Well may the men of Rochdale say
That certain trades alone are thriving;
Who pay so high a price for _Hay_?
Whose _butcher_ gets so good a living!”
There was no perceptible change in the position of the reform question
for some years. The House of Commons was in the hands of the
boroughmongers, and the traffic in seats was notorious. Whilst
Manchester was unrepresented, there were 200 members returned by 100
boroughs, whose united population was less than that of Manchester
alone. In 1827, Manchester was fluttered by the prospect of a seat in
Parliament being assigned to it. Penrhyn was then in bad odour for its
corruption, and Lord John Russell gave notice that if it were
disfranchised he would move that its power of electing two members
should be transferred to Manchester. A meeting convened by persons of
all parties was held in the still unplastered room of what is now the
Old Town Hall. Tories like Mr. H. H. Birley and Mr. Benjamin Braidley
were joined with Radicals and Whigs like Mr. Thomas Potter, Mr. G. W.
Wood, Mr. John Shuttleworth, and Mr. F. R. Atkinson to petition for
representation. This was all the more necessary since a member of the
House of Commons, Mr. Legh Keck, strenuously denied that the great
towns desired to have representatives in Parliament. The history of the
bill was curious. It passed the Commons, and the second reading in the
Lords was fixed for 23rd June. Lord Lyndhurst held that as there were
420 voters and only fourteen were shown to have been bribed, the
further progress of the measure should be resisted. Lord de
Dunstanville, who had property in the neighbourhood, naturally
concurred. Lord Eldon had not known “a case so utterly destitute of
foundation.” Lord Dacre declared that as the object of the bill was to
transfer the franchise from the landed to the commercial interest he
should oppose it. The then Marquis of Salisbury called attention to the
preamble of the bill, which ran—“Whereas, on account of the great
wealth and population of Manchester, it is expedient that it should
return burgesses to Parliament.” “Now,” said the noble Lord, “in that
single sentence were embodied all the wildest doctrines of reform. If
there were no other ground for opposition he should oppose this bill on
that ground alone. As no other noble lord had objected to the bill on
that ground he had determined to enter his protest against such
doctrines being smuggled into a bill to ruin the constitution.” In face
of this Tory opposition the bill was withdrawn. A town’s meeting was
held at Manchester in February, 1830, when Mr. John Brooks exhibited a
list of bad debts for the year 1829, amounting to £11,180, and of bad
debts in January-February, 1830, to the extent of £981. Mr. Prentice,
Mr. Elijah Dixon, and others who spoke referred to the constitution of
Parliament as the cause why no attempt was made to remedy the existing
distress. In Parliament Lord John Russell vainly endeavoured to obtain
hearing for a proposal to give Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds
representatives; O’Connell tried to bring in a bill for universal
suffrage, triennial parliaments, and the ballot. Lord John Russell
moved two resolutions in favour of an increased number of
representatives, and for the additional ones being given to the large
towns and populous counties. Both proposals were rejected by large
majorities.
The death of George IV. on the 26th June, 1830, may be taken as the
landmark between the old and the new era. The French revolution of July
gave an impetus to the desire for reform at home. The Boroughreeve of
Manchester declined to call a meeting of the inhabitants to
congratulate the French people on the reconquest of their liberty, but
the meeting was held in spite of official opposition, and Mr. Mark
Philips, Mr. Alexander Kay, and Mr. J. C Dyer were appointed a
deputation to convey the address then adopted to Paris. The need for
reform at home was insisted upon by Mr. Richard Potter, Mr. R. H. Greg,
Mr. G. Hadfield, and other speakers. The reformers were staggered when
Parliament met in November by the language of the Duke of Wellington,
who said that “he had never heard or read of any measure up to the
present moment which could in any degree satisfy his mind that the
state of the representation could be improved or be rendered more
satisfactory to the country at large than at the present time. He was
fully convinced that the country possessed at the present moment a
Legislature which answered all the good purposes of legislation, and
this to a greater degree than any Legislature ever answered in any
country whatever.... He was not only not prepared, but he would at once
declare that, so far as he was concerned, as long as he held any
station in the Government of the country, he should always feel it to
be his duty to resist such measures when proposed by others.” The Duke
next advised the King that it would be unsafe to trust himself in the
city. On the 15th, the Duke was defeated and resigned, and Earl Grey
took his place pledged to peace, retrenchment, and reform.
