The Peterloo Massacre

Peter's Field -The Peterloo Massacre-The Killing Field:

Peterloo 1819

















































































































Preface


The purpose of this Book is to show through the analysis of the historiography that the major myths associated with Peterloo, are not necessarily the most plausible, or reasonable, explanation of the events they purport to describe. Created as propaganda and given mythic status by constant re-assertion as popular opinion, such myths have muddied the historical picture. In demythologising Peterloo, or the ‘Peterloo Massacre’ it is hoped that a more accurate historical picture will be revealed.

A few days after the event the Manchester Observer coined the name Peterloo, associating it in mockery with Napoleons defeat at the Battle of Waterloo which had taken place four years earlier. Thus the name Peterloo and even the Peterloo Massacre became a powerful and emotive symbol for generations in the shaping of political opinion.[1] In the words of Simon Schama, ‘There was something evil about Peterloo, which for many mocked the pretension of the government to be upholding British traditions against innovation. Peterloo was not, the critics believed, a British event.’[2] Therefore this book is a serious attempt to deal with a controversial historical topic and it is considered that an overall reassessment is necessary.

Although this book is essentially a historiographical study, and solidly based on the historiographical evidence, I have used relevant primary sources and eye-witness accounts. Some of these accounts appear in F.A. Bruton’s his first study The Story of Peterloo Manchester, (1919), and in Three Accounts of Peterloo, Manchester, (1921), Both works are considered as standard modern authorities. Other relevant primary accounts appear in Samuel Bamfords, Passages in the Life of a Radical, Manchester, (1841), and in Archibald Prentice, Historical Sketches and Personal Recollections of Manchester, London, (1851), have also been presented. I have also relied on the more recent research of Professor Michael Bush, The Casualties of Peterloo, Manchester, (2005), in which he has published detailed list of every known casualty of Peterloo and his analysis of these lists which establishes the exact scale and nature of the Peterloo Massacre.









Acknowledgments



My grateful thanks to the staff at the University of Manchester, John Rylands Library, Deansgate, the Working-class Movement Library, Salford and the Local Studies Unit of the Manchester Central Library, also known as the Round Library, located in what is now known as St Peters Square.
























List of Maps

Map of Manchester and surrounding districts…..p.

Map of St. Peter’s Field…………………………..p.


List of Illustrations



The picture on the front cover depicts William Hone’s savage comment on the massacre announcing the erection of a mock-monument-with trooper trampling woman and child on a base of skulls, ‘in commemoration of the achievements of the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry.’

Print on the back cover, commissioned and published Richard Carlile in his ‘Temple of Reason’ in Fleet Street showing a sympathetic view of the reformers themselves. The print is inscribed: To Henry Hunt…and the Female Reformers of Manchester and the adjacent Towns who were exposed to and suffered from the Wanton and Furious Attack made on them by that Brutal Armed Force the Manchester and Cheshire Yeomanry….dedicated by their Fellow Labourer Richard Carlile.
(Courtesy of Manchester Library and Information Service: Manchester Archives and Local Studies.)


Orator Henry Hunt. …………………...p.

William Hulton………..........................p,

The Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth….p.

The Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool…...p.

The Duke of Wellington………………...p,

Castlereagh Viscount Stewart Robert,…p.

Archibald Prentice………………………p.

Reverend Edward Stanley………………p.

Reverend Charles Ethelstone…………...p.

Samuel Bamford………………………..p.

Major John Cartwright…………………p.

Colonel Le’ Estrange, 15th Hussars…….p.

Hand Loom Weavers, Salford………….p.

Manchester Union Poor House………...p.





























CONTENTS



Preface……………………………………………………………..

Acknowledgements………………………………………………..

List of Maps and Illustrations……………………………………...

Chronology of Events……………………………………………...

Biographical Sketches……………………………………………..

Introduction………………………………………………………..

Chapter One Historical Background to Peterloo……….

Chapter Two Peterloo Massacre, Manchester 1819……..

Chapter Three Peterloo and its Aftermath ……………….

Chapter Four Poetry of Peterloo…………………………

Chapter Five The Historiography of Peterloo………….

Chapter Six Concluding Peterloo………………………

Appendix…………………………………………………………...

Bibliography………………………………………………………..

Select Bibliography…………………………………………………

Index………………………………………………………………..










































































Biographical Sketches[3]

Any assessment of the political background to Peterloo must begin with a series of biographical sketches.

Baines Edward, Reporter for the Leeds Mercury at Peterloo.

Bamford Samuel (1788-1872) the celebrated weaver-poet from Middleton, author of Passages in the Life of a Radical, in which he gave his own account of Peterloo. He was an active member in the Hampden Club and although he disapproved of the Blanketeers meeting was nevertheless arrested by the authorities and sent to London. At Peterloo he led the Middleton contingent, to Peterloo and was arrested for his part in the meeting.

Birley, Captain Hugh Hornby, commander of the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry on 16th August 1819. Birley continued in the public life of Manchester after Peterloo, and later became the first president of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce.

Burdett, Sir Francis was recognised as the leader of the Radicals in the House of Commons. He introduced motions for parliamentary reform and supported all attempts to expose corruption in government circles. In 1819, he was responsible for leading the campaign to press for an independent inquiry into the Peterloo Massacre.

Byng, General Sir John Commander of the Northern District in 1819. In later life he became the Whig, M.P. for Pool.

Carlile, Richard (1790-1843), A tinsmith journeyman. After being influenced by Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man and saddened by the economic depression of 1817, Carlile secured a job as a salesman of two Radical periodicals, The Black Dwarf and Sherwin’s weekly Political Register. Later he took over Sherwin’s printing press and published a number of articles, including his Political Litany. In 1819 he was prosecuted by the Government, for publishing Thomas Paine’s works and was sentenced to a term of three years imprisonment, also receiving a heavy fine. His sentence was extended to six years for refusing to pay this fine. He later became the proprietor of Sherwin’s, Political Register changing its name to the Republican, editing twelve volumes whilst in prison. He was finally released in 1825.

Cartwright, Major, John, formed the first Hampden Club. He then toured the country encouraging other parliamentary reformers to follow his example. His main objective was to unite middle class moderates with radical members of the working class. This frightened the authorities and led to his arrest at Huddersfield in 1813.

Castlereagh Viscount Stewart Robert Leader of the House of Commons in Lord Liverpool’s government.

Cobbett William In 1802 he founded his newspaper The Political Register. To begin with Cobbett supported the Tory Government but gradually became a Radical. By 1806 he was a strong advocate of parliamentary reform largely due to his unsuccessful attempt to be elected as M.P. for Honiton, which convinced him of the unfairness of Rotton Boroughs. However, after Habeas Corpus was suspended; suspecting he was in the firing line, he migrated to America.

Entwistle John Member of the Select Committee of Magistrates.

Ethelstone Reverend Charles Wickstead (1767-1830), who was a Manchester Magistrate, although not a member of the Special Committee of Magistrates he signed the warrant for the arrest of the speakers and read the Riot Act at Peterloo.

Fielden Mr a member of the Select Committee of Magistrates.

Fletcher Colonel Ralph Member of the Select Committee of Magistrates.

Harrison Reverend Joseph was a local Nonconformist Preacher who called himself ‘Chaplin to the poor and needy.’ His politico-religious sermons became regular features of Stockport Radicalism. As a result of three speeches that he made, one on 15th August 1819, the other on 18th December 1819 and for a speech he made at Stockport on 28th June 1820, he was sentenced to three and a half years, imprisonment. Harrison’s three leading associates in Stockport in 1818 were John Bagguley, Samuel Drummond and John Johnston. All three had been leading promoters of the March of the Blanketeers in 1817 and were arrested for violent speeches to the strikers in Stockport on 1st September 1818. Both were sentenced to two years imprisonment. Although they were in prison at the time of Peterloo, their work together with Harrison made Stockport an important centre in local Radicalism

Hay, Reverend William Robert ,(1761-1839), appointed vicar of Rochdale in 1820, but also served as a Clerical magistrate and until 1823 as the Stipendiary Chairman of the Salford Quarter Sessions.

Healey, Dr., (1780-1830), In 1819, he led the Saddleworth, Lees, and Mosley Union contingent to Peterloo headed by a black flag, and this caused great consternation in local ‘loyalist’ circles. It was chiefly because of this that he was arrested at the meeting. He was another leading Radical Reformers. Of no less importance in 1819 his wife was secretary to the Manchester Female Reformers.
who was acquitted at York, was the sub editor of the Manchester Observer.

Hone William Radical, illustrator, caricaturist and author of The Political House that Jack Built, (1819), Hone’s pamphlets attacking George IV forced the king to attempt to bribe him.

Hulton, William (1787-1864), was appointed as the chairman of the Special Committee of Lancashire and Cheshire Magistrates formed in July 1819.

Hunt Henry (1773-1835), known as Orator Hunt, was the chief speaker at Peterloo. In 1817 he first came into contact with Lancashire Radicalism through the Hampden Club movement. His capacity as an orator his clear bell-like voice and his tall imposing appearance, soon won him a large personal following throughout the country.

Johnson Joseph (1791-1872), the most active local radical, organizer behind the Peterloo meeting In June 1818 he became the part-owner of the Radical local newspaper the Manchester Observer. It was about this time also he became secretary of the Manchester Patriotic Union Society, which invited Hunt to speak at the Peterloo meeting.

Jolliffe Lieutenant William a nineteen-year old officer in the 15th Hussars on St Peter’s Field, whose eyewitness account was latter published in Pellew’s Life of Sidmouth.

Knight John (1763-1838), a small-scale Manchester cotton manufacturer and a well established figure in local radical circles. As early as 1811 he had published a reform pamphlet, and in 1812 he was arrested for administering illegal oaths to a committee formed to prepare a reform address to the Prince Regent.

Lord Liverpool Robert Banks Jenkinson, (1770-1828), Prime Minister 1812-1827.

L’Estrange, Lieutenant-Colonel George the military commander in Manchester 1819 under Major-General Sir John Byng, commander of the northern district.

Mallory Reverend a member if the Select Committee of Magistrates.

Marriott Mr a member of the Select Committee of Magistrates.

Marsh, Richard a member of the Select Committee of Magistrates.

Nadin Joseph (1765-1884), The Deputy Chief Constable of Manchester during and following Peterloo.

Norris, James a Barrister, large landowner and a member of the Select Committee of Magistrates.

Oliver William one of the most active and energetic of the government’s secret agents nick named ‘Oliver the Spy.’

Paine Thomas author of The Rights of Man.

Pitt, William British Tory Prime Minister and 1st Earl of Chatham, who died in 1812 and was succeeded by Lord Liverpool.

Prentice, Archibald, watched the start of the meeting in St. Peters Fields, from the window of a friend’s house in Mosley Street. Some years later Prentice, published his book, Historical Sketches and Personal Recollections of Manchester, (1851).

Redford, Thomas Radical plaintiff in Redford v Birley, April, 1822

Ridings, Elijah, born 27th November 1802 at Failsworth, and died 18th October 1872. Manchester working-class poet, weaver and bookseller, Peterloo veteran, anti Corn Law campaigner and Chartist. He was removed from school at an early age in order that he might wind bobbins for his brothers and sisters, who were employed on silk looms. His family moved to Newton Heath and he later became a teacher in the Sunday school attached to St. Georges Church, Oldham Road. He later joined the Unitarian Chapel, in Dob Lane, Failsworth. Although he still worked at the loom in his leisure time, he read all the books that came his way particularly those on history and travel. In 1819, being then 17years of age, he was appointed leader of a section of parliamentary reformers at Newton Heath and Miles Platting on the memorable march to Peterloo and narrowly escaped being trampled by Yeomanry horses on the 16th August 1819.

Saxton, John assistant editor of the Manchester Observer and radical orator who was arrested on the hustings on 16th August but later acquitted at his trial at York.

Smith John, Reporter from the Liverpool Mercury at Peterloo.

Stanley, Reverend, Edward, (1779-1849), later Bishop of Norwhich, whose eyewitness account of the scene at Peterloo and his evidence in Redford v Birley supported the radical accounts.

Sidmouth, Addington Henry (1757-1844), 1st Viscount, was the Home Secretary in Lord Liverpool’s Cabinete.

Sylvester, J. Member of the Select Committee of Magistrates.

Thomas Paine, Author of The Rights of Man.

Taylor John Edward, Founder of The Manchester Guardian, who along with John Tyas, a correspondent from The Times witnessed the events at Peterloo from the hustings.

Tatton Thomas W. Member of the Select Committee of Magistrates.

Thislewood Arthur, Radical who planned the Cato Street Conspiracy.

Trafford, Major Thomas, Joseph the Senior Officer commanding the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry Cavalry who somehow escaped the critiscim directed at Captain Hugh Hornby Birley, his second in command.

Trafford, Trafford one of the magistrates who accompanied Lieutenant L’Estrange onto St Peters Fields.

Tyas, John London reporter for The Times newspaper, whose description of the events of Peterloo is historic.

Walker Thomas A rich Unitarian cotton merchant who established the Manchester Constitutional Society in October, 1790.

Wolseley Sir Charles, (1769-1846), like Hunt was more than a local leader. He was one of the founders of the Hampden Club and was elected ‘Legislatorial Attorney’ for Birmingham at a meeting on 12th July 1819. He was imprisoned for eighteen months for a violent speech he made at Stockport along with Harrison on 28th June 1819. After his release he continued to be active in Radical affairs. However, after 1826 he retired from any public part in politics.

Wright Mr a member of the Select Committee of Magistrates.

Wroe, James (1788-1844), Between June 1819 and February 1820 was the editor of the Manchester Observer. He was also the chief Radical printer. One of his opponents described him as the ‘Printer Devil to the Radical Reformers.’ He was hounded by the Manchester local authorities and indicted for seditious publications and distribution. In February 1820 poverty-stricken by the cost of litigation, he was forced to give up the Manchester Observer. Nevertheless, he maintained his commitment to the Reform Movement throughout the 1820’s and 1830’s. In 1838 he was elected as one of Manchesters delegates to the first Chartist National Convention.

Wooler Thomas Jonathan The editor of the Radical newspaper the Black Dwarf.


















Introduction

By 1819 Manchester had grown into England’s second largest city, and the world’s first industrial city. Its status remained that of a medieval market town owned by the Mosley family. It had no Member for Parliament, and magistrates from the Counties Palatine of Lancaster and Chester were empowered to take control in times of unrest. Before August 16th a Select Committee of Magistrates had already assumed control of the town, which was regarded by Lord Liverpool’s administration as the most troublesome, turbulent, seditious, and wicked area in the country. [Joyce Marlow][4]


There is no doubt that Peterloo, was a major event in British history, and the most important day in Manchester’s political history.[5] It was also one of the bloodiest days in Manchester’s history which occurred at St Peters Field where the Free Trade Hall stands today, and close to St. Peters Square.[6] Almost every writer on this early period of nineteenth century British history has touched on this controversial topic with the exception of Winston Churchill, who in A History of English Speaking Peoples, did not mention it at all.[7] However, historians generally agree that a repressive Government and an equally repressive Select Committee of Magistrates brutally dispersed a peaceful Radical Reform meeting with tragic results. [8] Most recently Robert Poole writes ‘The ‘Peterloo Massacre’ was the bloodiest political event of the nineteenth century on English soil.’[9]

The myths that have developed in historiography surrounding Peterloo cannot be fully understood in isolation but must be placed in a wider context of the period. A major contributory factor, are the critical years between 1790 and 1819. Therefore I have attempted to put the events leading up to Peterloo into historical context and explain the social, political, economic, climate of the time and identify the various people involved. In Chapter One it will be demonstrated that the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 unleashed a wave of popular protest against government repression, social injustice, the undemocratic franchise along with widespread poverty deepened by post-war depression and that working-class demands for political and economic reform were more often met with brutal government action.[10]

The major myths surrounding Peterloo or the Peterloo Massacre can be identified as follows: firstly, that most of the injuries were caused by the fleeing crowd; [11] secondly, the 15th Hussars only used the flats of their swords;[12] thirdly, only 11 people were killed and only 400 people were injured;[13] fourthly, there was no premeditation on behalf of the Select Committee of Magistrates to disperse the meeting by force.’[14] An additional misconception in the historiography is that the Irish population of Manchester did not become integrated with the movement for parliamentary reform.[15] It will be argued that other interpretations of these issues, based on the evidence available clearly show that such myths should not be believed.

Clear-headed assessments in the aftermath of Peterloo were a long time coming. Although it became known as the Peterloo Massacre, the events in and around St. Peters Field on 16th 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. The aftermath of Peterloo is discussed in Chapter Three.

Apart from the indignation that came from both sides after Peterloo, that is, the righteous anger of those who were attacked as well as those who were ordered to attack, there is evidence of what might be regarded as the more emotional responses from both sides in the poetry produced and circulated afterwards. The efforts of the Loyalists were jingoistic and triumphant, those of the Radicals closer to the tragedy. In Chapter Four I have presented a selection of both Radical and Loyalist verse which demonstrate how the various people involved reacted to Peterloo.

In Chapter Five it will be demonstrated that the historiography of Peterloo is of great importance as it reveals why, common perceptions are prejudiced, based on the origin of the political opinion, or sympathy, or inclination, of the writer. The other problem is of course, that most historians have not based their research on original, primary sources. Instead, the history of Peterloo has been largely based on the assumptions of previous writers, and their analysis of the facts taken from secondary works.

As far as possible I have used primary resource material and eyewitness accounts, to write this book, allowing them to speak for themselves, whilst at the same time challenging many of the myths developed in the historiography of Peterloo.


































Chapter One

Historical Background to Peterloo


The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 unleashed a wave of popular protest against government repression, social injustice, the undemocratic franchise and widespread poverty deepened by post-war depression. However, working-class demands for political and economic reform were more often met with brutal government action.[16][Dorothy Marshall]

By 1819, the manufacturing and selling of cotton was the main occupation of the people of Manchester and surrounding districts. Raw cotton arrived at Liverpool from America and dealers sold it to Manchester merchants who then sold it to the master spinners. The two basic manufacturing processes were the spinning into yarn and weaving into cloth. At this time spinning was mainly done in mills with new machinery whilst the weaving process was still largely done by handloom weavers working from home.[17] Throughout the Napoleonic Wars workers had flocked in not only from Lancashire, but from all counties of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.[18] Because of the increasing demand for children in the cotton trade, many large families were included among the migrant workers.[19] All these people were poverty stricken and had come to settle in Manchester to benefit from the work the new cotton industry provided.[20]

The cotton trade created modern Manchester along with a small privileged class and a large class of working men who were condemned to a life of hardship and suffering. There was no doubt that the cotton industry was responsible for the increasing growth and wealth of the town or that the ‘din of the machinery,’ was ‘the music of economic progress.’ However, there was no local government either to encourage or restrain. Everything depended on the entrepreneur and the efficient labour force. As a result Manchester soon became ‘one of the commercial capitals of Europe’ long before it became an incorporated town in 1838. On the one hand Manchester’s progress was reflected by the newness of its buildings and on the other hand by its squalor. However, very few of the buildings stood out and many were already blackened with smoke by the beginning of the nineteenth century. A visitor from Rotherham declared as early as 1808:

The town is abominably filthy, and the Steam Engine is pestiferous, the Dyehouses noisome and offensive, and the water of the river as black as ink or the Stygian lake.[21]

From the late 1780s up until the first census of 1801 Manchester’s population had risen from 40,000 to over 70,000. The population of the township rose to 108,000 in 1821, and 142,000 by 1831.[22] The surrounding towns like Ashton, Bolton, Blackburn, Rochdale and Stockport had also grown at an alarming rate.[23]

We should perhaps first place the period in historical context. Towards the end of the 18th enlightened thinkers were writing about social equality, the will of the majority and the end of the feudal system which was still binding the rural population of Europe too it’s aristocratic rulers. These writers argued that power should not be simply vested in aristocratic elite, the Church or even the mercantile class but be shared by the people.[24] Throughout these years the aristocracy in England believed that the majority, of the middle class as well as the poor should be excluded from the ‘sacred circle of the parliamentary Constitution.’[25]

Things began to change in England when in 1790 two new political societies were formed and partisan opinions and prejudices crystallised around them. As early as March 1790, the dominant Anglican-Tory oligarchy in Manchester established The Church and King Club, to celebrate the successful defence of the Test and Corporation Acts; and it subsequently became the focus for organised campaigns against constitutional reformers. Its motto and toast of ‘Church and King, and down with the Rump,’ stemmed from earlier confrontations within the Manchester middle class.[26] In contrast, during October 1790 Thomas Walker, a rich Unitarian cotton merchant, established a rival liberal association, the Manchester Constitutional Society. Between May and June of 1792 two more radical clubs were established, one the Patriotic and the other the Constitutional Society, whose members were largely weavers, labours and journeymen, [Tradesmen]. Both of these clubs were committed to peaceful reforms although still operating under the patronage of Thomas Walker’s society. [27]

In May of 1792, the Constitutional Society issued a declaration that Members of Parliament should owe their seats to the free suffrage of the people. However, within a week the Government issued a proclamation against these ‘wicked and seditious writings.’ [28] In June 1792, following a loyalist meeting to celebrate the king’s birthday, a large section of the loyalist crowd attacked two Dissenting chapels, one of them the Unitarian chapel in Mosley Street. However, the local authorities made no attempt to intervene. Instead, the propaganda war against the Constitutional Society and Thomas Walker gained momentum.[29]

By September 1792, a total of 186 innkeepers and publicans in Manchester had signed a declaration of loyalty and banned member reformer clubs from entering their premises. It was rumoured at the time that some had had their licences threatened beforehand by the local authorities. In addition continued activity of local radicals sparked a spate of ‘loyalist-inspired mob violence,’ in December 1792. For example, The Manchester Herald offices were attacked, along with Walkers’ house and that of the spinner William Gorse, where the Reformation Society had been meeting. Again the authorities did nothing to stop the offenders. As a result of this attack Walker gathered firearms to guard against possible future attacks and he was arrested for this, which led to a trial at the Lancaster Assizes on a trumped up charge to ‘overthrow the Constitution and Government and to aid and assist the French.’ Although Walker was acquitted, he was financially ruined by this time. His trial also had the effect of frightening many reformers into inactivity.[30]

It should be remembered that throughout the last decades of George III’s reign, national consciousness was promoted with public celebrations of ‘loyalty and royalty,’ with spectacular military parades generating popular support for the existing order which carried over to Church and State.[31] However, during the ten years of George III’s reign Cabinet government was reduced to a shadow. Not forgetting of course, Britain experienced at the same time the greatest political reverse in her history through the loss of the American colonies.[32]

Between 1792 and 1815, no less than 155, military barracks were constructed to house the army. Most of these were deliberately placed in the ‘disaffected’ districts of the Midlands, the North, and especially in Manchester and surrounding districts.[33] In the words of E.P. Thompson ‘ England until 1792 had been governed by consent and deference supplemented by the gallows and the Church and King mob.’ [34] After 1795 public agitation for reform had many obstacles to overcome: in particular the repressive legislation passed by Pitt’s government, and the waves of loyalist sentiment which were aroused.[35]

As early as 1800, the Government had passed the Combination Acts to prevent workers from forming organizations to fight for improved conditions.[36] Furthermore the magistrates were able to lock up men and women under the Vagrancy Acts, which they frequently did. The Combination Acts made it practically impossible for workers to try to improve their lot without risking prosecution. In addition, by using the Combination Acts against workers and allowing employers to combine openly whenever they pleased, the magistrates were able to put the majority of the working-class entirely under the control of their employers.[37]

The attitude of William Pitt’s Government sustained the existence of the Slave Trade till 1807, and was only one element in the mental atmosphere of the time. Fear of the revolution was another. Both were unfavourable to a prudent handling of the social problems created by the Industrial Revolution.[38] When William Pitt died suddenly in 1812 Robert Banks Jenkinson, Lord Liverpool, was appointed as the new Prime Minister of the Tory Government.[39]

After the closure of the American trade early in 1811 probably one-fifth of the framework knitters were unemployed or employed on a part time basis causing widespread poverty. The outcome of this poverty in the East Midlands was the birth of the Luddite movement which began in Nottingham during March 1811 and reached its peak between November 1811 and February 1812. The Luddite Rising irrupted when organised bands of textile workers began to destroy new machinery in the textile mills which they blamed for job losses. The ‘Ludds’ or better known as ‘Luddites,’ generally wore masks and operated after dark. Their leader whether he was real or imagined was known as ‘General Ludd.’ Nevertheless, the Government was prepared to believe that General Ludd was a real person, directing a highly organised body of revolutionaries seeking to overthrow the existing social order and political system.[40]

In fact the Luddite movement was not organized and was largely non-political; it was the work of a few bands of machine breakers supported on occasion by more or less spontaneously assembled mobs and not part of any great revolutionary plot, but simply a means of drawing attention to the sufferings of framework-knitters and their need for work and wages. Although early agitation was confined to Nottinghamshire by the end of 1811 it had spread to other areas including Yorkshire, Derbyshire and finally to Lancashire. [41] Lord Liverpool’s ministry resorted to ruthless measures to stamp out the rising. Large numbers of Luddites rounded up leading to a mass trial at York in 1813. Most of those convicted were either hanged or were transported to Australia as convicts.[42]

