uring district, and all
employments, except harvesting and the production of food, came to a
standstill. But the rebellious operatives were quiet. They were driven
into this revolt without wishing it. The manufacturers, with the single
exception of the Tory Birley, in Manchester, had, _contrary to their
custom_, not opposed it. The thing had begun without the working-men's
having any distinct end in view, for which reason they were all united in
the determination not to be shot at for the benefit of the Corn Law
repealing bourgeoisie. For the rest, some wanted to carry the Charter,
others who thought this premature wished merely to secure the wages rate
of 1840. On this point the whole insurrection was wrecked. If it had
been from the beginning an intentional, determined working-men's
insurrection, it would surely have carried its point; but these crowds
who had been driven into the streets by their masters, against their own
will, and with no definite purpose, could do nothing. Meanwhile the
bourgeoisie, which had not moved a finger to carry the alliance of
February 10th into effect, soon perceived that the working-men did not
propose to become its tools, and that the illogical manner in which it
had abandoned its law-abiding standpoint threatened danger. It therefore
resumed its law-abiding attitude, and placed itself upon the side of
Government as against the working-men.
It swore in trusty retainers as special constables (the German merchants
in Manchester took part in this ceremony, and marched in an entirely
superfluous manner through the city with their cigars in their mouths and
thick truncheons in their hands). It gave the command to fire upon the
crowd in Preston, so that the unintentional revolt of the people stood
all at once face to face, not only with the whole military power of the
Government, but with the whole property-holding class as well. The
working-men, who had no especial aim, separated gradually, and the
insurrection came to an end without evil results. Later, the bourgeoisie
was guilty of one shameful act after another, tried to whitewash itself
by expressing a horror of popular violence by no means consistent with
its own revolutionary language of the spring; laid the blame of
insurrection upon Chartist instigators, whereas it had itself done more
than all of them together to bring about the uprising; and resumed its
old attitude of sanctifying the name of the law with a shamelessne
|