In Manchester the year was remarkable for the opening of the Manchester
and Liverpool Railway, and the formation of a Political Union very much
on the plan of that of Birmingham. This association was at first mainly
composed of shopkeepers and working men, but was afterwards joined by
representatives of all classes. Amongst the artisan members was Mr.
Rowland Detrosier, a self-taught workman, remarkable for the extent of
his intellectual acquirements and for his great oratorical powers. An
early death cut short a career that promised the highest distinction.
In January, 1831, a requisition was presented to the Boroughreeve and
constables asking them to call a meeting to petition for reform. They
declined because the town was in an excited state. A great meeting was,
however, held on the 20th, and the petition adopted. On the 31st a
petition for representation was adopted at a town’s meeting in Salford.
When Lord John introduced the bill on the 1st of March he put the case
of the great towns very neatly. “Our opponents say our ancestors gave
Old Sarum representatives, therefore we should give Old Sarum
representatives. We say our ancestors gave Old Sarum representatives
because it was a large town; therefore we give representatives to
Manchester, which is a large town.” Henry Hunt, who spoke on the second
day of the debate, vindicated the reform agitation in which he had
taken part, and, in spite of attempts to drown his voice, denounced
“the drunken and infuriated yeomanry” who had slaughtered the people in
1819 for doing that which the Government was then doing—advocating the
propriety of Parliamentary reform. A town’s meeting was held in
Manchester on the 8th March to thank the Ministry for the introduction
of the bill. This was the first gathering of the kind that had ever
been convened by the authorities. In the House of Commons the second
reading was carried by a majority of one. In the Committee stage there
was a long fight, and on their proposal to reduce the number of
members, the Government were put in a minority of eight. The King,
although regarded by the public as a reformer, was really in great
dread of the bill, and had refused to dissolve until stung by some
language used in the Lords. “What did they dare to meddle with the
prerogative?” he exclaimed, and then declared that he would go down to
dissolve the House in a hackney coach if necessary. He went down. “Turn
the rogues out, your Majesty,” was the advice of a rough sailor who
rushed from the crowd to the side of the carriage. He gave voice to the
feeling of the nation. Parliament was dissolved, and the Tories
strained every nerve to secure a victory at the polls. The Duke of
Northumberland alone is said to have subscribed £100,000 to their
election fund. But the nation at large saw that the choice lay between
reform and revolution, and a great majority of the counties and free
boroughs returned candidates who were pledged to support the bill. The
bill was re-introduced, and passed the second reading on July 7th by a
majority of 136. Next day “Orator” Hunt presented a petition from
194,000 working people of Manchester and the district in favour of
universal suffrage, annual parliaments, and vote by ballot. When the
question of enfranchisement came up, some members argued that as
Manchester was to have two members, there was no need to give one to
Salford. The bill was introduced on the 25th of June, but the tactics
of delay were so well observed that the third reading was not reached
until September 22nd. That very day there was a town’s meeting in
Manchester, when Mr. James Burt, the Boroughreeve, again presided. The
speakers included Mr. Richard Potter, Mr. Mark Philips, Mr. R. H. Greg,
Mr. G. Hadfield, and others. The only dissentient was a working man,
who was, however, ready to accept the bill as a stepping-stone to
something better. A similar meeting was held in Salford in the
following week. The bill was brought into the House of Lords on the 3rd
of October, and its rejection was moved by the Earl of Wharncliffe. The
debate was continued until the 8th, when the votes for the bill were
158, against 199. The majority of 41 included a contingent of 21 Tory
bishops, on whose behalf the then Archbishop of Canterbury made the
hypocritical declaration “that to a temperate and safe reform he would
offer no objections.” The prelates have since learned more sense.