There is no doubt that poverty and discontent were the most distinctive features of British society as a whole at this time. A catalogue of uprisings, agitations and plots filled the war years. As the full impact of the depression was felt, more serious riots and demonstrations occurred in protest against low wages, unemployment and poor living conditions. Despite the severity of Government measures, between 1800 and 1815, the discontent of the masses had frequently erupted in agitation in the form of strikes, rioting and machine breaking.[43] One of the most permanent results of this agitation in Manchester was the consolidation of the conservatives who formed the Manchester Association for Preserving Liberty, Order and Property who worked very closely with the local authorities. The magistrates and the town officers were some of its leading members.[44]

By 1815 the parliamentary system had almost gone back to the Middle Ages, and had become a joke, certainly not reflecting the realities of a rapidly changing society. Altogether there were 658 MPs in the House of Commons but how they were elected and who they represented was to come under intense scrutiny, largely because there was no independent representation for the expanding new industrial and commercial centres like Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester.[45]

In fact there was no independent M.P. representing the people of Manchester. Instead the administration of justice was in the hands of a few county magistrates. There were about eighteen magistrates, including a chief stipendiary magistrate. On the other hand the administration of local poor relief and the payment of the Police were in the hands of the churchwardens and overseers of the poor. All branches of local government were controlled by the same small group of elite, members of a close knit circle of men who were Tory in their politics and Anglican in their religion.[46] Directly under the magistrates was the Deputy Chief Constable of Manchester, Joseph Nadin, who was hated by the majority of the working-class.[47] Archibald Prentice later described him as ‘the real ruler of Manchester.’[48]

After the introduction of the factory system into cotton spinning in the generation preceding Peterloo, the cotton industry throughout Lancashire was revolutionised. Because new social groups of master and operative spinners emerged. Most of the new cotton manufacturers employed large numbers of immigrants from Ireland and Scotland who were either Dissenters or Roman Catholics. Consequently during the thirty years preceeding Peterloo Manchester was transformed from a predominantly Anglican into a largely Nonconformist town. In fact Nonconformists outnumbered Anglicans two to one both in Manchester and surrounding districts. The Unitarians in particular were most radical in their outlook. Thus rivalry between the Establishment and Nonconformity was a prominent feature in the religious life of Manchester at the time of Peterloo.[49]

The Anglican attitude in Manchester on the question of Catholic Emancipation was one of even more uncompromising hostility. Soon after Peterloo the Reverend Melville Horne, curate of St. Stephen’s, Salford, denounced both the Radical Reformers and Roman Catholics in equal terms saying ‘That the Radicals have publicly invited all Catholics to join their banners is no novelty.’ Earlier in May 1819 when a petition against Roman Catholic relief was prepared in Manchester, the local Anglican clergy were its chief supporters.[50]

Throughout the time frame of these years the wealthy classes enjoyed a monopoly of every form of power unparalleled in English history.[51] The rich were becoming richer and the poor were becoming poorer.[52] By 1815, the ruling classes in Britain were still convinced that only they were fit to rule and their interests were those of society as a whole. Therefore, when Britain was experienced the economic crisis after 1815, the aristocratic rulers of Britain concentrated on protecting their own property and repressing all threats to their position. It is clear the Government and the ruling classes still believed in the possibility of a popular revolution in line with the savage French revolution that had taken place twenty years earlier. Their official reaction was to repress all agitation rather than to attempt to deal with the causes of it. The demands of the working-classes and their discontent, was only a ‘warning of horror to come.’[53]

It must also be remembered by 1815 Britain had been at war with France for twenty two years, costing the Government £800 million. In 1815 the last year of the war had cost Britain £81 million, of which £27 million had been raised by a loan. Nevertheless, on Wellington’s triumphant return to London after defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, a grateful Parliament rewarded him with £200,000. However, the veteran soldiers who had fought on the battlefield, returning to the manufacturing towns, in the north of England, were not so fortunate, as they were rewarded with nothing.[54]

The Napoleonic Wars ended amidst riots which had been spasmodic for twenty-three years. For example, during the passing of the Corn Laws in 1815, the Houses of Parliament had to be defended by troops from menacing crowds.[55] In addition 300,000, disbanded soldiers and sailors suddenly swamped the already stretched unemployment market.[56] There was also no need for new uniforms, blankets and other products to sustain the war effort which had thrown the cotton industry into deep depression.[57] In 1815, at the end of the long endurance of war, there was fear, envy and greed, but little hope.[58] However the next four years were to become the ‘heroic age of popular Radicalism.’[59]

There seems little doubt that the five years following the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 brought Britain closer to the brink of revolution than at any other time in her history. These were to be years of social unrest which found their voice in open-air meetings and the radical press. The radical voices, that had been suppressed in the aftermath of the French Revolution and through the long endurance years of war, re-surfaced, especially, in the new industrial areas of the country where working men’s associations, called Hampden Clubs that had mushroomed. They were named after John Hampden, the man who had challenged the absolute rule of Charles I.[60]

The Hampden Clubs these were eventually to be replaced by Political Unions who held open-air meetings and sent huge petitions to Parliament signed by thousands of people, only to find them ignored by the central government. For this is reason, the working-classes in the towns were demanding a reform of Parliament universal male suffrage, lower taxation, and relief from the terrible poverty from which they were suffering.[61]

Early radical activity had centred in London. This was largely because from the Glorious Revolution, of 1688, the people had been given the right to petition the reigning monarch about their grievances.[62] Although at this time the Prince Regent was standing in for King George III, who in 1811 had lost his mind so that petitions were presented to the Prince Regent instead. [63] Another way the radicals aired their grievances in London was by calling for a mass meeting. After the petition had been adopted, the crowds usually dispersed peacefully.[64]

With the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, everybody had hoped for better times. However, the ‘masked prosperity’ of wartime ended, and the period between 1815 and 1830 proved to be one of deep depression.[65] The depression shook the nation at a time when poor living and working conditions, population growth, unemployment, and economic insecurity, had already created a state of discontent. These problems were aggravated by the fact that the Governments immediate reaction was to protect the interests of the wealthy classes.[66]

The commercial groups and the landed gentry put pressure on the Tory Government to abolish income tax.[67] As it happens taxation was already crippling, due to the fact that the interest on the massive war debt still had to be paid. On 12th March 1816, Manchester local authorities presented a petition to the House of Commons against Property Tax. Although the Prime Minister Mr Pitt had also introduced the Income Tax as an emergency measure during the war years but its selfish withdrawal led to a large increase indirect taxation.[68]

The Government was forced to raise revenue by increasing sales tax on essential goods such as shoes, salt, tea, soap, paper, candles, tobacco, and even bricks. This meant for example a labourer earning £18 a year was forced to pay out half of his wages in the form of indirect taxation. Another major concern of the Government was to arrest the agricultural depression. Consequently in an effort to preserve the investments of wealthy landowners and to make England self-supporting in corn, laws were passed to prevent foreign corn from being imported until the price of English corn reached 80s.0d. per quarter.[69] This forced the price of bread to a cost of about 1s. for a 2 lb. loaf, at a time when the usual wages of a labourer were 7s. a week. As a result for the next twenty years, the main subsistence of the working classes was meal, potatoes and turnips. Bread became a luxury.[70]

It was, in Lancashire that the new pattern of the constitutional reform demonstration first matured. The introduction of the Corn Law of 1815 appeared to the Radicals the supreme instance of arbitrary legislation. ‘It was proof’ declared the Oldham delegate meeting, that ‘the interest of a few Land Proprietors, preponderates in our Legislative Assemblies, over the interest of millions of labourers.’ Furthermore, the Radicals argued the ‘Corn Laws, not only forced up the price of food, it also reduced the demand for labour and therefore the rate of wages.’[71]

As early as October 1816, there was an orderly open-air meeting in Blackburn. In January 1817, an Oldham meeting was preceeded by a procession, complete with a band. The procession was headed by a Quaker apothecary to symbolize the peaceable intentions of the demonstrators.[72][73] However, in the industrial areas of Manchester and surrounding districts a new Radicalism developed with its own independent working-class character.[74] This new ‘Radicalism indicated intransigent opposition to the Government; contempt for the weakness of the Whigs; opposition to restrictions on political liberties; open exposure of corruption and the Pitt system and general support for parliamentary reform.’[75][76]

Because their position was unchallenged, the wealthy classes fell unconsciously into the habit of believing that all national and economic problems were in keeping with their own self interest.[77] It seemed that the law of the land existed for no other purpose than the control and punishment of the working-class. There is no doubt the Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, with his unbending reverence for law and order was responsible for maintaining this policy.[78]

Another aspect of Sidmouth’s policy was the employment of paid spies who often also acted as agents provocateurs. The Home Office had a special fund which it distributed to magistrates to maintain their spy network. Records show that the Manchester magistrates used this fund freely. After the great success in which Yorkshire Luddites had been arrested in 1812 and convicted on the evidence of spies, it was now being successfully used again in Manchester and surrounding districts.[79] During the great strike of 1818, according to a government spy:

The spinners marched by Piccadilly [Manchester City Centre] on Tuesday and was 23 minets in going by.[80]


Meanwhile Henry Hunt had been gaining a reputation as a radical speaker. On 2nd December 1816 he was the main speaker at a large popular meeting held in the Spa Fields, London.[81] At this time of course, the main interest of the working class in demanding political reform was to gain representatives in Parliament who could legislate on their behalf to put an end to their poverty.[82] In fact it was Henry Hunt who ‘inaugurated the radical mass platform’ to put pressure on the central government for constitutional reform, to include universal manhood suffrage, annual parliaments and the ballot for all. There is no doubt that this offended some members of the reform movement and middle-class reformers who favoured direct-taxation, universal suffrage and close co-operation with the Whig opposition.’[83]


After the Spa Fields meeting there was some rioting and many demonstrators were arrested. However, whether the Spa Fields riots were real or imagined, the Government made full mileage out of the occasion in its propaganda war. It was also helped by the fact that when the Prince Regent went to open Parliament in January 1817, he had to make his way through a storm of ‘hoots and hisses’ and where a stone was thrown through his carriage window. This attracted the attention of Parliament to the ‘alarming growth of seditious societies’ and a ‘secret’ committee was soon appointed to inquire into the causes of the Spa Fields riots. Evidence was presented before the committee to prove that ‘popular unrest’ was due to the ‘licentiousness’ of the press, to public ‘agitators,’ like ‘Henry Hunt,’ and to ‘the alarming growth of Seditious Societies.’ This enabled the Government to introduce new Acts imposing severe penalties for ‘tampering with the allegiance of the Army,’ increasing the powers of magistrates to suppress meetings; and suspending the Habeas Corpus Act to permit arrests and detention without formal charge or trial.[84]

There were a number of meetings throughout 1816 and 1817, for example on November 4th 1816, with John Knight in the chair, about 5,000 people assembled in St Peters Fields to ‘take into consideration the present distressed state of the country.’ This first reform meeting in St Peters Fields caused considerable alarm to the authorities and in the next January a meeting of the inhabitants was held to consider ‘the necessity of adopting additional measures for the maintenance of peace.’ [85]

Other meetings followed, like the one held on 10th March 1817, where it was decided to march en masse to London in order to personally present to the Prince Regent a petition for the redress of their grievances. It has been described as the first hunger march in British history. They were protesting about the government’s economic policies and in particular the Corn Laws which had driven up the price of bread. Each man carried a blanket in preparation for the journey. However, Manchester magistrates called in soldiers to disperse the meeting. [86]

Those who took part in the march were nicknamed the Blanketeers. However, this action turned out to be ill-advised, and ended with disastrous consequences. Fearing a mass demonstration in London the authorities sent soldiers in pursuit of the reformers.[87] When they reached Lancaster Hill, near Stockport they were dispersed by the soldiers and ‘One hundred and sixty seven were taken prisoner and several received sabre wounds. One man was shot dead.’[88][89] In fact one man, Abel Couldwell, of Stalybridge, actually reached London and managed to present his petition to Lord Sidmouth to be delivered to the Prince Regent.[90]

One of the results of the Blanketeers movement was the arrest by order of the magistrates of eleven leading reformers. The ill-treatment and wholesale arrests of these Blanketeers had created indignation, and leading Manchester Radicals met in a secret committee to discuss what should be done.[91] A small number of radicals began to speak of making a ‘Moscow of Manchester.’[92] The secret committee was called Ardwick Bridge Secret Committee, who were all arrested when it came to the notice of the authorities, along with other local leaders including Samuel Bamford and Dr Healey. However, most were discharged by the end of the month due to the lack of evidence.[93]

The Manchester authorities announced that they had received information of ‘a most daring and traitorous conspiracy the subject of which is nothing less than open Insurrection and Rebellion.’ This hysterical outburst led to the formation of the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry, a volunteer force of which more was to be heard in August 1819.[94] On 21st June 1817, The Manchester Chronicle reported:

A meeting at the Manchester Police Office on June 19th decided under the present circumstances a force of yeomanry cavalry should be embodied.[95]

In fact the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry had been formed in 1817 especially to deal with the Radical Danger.’[96]

In 1817, the Central Government suspended the Habeas Corpeas Act.[97]The Act made it illegal to keep a man in prison without trial and its suspension meant that men suspected of being agitators or revolutionaries could be imprisoned for as long as the Government wished.[98][99]

Although the Hampden Clubs did not survive 1817, the radical campaign was kept alive through similarly organised Union Societies.[100] The first was founded in Stockport in October 1818, which was largely the work of the Reverend Joseph Harrison, with the ambitious title of the Stockport Union for the Promotion of Human Happiness.[101]
In the absence of a national organization, local societies took their lead from the Radical press. Between 1816 and 1820 Radical propaganda found its voice in the hand-press and the weekly periodicals. T. J. Wooler, the editor of Black Dwarf, commanded the largest Radical audience at this time. Radicals who preferred a newspaper rather than a periodical could read the Manchester Observer whose circulation approached that of the Black Dwarf by the end of 1819.[102]

Between 1817 and 1819, the works of Cobbett and Hone were extensively read by the working classes, and in many districts reading groups were formed for the purpose of hearing them read. At the time readers were scarce and Radicals like Elijah Ridings were selected to act as reader for the groups to which they belonged.[103]

There is no doubt that periodicals like Cobbett’s Register and the Black Dwarf played a big part in co-ordinating the reform movement.[104] The caricaturists in the radical press mercilessly ridiculed and criticised what they believed to be an extravagant and corrupt ruling class headed by the decadent Prince Regent the future George IV.[105]

Thomas Wooler however, the editor of The Black Dwarf, found himself in gaol for most of the time for inciting the public to overthrow the government.[106] Both Hone and Wooler were on bail, awaiting trial for ‘sedition’ and ‘blaphemy’ when on the 9th June the Spa Fields prisoners faced trial at the Old Bailey for High Treason. On the other hand when the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, William Cobbett, suspecting quite rightly perhaps, that he was in the firing line migrated to America. William Hone immediately stepped in to Cobbett’s place and published his own Reformists Register.[107]

In 1819 a number of new periodicals appeared in London. These included the Medusa, the Democratic Recorder the Cap of Liberty, and the Republican, each displaying their, own aggressive style. However, except for the Republican none of these periodicals lasted more than several months.[108]

If we examine the working-class response to Peterloo through the popular literature of the time, it gives us a completely new perspective on events. Because it reveals that the radicals were not only concerned with constitutional issues. They were also concerned with the behaviour of the new middle-classes, who they ‘perceived to have formed an alliance with the aristocratic government.’[109]

Exceptional antagonism existed between the Manchester loyalists on the one hand and the radical reformers on the other. In part this was the result of the maturity of the working-class movement and a number of other factors including the loyalist sentiments of many of the great commercial and manufacturing houses along with their antagonism to the trade unions, together with the legacy of Luddism, and the events following the reform meeting in St Peters Field in 1817. Not forgetting the influence of Nadin and the Tory churchmen in particular.[110]

Government spies were used to infiltrate radical groups, often acting as agents provocateurs, who engineered conspiracies allowing the authorities to make arrests and thereby smash their organizations. For example during the spring of 1817, three radicals were tricked by William Oliver one of Sidmouths most energetic and active secret agents. The three radicals were encouraged to ‘lead a rising of a few hundred stocking knitters and weavers at Pentridge in Nottinghamshire.’ Right from the start the rising had been a trap engineered by the Home Secretary Lord Sidmouth to ferret out ‘artisan revolutionaries.’ Nevertheless, the three were arrested, convicted of sedition and sentenced to be hanged.[111]

The employment of government spies helped create an atmosphere of fear and hatred which developed in the working-classes, it was meant to control. The liberty of the individual was already at an unacceptable level and the majority of men and women had no proper representation in Parliament at all. In the words of Robert Reid, ‘the nation by 1817 had come closer in spirit to that of the early years of the Third Reich than at any other time in modern history.’[112]

Joseph Johnson a strong supporter of universal suffrage was the most active organizer behind the Peterloo Reform Meeting. Johnson joined the Hampden Club formed by John Knight. In 1818 Johnson helped John Knight and James Wroe and John Saxton to start the radical newspaper, the Manchester Observer. Within twelve months the Manchester Observer was selling 4,000 copies a week. Although it started as a local paper, by 1819 it was sold in most large towns and cities in Britain.

Even though Hunt came from a privileged background he had earned the reputation as being the best public speaker in England. He was also the most popular radical leader in Lancashire, drawing large crowds. During 1819, Hunt was welcomed in a Lancashire village with the road carpeted with flowers.[113] Records of songs that were sung included:

With Henry Hunt we’ll go, we’ll go,
With Henry Hunt we’ll go;
We’ll raise the cap of liberty,
In spite of Nadin Joe.[114]

In contrast to the working-class Radicals, the middle-class Radical Reformers in Manchester by 1819 controlled no extensive network of agitation. They remained no more than a group of like-minded friends-‘a small but determined band’[115] and disliked Hunt, dismissing him as a vain publicity seeker.[116]

Working-class radicalism drew most of its support from the industrial areas of Manchester and all the surrounding districts and had a massive following, due to the hard times. Although some of this support came from the union societies, most of it came from the thousands of handloom weavers, ‘whose fervour and fanaticism gave to Manchester radicalism an intensity which was unrivalled throughout the land.’ A correspondent wrote to a Manchester newspaper in 1819:

A radical complete constitutional reform, we want nothing but this…to mend our markets and give every poor man plenty of work and good wages for doing it. [117]

With ‘petitioning discredited’ after 1817, radical societies had increasingly turned to displays of massed support at open-air meetings and rallies.[118] In fact there were a number of mass open-air meetings in most large towns throughout June and July 1819. Lord Liverpool’s ministry, the central government, local authorities and even middle-class reformers were concerned about the proliferation and character of these demonstrations, fuelled by government informants and spies who maintained that ‘insurrectionary plotting lay behind them.’[119] This explains why by 1819, Manchester and the surrounding districts were practically under military occupation. Because the governing classes were still obsessed by the fears engendered by the French Revolution and were extremely hostile to the poor.[120]

As a result Tories banded together and in Manchester they formed a Special Committee of Magistrates to strengthen their civil power. In addition special constables were recruited in disturbed areas and the persecution of the radical press was stepped up. Panic and animosity was becoming very intense.[121]

The antagonism that existed between loyalists and reformers on 16th August 1819, the day of Peterloo, also stemmed from earlier confrontations in Manchester and surrounding districts.[122] Increasing the fears of Manchester loyalists were a number of reform meetings held in various parts of Lancashire over the previous, two months. These meetings took place at Oldham, Ashton and Stockport in June, followed by, Blackburn, Rochdale, Macclesfield, in July, and Leigh in early August. These meetings were a clear demonstration of the extent of popular support which Radical Reform enjoyed in the surrounding districts. It also showed them how well the movement was organised, with Reform Unions drawing massive crowds.[123] In fact the weeks leading up to Peterloo witnessed lots of small meeting followed by more impressive demonstrations in regional centres like Manchester, in June and in Birmingham, Leeds and London in July.[124]

In March 1819, the leaders of the Hampden Clubs including James Wroe, Joseph Johnson and John Knight founded the Patriotic Union Society. Their main purpose was to bring about parliamentary reform. Joseph Johnson was appointed secretary and James Wroe the treasurer.[125] In July 1819 they invited Orator Henry Hunt, Major Cartwright and Richard Carlile to address a public meeting in Manchester. Unfortunately Cartwright was unable to attend but Hunt and Carlile accepted the invitation and it was decided to hold a mass meeting on 9th August 1819 at St Peters Field.[126]

In conclusion, the background to Peterloo lay in the social and political discontent which helped create the Radical Reform Movement in Britain during the late 18th and 19th centuries. With the ending of the Napoleonic War in 1815, when Napoleon was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo, 300,000 soldiers and sailors were disbanded and returned home. This along with unprecedented population growth, high ford prices created by the Corn Laws, along with mass unemployment, social and political unrest became widespread. The existing out dated system of parliamentary representation meant that many of the urban centres that had grown rapidly in the Industrial Revolution, like Manchester and the surrounding towns, had no Member of Parliament to look after their interests.

It was against this background that the mood was set for the August meeting which was the culmination of a series of political meetings and rallies held in Manchester, and its surrounding districts in 1819, a year of industrial depression and high food prices. It was fully intended that a mass meeting would be a great peaceful demonstration of discontent and its political purpose was to put pressure on the Central Government to bring about parliamentary reform.[127][128]































Chapter Two

Peterloo Massacre


The pubic are respectfully informed, that a MEETING will be held here on Monday the 9th August 1819 on the Area near St. PETER’S CHURCH, to take into consideration, the most speedy and effectual mode of obtaining Radical Reform in the Commons House of Parliament; being fully convinced, that nothing less can remove the intolerable evils under which the People of this Country have so long, and do still, groan: and also to consider the propriety of the ‘ Unrepresented Inhabitants of Manchester’ electing a Person to represent them in Parliament; and the adopting Major Cartwright’s Bill.
H. HUNT, Esq. in the Chair. [129]



It will be seen that the meeting had been originally set down for the 9th August. However, after the magistrates were informed that the meeting would include the election of a ‘representative to Parliament’ they declared the meeting to be illegal. Consequently the ‘offending topic’ was removed from the agenda and the meeting was postponed to the 16th.[130] Read points out that ‘by allowing the people to assemble…the magistrates gave them the impression that they accepted the meeting as legal and that they would not interfere.’[131]

The major myths surrounding Peterloo or the Peterloo Massacre can be identified as follows: firstly, that most of the injuries were caused by the fleeing crowd; secondly, the 15th Hussars only used the flats of their swords;[132] thirdly, only 11 people were killed and only 400 people were injured;[133] fourthly, there was no premeditation on behalf of the Select Committee of Magistrates to disperse the meeting by force.’[134] An additional misconception in the historiography is that the Irish population of Manchester did not become integrated with the movement for parliamentary reform.[135] It will be argued that other interpretations of these issues, based on the evidence available clearly show that such myths should not be believed.

On the morning of the 16th August 1819 the Manchester Observer reported that the morning was extremely fine and ‘well calculated to produce the attendance of an immense assemblage.’[136] In the words of Joyce Marlow:

From first light, thousands of men women and children walked in from villages and hamlets clad in their best clothes, shabby as those were, clutching their packets of food. The majority were aware of the seriousness of the meeting and the tensions that existed, the occasion was regarded as a day out, a few hours away from the handloom or mill or the miseries of their existence. [137]

Throughout the morning contingents of radical Reformers marched in an orderly formation to music played by local amateur bands. They came from Bolton, Bury, Chadderton, Cheadle, Failsworth, Middleton, Newton Heath, Miles Platting, Oldham, Rochdale, Royton, Saddleworth, and Stockport and many more.[138]

The author’s maternal Great, Great, Great grandfather Elijah Ridings who was a radical poet in the post–Napoleonic era and took an active part in reform agitation, at the age of 17 years led the Newton Heath and Miles Platting contingents to the Peterloo Meeting in 1819.[139] Most families that are long-term residents of Manchester and the surrounding districts can almost certainly guarantee that some of their ancestors were there too.

