Bronze Relief by John Cassidy, R.C.A.The Hunt Memorial in the Vestibule of theManchester Reform ClubTo face page 69
The Rev. Mr. Hay (the Chairman to the Magistrates) then stood on the steps of Mr. Buxton’s house and addressed the constables. I could not hear what he said, but he was cheered when he concluded. He then returned into the house, but came out again soon afterwards with Mr. Marriott, the Magistrate, and Hunt in the custody of Nadin, Chief Constable, and with Johnson in the custody of another constable. When Hunt made his appearance, he was assailed with groans and hisses by the soldiers and constables. Hunt took off his hat and bowed to them, which appeared to calm them while they marched towards Deansgate on their way to the New Bailey prison, escorted by the cavalry. On quitting the windows from whence we had witnessed so many painful scenes, we descended and found two special constables who had been brought into the house. One presented a shocking sight—the face was all over blood from a sword-cut on his head, and his shoulder was put out. The other was bloody from being rode over and kicked on the back of his head.
When the particulars of this bloody tragedy became known, strong feelings of indignation were expressed all over the country. The Manchester magistrates, alarmed at the tone of public opinion in London, had a meeting hastily convened on the 19th of August at the Police Office, which was adjourned to the Star Inn, where resolutions were passed thanking the magistrates and the soldiers. I happened by accident to be present at the meeting. A young man with whom I was acquainted, a clerk in the office of the Clerk to the Magistrates, happening to meet me in the street on his way to the meeting, took me by the arm and said: “Come with me.” I asked where he was going, and when I learned, declined to go. He replied: “Nonsense, you will hear what is going on,” and so I somewhat reluctantly went with him to the Star Inn. On our arrival we found the room pretty full and I took a seat. The Chairman, Mr. Francis Phillips, rose and said: “If there be any persons present who do not approve of the objects of this meeting they are requested to withdraw.” I thought he looked at me, and felt a little uncomfortable. He sat down again and rose to repeat his request. I thought that as I should know better what the object of the meeting was after I had heard it explained, I would sit still, and so I remained to the end. After the meeting I told some of myReform friends how I came to be present at the meeting, and they wished me to write out an account of the proceedings. I did so, and with a few alterations and the omission of names it was inserted inCowdroy’s Gazette. This statement created great alarm among those who got up the meeting to thank the magistrates, and they denounced it as a false statement, but another letter toCowdroy’s Gazetteaffirmed the truth of the account of the meeting to thank the magistrates, and threatened to make public the names of the speakers if its correctness was again called in question.
The Peterloo MedalNote the women and children, and the cap of Liberty held aloft in the centreTo face page 71
The dispersion of a legally convened meeting by military force aroused a general indignation, and the smuggled passing of thanks to the magistrates so dishonestly sent forth occasioned an expression of public feeling and opinion such as had never been manifested in Manchester before. A “Declaration and Protest” against the Star Inn resolutions was immediately issued, stating that “We are fully satisfied by personal observation on undoubted information that the meeting wasperfectly peaceable; that no seditious or intemperate harangues were made there; that the Riot Act,if read at all, was readprivately, or without the knowledge of a great body of the meeting, and we feel it our bounden duty to protest against andto express our utter disapprobation of the unexpected and unnecessary violence by which the assembly was dispersed.
“We further declare that the meeting convened at the Police Office on the 19th of August for the purpose of thanking the magistrates, municipal officers, soldiers, etc., was strictly and exclusivelyprivate, and in order that the privacy might be more completely ensured was adjourned to the Star Inn. It is a matter of notoriety that no expression of dissent from the main object of the meeting was there permitted. We therefore deny that it had any claim to the title of a ‘numerous and highly respectable meeting of the inhabitants of Manchester and Salford and their neighbourhood.’”
In the course of three or four days this protest received 4,800 signatures.
