CHAP.
V.

1819.

approve.

duct of the

trates.

Such was the history of the lamentable meeting at Peterloo on the 16th of August. It was obvious to everyone that the magistrates had incurred a very grave responsibility. They had ordered the military to disperse a The Golarge assembly of their defenceless fellow-citizens; and vernment nothing could justify the order except a clear apprehen- the consion that the meeting which they had determined to dis- magisperse was illegal. Nothing, however, could be more difficult than to decide whether the Manchester meeting was or was not illegal. At first, indeed, Lord Eldon was disposed to take the high ground of declaring it an overt act of treason. Under an Act, which he had himself been instrumental in passing, 'a conspiracy to levy. war, a conspiracy to depose' the king, a conspiracy by force to make a change in either House of Parliamentmanifested by an overt act-is treason.' 'When he read in his law books,' he said some months afterwards in the House of Lords, that numbers constituted force, force terror, and terror illegality, he felt that no man could deny the Manchester meeting to have been an illegal one.' Lord Redesdale, who had served with distinction as Chancellor of Ireland, and who was one of the greatest equity lawyers of the day, took precisely the same view. 'Every meeting for Radical reform,' he wrote, was not merely a seditious attempt to undermine the existing constitution and Government by bringing it into hatred and contempt, but it was an overt act of treasonable conspiracy against that constitution of Government, including the king as its head, and bound by his coronation oath to maintain it.' The opinions of these high authorities probably prevailed with the law officers to whom the matter was referred. They joined with Lord Eldon in advising the Government 'that they were fully satisfied that the meeting was of a character and description, and assembled under such circumstances, as justified the magistrates in dispersing it by force.'1 Eldon, vol. ii. pp. 338, 348. Sidmouth, vol. iii. p. 278. Liverpool, vol. ii. p. 409.

СНАР.

V.

1819.

Nothing could have been stronger than these opinions; yet the very confidence with which they were expressed justified a hesitation in accepting them. If Lord Eldon and Lord Redesdale were right, it was treason for a few thousand persons to meet together and demand any reform in the House of Commons. A few thousand persons constituted numbers, numbers force, and a conspiracy by force to make a change in the constitution of the House of Commons was treason. The old right of meeting was then effectually destroyed if these opinions prevailed. But, in the first place, the verdict in the Spa Fields Riot made it hopeless to expect that juries would affirm this view of the law; and, in the next place, Lord Eldon and Lord Redesdale themselves concluded that legislation was necessary. Lord Redesdale, indeed, with characteristic acuteness, desired only a declaratory law to remove ‘all doubt of the treasonable criminality of such assemblies.' Lord Eldon admitted that the state of our law is so inapplicable to existing circumstances that we can't meet the present case; and I am convinced, as I am of my existence, that if Parliament don't forthwith assemble there is nothing that can be done but to let these meetings take place, reading the Riot Act, if there be a riot at any of them.' It was obvious, therefore, that these great lawyers had not much confidence in their own opinions; and their hesitation was justified by the conduct of the judge (Mr. Justice Bayley), who, with admirable impartiality, subsequently tried the case. So far from laying down the law as Lord Eldon had interpreted it, he had the good sense to leave it to the jury to determine whether a body assembling in such numbers as to excite terror in the public mind was not illegal.' The question, in short, commended itself to Mr. Justice Bayley as one, not of law, but of fact. The legality of a meeting, which the magistrates took upon themselves to disperse with military force, was ultimately referred to the decision.

V.

1819.

of a jury. For the moment, however, the opinions of CHAP. Lord Eldon and Redesdale prevailed with the Cabinet, or rather with the moiety of the Cabinet who were not pleasure-seeking abroad. Within three days of the Lancashire meeting the ministry received the Prince Regent's commands to convey 'his approbation and high commendation of the conduct of the magistrates and civil authorities at Manchester, as well as of the officers and troops, both regular and Yeomanry cavalry, whose firmness and effectual support of the civil power preserved the peace of the town upon that most critical occasion.' The Regent was at that time at Christchurch; his approval was dated the 19th of August. There were then no telegraphs, no railways. The news of the meeting on the 16th reached the ministers in London on the evening of the 17th. Two of the Lancashire magistrates themselves arrived in London in the course of the 18th. The despatch which the Regent was able to sign in his yacht off Christchurch on the 19th must have left London late on the 18th or in the small hours of the morning of the 19th. Those members of the Cabinet, who happened to be in town, could not have given themselves four-and-twenty hours' consideration before they committed themselves to a hasty approval of the conduct both of the magistracy and of the troops.2

