The Peterloo Massacre - The Aftermath of Peterloo

The Aftermath of Peterloo

The Borough reeves and Constables of Manchester and Salford do hereby caution all the inhabitants to close their houses, shops, and warehouses, and to keep themselves and all persons under their control within doors, otherwise their lives will be in danger. Carts and all other carriages must be instantly moved from the streets, and other public roads.

11.00 a.m. 17^th August 1819 [1]

Clear-headed assessments in the aftermath of Peterloo were a long time coming and although it became known as the Peterloo Massacre, the events in and around St. Peter’s Field on 16^th August 1819 were regarded by both sides with a great deal of passion. The reformers were regarded with fear and suspicion by the establishment, and treated accordingly. This treatment resulted in further agitation which in turn led to increased repressive government reaction.

In the aftermath of Peterloo John Edward Taylor later reported that: ‘on the 17^th of August, which was Tuesday and consequently the principal market day in Manchester for cotton goods. One of the constables came upon the exchange about eleven o’clock, and in the utmost agitation ordered that the room should be closed, and declared the town and neighbourhood in a state of open rebellion. The following hand-bill was also partially posted, but soon afterwards it was rapidly pulled from the walls’:

The Boroughreeves and Constables of Manchester and Salford do hereby caution all the inhabitants to close their houses, shops, and warehouses, and to keep themselves and all persons under their control within doors, otherwise their lives will be in danger. Carts and all other carriages must be instantly moved from the streets, and other public roads.[2]

On the day of Peterloo Archibald Prentice and John Taylor on hearing that John Tyas had been arrested, had written detailed accounts of the “massacre” and swiftly dispatched them to London. Prentice says ‘our narratives appeared in print on the following day.’ These accounts were corroborated by John Tyas following his release from custody.[3] On 23^rd August 1819 a report in The Times declared, ‘Manchester now wears the appearance of a garrison, or of a town conquered in war.’ [4] On 24^th August 1819, The Times reported that on the 17^th a special constable was killed in the New Cross district of Manchester and that there were riots in both Stockport and Macclesfield that evening. ‘On the 20^th a mob in the New Cross district fought a pitched battle with the cavalry.’ [5] Another account appeared in The Times also on 24^th August describing the appalling conditions in the New Cross district:

It is occupied chiefly by spinners, weavers...its present situation is truly heart-rending and over-powering. The streets are confined and dirty; the houses are neglected, and the windows often without glass. Out of the miserable rags of the family...hung up to dry; the household furniture, the bedding, the clothes of the children and the husband were seen at the pawnbrokers.[6]

Meanwhile alarmed at the tone of the public opinion circulating in London after Peterloo, on 19^th August, a public meeting was hastily called at the Manchester police-office where the magistrates and the soldiers received thanks from grateful members of the loyalist public before adjourning to the Star Inn.[7]

After the Star Inn resolutions a Declaration of Protest was circulated by the local middle-class Radicals. The declaration was signed by 4,800 people, claiming that the meeting convened on the 19^th had been ‘‘strictly and exclusively private,’ without any right of a public town meeting. Instead of approving the proceeding at Peterloo, the signatories declared that the Reform Meeting on 16^th August at St Peter’s Field had been ‘ perfectly peaceable; that Riot Act, ‘if read at all, was read privately, or without the knowledge of a great body of the meeting.’ Therefore they expressed their ‘utter disapprobation of the unexpected and unnecessary violence by which the assembly was dispersed.’ [8]

Following the Declaration of Protest two meetings were called by the middle-class Radicals in Manchester. The first meeting approved the document. The second meeting established a Manchester subscription fund to relieve the Peterloo sufferers. Those attending this meeting appointed a committee to lead Manchester’s respectable reformers. These men included Edward Baxter, William Harvey, Archibald Prentice, Joseph Brotherton, John Taylor, John Shuttleworth and Richard Potter. Therefore the immediate effect of Peterloo was to encourage Manchester’s respectable reformers and to make use of the growing number of middle-class sympathisers who were outraged by Peterloo.[9]

Meanwhile on the 19^th August 1819 the Reverend Mr Hay travelled to Whitehall and later that day gave his account to members of the cabinet which included Lord Sidmouth the Home Secretary, the Duke of Wellington, Lord Castlereagh, Lord Vansittart and Lord Eldon.[10] The Home Secretary who was always nervously aware of the Government’s dependence on the magistrates in times of unrest wasted no time congratulating them.[11] On 27^th August he wrote to the Manchester magistrates, Major Trafford, and the military personnel serving under him conveying the Prince Regent’s thanks for:

The great satisfaction derived by his Royal Highness from their prompt, decisive and efficient measures for the preservation of the public peace.[12]