By way of counteracting this energetic protest, on the 27th of August Lord Sidmouth communicated to the Manchester Magistrates and to Major Trafford and the military serving under him the thanks of the Prince Regent “for their prompt, decisive, and efficient measures for preservation of the public peace on August the 16th.”
Meanwhile hundreds of persons wounded on that fatal day were enduring dreadful suffering. They were disabled from work; not daring to apply forparish relief; not even daring to apply for surgical aid, lest, in the arbitrary spirit of the time, their acknowledgment that they had received their wounds on St. Peter’s field might send them to prison—perhaps to the scaffold.
A committee was formed for the purpose of making a rigid enquiry into the cases of those who had been killed and wounded; and subscriptions were raised for their relief. After an enquiry of many successive weeks the committee published the cases of eleven killed and five hundred and sixty wounded, of whom about a hundred and twenty were females.
The Rev. W. R. Hay, Chairman of the Bench of Magistrates, was rewarded by being presented to the living of Rochdale, worth £2,000 a year.
Hunt and his companions were committed to Lancaster, and subsequently tried at York, where he was found guilty and sentenced to be imprisoned for two years and a half, and Johnson, Healey, and Bamford to one year’s imprisonment.
The bloody proceedings at Peterloo startled the whole nation. Meetings were held everywhere, denouncing them in the strongest terms. Sir Francis Burdett addressed a letter to the Electors of Westminster, expressing his “Shame, grief, and indignation” at the proceedings, and was prosecuted by the Attorney-General for Libel and wasfined £2,000 and imprisoned for three months. Lord Fitzwilliam, for attending a public meeting to express disapprobation at the means by which the meeting at Peterloo was dispersed, was dismissed from his office as Lord Lieutenant of Yorkshire.
These proceedings produced a deep impression on the minds of thoughtful men, who began to think we were on the brink of despotism, and that the time had arrived when the country should be no longer ruled by Landowners and Boroughmongers, but by representatives chosen by the people....
Photo by R. H. FletcherBanner Carried at PeterlooTo face page 75
Some Relics of Peterloo
1.—A BANNER CARRIED AT PETERLOO.
At the entrance to the Reading-room of the Reform Club at Middleton (on the left as you reach the door) may be seen one of the Banners carried at Peterloo by the Middleton contingent, which was led by Samuel Bamford. It is of green material (or so it seemed to me) and the letters are stamped on it in gold capitals. The motto facing the entrance is LIBERTY AND FRATERNITY. On the other side of the Banner (seen from within the room) are the words: UNITY AND STRENGTH. The explanatory inscription reads: “This Banner was carried by the Middleton Reformers, with Samuel Bamford at their head, to Peterloo, and is frequently mentioned in the historical records of that movement.” (See Illustration opposite).
In chapter XXXIII. ofPassages in the Life of a RadicalBamford speaks of “the colours; a blue one of silk, with inscriptions in golden letters: UNITY AND STRENGTH, LIBERTY AND FRATERNITY. A green one of silk, with golden letters, PARLIAMENTS ANNUAL, SUFFRAGE UNIVERSAL.” Apparently the Banner here figured is the one of which he writes later in chapter XXXVI.: “I rejoined mycompanions [i.e., after Peterloo], and forming about a thousand of them into file, we set off to the sound of fife and drum,with our only banner waving, and in that form we re-entered the town of Middleton. The Banner was exhibited from a window of the Suffield’s Arms public-house.” The Banner is now carefully preserved between sheets of glass. The photograph was taken under considerable difficulties as regards light by Mr. R. H. Fletcher, of Eccles. The Chadderton Banner, though much dilapidated, is also still in existence, but I could not obtain the address of the person in whose keeping it is. She had left Chadderton, and was living at Blackpool.
2.—BAMFORD’S COTTAGE.
