They held that private ownership of land was unchristian, and advocated ‘parochial partnership.’ They met weekly at one or other of four London taverns, the chief of which was the Cock in Grafton Street, Soho.

In spite of the alarmist reports of the secret committees of the two houses of parliament in 1817, the Spenceans were very harmless as a body, and not only never had provincial branches, but, as Evans told Francis Place, at no time numbered more than fifty persons.

The peace of 1815 was followed by great distress and discontent among the labouring population, and of this some of the Spenceans, including the Watsons (father and son) and Arthur Thistlewood, constituted themselves exponents.

It was proposed that this should take place after the assembling of parliament in the following February; but young Watson opposed this, and it was agreed that the second meeting should be held on 2 December.

Placards were printed and posted in London summoning workmen to attend, and declaring that there were ‘four million in distress.’ Hunt's petition was not received, and he himself contrived to be late for the meeting on 2 December.

He spoke from a waggon, and concluded, ‘Ever since the Norman conquest kings and lords have been deluding you … but this must last no longer.’ His son succeeded in a much more violent strain, with allusions to African slaves and Wat Tyler and a personal attack upon the regent.

He was arrested, but escaped after having lain concealed for some months in a house in Bayham Street belonging to his father's friend, Henry Holl, an actor.

A plan of the Tower and of the contemplated operations was found at Watson's new lodgings at Dean Street, Fetter Lane, as well as a list of a ‘committee of public safety,’ which contained the names of Sir Francis Burdett, Lord Cochrane, Major Cartwright, Hunt, and other radicals.

For the crown the chief law officers, Sir Samuel Shepherd and Sir Robert Gifford (afterwards first Baron Gifford) testified to the comparative moderation of the elder Watson, who briefly disclaimed having had any intention whatever against ‘the form of government established by king, lords, and commons.’ In spite of an able reply by the solicitor-general, and the summing up of Ellenborough in favour of the prosecution, the jury brought in a verdict of ‘not guilty.’ The prosecution of the remaining prisoners was then dropped.

Legal authorities held that had Watson and his associates been indicted merely for riot, they must have been convicted; but the government, it was thought, desired something on which they could ground the repressive measures which they soon afterwards passed.

In Place's opinion, which appears to be borne out by other considerations, the mob were ‘a contemptible set of fools and miscreants, whom twenty constables could have dispersed.’ Watson was ‘a half-crazy creature,’ and his son ‘a wild, profligate fellow as crazy as his father.’ The elder was, he adds, a man of loose habits and wretchedly poor.

Watson and his friend Preston were in Bamford's opinion two of the most influential leaders of the London operative reformers of the day, though the first had a better heart than head.