The Ministry, having irretrievably committed themselves to the side of the magistracy, desired that all the evidence, on which their opinion ought to have been formed, should be sent to them to London. When the evidence was received they discovered, much to Lord Eldon's annoyance, that it did not warrant a prosecution for high treason; and they were compelled to withdraw the charge and indict the prisoners for a conspiracy to alter the law by force and by threats. The Lancashire

Eldon, vol. ii. p. 337. Sidmouth, vol. iii. p. 278. Ann. Reg., 1820, Chron., p. 858. 2 Sidmouth, vol. iii. p. 299.

CHAP.

V.

1819.

General

indigna

conduct

magistrates committed them for trial at the Lancaster assizes on this charge, but the trial was subsequently postponed to York, and did not take place till the following year. Hunt and his associates were then convicted, and were subsequently sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.1

The Ministry had been partially justified by the committal of Hunt and his confederates for trial. They had also been encouraged by the verdicts of the juries summoned to inquire into the causes of the death of the unfortunate persons who had lost their lives in the riot. None of these verdicts were such as could lead to judicial proceedings. Some were 'Accidental death;' another, on a child, Died by a fall from his mother's arms;' a third, 'Died by the pressure of the military, being under the civil power.' The magistrates of Lancashire and Cheshire thought proper, too, to return thanks to the commanders, officers, and men of all the corps who had taken part in the actions of the day; particularly expressing their gratification at the "extreme forbearance exercised by the Yeomanry, when insulted and defied by the rioters.'

"2

But the position of the Ministry was by no means ention at the viable. Though their proceedings had been approved by the magistrates of the neighbourhood, the circumstances of the meeting, or of the massacre, as it began to be called, excited deep attention. Subscriptions were opened in London and Liverpool for

of the ministry.

1 Ann. Reg., 1820, Chron., p. 898. Sidmouth, vol. iii. p. 265.

Political agitators of the present day may care to know the penalty attached to such offences half a century ago. Hunt was sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment, and had at the expiration of that time to find sureties (himself for 1,000l., two other persons for 500l. each) for good behaviour for five years. Sir Charles Wolseley had eighteen

the purpose of relieving the

months' imprisonment, and to give the same sureties as Hunt. Mr. Harrison had also eighteen months' imprisonment; Johnston, Healy, and Bamford, one year's imprisonment. Each of the last four had to find sureties for their good behaviour for five years, themselves for 2007., and two other persons in 1007. each.Ann. Reg., 1820, Chron., p. 148.

2 Ann. Reg., 1819, Hist., p. 107.

sufferings of the wounded, and of obtaining legal redress against their persecutors. Several individuals of the Manchester Yeomanry were indicted for cutting and maiming with intent to kill; and, though the grand jury of Lancashire threw out the bills, the public regarded the Lancashire grand jury as an interested and therefore partial tribunal. Their presentment proved that the conduct of the magistrates was open to question. Far more formidable proceedings were, however, imminent. The Common Council of London met on the 9th of September for the express purpose of considering the late transactions at Manchester.' The Common Council, by seventy-one votes to forty-five, agreed to a series of resolutions affirming the legality of the Manchester meeting, and expressing their strongest indignation at the unprovoked and intemperate proceedings' of the magistrates and the military, which they regarded as highly disgraceful to the character of Englishmen, and a daring violation of the British Constitution.' It is the privilege of the Common Council of London to have unrestricted access to the throne; and an address in accordance with the resolutions was accordingly presented to the Regent. The Regent was advised to reply in terms of angry remonstrance; but his remonstrances did not check the impulse which the address had given. A meeting of the inhabitants of Norwich, held under the authority of the mayor, requested the Regent to dismiss for ever from his councils those ministers with whom the name of his Royal Highness had been connected with the massacre at Manchester.' In Westminster, York, Bristol, Liverpool, Nottingham, and other towns similar meetings were held. The suppression of one meeting by force had led to the holding of many others.

Far the most important of these meetings, both in its circumstances and its consequences, was held, on the 14th of October, in Yorkshire. Yorkshire was the most im1 Ann. Reg., 1819, Hist., p. 110.

CHAP.

V.

1819.