Some distance higher up the town may be seen the house where Bamford lived at the date of Peterloo. Over the door is a stone inscribed: “Samuel Bamford resided and was arrested in this house, Aug. 26, 1819.” Bamford describes the event in detail in chapter XL of the work named above, beginning: “About two o’clock on the morning of Thursday, the twenty-sixth of August, that is, on the tenth morning after the fatal meeting, I was awoke by footsteps in the street opposite my residence. Presently they increased in number, etc.” The photograph is again by Mr. R. H. Fletcher. (See Illustration.) In the Churchyard above may be seen Bamford’s tomb and also the monument raised to his memory.
Photo by R. H. FletcherSamuel Bamford’s House at MiddletonTo face page 76
3.—CONSTABLES’ STAVES.
(a) In the Catalogue of theOld Manchester & Salford Exhibition(held at the Art Gallery in 1904), on p. 27, exhibit 157 appears as “Handcuffs belongingto Joe Nadin, Deputy Constable of Manchester at the time of Peterloo;” lent by G. C. Yates, Esq. On the same page, exhibit 167 is a “Special Constable’s Staff, used at the time of Peterloo in Manchester, and then the property of Mr. Beever;” lent by C. Shiel, Esq. This collection is now for the most part dispersed.
Photo by R. H. FletcherThree Relics of PeterlooTo face page 77
(b) Mr. T. Swindells, of Monton Green, in the third volume of hisManchester Streets and Manchester Men, mentions “A Special Constable’s Staff” given to him by a descendant of James Fildes. It is inscribed: “A relic of Peterloo. Special Constable’s Staff which belonged to the late James and Thomas Fildes, grocers, Shudehill, Manchester.”
(c) In November, 1919, on the afternoon of the day on which I was to lecture onThe Story of Peterloo, at the Rylands Library, Mr. W. W. Manfield, of Chorlton-cum-Hardy, brought me three interesting relics of Peterloo, which have been in the possession of his family since 1819. On the occasion of Peterloo his father and grandfather saw the crowd streaming through Salford after the catastrophe, and their curiosity led them to walk out to St. Peter’s fields. There they picked up the three relics, which have been carefully preserved ever since. One of them is a long, heavy Constable’s baton, apparently of rosewood, with the Royal Arms painted at the thicker end. (See Illustration opposite.)
4.—HEAD OF FLAGSTAFF.
The second of Mr. Manfield’s relics is the head of one of the Banner poles carried at Peterloo. It is shaped like the traditional cap of Liberty, and inscribed in neat gilt capitals: “Hunt and Liberty.” (See Illustration.)
5.—HUSSAR’S PLUME.
The third of Mr. Manfield’s relics is a plume of horsehair, apparently originally dyed red, though (if so) much of the dye has faded. This, it may be presumed, was the plume from the helmet of one of the Hussars. It has been mentioned that the 15th Hussars wear a scarlet plume. These three relics have been photographed on one plate by Mr. Fletcher. (See Illustration opposite topage 77.)
6.—ACCOUNT-BOOK OF THE RELIEF COMMITTEE.
In the year of the Centenary, Mr. Guppy was fortunate enough to secure for the Rylands Library the actual Account-Book used by one of the Committees formed for the relief of those injured in the fray. A single page of this book has been photographed by Mr. R. H. Fletcher for the present volume. (See Illustration.) Mr. Guppy’s account of the volume (Bulletin of Rylands Library, April to November, 1919, p. 191) is as follows:—
“The Library has been fortunate in being able to acquire a small octavo account-book, leather bound, which seems to have been an official record of the casualties at Peterloo which were dealt with by one of the Relief Committees. It contains details of the names, addresses, and injuries of 347 individuals, particulars of the successive grants made to them by one Committee, and references to the grants made by another Committee (possibly two others).