The fact that the Prince Regent approved this form of congratulation was completely in character; fears engendered by the French Revolution had made him terrified of any form of public disorder.[13]

In Manchester the Prince Regent’s complements were returned in a Tory “Address to the Prince Regent,” signed by about 1,400 citizens including magistrates, clergymen, bankers, merchants and tradesmen. The Address emphasised the dangerous temper in which the Radical reformers had made their preparations for “a formidable display...of the collective strength of the revolutionary cause,” and recalled “the universal consternation which prevailed amongst the loyal and peaceable inhabitants of these towns, when they beheld their street thus suddenly inundated by gathering crowds, from various counties, and from every part of the surrounding neighbourhood.” [14]

Robert Hyde Gregg the owner of Quarry Bank Mill in Styal, Cheshire and his wife’s cousin, Francis Philips, both witnessed the Peterloo Massacre in 1819.[15] Francis Philips was a cotton manufacturer and a prominent member of both the Pitt Club and Tory party. Soon after Peterloo Philips published An Exposure of the Calumnies circulated by the Enemies of Social Order and reiterated by their abettors Against the Magistrates and Yeomanry Cavalry of Manchester and Salford, (1819), defending the behaviour of the Manchester magistrates and the yeomanty cavalry at Peterloo. At the same time the Tory newspapers continued to make excuses for the Manchester authorities praising them and the military for their conduct.[16]

Although the promptness with which Sidmouth conveyed the Prince Regent’s congratulations to the yeomanry and the magistrates fuelled national public outrage.[17] In fact the action of the Government in sending its thanks before instigating an inquiry aroused an outburst from the middle-classes who would have never even considered going to the Peterloo meeting.[18] On 27^th August 1819 Richard Carlile wrote in The Republican :

The massacre of the unoffending inhabitants of Manchester, on the 16^th August, by Yeomanry Cavalry and Police, at the instigation of the Magistrates, should be a daily theme of the press, until the Murderers are brought to justice by the Law officers of the Crown.[19]

Soon afterwards Sir Francis Burdett presided over a large meeting in Westminster where a resolution was passed calling on the Prince Regent to order the prosecution of the Manchester magistrates involved. Protest meetings were held in many other towns but all attempts to bring the magistrates to account failed.[20]

After Peterloo the Regency Tories were still in command of the situation and saw themselves as the natural champions of law and order against the forces leading towards revolution and anarchy.[21]

Print commissioned and published Richard Carlile showing a sympathetic view of the reformers themselves.

Manchester library and Information Studies: Manchester Archives and Local Studies

On 25^th August 1819, William Hulton wrote to Lord Sidmouth informing him that there were 71 injured persons being treated at the Manchester Infirmary. Hulton added at the end of his letter that he and the Committee of Magistrates hoped that he would see this small number of casualties ‘as a proof of the extreme forbearance of the military in dispersing an assemblage of 30,000 people.’ [22]

Throughout Manchester and Lancashire, soon after Peterloo, there was talk of retaliation. The massacre was discussed in the public houses, chapels, churches, workshops and at home. Meanwhile Manchester was almost under martial law, due to rioting and rumours about people marching in military contingents from surrounding districts. Samuel Bamford later wrote of the ‘grinding of scythes and old hatchets…screw-drivers, rusty swords, pikes and mop-nails.’ [23] However, by the end of the month rumours of insurrection disappeared largely because of the overwhelming moral support the reformers received throughout the country.[24]

Demands for a public enquiry came from the four corners of the British Isles.[25] Nevertheless, despite these pressures, Lord Liverpool refused to hold an enquiry into the conduct of the magistrates, or into the behaviour of the yeomanry.[26] Instead the Government rejected demands for a full independent inquiry and adopted a policy of total support for the Manchester authorities ‘in the hope that the reports of the Yeomanry charging with sabres flashing into the peaceable demonstrators would soon pass from the public mind.’ [27] Lord Liverpool summed up the government’s attitude of qualified approval when he wrote to Lord Canning:

When I saw the proceedings of the magistrates of Manchester on the 16^th ult were justifiable, you will understand me as not by any means deciding that course which they pursed on that occasion was in all its parts prudent. A great deal might be said in their favour even on this head; but, whatever judgement might be formed in this respect, being satisfied that they were substantially right, there remained no alternative but to support them.[28]