On the 12th October there was an immense gathering in Manchester. The
first intention was to hold a meeting in the then Riding School in
Lower Mosley Street, which would hold about 4,000 persons. The street
was, however, so full of eager candidates for admission that it was
decided to hold the meeting in the open-air at Campfield. The
Boroughreeve, not feeling equal to the control of such a gathering, Mr.
(afterwards Sir) Thomas Potter presided over this meeting of one
hundred thousand persons. The temper of the people was bitterly hostile
to the Lords. When Mr. Shuttleworth spoke of the necessity of creating
fresh peers, the response was, “No more peers; we’ve had enough of
them.” One of the Radicals, Mr. R. J. Richardson, moved an amendment
asking the King to issue writs to populous boroughs, to withhold them
from rotten boroughs, to create no new peers, but to take such other
measures as would ensure a bill for universal suffrage, annual
parliaments, and vote by ballot. This was carried by an enormous
majority, and the vast assembly then peaceably dispersed. At Bristol
and other places there were disastrous riots. In Manchester the
influence of the Political Union and the good sense of the people
generally, who were willing to accept the bill as a substantial
instalment of reform, prevented any outbreak. Parliament was prorogued
until December 6th. The second bill was introduced on the 12th, and the
second reading was carried in the early hours of Sunday morning,
December 18th, by a majority of 162 in a House of 486. The third
reading was not reached until March 19th, when 355 voted for and 239
against. The great question now was, “What will the Lords do?” It soon
became apparent that they would mutilate the bill. On a motion by Lord
Lyndhurst, the Ministry found themselves in a minority of 35. The
King’s fears had been increased by the riots, and he refused Earl Grey
the power to create such fresh peers as would give him a majority. The
Ministry resigned, and the Duke of Wellington, as the leader of the
Tories, was “sent for” on the 9th of May. The news reached Manchester
by seven o’clock on the following morning, and the excitement was
intense. Business was suspended, and groups of citizens were seen
discussing the gravity of the situation. The Reform Committee had sat
daily at the Town Hall since the previous September, and thither
flocked the friends of reform. On the motion of Mr. Absolom Watkin, a
petition to the Commons was adopted, calling upon them to refuse to
vote any supplies until the bill was passed. The petition was not
placed for signature until nearly three o’clock, but by six it had
received 24,000 signatures, and Mr. Richard Potter, Mr. John Fielden,
and Mr. John Shuttleworth set off in a chaise to take it to London.
They departed amidst the cheers of the multitude, and had an
enthusiastic greeting at Leek, Derby, Northampton, and other places on
the road. The journey was accomplished in seventeen hours. As they
approached London they gave reports of the meeting and copies of the
petition to the passengers of the coaches on the road, and the news
spread like wildfire through the country. The petition was presented to
the House that same night by Mr. John Wood, M.P. for Preston. This was
the first call to the Commons to stop supplies until reform was
obtained, and it had quickly many echoes.
Peterloo was the place selected for an open-air meeting on the 14th.
Mr. C. J. S. Walker, the son of the man whose house had been attacked
by the Tories of 1792, was called to the chair, and the venerable
Robert Philips, a veteran of ’92, moved the first resolution. Mr.
Elijah Dixon and Mr. Joseph Johnson, who had been imprisoned after
Peterloo, were amongst the speakers. A town’s meeting was held in
Salford, and another in Chorlton. Throughout the country the same
sentiment prevailed, and it was said that the Duke of Wellington would
try to form a Ministry that should deal with reform. The announcement
was received with such a storm of indignation that even the victor of
Waterloo was cowed. The King had to recall Earl Grey, but to avoid the
creation of fresh peers a sufficient number of the Lords abstained from
the divisions, and the Reform Bill became law on the 7th of June, 1832.
The general joy found expression in a grand procession of the
authorities and trade societies of Manchester and Salford on the 9th of
August. In the long debates on the Reform Bill nothing is more
remarkable than the distrust of the people felt by the opponents of
reform. There was a prophetic instinct in Earl Grey’s reply to a sneer
of the Earl of Dudley. “The Earl of Dudley,” said Earl Grey, “will live
to learn a lesson from the statesmen of Birmingham and the
philanthropists of Manchester.”
