Richard and Charles
In the turbulent years of the early part of the nineteenth
century, two men found themselves caught up in the controversies of the period.
One achieved national fame whilst the other remained resolutely rooted in his
native West Riding. They found themselves on the same side over some matters
and at vehemently opposing each other over others. One was a Tory and Anglican, the other a Whig
entrepreneur. Between them they encapsulated the politics of the era.
Richard Oastler was born in Leeds
at the end of 1789 to Robert and Sarah Oastler, the youngest of eight
children. As a teenager, Robert (born 1748)
had adopted Methodism and maintained this faith over the next 50 years. His
faith created a rift with his father that resulted in him moving to his uncle’s
household in Thirsk. It was 25 years before Robert returned to his native Leeds where he developed a profitable business as a cloth
merchant. Leeds at the time was in the
vanguard of the industrialisation of the cloth industry. Robert and Sarah spent
much energy in ‘good works,’ including their children in visiting the poor and
the sick and thus inculcating in them a sense of service to others that was
predicated on their Christian beliefs. It was this concern for others that made
Robert abandon his business as he could not reconcile the way in which the
increasing use of machinery in woollen cloth making was ‘an oppression of the poor.’ This strong conviction in the
imperative of caring for others and opposition to the mechanisation of weaving
were beliefs that Richard inherited.
In early adulthood, Richard first wanted to become a
lawyer but his father prohibited this. His next choice was architecture and he
was apprenticed to a Wakefield
architect for four years until an eye infection caused him to abandon this
profession as well. He then developed a successful business as a merchant in Leeds .
Whilst in Wakefield ,
he found a cause to champion. In the election of 1807, he supported William
Wliberforce who campaigned to abolish the slave trade, a cause that chimed with
Richard’s upbringing both at home and at the Moravian School Leeds he immersed himself in
good works along with Michael Saddler and Joseph Dickinson. When a typhoid
epidemic struck the town, these three and others went into the dwellings of
those with the disease to nurse them. It was through this experience he
realised the reality of the precarious life of the poor but his response was
religious rather than political. Indeed he joined a local force to maintain law
and order in Leeds when social unrest
threatened.
Richard married Mary Tatham of Nottingham
in 1816 and for two years they prospered. Then a series of misfortunes befell
them. Early in 1819 their daughter died a few days after her birth and the
tragedy was repeated with their son and second child in December. Then in 1819
during one of the many recessions of the century, Richard became bankrupt. He
managed to pay his creditors and then quit business life completely.
A year later, he succeeded his father as steward to Thomas
Thornhill, owner of Fixby Hall and its estate. Thornhill was the eighteenth
male to own the property although he lived in Norfolk and had not visited his Fixby
property for over 10 years. Robert had been fortunate to secure the position
when he ceased his business activities and the same fortune favoured Richard. From
this time Richard’s concern for the poor became increasingly aligned with the
nostalgia for a passing age. Industrialisation had been a source of unease to
Robert and the upheaval it caused to the established order exercised Richard
greatly. As steward, Richard managed the estate business and so had regular
contact with farmers and labourers.
Charles Pitchforth was born in 1795 to Solomon and Mercy
(Crowther) and so was a few years younger than Richard Oastler. Solomon had
inherited Shawlaith Farm on Elland Edge between Elland and Rastrick from his
father, James, and this was Charles’ childhood home. Charles married well (to
Elizabeth Hanson) and moved into Boothroyd House near Rastrick that had been in
his wife’s family for generations. Charles’ father had embraced the
industrialisation that the Oastlers abhorred and built up a substantial
portfolio of property that included land, mines, quarries and mills. This
portfolio was inherited by Charles and his three brothers but within a few
years two of them had relinquished involvement in its management to Charles and
his brother Abraham. Charles and Abraham embraced the new age whole heartedly and
grew rich; they sunk coal mines and quarried “Elland Flags” in from their land
on Elland Edge. They owned both mills where they were the producers and mills
that they leased to others. They leased and sold land to the railway and canal
companies. From the 1850s they were instrumental in bringing gas to Elland.
They were members of the civic forums of the Elland and Rastrick and both were
churchwardens of their local church. In all the public records of elections
Charles and Abraham voted for Whig candidates.
Thus in almost every aspect of political and social life,
Charles and Richard were opposites. Yet the first time they are recorded
together, they were on the same side. In 1827 a new vicar was appointed to the
parish of Halifax .