All reports agree that reformers were waving flags and many were carrying banners inscribed with statements like Vote by Ballot, Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, No Boroughmongering, and No Corn Laws. The Lees and Saddleworth Union contingent led by Doctor Healy carried a black banner with the words in white letters, Equal Representation or Death; this was also accompanied by a heart and two clasped hands with Love, inscribed on it. This disturbed the loyalist authorities and it was largely because of this that Dr. Healy was arrested after the meeting. [140]

There were also large numbers of working-class women in all-female contingents, distinctively dressed in white and with their own women leaders and carrying their own flags.[141] However, it was not only the flags or banners that aroused the alarm of the Manchester authorities, but the discipline of the massive crowd who had assembled on St Peters Field.[142] Some of the contingents were singing Methodist songs and it was more like a ‘revival meeting than a revolution,’ but it is now clear that the Select Committee of Magistrates were not there to award marks for ‘good behaviour.’ On the contrary they ‘were out to break up the meeting.’[143][144]

The 190th anniversary of Peterloo witnessed of an essay by Tom Waghorn in his article the Killing Field appearing in The Making of Manchester, (1999), says:

Many of the weavers had marched from Oldham and Middleton over bare moorland, or across the fields from Stockport. They had arrived at Peter’s Field in dignified cohorts, preceded by bands and banners, and complaining about the appalling conditions in mills and cottages….Mancunians were puzzled by the action of magistrate William Hulton, who ordered the dispersal of the meeting. He had the reputation of being a sincere and conscientious man, and townsfolk said he made a disastrous mistake in a moment of blind panic.[145]


Tom Waghorn’s assertion in not a true picture and in contrast I agree with Donald Read who says:

Nobody can deny what the mass meeting was all about. The radical protesters were carrying banners demanding- Universal Suffrage, No Boroughmongering, and No Corn Laws. Hulton and the Regency Tories refused the masses their political rights, and also expected many of them to acquiesce in near starvation caused by the deep post-war economic depression.[146]

Although some of the crowd were drawn to the meeting by Hunt’s magnetic personality and charm, the majority of the crowd attended in the belief that the political reforms he proposed would make the government responsive to their interests and, relieve them from absolute poverty. They attributed their poverty to large scale unemployment, low wages and high food prices, which they ‘blamed upon a corrupt political system and the favours it showed on those that controlled it, especially the aristocracy and clergy.’[147]

Within a few days after Peterloo an article appeared in The Times written by a correspondent describing the condition of the poor, in the then New Cross area of Manchester, recording:

It is occupied chiefly by spinners, weavers…its present condition is truly heart-rending and over-powering. The streets are confined and dirty; the houses neglected, and the windows often without glass. Out of the windows 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.[148]

From first light the bill-posting men were out in force in the streets of Manchester, pasting notices on every spare wall and notice board:

The Borough Reeves and the Constables of Manchester and Salford most earnestly recommend the peaceable and well disposed inhabitants of the two towns, as much as possible, to remain in their own houses, during the whole of this day, Monday, August 16th inst., and to keep their children and servants within doors.[149]

The meeting was held under the surveillance of the Select Committee of Magistrates, responsible for policing the day’s events in Manchester on 16th. They included the Reverend William Hay, the Reverend Charles Wickstead Ethelston, the Reverend Mallory, James Norris, Colonel Ralph Fletcher, Mr Richard Marsh, Mr J. Sylvester, Thomas Tatton, William Hulton, Mr Wright, Mr Marriott and Mr Fielden. These men were a typical example of Britain’s ruling class at this time. For example, William Hulton and Thomas Tatton were both large landowners James Norris was a barrister, and the Reverends William Hay, Charles Wickstead Ethelston and the Reverend Mallory were Anglican ministers.[150]

There is no doubt that on the 16th August 1819 the Radical contingents had been closely watched by government spies, as they marched into Manchester. The Home Office regularly supplied magistrates with funds to operate their spies. The Reverend Mr Hay then supplied cash to Deputy Chief Constable Nadin to operate his own web of spies. As early as 1817 when John Bagguley and John Drummond were organising workers meetings they were permanently on their guard against Nadin’s spies.[151] In addition as the Radical contingents approached Manchester mounted special constables rode out to meet them reporting their progress to the Select Committee.[152]

The organizers of the meeting knew that the government was waiting for a ‘pretext to use its muscle’ and had taken great care not to satisfy them, taking all precautions to ensure that the meeting would be a peaceful one.[153] When Hunt heard that preparations for the Manchester meeting had involved ‘secret’ drilling on the moors with pikes and even firearms, he demanded that the Lancashire radicals ‘cease playing soldiers’ and stressed that they must come to the meeting ‘armed with no other weapon but that of a self-approving conscience.’[154] On 11th August Hunt issued An Address to the Reformers of Manchester and its Neighbourhood which read as follows:

You will meet on Monday next, my friends, and by your steady, and temperate deportment, you will convince your enemies, that you feel you have an important and imperious public duty to perform…The eyes of England, nay, of all Europe, are fixed upon you and every friend of real Reform and Rational Liberty, is tremblingly alive to the result of your Meeting on Monday next. Our enemies will seek every opportunity, by means of their sanguinary agents, to excite a Riot, that they may have a pretence for spilling our blood…Come then my friends, to a Meeting on Monday, armed with NO OTHER WEAPON but that of a self-approving conscience; determined not to suffer yourselves to be irritated or excited, by any means whatsoever, to commit any breach of the public peace.[155]

In fact Hunt had spent the week prior to the meeting in Manchester visiting the leaders of the radical contingents, to ensure that his instructions for peace and discipline were understood and would be strictly obeyed. [156] Hunt also offered to surrender himself to the magistrates well before the meeting on the 16th in order to give them no reason to break up the meeting. However, the magistrates declined his offer and instead began organising a mixed force of Yeomanry, Hussars, infantry, artillery and special constables to police the centre of Manchester. [157]

Later Samuel Bamford an organiser of the mass meeting in his Passages in the Life of a Radical, (1841), explained:

We had frequently been taunted by the press, with our ragged, dirty appearance…and the moblike crowds in which our numbers were mustered; and we determined…that we should disarm the bitterness of our political opponents by a display of cleanliness, sobriety, and decorum.[158]

Obviously Hunt’s warning worked because when the contingents of men, women and children arrived at St Peters Fields they were not carrying weapons of any kind.[159] Thompson stresses the fact that ‘the presence of so many women and children was overwhelming testimony to the pacific character of a meeting which (the reformers knew) all England was watching.’[160] Not only were the reformers wearing their best Sunday clothes, they stood respectfully at one stage while the band played ‘God save the King.’ Anything less like a revolutionary meeting could not possibly have been imagined.[161]

Archibald Prentice, watched the start of the meeting in St. Peters Field from the window of a friend’s house in Mosley Street, but he left the area to travel home just before the attack by the yeomanry took place. On his way home he was passed by crowds of injured people who had fled from the meeting. After interviewing several of the crowd, he immediately wrote an account which he then dispatched to London. His article along with an account of John Taylor, a reporter for The Times ensured that accounts of events which had taken place at St. Peters Fields appeared in a London newspaper within 48 hours. Some years later Prentice published his Historical Sketches and Personal Recollections of Manchester, (1851) recording what he had seen and heard on the day. According to his eyewitness account:

The morning of the 16th of August came, and soon after nine o’clock the people began to assemble. From the window of Mr. Baxter’s house in Mosley-Street, I saw the main body proceeding towards St. Peters Field, and never saw a gayer spectacle. There were haggard-looking men certainly, but the majority were young persons, in their best Sunday suits, and the light coloured dresses of the cheerful tidy-looking women relieved the effect of the dark fustations worn by the men. The ‘marching order’ of which so much was said afterwards, was what we often see now in the processions of Sunday-school children and Temperance societies. To our eyes the numerous flags seemed to have been brought to add to the picturesque effect of the pageant. Slowly and orderly the multitudes took to their places round the hustings, which stood on a spot now included under the roof of the Free Trade Hall, near its south-east corner. Our company laughed at the fears of the magistrates, and the remark was, that if the men intended mischief they would not have brought their wives, their sisters, or their children with them. I passed round the outskirts of the meeting, and mingled with the groups that stood chatting there. I occasionally asked the women if they were not afraid to be there, and the usual laughing reply was- ‘What have, we to be afraid of?’ I saw Hunt arrive, and heard the shouts of sixty thousand persons by whom he was enthusiastically welcomed, as the carriage in which he stood made its way through the dense crowd to the hustings. I proceeded to my dwelling-house in Salford, intending to return in about an hour or so to witness in what manner so large a meeting would separate.[162]


The Reverend Edward Stanley, Rector of Alderly, who had private business to transact in Manchester on 16th August 1819 with a Mr. Buxton, who owned the house which the Select Committee of Magistrates had chosen as their headquarters and remained there to watch the whole event from a window directly above the magistrates,[163] and later gave evidence that:

I saw no symptoms of riot or disturbances before the meeting; the impression on my mind was that the people were sullenly peaceful.[164]

The policy in Regency England was to call on the regular army in troubled times to act as a police force [165]but the main representatives of law and order were the local magistrates, many of whom, like the Manchester magistrates, belonged to an elite oligarchy having little sympathy with the working-class or even with the new smaller mill owners. Their main anxiety was that there would be an assault on property by the mob. Because there was no organized police force, they often swore-in special constables or asked to the Home Secretary Lord Sidmouth to authorise the use of the regular army.[166]

Before the meeting, Manchester and surrounding districts were practically under military occupation. Major-General Byng listed the full complement of troops under his command in Manchester and its district at this time as follows:


Manchester 6 troops of cavalry : 15th Hussars `````````` 7 companies of infantry 31st & 88th Regt.
Bolton 2 troops of cavalry : 6th Dragoon Guards
Oldham 2 troops of cavalry : 6th Dragoon Guards
Ashton 2 troops of cavalry : 7th Dragoon Guards
Rochdale 2 companies of infantry : 88th Regt.
Stockport 1 troop of yeomanry cavalry : (Cheshire Yeomanry)
4 companies of infantry : 31st & 88th Regt.
Macclesfield 1 squadron of yeomanry cavalry : (Cheshire Yeomanry)
3 companies of infantry : 31st Regt.
Altrincham
And Knutsford 5 troops of yeomanry cavalry : ` (Cheshire Yeomanry)
Warrington 3 companies of infantry : 31st Regt.
Preston 1 troop of cavalry : 15th Hussars
Blackburn 1 troop of cavalry : 15th Hussars [167]



There is no mention of the Manchester or Cheshire Yeomanry Cavalry on Major General Byng’s military list and muster-roll. This is because prior to the day of the meeting the Yeomanry were to be under the direct command of the magistrates.[168]

It has been asserted that there was no premeditation to disperse the meeting by force. However, this belief is contradicted by the evidence. We have also been asked to believe accounts that attempt to exonerate from blame the Select Committee of Magistrates, or accounts which assume that the magistrates were only guilty of panic or ill-judgement, and that once the Yeomanry had been ordered onto the field, all happened by chance.[169] For example J. Stevenson, in Popular Disturbances in England, 1700-1870, (1979), argues,

Whether the magistrates had intended all along to disperse the meeting once Hunt had arrived cannot be proved with certainty; at the very least they had acted with spectacular incompetence.[170]

To begin with attention must be drawn to the following documentary evidence. The Reverend Mr. Hay writing to the Home Secretary Lord Sidmouth on 7th October 1819, when attempting to justify his actions after the events at Peterloo writes:

The Committee continued to meet, and did so on Saturday [August] 14th Sunday, and Monday. Prior to the Saturday, different points had been discussed as to the propriety of stopping the Meeting and the manner of doing so. They were of the opinion that Multitudes coming in columns with Flags and Marching in Military array were even in the approach to the Meeting a tumultuous assembly; and it was for a little time under consideration whether each column should not be stopped at their respective entrances into the Town, but this was given up-it was considered that the Military might then be distracted and it was wished that the Town should see what the meeting was, when assembled, and also that those who came should be satisfied they were assembled in an unlawful manner. Being satisfied….that in point of Law [the Meeting] if assembled as it was expected, would be an illegal Meeting, we gave notice to Lieut-Col L’Estrange….of our wish to have the assistance of the Military on the 16th. [171]

The Reverend Hay’s account is a clear statement of the Select Committee’s intentions. It is also absolutely clear that the magistrates had a ‘contingency plan’ for dispersing the meeting before it even started with the assistance of the regular armed forces.[172]

The Magistrates contingency plan was prepared and the military forces were assembled. [173][174] They included 400 hundred members of the Prince Regent’s Own Cheshire Yeomanry and 120 members of the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry Cavalry.[175]

All reports agree that from early morning of 16th August, some 1500 soldiers were busily engaged taking up their positions, as were the Radical contingents. Totally unaware of the troop movements surrounding them, the crowds waited patiently for Henry Hunt and the other speakers to arrive.[176] One Troop from the Manchester Yeomanry had assembled in Portland Street, whilst another had assembled in and around St John’s Street along with a troop of the 15th Hussars and the Cheshire Yeomanry. Another detachment of Hussars and a troop of the Royal Horse Artillery with two six pounder field guns were stationed in Lower Mosley Street. In addition troops of the 31st Infantry Regiment were assembled in Brazennose Street, whilst a company of the 88th Infantry Regiment waited patiently in Dickenson Street.[177]

Meanwhile some members of the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry were observed drinking in nearby hotels and public houses.[178] In addition to the military, the Reverend Stanley, in his eyewitness account declared that:

In the centre [St. Peters Field] were the hustings surrounded to all appearances by a numerous body of constables, easily distinguished by their respectable dress, staves and hats on….The chain from this main body was continued in a double line, two or three deep, forming an avenue to Mr. Buxton’s house, by which there seemed to be free and uninterrupted access, to and from the hustings.[179]

John Edward Taylor the founder of the Manchester Guardian who along with
John Tyas of The Times and who witnessed the events at Peterloo recorded in his Notes and Observations, Critical and Explanatory on the Papers Relative to the Internal State of the Country (1820), that:

Early in the forenoon on August 16th persons supposed to be acquainted with the intentions of the magistrates distinctly asserted that Mr Hunt would be arrested on the hustings, and the meeting dispersed. I myself was more than once told so, but could not conceive it possible.[180]


The meeting was expected to be a significant occasion. Therefore the Manchester newspapers and the reforming press from other towns were there in force. They included John Tyas from The Times, Edward Baines from the Leeds Mercury and John Smith from the Liverpool Mercury. Naturally Archibald Prentice and Taylor from the Manchester Obsever were there too but nobody could have predicted that Peterloo would have as profound an effect on English sentiment as Sharpeville or Tienenmin Square has had in our troubled times.[181]

The estimates of the crowd numbers differ considerably as is to be expected. For example according to the magistrate Thomas Tatton, the total figure assembled was 30,000. Samuel Bamford on the other hand estimated 80,000, the Manchester Observer 153,000, The Annual Register 80,000, whilst The Times printed figures of 80,000 and, later, 100,000. Finally, Orator Henry Hunt and Archibald Prentice estimated 60,000, and this figure became the figure generally accepted by historians.[182] Alan Kidd emphasizes the fact that even the highest and lowest estimates represent the ‘arithmetic of propaganda rather than reliable assessments of numbers,’ but even the lowest estimate would suggest a gathering of unprecedented proportions for the time.[183]

At 10.a.m. the Select Committee of Magistrates first met at the Star Inn before moving on to Mr Baxter’s house at 6 Mount Street overlooking St. Peters Field arriving there by 11.0 a.m.[184][185] Certainly Richard Owen a pawnbroker and special constable swore an affidavit that Hunt had arrived and that ‘an immense mob is collected and I consider the town in danger.’[186] In fact the affidavit was sworn and the warrant for Hunt’s arrest was issued long before he arrived at St Peters Field.[187]

At 1.35p.m. Reverend Charles Ethelston made a feeble attempt to read the Riot Act from an upstairs window of Mr Buxton’s house at 6 Mount Street. It is highly unlikely that the crowd would have heard the Riot Act being read and a large number of witnesses later gave evidence to that effect. Nevertheless, this procedure was required by law to give legitimacy to the military action that was about to follow:

Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to disperse to their habitations of their lawful business upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King.[188]

There is no doubt that the Magistrates could have executed the warrant long before the meeting commenced but they deliberately waited until the meeting started to execute their plan. Then at 1.40 p.m. Orator Henry Hunt began to address the crowd. At this point a warrant was handed to Captain Joseph Nadin, the then Deputy Chief Constable of Manchester to arrest the speakers. Nadin argued that the special constables were not a strong enough force to execute the warrant and without the assistance of the military.[189]

At this point the magistrates dispatched their orders to Major Thomas Trafford commanding the Manchester Yeomanry and to Colonel L’Estrange commanding the 15th Hussars and regular troops. However, the Select Committee of magistrates decided not to wait for the Hussars but to send in the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry to accompany Nadin as he executed his warrant. The fatal mistake was made of sending for the Manchester Yeomanry, who had only volunteered because of their hatred of Radicalism.[190]

Major Thomas Trafford the Senior Officer commanding the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry Cavalry had taken up a position in Pickfords Yard nearby. Trafford was the first man to receive the order from the Select Committee to arrest the speakers on the hustings. He then instructed his second-officer-in command, Captain Hugh Birley to carry out the order of the magistrates. Later a considerable number of eyewitnesses in the crowd gave evidence that the 40 to 50 yeomanry who Captain Birley led into the crowd in St. Peters Field were drunk. Birley in his defence claimed that the erratic behaviour of his cavalry was caused by the horses being startled by the crowd.[191]

Sir William Jolliffe who rode in charge as Lieutenant of Hussars later described the Manchester Yeomanry as:

Consisting of about forty members, who, from the manner they were made use of greatly aggravated the disasters of the day. Their ranks were filled chiefly by wealthy manufacturers; and without the knowledge possessed by a military body, they were placed unwisely as it appeared, under the immediate command and order of the civil authorities.[192]

On the other hand Reginald White in Waterloo to Peterloo (1957), argued that in fact the ‘Manchester and Salford Yeomanry consisted almost exclusively of cheesemongers, ironmongers, and newly enriched manufacturers, and the people of Manchester thought them a joke.’[193] There is no doubt however, that prior to the meeting, animosity between the Radicals and the loyalist Yeomanry was already very intense.[194]

Reports generally agree that the Yeomanry first made their way towards the meeting along Cooper Street. [195] It was here that the first fatality occurred when Mrs Ann Fildes, [not to be confused with Mary Fildes on the hustings] and her two year old son were both knocked down to the ground by the Yeomanry and the little boy was killed, becoming the first casualty of Peterloo.[196]

The Manchester and Salford Yeomanry entered St. Peters Field along the pathway that had been secured by the special constables with sabres drawn. Several loyalist reports say that as the yeomanry drew closer to the hustings, a number of the crowd linked arms in an attempt to prevent them arresting Henry Hunt and the other speakers and that at the same time other members of the crowd attempted to close the clear pathway formed by the special constables. However most reports agree that the Yeomanry continued to advance into the crowd with sabres drawn, and began to cut a pathway to the hustings.[197] According to the eyewitness account of the Reverend Edward Stanley:

As the cavalry approached the dense mass of people they used their utmost efforts to escape; but so closely were they pressed in opposite directions by the soldiers, the special constables, the position of the hustings, and their own immense numbers, that immediate escape was impossible. When the Yeomanry arrived at the hustings a scene of confusion soon followed. Hunt fell-or threw himself- among the constables, and was driven or dragged, as fast as possible down the avenue to the magistrates house; his associates were hurried after him in a similar manner.[198]


At the trial of Henry Hunt William Hulton explained his account of his actions on 16th August 1819 as follows:

When the Yeomanry advanced to the hustings I saw bricks and stones flying. I wish to convey to the jury those stones and bricks were thrown in defiance of the military. I saw them attacked, and under that impression I desired Colonel L’Estrange to advance. On my saying to Colonel L’Estrange ‘Good God, Sir, they are attacking the Yeomanry-disperse the crowd,’ he advanced, and the dispersion of the crowd took place. Many of the people did not fly when the first body of the cavalry road amongst them. The moment Colonel L’Estrange advanced with his squadron, the general flight took place.[199]

In contrast, John Tyas of The Times in his eyewitness account reported:

As soon as Hunt and Johnson had jumped from the wagon [hustings] a cry was made by the Cavalry, ‘Have at their flags.’ In consequence, they immediately not only dashed at the flags which were in the wagon, but those which were posted among the crowd, cutting most indiscriminately to the right and to the left in order to get at them. This set the people running in all directions, and it was not until this act had been committed that any brickbats were hurled at the military. From that moment the Manchester Yeomanry lost all command of temper.[200]

Captain Hugh Hornby Birley, the commander of the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry did not dispute the attack on the flags. His account although through the medium of Lord Stanley, declared that, after the magistrates’ warrant had been executed:

Considerable tumult prevailed, and a struggle ensued between the constables and those persons in the cart, who wished to save the caps of liberty, banners. Some of those who resisted were taken into custody, and the soldiers cut with their sabres. In doing this, it was possible that some persons had been hurt, but not intentionally.[201]


On the question of the controversial stones and brickbats John Smith of the Liverpool Mercury gave evidence at Hunts trial that:

I saw no stone or brick-bat thrown at them [Yeomanry] in my judgement, if any stones or brick-bats had been thrown I was in a situation likely to have seen it, my eyes and countenance were in a direction towards the military up to the moment of their reaching the hustings.[202]

The Reverend Edward Stanley in his eyewitness account also confirmed that:

I indeed saw no missile weapons used throughout the whole transaction…but, the dust at the hustings soon partially obscured everything that took place near that particular spot.’[203]

It must perhaps be noted that when giving evidence at Hunt’s trial William Hulton said that: ‘When the Yeomanry advanced to the hustings I saw bricks and stones flying.’ Since Hulton’s was in the same house as Stanley his view of the proceedings would have been almost identical to that of Stanley’s and he would have been peering through the same dust all though Hulton does not mention this. It seems that Hulton’s evidence was questionable.

In contrast William Harrison, a cotton spinner in the crowd on St Peters Field on 16th August 1819, later gave his eyewitness evidence at the inquest of John Lees in Oldham :

Harrison: We were all merry in the hopes of better times.
Coroner: Were you not desired to disperse?
Harrison: Only with the swords-nobody asked us to disperse-only trying to cut our heads off with their swords…The soldiers began cutting and slaying, and the constables began to seize the colours, and the tune was struck up; they all knew of the combination. Amidst such music, few paused to distinguish between flats and sharps.
Coroner: Did they cut at you near the hustings?
Harrison: No, as I was running away three soldiers came down upon me one after another…there was whiz this way, and a whiz that way, backwards and forwards…and I, as they were going to strike, threw myself on my face, so that, if they cut, it should be on my bottom.
Coroner: You act as well as speak?
Harrison: Yes, I’m real Lancashire blunt. Sir, I speak the truth…whenever any cried out ‘mercy,’ they said ‘Damn you, what brought you here.’ [204]

More recently Joyce Marlow, in the process of researching her book, The Peterloo Massacre, (1970), discovered letters of Major Dynely, the commander of the Royal Horse Artillery and the two six pounder field guns held in readiness on the day in Lower Mosley Street.[205] Major Dynley writes:

The first action of the Battle of Manchester is over…and I am happy to say has ended in the complete discomfiture of the Enemy….I was very much assured to see the way in which the Volunteer Cavalry knocked the people about during the whole time we remained on the ground; the instant they saw ten or dozen Mobites together, they rode at them and leathered them properly.[206]

Samuel Bamford, who was part of the crowd, described the scene immediately after the attack in his eye witness account:

In ten minutes from the commencement of the havoc, the field was an open and almost deserted place. The sun looked down through a still and motionless air…The Hustings remained, with a few broken and hewed flag-staves erect, and a torn and gashed banner or two dropping; whilst over the whole field were strewed caps, bonnets, hats, shawls and shoes, and other parts of male and female dress; trampled, torn and bloody. The Yeomanry had dismounted –some were easing their horses’ girths, others adjusting their accoutrements; and some were wiping their sabres. Several mounds of human beings still remained where they had fallen, crushed down and smothered. Some were still growning others with staring eyes were gasping for breath, and others would never breathe more.[207]


Sir William Joliffe, Lieutenant of Hussars, described the scene after entering the Field in his eye witness account as follows:

An extraordinary sight: the ground was quite covered with hats, shoes, musical instruments and other things. Here and there lay the unfortunates who were too much injured to move away and the sight was more distressing, by observing some women among the sufferers.[208]

The majority of the terrified, panic stricken crowd running from the Field found difficulty in escaping along the side streets because the main escape route along Peter Street was cut off by the 88th Infantry Regiment standing there with fixed bayonets, so that the fleeing crowd were caught in a trap.[209]

The role of the infantry was to intensify the terror of the crowd by preventing people from making their escape from the field along the most direct routes home. These troops had fixed bayonets, forming a line across the street exit routes on the north side. Reports show that they inflicted serious wounds on the fleeing crowd either by stabbing with the ends of their bayonets or clubbing with their musket-butts. On reaching the line of bayonets, the crowd turned back only to find themselves under attack from the sabres of the cavalry.[210] This incident was described by an anonymous eyewitness:

The 88th troop were marched to a station at the south end of the Quaker Meeting House to interrupt the people[as] crowds passed who might fly in that direction and there indeed most dreadful slaughter to this quarter and were forced back by bayonets of the infantry, the cavalry cutting them in the rear.[211]

Another eye-witness account of John Railton appeared in the Manchester Guardian on 18th August 1819, reporting a similar thing:

The cavalry were pursuing the mob and they were met and goaded by the infantry who were advancing upon and pricking them with fixed bayonets.[212]

Bush emphasises the fact that:

Fifteen entries in the casualty lists reveal the work of the 88th Foot: William Batsan, John Boulter, John Brookes, Joseph Brookes, Thomas Buckley, Mary Evans, John Goodwin, John Hardman, Mark Howard, William Hurdies, William Moores, Joseph Ogden, John Pimblet, John Smithies, Peter Warburton. They show how the 88th stabbed people in the head, belly, back and arms with their bayonets or clubbed them to the ground with the butts of their muskets.[213]

