By R.W. Morrell

Nottingham Chartism, Nottingham Workers’ In Revolt During The Nineteenth Century. By Peter Wyncoll. Illustrated. Wrappers. 60pp. Nottingham Trades Council, 1966. 3/6. 

When I first read this work in manuscript about a year or so ago I thought then that it merited publication, indeed, it was hoped that the TPS could undertake this, alas for such a hope the financial position of the Society did not allow it. The Nottingham Trades Council have now stepped in and underwritten the cost of publication, a fitting gesture as the Chartist Movement was strongly working class in character. 

Peter Wyncoll commences his work by drawing attention to the social and economic conditions of the period, in setting Chartism in its historical setting he does not fail to stress its historic roots; his points for example about Luddism are refreshingly clear of the bias shown against that movement by even Socialist historians – and some politicians. The people who constituted the Chartist Movement came from several backgrounds, “superior craftsmen”, as the author terms them, Northern textile operatives and workers employed in “domestic outwork” (framework knitters). Wyncoll holds that the link between the three groups was the first group, and that many of these had some theoretical knowledge and were motivated by factors other than the immediate needs of the time. They were conversant with the works of Paine and Cobbett, one, James Sweet, a Nottingham bookseller (or as the author calls him later, newsagent) and barber being an “embryo early Socialist” and taking the chair year after year at dinners honouring “the great English Socialist Tom Paine”. 

Chartism as its well attended gatherings testify, was a mass movement. Yet I question the author’s contention that its main theme,. historically, “was the attempt to create a cohesive sense of class unity”. That it created a sense of unity in that it produced a collective identity of interests is possibly true but only in a mass sense for a limited period. However, factionalism was ever present and as the Chartists had no clear But policy, as Wyncoll points out, and as there existed no Socialist Party, the working class found its loyalties divided. Thus the loose unity brought about by Chartism fragmented all too easily, as 1848 demonstrated. On the other hand the author shows that Chartism did not fizzle out like a damp squib, it carried on but with an increasingly mute voice, we may find Lenin’s observation that Chartism was “The first broad truly mass and politically organised proletarian revolutionary movement” questionable on historical grounds, yet it certainly shows a great deal more perception than demonstrated by a number of English historians past and present. 

The booklet goes into detail about the many battles fought between various groups as well as indicating the splits in the Chartist Movement itself. The leading characters in the local drama are given flesh and blood by Mr.Wyncoll. These individuals were a mixed bag and in the case of several Chartists one cannot help but think that they let down those who put so much faith in them, Fergus O’Conner, the leading Chartist, after his election as a Member of Parliament, went out of his way to assure society of his respectability; he was, according to an Address to voters after his election, for the altar and for the Throne. He was not willing to wage a “battle against wealth which is fairly and honourably accumulated…” 

Peter Wyncoll concludes his valuable study by demonstrating from recently discovered correspondence that a group of working class militants “directly descended from the Chartists” were active in Nottingham and had direct contact with Karl Marx. The outcome of this was the establishment of a Nottingham Section of the International Working Men’s , Association. The leaders of the International in Nottingham had Wyncoll. writes, “learned the lessons of Luddism and Chartism well…” 

With its accompanying illustrations and five Appendices the booklet is well worth the modest sum asked. It is a mine of valuable information culled from many obscure sources. Some readers may object to the bias shown to the Chartists by the author and speak of the need for objective treatment. Yet if a bias is present it in no way detracts from the value of the work, this, as the author clearly states, is not a “King history” but is concerned with the bitter struggles of ordinary men and women. If the author is in favour of one side his bias is justified and honourable.