magistrates were, not unnaturally, alarmed at demonstrations so threatening. On the 16th, St. Peter's Field, in Manchester, became the scene of a deplorable catastrophe. Forty thousand men' and two clubs of female reformers, marched in to the meeting, bearing flags, on which were inscribed the objects of their political faith, Universal Suffrage,' 'Equal Representation or Death,' and 'No Corn Laws.' However menacing their numbers, their conduct was orderly and peaceful. Mr. Hunt having taken the chair, had just commenced his address, when he was interrupted by the advance of cavalry upon the people. The Manchester Yeomanry, having been sent by the magistrates to aid the chief constable in arresting Mr. Hunt, and other reform leaders, on the platform, executed their instructions so awkwardly as to find themselves surrounded and hemmed in by the dense crowd, and utterly powerless. The 15th Hussars, now summoned to their rescue, charged the people sword in hand; and in ten minutes the meeting was dispersed, the leaders were arrested, and the terrified crowd driven like sheep through the streets. Many were cut down by sabres, or trampled upon by the horses; but more were crushed and wounded in their frantic struggles to escape from the military. Between 300 and 400 persons were injured: but happily no more than five or six lives were lost. This grievous event brought to a sudden crisis It was variously estimated at from 20,000 to 60,000. Lord Liverpool said 20,000; Lord Castlereagh, 40,000. In the indictment against Hunt and others it was laid at 60,000. public the antagonism between the government, and the popular right of meeting to discuss griev- State of ances. The magistrates complimented the feeling. military upon their forbearance: and the government immediately thanked both the magistrates and the military, for their zeal and discretion in maintaining the public peace. But it was indignantly asked, not by demagogues and men ignorant of the law, but by statesmen and lawyers of eminence, -by whom the public tranquillity had been disturbed? Other meetings had been held without molestation: why then was this meeting singled out for the inopportune vigour of the magistrates? If it threatened danger, why was it not prevented by a timely exercise of authority? If Hunt and his associates had violated the law, why were they not arrested before or after the meeting? Or if arrested on the hustings, why not by the civil power? The people were peaceable and orderly, they had threatened no one,-they had offered no resistance. Then why had they been charged and routed by the cavalry? It was even doubted if the Riot Act had been duly read. It had certainly not been heard; and the crowd, without notice or warning, found themselves under the flashing swords of the soldiery.' 1 The evidence on this point was very confused. Earl Grey, after reading all the documents, affirmed that the Riot Act had not been read. Lord Liverpool said it had been completely read once, and partly read a second time. Lord Castlereagh said the Riot Act had been read from the window of the house in which the magistrates were assembled. This not being deemed sufficient, another magistrate went out into the crowd to read it, and was trampled under foot. Another vainly endeavoured to read it at the hustings after the arrest of Mr. Hunt. Meetings Throughout the country, the Manchester Massacre,' as it was termed, aroused feelings of for inquiry. anger and indignation. Influential meetings were held in many of the chief counties and cities, denouncing the conduct of the magistrates and the government, and demanding inquiry. In the manufacturing districts, the working classes assembled, in large numbers, to express their sympathy with the sufferers, and their bitter spirit of resentment against the authorities. Dangerous discontents were inflamed into sedition. Yet all these excited meetings were held peaceably, except one at Paisley, where the magistrates having caused the colours to be seized, riots and outrages ensued. But ministers were hard and defiant. The Common Council of the city of London addressed the prince regent, praying for an inquiry, and were sternly rebuked in his reply. Earl Fitzwilliam, a nobleman of the highest character, who had zealously assisted the government in the repression of disorders in his own county, joined the Duke of Norfolk and several other noblemen and gentlemen of the first importance, in a requisition to the high sheriff of the county of York, to call a meeting for the same purpose. At this meeting he attended and spoke; and was dismissed from his lord lieutenancy.' 'Hitherto Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xli. 4, 51, &c.; Pellew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, iii. 249. et seq.; Ann. Reg., 1819, p. 106; Trial of Mr. Hunt and others, 1820; Ann. Reg., 1820; Chron., 41; Barn. and Ald. Rep., iii. 566; Papers laid before Parliament, Nov. 1819; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xli. 230 (Mr. Hay's statement); Bamford's Passages from the Life of a Radical, i. 176-213; Prentice's Manchester, 160. Ann. Reg., 1819, p. 109. 2 Pellew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, iii. 263–272; Ann. Reg., 1819, p. 113, and Lord Grey's observations; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xli. 11-15. the Whigs had discountenanced the radical reformers but now the rigours of the government forced them to make common cause with that party, in opposing the measures of the executive.1 Meeting of Nov. 23rd, 1819. In the midst of this perilous excitement, Parliament was assembled, in November; and the Manchester meeting was naturally the Parliament, first object of discussion. Amendments were moved to the Address, in the Lords, by Earl Grey, and in the Commons by Mr. Tierney, reprobating all dangerous schemes: but urging the duty of giving just attention to the complaints of the people, and the propriety of inquiring into the events at Manchester." It was the object of the opposition to respond to the numerous meetings, petitions, and addresses, which had prayed for inquiry; and to evince a spirit of sympathy and conciliation on the part of Parliament, which had been signally wanting in the government. Earl Grey said, 'there was no attempt at conciliation, no concession to the people; nothing was attended to but a resort to coercion, as the only remedy which could be adopted.' The natural consequences of such a system, when once begun, was that it could not be stopped: discontents begot the necessity of force: the employment of force increased discontents: The resolutions of this meeting, without condemning the magistrates, merely demanded inquiry. Lord Liverpool, writing to Lord Sidmouth, Sept. 30th, 1819, said: 'As far as the Manchester business goes, it will identify even the respectable part of the opposition with Hunt and the radical reformers.'-Pellew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, iii. 270. 2 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xli. 4, 51; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 297, et seq. these would demand the exercise of new powers, till by degrees they would depart from all the principles of the constitution.' It was urged, in the language of Burke, that, a House of Commons who, in all disputes between the people and administration, presume against the people,-who punish their disorders, but refuse even to inquire into the provocations to them,-this is an unnatural, a monstrous state of things, in such a constitution.' But conciliation formed no part of the hard policy of ministers. Sedition was to be trampled Inquiry refused. out. The executive had endeavoured to maintain the peace of the country: but its hands must now be strengthened. In both Houses the amendments were defeated by large majorities; ' and a similar fate awaited distinct motions for inquiry, proposed, a few days afterwards, by Lord Lansdowne in the Lords, and Lord Althorp in the Commons.2 The Six Papers were laid before Parliament containing evidence of the state of the country, which Acts. were immediately followed by the introduction of further measures of repression,-then designated, and since familiarly known as, the 'Six Acts.' The first deprived defendants in cases of misdemeanour of the right of traversing: to which Lord Holland induced the chancellor to add a clause, obliging the attorney-general to bring defendants to In the Lords there were 159 for the Address, and 34 for the amendment. In the Commons, 381 for the Address, and 150 for the amendment.-Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xli. 50, 228. 2 Nov. 30th. Contents, 47; Non-contents, 178. Ayes, 150; Noes, 323.-Ibid., 418, 517. |