The Folk-Lore of Lancashire.
Folk-lore is a word introduced into the English language by the late
Mr. W. J. Thorns to designate the superstitions, observances, sayings,
traditions, and beliefs of the people; the collecting and systematic
arrangement of which is now recognised as an important section of the
science of comparative mythology. Folk-lore treats
“Of witching rhymes
And evil spirits; of the death-bed call
Of him who robb’d the widow, and devour’d
The orphan’s portion; of unquiet souls
Risen from the grave to ease the heavy guilt
Of deeds in life concealed; of shapes that walk
At dead of night, and clank their chains and wave
The torch of Hell around the murderer’s bed.”
It takes cognisance of all the quaint notions connected with the
varying seasons of the year and epochs of human life; of all the
beliefs in futurity and supernatural agencies which are not sanctioned
by religion; of the fireside story; of the milk-maid’s song and the
mother’s lullaby; in short, of all the remains of ancient religion,
history, science, and philosophy which have been preserved to the
present day in the conservative memory and affection of the people. The
old songs of the peasantry, the grandam’s fairy tales, the children’s
rhymes, the auguries and omens of the ignorant and least educated
portion of the community might seem at first sight to be unworthy of
the serious attention of the antiquary. But experience has shown that
these humble materials afford really important data for the student of
mythology and anthropology. Customs, which once formed part of the
ceremonial of creeds outworn, survive amongst European nations, as an
evidence of their pre-Christian belief. The characters of the nursery
tales are credited with the performance of deeds once attributed to
mighty gods or heroes. The collation of these narratives enables us to
remove some myths from the historic page. In a similar manner the
examination of popular superstitions throws light upon the various
systems of mythology. There is a great similarity noticeable in the
folk-lore of different nations, even those which are most remote. Thus
the legend narrated by Herodotus of Rhampsinitus is found to have been
popular with the Norse children; and while this is the case with
stories which do not appear to have any allegorical meaning, it is
still more so with regard to those conceptions which we term myths.
Each historic nation has emerged from a savage condition, more or less
profound, and its folk-lore is merely fragmentary recollections of its
past stages, often in the form of ceremonials dictated by principles no
longer forming the ordinary rule of action, or even directly opposed to
it. And as the ideas of savages are limited in number, and derived
mainly from the contemplation of natural phenomena likely to strike
each observer in the same manner, it ceases to be so great a matter of
wonder that widely separated races of mankind should invent similar
explanations to account for the wild or wonderful appearances which
excited their awe and astonishment.
The literature of folk-lore has grown with great rapidity, and the
foundation of the Folk-Lore Society greatly stimulated the study in
this country. Mr. G. L. Gomme has defined folk-lore to be the science
which treats of the survivals of archaic belief and custom in modern
ages. His suggested classification shows the wide scope of the new
science. The first branch, _Traditional Narratives_, includes
folk-tales, hero-tales, ballads and songs, and place-legends. Under
_Traditional Customs_ he includes local customs, festivals, customs,
ceremonial customs, and games. The third division, _Superstitions and
Beliefs_, includes witchcraft, astrology, and superstitious practices
and fancies. The last department, _Folk-speech_, covers popular
sayings, popular nomenclature, proverbs, jingle-rhymes, riddles, etc.
The literature of the folk-lore of Lancashire is somewhat extensive,
for references to popular superstitions and customs abound in the
writings of Edwin Waugh, Ben Brierley, and the many writers who have
illustrated the dialect of the county, and especially of its
south-western portion. The late Mr. John Roby, whose “Traditions of
Lancashire” first appeared in 1829, was a diligent collector of local
legends, but his object was purely literary, and accordingly his book
must be used cautiously, though it certainly contains important data.
The “Lancashire Dialect Glossary” of Messrs. Nodal and Milner contains
many references to popular customs. There are also many articles in
_Notes and Queries_ the _Palatine Note-Book_, _Local Gleanings_,
_Manchester City News Notes and Queries_, _Manchester Guardian Notes
and Queries_, and other literary and archæological periodicals. The
principal authorities on the subject are Messrs. John Harland and T. T.