The details given are corroborative of many of the statements in Mr. Bruton’sStory of Peterloo. Thus: the cases include those of Elizabeth Gaunt (mentioned on pp. 274 and 275), of Mrs. Fildes (on p. 274), of Thomas Redford (on pp. 285, 291, and 294). There are references to the loose timber (see pp. 269, 284 and 294), the injuries to Special Constables (see p. 280), the fight near the Friends’ Meeting-house (see pp. 284 and 289), the oak trees growing near that building (see pp. 269, 294), the white hat as a symbol of Radicalism (see p. 273), the fear of losing employment evinced by the wounded (see p. 291), the infantry intercepting fugitives (see p. 290), the child killed by a trooper in Cooper Street (see p. 277), and so on. The sum total voted by this Committee appears to have been £687; it must be remembered, however, that the sum of £3,000 mentioned on p. 291 as having been subscribed may have been used partly for legal expenses.
One Page of the Account Book of the Relief Committee.
Larger ImageBy permission of Mr. H. Guppy.Photo by R. H. Fletcher.
Since this manuscript account-book came to light, Mr. Bruton has discovered a printed Report of the Relief Committee, in which 560 cases are described, and the amount raised to date is given as £3,408 1s. 8d., and pronounced to be inadequate for 600 people. It also gives the amount spent on legal expenses as £1,077.”
7.—ACCOUNT-BOOK RECORDING AMOUNTS RAISED FOR THE RELIEF OF SPECIAL CONSTABLES & THEIR FAMILIES.
I have to thank Dr. A. A. Mumford for calling my attention to another account-book connected with Peterloo, which I believe he met with while going over the Crossley papers at the Chetham Library. Its number in the Library Catalogue is MS. B. 3. 70. It is a small note-book ruled for cash, and entitled: “Subscriptions for Special Constables. Nos. 10 and 11.” There is a note of a Resolution carried on August 27th, 1819, to the effect that a Relief Fund should be raised on behalf of Special Constables injured at Peterloo and their families. The subscriptions recorded in this book range from £1 to £10 10s., and amount in all to about £400.
1.—NOTE ON THE CASUALTIES AT PETERLOO.
On few points do the accounts of Peterloo vary more than on the question of the casualties. There is sufficient historical material available to enable us to investigate this matter in detail, but the task would be a gruesome one, and no useful object would be attained if it were accomplished. On the other hand, a few words may serve to show whereabouts the truth lies.
In theCambridge Modern History(Vol. X., pp. 580, 581) it is stated that “a man was killed and forty were injured.” In thePolitical History of England(1906, Vol. XI., pp. 178, 179) we read that “happily the actual loss of life did not exceed five or six, but a much larger number were more or less wounded.” A number of the most important school histories in use at the present time reproduce one or the other of these statementsverbatim.
If we turn to the contemporary records, they are somewhat conflicting. The hurried estimates given by the local papers immediately after the catastrophe (e.g., one newspaper reported twelve killed) had to be corrected later. The most general estimate seems to be “eleven killed and between 500 and 600 wounded.” When we come to examine these figures in detail, however, these points emerge: (1) “Killed”is evidently taken to include the cases of those who died after lingering (possibly) for some weeks. (2) The summary includes the casualties due to the firing of the infantry in the neighbourhood of New Cross, some hours after the great event; included in the list, also will be the child (Fildes) knocked from its mother’s arms by one of the yeomanry as they were riding to the meeting.
Archibald Prentice, in hisHistorical Sketches and Personal Recollections of Manchester(p. 167), states that eleven were killed, that 420 were wounded, and that there still remained (according to the Relief Committee’s Report) 140 cases to be investigated, making a total of 560. Mr. John Benjamin Smith (who very likely refreshed his memory by looking up records when writing his Reminiscences) gives the same result. Mr. J. C. Hobhouse, speaking in the House of Commons, on May 19th, 1821, said that “he held in his hand a list of killed and wounded running to 25-30 sheets, and defied them to disprove it.” It is clear, then, that these estimates are quoted from the Committee’s Report, and to this it will be well now to turn.