Huge crowds of men, women and children, many of them wounded, were fleeing along the same roads which they had traversed a few hours earlier in good spirits. The eyewitness account of Archibald Prentice continues:

I had not been home more than a quarter of an hour when a wailing sound was heard from the main street, and, rushing out, I saw people running in the direction of Pendleton, their faces pale as death, and some with blood trickling down their cheeks. It was with difficulty I could get anyone to stop and tell me what happened.[214]

The next day Tuesday 17th August 1819, a reporter from The Observer said that he ‘saw six coaches, three carts and three litters loaded with the wounded’ travelling to the Manchester Infirmary.’ Whilst The Star newspaper on the 17th reported:

All roads leading from Manchester to Ashton, Stockport, Cheadle, Bury and Bolton are covered with wounded stragglers, who have not been able to reach their houses after the events of Monday…There are 17 wounded persons along Stockport Road; 13 or 14 on the Ashton Road; at least 20 on the Oldham Road; 7 or 8 on the Rochdale Road, besides several others on the roads to Liverpool.[215]

On the evening of the 16th a riot broke out in the New Cross area of Manchester. A shopkeeper there, who, it was alleged by the rioters, had been a special constable at Peterloo had exhibited a captured Radical flag. As a result they had attacked his shop. It was reported that the Riot Act had to be read, and one of the rioters was shot by the military.[216]

The revision version was first aired at a quarter to nine on the night of Peterloo, when the senior magistrate William Hay reported to the Home Office:

The Riot Act was read, and the mob was completely dispersed, but not without very serious and lamentable effects…one of the Manchester Yeomanry, Mr. Hulme, was, after the parties was taken, struck by a brick-bat; he lost his power over his horse, and is supposed to have fractured his skull by a fall from his horse. I am afraid he is since dead; if not, there are no hopes of his recovery. A special constable of the name of Ashworth has been killed – cause unknown; and four women appear to have lost their lives by being pressed by the crowd; these, I believe, are the fatal effects of the meeting. A variety of instances of sabre wounds occurred, but I hope none mortal; several pistols were fired by the mob, but as to their effect, save in one instance deposed to before Colonel Fletcher, we have no account. [217]



In more recent years Robert Warmsley in Peterloo: The Case Re-opened, Manchester, (1969), would have us believe that the Yeomanry were ordered to support the special constables in the execution of the warrant to arrest the speakers and then advanced in reasonable order and without aggressive intention or action into the crowd; and then that the crowd closed in upon them in a menacing manner and the Yeomanry were assailed, at some point close to the hustings, by brickbats and sticks hurled by a portion of the crowd, but that most of the Yeomanry kept their heads until Hunt and his fellow speakers had been arrested, and then, increasingly assailed by brickbats and hemmed in on all sides by a threatening crowd they were forced to beat off their attackers only using the flats of their sabres, in self defence.[218]

Warmsley also believes the Select Committee of Magistrates in their house overlooking the hustings were justly alarmed by the proceedings, both by tumults which had preceded the 16th August and by the radical rhetoric and military array of the crowd on the day. Furthermore, the magistrates, observing the predicament of the Yeomanry in the midst of a threatening multitude, were forced to order the 15th Hussars to come to their rescue and clear the field. Finally the radicals have made party-political propaganda out of their own aggression ever since.[219]

Another controversy which was developed in the historiography of Peterloo is that there was premeditation on the part of Lord Liverpool and the Home Secretary Lord Sidmouth to disperse the meeting by force. For example E.P. Thompson in The Making of The English Working Class, (1963) argued that ‘We shall probably never be able to determine with certainty whether or not Liverpool and Simouth were parties to the decision to disperse the meeting by force.’[220] On the other hand Donald Read in his study of Peterloo argued that:

As the evidence of the Home Office shows, it was never desired or precipitated by the Liverpool Ministry as a bloody repressive gesture for keeping down the lower orders. If the Manchester magistrates had followed the spirit of Home Office Policy there would never have been a massacre.[221]

I have to agree with Read that no direct documentary evidence been produced to date linking the Home Office to the instruction to the Manchester magistrates to disperse the meeting by force. However, Read’s statement begs two questions. Firstly, just exactly what was ‘the spirit of Home Office Policy’ at this time? As we have seen the spirit of the Home Office throughout the years leading up to Peterloo was largely demonstrated by the following methods: suspending Habeas Corpus, using paid spies, sometimes acting as agents provocateurs, propaganda trials clamping down on meeting the radical press’ imprisonment of radical leaders, the gallows, or transportations to Australia. In addition the Government, always nervously aware of their dependence on the magistrates in times of unrest, did not hesitate to authorise the use of the regular army in the absence of a regular police force when requested. [222]

Secondly, the question still remains: who should be held responsible for Peterloo? The simple answer is that the Home Secretary Lord Sidmouth was responsible for maintaining the internal security of the nation. As Home Secretary, he was in command of all military forces and all the law officers who reported to him.[223] It must also be noted that:

There is no doubt that he would have had to have sanctioned the use of regular soldiers, the 15th Hussars and other regular troops who were stationed in Manchester on the day of the meeting.[224]

Throughout his lifetime Sidmouth was accused of being responsible for the massacre and the suffering that followed because, it was claimed, the magistrates, soldiers and special constables involved were responding to a situation controlled by his office and his decisions. Therefore the ultimate guilt was his.[225]

On the question of numbers either killed or injured in the crowd, the popular belief developed in historical accounts that only 11 people were killed and only 400 were injured is not supported by the evidence. This myth was developed by Donald Read in his book Peterloo: The Massacre and its Background, (1957), who asserted ‘Only 11 were killed and 400 injured.’[226]

Donald Reads incorrect figures have simply been copied into many histories. [227] For example, Robert Warmsley in Peterloo: The Case-reopened, (1969), Says ‘11 people were killed and 400 were injured.’[228] John Stevenson in Popular Disturbances in England 1700-1832, (1979), citing Read says ‘Within ten or fifteen minutes 11 people had been killed and 400 injured.’ Asa Briggs in The Age of Improvement 1783-1867, (1979), says ‘eleven people were killed and over 400 wounded.’[229] Howard Martin in Britain in the Nineteenth Century, (1996), says ‘11 people were killed and 400 were injured.’[230] Michael Turner, in British politics in an age of reform, (1999), says ‘Eleven people died and more than 400 were wounded.’[231] More recently an article I the Manchester Evening News says ‘11 people died and 500 were injured.’[232] However, there are many other examples.

As early as 1922, G. M., Trevelyan in his article, The Number of Casualties at Peterloo, recommended that there should be full disclosure of the casualty lists and that they should also be published.[233] [see appendix]. His recommendations were ignored until 1989, when Malcolm and Walter Bee in their article The Casualties of Peterloo, compiled and re examined the lists as far as they were able.[234] Producing a casualty figure of 630, the Bees showed that the injured far exceeded previous estimates set at about 400. They also showed that police and soldiers caused a majority of the injuries, whereas it was previously thought that most came of being crushed in the crowd. The aim of their analysis was not really to prove whether or not a massacre had occurred, but rather to extrapolate from the casualty lists information on the size and composition of the assembled crowd.[235]

Finally, Michael Bush in The Casualties of Peterloo, (2005), 186 years after Peterloo, put Trevelyan’s recommendations into practice and, by careful examination and analysis of all the lists, built on the work of Malcolm and Walter Bee.[236] Bush emphasises the fact that ‘the principal evidence for the injured at Peterloo lies in the casualty lists compiled at the time or not long afterwards. Of the eight surviving lists, six were completed by January 1820, a seventh by 1831 and the final one by 1844. Between them they furnish detailed information on the number of casualties, along with the names, addresses, occupations and ages of the injured, the nature of the injury and of its infliction.[237]

The list of those killed at Peterloo is as follows:

Name Residence Cause Location Date

John Ashton Nr Oldham Sabred On field 16 Aug.
John Ashworth Manchester Sabred On field ?
Wm. Bradshaw Whitefield Shot ? ?
Thos. Buckley Chadderton Sabred/bayoneted On field? 16 Aug.?
Robert Campbell Manchester mob violence Newton Lane 18 Aug.
James Crompton Barton Trampled by cav. On field 1 Sept.
Edm. Dawson Saddleworth Sabred On field 31 Aug.
Wm. Dawson Saddleworth Sabred On field 1 Sept.
Margaret Downes Manchester Sabred On field ?
Wm. Evans Hulme Trampled by cav. On field ?
Wm. Fildes Manchester Trampled by cav. Cooper Street 16 Aug.
Mary Heys Chorlton Row Trampled by cav. On field 17 Dec.
Sarah Jones Manchester Truncheoned On field ?
John Lees Oldham Sabred/Trunch. On field 30 Aug.
Arthur Neil Manchester Sabred/crushed On field ?
Martha Partington Barton Crushed in cellar Bridge Street 16 Aug.
John Rohdes Nr. Oldham Sabred On field 19 Nov.
Joshua Whitworth Hyde Shot New Cross 20 Aug.

In describing the injuries sustained, the casualty lists frequently identify those responsible for inflicting them. It is generally accepted that to the fore in the attack on the crowd were 60 volunteers from the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry Cavalry, backed up by 400 or so Special Constables, another voluntary group.[238]

Since 300 or so Hussars had charged the crowd shortly after the 60 Yeomanry had done so, they must bear some responsibility-along with the 420 Cheshire Yeomanry Cavalry and a further 60 Manchester and Salford Yeomanry Cavalry, both of whom had accompanied the Hussars to the ground.[239]His research revealed that without a shadow of doubt there were ‘654 casualties, eighteen who died from their injuries.’[240]

Bush points out that the casualty lists also reveal the amounts of payments of compensation to the injured. The remarkable feature of this evidence is that it shows the miserable amounts of money that was dispensed to the injured. Moreover as the Bees revealed in their research over ‘80 per cent of the payments were £2 or less, with 50 per cent £1 or less. Payments above £5 were made to no more than 3 per cent of the injured.’[241]

The popular belief that most of the injuries were caused by the fleeing crowd is not supported by the evidence. This myth began with Sir William Jolliffe, a lieutenant in the 15th Hussars who had taken part in the attack on the crowd, who later said that ‘Beyond all doubt…the far greater amount of injuries were from the pressure of the routed multitude.’[242]

This myth was further developed by Donald Read in his Peterloo, (1957), in which he makes the point that 60,000 were dispersed in ten minutes, and saying it is:

little wonder that hundreds were hurt, and many more by crushing than by sabring..with the exception of 140 cut by sabring many more were crushed or thrown down as a result of the pressure of the crowd.’[243]

Read’s assertion has been repeated in many histories, including Robert Walmsley’s Peterloo: The Case Re-opened, (1969),[244] Norman Gash in Aristocracy and People, (1979), also asserts that ‘Possibly half the deaths, probably even more of the non-fatal injuries, were among those who were trampled underfoot by horses and the crowd in the panic that ensued.’[245] More recently by Alan Kidd, in his History of Manchester, (2002), asserts, ‘most of the injuries’ resulted from ‘being trampled on or crushed in the panic of dispersal.’[246] But there are many other examples.

The recent research of Michael Bush has also revealed, ‘many more injuries were caused by weapons’ than were crushed by the fleeing crowd and there is no doubt:

that the military and police deliberately inflicted severe injuries, both on the field and in the surrounding streets, attacking women, men, children and the elderly without respect for sex or age. Though the crowd was unarmed and unresisting. They proceeded ruthlessly and with brutality in a sustained onslaught that lasted much longer than was necessary to fulfil their appointed task of clearing the field. Its real purpose was to teach a salutary lesson by terror and humiliation. [247]

The popular belief that the Hussars only used the flats of their swords is not supported by the evidence. Again, this myth was begun with Donald Read who says ‘The Hussars used only the flats of their swords.’[248] This myth was simply repeated by Robert Warmsley in Peterloo: The Case-reopened, (1969), and was more recently repeated by Alan Kidd in his book Manchester, (2002), who says ‘the Hussars reportedly used only the flats of their swords’[249]

The Hussars drove the people forward with the flats of their swords, but sometimes , as is almost inevitably the case when men are placed in such situations, the edge was used, both by the Hussars, and as I have heard by the yeomen also.[250]

Most recently Michael Bush highlights the fact that other entries in the casualty lists, show the Hussars acting with the same brutality and in keeping with the eyewitness account of John Fell, a Manchester shopkeeper that:

The Hussars dispersed themselves in all directions, not in line and cutting the same as the others [Yeomanry] had done.’[251]

It must be pointed out at that the time the Hussars were seen as more restrained than the Yeomanry, largely because of their military training, self discipline and expertise as professional soldiers. They were presented as using the flat of the sword to drive people off the field, not a cutting edge to inflict a wound. Some Hussars were also seen as acting with a restraint that limited the number of wounds, and even of intervening to protect people against the savagery of the Yeomanry and the Special Constables.[252]

A good demonstration of the restraint shown by the Hussars was the case of Elijah Ridings, among the crowd at Peterloo, who escaped injury through the help of an officer of the Hussars who called out to him, ‘Be quick young man; this way,’ pointing out to him a way of escape with his sabre.[253] In fact Hunt himself stated in a letter to The Observer on 6th September 1819, that the massacre ‘would have been worse,’ but for the regulars ‘who were heard to threaten these cowardly fellows with summary justice if they did not desist from cutting down the fleeing people.’[254]

Michael Bush draws attention to the fact that ‘the perception of the event as a massacre, however, has been questioned in view of the small number of injuries resulting in death.’[255][256] A similar view is expressed by N. Nash in Aristocracy and the People, (1979), who says ‘Peterloo was a blunder, it was hardly a massacre.’[257]


Donald Read, in his, Peterloo,The Massacre and its Background, (1957), identifies Peterloo as a massacre, albeit of a peculiarly English kind . Read writes in the Preface to his book:

The successful designation of Peterloo as a ‘massacre’ represents another piece of successful [working-class or radical] propaganda. Perhaps only in peace- loving England could a death-roll of only eleven persons have been so described.’[258]

Read also believes that the whole affair was the result in panic and a serious lack of foresight on part of the Manchester magistrates rather from central government direction or premeditation.[259]

On the other hand, E. P. Thompson in The Making of the English Working Class, (1963), also sees Peterloo as a massacre but concludes ‘Peterloo was a bloody, class-based massacre,’ in which premeditation was certainly evident in the case of the Manchester Magistrates, and quite possibly so in relation to Lord Liverpool’s government.[260]


A more accurate summary is that of Michael Bush in The Casualties of Peterloo, (2005), that:

In showing that most injuries were inflicted by the military and police and how deaths and severe injuries resulted from sabring, bayoneting and truncheoning of unarmed people, they render the term ‘massacre’- though technically an overstatement in that Peterloo did not witness a large number of killings-an appropriate expression which encapsulates the enormity of what actually happened.[261]


The myth that the Irish population of the Manchester region did not become integrated with the Reform Movement is not unsupported by the evidence. This notion was largely developed by E.P. Thompson who believed that:

while sympathising with the agitation of 1816-20, Manchester’s Irish population did not become integrated with the movement for parliamentary reform.[262]

It must be remembered that throughout the Napoleonic Wars thousands of immigrants came from Ireland to settle in Manchester, not only to fill the growing demand for labour but to benefit from the work the new cotton mills provided.[263] Asa Briggs, in Victorian Cities, (1971) highlights the fact thatOne of the most notorious districts of Manchester was ‘little Ireland’ where the Irish community lived on the banks of the River Medlock.[264]


E.P. Thompson’s judgement has been proved to be wrong by Michael Bush’s demonstration that large numbers of Irish did attend the meeting and, in so doing, demonstrated a deep commitment to the cause of the reform movement:

At least 97 of the recorded casualties were of Irish extraction, either immigrants from Ireland, or born in England of Irish parents-against 19 Welsh and one or two Scots.[265]


A massive crowd attended the reform meeting at St. Peters Field which included a high proportion of women and children. None of them were armed and their conduct was peaceable. The Select Committee of Magistrates were obviously nervous before the event and alarmed at the size and mood of the crowd. They ordered the Manchester Yeomanry to arrest the speakers on the hustings immediately after the meeting began. The unrestrained Manchester Yeomanry did not confine themselves to seizing the speakers but instead, wielding their sabres, made a deliberate and general attack on the crowd. William Hulton, the Chairman of the Select Committee of Magistrates, then ordered the 15th Hussars and the Cheshire Yeomanry to join in the attack. Reports indicate that within the space of 10 minutes St Peters Field was cleared except for the bodies of the dead and injured.

The popular belief developed that most of the injuries were caused by the fleeing crowd is simply a myth. Evidence in this chapter has shown that most of the injuries were caused by the use of sabres and truncheons and the use of cavalry rather than by the crowd itself. The belief that the 15th Hussars only used the flats of their swords is equally fanciful. Evidence has demonstrated that, although the Hussars showed more restraint than the Yeomanry, with the majority using the flats of their swords to disperse the crowd, a small number used the cutting edges which inflicted serious wounds. In the same way the belief that only 11 people were killed and 400 injured has been disproved by recent research that has established that there were ‘at least 654 casualties, 18 of whom died of their injuries.’ [266] Finally, the belief that Manchester’s Irish Population did not become integrated in the movement for parliamentary reform, is also unfounded. This chapter has shown that at least 97 of the recorded injuries recorded in the casualty lists of Peterloo were to persons of Irish extraction, either immigrants from Ireland or those born in England of Irish parents.[267]

I agree with Robert Poole who believes ‘The contrived debate over the ‘blame’ for the massacre has been unproductive, and attempts to exonerate the Manchester authorities have been wholly unconvincing.’[268]






Chapter Three

The Aftermath of Peterloo

Clear-headed assessments in the aftermath of Peterloo were a long time coming. Although it became known as the Peterloo Massacre, the events in and around St. Peters Field on 16th 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.

Initial reports of the violent dispersal of the crowd at the Peterloo meeting spread like wildfire and, though initial reports were vague, detailed accounts soon appeared in the newspapers.[269][270] A letter from Sidmouth to the commander of the yeomanry and the Manchester magistrates, written only five days after the event, assured them of:

The great satisfaction derived by his Royal Highness from their prompt, decisive and efficient measures for the preservation of the public tranquillity.[271]

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.[272] Although the promptness with which Sidmouth conveyed the Prince Regent’s congratulations to the yeomanry and the magistrates fuelled national public outrage.[273]

Throughout Manchester and Lancashire, soon after Peterloo, there was talk of retaliation. Every detail was discussed in the public houses, chapels, churches, workshops and at home. Meanwhile Manchester was under martial law, due to rioting and rumours about people marching in military style from surrounding districts. Samuel Bamford later wrote of the ‘grinding of scythes and old hatchets…screw-drivers, rusty swords, pikels and mop-nails.’[274] However, by the end of the month rumours of insurrection disappeared largely because of the overwhelming moral support the reformers received throughout the country.[275]

Demands for a public enquiry came from the four corners of the British Isles.[276] Nevertheless, despite pressure from many sources, Lord Liverpool refused to hold an enquiry into the conduct of the magistrates, or into the behaviour of the yeomanry.[277] Not only did the government reject the idea, they adopted a policy of whole hearted support for the Manchester authorities. [278] 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 16th 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.[279]

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.’ Consequently, State prosecutions against the victims of the day commenced at once.[280]

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. Obviously the 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.’[281]

Soon afterwards, Francis Philips, a cotton manufacturer and a prominent member of the Pitt Club and Tory party, published his two-penny pamphlet An Exposure of the Calumnies circulated by the Enemies of Social Order (1819), defending the behaviour of the Manchester magistrates at Peterloo.[282]

Nevertheless the newspapers kept the story going. The Manchester Gazette continued to discuss the meetings being held across the kingdom, encouraging attempts to have the aggressors ‘identified and punished.’ However even when direct evidence could be produced against offenders responsible for sabring unarmed men, women and children, the magistrates argued that there was insufficient evidence to justify the issuing of arrest warrants.[283]

John Lees, a Waterloo veteran, who lay in hospital for three weeks before dying from the injuries inflicted by the Manchester Yeomanry and by the 15th Hussars, was reported to have said before he died: ‘He was never in such danger at Waterloo, it was man to man but at Manchester it was downright murder’[284]
The Oldham inquest upon John Lees was a ‘turbulent and ill conducted affair’ at which the radical reformers sought to produce evidence leading to a verdict of ‘wilful murder’ against the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry.[285] Reformers were angered by the obstruction of this inquest which was repeatedly adjourned and then finally discontinued in 1819 because of a technical irregularity. Apparently the coroner and the jury had not inspected the body at the same time, and it was obvious that the coroner would have used any excuse to stop the inquest,[286] in spite of the fact that in 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. For example the 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.

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.[287]

The counsel for the family of the deceased John Lees offered to bring a stream of other witnesses to prove their case, but 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 contradicted the evidence.[288] Naturally this evidence was believed because the sympathy of the establishment had been demonstrated only a month after Peterloo when 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.[289]


The focus then turned to Hunts trial and the other organizers of the Peterloo meeting, which began at York on 16th March 1820. They were all charged with ‘assembling with unlawful banners at an unlawful meeting for the purpose of citing discontent.’ [290]The Manchester Gazette printed over 23 columns about the trial over a three week period. At the end of the trial, Hunt and most of the radical leaders were convicted even after a ‘brilliant defence.’[291]

Henry Hunt was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment to be served at Lancaster Prison. However, Samuel Bamford, Joseph Johnson, and Joseph Healy, were only sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. On the other hand John Saxton, George Swift, Robert Wild and John Moorhouse were all aquitted of the charges.[292]

Samuel Bamford stopped playing an active part in the reform movement after being released from prison. Instead he went back to handloom weaving, supplementing his income by writing and selling his poetry and even became the Manchester correspondent for one of the London newspapers. During the 1840s Bamford angered local radicals by serving at Middleton as a special constable. Futhermore not only did he refuse to join the Chartist movement, but became critical of his former associates in the reform movement. However, he continued to write and published his autobiographical books, Passages in the life of a Radical, (1843), followed by Early Days, (1849). He finally passed away on 13th April 1872, and was buried at Harperhey cemetery in North Manchester.[293]



By the end of 1820 the majority of the leaders of the reform movement were in prison, including Sir Francis Burdett, Orator Henry Hunt and Thomas Wooler editor of the Black Dwarf.[294] In marked contrast the Reverend Mr. Hay, the clerical magistrate prominent on the Peterloo bench, was rewarded with £2,000.[295]
On 15th May 1821 Sir Francis Burdet 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 these 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.[296]




Although Archibald Prentice continued to write articles for the local press and for the Manchester Guardian in particular, the newspaper founded by John Taylor in 1821, he believed that this newspaper was not radical enough for him. As a result in 1824, Prentice decided to purchase his own newspaper the Manchester Gazette.[297]

For the time being at least the Whig opposition made the radical cause its own. However, among the country meetings in Yorkshire demanding an enquiry into Peterloo was one called by Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Lieutentant of the West Riding and one of the most respected of the Whig peers. Nevertheless, he was removed from his Lord-Lieutenancy for his part in protesting about the massacre.[298]

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.[299] 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.[300] 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.[301]

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.[302]

The only aspect of the working-class Radical organisation which parliament did not control was the Union Society network.[303] 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.[304]

The Whigs offered no opposition to a bill preventing civilians taking part in parliamentary activities, but they opposed the other five bills. All six passed with a comfortable majority, but the issues they raised polarised parliament into two distinct parties, for and against, the Government’s suppression of radicals. Furthermore these divisions were not confined to parliament, for English society as a whole was divided with petitions and mass meeting and demonstrations being were organised by both sides for and against the action taken by the Manchester authorities.[305]

Thereafter the Government launched upon the most sustained campaign of prosecutions in the courts in British history. By the summer of 1820 Hunt and four Manchester reformers who had been indicted for their part in Peterloo were all imprisoned. [306] A major assault against the ‘seditious’ and ‘blasphemous’ press, began right away. This was followed by scores of prosecutions against newsvendors and publishers, which were largely instituted by private prosecuting societies secretly funded by the government.[307] In addition by December 1819 the government imposed a four pence tax on newspapers and also stipulated that newspapers could not be sold for less than seven pence. Most of the workers at this time were earning less than ten shillings a week. As a result very few could afford to buy a radical newspaper.[308]

Early in 1820 the Cato Street Conspiacy dealt another blow to the cause of radical opinion.[309][310]

On the night of 23rd 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.[311] This gave the government the perfect opportunity for a show trial, Thistlewood’s execution and the institution of further repression.[312]

The government got the publicity it wanted and the 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 companions 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 country and indignation at such atrocities as Peterloo.’[313]

Richard Carlile continued to report the events of Peterloo in the Republican severely criticising both the Manchester magistrates and the government and as a result was charged with seditious libel, and for publishing Thomas Pain’s Age of Reason he was charged with blasphemy. At the end of 1819 he was sentenced to three years imprisonment to be served at Dorchester Prison. His sentence was extended to six years for refusing to pay the fine that had also been imposed. Nevertheless, his family shared his determination particularly his sister Jane Carlile who continued to publish the Republican, including articles written by Richard in his prison cell. In 1821 she was also sentenced to two years imprisonment for ‘seditious libel.’ However, she was quickly replaced by Mary Carlile his other sister but within six months she was also imprisoned for the same offence. In the following months, over 150 men and women were imprisoned by the authorities for merely selling the Republican.[314]

In April 1822 the campaign for justice after Peterloo continued with the trial of Redford v. Birley and others.[315] Thomas Redford, wounded at Peterloo by a yeomanry sabre, began a civil action for assault against the yeomanry commander Hugh Birley, and three other yeomen ‘Withington, Meagher and Oliver.’ [316] However unlike the John Lees inquest in Oldham Redford v. Birley was a well organized affair.