Halifax was no
ordinary parish: it had two parochial chapels that were virtually autonomous
and ten chapels of ease. The term chapel does not indicate the size of the
church building which were, in the Halifax
parish, large churches. At this time,
clergy were paid through tithes which were categorised as greater (rectorial)
tithes, the product of the arable fields and value of stock, and lesser
(vicarial) tithes, raised from labour and minor produce i.e. from the tenant
farmers and weavers. Previous vicars of Halifax
had never demanded their lesser tithes, so it was a surprise to all when the
new vicar, Charles Musgrave, having preached his first sermon as vicar of Halifax , retreated to his other parish to consider the
tithes of Halifax .
On 1st September 1827, he wrote to the
‘principal proprietors’ of the parish inviting them to meet him when he would
explain the results of his deliberations about which he had sought the advice
of the ‘highest legal authorities in London .’
Those who received the letter did not think it too significant as only 20 or so
attended but those present quickly realised the enormity of the vicar’s demands
and so the Churchwardens of each chapel were asked to nominate delegates.
Richard Oastler represented Fixby and Charles Pitchforth was nominated for
Rastrick. Much of detail of the saga come from a long account written by
Oastler so is very biased. However, William White in his 1837 directory stated
that “The present vicar, after his induction, in 1827, had a long war with his
parishioners, respecting the rights and interests of the living.”
The vicar’s party set out his claim to the tithes whilst
not wanting to give details of what was being claimed. Oastler extracted the
list that included: every 10th day of milk from the cows and a tenth
share of produce. Later that day the value of the claim being made became
evident as the vicar let it be known that if he was promised £1500 per year, he
would be happy to settle. In the afternoon the delegates of Fixby (including
Oastler) and Fixby (including Pitchforth) went to the vicarage to seek clarification.
They suggested that the parish would find the required amount provided the
Vicar let the matter rest. The vicar replied that he was not prepared to
‘receive a gratuity from his parishioners’ and would not place himself before
them ‘in forma pauperis.’ Other vicars, he told them, had pursued their tithe
entitlement and been successful and his other parish had settled with him with
no one complaining. Further, his brother knew Oastler’s employer and the vicar
was sure that Thornhill would agree to his claims. So the meeting broke up with
the vicar rejecting the offer.
Oastler got to work on his township of Fixby Halifax said he had calculated the total to
be nearer £12,000. Whether £12,000 or £35,000, these were enormous sums of
money. So a settlement of £1500 (worth about £75,000 in 2010) would seem
eminently reasonable.
The other delegates were asked for the opinion in their
townships. One by one they said the same thing, they would resist. The Skircoat
delegate, Goodall, caught the mood of the times when he said that the vicar’s
claim to one tenth of the net profit on all corn ground “was a property tax on
the miller.” The Sowerby delegate spoke eloquently of the hardships being
endured as a result of the “panic in the markets. “ Halifax was in the vanguard of the
industrialisation that was accelerating, with many non-conformist churches were
opening. At the same time laws requiring anyone holding civil or military office to be a member of the established
church were repealed and within ten years the church would lose
control of births marriages and deaths. Yet the vicar was seeking to derive his income
from everyone in the parish, through a form of taxation designed hundreds of
years previously.
The vicar now tried a different tack. His solicitor wrote
to a number of Halifax
gentlemen inviting them to a private meeting that excluded the delegates. The
gentlemen considered that the current income was insufficient to support
properly ‘the vicar’s important position in the parish’ and resolved that some
of them should meet the vicar to see if he would agree jointly to seek an Act
of Parliament to commute the tithes and Easter offerings ‘on receiving the
annual sum of …‘ But what sum? The gentlemen left this vital detail blank. This
group who met the vicar and his solicitor bargained from £1500 (the gentlemen)
and £2500 (the vicar) to a compromise of £2000. The vicar agreed and hardly was
the ink was dry, than the vicar had ridden to the Archbishop to get his
agreement
When the delegates of the townships met on the 10th
October, they were presented with a situation that appeared to be a fait
accompli and they decidedly unhappy. Although Christopher Rawson of Halifax and Mr Swallow of
Warley offered a resolution to accept the proposal, the majority thought they
only had powers to oppose, not negotiate. Richard Oaslter told the meeting that
he was instructed by his employer, Thornhill, to oppose the vicar, an order
that he agreed with. He said that he and Thornhill had ‘no wish to go
petitioning Parliament to let us off’ before launching a vitriolic attack of
those of ‘the vicar’s party’ whilst exonerating the vicar himself. By
comparison, Charles Pitchforth’s way with words was far more limited and his
manner probably much rougher. He asked about the land that the vicar owned in
the townships where enclosure had already been completed. Was this part of the
deal? One of the ‘Halifax gentlemen’ who had joined the meeting answered that
the enclosure acts only dealt with tithes, not the Easter offerings, before
strongly advocating the proposition. ’Is the vicar to have the land already
allotted to him?’ asked Pitchforth a second time, finally extracting an
unequivocal answer of ‘undoubtedly.’ With few words, Pitchforth had opened yet
another can of worms: if the vicar had never received the tithes, why had he
gained land in the enclosed townships? This could only be in lieu of the Easter
offerings and so these townships should not pay any annual contribution.