Not only were demands for a parliamentary enquiry resolutely rejected. The Attorney and Solicitor Generals were ‘fully satisfied’ as to the ‘legality’ of the magistrates’ actions. In fact the Lord Chancellor Eldon was of ‘the clear opinion’ that the meeting ‘was an overt act of treason.’ Furthermore he believed that ‘a shocking choice between military government and anarchy lay ahead.’ State prosecutions against the victims of the day commenced at once. Although the Manchester magistrates had initiated the policy of repression at Peterloo Lord Liverpool’s Government endorsed it with every means at its disposal. For example Henry Hunt, John Cartwright, Sir Francis Burdett, Richard Carlile, Sir Charles Wolsley and James Wroe of the Manchester Observer were only a few of those imprisoned or awaiting prosecution by the end of 1819.[29]

In November 1819, The Official Papers Relative to the State of the Country, were published by the government and included a selection the various letters of the magistrates to the Home Office and some depositions. These Papers were carefully selected and published in order to prevent a parliamentary enquiry. The information Lord Liverpool later admitted in private: ‘may be laid safely, and much more advantageously, by the Government directly rather than through the medium of any committee.’[30] Nevertheless the newspapers kept the story going. The Manchester Gazette continued to discuss the meetings being held across the country in an attempt to have the ‘aggressors identified and punished.’ However, even when direct evidence could be produced against offenders the magistrates argued that there was not enough evidence to justify the issuing of arrest warrants.[31]

John Lees, a Waterloo veteran, was confined to a hospital bed for three weeks, before dying from the injuries inflicted by the Manchester Yeomanry at Peterloo. [32] However, the Oldham inquest upon John Lees was a ‘turbulent and ill conducted affair’ at which the radical reformers tried to furnish evidence leading to a verdict of ‘wilful murder’ against the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry. At the inquest at least nine witnesses testified to seeing the Yeomanry cut at the people in the crowd with their sabres, on their way to the hustings. One witness Jonah Andrew was questioned by the Coroner as follows:

Coroner: At what pace did they come?

Jonah Andrew, (cotton spinner), I think it was a trot. It was as fast as they could get, and the constables were making way for them.

Q. Did you see them striking any one?

A. Yes; I saw them striking as they come along, and they struck one person when they were about twenty yards from me…they squandered to the right and left before they came to me…

Q. Well: What then?

A. Why they began to cut and hack at the people like butchers.[33]

Another witness, Elizabeth Farren testified:

Coroner: Do you know anything of the death of John Lees?

Elizabeth Farren: No, I do not.

Q. Then why do you come here?

A. Because I was cut?

Q. Where were you cut?

A. On the forehead. (Here the witness raised her bonnet and cap, as also the bandage over her forehead, and exhibited a large wound not quite healed)

The Coroner: I don’t mean that, woman. Where were you at the time you were cut?

A. About thirty yards from the house where the Justices were, amongst the special constables.

Q. Were you cut as the Cavalry went to the hustings, or on their return?

A. I was cut as they were going to the hustings. I had with me this child, (shewing the child she held in her arms). I was frightened for its safety, and tried to protect it, held it close to my side with the head downward, to avoid the blow. I desired them to spare my child, and I was directly cut on my forehead.

Q. What passed then?

A. I became insensible. [34]

The counsel for the family of the deceased John Lees produced a number of other witnesses in support of their case. However, they were not allowed by the Coroner. On the other hand the counsel for the defence produced several witnesses including the Deputy Chief Constable, Joseph Nadin, who all contradicted the evidence.[35] Naturally this evidence was believed because the sympathy of the establishment had been demonstrated only a month after Peterloo. On 27^th September 1819 it was reported in The Times that a clerical magistrate had used his position on the Bench to address the accused as follows:

I believe you are a downright blackguard reformer. Some of you reformers ought to be hanged, and some of you are sure to be hanged-the rope is already round your necks.[36]

Radicals were angered by the obstruction of the John Lees inquest which was repeatedly adjourned and then finally discontinued in later in 1819 because of a technical irregularity. Apparently the coroner and the jury had not inspected the body at the same time however it became obvious that the coroner would have used any excuse to stop the inquest.[37]

After the John Lees inquest the focus then turned to Hunts trial along with the other organisers of the Peterloo meeting, which began at York on 16^th March 1820. They were all charged with ‘assembling with unlawful banners at an unlawful meeting for the purpose of citing discontent.’ The Manchester Gazette printed over 23 columns about the trial over the following three weeks. Finally however, Hunt and most of the radical leaders were convicted even after a ‘brilliant defence.’ [38]

By the end of 1820 the majority of the leaders of the reform movement were in prison, including Sir Francis Burdett, Henry Hunt and Thomas Wooler editor of the Black Dwarf. [39] On the other hand the Reverend Mr Hay was rewarded with a living of £2,400 a year for his services in ‘putting down’ the Reformers.[40] Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Lieutenant of the West Riding and one of the most respected of the Whig peers who called several country meetings in Yorkshire demanding an enquiry into Peterloo, was removed from his Lord-Lieutenancy for his part in protesting about the massacre.[41]

