it is not easy to determine which of many historic incidents of interest should take precedence. the 10th of april, known as the day of chartist terror—still spoken of in hysterical accents—will do, as it shows the wild way with which sober, staid men can write history. i was out that day with the chartists, and well know how different the facts were from what is believed to be the peril of the metropolis on that day. i have long regarded it as one of the "bygones" having instruction in them.
the french have their 9th thermidor (july 27, 1794), when the reign of terror ended, and their 18th brumaire (november 9, 1799), when the napoleonic terror began, and the english have their 10th of april, 1848, when a million special constables were out staff in hand, to prevent a national petition of the people being presented to the house of commons. yet no conspiracy existed—nor even had the police fabricated a plot (as they often did in those days)—no disorder had been threatened, not a man was armed; the only imaginable enemy was the chartist convention of less than two hundred persons. the most distinguished of the special constables was louis napoleon, who four years later became known as the assassin of french liberty, and whose career is one of the infamies of imperialism.
the 10th of april, 1848, has for more than half a century held a place in public memory. the extraordinary hallucination concerning it has become historic, and passes as authentic. canon charles kingsley was the chief illusionist in this matter. he wrote: "on the 10th of april, the government had to fill london with troops, and put the duke of wellington in command, who barricaded the bridges and downing street, and other public buildings."* nobody "had" to do what kings-ley relates. nine years had elapsed since any one had taken the field against the government, and that was in a welsh town 147 miles away. john frost and his tiny band of followers were the insurgents. all were put down in twenty minutes by a few soldiers. frost came to london in 1839 to consult james watson, henry hetherington, richard moore, william lovett, and other responsible chartists, whom he most trusted. they besought frost to abandon his idea of an attack upon newport, as no one would support him. there were no arms in london on april, 1848, no persons were drilled, no war organisation existed, and no intention of rising anywhere. the government knew it, for they had spies everywhere. they knew it as well or better in 1848 than in 1839. for nine years john frost had then been in penal servitude, and no one had attempted to imitate him. nor had he any followers in london in 1848. at his trial no noblemen, no aristocratic ladies, crowded the court to cheer him by their sympathy, or mitigate his sentence by their influence—as they did when dr. jameson and others were on trial for their wanton and murderous raid on the government of south africa. such is the difference between the insurgency of poverty seeking redress, and the insurgency of wealthy insolence seeking its further aggrandisement there was absolutely nothing in the field against the duke of wellington in london but a waggon, on which a monster petition was piled.
* introduction to "alton locke," by thomas hughes.
politically speaking, london has seen no tamer day than the 10th of april, 1848. there was less ground for alarm than when a lord mayor s procession passes through the city. the procession of actual chartists, able to leave their work to join it, could never have amounted to four thousand. there was not a single weapon among them, nor any intention of using it had they possessed it. there was only one weapon known to be in london, in the hands of the chartists, and that was a colonel macerone's spear, fabricated in 1830, to assist in carrying the first reform bill. that was hidden up a chimney in 3, queen's head passage, paternoster row. it came into my possession, and i have often shown it to members of the government to convince them what risks society ran in wellington's days—and are exposed to still.
the chartists had held a convention in london the week before the 10th, and were unable to obtain any place of meeting except a small social institution in john street, tottenham court road, which could not seat 150 persons at the convention table. the hall was lent to them by the most pacific body of politicians in london—the followers of robert owen. yet mr. thomas hughes adopted and authenticated kingsley's incredible belief, that the country was in danger of these earnest but entirely impotent chartist petitioners; and mr. hughes actually quotes believingly in his introduction to "alton locke" a statement that: "the duke of wellington declared in the house of lords that no great society had ever suffered as london had during the proceeding, while the home secretary telegraphed to all the chief magistrates of the kingdom the joyful news that the peace had been kept in london."*
* prefatory memoir of kingsley's works, by thomas hughes,
p. 13.
never did the craziest despotic government in europe engage in such a political imposture. it was pitiable that the duke of wellington should have had no more self-respect than to compromise his great career by fortifying london against an imaginary enemy. the government had plentiful information and must have known the truth—the contrary of what they alleged.
it may be said in extenuation of these affected ministerial terrors, that the parisian revolution of that year had communicated unrest to the people of england. it had inspired them with pleasure, but not with insurgency, for which they were as uninclined as they were unprepared, and none knew this better than the duke of wellington. the parisian population had seen military service. they understood the use of arms, had them, and knew how to settle their differences at the barricade. london had never seen a barricade. the people were all unused to arms, and were without the means or the knowledge to storm a police station. yet, according to canon kingsley, wellington told the government "that no capital had gone through such days as england had on the 10th of april," when no man was struck—no man was killed—no riot took place anywhere. it would seem that ignorance, rashness, wildness, and irresponsible language are by no means peculiar to the working classes. we must cease to wonder at the duke of wellington when an accredited publicist like judge thomas hughes, who was educated at rugby, could tell the world himself that "it is only by an effort that one can realise the strain to which the nation was subjected."
on that awful day, nobody was reported as found looking into a shop window with a predatory glare in his eyes, and no account came up from the provinces that a single chartist was observed to peep over a hedge in a menacing manner.