Wilkinson, whose “Lancashire Folk-lore” appeared in 1867, followed by
“Lancashire Legends” in 1873. These have been several times reprinted.
Mr. Charles Hardwick, in 1872, published a volume, the wide sweep of
which is shown by the title, “Traditions, Superstitions, and Folk-lore,
chiefly Lancashire and the North of England, their affinity to others
in widely distributed localities, and their Eastern origin and mythical
significance.” Then Mr. James Bowker has written “The Goblin Stories of
Lancashire.” Harland’s “Lancashire Ballads” should also be consulted,
nor must the publications of the Historic Society of Lancashire and
Cheshire and of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society be
neglected.
Some may be inclined to ask, “Is there any folk-lore left?” Certainly
during the present age the rapid diffusion of knowledge has happily
driven forth much antique superstition; but there is a temptation to
exaggerate the extent of the effects which have thus been produced. In
Lancashire, where we might have expected to find that the noise of the
steam-engine had frightened away both the fairies and the queen of the
May, and the spread of knowledge to have destroyed all faith in spells
and charms, interesting articles of folk-lore have been recorded as
either still surviving, or as having only recently become obsolete.
Many observances are connected with particular seasons of the year.
Thus on New Year’s Day there is a firm belief that if a light-haired
person “let in” the New Year, a twelve month of ill-luck will be the
result, and that, on the contrary, dark persons will bring with them a
year of good fortune. So Pan-cake Tuesday, Simnel Sunday, Easter, May
Day, Christmas, etc., have each their special customs still observed in
Lancashire, though in many cases so shorn of their ancient glories as
to be little more than relics of former greatness.
The habit of attaching a symbolic importance, even to the most trifling
occurrences, is strikingly illustrated in the following quotations from
Harland and Wilkinson:—“Most grandmothers will explain, ‘God bless
you!’ when they hear a child sneeze, and they sum up the philosophy of
the subject with the following lines, which used to delight the writer
in the days of his childhood:—
‘Sneeze on a Monday, you sneeze for danger;
Sneeze on a Tuesday, you kiss a stranger;
Sneeze on a Wednesday, you sneeze for a letter;
Sneeze on a Thursday, for something better;
Sneeze on a Friday, you sneeze for sorrow;
Sneeze on a Saturday, your sweetheart to-morrow;
Sneeze on a Sunday, your safety seek,
The Devil will have you the whole of the week.’”
This is certainly a comprehensive epitome of the entire philosophy of
sneezing.
The finger-nails of a baby should be bitten shorter. If they are cut,
the child will become “sharp fingered”—_i.e._, thievish.
As a specimen of the folk-tale, we may take that of the “Three Tasks.”
The inhabitants of Cockerham, having made up their minds that the devil
had been showing an unreasonable partiality to their village, gave the
schoolmaster the not very pleasant task of expelling the Prince of
Darkness from their midst. The man of letters, having raised the foul
fiend, appointed him three tasks; if he failed to accomplish them he
was never to appear again at Cockerham, but if he succeeded in their
performance, the pedagogue became his prey. The two first tasks were
soon done, but the third, the fatal, mystic third—
“Now make me, dear sir, a rope of yon sand,
Which will bear washing in Cocker, and not lose a strand”—
proved too much even for the ingenuity of the Father of Evil, and if he
stuck to his bargain Cockerham must be the happiest place on earth!
This legend of the Three Tasks is not confined to Lancashire, but is
also narrated in connection with Merton Sands, Cheshire, and a Cornish
version forms the subject of “Featherstone’s Doom,” one of the Rev. R.
S. Hawker’s wildest lyrics. Another curious story is that which says
that the parochial church of Burnley was originally intended to be
built on the site occupied by the old Saxon Cross in Godly Lane; “but
however much the masons might have built during the day, both stones
and scaffolding were invariably found where the church now stands on
their coming to work next morning.” This legend is told also of
Rochdale, Winwick, Samlesbury, Over, Saddleworth, Churchdown, and many
other churches.