Lord Liverpool’s Government had no other remedy but further repression.[42] The Duke of Wellington feared that a full scale insurrection was imminent and there was a general agreement in Tory circles that the ‘right of assembly must be curtailed.’[43] An extraordinary session of Parliament was called to approve an increase in the strength of the Army by 10,000 men and to introduce the Six (Gagging) Acts of repression.[44] The Six Acts represented a political rather than an economic response to distress and disorder. The ruling classes were firmly opposed to any change in the form of government, and most were convinced that concessions to the people would open the way for revolution.[45]

The Governments first proposal was the Training Prevention Act, intended to prevent drilling and training of persons in the use of arms; the second the Seizure of Arms Act, which gave justices in certain counties the power to search for arms and to arrest persons found carrying them for purposes dangerous to the peace; the third the Misdemeanours Act, intended to prevent delay in the administration of justice through the practice of traversing; the fourth the Seditious Meetings Prevention Act, designed to prevent the great Radical meetings. This Act prohibited all public meetings of more than 50 persons. The last two the Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Act and the Newspaper Stamp Duties Act, were both intended to restrict the influence of the Radical Press.[46]

The Whigs offered no opposition to the Act preventing civilians taking part in para-military activities, but they opposed the other five Acts. Nevertheless, all Six Acts passed with a comfortable majority. The issues these Acts raised polarised parliament into two distinct parties, those for and those against, the Government’s suppression of radicals. Furthermore these divisions were not confined to parliament. English society as a whole was divided with petitions, mass meetings, and demonstrations being organised by both sides in the debate about the action taken by the Manchester authorities.[47] The Six Acts, passed in the winter of 1819, were no more than an inevitable outcome of the policy previously adopted by Lord Liverpool’s Government.[48]

There is no doubt that Lord Liverpool’s government in its determination to control the nation, created the most repressive regime in modern British history.[49] The only aspect of the working-class Radical organisation which parliament did not control was the Union Society network.[50] There is also no doubt that even after the passage of the Six Acts the work of the spies and agents provocateurs continued, as there were still active reformers whom they could dupe and betray. A major assault against the ‘seditious’ and ‘blasphemous’ press, began right away. This was followed by a number of prosecutions against newsvendors and publishers, which were largely instituted by private prosecuting societies secretly funded by the government.[51]

The year that followed Peterloo and the Six Acts, was the year that the Prince Regent succeeded to the throne as George IV and when the Cato Street conspiracy took place.[52] In the shocked aftermath of Peterloo the radicals themselves divided into two groups. On the one hand there were those like Hunt, who felt it was important to continue by lawful constitutional means and on the other the more aggressive group including men like Arthur Thistlewood who had been imprisoned after the Spa Fields riot and had finished his term in the autumn of 1819. He planned what came to be known as the Cato Street Conspiracy, a crazy scheme involving a plan not merely to assassinate the entire Cabinet but to attack the Tower of London, the Bank of England and even parliament.[53] On the night of 23^rd February 1820, acting on ‘information received,’ Bow Street officers and soldiers raided a stable, with rooms above, in Cato Street, a small back street running parallel to the Edgware Road in London. They surprised a group of men and found a quantity of arms. In the scuffle one police officer was run through with a sword and killed.[54]

The Cato Street Conspiracy gave Lord Liverpool’s Government the publicity it needed and Thistlewood’s trial was made public in order to demonstrate that there had been a ‘diabolical plot’ to start a ‘revolution’ by assassinating the entire Cabinet. In April 1820 Thistlewood and a four of his accomplices appeared at the Old Bailey. Thistlewood did not deny the charges but claimed the he was motivated by ‘concern for the welfare of his starving countrymen and indignation at such atrocities as Peterloo.’ [55] In response, the Manchester Gazette published an article making it clear that Manchester men had nothing to do with the party of extremists led by Arthur Thistlewood and his associates.[56] Thistlewood and four of his accomplices were hanged on the 1^st May 1820.[57]

On 15^th May 1821 Sir Francis Burdett made a speech in the House of Commons as follows:

The pretence of the people having carried arms to the meeting was utterly groundless; and to talk of having commenced the attack upon the armed soldiers, was, on the face of it, absurd and ridiculous. The people knew they had no means of repelling the attack. They thought they had assembled under the protection of the law.

The wretches who had perpetrated the massacre at Manchester were at the time in a state of intoxication. When they attacked sword in hand, the people fled, or attempting to fly, from the dreadful charge made upon them; but, to their horror and surprise, they found flight impracticable; for the avenues of the place were closed by armed men. On one side they were driven back at the point of the bayonet by the infantry; while on the other they were cut down by the yeomanry.

