The Peterloo Massacre

1. The Peterloo Massacre Two historical accounts

2. Background – early 19th century Effects of the French Revolution – calls for a liberal society in Britain with universal suffrage, the secret ballot, annual elections and equal electoral districts amongst the Radical demands Growing support led to a crackdown on Radical activities by the British Government of the day Prime Minister Lord Liverpool increased taxation on the radical press, and later suspended Habeas Corpus (the legal right of all to protection from unfair detention) In 1817 Britain endured economic recession - unemployment, a bad harvest and high prices produced riots, demonstrations and a growth in the radical Hampden Club movement. Liverpool's government reacted by suspending Habeas Corpus, banning meetings of over fifty people and instructing magistrates to arrest everyone suspected of spreading seditious libel These actions severely hampered the campaign for parliamentary reform. However, as soon as Parliament decided to restore Habeas Corpus there was an immediate revival in the radical demands

3. Background – The Meeting at St. Peter’s Field In March 1819 several leading Manchester radicals formed the Manchester Patriotic Union Society The main objective of this organisation was to achieve parliamentary reform, and during the summer of 1819 it decided to invite famous radicals such as Major Cartwright, Henry ‘Orator’ Hunt and Richard Carlile to speak at a public meeting in Manchester on 16th August Cartwright was unable to attend but Hunt and Carlile agreed and the meeting was arranged to take place at St. Peter's Field, Manchester, on 16th August 1819 with one of the largest ever attendances of a public meeting expected Upon hearing about the size and radical nature of the meeting, the local magistrates, led by William Hulton, feared a riot, and ordered substantial numbers of infantry, cavalry and even artillery, as well as all of Manchester’s police force of the day, to be present

4. Events Accounts of the 16th August differ considerably between official and radical reports, with both putting bias on their own reports to fit with their own political aims The events which led to the ‘massacre’ are widely believed to have unfolded due to a number of reasons: The magistrates, present nearby , became alarmed at the growing crowd – Hulton later claimed there were over 50,000 people present (some estimate it at 80,000) Despite the lack of any signs of trouble, Hulton decided to send in the police presence to clear a path through the crowd to the stage at the front By the time the speakers arrived at around 1.30 the crowd seemed large enough for Hulton to declare ‘the whole town in danger’, so the local Yeomanry cavalry were sent into the crowd to arrest the speakers and organisers of the meeting Meeting opposition from the crowd, the cavalry began to cut through with sabres to reach the leaders. Once this had happened, they cut down the banners of the crowd, and crowd opposition to this was perceived by Hulton as an assault This is when most believe the ‘massacre’ began, causing from 5-11 deaths (estimates vary), with around 500 injured Remembered as ‘Peterloo’, after it was likened in the radical press to the slaughter of the French at Waterloo, thus portraying the government as bloodthirsty and now turning on their own people to satisfy this

6. ‘On the Peterloo Massacre, 1819’ First person account by Samuel Bamford (1788-1872) from his book Passage in the Life of a Radical (1843) Bamford was a Manchester silk weaver and an active radical Bamford's account of the Peterloo Massacre became one of the most important sources of evidence for historians of the event. After the massacre several men, including Bamford, were arrested and charged with “assembling with unlawful banners at an unlawful meeting for the purpose of inciting discontent”. He served 1 year in jail The account speaks of how Sir Francis Burdett's motion for reform had been ‘negatived in the House of Commons’ in June 1819, and how ‘numerous meetings followed in various parts of the country’, such as the Spa Field Riots in London Talking about the parade through the town, Bamford describes how the front men ‘were placed in two rows of six each, with each a branch of laurel held presented in his hand, as a token of amity and peace’, and how banners were held with inscriptions of “Unity and Strength”, “Liberty and Fraternity”, “Parliaments Annual” and “Suffrage Universal” to show the aims of the gathering He continues :“I reminded them that they were going to attend the most important meeting that had ever been held for Parliamentary Reform, and hoped their conduct would be marked by a steadiness and seriousness befitting the occasion... as would cast shame upon their enemies, who always represented the reformers as a rabble”