i was out on the 10th of april. on sunday, the night before, i was the lecturer at john street the audience was composed largely of delegates to the dreadful convention that so perturbed the "iron duke."
my advice to them, published at the time, was to "beware of the police," and not to strike again if they were struck. many of them, i knew, were willing to die for their country, if that would save it. they would serve it much better by dying without resistance, than dying with it. if any were killed whilst walking in the procession their comrades should move quietly on. nothing would tell more strongly on public opinion than such heroic observance of order. hetherington, one of the bravest who walked in the ranks, told me he would do it. the government, by their ostentatious provocation, in garrisoning the bank with soldiers, crowding somerset house with them, parading troops on clerkenwell green, had brought, it is computed, more than two millions of persons into the streets. the conclusion to which the chartist leaders came, was that the government wanted to create a conflict, shoot down a number of the people, and then proclaim to europe that they had "saved society," by murder, as one of their chief special constables did soon after in paris.
as i had been personally associated with all the chief chartists, in prison and out, from the beginning of the movement, i can speak with some knowledge of them on that day.
on the morning of the 10th of april, mr. c. d. collet, the well-informed secretary of the people's charter union, myself, richard moore, and others, organised a band of forty persons, who were to distribute themselves over london, note-book and pencil in hand, in the character of reporters. the police took kindly to us, and gave us good positions of advantage, where we could see everything that took place thereabouts, and even protected us from being incommoded. we were there to watch the police, not the people, as the disorder, if there were any, would come from them. my station was in bridge street, blackfriars, where a row of constables was drawn up. i found a coarse, plethoric alderman, going from man to man, saying only three words: "strike hard to-day."
the people behaved admirably. not a blow was struck which gave a colourable ground for outrage on the part of the police. in justice to the police, it ought to be said, neither did they incite disorder.
at night the home secretary spent the money of the state, in telegraphing to all the mayors in the land "the day had passed off quietly," thus creating a false terror everywhere that london had been in danger—danger of the government's creating.
the bull ring riots in birmingham in 1839, when i was resident there, were created entirely by the magistrates, who introduced a hundred london policemen into the town, which led to the loss of life and property.
i and others on the deputation to mr. walpole told him at the time, when the railings were broken down in hyde park, that if he made a show of soldiers and policemen, people were sure to be killed. at the peril of his own reputation, he kept them out of sight, and no disorder took place, though violent members of the government tried to destroy mr. walpole for his wise and noble forbearance. dean stubbs, in his interesting book on charles kingsley, says (p. 97): "on the 10th of april, 1848, a revolution was threatened in england. one hundred thousand armed men were to meet on kennington common and thence to march on westminster, and there to compel, by physical force, if necessary, the acceptance of the people's charter by the houses of parliament." could such a lunatical statement be written by any one, and his friends not procure a magistrate's order for his removal to the nearest asylum? how were the "hundred thousand" to get the arms into london—if they had them. whence were they to procure them? where could they store them, seeing that at that time there was not a single place of chartist meeting that was not known to be in debt, unless its rent was paid by the charity of some well-to-do sympathiser? what were muskets or pikes to do against the stone walls of the houses of parliament or the bank? how were cannon to be drawn from the centre of london to kennington common with ample service of powder and shot? marvellous is the history which churchmen can write!
the utterly groundless and incredible representations of the "10th april," which charles kingsley and thomas hughes published, as we have seen, were to my amazement resuscitated as late as 1902 for the historic instruction of the students of the working mens college in great ormond street, london, by mr. r. p. lichfield, vice-principal of the college, who for forty-seven years has rendered it important service, for which all friends of education for workmen are grateful. yet in his address to the students (october 1, 1902), he tells them that in 1848 "the wave of democracy which swept over europe gave fresh impetus to the chartist agitation. on the memorable 10th of april it looked as if we were to have a revolutionary outbreak on the parisian pattern. this we were saved from, partly by an army of volunteers, special constables, partly by the duke of wellington's discreet placing of his troops.... the attempt to overawe parliament by a 'physical force' demonstration was a fiasco." the world knows a good deal of historians who draw upon their imagination for their facts, but here is a responsible teacher, drawing upon his terrors of fifty years ago, for statements which nobody believes now or believed then, who knew the facts. the duke of wellington's great name in war imposed upon amateur politicians. the duke—contrary to his reputation for military veracity—readily lent himself to the government of that day, that they might figure before the country as the deliverers of england, from the nation-shaking assault of a miscellaneous crowd of penniless and unarmed combatants, who had neither cannon nor commissariat. everybody was aware that the knowledge of the iron duke, outside war, was very limited, and his political credulity was unbounded. at the end of the peninsular war he wrote to the government of that day, informing them "the bankers of paris were furnishing large sums to revolutionists in england." only old residents in bedlam would believe that. there were no leaders of revolutionists in england, to whom the money could be assigned or consigned, and bankers were the last persons in the world to subscribe money for a wild, speculative, and uncertain enterprise. no spy of pitt, or sid-mouth, would have sent home so insane a report, from fear of instant dismissal from their sinister employment.
this is but a sample of the airy, false, and fictionary foundation on which the legend of the tenth of april was built. these incidents of historic perversion, though bygones of half a century ago, are worth remembering.