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 1 Eldon, vol. ii. p. 337. Sidmouth, vol. iii. p. 278. Ann. Reg., 1820, Chron., p. 858. 2 Sidmouth, vol. iii. p. 299. V. 1819. General indigna conduct of the 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 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. 6 V. 1819. sufferings of the wounded, and of obtaining legal redress CHAP 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. 1 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. V. 1819. CHAP. portant county in all England. Yorkshire and Middlesex between them make all England,' was the saying of Fox. The Lord Lieutenant, Lord Fitzwilliam, was one of the wealthiest noblemen in the country and one of the leading members of the Whig party. Yet Lord Fitzwilliam, as Lord Lieutenant of the West Riding, signed a requisition to the High Sheriff for a meeting at York to consider the Manchester proceedings. The meeting was held, and attended by 20,000 persons. The resolutions passed at it demanded an inquiry into the occurrences at Peterloo, but refrained from expressing any positive opinion on the conduct either of the magistrates or of the ministers. The importance of the meeting consisted, however, in the fact that it was attended by Lord Fitzwilliam. Lord Fitzwilliam's example was followed in other counties; and meetings to consider the Manchester proceedings were hastily convened by the Whig party. The Whigs, indeed, at once determined to endeavour to take the matter out of the hands of the Radicals, and to direct and moderate the popular voice themselves. Without desiring to associate themselves with the views and proceedings of Hunt, they were anxious to resist the inroads, which they believed the Government to be making, on the privileges of the public. The Ministry were more alarmed at Lord Fitzwilliam's action than at all the blood which had been shed at Peterloo. At the end of September they had hesitated to summon Parliament together. Before October was ten days old they had convened it for the 23rd of November. But they did not wait for the assembly of Parliament to mark their displeasure of Lord Fitzwilliam's conduct. week after the meeting at York a messenger was sent to Wentworth with a letter informing Lord Fitzwilliam that the Prince Regent had no further occasion for his services as Lord Lieutenant of the West Riding of York1 Wilberforce, vol. ii. p. 133. A CHAP. shire.' Two days afterwards the vacant Lieutenancy was conferred on Lord Lascelles, the eldest son of Lord Harewood, a nobleman whose position and estates were almost 1819. equal to those of Lord Fitzwilliam. william's Lord Lieu The removal of Lord Fitzwilliam from the Lord Lord FitzLieutenancy of the West Riding was an act of vigour removal which excited mingled surprise and alarm. Associating from the it with the immediate assembly of Parliament, the Whigs tenancy. inferred, or professed to infer, from it an attempt on the part of the ministry to control the privileges of the country. I have little doubt,' wrote Brougham to Lord Grey, that they seriously and desperately intend to change the Government into one less free. I should say they did so if they passed laws restricting meetings and the press.' Nor was Brougham mistaken in his shrewd anticipation. We are in a state,' wrote Lord Eldon to his brother, 'in which the country must make new laws to meet this new state of things.' 'The laws are not strong enough for the times,' wrote Lord Sidmouth; but they must be made so, if it were meant to afford the country a reasonable hope of permanent tranquillity.'1 The ministry were then resolute on obtaining strin- Divisions gent powers of repression. Nothing could have diverted among the Opposithem from their task but a strong and united Opposition; tion. and unfortunately the Opposition was neither strong nor united. The Radicals,' wrote Brougham, 'have made themselves so odious that a number even of our own way of thinking would be well enough pleased to see them and their vile press put down at all hazards.' The more liberal element among the Opposition were far from unanimous in their desire to resist the Ministry. But the less liberal element among them were even more anxious than Lord Sidmouth and Lord Eldon for repressive laws. Lord Grenville had been one of Pitt's principal 1 Brougham, vol. ii. p. 348. p. 249. Eldon, vol. ii. p. 340. Sidmouth, vol. iii. |