An idea might be formed of the violent and indiscriminate manner of the massacre, when it was known that this yeomanry, in their fury and blindness, actually cut down some of their own troops; for the constables on that occasion were armed, and some of them had fallen under the hoofs of the yeomanry.[58]

In April 1822 the campaign for justice after Peterloo continued with the trial of Redford v. Birley and others. Thomas Redford, wounded at Peterloo by a yeomanry sabre, began a civil action for assault against the yeomanry commander Hugh Hornby Birley, and three other yeomen ‘Withington, Meagher and Oliver.’ [59] However, unlike the John Lees inquest in Oldham Redford v. Birley was well organised. Thomas Redford’s ‘twenty-nine witnesses included; seven weavers, one fustian-cutter, one carver and gilder, two cotton manufactures, one pattern drawer, one Church of England clergyman the Reverend Stanley, one Unitarian minister, one Quaker surgeon, three gentlemen, one salesman, four journalists including John Tyas of the Times, Edward Baines from the Leeds Mercury, and John Smith of the Liverpool Mercury, one chemist, two householders with a house overlooking St Peter’s Field, and one member of the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry.’

In his defence Captain Birley called seventeen witnesses who included the Deputy Chief Constable Joseph Nadin, two of the Select Committee of Magistrates, William Hulton and the Reverend Mr Hay, ‘one merchant’s agent, one calico printer, one policeman, two lawyers, one gentleman, one farm steward, and at least six special constables.’ [60]

At the trial twenty nine of Redford’s witnesses swore that they did not see brickbats, stones or any other form of resistance by the crowd to the Yeomanry before they reached the hustings. In contrast, seventeen of Captain Birley’s witnesses swore that they did.[61] Finally, however, the jury accepted the defendant’s plea that the assault had been lawfully carried out in the ‘the dispersal of an unlawful assembly’ and all the charges against the defendants were dismissed. [62] To add insult to injury, the defendants, costs were paid by Lord Liverpool’s Government. Both Henry Hunt and the Manchester Observer claimed the trial was ‘little more than a sham.’ However, after Redford v. Birley the campaign for justice after Peterloo lost some of its momentum.[63]

Hugh Hornby Birley was promoted to the rank of Major was well rewarded for his service at Peterloo. He was also appointed as a magistrate and founded the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. Later on of course, he was appointed Deputy Lieutenant of the County Palatine of Lancashire.[64] In 1822 Birley’s public work was recognised by several presentations. For example his grandson, the Reverend Hugh H. Birley, of Leamington, describes two of these presentations, the first:

A beautifully engraved sword ‘made by Joseph H. Reddell Sword Cutler to His Majesty’s Hon. Board of Ordnance Balsall Armory near Birmingham.’ The date on the hilt is ‘March 10, 1822.’ The sword bears the following inscription:- Presented to Hugh Hornby Birley Esq Major Commandant of the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry Cavalry by the Non Commissioned officers and privates under his command in testimony of their esteem for him as a Soldier and a gentleman.

This was probably intended to show sympathy of the Yeomanry with Major Birley at the time of the case of Redford v. Birley. The second presentation was:

A valuable piece of plate inscribed:- Presented to Hugh Hornby Birley, Esq., by members of the Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures of Manchester and other gentlemen, in testimony of the high consideration in which they hold his invaluable services as President of that Institution from the period of its formation in the year 1821 until 1828. Manchester, Oct.[65]

The religious life in Manchester was to change dramatically after Peterloo as it became dominated by a policy of loyalty to the establishment. For example only a month after Peterloo the Anglican Sunday School Committee called a special meeting to organise measures ‘to prevent any of the Children from coming with White Hats or other Badges which are now used by the disloyal and disaffected as expression of their political sentiments.’ Moreover at the time of Peterloo most of the working-class Methodists in Manchester were strong supporters of Henry Hunt and the Radical Reform Movement. However, after Peterloo Wesleyan Methodists prohibited the wearing of Radical badges. This was part of their policy of demonstrating loyalty to the establishment under the scrutiny of Manchester’s ruling Anglican authorities. A year after Peterloo the Methodist Conference laid down a rule of non-association with the Radical Reformers. Methodists were instructed to follow their ‘occupations and duties in life in peaceful seclusion from all strife and tumults.’ As early as November 1819, the Methodist Committee of Privileges expressed its ‘strong and decided disapprobation of certain tumultuous assemblies which have lately been witnessed in several parts of the country.’ [66] A delegation of lay Methodists told a Manchester circuit superintendent during the aftermath of Peterloo ‘Methodist Preachers were as bad as the Church ministers in supporting the government.’ [67]