Thomas Redford’s twenty-nine witnesses included seven weavers, one fustian-cutter, one carver and gilder, two cotton manufacture’s, 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 house overlooking St Peters Field, and one member of the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry. On the other hand, Captain Birley’s seventeen witnesses 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. [317]

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.[318] 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. [319]To add insult to injury, the defendants, costs were paid by the central 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.[320]

By this time the reformers could no longer organise their affairs and could be investigated and unsettled easily, there were fewer constraints on the laws that could be used to detain them. Newspapers supporting their cause could be priced out of reach and gagged when necessary. All in all Lord Liverpool’s government, driven by the Home Office’s determination to control the nation, created the most repressive regime in modern British history.[321]

When Hunt and the others arrested were released on bail from Lancaster Castle, tens of thousands lined the route for their triumphal return to Manchester. Despite the urging of those who advocated an armed uprising, Hunt’s popularity ensured that the majority conformed to his peaceful and lawful methods.[322]

Manchester’s involvement in the reform campaign reached its peak at Peterloo. Even within the cotton district attention shifted elsewhere to the smaller textile communities, like Bolton, Oldham, Stockport and Blackburn that had been radicalised by the events of 1819. Popular radicalism in Manchester had for the time being been extinguished.[323] The Peterloo Massacre did was not set alight again as political issue again until the reform crisis of 1831-32 as the Reform Bill made its way through parliament, and reformers of all shades were looking for arguments to strengthen their own position and discredit their opponents. Only then were the causes and results of Peterloo useful for morale and propaganda purposes.[324]

In 1820 Hulton was offered a safe Tory seat in the House of Commons, but refused it suspecting he would be the target of abuse during an election campaign. He hoped that the part he played at Peterloo would be soon forgotten. However, wherever he went he was recognised by the working-class who would shower him with abuse. Nevertheless, in 1841, he stood as the Tory candidate for Bolton and during his election campaign he was physically attacked by the crowd but he was rescued by other members of his party. Whilst he continued to play a part in public affairs, he never lived the Peterloo Massacre down.[325] However, 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.’[326]

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, Henry Hunt was imprisoned for his part in the meeting. He was elected to Parliament for the ‘scot and lot’ constituency of Preston in 1830 to 1832, and he remained loyal to the demand for universal suffrage, attacking the 1832 Bill as a betrayal of the ‘plebeian reformers.’[327]

In the aftermath of Peterloo and the bitter propaganda war that followed, radical newspapers, periodicals and pamphlets far exceeded in the volume and importance rather than the visual images available at the time. However, Diana Donaldson in The Power of Print: Graphic Images of Peterloo, (1989), argues that the engravings that were made afterwards which she includes in her article portraying the event, have ultimately had a greater influence in creating a mental picture of the ‘Peterloo Massacre.’ This is because ‘even the most simple image could attain immediacy and symbolic force denied in print.’[328]

Towards the end of the 1870’s Ford Madox wanted to include a painting depicting the Peterloo Massacre in a series of frescos commissioned to decorate the new Manchester Town Hall. Regrettably, the committee given the task of selecting the topics for the work considered the theme unacceptable, because Peterloo was still a political issue by the 1870’s in Manchester.[329] Peterloo naturally inspired many contemporary prints and drawings, some descriptive, others satirical 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 its public buildings contained depictions of the most vivid and portrayable event, in the long history of Manchester.[330] Even to this day portraits of Lord Liverpool and some members of the Select Committee of Magistrates are given pride of place in the Manchester Town Hall.












Chapter Four

Radical and Loyalist Poetry of Peterloo


The Bloody Fields of Peterloo.

Wives, mothers, children, on the plain,
In one promiscuous heap, I view;
The husband, son, and father slain,
Stetch’d on the field of Peterloo!

But Yeoman’s hearts are form’d of steel’
Ardent to fields of blood they go;
Their gallant souls disdain to feel,
Whilst dealing death at Peterloo!

My muse the truth shall ne’er deny;
The good, the wise, the just, we know,
Think you deserve promotion high,
The iron case on Peterloo!

R.S.


Apart from the indignation that came from both sides after Peterloo, that is, the righteous anger of those who were attacked as well as those who were ordered to attack, there is evidence of what might be regarded as the more emotional responses from both sides in the poetry produced and circulated afterwards. The efforts of the Loyalists were jingoistic and triumphant, those of the Radicals closer to the tragedy.

Although the poetical responses to Peterloo have not escaped the attention of Peterloo’s historians and whilst references to Shelley’s The Mask of Anarchy frequently appear, very little effort has been made in examining both the signed and unsigned verses which appeared in the majority of the radical newspapers shortly after the event. This verse offers us a completely new perspective on Peterloo because it explains and brings into question the conventional accounts. At the very least such verses illustrate how the Radical Poets reacted to the killings and wounding which were inflicted, at the reform meeting held in St. Peters Fields.[331] They also demonstrate that the radicals were less concerned with constitutional issues and assumed the meeting was legal. They seemed more concerned with the behaviour of the new middle-classes who they saw as having formed an alliance with the aristocratic government.[332]


Loyalist Verse.

The Answer To Peterloo.

On the sixteenth day of August, eighteen hundred and nineteen,
All in the town Manchester the Rebelly Crew were seen,
They call themselves reformers, and by Hunt the traitor true,
To attend a treason meeting on the plains of Peter-Loo.

Those hearers of their patron’s call came flocking into town,
Both Male and Female radical, and many a gapeing clown,
Some came without their breakfast, which made their bellies rue;
But got a warm baggin on the plains of Peter-Loo.

From Stayley-Bridge they did advance with a band of music fine,
And brought a cap of liberty from Ashton-under-lyne ;
There was Macclesfield and Stockport lads, and Oldham roughheads to,
Came to hear the treason sermon preached by Hunt at Peterloo.

About the hour of one o’clock this champion too the chair,
Surrounded by his aid-de-camps, his orders for to hear,
And disperse them through that Rebelly Mob, which around his
Standard drew ;
But they got their jackets dusted on the plains of Peterloo.

They hoisted up treason caps and flags, as plainly you may see,-
And with local acclamations shouted Hunt and liberty ;
They swore no man should spoil their plan, but well our Yeoman
Knew;
They assembled in St James Square, and marched for Peter-Loo.

The Rochdale band of music, with harmony sublime,
Had placed themselves convenient to amuse Hunt’s concubine ;
But soon their big drum was broke, all by our Yeomen true ;
They dropped their instruments, and run away from Peter-Loo.

When the Yeomen did advance the mob began to fly,
Some thousands of old hats and clogs behind there did lie ;
They soon pulled down their Treason Flags, and numbers of them
flew ;
And Hunt they took a prisoner on the plains of Peter-Loo.

Now Hunt is taken prisoner and sent to Lancaster gaol,
With seven of his foremost men, their sorrows to bewail ;
His mistress sent to hospital her face for to renew,
For she got it closely shaven on the plains of Peter-Loo.

Success attend those warlike men, our Yeoman Volunteers,
And all their Gallant Officers who knows no dread or fears,
Likewise the Irish Trumpeter, that loud his trumpet blew,
And took a cap of liberty from them at Peter-Loo.

Now to conclude and make an end, here’s health to George our
King,
And all those Gallant Yeomanry whose praises I loudly sing ;
May Magistrates and Constables with zeal their duty do ;
And may they prove victorious upon every Peter-Loo.[333]


The Renowned Atchievements of Peterloo
On The Glorious Sixteenth Day of August 1819

How valiantly we met the crew
Of infants, men and women too,
Upon the Plain of Peterloo,
And gloriously did hack and hew
The d-----d reforming gang;
Our swords were sharp you may suppose
Some lost their ears-some lost a nose,
Our horses trod upon their toes
E’re they could run t’ escape our blows,
With shrieks the welkin rang.

So keen we were to rout the swine.
Whole shoals of constables in a line,
We gallop,d o’er in stile so fine,
By orders of the SAPIENT NINE,
First Friends-then Foes-laid flat;
By Richardson’s best grinding skill,
Our blades were set with right good will,
That we these Rogues might bleed or kill,
And ‘give them of Reform their fill,
And what d’ye think of that?

They swear, for work they’re not half paid,
By the tyrants of the weaving trade,
Who live like Kings (b) by th’ toil they’ve made-
These lies of us are daily said
By this ragg’d hungry swarm.
No reason have they thus to prate.
We,ll send them there for hours to wait
The diff’rence to receive we ‘bate
Of wage-and where’s the harm?

These tag-rag, bob-tail herds of brutes,
Are not content with wholesome roots,(c)
But think therewith that beef well suits,
Their chops,e’en water for rare fruits,
The lousy growling dogs;
They think forsooth, that they should dine
Like Gentlefolks, and drink their wine
Or guzzle ale, or eat pig’s chine,
For game or fish they even whine
Rank treason ‘mongst these hogs!!

And then those Owls who think, because
They’ve filch’d the Pow’r to make our laws,
They’ll raise their rents thro’th people,s maws,
We’ll gull by thunders of applause
For doubling th’ price of corn.
We,ll curse and fight through ‘thick and thin,’
All those who make a dev’lish din
About dear bread-for there’s no sin
In taking thus the great folks in
For th’ Rates by’th Land are borne.


With ‘ell-wide jaws’ we’ll roar and sing,
We’ll bravely fight for Church and King;
Those who no arms with them shall bring,
And may each vile Reformer swing
That we miss cutting down.
To our good things we’ll stick like wax,
And throw the laws upon their backs,
These bare-bone herds we’ll make our hacks,
Then nobly gobble Tythe and Tax,
And thus support the Crown. [334]

Most recently Robert Poole has drawn our attention to the fact that on the 17th September 1822 Aston’s Manchester Herald put the ultra-loyalist version into verse:

Though enrag’d by the strokes from the radical sticks,
And the thick-flying missiles, the stones and the bricks,
The Soldiers and Yeoman set bounds to their wrath,
And only kept onwards in stern Duty’s path!
And ‘tis wonder, no more, in the scene of confusion,
Then found their life’s day brought to sudden conclusion;
For though Opposition cried ‘Murder!’ from hearsay,
The work of dispersion was done quite in mercy.
There were three lost lives-these were trampled to death,
And one, from a sabre wound, yielded his breath.[335]

Radical Verse.

Jim Clayson in his article The Poetry of Peterloo highlights the fact that the bulk of the Radical verse dealing with the massacre was published over a two- month period. Between 11th September and 30th October 1819 of the 30 pieces appeared in the main six radical papers-The Medusa, The Theological and Political Comet, The Briton, The Cap of Liberty and The White Hat. Six were reprinted from other newspapers, whilst one appeared in two different London publications. The first to reach the radical press was Stanzas Occasioned By Manchester Massacre, which appeared in the Black Dwarf of 25th August 1819. The writer adopted the pseudonym ‘Hibernicus’ which may indicate either a sympathy or affiliation with Ireland.[336]

Stanzas Occasioned by The
Manchester Massacre.

Oh, weep not for those who are freed
From bondage as so frightful as ours!
Let tyranny mourn, for the deed,
And howl o’er the prey she devours!

The mask for a century worn,
Has fallen from her visage at last;
Of all its sham attributes shorn,
Her reign of delusion is past.

In native deformity now
Behold her, how shatt’d and weak!
With murder impress’d on her brow,
And cowardice blanching her cheek.

With guilt’s gloomy terror bow’d down,
She scowls on the smile of the slave!
She shrinks at the patriot’s frown;
She dies in the grasp of the brave.

Then brief be our wail for the dead,
Whose blood has seal’d tyranny’s doom;
And the tears that affliction will shed,
Let vengeance, bright flashes illume.

And shame on the passionless thing
Whose soul can now slumber within him!
To slavery still let him cling,
For liberty scorns to win him.

Her manlier spirits arouse
At the summons so frightfully given!
And glory exults in their vows,
While virtue records them in Heaven.

August 21, Hibernicus.

On 22nd September 1819 H. Morton’s three verses The Sword King, also appeared in the Black Dwarf:

The Sword King.

Who is it that flies from the tumult so fast
Whom the yeomanry bugles are mingling their blast?
The mother who holds her dear child to her breasts,
And screams, as around her expire the oppress’d;
‘Oh! Hush the my darling! Relinquish thy fears,’’
My mother! My mother! The sword king is near!
The sword king with sabre so bloody and bright,
Ah! Shade my young eyes from the horrible sight!’’

‘Base brat of reform, shall thy cries bar my way,
To the laurels that bloom for the loyal to day?
Shalt thou live to rear banner, white, emerald, or blue?
No! this is are yeomanry’s own Waterloo.’’
My mother! My mother! And dust thou not hear
What curses the yeomanry shout in thine ear?’’
‘Oh! Hush thee my child, let the murders come!
There is vengeance in heaven for the base who strike
home!’

‘A curse on your standards so flaunting and fine,
Surrender or perish!- die rebel-tis mine!’’
‘My mother! My mother! oh! hold me now fast,
The sword king and steed will o’ertake us at last!’’
The mother she trembled,she doubled her speed,
But dark on her path swept the yeoman’s black steed;
Life throbb’d in her poor baby’s bosom no more.

H. Morton,
Son of Silas Morton. [337]

The Bloody Field of Peterloo, appeared in The Theological And Political Comet of 2nd October 1819 and was signed R. S. and can be attributed to Robert Shorter, who was a printer, publisher and probably the editor at the time. The last three verses read as follows:

The Bloody Fields of Peterloo.

Wives, mothers, children, on the plain,
In one promiscuous heap, I view;
The husband, son, and father slain,
Stetch’d on the field of Peterloo!

But Yeoman’s hearts are form’d of steel’
Ardent to fields of blood they go;
Their gallant souls disdain to feel,
Whilst dealing death at Peterloo!

My muse the truth shall ne’er deny;
The good, the wise, the just, we know,
Think you deserve promotion high,
The iron case on Peterloo!

R.S.

The following verse appeared soon after on 20th October 1819, signed J.B., which is another clear demonstration of how some of the working-class were feeling at the time.[338]

Verses For The Boys Of Manchester.

Never remember the fifth of November,
Gunpowder treason and plot,
Bloodshed and murder carried much further,
Will make Guy’s name forgot.
Blue bloodhounds worse than Guy,
In many a company,
With big wigs?????
To cut up the people alive.
Unhappy the ???accursed the day,
That saw these monsters go to their prey,
Arm’d cowards on the throng,
Charged with horse and sword along,
The laws we need not fear,
The Doctor keeps all clear,
The swinish people’s blood,
Will form the choicest food;
Highest thanks will be our meed,
Then forward ‘urge the steed.’
As I was flying over the ground,
I saw the devil with a blue bloodhound,
He grinn’d and look’d like the other,
You’d say he was his own twin brother.
His brains were made of lead,
No shame his heart had fear of,
His valiant hand with a bloody sword,
Cut an old woman’s ear off.
A twopenny loaf to feed such an oaf,
A nine tailed cat to hang him,
Exciseable Slop, ne shan’t have a drop.
But a good strong drop to hang him.
Hollo boys! Hollo boys! God save the king,
Hollo boys, hollo boys! Let the bells ring.

J. B.

Radical propaganda continued throughout 1819. On the 6th November, Allen Davenport a shoemaker poet published his Saint Ethelston’s Day. This verse mocked both the Reverend Ethelstone himself and his name for reading the Riot Act and the association of the church with the killings.[339]

Saint Ethelstone’s Day.

A Manchester Parson, to church and king staunch,
Much fam’d in the pulpit, but more on the bench,
Resolv’d to be sainted without more delay;
And, the SIXTEENTH OF AUGUST was fixed for
The day.

To contrive the best means, all his genius was bent,
How to celebrate such an auspicious event,
When he saw the Reformers, in marching array,
Move on to the field on SAINT ETHELSTONE’S
DAY.’’

Then the oath of his office, inform’d him’ twas good,
That the vest of a saint should be sprinkl’d with
Blood;
When his Counsellors whisper’d ‘Twill be the best
Way,
The Reformers to crush on SAINT
ETHELSTONE’S DAY.’’

He took the advice, and, to make all things sure,
Read the riot act o’er, on the step of his door;
When the Yeomanry Butchers all gallop’d away,
To do some great exploit on SAINT
ETHELSTONE’S DAY.

They hack’d off the breasts of the women, and then,
They cut off the ears and noses of men;
In every direction they slaughtered away,
‘Till drunken with blood on SAINT
ETHELSTONE’S DAY.

‘Cut away, my brave fellows, you see how they faint,
They are BLACKGUARD REFORMERS!’’
Exclaimed the new saint:
‘Send them to the Devil, my lads, on your way,
And,no doubt, they’ll remember SAINT
ETHELSTONE’S DAY.’’ [340]

News of the Peterloo Massacre reached Shelly on 6th September 1819.[341] Although Shelley was residing in Italy at the time this did not stop him from writing a ‘savage anti-government poem.’[342] The following extract appears in Howard Martin’s Britain in The Nineteen Century, (1996):

The Mask of Anarchy.

As I lay asleep in Italy
There came a voice from over the Sea,
And with great power it forth led me
To walk in visions of Poesy.

I met murder on the way-
He had a mask like Castlereagh-
Very smooth he looked, but grim;
Seven blood-hounds followed him:

All were fat; and well they might
Be in admirable plight,
For one by one, and two by two,
He tossed them human hearts to chew
Which from his wide cloak he drew.

Next came Fraud, and he had on,
Like Eldon, an emined gown;
His big tears, for he wept well,
Turned to mill-stones as the fell.

And the little children, who
Round his feet played to and fro,
Thinking every tear a gem,
Had her brains knocked out by them.

Clothes with the Bible, as with light,
And the shadows of the night,
Like Sidmouth, next Hypocris
On a crocodile rode by.


And many more Destructions played
In this ghastly masquerade,
All disguised, even to the eyes,
Like Bishops, lawyers, peers, or spies.

Last came Anarchy: he rode
On a white horse, splashed with blood;
He was pale even to the lips,
Like death in the Apocalypse.

And he wore a kingly crown;
And in his grasp a sceptre shone;
On his brow the mark I saw-
‘I am God, and King, and Law!’ [343]

Samuel Bamford’s Lines to a Plotting Parson, which was originally written in 1820, and directed at the Reverend Hay, a member of the Select Committee of Magistrates at Peterloo is described by Walmsley in Peterloo: The Case-reopened, (1969), ‘one of the bitterest, most vituperative pieces of writing in all the Peterloo canon, because it was aimed at an individual.’[344] It appeared in the collected edition of Bamford’s verse in 1864:

Lines To A Plotting Parson.

Come over the hills out of York Parson Hay
Thy living is goodly, thy mansion is gay,
Thy flock will be scattered if longer thou stay,
Our Sheperd, our Vicar, the good Parson Hay.

And Meagher shall ever be close by thy side,
With a brave troop of Yeomanry ready to ride;
For the steed shall be saddled, the sword shall be bare,
And there shall be none the defenceless to spare.

Then the joys that thou felt upon St. Peter,s Field,
Each week or each month some new outrage shall yield,
And thy eye which is failing shall brighten again,
And pitiless gaze on the wounded and slain.

Then thy Prince too shall thank thee, and add to thy wealth,
Thou shall preach down sedition and pray for his health;
And Sidmouth, and Canning, and sweet Castlereagh,
Shall write pleasant letters to dear Cousin Hay. [345]


This last poem written 40 years after Peterloo, reflects the ideals of the Radical Elijah Ridings, softened by the passage of time. Written in 1860 he is more reflective and philosophical as well as indicating his hope for the future:




Prefatory Lines.

In Eighteen Hundred and Nineteen I stood
Upon the famous field of Peterloo,-
Where, met to do their country good,
The million were, the harmless and the true,-
Beside the banner, on which was inscribed
Words breathing freedom for trade in corn;
The Yeomanry, who had strong drink imbibed,
Dispersed the people with their banners torn :
Many were killed, and others wounded sore;
A Lancer officer became my friend,
Waving his sword o’er th’ path I might explore,
And his assistance he did kindly lend.
Forty long years have travelled to the past,
The future brighter unto me beseems;
True liberty shall be man’s lot at last,
Or I am troubled with deceiving dreams:
Meanwhile, a simple poets humble pen
May speak to soldiers and to gentlemen;
And, after many years of worldly strife,
I now must thank a soldier for my life.[346]

February 10, 1860. E. R.


The writer Elijah Ridings was a radical poet in the post-Napoleonic era and a well known working-class poet of Manchester in early Victorian Britain. His volumes included The Village Muse and The Village Festival signed copies of his works are located at Chetham’s Library in Manchester. Ridings was in the crowd at Peterloo, and was saved by a regular officer in the army who called out to him, ‘Be quick young man ; this way,’ and pointing out to him with his sword, a way of escape.’[347]

Angus-Butterworth in his Lancashire Literary Worthies, (1980), believes the list of writings by Ridings is impressive. His first publication was Poetical Works (1848), followed by The Village Festival, (1848), and two years later Pictures of Life, (1850). Although his own dialect writings were few, he later edited The Lancashire Muse, (1853). A more ambitious venture was made by Ridings with his The Village Muse, (1854), containing the ‘Complete Poetical Works of Elijah Ridings,’ which included a biographical sketch of him. This was followed by The Poets Dream, (1856); and The Volunteers, (1860), which he described as ‘A Ryme of Commerce and Liberty.’ After Ridings turned 60 he returned to his original work with Streams from an Old Fountain, (1863), which proved to be the last of his books. He died in Manchester on 18th October 1872 and was buried in Harpurhey Cemetery.[348]

The Meeting at Peterloo

Come lend an ear of pity while I my tale do tell,
It happened at Manchester a place that’s known right well,
For to redress our wants and woes reformers took their way,
A lawful Meeting being called upon a certain day.
So God bless Hunt, &C.
The Sixteenth day of August Eighteen hundred and
Nineteen.
There many thousand people on every road were seen,
From Stockport, Oldham, Ashton & other places too,
It was the largest Meeting Reformers ever knew.
Brave Hunt was appointed that day to take the chair.
At one o’clock he did arrive our shouts did rend the air,
Some females fair in white and Green near the hustings
Stood,
And little did we all expect to see such scenes of blood,
Scarcely had Hunt began to speak three cheers was all
The cry,
What to shout for we little knew but still we did comply,
He saw the enemies surround be firm said he my friends
But little still we did expect what would be their ends
Our enemies so cruel regardless of our woes,
They did agree to force us from the Plain of Peterloo,
But if that we had been prepared or any cause for fear
The regulars might have cleared the ground, and they
Stood in the rear,
Then to the fatal ground they went, and thousands
Tumbled down,
And many armless female lay bleeding on the ground
No time for flight was gave us still every road we fled.
But heaps on heaps were trampled down some wounded
and some dead.
Brave Hunt was then arrested and several others too.
Then marched to the New Bailey, believe me it is true,
Numbers there was wounded and many there was slain,
Which makes the friends of those dear souls so loudly
To come plain. ?????
O God look down upon us for thou art just and true,
And those that can no mercy shew thy vengeance is
their due.
Now quit this hateful mournful scene look forward with
This hope,
That every Murderer in this land may swing upon a rope,
But soon reform shall spread around for sand the tide
Won’t stay,
May all the filth that in our land right soon be wash’d
away,
And may sweet harmony from hence in this our land
Be found,
May we be blest with plenty in all the country round. [349]




Manchester Meeting
A New Song

It was in the year one thousand,
Eight hundred and nineteen,
All in the month of August,
Our Weaver lads was seen,
Each bush and tree was in full bloom,
And Ph??? Bright did shine,
To be a glorious witness
For our weaver lads to joint.
Chorus.

Along with Hunt, &c.
From Stockport town and Ashton,
The weaver lads came in,
Who all behav’d with honour bright,
The Meeting to begin,
Upon the ground they all did meet
Like heroes of renown,
Search all the mannor,d nation,
Our match cannot be found.
The weaver lads from Stockport,
Did all come flocking down,
From Oldham and from Middleton,
And all the country round,
Come let us all rejoice and sing,
And hope for better days,
Through Lancashire and Cumberland,
We’ll sing the weavers praise.
Then Sir C. Wolsely in Manchester,
Behav’d with honour bright.
Squire Hunt spoke with courage bold,
When he appeared in sight,
With respect unto our weaver lads,
He never meant any ill.
And in bright shining pages,
We’ll sing his praises still.
Now here’s health to Mr Hunt,
Long may he rule this soil,
And likewise all his gentlemen,
Long may the live and smile,
And let us not forget the day,
That we held up our hands,
We hope to flourish once again,
All in our native land.
Now to conclude and end my song,
I have little more to say,
May our british Manufactures
Flourish more every day,
And our trade shall flourish again,
Through all the British Isles,
Both Lancashire and Cumberland,
And Cheshire likewise.