8. ‘On the Peterloo Massacre’ continued Talks of how he told his following “to keep...as quiet as possible; for if they began to retaliate, the least disturbance might serve as a pretext for dispersing the meeting”. Also, he states that “no sticks, nor weapons of any description, would be allowed to be carried in the ranks.” This repeats the peaceful nature of the meeting “I had thought it not improbable that they...would meet us with a civil and military escort; would read the Riot Act...and warn us from proceeding...that we should then have nothing to do but turn back and hold a meeting in our town” On the field itself he states that “we had got to nearly the outside of the crowd, when a strange murmur arose towards the church...I stood on tip-toe...and saw a party of cavalry in blue and white uniform come trotting, sword in hand” “On the cavalry drawing up they were received with a shout of goodwill, as I understood it...They shouted... waving their sabres over their heads...then...striking spur into their steeds, they dashed forward and began cutting the people” “Many females appeared as the crowd opened...Their cries were heart-rending, and would, one supposed, have disarmed any resentment: but their appeals were in vain. Women, maids, and tender youths, were indiscriminately sabred or trampled” This source shows the brutality of the authorities in the face of protest; the introduction to the document states that “The "Peterloo Massacre" was followed by ten years of reactionary government, with restrictions on the press and other repressive legislation”, which we know to have been true up until the Great Reform Act of 1832

9. ‘The Peterloo Massacre, 1819’ Anonymous first person account used by historian Charles W. Colby in Selections from the Sources of English History, B.C. 55 - A.D. 1832 (1920) Source introduction by Colby states – “The French Revolution postponed in England many reforms...Radicalism was associated in the public mind with a French origin that killed it politically. After Waterloo the tide turned and agitators gained a hearing. The landed interests wished to maintain the late war prices, and the artisan population desired cheap bread. Hence discontent, oratory, and riots which resulted in the loss of life.” Different view to Bamford – economic not political issue On ‘Peterloo’ he adds that “The troops charged and killed several persons, to the intense indignation of radical sympathisers in every part of the island” – as a historian a century later tells us of the uniting effect this event had on the radicals The source itself describes the crowd: “These persons bore two banners, surmounted with caps of liberty, and bearing the inscriptions: "No Corn Laws," "Annual Parliaments," "Universal Suffrage," "Vote By Ballot "” It also confirms that “A band of special constables assumed a position on the field without resistance”, and speculates that “The congregated multitude now amounted to a number roundly computed at 80,000” Also observes that Hunt “had not proceeded far, when the appearance of the yeomanry cavalry advancing toward the area in a brisk trot, excited a panic in the outskirts” “The orator had just resumed his speech, when the cavalry dashed into the crowd, making for the cart on which the speakers were placed. The multitude made no resistance, they fell back on all sides.” This supports Bamford’s view that the meeting was peaceful in nature

11. ‘The Peterloo Massacre’ Continued The document goes on to confirm the arrests of key leaders, such as Hunt, and the escape of some “others against whom there were warrants” in the crowd The military were then told to “"Have at their flags!" and they dashed down not only those in the cart, but the others in the field; cutting right and left to get at them....people began running in all directions; from this moment the yeomanry lost all command of temper” The resulting ‘massacre’ is portrayed: “numbers were trampled under the feet of men and horses; many, both men and women, were cut down by sabres; several, and a peace officer and a female in the number, slain on the spot” The author believed that “The whole number of persons injured amounted to between three and four hundred”, and remarked that “in less than ten minutes the ground was entirely cleared of its former occupants” The account ends by adding that “The town was brought into a tolerably quiet state before night, military patrols being stationed at the end of almost every street” – this shows the fear of the authorities despite their heavy-handed reaction to the meeting Like Bamford’s account, this source shows the reality of a situation in which peaceful protest for Parliamentary Reform was met with needless force which resulted in the deaths of several innocent people

13. Conclusions These two eyewitness accounts show the practical consequences of the unwillingness of the British government of the early nineteenth century under Lord Liverpool to so much as entertain thoughts of Parliamentary Reform This is testified to by the letters received by Hulton and other Manchester magistrates from the Home Secretary of the day, Viscount Sidmouth, congratulating them on the action they had taken, despite the reports of several deaths The passing of the Six Acts soon after also attempted to make sure reform meetings like the one at St. Peter's Field did not happen again The Whig opposition opposed these measures as being a suppression of popular rights and liberties However, questionable as to whether ‘Peterloo’ would have brought about any Parliamentary Reform at all had the Whigs been in power in 1819, given that it took future governments four separate occasions (1832, 1867, 1884, and 1918) to fulfil the aims of ‘Peterloo’