The Roman Catholic Church in Manchester after Peterloo adopted a similar policy to that of the Anglicans and Wesleyans. On the 30^th November 1819, the Manchester Mercury reported that ‘all association with the Radical Reformers was forbidden from the pulpit on pain of excommunication.’ However, the poverty-stricken Irish handloom weavers generally ignored this official policy largely due to the fact that the Radicals supported a programme of Catholic Emancipation and had helped them with their distress. In a similar manner the society of Quakers in Manchester also chose a policy of ‘loyalty’ after Peterloo. However, five days before Peterloo they had already dissociated themselves from a self-styled Quaker who had presided at a Radical Reform meeting at Leigh. The Manchester Observer declared its ‘surprise and disgust’ at their attitude. As a general rule none of the various churches suffered serious permanent losses to their congregations from defections to Radicalism.[68]

In the aftermath of Peterloo the great Radical popular movement which began in Lancashire in 1816 ended its days in gradual decline. What had been the first large-scale political movement of the new industrial working-class did not achieve its aim. [69] Manchester’s involvement in the reform movement reached its peak at Peterloo. However, Radical activity moved to the smaller textile towns like Accrington, Blackburn, Bolton, Burnley, Darwen, Oldham and Stockport whose communities had been radicalised by Peterloo.[70] For example, in 1826 following the severe depression of that year the power-loom riots broke out in these northern towns. On 24^th April rioting broke out in east Lancashire which continued for three days. Altogether twenty-one mills were attacked and over 1,000 power-looms were destroyed. The soldiers were called in again and the magistrates swore in large numbers of Special Constables. During the night 20 ring-leaders were arrested in their homes and taken to Lancaster gaol.[71] In contrast Popular Radicalism in Manchester did not resurface again until the reform agitation of 1830-2.[72]

Lord Sidmouth the Home Secretary remained in Lord Liverpool’s’ Cabinet until he retired in 1824 and died at the age of 86.[73] Joseph Nadin was the Deputy Chief Constable of Manchester for more than twenty years and when he resigned in March 1821 and was succeeded by Steven Lavender from London. [74] By this time Nadin was a wealthy man and he bought a large property in Cheshire where he lived the life of the landed gentry until his death in 1848, aged 83.[75] In 1820 William Hulton was offered a safe Tory seat in the House of Commons, but declined suspecting he would be the target of abuse during an election campaign. Nevertheless, in 1841, he stood as the Tory candidate for Bolton and during his election campaign he was attacked by the crowd. Although he continued to play a part in public affairs, he never lived the Peterloo Massacre down. Many years later whilst at a public house in Newton-le-Willows, William Hulton was reported to have said: ‘It occurred to them [the Magistrates] that it was their duty to call up every friend of the Monarchy and the Church to counteract the machinations of the enemies of both.’ [76]

Henry Hunt had been the foremost public speaker for the reform movement. He spoke at Spa Fields in 1816, and continued his activity during the suspension of Habeas Corpus in 1817, when William Cobbett thought it more politic to retire to America. As the main speaker at Peterloo, and was imprisoned for his part in the meeting.[77] On 29^th October 1822 after serving two and a half years in Llchester gaol in Somerset he was finally released.[78] When Hunt and the others arrested were released, tens of thousands lined the route for their triumphant return to Manchester. Despite the urging of those who advocated an armed uprising, Hunt’s popularity ensured that the majority accepted his peaceful and lawful methods.[79] Later on Hunt was elected as M.P. for Preston in 1830 to 1832, and he remained loyal to the demand for universal suffrage, attacking the 1832 Reform Act.[80]

The memory of Peterloo remained a force in politics in Lancashire for many years after 1819 to encourage future reformers. When the Duke of Wellington visited Manchester in 1829 he was greeted by angry crowds waving placards with the words ‘Remember Peterloo.’[81] A generation later the name Peterloo frequently invoked by the Chartist leaders, whose campaign was in many ways similar to that of the Peterloo Radicals. At the first great Chartist meeting near Manchester in 1838 the Peterloo banners were carried in the procession. In 1842 the foundation-stone of a Manchester memorial to Henry Hunt was laid by the Chartist leader Fergus O’Connor.[82]

In conclusion although it became known as the Peterloo Massacre, the events in and around St. Peter’s Field on 16^th August 1819 were regarded by both sides with a great deal of passion. The reformers were regarded with fear and suspicion by the establishment, and treated accordingly. This treatment resulted in further agitation which in turn led to increased repressive government reaction. When it came to the question of public order, Lord Liverpool’s Government and the local authorities were ferocious in suppressing discontent, as the story of Peterloo illustrates. It has been demonstrated in this Chapter that the first reaction of the Government to Peterloo was further repression, and the notorious Six Acts were passed soon after Peterloo. They were intended to prevent large public meetings, suppress the radical press, and undermine the whole movement for radical reforms.[83] Nevertheless, Peterloo was a turning point in British history this was largely because the working-class gained a great deal of middle-class sympathy and support for their cause. One example on hearing the news Shelley wrote The Mask of Anarchy and although the Government passed the notorious Six Acts to end all agitation it did not succeed and eventually came to see that blind repression of a disenfranchised people would never work.[84]