With the kind assistance of Mr. Swann, of the Reference Library, I have been able to find one (and only one) copy of this Report. It is bound up with a series of papers catalogued as “Lancashire and Yorkshire Tracts,” at the Manchester Reference Library. (The Reference number is “Lancashire and Yorkshire Tracts; Barlow’s Historical Collector. H. 63. 3. No. 3 (15104)”). It is entitled: “Report of the Metropolitan and Central Committee appointed for the Relief of the Manchester Sufferers, with an Appendix containing the names of the sufferers and the nature and extent of their injuries; also an account of the distribution of funds, and other documents. Published by order of the Committee. London, 1820.” ThisCommittee seems to have been formed by amalgamating several organisations in the metropolis which sprang into being as a result of public sympathy with the sufferers, and it worked in conjunction with the Manchester and other Lancashire Committees. The subscriptions recorded to date amount to £3,408 1s. 8d. of which £1,206 13s. 8d. had been distributed, £250 having been received from the local Manchester Committees. The amount expended on law charges and expenses of witnesses is given as £1,077 6s. 9d.; advertisements and sundries cost £355 13s. 6d.; and this leaves a balance of over £768, which is pronounced inadequate to deal with the cases that remain. A fresh appeal is therefore made to the British Public. A Deputation was sent from London to investigate cases, and this Deputation reports, in January, 1820, that out of 420 sufferers visited and relieved 113 are females; that 130 received severe sabre-cuts, 14 of these being females. (To be quite safe, we must admit the possibility that the term “sufferers” may sometimes include members of the families of those killed or injured.) There follow 38 pages filled with the names of those killed and wounded at Peterloo, some 430 in all, with full details of their injuries, and in the case of the former the description is “Killed,or, who have subsequently died in consequence of injuries there received,” the number of these being given as eleven. Of these eleven: two were “sabred;” one was “sabred and trampled upon;” one was “sabred and stabbed;” one “sabred and crushed;” two (one of them a woman) “rode over by the cavalry;” one “trampled by the cavalry;” one “inwardly crushed;” and one (a woman) “thrown into a cellar.” In the case of two of these the words are added “killed on the spot.” The child killed in Cooper Street completes the total.
One of the Relief Committees met at Mr. Prentice’s warehouse, and the care with which the various cases were investigated, and successive grants made from the funds of the different Committees, is clearly shown by the details given in the account-book secured by Mr. Guppy in 1919 for the Rylands Library, which is mentioned above.
Perhaps it will never be possible to say exactly how many were left dead on the field. One, at anyrate, who died at once, or very shortly afterwards, was (by a strange irony) a Special Constable, and this is probably the “one man killed” of some of the accounts. It will be remembered that Lieut. Jolliffe reported “two women not likely to recover; one man in a dying state; and two or three reputed dead;” in the letter quoted above, describing his visit to the Infirmary on the Sunday following the event.
Most of the cases investigated by the Committees belonged to the side of the Reformers; but it must not be forgotten that the other side claimed to have serious casualties. Mr. Francis Phillips,e.g., enumerates the casualties to the troops, and an estimate of these is given also in the Centenary Volume of the Cheshire Yeomanry; we have already seen above, moreover, that a subscription list was opened for the families of the Special Constables, and that the appeal met with a generous response. It is a curious feature of the case that each side seems to be anxious to make its casualty list as imposing as possible. An interesting summary of the various estimates is given by MacDonnell in hisState Trials. This summary includes the Official Report from the Infirmary, and the list of casualties to the troops. Without pursuing the matter further, we may say that a careful examination of the somewhat confusing evidence would seem to show that the estimate “eleven killed and between500 and 600 wounded” will not prove to be far wrong, provided that (1) we understand “killed” to include those who died as the result of injuries received on the field; (2) we include in the general total the casualties incurred during the disturbances some hours later in the neighbourhood of New Cross. At least one list, published subsequently, brings the total of killed up to fourteen.
