment and injustice suffered by the Tolpuddle Martyrs was not surprising or expected to create any aftermath.
At least that's how it must have looked to Frampton and his friends as they celebrated what must have looked like another victory for the status quo and a severe blow to trade unionism and worker power.
Surely, they thought, the trial was now yesterday's news and the fate of the 6 men would soon be forgotten.
But they were badly wrong....
There was an overwhelming response from the press, other trades unions, politicians and the general public
A petition to free the Tolpuddle Martyrs attracted 800,000 signatures. Based on population statistics, that would be roughly equivalent to 2.5 million (!) supporters today.
Even the "establishment" newspaper of the day, The Times reported " The crime which called for punishment was not proved; the crime brought home to the prisoners did not justify (sic)"
The Morning Post, a strong opponent of trades unions, when talking of the Tolpuddle events had to concede " The Dorchester conspirators were, we admit, as little dangerous as it possible to be...."
The Home Secretary (in other countries, Minister of the Interior), Lord Melbourne (after whom the Australian city was named), was a somewhat controversial leader who, to be fair, had raised some doubts as to the charges. But he was a changeable man who always liked inaction as opposed to actually facing and solving problems. According to Wikipedia he was famous for living by the expression "Why not leave it alone?"
He was, a short time later, to be a reluctant Prime Minister and he was succeeded as Home Secretary by Lord Russell.
Lord Russell, despite his aristocratic background was known as a liberal reformer and there is no doubt that he would take a more sympathetic approach to the miscarriage of justice claimed by supporters of the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
A certain momentum was building up, street protests, changes in Government and media comment all grew.
Further, newspapers got hold of the story that the Duke of Cumberland, brother of the ruling King William, had also been administering similarly "illegal" oaths in his position as Grand Master of the Orange Order ( see this link for details of this organisation).
With the Royal family now needing to "fix" this issue, pardons for the men soon followed.
Still there were delays due to legal constraints and slow communications between London and the colonies. There were also stories that some administrators deliberately prevented the good news reaching the Martyrs.
Eventually during the period 1836-1838, 5 of the convicted men arrived back in England. James Hammett had to wait until 1839 to see his homeland again because he was serving time in Australia for a local assault charge
The Later Years
In the aftermath of various celebrations for the return of the Martyrs, money was raised to allow them to become tenant-farmers. However, as the triumphant home-coming faded into memory, their continuing campaigning for workers rights led them into conflict with the church, local authorities and even some newspapers who had previously supported their release.
This hostile atmosphere and, possibly, some financial issues, convinced the 5 men who had returned first from captivity to move to Canada. As they were mainly all now related to each other, directly or through marriage, this "mass-exodus" was understandable.
Generally, the families made a success of their life in Canada in farming and other enterprises. They also renewed their commitment to the Methodist church and one even became Mayor of the town of East London
Given the balance of power and influence in England, at this time, the mistreatment and injustice suffered by the Tolpuddle Martyrs was not surprising or expected to create any aftermath.
At least that's how it must have looked to Frampton and his friends as they celebrated what must have looked like another victory for the status quo and a severe blow to trade unionism and worker power.
Surely, they thought, the trial was now yesterday's news and the fate of the 6 men would soon be forgotten.
But they were badly wrong....
There was an overwhelming response from the press, other trades unions, politicians and the general public
A petition to free the Tolpuddle Martyrs attracted 800,000 signatures. Based on population statistics, that would be roughly equivalent to 2.5 million (!) supporters today.
Even the "establishment" newspaper of the day, The Times reported " The crime which called for punishment was not proved; the crime brought home to the prisoners did not justify (sic)"
The Morning Post, a strong opponent of trades unions, when talking of the Tolpuddle events had to concede " The Dorchester conspirators were, we admit, as little dangerous as it possible to be...."
The Home Secretary (in other countries, Minister of the Interior), Lord Melbourne (after whom the Australian city was named), was a somewhat controversial leader who, to be fair, had raised some doubts as to the charges. But he was a changeable man who always liked inaction as opposed to actually facing and solving problems. According to Wikipedia he was famous for living by the expression "Why not leave it alone?"
He was, a short time later, to be a reluctant Prime Minister and he was succeeded as Home Secretary by Lord Russell.
Lord Russell, despite his aristocratic background was known as a liberal reformer and there is no doubt that he would take a more sympathetic approach to the miscarriage of justice claimed by supporters of the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
A certain momentum was building up, street protests, changes in Government and media comment all grew.
Further, newspapers got hold of the story that the Duke of Cumberland, brother of the ruling King William, had also been administering similarly "illegal" oaths in his position as Grand Master of the Orange Order ( see this link for details of this organisation).
With the Royal family now needing to "fix" this issue, pardons for the men soon followed.
Still there were delays due to legal constraints and slow communications between London and the colonies. There were also stories that some administrators deliberately prevented the good news reaching the Martyrs.