At another point, Oastler, attacking the vicar’s party, spoke
of duplicity and underhand proceedings (why had Halifax not sent delegates when they had
attended the meeting of gentlemen in great numbers?) When Oastler listed the
key features including the sum of £2000, Pitchforth interrupted him to say that
he was partly to blame since he had definitely heard the vicar say he would
take £1500. Pitchforth had clearly misunderstood the other’s broader argument. The
meeting became a series of proposals and amendments and when an amendment was
proposed by Turner (Warley delegate) that “the claim of the vicar be resisted”
Pitchforth seconded it. This disappeared amongst the many others and a little
later Oastler presented a set of resolutions. Turner proposed to withdraw his
earlier suggestion and adopt Oastler’s resolutions and again Pitchforth
seconded. Pitchforth seemed to have decided his own mind and was prepared to
second any motion that he thought would get the outcome he desired. Oastler was
playing a long game as he said the resolutions could not be adopted as he had
not proposed them! Rather they should form the discussion at the next meeting.
The meeting was clearly going around in circles so the chairman repeated the
first resolution but again Oastler’s set were ‘pressed on the meeting.’ Finally
they all agreed to adjourn.
The next meeting of the delegates on 24th
October was bad tempered from the start. Oastler wanted to ensure that only
delegates voted, a proposal that was seconded by Pitchforth. (Had they spoken
about this between the meetings?) This was because the Halifax delegates had said they weren’t
really delegates as nobody had delegated them. One, Mr Stocks, took offence and
an exchange laced with sarcasm between Stocks and Oastler ensued. Oastler said
he was a novice in public business and Stocks offered to teach him. Oastler
hoped he would be a good scholar, at which point the chairman intervened.
The chairman read the paper that the Halifax gentleman had produced. “Is this
communication now a motion before the meeting?” asked Oastler. “Oh no,” replied
the chairman, “merely a reminder.” Oastler responded by another speech in which
he again attacked members of the vicar’s party and their methods, including
denigrating the delegates as “a parcel of trash” before describing the mood of
the Thornhill and the Fixby residents who rejected the vicar’s claim outright,
both the principle and the detail. Finally Oastler presented a set of 18
resolutions.
Charles Rawson of Halifax described himself as an intruder
on the meeting (i.e. not a delegate) and said he opposed the vicar but thought
it best if an agreement could be reached as this would preserve the peace of
the parish, remove the burden of Easter Offering from the poor and secure the
services of the worthy vicar. Pitchforth retorted that “if the gentlemen of Halifax think they have
so excellent a vicar, they ought to pay him themselves and not throw his
maintenance on the other townships who derive no benefit from his services.” Norris
in seconding Raswon’s amendment took issue with Oastler on the motive of the Halifax gentlemen, saying
their proposal was merely a suggestion to help the delegates and refuted the
claim of denigration. Back came Oastler, commenting that for a mere suggestion,
it had got the support of important players, especially the Archbishop. But
Oastler would not quibble; he would give up the term agreement and substitute
“unwarrantable interference!”
At this point, the chairman asked the delegates to say
what their townships had instructed them to say. Apart from Halifax , only Skircoat and Soyland delegates
had been instructed to seek a compromise. All the other 15 townships were
‘decidedly opposed.’ It was clear, said the chairman that an amicable agreement
was not likely and suggested that the best course was to let the matter rest
until it could be considered more coolly. Pitchforth was having none of this
commenting that if they delayed, there would never be an end to the matter.
The meeting now started voting on the first of Oastler’s
resolutions which was inflammatory: “the manner in which the sum of £2000 was
adopted” was “a direct insult on the Parish and intended to divide.” Instead it
had produced a determination “to bind ourselves with a bond that shall never be
broken.” As he read out the resolution Oastler could not resist another
sideswipe at one of the Halifax gentlemen who had reportedly claimed that they
would carry the Act whatever the opinion of the parish and the inhabitants
would be made to pay £2000 per year. Yet another heated exchange followed.
Oastler was getting into his stride and when the chairman said he thought the
resolution too harsh, Oastler said it was before the meeting and should be
voted on. Disagreement between the Halifax
gentlemen surfaced, revelations about how the sum of £2000 was reached at the
vicarage and irrelevant comments about the value of stone were made. Oastler
repeated the word “trash” and the refutations came again. The chairman tried to
put an end to this bickering and Oastler triumphantly withdrew the resolution
in the light of the “delightful exposure and confession that has now taken
place.” Clearly this was a man who needed teaching about public business!