Two points not directly concerned with this discussion are dealt with by the Relief Committee, and are sufficiently interesting to be recorded: (1) The Committee paid out £710 “on account of the Trial at York; the Manchester Committee voting £100 for the same object.” (2) The Deputation sent from London to investigate the cases, mentioned in their Report some striking details of the conditions of life amongst the operatives. To quote only two sentences: “in no one instance among the weavers did your Deputation see a morsel of animal food, and they ascertained that in most families where there were children the taste of meat was unknown from one year to another.” “Six shillings a week was the average wage of an able-bodied and industrious weaver. Many could not get this.”
2.—PRESENCE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN AT PETERLOO.
It has often been asserted that the peaceful intentions of the crowd at Peterloo are attested by the presence among them of women and young children. As every detail of evidence is of value, I give here a sentence from a letter which I received from PrincipalReynolds: “My father was there, in his mother’s arms, though only one year old; so my grandmother told me.”
3.—SOME GLEANINGS FROM THE SCRAP-BOOKS.
It was the custom in the early decades of the nineteenth century, when newspapers were dear and newspaper files were not available, as there were no free libraries, to collect newspaper cuttings and illustrations, with tracts and “broadsides,” election squibs and so forth, in large scrap-books. Thus, at the Peel Park Library is preserved the scrap-book of Joseph Brotherton (for many years Member for Salford), running to over forty volumes. The Greaves scrap-book at the Reference Library contains a valuable collection of this kind. The Owen collection at the same Library fills over eighty volumes. At the Chetham Library may be seen Lord Ellesmere’s scrap-book and a number of others. From many references to Peterloo in these books we may select the three items which follow: The Greaves collection contains a rare print of Peterloo, somewhat lurid in its detail. Mr. Albert Nicholson has in his possession a highly-coloured copy of this, which he has shown me. No other copies seem to be known.
I have to thank Mr. J. J. Phelps for calling my attention to two papers in a scrap-book at the Chetham Library which he conjectures to have been that of Mr. Francis Phillips, the protagonist on behalf of the magistrates, and the author ofAn Exposure of the Calumnies, &c.One of these is the actual subpœna which Mr. Phillips received, summoning him to give evidence in the trial at York: “there to testify the truth on our behalf against Henry Hunt and others forcertain misdemeanours whereof they are indicted.” (MS. B. 9. 41. 110. p. 43.).
The other paper is of some importance as it fixes the date of the embodiment of the Manchester Yeomanry. InThe Story of Peterloo(p. 13) some details are given in support of a conjecture that the corps was formed later than March in 1817. The scrap-book just quoted confirms this conjecture, for there appears a printed copy of a letter addressed to the Boroughreeves and Constables of Manchester and Salford, and bearing over a hundred signatures (that of Mr. Phillips coming second), asking that a meeting may be convened with the object of forming such a corps. In response to this appeal the Boroughreeves and Constables summoned a meeting for the purpose, in a letter dated Manchester, June the 16th, 1817. (MS B. 9. 41. 110. p. 22). With this date as a guide, it was easy to find in the advertisement columns ofWheeler’s Manchester Chroniclefor Saturday, June the 21st, 1817, a copy of both letters, a list of the signatures, and the announcement that the proposed meeting was actually held on June the 19th, 1817, when it was resolved: “that under the present circumstances it is expedient to form a body of Yeomanry Cavalry in the Towns and neighbourhood of Manchester and Salford.” Details follow as to Government allowances for uniform, etc., and as to the possibility of amalgamating with similar corps in the surrounding towns, should such be formed. Each man was to provide his own horse.
This information has an important bearing on the tragedy of Peterloo, and taken in conjunction with the Resolution of the Magistrates mentioned inThe Story of Peterloo(p. 13), leaves no doubt as to what was the nature of the “present circumstances” that called the corps into being.
4.—EXPLANATION OF THE CONTEMPORARY PLAN AND PICTURE OF PETERLOO.