During the 1870’s Ford Madox Brown wished to include a painting depicting the Peterloo Massacre in a series of frescos commissioned to decorate the new Manchester Town Hall. However, the committee responsible for selecting the ideas for the work considered the theme unacceptable, because Peterloo was still a political issue by the 1870’s. Nevertheless, Peterloo inspired many contemporary prints and drawings including one vigorous satire by George Cruickshank. It was not until the New Free Trade Hall in Manchester was opened in 1951 that any of the public buildings contained depictions of Peterloo.[85]

One hundred and fifty years after Peterloo, Michael Kennedy highlighted the fact that the word Peterloo ‘caused heated debates in Manchester City Council in 1969 when a proposal to re-name St. Peter’s Ward Peterloo Ward, was not for the first time rejected.’ [86] On 7^th September 1972, an article appeared in the Manchester Evening News reporting ‘The majority labour group on Manchester council last night gracefully admitted defeat in its attempt to rename Peter Street ‘Peterloo Street.’ Earlier, the Manchester stipendiary magistrate had upheld the objections of Peter Street traders to the change.’ [87] However, a blue plaque was attached to the outside of the Free Trade Hall in 1972. [88] This plaque merely recorded ‘The site of St Peter’s Field where on 16^th August 1819, Henry Hunt, Radical Orator, addressed an assembly of about 60,000 people, their subsequent dispersal by the military is remembered as ‘Peterloo.’’ [89] More recently on the 188^th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre a group of campaigners gathered on the site to demand a new monument to mark the memory of those who fell.[90] Former Labour City Councillor Geoff Bridson said ‘It’s like a secret episode from the past.’ [91] On the 10^th December 2007 the Lord Mayor of Manchester Councillor Glynn Evans unveiled a new plaque to mark the Peterloo Massacre. The new plaque replaced the existing one at the former Free Trade Hall on Peter Street now the Radisson Edwardian Hotel.[92] The new red plaque is more explicit stating ‘St. Peter’s Field The Peterloo Massacre, on 16^th August 1819 a peaceful rally of 60,000 pro-democracy reformers, men, women and children, was attacked by armed cavalry resulting in 15 deaths and over 600 injuries.’ [93] Whilst on 16^th August, 2008 a group assembled outside the Radison Edwardian Hotel to mark the 189^th anniversary of Peterloo.[94] This year of course, marks the 190^th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre.

Print by J. Evans of London. The arrest of Hunt by the Constables.

Manchester Library and Information Service: Manchester Archives and Local Studies

---

[1] Taylor, op. cit., pp. 188-189.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Prentice, op. cit., p. 163.

[4] Read, op. cit., p. 143. The Times, 23^rd August, 1819.

[5] Ibid, p. 142. The Times, 24^th August, 1819.

[6] Reid, op. cit., p. 7.

[7] Prentice, op. cit., p. 163.

[8] Ibid, pp. 163-164.

[9] Turner, op. cit., p. 266.

[10] Reid, op. cit., p. 190.

[11] Williams and Ramsden, op. cit., p. 176.

[12] Prentice, op. cit., p.166.

[13] David Saul, Prince of Pleasure, The Prince of Wales and the Making of the Regency, New York, (1998), p. 391.

[14] Redford, op. cit., p. 256.

[15] Brooks and Haworth, op. cit., p. 81. Quary Bank Mill and Styal Estate, National Trust Booklet, (2008), p. 8.

[16]Turner, op. cit., p. 266-268.

[17] Wendy Hinde, Castlereagh, London, (1981), p. 253.

[18] Trevelyan, op. cit., p. 189.

[19] Richard Carlile, The Republican, No1, Vol. 1, 27^th August, 1819.

[20] T. J. Wooler, ‘Sir Francis Burdetts Address To The Electors Of Westminster,’ The Black Dwarf, Vol. III, (1819), Prentice, op. cit., p. 166.

[21] Turner, op. cit., p. 268.

[22] Reid, op. cit., p. 191. citing, HO 42. 192, Hulton to Sidmouth, 25^th August 1819.

[23] Bamford passages I, op. cit., p. 216.

[24] Thompson, op. cit., p. 755. Working Class.

[25] Marlow op. cit., p. 43. Day of Peterloo.

[25] Wendy Hinde, op. cit., p. 254.

