SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY 



April ; it was to march through London and to present a petition on behalf 

 of the sufferers to the Home Secretary. It was the first such demonstration 

 which had ever taken place in the metropolis."' The Times reflects the panic 

 and indignation which was felt by the supporters of the government. The 

 aim of the processionists, it proclaimed, could only be to intimidate — else 

 why such vast numbers ? — consequently their action was little short of 

 treason, and all self-respecting citizens were advised to be not so much as 

 spectators of the demonstration. ' Home is the fitting post of every man 

 whose active services are not called for by public duty.' '"'° The reception of 

 their proposal in this spirit seems to have induced the trade unionists to 

 entrust the actual presentation of the petition to a small delegation, but the 

 Times considered that the march through London still savoured of coercion, 

 and was convinced that the petition would ' at once be rejected as an attempt 

 at doing violence to the crown.' ''^ 



This expectation was fully justified by the events ; in spite of the orderly 

 conduct of the demonstrators — some 30,000 in number — and the respectful, 

 though firm, wording of the petition. Lord Melbourne refused to receive any 

 ' petition presented under such circumstances and in such a manner,' though 

 if it should be ' presented on another day and in a becoming manner ' he 

 would receive it and lay it before the king.^^^ 



In the meantime the question had been taken up in the House of 

 Commons, numerous petitions were presented, and Joseph Hume charged the 

 government with cowardice, and anxiety to ' get hold of such victims as they 

 could catch.' ^''^ In spite of the agitation, however, the punishment was not 

 remitted until 1836, and the prisoners did not finally return home until 1838. 

 Their ultimate release was due to the indefatigable zeal of the London 

 Dorchester Committee, a body of sixteen workmen, who with the help of 

 Thomas Wakley, M.P. for Finsbury, after nearly five years' agitation induced 

 the same government as had sanctioned the exile to pardon the men and bring 

 them home free of expense. Subscriptions were raised to provide five out of 

 the six with small farms in Essex, the sixth preferring to return to Dorset.'^* 



But although some thirty years later such a national disgrace as this 

 would have been impossible, the general position of the Dorset labourer was 

 still slow to improve. In 1861, indeed, Mr. Darby commented on the 

 benefit to the labourer from the agricultural revolution which had just taken 

 place. Money wages were zs. or 3J-. higher than they were twenty years 

 before — that is, they varied from 8j. to lu.,^'^ so that with the additional 

 earnings amounting at least theoretically to about 3J. bd. a week, ' the 

 labourer did not receive worse treatment than in any of the southern or 

 midland counties.' But, of course, his position depended on his employer: 

 his cottage might be a hovel, his garden and potato ground of the poorest 

 soil, his fuel the commonest gorse, his corn almost worthless. As long as 

 there is payment in kind the labourer will be dependent on the generosity of 

 the farmer who employs him. 



'" Webb, Hist, of Trade Unionism, 132. '^ Times, 19 April, 1834. 



'" Ibid. 21 April, 1834. 



'*' Ibid. 22 April, 1834. ^^ Ibid. 19 April and 29 April, 1834. 



'** Webb, Hist, of Trade Unionism, 133, note 2 ; p. 130 et seq. gives a full account of the case and its 

 bearing on the general history of the unions. 



^^ Journ. of Bath and West of Engl. Agric. Soc. (Ser. 2), ix, 64. 



261 