A Peterloo ballad

Innes, Printer, Manchester. [350]










































































Chapter Five

The Historiography of Peterloo


It is part of a Left-wing dogma that Peterloo was an act of class war perpetrated by Lord Liverpool’s government on the working class, that the 60,000 people peaceably assembled in St Peter’s Field on 16th August 1819 to listen to Hunt’s speech on reform were unprovokedly dispersed by drunken cavalry who savagely sabred several innocent people to death and wounded many others, all on the orders of the panic-stricken specially formed select committee of magistrates. It needed a Mancunian antiquarian bookseller of today, Mr. Robert Warmsley, to put the factual record straight 150 years after the event and after thirty years of patient and scrupulous research for his monumental book, Peterloo : The Case Re-opened. [Michael Kennedy] [351]


Clear-headed assessments in the aftermath of Peterloo have been a long time coming. Although it became known as the Peterloo Massacre, the events in and around St. Peters Field on 16th August 1819 were regarded by both sides with a great deal of passion. At the time the Peterloo massacre divided English society as a whole, with petitions and mass meeting being organised for and against the position taken by the authorities.[352]

This is why the historiography of Peterloo is of great importance as it reveals why common perceptions are prejudiced, based on the origin of the political opinion or sympathy of the writer. Shortly after Peterloo, Francis Philips, a cotton manufacturer and a prominent member of the Pitt Club and Tory party, published An Exposure of the Calumnies circulated by the Enemies of Social Order (1819), a two-penny pamphlet defending the local authorities for their actions at Peterloo.[353]

When we examine the historiography we find that within two weeks ‘Peterloo’ had grown into a struggle between the loyalist authorities on the one hand and the reformers on the other. In the words of the radical Manchester Observer, Peterloo was ‘a day of paramount importance to the liberties of our country, as ‘Big with the fate of Freedom and of Albion.’[354] In contrast, the Reverend Hay thought that: ‘The meeting was looked upon, on both sides, as an experiment-a touchstone of the spirit of the Magistrates, and of courage of the mob.’[355]

Opinions about the events of 16th August 1819 soon became polarized. Battle lines were drawn between sympathy for the defenceless reformers or empathy for the embattled loyalist Manchester magistrates charged with policing the day’s events. In the words of Philip Lawson: ‘on the one hand, there is the school of opinion that the reformers are little better than rabble, predictably receiving the fate meted out to them.’ and ‘on the other, the reformers have become elevated in the eyes of many observers to the rank of victims of a generic oppressive authority, valiantly pushing forward a cause that would lead to a brave new democratic world.’[356] More recently Robert Poole writes ‘A conservative strain of history has downplayed Peterloo, which in some versions is relegated to the status of a ‘tragedy’ or even an ‘incident.’[357]

Perhaps, at this point I must declare my own bias since my own interest in this historical topic was aroused during the course of my research into the family history of my maternal ancestors in particular, Elijah Ridings, who ‘As a youth took an active part in reform agitation and at the age of seventeen was present at what became to be known as Peterloo,’[358] and was later saved by an officer from the 15th Hussars at the meeting.[359]

Essential reading for the historian and perhaps the general reader must be Samuel Bamford’s Passages in the Life of a Radical. Naturally his evidence is not without bias considering the fact he was one of the crowd in St. Peters Fields and ridden down by the Yeomanry and Hussars-an action likely to induce bias in him as one of the victims of the day. [360]

Generally described as a sober account is that of F.A. Bruton, who published his first study, The Story of Peterloo Manchester, (1919), followed by Three Accounts of Peterloo by Eyewitnesses, Bishop Stanley, Lord Hylton, Benjamin Smith, Manchester University Press, Manchester, (1921). Both works are considered as standard modern authorities. Bruton’s Short History of Manchester and Salford, (1924) contains a condensed account of his Story of Peterloo into a few pages.

As early as 1922 G.M. Trevelyan published his article, ‘The Number of Casualties at Peterloo,’ in History, Volume, VII, (1922), in which he presented an incomplete list of the casualties of Peterloo, and urged that further research was required and that when this had been done, the total figures should be published. However, until recently Tevelyan’s recommendations fell on deaf ears.[see Appendix] [361]

Archibald, Prentice, published his book, Historical Sketches and Personal Recollections of Manchester, (1851), recording what he had heard and seen on the day.[362] Prentice watched the start of the meeting in St. Peters Fields, from the window of a friend’s house in Mosley Street. However, he left the area to travel home just before the attack by the yeomanry took place. On his way home he was passed by crowds of injured people who had fled from the meeting. After interviewing several of the crowd, he immediately wrote an account which he then dispatched to London. His article along with an account of John Taylor, a reporter for The Time,s ensured that events which had taken place at St. Peters Fields, appeared in a London newspaper within 48 hours.

The majority of the myths I have identified in the book, surrounding the events at Peterloo began with Donald Read, in his institutionalised, sober or otherwise Tory account, Peterloo,The Massacre and its Background, (1957), Read, identifies Peterloo as a massacre, albeit of a peculiarly English kind .[363] Read writes in the Preface to his book:

The successful designation of Peterloo as a ‘massacre’ represents another piece of successful [working-class or radical] propaganda. Perhaps only in peace- loving England could a death-roll of only eleven persons have been so described[364]

Read also believes that the whole affair was the result of panic and a serious lack of foresight on part of the Manchester magistrates rather from central government direction or premeditation.[365] Donald Read manages to write a whole book about Peterloo without including any eyewitness accounts whatsoever.

Edward Palmer Thompson published his now famous book, The Making of The English Working Class, (1963), which devoted only part of a chapter to Peterloo was critical of Read’s book.

The 150th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre at St. Peters Fields, 1819, witnessed the appearance of three new publications. The first publication by Harry Horton, Portfolio of Contemporary Documents, Manchester Libraries Committee, (1969), perhaps needs no further explanation.

The second was Joyce Marlow’s, The Peterloo Massacre, (1969). Joyce Marlow’s, book is not without bias considering she is of maternal descent from John Lees who died from wounds inflicted by the yeomanry at St. Peters Fields. As the blurb on her book says, this is ‘the first book for the general reader,’ [366]

The third was Robert Warmsley’s book, Peterloo: The Case Re-opened, (1969). Robert Warmsley’s right wing interpretation began when he first had his interest aroused during the course of his research into the family history of the Hulton’s of Hulton, (1787-1864). the chairman of the Select Committee of Magistrates, who overlooked the field of Peterloo, and who not only gave the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry the fatal order to advance into the crowd brandishing their sabres, but also ordered the 15th Hussars to join in the attack and clear the field.[367]

The dust cover of Warmsley’s diplays a sketch of Hulton himself in all his splender and the blurb tells us this is ‘the fruit of half a lifetimes research.’ However, this book is not an interpretive account of Peterloo within the framework of its political, social, economic, or local background. Warmsley chooses not say anything about the government of Manchester in 1819, or to explain the character, role, or reputation of the main people involved like Henry Hunt or Joseph Nadin before they emerge on the stage in 1819. Although we are told some interesting things such as Hulton’s mother’s horse ‘Church and King’ won the Kersal Moor races in 1749; and we are given a most revealing view of Hulton himself, addressing the anniversary dinner of the Manchester Pitt Club two years before Peterloo, proposing a toast to ‘The Pride of Britain and the Admiration of the World-Our Glorious Constitution.’[368]

From the outset Warmsley asserts that both Samuel Bamford and Archibald Prentice, ‘continued to pass on their own version…as wilful deceivers of posterity,’[369] although Warmsley provides no new evidence whatsoever to support his contention.

Supprisingly, Warmsley’s book received some complimentary press, when a book reviewer from the Daily Telegraph in 1969, declared that Warmsley’s ‘massive research challenges the accepted version,’ his book ‘leaves no fact unchallenged and uncorroborated, no document unread in full, no source unchecked,’ and that it ‘utterly discredits the accounts in Prentice and Bamford.[370]

In marked contrast on 11th December 1969, an anonymous review of Robert Warmsley’s book appeared in The Times Literary Supplement, which was later discovered to be written by E.P. Thompson. This review was later re-published in a series of essays by Thompson in Making History: Writings on History and Culture, New York Press, New York, (1994). In this publication Thompson who argues that:

Warmsley is mainly interested, in the events of the day of Peterloo, and evenly more closely in the events of one half-hour of that day-between 1.15 and 1.45 p.m. and ‘Yet the fact is that Mr Warmsley has no new facts to adduce about this half-hour at all.’ Because the main thrust of Mr. Warmsley’s argument is that, ‘What happened on the day was unintentional, and the crowd (or part of it) was the first aggressor.’

And there is simply no evidence of that. Thompson also stresses the fact that:

Mr. Warmsley became convinced, not only that William Hulton had been unfairly treated by historians, but that he and his fellow magistrates were victims of nothing less than a Radical conspiracy to falsify the events of the day-a conspiracy fostered by Hunt, Bamford and Richard Carlile, and furthered by Archibald Prentice, (author of Historical Sketches of Manchester), and John Edward Taylor, of the Manchester Guardian, and in which John Tyas, the correspondent of the Times who witnessed the events from the hustings, the Rev. Edward Stanley, and dozens of others who were witting or unwitting accessories-a conspiracy so compelling that even Donald Read, in his sober and by no means radical study of Peterloo (1957), failed to detect it. [371]


It seems that Warmsley is prepared to go to any lengths to defend or rescue, William Hulton from the ‘calumnies of both contemporaries and historians.’ After repetitiously quoting reams of documents in full, and leading the reader up as many blind alleys as possible and certainly not proving his case, with new evidence, Warmsley concludes:

All the actors in that tragedy were victims. The radicals on the platform, the militants in the crowd, the peaceable in the crowd, the Yeomanry, the constables, the magistrates in their room, the captives in the New Bailey, were each and severally as much the victims of the tragic chain of circumstances as the dead special constable lying in the Bull’s Head, the wounded in the infirmary, and Mrs Partington, crushed to death, lying at the bottom of the cellar steps.[372]

Soon afterwards, Donald Read wrote his contrasting review of ‘Peterloo: The Case Re-opened, by Robert Warmsley,’ in History, Volume, 55, (1970), in which he says:

It was probably inevitable that a right wing reassessment of the responsibility for the Peterloo Massacre, would follow the emotional left wing interpretation offered by E.P. Thompson in The Making of the English Working Class.’[373]

Read further points out that both Warmsley and Thompson are dissatisfied with his distribution of responsibility for the massacre in his Peterloo: the Massacre and its Background, (1957), although they differ from him for contrasting reasons. Read then reminds the reader that in his book he argued:

The evidence of the Home Office papers was used to show how Lord Sidmouth, the Home Secretary, had advised the Manchester magistrates to act with very great circumspection at the meeting, to collect evidence of any seditious intention, but not to intervene unless violence broke out.[374]

Read stresses that Thompson rejected Read’s interpretation arguing that ‘Sidmouth was anxious for a violent showdown with the Radicals, and that the absence of evidence for this in the Home Office papers was proof only of Establishment cunning in fixing the record.’ Read continues; Nevertheless extreme left-wing and extreme right-wing observers of early Radicalism seem to share a propensity to be deeply impressed by the lack of evidence.’

Further Read argues, ‘However, Warmsley dismisses Thompson’s argument and agrees with Read that, ‘the Home Secretary and his assistants were not responsible for the massacre.’ And ‘Warmsley is agitated because this inevitably lays responsibility for the tragedy exclusively upon the magistrates, and especially upon the chairman at Peterloo, William Hulton.’ Moreover, Read says, ‘Warmsley’s explicit chief intention is to defend Hulton from what he regards as the calumnies of both contemporaries and historians.’[375]

This was followed by Michael Kennedy’s Portrait of Manchester, (The Portrait Series), London, (1970), is also impressed with Warmsley’s book :

It is part of a Left-wing dogma that Peterloo was an act of class war perpetrated by Lord Liverpool’s government on the working class, that the 60,000 people peaceably assembled in St Peter’s Field on 16th August 1819 to listen to Hunt’s speech on reform were unprovokedly dispersed by drunken cavalry who savagely sabred several innocent people to death and wounded many others, all on the orders of the panic-stricken specially formed select committee of magistrates. It needed a Mancunian antiquarian bookseller of today, Mr. Robert Warmsley, to put the factual record straight 150 years after the event and after thirty years of patient and scrupulous research for his monumental book, Peterloo : The Case Re-opened. [Michael Kennedy] [376]

On the one hand there is no doubt that the name Peterloo, or the Peterloo Massacre, became a powerful and emotive symbol for generations in the shaping of political opinion, and in particular, the radical and working-class movement.[377] On the other hand the evidence clearly suggests that in fact Robert Warmsley does not put the factual record straight and Michael Kennedy’s summary describes exactly what happened at Peterloo.

All writers of course, have their bias. In the words of James Anthony Froude, ‘Not evidence but sympathy or inclination determines the historical beliefs of most of us.’ and ‘the most certain facts can remain doubtful if they are firmly and repeatedly denied.’[378] There is no doubt that Froude’s phrase is a perfect description of the above assertion made by Michael Kennedy in Portrait of Manchester, (1970), and to Robert Warmsley’s Peterloo: The Case Re-opened, (1969) which is an apologist account on behalf of William Hulton the Chairman of the Select Committee of Magistrates at Peterloo.
































Chapter Six

Concluding Peterloo

Throughout this book I have used the relevant historiography, and selected contemporary sources, much of it contained in the conflicting explanations and assessments to illustrate the diversity of opinion about Peterloo or the Peterloo Massacre, and to suggest that many of the myths associated with this event are of questionable historical validity or, that at least there are other more plausible well documented interpretations and eyewitness accounts that warrant equal consideration.

The myths that have developed surrounding Peterloo cannot be fully understood in isolation but must be placed in a wider context of the period. A major contributory factor is the critical years between 1790 and 1819. In Chapter One I attempted to put the events leading up to Peterloo in historical context and explain the social, political, economic, climate of the time and identify the various people involved.

Briefly, in 1815, the ruling classes in Britain believed that only they were fit to rule and that their interests were those of society as a whole. Consequently, when Britain was trapped in the economic crisis after 1815, the aristocratic rulers of Britain were more concerned with protecting their own property and repressing all threats to their position. It is clear the Government and the ruling classes still believed in the possibility of a popular revolution in line with the savage French revolution that had taken place twenty years earlier. Their official reaction was to repress all agitation rather than to attempt to deal with the causes of it. The demands of the working-classes and their discontent, was only a ‘warning of horror to come.’[379]

The background to Peterloo lay in the social and political discontent that fuelled the creation of the Radical Reform Movement in Britain during the late 18th and 19th centuries. With the ending of the Napoleonic War in 1815, when Napoleon was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo, 300,000 soldiers and sailors were disbanded and returned home. This along with unprecedented population growth, high food prices created by the Corn Laws, along with mass unemployment, social and political unrest became widespread. The existing out dated system of parliamentary representation meant that many of the urban centres that had grown rapidly in the Industrial Revolution, like Manchester and the surrounding towns, had no Member of Parliament to look after their interests.

In March 1819, the leaders of the Hampden Clubs including James Wroe, Joseph Johnson and John Knight founded the Patriotic Union Society. Their main purpose was to bring about parliamentary reform. Joseph Johnson was appointed secretary and James Wroe the treasurer.[380] In the summer of 1819 they invited Orator Henry Hunt, Major Cartwright and Richard Carlile to address a public meeting in Manchester. Unfortunately Cartwright was unable to attend but Hunt and Carlile accepted the invitation and it was decided to hold a mass meeting on 16th August 1819 at St Peters Field.[381]

It was against this background that the mood was set for the August meeting which was the culmination of a series of political meetings and rallies held in Manchester and its surrounding districts in 1819, a year of industrial depression and high food prices. It was fully intended that a mass meeting would be a great peaceful demonstration of discontent and its political purpose was to put pressure on the central government, to bring about parliamentary reform.[382][383]

A massive crowd attended this reform meeting, including a high proportion of women and children. None of them was armed and their conduct was peaceable. The Select Committee of Magistrates were obviously nervous before the event and alarmed at the size and mood of the crowd so they ordered the Manchester Yeomanry to arrest the speakers on the Hustings immediately after the meeting began. The unrestrained Manchester Yeomanry did not then confine them selves to seizing the speakers, but instead, wielding their sabres, made a deliberate and general attack on the crowd. William Hulton, the Chairman of the Select Committee of Magistrates, then ordered the 15th Hussars and the Cheshire Yeomanry to assist them. Reports indicate that within the space of 10 minutes St Peters Field was cleared except for the bodies of the dead and injured.

There can be no doubt that the condemnation of William Hulton and the Special Select Committee of Magistrates is justified. Nobody can deny what the mass meeting was all about. The radical protesters were carrying banners demanding- ‘Universal Suffrage,’ ‘No Boroughmongering,’and ‘No Corn Laws.’ In the words of Donald Read, ‘Hulton and the Regency Tories refused the masses their political rights, and also expected many of them to acquiesce in near starvation caused by the deep post-war economic depression.’[384]

The popular belief that developed that most of the injuries were caused by the fleeing crowd is simply a myth. Evidence which was presented in Chapter Two has shown that most of the injuries were caused by the use of sabres and truncheons and the use of cavalry rather than by the crowd itself. The belief that the 15th Hussars only used the flats of their swords is equally fanciful. Evidence has demonstrated that although the Hussars showed more restraint than the Yeomanry, with the majority using the flats of their swords to disperse the crowd, a small number used the cutting edges which inflicted serious wounds. In the same way the belief that only 11 people were killed and 400 injured has been disproved by recent research that has established that there were ‘at least 654 casualties, 18 of whom died of their injuries.’ [385][386]

It is demonstrated in Chapter Three that clear-headed assessments in the aftermath of Peterloo were a long time coming. Although it became known as the Peterloo Massacre, the events in and around St. Peters Field on 16th 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.

The brutal dispersal by armed cavalry of the peaceful radical meeting held on St Peters Fields on 16th August 1819 which became known as the ‘Peterloo Massacre,’ attests to the profound fears of the privileged classes of the imminence of a violent revolution in England in the years following the Napoleonic Wars. To the radicals and reformers this event came to symbolize Regency Tory callousness and tyranny.

Apart from the indignation that came from both sides after Peterloo, that is, the righteous anger of those who were attacked as well as those who were ordered to attack, there is evidence of what might be regarded as the more emotional responses from both sides in the poetry produced and circulated afterwards. The efforts of the Loyalists were jingoistic and triumphant, those of the Radicals closer to the tragedy. In chapter Four a selection of both Radical and Loyalist verse was presented.

The historiography of Peterloo is of great importance as it reveals why common perceptions are prejudiced, based on the origin of the political opinion, sympathy, or inclination, of the writer. The historiography of Peterloo is examined in Chapter Five. It was discovered that within a few days, ‘Peterloo’ had developed into a struggle between the loyalist authorities on the one hand and the reformers on the other.[387] To a large extent this struggle has continued until the present day. The other problem is of course, that most historians have not based their research on original, primary sources. Instead, the history of Peterloo has been largely based on the assumptions of previous writers, and their analysis of the facts taken from secondary works. As far as possible I have used primary source material and eyewitness accounts to write this book, allowing them to speak for themselves, whilst at the same time challenging many of the myths developed in the historiography of Peterloo.

To summarise: Hunt and the other radical reform leaders arrested at the meeting were later tried and convicted, and Hunt served two years in prison. The Peterloo Massacre was a result of overreaction by the Select Committee of Magistrates at what otherwise is more likely to have been a peaceful rally. The evidence suggests this did not represent a concerted use of military force by the central government to quell widespread discontent. The whole affair was an embarrassment to the Tory government under Lord Liverpool, which had no choice but to endorse the Manchester Magistrates’ actions, but which otherwise tried to distance itself from the terrible effects of imposing law and order in this way. Peterloo nevertheless quickly became a byword for the popular perception of a high-handed tyrannical Tory. The aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre also aided the cause of the reforms eventually realized in the Reform Act of 1832.

In conclusion on 16th August 1819 after a massive crowd had gathered in St Peters Field peacefully and carrying no weapons to put pressure on the government to bring about parliamentary reform. Yet in spite of these factors and, on the orders of the Select Committee of Magistrates were ‘attacked by soldiers with sabres and bayonets, and by police with truncheons and staves. The outcome was at least 654 casualties, eighteen of whom died of their injuries.’[388]

This latest historical research has revealed that there is no doubt that these injuries were inflicted by the authorities quite deliberately. The fact that the military and police attacked an unarmed crowd of civilians, including women and children, both in St Peters Field and in the streets surrounding it, goes to show that their real intention was to teach these people a terrifying and unforgettable lesson.





























Appendix




Obituary Notice, Manchester Guardian 19th October, 1872


Death of Elijah Ridings-This poet and politician in humble life breathed his last yesterday in one of our public institutions, where he was carried a little over a month ago suffering from an injury to his thigh caused by a fall in the street. The chief incidents of his not uneventful life are worth recording. Elijah Ridings was born on the 27th November 1802, at Failsworth, and was consequently in his 70th year at his death. His parents were silk weavers with a family of fifteen children, of whom Elijah was the tenth. He was unable to walk until he was three years old, in consequence of disability of the lower part of the vertebral column. He was removed from school at an early age in order that he might wind bobbins for his brothers and sisters who were employed upon silk looms. Subsequently his family moved to Newton Heath, and he became a teacher in the Sunday school attached to St George’s Church, Oldham Road. At a later period he joined the Unitarian Chapel, Dob Lane, Failsworth. He still worked at the loom, but in his leisure read such books as came within reach, more particularly history and travels. In the year 1819, being then 17 years of age, he was appointed leader of a section of parliamentary reformers at Newton Heath and Miles Platting on the memorable march to Peterloo; and he narrowly escaped being trampled by the yeomanry horses at the famous meeting on the 16th August in that year. In 1826 he wrote a poem entitled ‘The Swan,’ which was published in London, in ‘Arliss’s Pocket Magazine.’ In conjunction with a Mr. John Harper, Ridings originated the Miles Platting Zetitic Society, from which sprung the Miles Platting Mechanics Institution. In 1829 he became the agent of Messrs Pigot and Company, and assisted in the compilation of the National Commercial Directory. Afterwards he assisted in compiling the Liverpool and Birmingham Directories; but, his health failing him, he returned home, where he published a small collection of poems entitled ‘The Village Muse.’ Some of the poems were in the Lancashire dialect and of a humorous nature and they became popular. The great petition which was sent from Manchester praying that the Reform Bill might pass into law was drawn up under the management of Mr R. Potter, M.P.; Mr. G. Gill and Elijah Ridings, and the latter was employed to superintend the progress of the petition. To him, also and his relatives and friends is mainly attributed the inclusion of the township of Newton Heath within the borough of Manchester. Later he became a lecturer in English literature, and had also delivered addresses in favour of the repeal of the corn laws. He started a day school in Lamb Lane, Collyhurst, but in 1832 a visitation of cholera left him with only ten scholars and the school was closed. In May of that year he married, and took a public house in Butler Street, Manchester, the Falstaff and Bardolph. He kept this house for three years, but the failure of an adjacent chemical works on which he had mainly depended, obliged him to give it up; and he then entered into the book trade, in which he continued till within a short time of the date of the accident which resulted in his death. He had considerable taste and judgement as to rare and curious books, and frequently picked up good things at sales. His shop was in Lower King Street. His poetical works were first published in a small book of 80 pages in 1840. In the year of the first exhibition in Hyde Park he wrote an ode ‘The Isles of Britain.’ ‘The Village Muse’ mentioned above, contained all the authors writings up to the year in which the work was published, about 1653, and passed through several editions. Since then he has also written ‘The Volunteer,’ a rhyme prompted by the citizen soldier movement of twelve years ago; and ‘Streams from an Old Fountain,’ which saw the light in 1863.[389]




























Bibliography

Unpublished Sources

Chetham’s Library, Manchester

Association for the Preservation of Constitutional Order against Levellers and Republicans, constitution and minutes of committee, (1792-99)
Hay, Revd W.R., Commonplace Book; and Hay Scrapbooks (uncatalogued)
Pitt Club, Manchester, papers 1812-31

Manchester Central Library
Biographical References: obituaries, press cuttings, letters, pamphlets, card indexes, Local History Department.