Eventually during the period 1836-1838, 5 of the convicted men arrived back in England. James Hammett had to wait until 1839 to see his homeland again because he was serving time in Australia for a local assault charge
The Later Years
In the aftermath of various celebrations for the return of the Martyrs, money was raised to allow them to become tenant-farmers. However, as the triumphant home-coming faded into memory, their continuing campaigning for workers rights led them into conflict with the church, local authorities and even some newspapers who had previously supported their release.
This hostile atmosphere and, possibly, some financial issues, convinced the 5 men who had returned first from captivity to move to Canada. As they were mainly all now related to each other, directly or through marriage, this "mass-exodus" was understandable.
Generally, the families made a success of their life in Canada in farming and other enterprises. They also renewed their commitment to the Methodist church and one even became Mayor of the town of East London
Sadly, as far as I can see only one log homestead in Perth County remains as an authentic link to the Tolpuddle Martyrs when they were in Canada.
Over the years, there have been many celebrations and events to remember the sacrifices of these men and their families, including festival weekends and, in 2000, the commissioning of a memorial sculpture. This is close to the Martyr's museum and shows George Loveless at one of his lowest points when he was very ill and awaiting transportation
Over the years, there have been many celebrations and events to remember the sacrifices of these men and their families, including festival weekends and, in 2000, the commissioning of a memorial sculpture. This is close to the Martyr's museum and shows George Loveless at one of his lowest points when he was very ill and awaiting transportation
James Hammett : The Outsider
Without any doubt, in my personal view, the most interesting member of the Martyrs was James Hammett.
Firstly, all the others were already connected by family or close friendship before the formation of the Friendly Society.
James was also different in that he was not a Methodist (an evangelical religion believing in more simple worship) like the others being, instead, a member of the Church of England (a more orthodox and ceremonial religion)
He was also the only one who was a convicted criminal, having been previously imprisoned for stealing pieces of iron.
After his pardon and delayed return to England, he seemed to want to live a quiet life and did not write about his experiences or otherwise promote himself in any way.
He was the only Martyr to remain in England and, therefore, is the only one buried in the local churchyard.
He was honoured in 1875 with money and a watch presented by the Agricultural Labourers Union
But... the most fascinating thing about the remarkable James Hammett is that it was discovered, at some point, that he had not attended the Friendly Society meeting where the contentious oaths were administered. It seems he allowed himself to be arrested instead of his brother John who had attended. It is believed that James made this incredible sacrifice because his brother had just got married and was awaiting the birth of his first child.
So, let's think about this man for a moment.
He sacrificed his freedom, his family (he also had a small son of his own), his health and part of his life for his brother and never publicised this fact himself. This despite the fact that he was far from being a model citizen. He is what I call a hero.
Without any doubt, in my personal view, the most interesting member of the Martyrs was James Hammett.
Firstly, all the others were already connected by family or close friendship before the formation of the Friendly Society.
James was also different in that he was not a Methodist (an evangelical religion believing in more simple worship) like the others being, instead, a member of the Church of England (a more orthodox and ceremonial religion)
He was also the only one who was a convicted criminal, having been previously imprisoned for stealing pieces of iron.
After his pardon and delayed return to England, he seemed to want to live a quiet life and did not write about his experiences or otherwise promote himself in any way.
He was the only Martyr to remain in England and, therefore, is the only one buried in the local churchyard.
He was honoured in 1875 with money and a watch presented by the Agricultural Labourers Union
But... the most fascinating thing about the remarkable James Hammett is that it was discovered, at some point, that he had not attended the Friendly Society meeting where the contentious oaths were administered. It seems he allowed himself to be arrested instead of his brother John who had attended. It is believed that James made this incredible sacrifice because his brother had just got married and was awaiting the birth of his first child.
So, let's think about this man for a moment.
He sacrificed his freedom, his family (he also had a small son of his own), his health and part of his life for his brother and never publicised this fact himself. This despite the fact that he was far from being a model citizen. He is what I call a hero.
Legacy of the Martyrs
It is a matter of speculation as to exactly what we should regard as the legacy of the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
I have read that the protests against their convictions were the first example of a very large number of protesters behaving peacefully and making political progress simply by the size of the crowds.
It was probably the first protest against injustice that spread into unrelated events. For example, at the funeral of prominent unionists and other gatherings, speakers would take the opportunity to raise the story of the Martyrs.
Through the above events, the Government was forced to face the reality that ordinary working people could no longer be bullied into accepting such injustice.
It is also surely not a co-incidence that the great Chartist movement for better working conditions and rights ( see this link) began at the very time the Martyrs were returning to freedom.
THANKS... I want to thank the lovely couple running the Tolpuddle Museum who kindly allowed me to enter early when I was walking around outside looking lost.....Do not miss the chance to visit. It is modest in size but presents, very well, this story
Proudly powered by Weebly