[26] Marlow, op. cit., p 7. Day of Peterloo.

[27] Malolm and Walter Bee, op. cit., p. 43.

[28] Read, op. cit., p. 183., also see W.R. Brock, Lord Liverpool and Liberal Toryism, Cambridge, (1941), p. 112.

[29]Thompson, op. cit., p. 750. Working Class

[30]Thompson, op. cit., p. 70. On Peterloo

[31]Turner, op. cit., p. 267.

[32] Marlow, op. cit., p. 13. Peterloo Massacre

[33] Joseph A. Dowling, (ed.), Inquest on the Body of John Lees, the Whole proceedings before the Coroner’s Inquest at Olham on the body of John Lees, who died of sabre wounds at Manchester. Taken in shorthand with a plan of St Peter’s Field. London, (1820), pp. 57-58.

[34] Ibid, pp. 177-178.

[35]Thompson, op. cit., p. 70. On Peterloo

[36]Thompson, op. cit., p. 752. Working Class

[37]Turner op. cit., p. 267.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Schama, op. cit., p. 134.

[40] Prentice, op. cit., p. 169.

[41] Williams and Ramsden, op. cit., pp. 178-79.

[42] Clark George, Sir, English History A Survey, Oxford, (1978), p. 417.

[43] Hinde, op. cit., p. 254.

[44] Gregg, op. cit., p. 93.

[45] Evans and Pledger, op. cit., pp. 8-9.

[46] Ibid.

[47] W. A. Speck, A Concise History of Britain 1707-1975, Cambridge, (1995), p. 67.

[48] Trevelyan, op. cit., p. 190.

[49] Reid, op. cit., p.199.

[50] Read, op. cit., p.187.

[51] Thompson, op. cit., p. 768. Working Class

[52] Trevelyan, op. cit., p. 191.

[53] Schama, op. cit., p. 134.

[54] Thomas Jackson, Trials of British Freedom, London, p. 84.

[55] Ibid, pp. 84-85.

[56] Turner, op. cit., p. 273.

[57] Tevelyan, op. cit., p. 191.

[58] Burdett Sir Francis, Speech made to the House of Commons 15^th May 1821.

[59] Turner, op. cit., p. 271.

[60] Thompson, op.cit., pp. 70-71.

[61] Ibid.

[62] Marlow, op. cit., p. 7. Day of Peterloo

[63] Turner, op. cit., p. 271.

[64] Brooks and Haworth, op. cit., p. 83.

[65] J. R. M. Albrecht, ‘Major Hugh Hornby Birley,’ in Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, Vol. XL, 1922-1923, Manchester, (1925), pp. 197-198.

[66] Read, op. cit., p. 201. Manchester Chronicle, 28^th August, 1819. Manchester Chronicle, 27^th November, 1819.

[67] Alan D. Gilbert, ‘Religion and political stability in early industrial England,’ in Patrick O’Brien and Roland Quinault, (ed.), The Industrial Revolution and British Society, Cambridge, (1993), p. 91.

[68] Read, op. cit., pp. 204-205. Manchester Mercury, 30^th November, 1819. Manchester Obsever, 21^st August, 1819.

[69] Ibid, p. 162-163.

[70] Kidd, op. cit., p. 97.

[71] Aspin, op. cit., pp. 64-70.

[72] Kidd, op. cit., p. 97.

[73] Hylton, op. cit., p. 89-90.

[74] Harland, op. cit., p. 195.

[75] Hylton, op. cit., pp. 89-90.

[76]Thompson, op. cit., p. 75. On Peterloo

[77]Thompson, op. cit., p. 682. Working Class

[78] Marlow, op. cit., p. 200. Peterloo Massacre

[79] Bush, op. cit., p. 90-91.

[80] Thompson, op. cit., p. 682. Working Class.

[81] Marlow, op. cit., p. 200.

[82] Read, op. cit., p. 206.

[83] David Thomson, England in the Nineteenth Century 1815-1914, Harmondsworth, (1979), p. 40.

[84] Aspin, op. cit., p. 61.

[85] Ibid, p. 208.

[86] Kennedy, op. cit., p. 69.

[87] Manchester Evening News, 7^th September, 1972.

[88] Philip Hulme, ‘A New Memorial for Peterloo,’ Manchester Forum, Spring, (2008), p. 7.

[89] The Guardian, 13^th August, 2007. p. 9.

[90] Manchester Evening News, 17^th August, 2007.

[91] Manchester Guardian, 13^th August, 2007. p. 9.

[92] Manchester City Council News, 10^th December, 2007.

[93] Hulme, op. cit., p. 7.

[94] South Manchester Reporter, 7^th August, 2008. p. 13.