Contempary Books and Pamphlets

Memoirs of Henry Hunt, London, (1820)

Hunt, Henry, Letters to Radical Reformers, London, (1822-1823)

Philips, Francis, 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, London, (1819)

Taylor, John Edward, Notes and Observations. Critical and Explanatory, on the Papers Relative to the Internal State of the Country recently presented in Parliament; To which is intended a Reply to Mr Francis Philip’s Exposure, London, (1820)





Secondary Sources

Angus-Butterworth, L.M., Lancashire Literary Works, Henderson and Sons Ltd, St. Andrews, (1980)

Alderman, Geoffrey, Modern Britain 1700-1983, Groom Helm Ltd, Beckenham, (1986)

Arrowsmith, Peter, Stockport A History, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, (1997)

Ayerest, David, Guardian, Bibliography of a Newspaper, Collins, London, (1971)

Axon, William, E.A., (eds), Annals Of Manchester, A Crhonological Record From The Earliest Times To The End Of 1885, John Heywood, (1886)

Bamford, S., Passages in the Life of a Radical, Manchester, (1841)

Bamford, S., Passages in the Life of a Radical, Manchester, (1844)

Belcham, John., Industrialization and the Working Class:The English Experience, 1750-1900, Scolar Press, Aldershot, (1991)

Briggs, Asa., Victorian Cities, Pelican Books, Harmondsworth, (1971)

Briggs, Asa., The Age of Improvement 1783-1867, Longman, London, (1979)

Bee, Malcolm, Industrial Revolution and Social Reform in the Manchester Region, (Second edition), Neil Richardson, Manchester, (1997)

Brindley, W.H., (eds), The Soul of Manchester, Manchester University Press, Manchester, (1929)

Brooks, Ann and Brian Haworth, Boomtown Manchester 1800-1850, The Portico Library, Manchester, (1993)

Bruton, F.A., The Story of Peterloo, Manchester University Press, Manchester, (1919)

Bruton, F.A., Three Accounts of Peterloo by Eyewitnesses, Bishop Stanley, Lord
Hylton, Benjamin Smith, Manchester University Press, Manchester, (1921)

Bruton, F.A., Short History of Manchester and Salford, Sherratt & Hughes, Manchester, (1924)

Clark, J.C.D., English Society 1688-1832, Cambridge University Press, (1985)

Crosby, Alan, A History of Lancashire, Phillimore & Co. Ltd, (1998)

Darvall, F.O., Popular Disturbance and Public Order in Regency England, Oxford University Press, (1926)

David, Saul, Prince of Pleasure, The Prince of Wales and the Making of the Regency, Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, (1998)

Derry, T.K., and Jarman, T.L., Modern Britain, Life and Work through Two Centuries of Change, John Murry Publishers Ltd, London, (1979)

Davis, H.W.C., Lancashire Reformers 1816-1817, Manchester University Press, (1926)

Dinwiddy, J.R., From Luddism to the First Reform Bill:Reform in England 1810-1832, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, (1986)

Edwards, Michael M., The Growth of the British cotton trade 1780-1815, Manchester University Press, Manchester, (1967)

Evans Lloyd, and Pledger Philip, J., Triumph and Tribulation, A Political and Social History of Britain Since 1815, Cheshire Publishing Pty Ltd, Melbourne, (1972)

Fisher, H. A. L., A History of Europe Volume II: From the Early 18th Century to 1935, Volume II, Fontana/Collins, Glasgow, (1979)

Frangopulo, N.J., Tradition in Action The Historical Evolution of the Greater Manchester County, E.P. Publishing, Wakefield, (1977)

Gash, Norman, Aristocracy and People, Britain 1815-1865, Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd, London, (1979)

Gooderson, P. J., A History of Lancashire, B. T. Batsford, London, (1980)

Gregg, Pauline, A Social and Economic History of Britain 1760-1972, Harrap, London, (1973)

Hewitt, Eric, J., A History of Policing in Manchester, E. J. Morten Publishers, Manchester, (1979)

Hewitt Martin, and Poole, Robert, (eds.), The Diaries of Samuel Bamford, Sutton Publishing Ltd, Stroud, (2000)

Hinde, Wendy, Castlereagh, Collins, London, (1981)

Hindle, G.B., Provision for The Relief of The Poor in Manchester 1754-1826, Manchester University Press, (1975)

Hone, W., The Political House that Jack Built. London, (1819)

Horrocks, Paul, (ed.), The Making of Manchester, Manchester Evening News Ltd, Manchester, (1999)

Horton, Harry, Peterloo, 1819: A Portfolio of Contemporary Documents, Manchester Libraries Committee, (1969)

Jackson, Thomas Alfred, Trials of British Freedom, Lawrence and Wishart, London, (1940)

Kennedy, Michael, Portrait of Manchester, (The Portrait Series), Robert Hale & Co., London, (1970)

Konstam, Angus, Historical Atlas of The Napoleonic Era, Mercury Books, London, (2003)

Kidd, Alan, Manchester, (Third edition), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, (2002)

Leighton, Margaret, E., Peterloo Monday, 16th August 1819: A Bibliography, Manchester Libraries Committee, Manchester, (1969)

Marlow, Joyce, The Peterloo Massacre, Rapp and Whiting, London, (1970)

Marshall, Dorothy, Industrial England 1776-1851, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, (1982)

Martin, Howard, Britain in The Nineteenth Century, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd. Cheltenham. (1996)

McKeiver, Philip, G., A New History of Cromwell’s Irish Campaign, Advance Press, Manchester, (2007)

Messinger, Gary, S., Manchester in the Victorian Age, Manchester University Press, Manchester, (1985)

Pellew, George, The Life and Correspondence of H. Addington, Viscount Sidmouth, London, (1847)

Perkin, Harold, The Origins of Modern English Society 1780-1880, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, (1976)

Pimlott, Joe, The Life & Times of Sam Bamford, Neil Richarson, Manchester, (1991)

Plumb, J. H., England In The Eighteenth Century 1714-1815, Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, (1965)

Prentice, Archibald, Historical Sketches and Personal Recollections of Manchester, Charles Gilpin, Manchester, (1851)

Priestly, J. B., The Prince of Pleasure and his Regency 1811-20, Heineman, London, (1969)

Read, Donald, Peterloo: The ‘Massacre’ and its Background, Manchester University Press, Manchester, (1958)

Read, Donald, The English Provinces c.1760-1960a study in influence, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd, London, (1964)

Redford, Arthur, The History of Local Government in Manchester, Longmans Green and Co. London, (1940)

Reid, Robert, The Peterloo Massacre, Heineman, London, (1989)

Ridings, Elijah., Streams From An Old Fountain, John Heywood, Manchester, (1863)

Ridings, Elijah, The Volunteers: or An Englishman’s Domestic View of His Political Position, (1860)

Ridings, Elijah, The wanderers, or The Wailings of The Outcasts, John Heywood, Manchester, (1856)

Ridings, Elijah, The Village Muse, Containing The Complete Works of Elijah

Ridings, (Third edition), Thomas Stubbs, Macclesfield, (1854)

Ridings, Elijah, The Village Festival, (1848)

Smelser, Neil, J., Social Change In The Industrial Revolution, An Application of Theory to the Lancashire Cotton Industry 1770-1840, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, London., (1972)

Scharma, Simon, Britain The Fate of Empire 1776-2000, BBC Worldwide Ltd, London, (2000)

Speck, W.A., A Concise History of Britain 1707-1975, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1995)

Stamp, A.H., A Social and Economic History of England From 1700 to 1970,
Research Publishing Co, London, (1979)

Stamp, A.H., A Social and Economic History of England From 1700 to 1970,
Research Publishing Co, London, (1979)

Stevenson, J., Popular Disturbances in England 1700-1870, Longman, London, (1992)

Strong, Roy, Sir, The Story of Britain, Fromm International Publishing Corporation, New York, (1997)

Swindles, T., Manchester Streets and Manchester Men, Fifth Series, J.E. Cornish Ltd, Manchester, (1908)

Taylor John Edward, Notes and Observations, Critical and Explanatory on the Papers Relative to the Internal State of the Country, (1820)

Trevelyan, George Macaulay, British History in the Nineteenth Century and After (1782-1919), Longmans Green and Co., London, (1922)

Thompson, E.P., The Making of the English Working Class, Gollancz, London, (1963)

Thompson, E.P., Making History: Writings on History and Culture, The New York Press, New York, (1994)

Turner, Michael, J., British politics in age of reform, Manchester University Press, Manchester, (1999)

Turner, Michael, J., Reform and Respectability: The Making of Middle-Class Liberalism in early nineteenth-century Manchester, Carnegie Publishing Ltd, Preston, (1995)

Walton, John, K., Lancashire a Social History, 1538-1939, Manchester University Press, (1987)

Waghorn, Tom, ‘Killing Field,’ in Horrocks, Paul, (ed.), The Making of Manchester, Manchester Evening News Ltd, Manchester, (1999)

Warmsley, Robert, Peterloo : The Case Re-Opened, Manchester University Press, Manchester, (1969)

Wickwar, William Hardy, The struggle for freedom of the press, 1819-1832, George Allan and Unwin Ltd., (1928)

Williams, Glyn, and Ramsden, John, Ruling Britania A Political History of Britain 1688-1988, Longman, London, (1990)

White, Reginald James., Waterloo to Peterloo, Penguin Books, London, (1957)



Journal Articles

Clayson, Jim, ‘The Poetry of Peterloo,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), pp. 31-38.

Communist Party of Great Britain, Peterloo-the story of the terrible massacre of the Lancashire workers at St. Peter’s Fields, Manchester, on August 16th, 1819, and the lessons of Peterloo. Communist Party of Great Britain, London, (1928)

Bee, Malcolm and Walter Bee, ‘The Casualties of Peterloo,’ Manchester Regional History Review, iii, (1989), pp. 43-50.

Belcham, John, ‘Henry Hunt and the evolution of the mass platform,’ English Historical Review, xciii, (1978), pp. 766-7.

Belcham, John., ‘Manchester, Peterloo and The Radical Challenge,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), pp. 9-14.

Bush, Michael, ‘Richard Carlile and the Female Reformers of Manchester,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. xvi, (1989), pp. 2-12.

Bush, M.L., ‘The Women at Peterloo : the Impact of Female Reform on the Manchester Meeting of 16 August 1819,’ History, 89, (2004), pp. 209-32.

De Motte, Margaret., ‘ Peterloo Revisited,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), pp. 76-81.

Donald, Diana., ‘The Power of Print : Graphic Images of Peterloo,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), pp. 21-30.

Hall, Catherine, ‘The Great Reform Act,’ BBC History, Vol. 8, No. 8, August, (2007), pp. 50-53.

Kirk, Neville, ‘Commonsense, Commitment And Objectivity : Themes In The Recent Historiography of Peterloo,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), pp. 61-66.

Read, Donald, Review of ‘Peterloo: The Case Reopened, by Robert Walmsley,’ History, Vol. 55, (1970), pp. 138-40.

Thompson, E.P., ‘ Thompson on Peterloo,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii,(1989), pp. 67-75.

Lawson, Philip, ‘Reassessing Peterloo,’ History Today, Vol. March, (1988), pp. 24-29.

Marlow, Joyce., ‘The Day of Peterloo,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), pp. 3-7.

Poole, Robert, ‘The March To Peterloo: Politics And Festivity In Late Georgian England,’ Past and Present, No. 192. August, (2006)

Poole, Robert, ‘By the Law or the Sword: Peterloo Revisited,’ History, xci. (2006)

Sellers, Ian, ‘Prelude To Peterloo : Warrington Radicalism, 1775-1819,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), pp. 15-20.

Sheffield, Gary, ‘Wellington’s Mastery,’ BBC History, Vol. 8, No. 7, July (2007), pp. 14-19.

Tomlinson, V.I., ‘Postscript To Peterloo,’ Manchester Regional History Review,’ Vol. iii, (1989), pp. 51-60.

Trevelyan, G.M., ‘The number of Casualties at Peterloo,’ History, V11, (1922)

Wilson, Derek, ‘The Worst Year in British History,’ BBC History, Vol. 9, No. 2 February (2008), pp. 23-28.



Newspapers

Manchester Chronicle 19 June 1817
The Star 17th August 1819
The Observer 17th August 1819
Manchester Guardian 18 August 1819
Manchester Observer 21st August 1819
The Times 24 August 1819
The Manchester Guardian 21st August 1819
The Times 24th August 1819
The Times 3 September 1819
Manchester Observer 22 January 1820
The Manchester Guardian 19th October 1872
The Times Literary Supplement 11th December 1969
The Guardian 27th November 2007
Manchester Evening News 19th March 2008




























Select Bibliography


Essential reading for the historian must be Samuel Bamford’s Passages in the
Life of a Radical (1841), followed by F.A. Bruton’s The Story of Peterloo,Manchester, (1919), appearing in the year of the centenary of Peterloo, followed by his Three Accounts of Peterloo, by Eyewitnesses, Bishop Stanley, Lord Hylton, Benjamin Smith, Manchester, (1921) Both works are considered as
standard modern authorities. Bruton’s Short History of Manchester and Salford, (1924), contains an account of his Story of Peterloo condensed into a few pages. As early as 1922 G.M. Trevelyan published his article, ‘The Number of Casualties at Peterloo,’ in History, Volume, VII, (1922), in which he presents an incomplete list of the casualties of Peterloo, and urges further research on the subject. Essential reading also is Archibald Prentice’s Historical Sketches and Personal Recollections of Manchester,(1851), which records what he heard and saw on the day. Donald Read’s, study Peterloo: The Massacre and its Background, (1957), is a more detailed study of the background to Peterloo and is more exhaustive than any published previously, but does not contain eyewitness accounts. The 150th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre at St. Peters Fields, 1819, witnessed the appearance of three new publications. The first by Harry Horton, Portfolio of Contemporary Documents, Manchester Libraries Committee, (1969), is a well presented folder of plans, prints, and broad-sheets. The second was Joyce Marlow’s, The Peterloo Massacre, (1969) called by the publisher ‘the first book for the general reader.’ The third, right wing, interpretation was Robert Warmsley’s book, Peterloo: The Case Re-opened, Manchester, (1969). Soon afterwards Donald Read’s Review of ‘Peterloo: The Case-Reopened, by Robert Walmsley,’ appeared in History, Vol. 55, (1970). The 170th anniversary of Peterloo witnessed the appearance of Robert Reid’s popular account, The Peterloo Massacre, London, (1989), followed by a collection of essays published in the Manchester Regional History Review, Volume, III, (1989), containing essays by Jim Clayson, on The Poetry of Peterloo, John Belcham, Manchester, Peterloo and The Radical Challenge; Margaret De Motte, Peterloo Revisited, Diana Donald, The Power of Print: Graphic Images of Peterloo; Neville Kirk, Commonsense, Commitment And Objectivity : Themes In The Recent Historiography of Peterloo; E.P. Thompson’s article from The Times Literary Supplement of 11th December (1969) appears in this collection under the heading Thompson on Peterloo. Joyce Marlow writes The Day of Peterloo, followed by Ian Sellers on Prelude To Peterloo: Warrington Radicalism, 1775-1819; V.I. Tomlinson, Postscript To Peterloo; Malcolm and Walter Bee, The Casualties of Peterloo. A few years later Philip Lawson wrote ‘Reassessing Peterloo,’ in History Today, Vol. March, (1989), followed by Michael Bush, ‘The Women at Peterloo : the Impact of Female Reform on the Manchester Meeting of 16 August 1819,’ History, 89, (2004). More recently Michael Bush has produced his splendid book The Casualties of Peterloo, Lancaster, (2005), in which he provides detailed listings of every known casualty and his analyses of these lists which establishes the true scale and nature of the massacre. Poole, Robert, ‘By the Law or the Sword: Peterloo Revisited,’ History, xci. (2006), Poole, Robert, ‘The March To Peterloo: Politics And Festivity In Late Georgian England,’ Past and Present, No. 192. August, (2006). Most histories of 19th Century Britain make some reference to Peterloo in their indexes.






























Index


Acknowledgements,
Aftermath of Peterloo,
Agents Provocateurs,
Althorpe, Viscount,
America,
American Colonies loss of,
Andrew, Jonah, cotton spinner,
Anglican clergy,
Anglican-Loyalist oligarchy,
Annual Parliaments,
Annual Register,
Appendix,
A.P.C.O.,
Ardwick Bridge Sectret Committee,
Aristocracy,
Aristocratic Government,
Army,
Ashbourne,
Ashton,
Australia,


B
Bagguley John,
Baines, Edward,
Bank of England,
Bamford Samuel,
Battle of Waterloo,
Barracks, for the military,
Bee, Malcolm,
Bee, Walter,
Belchem, John,
Birley, Captain Hugh Hornby,
Buckley William Norris,
Birmingham,
Blackburn,
Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Act,
Black Dwarf,
Blanketeers,
Blanketeers meeting,
Brazenose Street,
Briggs, Asa,
Britain,
British history,
Bolton,
Boroughmongering,
Bow Street Officers,
Buckley, William, Norris, merchant,
Burdet Sir Francis
Bury,
Byng, General, Sir John,


C
Cabinet,
Cap of Liberty,
Canning, Lord,
Caricaturists,
Carlile Jane,
Carlile Mary,
Carlile, Richard,
Cartwright, Major, John,
Castlereagh, Viscount, Robert Stewart,
Casualties at Peterloo,
Cato Street Conspiracy,
Catholic Emancipation,
Cavalry,
Central Government,
Chadderton,
Chartists,
Cheadle,
Cheshire Yeomanry Cavalry,
Child labour,
Chronology of events 1790-1819,
Church and King Club,
Church and State,
Church Wardens,
Churchill, Winston,
Claysin, Jim,
Cobbertt William,
Combination Acts,
Constitutional Society,
Corn Laws,
Cotton industry in depression,
Cotton mills,
Cooper Street,
Cruickshank, George,


D
Daily Telegraph,
Democratic Recorder,
Derby,
Deputy Chief Constable,
Dickenson Street,
Dorchester Prison,
Drummond John,
Drunken cavalry,
Duke of Wellington,
Dyehouses,
Dynley Major,


E
Edgware Road,
Elite,
Eldon, Lord Chancellor,
England,
English Working-Class,
Entwistle, John,
Establishment,
Ethelstone, Rev. Charles Wickstead,
Evans, Lloyd,
Eyewitness accounts,
Executions,

F
Failsworth,
Farren Elizabeth,
Fell, John,
Fields Ann,
Fildes, Mary,
Fitzwilliam, Earl of,
Ford, Madox,
France,
Free suffrage of the people,
Free Trade Hall,
French,
French Revolution,

G
Gagging Acts expire,
Gallows,
Gash, Norman,
George III,
George IV,
Glorious Revolution,
Government spies,

H
Habeas Corpus,
Hamlets,
Hampden Clubs,
Handloom,
Hangings,
Harrison, Rev. Joseph,
Harrison, William, cotton spinner,
Hay, Rev. William Robert,
Healy, Dr.
Huddersfield,
High food prices,
Historiography of Peterloo,
Hone William,
Horne Rev. Melville,
House of Commons,
Houses of Parliament,
Hustings,
Hulton, William,
Hunt, Henry, ‘Orator’

I
Immigrants,
Income Tax,
Industrial depression,
Industrial Revolution,
Infantry Regiment, 31st,
Infantry Regiment, 88th,
Innkeepers,
Insurrection and Rebellion,
Irish,
Irish community,
Irish population of Manchester,
Ireland,

J
Johnson, Joseph,
Jolliffe, Lieutenant, William,
Journalists,

K
Kay, J.P. Dr.
Kennedy, Michael,
Knight, John,

L
Lancashire,
Lancaster Assizes,
Lancaster Prison,
Lawson, Philip,
L’Estrange. Lieutenant-Colonel George,
Leeds,
Lees, John,
Leeds Mercury,
Left-wing dogma,
Left-wing interpretation,
Legislative Assemblie,
Little Ireland, district of Manchester,
Liverpool,
Liverpool Mercury,
London,
Lord Liverpool, Jenkinson, Robert Banks,
Lower Mosley Street,
Loyalty and Royalty,
Loyalists,
Loyalist mob violence,
Loyalist verse,
Loyalist schools,
Luddites,

M
Macclesfield,
Manchester Constitutional Society,
Manchester Gazette,
Manchester Guardian,
Manchester Herald,
Manchester and Salford Yeomanry Cavalry,
Manchester Observer,
Mancunians,
Marlow, Joyce,
Mask of Anarchy,
Meagher,
Medusa,
Members of Parliament,
Middle Ages,
Middle Class Reformers,
Middleton,
Miles Platting,
Moscow,
Mosley, family,
Mosley Street,
Mount Street,
Mounted Special Constables,
Myths,

N
Nadin, Joseph, Deputy-Chief Constable,
Napoleonic Wars,
New Bailey Prison,
New Cross area of Manchester,
New Free Trade Hall,
Newton Heath,
Newton-Le-Willows,
Newspaper Stamp Duties Act,
Nonconformists,
Northern England,
Norris, James, Barrister and Magistrate,
Nottingham,

O
Old Bailey,
Oldham,
Oldham Road,
Oliver the spy,
Orator Hunt, see Hunt, Henry,
Owen Richard,

P
Paine, Thomas
Palatine of Lancaster and Chester,
Pawnbrokers,
Passages in the life of a Radical,
Patriotic Union Society,
Pendleton,
Pentidridge,
Peterloo,
Peterloo Massacre,
Philips Francis,
Piccadilly Manchester,
Pitt club,
Pledger, Philip,
Police,
Polarization of public opinion,
Political Comet,
Political Unions,
Poetry of Peterloo,
Population growth,
Popular radicalism,
Portland Street,
Poverty,
Preston,
Prime Minister, Mr. Pitt,
Prince Regent,
Privileged,
Propaganda,
Property,
Publicans,

Q
Quaker Meeting House,

R
Radicals,
Radical Flag,
Radical Press,
Radicalism,
Radical contingents,
Redford v Birley,
Redford, Thomas, the Radical plaintiff in Redford v Birley
Reform Act 1832,
Reformists Register,
Reform Movement,
Reform Unions,
Regency England,
Reid, Robert,
Republican,
Ridings, Elijah,
Rights of Man,
Right-wing interpretation,
Riot Act, reading of,
River Medlock,
Rochdale,
Rochdale Road,
Rotherham,
Royal Horse Artillery,
Royton,

S
Sabres,
Saddleworth,
Saint Ethelstone’s Day,
Salford,
Sailors,
Saxton, John,
Scaffold,
Seditious Societies,
Seditious Meetings Prevention Act,
Seizure of Arms Act,
Select Committee of Magistrates,
Scotland,
Schama, Simon,
Sharpville,
Sherwin’s Weekly Political Register,
Sidmouth, Addington Henry, Home Secretary,
Six Acts,
Six pounder field guns,
Slave Trade,
Smedley cottage,
Smith, John,
Soldiers,
Solicitor General,
Spa Fields,
Spa Fields Riots,
Special Constables,
Spies,
Spinners,
Star Inn,
St Johns Street,
St Peters Field,
Stevenson, J.,
St. Stevens Salford,
Stanley, Rev. Edward,
Steam engines,
Stockport,
Stockport Political Union,
Stockport Union for the Promotion of Human Happiness,
Swift, George,
Sunday school children,
Sylvester, J.,

T
Tatton, Thomas,
Temperance Societies,
Thompson, E.P.,
The Briton,
The Theological and Political Comet,
The Third Reich,
The White Hat,
Tinermin Square,
Tory Partisans,
Tory party,
Tory Government,
Tower of London,
Trafford, Major, Thomas Joseph,
Trafford, Trafford,
Training Prevention Act,
Transportations to Australia,
Turner, Michael,
Tyas, John,

U
Unemployment,
Union Societies,
Unitarian Church,
Universal Suffrage,

V
Vagrancy Acts,
Veteran Soldiers,
Villages,

W
Waterloo,
Wales,
Walker Thomas,
Weavers,
Wellington, Duke of,
Whigs,
Wild Robert,
Whitehall,
Withington,
Women and children,
Wooler, Thomas Jonathan,
Working-class- movement,
Worsley, Sir Charles,
Wroe, James,