(a) The Contemporary Plan of St. Peter’s Field which appears on the following page was published in Farquharson’s verbatim Report of the Trial in 1822. As the lettering is small, some explanation is necessary.
The shaded area in the centre represents the open space on which the tragedy was enacted. To the south of it is clearly seen the “raised ground” mentioned by Stanley, and shown also in his Plan. The windmill which stood near, and gave its name to Windmill Street, had disappeared some years before. The site of it is now occupied by the Central Station Approach.
On the shaded space are marked: “Hustings;” “Carriage” (i.e., Mr. Hunt’s carriage, marked also on Stanley’s Plan); the double line of “Constables;” and the “Manchester Yeomanry,” drawn up in front of the row of houses in Mount Street, labelled: “Magistrates assembled here.” The Friends’ Meeting House is marked “Quaker’s Meeting House,” and the enclosing wall is stated to measure in height “3 ft. 7 in. on the inside” and “10 ft. 3 in. on the outside.” These measurements would be inserted, probably, in connection with the statement that one of the Cavalry jumped his horse over this wall. Apparently a gate and posts cross Mount Street in front of the Meeting House, and lead into “St. Peter’s Field,” across which two dotted lines indicate theprojectedline of Peter Street.
Larger ImagePhoto by R. H. Fletcher.Plan of Peterloo.From Farquharson’s Report of the Trial, 1822. (Seepage 88.)
The position of the Troops and the line of their approach to the Field are shown as follows: The “31st Infantry” are drawn up in Brazennose Street, the upper end of which is also blocked with a gate and posts; the “88th Infantry” are lined up in Dickinson Street; in Portland Street are the “Manchester Yeomanry,” and their course is shown by adotted line up Portland Street, along Nicholas Street, down Cooper Street, and then round the corner of Cooper’s garden wall (now the site of the north-western corner of the Midland Hotel) into Mount Street; the Plan stating that “The Manchester Yeomanry came this way to the ground;” another troop of the “Manchester Yeomanry” is drawn up in front of St. John’s Church, in Byrom Street; facing them, in the same street, are shown the “15th Hussars” in two sections, presumably representing the “two squadrons” mentioned by Lieutenant Jolliffe in his letter; lastly, the “Cheshire Yeomanry” are drawn up in St. John’s Street, off Deansgate, and the line of approach of all these mounted troops is shown by a dotted line passing along Byrom Street, St. John’s Street, southward down Deansgate, then along Fleet Street, up Lower Mosley Street, and along the “raised ground” already mentioned to St. Peter’s Field, the inscription on the Plan reading: “The 15th Hussars, one troop of the Manchester and Cheshire Yeomanry came this way to the ground.” The artillery are not shewn.
The scale of yards given on the Plan shows that Stanley’s estimate of a hundred yards as the distance from Mr. Buxton’s house to the Hustings was exactly correct.
Larger ImageA VIEW OF St PETER’S PLACETo face page 90
(b) Wroe’s Contemporary Picture of Peterloo, which is shewn on the following page, is perhaps the best of a number of sketches extant. The details are fairly accurate. In the background, on the extreme left, is seen (to quote Bamford) “the corner of a garden wall, round which the Manchester Yeomanry, in blue and white uniform, came trotting, sword in hand, to the front of a row of new houses.” The “corner” is on the site of the north-western corner of the Midland Hotel. The “new houses” were on the site of the present Midland Buffet. Mr. Ewart’s factory, inthe distance, was just off Lower Mosley Street. The row of houses to the right of this, in the background, was on the upper side of Windmill Street. The Hustings are on the site of the south-eastern corner of the Free Trade Hall. Standing on them we may distinguish Mr. Hunt and the Leader of the Manchester Female Reformers. Around them are the Banners of the various contingents; we may even make out the legend “No Corn Laws” on the one in front. The Banner-poles are shaped to resemble caps of Liberty, as shown in another of our illustrations. The crowd are occupying the site of the Free Trade Hall, the Theatre Royal, the Y.M.C.A., the Gaiety, and a number of adjoining buildings.