So the meeting now only had 17 resolutions to vote on!
They started voting on each but by the fourth vote, the delegates were in
danger of losing the will to live and voted on the rest as a whole. Nobody
dissented but after the voting the Halifax
‘delegates’ disclaimed having any part in the resolutions.
Oastler had got his mandate to set up a central committee
to fight the vicar and to levy the townships to fund the fight. Oastler,
through his organisational and more particularly his rhetorical skills deftly
held the townships together and ultimately triumphed. The vicar was forced to
accept £1450 per year and the deal was enshrined in Law in 1829.
Ten years would pass before Charles Pitchforth and Richard
Oastler appeared together again in the press. This time they were on opposite
sides of the Poor Law reform debate. For Oastler, the established order
demanded that the poor were looked after in their own homes and their betters
had a responsibility towards them. For Whigs such as Pitchforth, the poor were
victims of their own behaviour. Oastler with his usual fervour and zeal spoke
and organised protests in the area.
At a meeting at Rastrick where Pitchforth was church
warden and a poor law guardian, letters between him and the governor of the
workhouse at Thetford in Norfolk
were read. Charles had written to enquire of the governor, Mr Gardener, whether
Oastler’s account of his visit there was accurate. The account had been printed
in The London Dispatch and People's Political and Social Reformer. Pitchforth
told Gardener that Oastler was “using his utmost endeavours to prejudice the labouring
class in this part against the Poor Law Amendment Act” and was after
ammunition.
Oastler sent a response to Gardener’s letter to the London
Despatch refuting each of his accusations
of inaccuracy. He employed his usual invective against Pitchforth who was “very
naughty to inform Mr G that I am using my utmost to prejudice the labouring
class” Oastler protested that he was endeavouring to “persuade people of all
classes of the iniquity of the Act.” Pitchforth, Oastler averred, never reasons
on the subject, merely he says “it is the law, mark that,”, “buys books but
never says he has read them,” “fancies he is very wise, but has the most
unhappy method of communicating wisdom” and has an “unconquerable aversion to
being hissed at.” Ouch!
Oastler had cornered Pitchforth at the meeting when the
latter attempted to “back out of that tale of his about Mr Power and separation”
but Oastler had prevented this by asking the assembly if any had heard him to
which they replied “yes we did.” Oastler clearly took no prisoners and
Pitchforth was no match for a man like Oastler. (Separating men from women and
children was a cornerstone of the workhouse. Oastler objected because, he said,
it was contrary to God’s law to separate married couples.) Oastler was scathing
of Gardner who informed Pitchforth that Oastler had “acted as a gentleman”
whilst in Norfolk ,
saying that “Mr. Pitchforth is sometimes in my company, and needed no such
information.” Although Oastler is using his letter to the London Despatch to
show that Gardner
is being disingenuous in his account of Oastler’s visit, Oastler repeatedly ridicules
Pitchforth by ending his many of his ripostes with “Mark that, Pitchforth.”
In these two episodes when Oastler and Pitchforth’s paths
crossed, we have a glimpse of how men (and it was nearly always men) were
active in local politics and how these politics were conducted. Particpants
were not averse to using strong sentiments when disagreeing with each other. Letters
were written to the papers that attacked individuals and the individuals wrote
to defend themselves. It was a time when men of business were men who engaged
in local and national affairs with a passion that is not often evident today!
Sources
Vicarial Tithes, Halifax :
a true statement of facts and incidents. By Richard Oastler, http://books.google.co.uk
Tory Radical: The Life Of Richard Oastler (1946) Cecil
Driver http://www.archive.org/details/toryradicaltheli009087mbp
A note about income sources for the church
Tithes were based on the land and the people.
Traditionally a tenth of the produce of the land, they were based on
agriculture. Tithes were divided into greater (rectorial) tithes, the product
of the arable fields and value of stock, and lesser (vicarial) tithes, raised
from labour and minor produce i.e. the day labourers and cottagers.
Tithes were gradually replaced by allocation of land which
was rented out.
Surplice Fees are fees paid to clergy for conducting
services such as marriages and baptisms
Mortuary Fees were paid for burial and in pre-reformation
times for the saying of prayers for the souls of the dead.
Easter Offering: the money given by parishioners at the
Easter Day services
The income was not simply for the Vicar’s personal use.
These fees would cover the cost of maintaining the chancel part of the church,
to pay employees (sexton, clerk, etc.) and provide for the church services.
No comments:
Post a Comment