The Captain Swing Riots of 1830 are the working class rebellion
which has been (almost) completely forgotten.
From late Summer through to December of that year there was violence against property and threats made against farmers and members of the gentry on a mass scale as the culmination of anger, pain and hopelessness which had been growing over the previous decade.
Exploding initially in Kent (rather like the Peasants Revolt of 500 years earlier) the level of outrages expanded as they rolled, almost like a movement, westwards and northward. The name Swing was adopted from a signature which appeared on a threatening letter in the Canterbury area.
‘Swing’ proved to be a powerful, flexible title. (The title ‘Captain’ was added a little later to reflect traditions elsewhere – notably ‘General Ludd’ from the Luddite Riots of almost two decades earlier.
On the one hand ‘Swing’ carried with it a threat of execution by hanging but it also embodied the idea of threshing – one of the principal activities which kept agricultural labourers in paid employment during the Autumn months and which was disappearing with the introduction into the southern counties of threshing machines. (They had been in use in the Midlands and the north for several decades to replace the labourers who had quit for the industrial towns).
Indeed, threshing machine proved to be one of the biggest targets for destruction by the Swing Rioters and were so from the beginning. Along with ‘riotous assembly the charge of destroying threshing machines was one of the most common charges that the Swing Rioters faced when eventually brought to court.
The pace at which the riots spread from one area to another convinced the authorities that some kind of manipulation or orchestration was going on. There was indeed a belief in London by the Government that Captain Swing was a real
character – maybe a dastardly foreigner, probably French, or someone like the radical journalist William Cobbett whose writings were blamed by the Establishment for having stirred up the violence.
In fairness, many rioters did blame Cobbett for having induced them to leave their fields and join a mob based on reading his Twopenny Trash or Weekly Political Register. In response Cobbett would argue that all he did was point to the workers’ legitimate grievances – he did not suggest they should take up arms (or as more often the case large hammers) to commit destruction.
Instead, as might be expected, once a violent or rowdy atmosphere developed there were often ring-leaders who emerged to direct the action.
Along with the destruction of threshing machines, there was the burning of ricks and inevitably this spilled over into
intimidation and demands for money. Here it became something of a grey area since the negotiation of wage increases could often be something of a confrontation in any case. The difference was that in the swing context, it was often accompanied by a violent atmosphere and the gathering of hundreds of men. And often when sovereigns were demanded
the crowd went straight off to spend the money on drink in the local public house.