X

Y
Yorkshire Luddites,

Z







[1] Harry Horton, Peterloo, 1819 A Portfolio of Contemporary Documents, Manchester Libraries Committee, (1969), p. 3.
[2] Simon Schama, Britain The Fate of Empire 1776-2000, London, (2002), p. 134.
[3] These brief biographical sketches are based on the relevant sections of The Concise Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, (1992) ; Donald Read, Peterloo, The Massacre and its Background, Manchester, (1957), and on research material in subsequent chapters.
[4] Joyce Marlow, ‘The Day of Peterloo,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), p. 3.
[5] Alan, Kidd, Manchester, (Third edition), Edinburgh, (2002), p. 90.
[6] Tom Waghorn, ‘Killing Field,’ in Horrock’s Paul, (ed.), The Making of Manchester, (1999), p. 12.
[7] Winston Churchill, History of The English Speaking Peoples, London, (1974)
[8] Robert Warmsley, Peterloo: The Case Re-opened, Manchester, (1969), p. 21.
[9] Robert Poole, ‘The March to Peterloo: Politics and Festivity in Late Georgian England, Past and Present, No. 192. August, (2006), p. 112.
[10] Dorothy Marshall, Industrial England 1776-1851, London, (1982), p. 136.
[11] Donald Read, Peterloo: The ‘Massacre’ and its Background, Manchester, (1957), p. 139.
[12] Read, op. cit., p. 140.
[13] Ibid,
[14] Ibid,
[15] E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, (1963), p.
[16] Dorothy Marshall, Industrial England 1776-1851, London, (1982), p. 136.
[17] Read, op. cit., p. 5.
[18] Asa Briggs, Victorian Cities, Harmondsworth, (1971), p. 88.
[19] Neil J. Smelser, Social Change in the Industrial Revolution:An Application of Theory to the Lancashire Cotton Industry 1770-1840, London, (1972), p. 188.
[20] Robert, Reid, The Peterloo Massacre, London, (1989), p. 5.
[21] Asa Briggs, Victorian Cities, London, (1971), pp. 88-89.
[22] Harry Horton, Peterloo, 1819 A Portfolio of Contemorary Documents, Manchester Libraries Committee, (1969), p. 3.
[23] Briggs, op .cit., p. 89.
[24] Angus Konstam, Historical Atlas of The Napoleonic Era, London, (2003), p. 8.
[25] H.A.L. Fisher, A History of Europe: From the Early 18th Century to 1935, Glasgow, (1979), p. 789.
[26] John K, Walton, Lancashire A Social History, 1558-1939, Manchester, (1987), p. 136.
[27] Michael, J. Turner, Reform and Respectability, The Making of a Middle-Class Liberalism in 19th Century Manchester, Manchester, (1995), pp. 39-41.
[28] W.H., Thomson, History of Manchester to 1852, Manchester, (1969), p. 246.
[29] Turner, op. cit., p. 42-43.
[30] Ibid, pp. 42-43.
[31] John Belcham, ‘Manchester, Peterloo and The Radical Challenge,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), p. 9.
[32] Fisher, op. cit., p. 788.
[33] Thompson, op. cit., p. 663.
[34] Ibid, p. 663.
[35] J.R. Dinwiddy, From Luddism to the First Reform Bill:Reform in England 1810-1832, Oxford, (1986), p. 19.
[36] Lloyd Evans and Philip Pledger, Triumph and Tribulation, A Political and Social History of Britain Since 1815, Melbourne, (1972), p. 9.
[37] Thomson, op. cit., p. 286.
[38] Fisher, op. cit., p. 874.
[39]
[40] Donald Read, The English Provinces c. 1760-1960 a study in influence, London, (1964), pp. 61-62.
[41] Ibid, pp. 61-62.
[42]
[43] Lloyd Evans and Philip Pledger,Triumph and Tribulation, A Political and Social History of Britain Since 1815, Melbourne, (1972), p. 9.
[44] Turner, op. cit., p. 42-43.
[45] Strong Sir, Roy, The Story of Britain, New York, (1997), p. 387.
[46] Read, op. cit., p. 3. Also see A. Redford, The History of Local Government in Manchester, Manchester, (1939-40), p. 258.
[47] Ibid
[48] Archibald Prentice, Historical Sketches and Personal Recollections of Manchester, London, (1851), p.
[49] Read, op. cit., pp. 25-27.
[50] Ibid, p. 27.
[51] George Macaulay Trevelyan, British History In The Nineteenth Century And After (1782-1919), London, (1922), p. 143.
[52] R.J. White, Waterloo to Peterloo, Harmondsworth, (1957), p. 16.
[53] Evans and Pledger, op. cit., p. 8.
[54] Reid, op. cit., p. 20-21.
[55] Thompson, op. cit., p. 660. Working Class.
[56] Strong, op. cit., p. 386.
[57] Reid, op. cit., p. 27.
[58] J. H. Plumb, England In The Eighteenth Century 1714-1815, Harmondsworth, (1965), p. 214.
[59] Thompson, op. cit., p. 660. Working Class.
[60] Strong, op. cit., p. 386.
[61] Ibid, p. 386.
[62] Marlow, op. cit., p. 56. Peterloo Massacre.
[63] Gary, Sheffield, ‘Wellington’s Mastery,’ BBC History, Vol. 8, No. 7 July (2007), p. 19.
[64] Marlow, op. cit., p. 56.Peterloo Massacre.
[65] Thomson, op. cit., p. 285.
[66] Evans and Pledger, op. cit., p.8.
[67] Ibid, p 8.
[68] Thomson, op. cit., p. 285.
[69] Evans and . Pledger, op. cit., p. 8.
[70] Thomson, op. cit., p. 285.
[71] Reid, op. cit., p.

[72] Thompson, op. cit., p.
[73] Read, op. cit., p.
[74] Belcham, op. cit., p. 9.
[75] Thompson, op. cit., p.
[76] Read, op. cit., p.
[77] Trevelyan, op. cit., p. 143.
[78] Reid, op. cit., p. 24-25.
[79] Ibid, p. 25.
[80] Thompson, op. cit., p.
[81] Dinwiddy, op. cit., p. 25.
[82] Evans and Pledger, op. cit., p. 8.
[83] Belchem, op. cit., p. 9.
[84] T.A. Jackson, Trials of British Freedom, London, (1940), p. 75.
[85] Thomson, op. cit., p.
[86] Swindles, op. cit., p. 164.
[87]
[88] Eric J. Hewitt, A History of Policing in Manchester, Manchester, (1979), p. 32.
[89] Ibid, p. 164.
[90] Pauline Gregg, A Social And Economic History Of Britain 1760-1972, London, (1973), p. 90.
[91] Jackson, op. cit., p. 76.
[92] Briggs, op. cit., p. 88.
[93] John Belchem, Industrialization and the Working Class :The English Experience, 1750-1900, Aldershot, (1991), p. 76.
[94] Thomson, op. cit., p. 287.
[95] The Manchester Chronicle 21st June 1817.
[96] Read, op. cit., p. 81.
[97] Stamp, A.H., A Social and Economic History of England From 1700 to 1970, London, (1979), p. 133.
[98] Evans and Pledger, op. cit., p. 8.
[99] Howard Martin, Britain in The Nineteenth Century, Cheltenham, (1996), p. 44.
[100] Alan Kidd, Manchester, Edinburgh, (2002), p. 87
[101] Read, op. cit., p. 47.
[102] Thompson, op. cit., pp. 739-42.
[103] T. Swindles, Manchester Streets and Manchester Men, Manchester, (1908), p. 187.
[104] Dinwiddy, op. cit., p. 37.
[105] Strong, op. cit., p. 386.
[106] Simon Schama, Britain The Fate of Empire 1776-2000, London, (2000), p. 132.
[107] Jackson, op. cit., pp. 76-77.
[108] Dinwiddy, op. cit., p. 37.
[109] Jim Clayson, ‘The Poetry of Peterloo,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, No. 1. (1989), p. 31.
[110] Thompson, op. cit., p. 751. Working Class.
[111] Schama, op. cit., p. 132.
[112] Reid, op. cit., p. 26.
[113] Thompson, op. cit., p. 689. Working Class.
[114] Ibid., p. 689., also see J. Harland, Ballads and Songs of Lancashire, p. 262.
[115] Read, op. cit., p. 57. Prentice, p. 74.
[116] Turner, op. cit., p. 116.
[117] Malcolm Bee, Industrial Revolution and Social Reform in the Manchester Region, Manchester, (1997), p. 11.
[118] Glyn Williams and John Ramsden, Ruling Britannia, A Political History of Britain, 1688-1988,London, (1990), p. 178.
[119]
[120] Thomson, op. cit., p. 285.
[121] Michael J.Turner, British politics in an age of reform, Manchester, (1999), p. 117.
[122] Ibid. p. 26.
[123] Bush, op. cit., p. 38.
[124] Thompson, op. cit., p. 749.
[125]
[126] Stevenson, op. cit., p. 282.
[127] Kidd, op. cit., p.87.
[128] Marshall, op. cit., p. 136.
[129] Manchester Observer 31st July 1819.
[130] Peter Arrowsmith, Stockport A History, Stockport, (1997), p. 201.
[131] Read, op. cit., p. 122.
[132] Read, op. cit., p.
[133] Ibid,
[134] Ibid,
[135] Thompson, op. cit., p.
[136] Manchester Observer, 16th August 1819.
[137] Joyce Marlow, ‘The Day of Peterloo,’ Manchester Historical Review, Vol. iii, (1989), p. 3.
[138] Bush, op. cit., p. 1.
[139] L. M. Angus Butterworth, Lancashire Literary Worthies, St Andrews, (1980), p 123. ; Swindles, op. cit., p. 187. Manchester Guardian, 19th October 1872.
[140] R.J. White, Waterloo to Peterloo, London, (1957), p. 190.
[141] Michael Bush, ‘The Women at Peterloo : The Impact of Female Reform on the Manchester Meeting of 16 August 1819,’ History, Vol. 89, No. 293. January (2004), pp. 209-210.
[142] Thompson, op. cit., p. 748.
[143] Schama, op. cit., p. 133.
[144] Glyn Williams and John Ramsden, op. cit., p. 178.
[145] Tom Waghorn, ‘Killing Field’ in Horrocks, Paul, (ed), The Making of Manchester, Manchester, (1999), p. 12.
[146] Donald Read, Review of ‘Peteterloo: The Case Reopened by Robert Warmsley,’ History, Vol., 55, (1970), pp. 138-140.
[147] Bush, op. cit., p. 1.
[148] The Times 24th August 1819
[149] Warmsley, op. cit., p. 147.
[150] Frank Musgrove, The North of England-A History of Roman Times to the Present, Oxford, (1990), p. 274.
[151] Reid, op. cit., p. 45.
[152] Read, op. cit., p. 128.
[153] Schama, op. cit., p. 133.
[154] John Belchan, ‘Manchester, Peterloo and the Radical Challenge,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), p. 9.
[155] Marlow, op. cit., p. 113.
[156] Thompson, op. cit., p. 186. Making History.
[157] Stevenson, op. cit., p. 284.
[158] Bamford Passages I, pp. 176-77.
[159] Bush, op. cit., Preface.
[160] Thompson, op. cit., p. 752. Working Class.
[161] A. H. Stamp, A Social and Economic History of England From 1700 to 1970, Guildford, (1979), p. 133.
[162] Archibald Prentice, Historical Sketches and Personal Recollections of Manchester, London, (1851), p. 159.
[163] Thompson, op. cit., p. 172. Making History.
[164] F.A. Bruton, Three Accounts of Peterloo by Eyewitnesses, Bishop Stanley, Lord Hylton, Benjamin Smith, Manchester, (1921), p. 21.
[165] White, op. cit., p. 190-91.
[166] Asa Briggs, The Age of Improvement 1783-1876, London, (1979), p. 213.
[167] Reid, op. cit., p. 141.
[168] Ibid, 141.
[169] Thompson, op. cit., p. 186. Making History.
[170] J. Stevenson, Popular Disturbances in England, 1700-1870, (1979) p. 284.
[171] Thompson, op. cit., p. 187. Making History.
[172] Ibid, p. 187.
[173] Ibid, p. 189.
[174] Bruton, op. cit., pp. 49-50.
[175] Marlow, op. cit., p. 126. Peterloo Massacre.
[176] Marlow, op. cit., p. 4. Day of Peterloo.
[177] Thomson, op. cit., p 294..
[178] Marlow, op. cit., p. 127. Peterloo Massacre.
[179] Bruton, op. cit., pp. 11-12. Stanleys narrative.
[180] Thompson, op. cit., p. 186. Making History.
[181] David Ayerst, Guardian, Biography of a Newspaper, (1971), p. 18.
[182] Marlow, op. cit., p. 125. Peterloo Massacre.
[183] Kidd, op. cit., p. 88.
[184] Horton, op. cit., p. 5.
[185] Marlow, op. cit., p. 4. Day of Peterloo.
[186] Thompson, op. cit., p. 188.
[187] White, op. cit., p. 191.
[188] Ann Brooks and Bryan Haworth, Boomtown Manchester 1800-1850, Manchester, (1993), p. 80.
[189] Kidd, op. cit., p. 88.
[190] Thomson, op. cit., p. 294.
[191]
[192] Bruton, op. cit., pp. 49-50.
[193] White, op. cit., p. 193.
[194] Marlow, op. cit., p. 4. Day of Peterloo.
[195] Kidd, op. cit., p. 88.
[196] Marlow, op. cit., p. 4. Day of Peterloo.
[197] Kidd, op. cit., p. 88.
[198] Bruton, op. cit., p. 16. Stanley’s narrative.
[199] William Hulton, Evidence given at the trial of Henry Hunt.
[200] Thompson, op. cit.,p. 183. Making of History.
[201] Ibid, p. 183
[202] Thompson, op. cit., p. 172. Making History.
[203] Ibid, p. 172.
[204] Ibid, p. 183.
[205] Marlow op. cit., p. Peterloo Massacre.
[206] Thompson, op. cit., p. 186. (see marlow for ref)
[207] Bamford, Passages, p. 208.
[208] Sidmouth papers, Jolliffe to Estcourt, 11th April 1845.
[209] Bush, op. cit., p. 54.
[210] Ibid, p. 54.
[211] Ibid, op. cit., p. 54.

[212] Ibid, p. 54.; Manchester Guardian, 18th August 1819.
[213] Ibid, p. 54.
[214] Prentice, op. cit., p. 160.
[215] Bush, op. cit., p. The Observer 17th August 1918.
[216] The Times, 24th August, 1819., Read, op. cit., p. 140.
[217] Poole, op. cit., p. 255.
[218] Thompson, op. cit., pp. 170-171. Making History. ; Warmsley, op. cit., p.
[219] Ibid., p. 171.
[220] Thompson, op. cit., pp. 749-50. Working Class.
[221] Read, op. cit., p. 207.
[222] Williams and Ramsden, op. cit., p. 176.
[223] Reid, op. cit., p. 205.
[224] J. B. Priestly, The Prince of Pleasure and his Regency 1811-20, Heineman, London, (1969), p. 233.
[225] Reid, op. cit., p. 205.
[226] Read, op. cit., p.
[227] Ibid, p. 139.
[228] Warmsley, op. cit., p.
[229] Briggs, op. cit., p. 210.
[230] Martin, op. cit., p.
[231] Turner, op. cit., p. 117
[232] Manchester Evening News, 19th March 2008.
[233] G.M. Trevelyan, ‘The Number of Casualties at Peterloo,’ History, VII, (1922), pp. ?
[234] Malcolm and Walter Bee, ‘The Casualties of Peterloo,’ Manchester Regional History Review, iii, (1989), pp. 31-38.
[235] Bush, pp. 5-6.
[236] Bush,
[237] Bush p.4.
[238] Bush, p. 50.
[239] Bush, p. 53.
[240] Bush, op. cit., Preface.
[241] Bush p. 55
[242] Bush p. 43.
[243] Read, op. cit., p.
[244] Walmsley, op. cit., p.
[245] Gash, p. 95.
[246] Kidd, op. cit., p. 94.
[247] Bush, op. cit., p. 52.
[248] Read, op. cit., p.
[249] Kidd, op. cit., p. 89.
[250] Bruton, op. cit., p. 53.
[251]Bush, op. cit., p. 53.
[252] Ibid. p. 52.
[253] Swindles, op. cit., p. 187.
[254] Bush, op. cit., p. 52.
[255] Bush, op. cit., p. 42.
[256] Neville Kirk, Commonsense, Commitment and Objectivity : Themes In The Recent Historiography of Peterloo,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), p. 61.
[257] N. Nash, Aristocracy and the People, London, (1979), p. Martin, op. cit., p.48
[258] Read, op. cit., p. vii.
[259] Read, op. cit., p.
[260] Thompson, op. cit., p. English Working Class.
[261] Bush, op. cit., p. 44.
[262] Thompson, op. cit., p. The Making of The English Working Class.
[263] Reid, op. cit., p. 5.
[264] Briggs, op cit., p. 92. Victorian Cities.
[265] Bush, op. cit., p. 28.
[266] Bush, op. cit., p. 28.

[267] Ibid, p. 28.
[268] Poole, op. cit., p. 112.
[269] Malcolm and Walter Bee, ‘The Casualties of Peterloo,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, No. 1. (1989), p. 43.
[270] Williams and Ramsden, op. cit., p. 176.
[271] Thompson, op. cit., p. English Working Class
[272] David Saul, Prince of Pleasure, The Prince of Wales and the Making of the Regency, New York, (1998), p. 391.
[273] Wendy Hinde, Castlereagh, London, (1981), p. 253.
[274] Bamford passages I, p. 216.
[275] Thompson, op. cit., p. 755. English Working Class.
[276] Marlow op. cit., p. 43. The Day of Peterloo.
[276] Wendy Hinde, op. cit., p. 254.
[277] Marlow, op. cit., p 7. The Day of Peterloo.
[278] Marlow, op. cit., p. 43.
[279] Read, op. cit., p. 183. Also see W.R. Brock, Lord Liverpool and Liberal Toryism, (1941), p. 112.
[280] Thompson, op. cit., p. 750. English Working Class.
[281] Thompson, op. cit., p. 186. Making History.
[282] Turner, op. cit., p. 268.
[283] Ibid, p. 267.
[284] Marlow, op. cit., p. 13.The Day of Peterloo.
[285] Thompson, op. cit., p. 176. Making History.
[286] Turner op. cit., p. 267.
[287] Thompson p op. cit., p. 176. Making History.
[288] Ibid, p. 175-176.
[289] Thompson, op. cit., p. 752. English Working Class; The Times, 27th September 1819.
[290]
[291] Turner, op. cit., p. 268.
[292]
[293] Swindles, op. cit., p.
[294] Schama, op. cit., p. 134.
[295] Thompson, op. cit., p. 751. English Working Class.
[296] Burdet Sir Francis, Speech made to the House of Commons 15th May 1821.
[297]
[298] Williams and Ramsden, op. cit., pp. 178-79.
[299] Hinde, op. cit., p. 254.
[300] Gregg, op. cit., p. 93.
[301] Evans and Pledger, op. cit., p. 8-9.
[302] Ibid.
[303] Read, op. cit., p.187.
[304] Gregg, op. cit., p. 94.
[305] W. A. Speck, A Concise History of Britain 1707-1975, Cambridge, (1995), p. 67.
[306]
[307] Thompson, op. cit., p. 768. English Working Class.
[308]
[309] Williams and Ramsden, op. cit., p. 179.
[310] Schama, op. cit., p. 134.
[311] Jackson, op. cit., p. 84.
[312] Schama, op. cit., p. 134.
[313] Jackson, op. cit., pp. 84-85.
[314]
[315] Thompson, op. cit., p. 176. Making History.
[316] Turner, op. cit., p. 271.
[317] Thompson, op. cit., p. 177. Making History.
[318] Ibid, p.177.
[319] Marlow, op. cit., p. 7. Day of Peterloo.
[320] Turner, op. cit., p.271.
[321] Reid, op. cit., p.199.
[322] Bush, op. cit., p. 90-91.
[323] Kidd, op. cit., p. 91-92.
[324] Turner, op. cit., p. 271.
[325]
[326] Ibid, p. 190.
[327] Thompson, op. cit., p. 682. English Working Class.
[328] Donaldson, op. cit., p. 21.
[329] Read, op. cit., p. 208.
[330] Ibid, p. 208.
[331] Jim Clayson, ‘The Poetry of Peterloo,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), p. 31.
[332] John Belchem, ‘Manchester, Peterloo and The Radical Challenge,’ Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), p. 13.
[333] Warlmsley, op. cit., p. 131.
[334] Belcham, op. cit., p. 13.
[335] Poole, op. cit., p. 256.
[336] Clayson, op. cit., p.
[337] Ibid, p. 35..
[338] Ibid p. 35.
[339] Ibid, p. 36.
[340] Ibid.
[341] Marlow, op. cit., p. 174.
[342] Schama, op. cit. p. 134.
[343] Martin, op. cit., p. 24.
[344] Walmsley, op. cit., p. 132.
[345] Clayson, op. cit., p.
[346] Elijah, Ridings, The Village Muse, Containing The Complete Poetical Works Of Elijah Ridings, Macclesfield, (1865), p. 8.
[347] T. Swindles, Manchester Streets and Manchester Men, (Fifth series), Manchester, (1908), p. 187.
[348] L.M. Angus-Butterworth, Lancashire Literary Worthies, St. Andrews, (1980), pp. 123-4.
[349] Marlow, p. 6.
[350] Marlow, op. cit., p. 7. Day of Peterloo.
[351] Michael Kennedy, Portrait of Manchester, (The Portrait Series), London, (1970), p. 66.
[352] W. A. Speck, A Concise History of Britain 1707-1975, Cambridge, (1995), p. 67.
[353] Turner, op. cit., p. 268.
[354] Diana Donaldson, ‘The Power of Print: Graphic Images of Peterloo, Manchester Regional History Review, Vol., iii, (1989), p. 21.
[355] Ibid., p. 21.
[356] Philip Lawson, ‘Reassessing Peterloo,’ History Today, March (1998), pp. 24-29.
[357] Poole, op. cit., p. 115.
[358] L.M. Angus-Butterworth, Lancashire Literary Works, St. Andrews, (1980), p. 123.
[359] Swindles, op. cit., p. 187.
[360] Thompson, op. cit., p.168.The Making of History.
[361] Trevelyan, op. cit., pp.
[362] Prentice, op. cit., pp.
[363] Read, op. cit., p.
[364] Read, op. cit., p. vii.
[365] Thompson, op. cit., pp. The Making of The English Working Class.
[366] Marlow op. cit.
[367] Ibid.
[368]
[369] Warmsley, op. cit., p.
[370]
[371] Thompson, op. cit., p. 168. From The Times Literary Supplement 11th December, (1969)
[372] Warmsley, op. cit., p.
[373] Donald Read, ‘Peterloo: The Case Re-opened, By Robert Warmsley,’ History, Vol. 55, (1970), pp. 138-140.
[374] Read, op. cit., p.
[375] Ibid.
[376] Michael Kennedy, Portrait of Manchester, (The Portrait Series), London, (1970), p. 66.
[377] Horton, op. cit., p. 3.
[378] James Anthony Froude, The English in Ireland in the Eighteenth Century, London, (1887), p. 91.
[379] Evans and Pledger, op. cit., p. 8.
[380]
[381]
[382] Kidd, op. cit., p. 87.
[383] Marshall, op. cit., p. 136.
[384] Donald Read, Review of ‘Peterloo:The Case Reopened by Robert Warmsley,’ History, Vol., 55, (1970), pp. 138-140.
[385]
[386]
[387] Diana, Donaldson, ‘Graphic Images of Peterloo, Manchester Regional History Review, Vol. iii, (1989), p. 21.
[388] Bush, op. cit., Preface.
[389] Manchester Guardian

In addition, the radicals carried on their propaganda by holding meetings, distributing pamphlets and the formation of clubs This political doctrine became prominent during the year after Waterloo. Although most of the reformers went home peacefully, others were arrested nevertheless a number set off on the march. The prisoners were thrown into the New Bailey Prison, (now known as Strangeways). Nevertheless, 200 arrived at Macclesfield, 50 got as far as Leek, 20 reached Ashbourne, and a few reached Derby. However, after the suspension of Habeas Corpus and restrictions on public meetings ended, the radicals slowly emerged again. However, working-class demands for political and economic reform were more often than not met with brutal government action. However, if the aim of the organizers was to ‘frighten the authorities rather than persuade,' perhaps they succeeded only too well. As planned Lieutenant Colonel George Le’Estrange was the overall military commander on 16th August 1819. Directly under his command were 600 members of the 15th Hussars, several hundred members of the 31st and 88th infantry regiments and a detachment of the Royal Horse Artillery. His initial plan was to surround St. Peters Field with his troops. The cavalry in the front line was to be used to disperse the crowd if the magistrates decided this was required, whilst the Royal Horse Artillery were to be used as a last resort. However, the Yeomanry were under the immediate command of the Select Committee of Magistrates. They assembled a prearranged group of thirty loyal respectable citizens to swear and sign an affidavit for Henry Hunt’s arrest and that of other leading Radicals, on the grounds that ‘an immense mob had collected and they considered the town in danger.’ In marked contrast the eyewitness account of Sir William Jolliffe who rode in charge as Lieutenant of Hussars on the day later recorded: For example Robert Walmsley in Peterloo: The Case-reopened, (1969), has offered the revisionist argument that ‘Peterloo constituted an unfortunate tragedy rather than a massacre.’ The Home Secretary Lord Sidmouth, nervously aware of the Government’s dependence on the magistrates in times of unrest wasted no time congratulating the magistrates and the yeomanry in Manchester on their prompt action. In the shocked aftermath of Peterloo the radicals themselves divided into those like Hunt, who felt it was important to continue by lawful, constitutional change and the more aggressive kind who had been pushed over the edge men like Arthur Thistlewood. He was a gentleman radical who had planned what came to be known as the Cato Street Conspiracy, a madcap scheme involving a plan not merely to assassinate the entire Cabinet but to attack the Tower of London, the Bank of England and parliament as well. However, working-class demands for political and economic reform were more often than not met with brutal government action. Finally, the belief that Manchester’s Irish Population did not become integrated in the movement for parliamentary reform, is also unfounded. Research has shown that at least 97 of the recorded injuries recorded in the casualty lists of Peterloo were to persons of Irish extraction, either immigrants from Ireland or those born in England of Irish parents. an 19th October, 1872.