The moment seized by the artist for his picture is that in which the Manchester Yeomanry, many of whom are scattered and entangled among the crowd, have reached the Hustings, while in the distance the Hussars can just be seen lining up in Mount Street and charging to their relief. The crowd, consisting of men, women and children, are seen dispersing in all directions.
The view might be imagined to have been taken from the roof of a building which then occupied the site of the present Albert Hall, in Peter Street. Other contemporary prints include St. Peter’s Church and the Friends’ Meeting House in the picture.
Footnotes:
[1]I met Mr. Buxton on the steps of his house, not at all aware till then that hisresidencewas at or near the place of meeting. I had been directed to hisshop, considerably beyond the square, to which I was proceeding. I state this to prove that what I afterwards saw was purely accidental, and that I had no previous intention of witnessing in detail the transactions of the day. As I came from the bottom of Alport Street, on the Altrincham side of Manchester, my original directions were indeed to pass through St. Peter’s field as the shortest line, but I had taken a circuitous route to avoid the meeting, which led me to the corner of it near Mr. Buxton’s house.
[2]It has been stated, upon evidence which I should be unwilling to discredit, that the body of persons more immediately in contact with the hustings were of Hunt’s party. My reasons for believing them at the time to be (as I was told) special constables, were because they resembled them in appearance, were connected in their lines, had their hats on, and staves of office occasionally appeared amongst them. Mr. Hay, in his official letter, says: “A body of special constables took their ground, about two hundred in number, close to the hustings, from whence there was a line of communication to the house where we were.” This is precisely my view of the case; doubtless, had the communication been cut, he would have noticed it.
[3]Some, by being better mounted or rather in advance, might have been more moderate in their pace, but generally speaking it was very rapid, and I use the word gallop, as conveying the best idea of their approach.
[4]I am particular in mentioning these minute circumstances, because in this and some other points in which I could not be mistaken, I have been strongly contradicted.
[5]It has been often asked when and where the cavalry struck the people. I can only say that from the moment they began to force their way through the crowd towards the hustings swords were up and swords were down, but whether they fell with the sharp or flat side, of course I cannot pretend to give an opinion.
[6]On quitting the ground I for the first time observed that strong bodies of infantry were posted in the streets, on opposite sides of the square; their appearance might probably have increased the alarm and would certainly have impeded the progress of a mob wishing to retreat in either of those directions. When I saw them they were resting on their arms, and I believe they remained stationary, taking no part in the transaction.
[7]On entering Mosley Street at 12 o’clock I stopped to question some persons on the footway respecting the proceedings of the day. When about to proceed, I was recommended to move from the middle of the street to the path, as the mob were advancing. I declined, suspecting my advisers might be radicals, adding: “I am on the King’s highway, and shall remain where I am.” I mention this because I have heard it reported that I was insulted by the Ashton people, which may have originated from the above account.
[8][In the copy of Farquharson’s verbatim Report of the Trial, which is preserved at the Reference Library, Manchester, this “not” is omitted. The omission is, of course, due to a misprint, and someone has inserted “not” in pencil. Similarly, in my own copy of Farquharson’s Report, someone has inserted the “not” in ink. McDonnell, in his “State Trials,” inserted the “not.” Mr. McKennell’s evidence, as reported in Farquharson, is as follows (pp. 169, 170; he was cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Hullock):—
By whom was the Riot Act read?—I never heard it read.You heard no such thing?—I did not.
By whom was the Riot Act read?
—I never heard it read.
You heard no such thing?
—I did not.
Editor.]
[9][St. John Street or Byrom Street.—Editor.]
[10][South-east would be more correct.—Editor.]
[11][East would be more correct. The Cheshire Yeomanry filed along the south side. The arrows in Stanley’s Plan make this clear.—Editor.]