CHAP. V. 1819. of Liverpool, Castlereagh, Sidmouth, Wellington, Van, and myself,' wrote Lord Eldon, they are all, eight in number, in different parts of Europe.' Yet events were hastening to a crisis with alarming rapidity. Manchester decided on following the example of Birmingham, and on electing a legislatorial attorney. A great meeting was called for the purpose on the 16th of August. In 1819 there was a small piece of land on the outskirts of Manchester which has long since been absorbed by the growing city, but which was still unbuilt over. Building operations were indeed in progress in parts of it, and pieces of timber left by the builders were scattered about it. Being in the immediate neighbourhood of St. Peter's church the land was known as St. Peter's field or Peterloo. It had been occasionally used by the Reformers for public meetings, and the Blanketeers had met upon it in 1817. It was decided that the meeting of the 16th of August should be held on this field. Every effort was made by its promoters to insure its success. Hunt, the ostensible leader of the Radicals, was invited and consented to preside at it. The men who were to take part in the meeting underwent some preliminary drill, in order that they might be able to move on to the ground with some approach to military regularity; and banners, of all kinds and colours, were prepared to decorate the various processions. On the other hand, the authorities were equally vigilant; troops at their request were moved to Manchester. Special constables were enrolled in great numbers for the preservation of the peace; and the Yeomanry of Lancashire and Cheshire were called out for service. The preparations on both sides were complete, and the event was awaited with anxiety by the authorities and the people. The morning came, and the sun had hardly risen before the character of the demonstration was visible. 1 Eldon, vol. ii. p. 336. V. From every suburb of Manchester, from every village CHAP. within marching distance of the great city, processions of working men were converging on the place of meeting. 1819. Most of the processions moved under banners. On one of these was inscribed 'Liberty or death!' on another 'We will conquer our enemies!' on a third, a huge black banner, Equal representation or death!' on a fourth 'No corn laws!' on a fifth Hunt and liberty.' The women shared the enthusiasm which seized their husbands and brothers; a female procession marched to the meeting. No serious disorders seem, however, to have taken place on any of the roads by which St. Peter's field was approached. The tradesmen took the precaution to close their shops; the upper classes probably forbore as a rule to venture into the streets; and from 50,000 to 60,000 men marched into St. Peter's Field, without committing any serious breach of the peace. The county magistrates were, in the meanwhile, anxiously awaiting the event in a house belonging to a Mr. Buxton, which adjoined and overlooked the field. They had extended a line of constables from this house to the temporary hustings-some movable wagons-which had been placed in the centre of the ground. It was their obvious intention to maintain a line of communication between their own position and the eaders of the meeting. But the object was defeated by a very simple expedient. The wagons which formed the hustings were moved into a different part of the field, and the communication between them and the magistrates was thus broken. At this moment Hunt was observed to commence his address to the crowd from the hustings. Nadin, the chief constable of Manchester, was ordered to arrest him; but Nadin stated, what was evidently true, that it was utterly impossible for him to do so. The magistrates therefore sent for the commanders of the Manchester Yeomanry and of the 15th Hussars, which were in readi CHAP. 1819. ness. · The Yeomanry arrived first and suffered themselves to be scattered among the crowd, who closed on them, groaned and hissed, and waved their sticks in a menacing manner. Colonel L'Estrange, who commanded the Hussars, arrived immediately afterwards, and asked for orders. 'Good God, sir,' said Mr. Hulton, who presided over the magistrates, do not you see how they are attacking the Yeomanry? Disperse the crowd.' L'Estrange retired to his men. The Hussars were pushed under his orders rapidly through the streets till they reached the south-west corner of the field; the words Front,' and Forward' were given, and the trumpet sounded the charge at the very moment the troops wheeled up. The charge swept the mingled mass of human beings before it; people, yeomen, and constables, in their confused attempts to escape, ran one over the other; and by the time the troops had arrived at the end of the field the fugitives were literally piled up to a considerable elevation above the level of the ground.' The field and the adjacent streets now presented an extraordinary sight; the ground was quite covered with hats, shoes, sticks, musical instruments, and other things. Here and there lay the unfortunates who were too much injured to move away: and this sight was rendered the more distressing because it was observed that some women were among the sufferers. In the meanwhile the charge of the Hussars had enabled the constables to execute their warrant. Hunt quietly surrendered to Nadin, and was removed in custody. His removal terminated the meeting. Troops, indeed, patrolled the town throughout the ensuing night; but no fresh breach of the peace occurred. At six the next morning the officer in command reported to the magistrates that the town was perfectly quiet, and requested their sanction to the return of the military to their quarters.1 1 Ann. Reg. 1819, Hist., p. 106; 1820, Chron., pp. 848-895. Sid 6 6 СПАР. 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. CHAP. 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 |