In Our Time - The Peterloo Massacre

Episode Date: December 15, 2005

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Peterloo Massacre in 1819, a defining moment of its age. In 1819 Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote: 'I met Murder on the way He had a mask like Castlereagh Very smooth he looked, yet grim; Seven blood-hounds followed him: All were fat; and well they might Be in admirable plight, For one by one, and two by two, He tossed them human hearts to chew Which from his wide cloak he drew.' As Foreign Secretary, Castlereagh had successfully co-ordinated European opposition to Napoleon, but at home he had repressed the Reform movement, and popular opinion held him responsible for the Peterloo Massacre of peaceful demonstrators in 1819. Shelley's epic poem, The Mask of Anarchy, reflected the widespread public outrage and condemnation of the government's role in the massacre. Why did a peaceful and orderly meeting of men, women and children in St Peter's Field, Manchester turn into a blood bath? How were the stirrings of radicalism in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars dealt with by the British establishment? And what role did the Peterloo Massacre play in bringing about the Great Reform Act of 1832? With Jeremy Black, Professor of History at the University of Exeter; Sarah Richardson, Senior Lecturer in History at the University of Warwick; Clive Emsley, Professor of History at the Open University.

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. Thanks for downloading the In Our Time podcast. For more details about In Our Time and for our terms of use, please go to BBC.co.com.uk forward slash radio four. I hope you enjoy the programme. Hello. In 1819, Percy Bish Shelley wrote, I met murder on the way. He had a mask like Castlereagh.

Very smooth he looked, yet grim. Seven bloodhounds followed him. All were fat and well they might be in Admiral. plight, for one by one and two by two he tossed them human hearts to chew, which from his wide cloak he drew. As Foreign Secretary, Robert Stuart Cassellray had successfully coordinated European opposition to Napoleon, but at home he'd repressed the reform movement and popular opinion held him responsible for the Peterloo massacre of peaceful demonstrators in 1819. Shelley's poem, The Mask of Anarchy, reflected the widespread public outrage and condemnation of the

government's role in the massacre? Why did a peaceful and orderly meeting of men, women and children in St. Petersburg, Manchester, turn into a bloodbass? How were the stirrings of radicalism in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars dealt with by the British establishment? And what role did the Peterloo massacre play in bringing about the Great Reform Act of 1832? With me to discuss the Peterloo massacre a Jeremy Black, Professor of History at the University of Exeter, Sarah Richardson, senior lecturer in history at the University of Warwick and Clive Emsley, Professor of History at the Open University. Jeremy Black,

the early 19th century was a time of great anxiety for the British government and the spectra of this and so on. We can trace it back. I know you historians want to go back to Adam, but let's start with the French Revolution in 1789 and kick that off

into what we're going to talk about. French Revolution breaks out in 1789. It frightens many members of the British establishment because there is a comparable movement of British radicalism which looks to France for inspiration, though in part that movement is actually indigenous and looks back to earlier British traditions. Britain goes to war with revolutionary France in 1793, and the war goes badly. And in the context of an unsuccessful war, in the context of anxiety about radicalism at home

and indeed in Ireland as well, there's the growing use of what, according to some commentators, was repression against signs of radicalism, and that in a way provides the context, the long context for Peterloo. So we have the suspension of habeas corpus. We have the Treasonable Practices Act. We have Seditious Meetings Act. I mean, really ferocious suppression,

any sort of free speech, any real assembly, any written work. At the same time, to be fair, one has to say the government was terrified that they were going to be invaded by the powerful French, they were going to be overturned, monarchy wrecked, the whole system was wrecked.

So there was a real threat. We can look back now and say, oh, the Liberals, there was a really serious threat going on that. Oh, yes, there's a really serious threat. And there's also an important point on which historians are very divided. Historians are very divided as to the extent to which government sentiments rested also on a widespread springing of a popular conservatism. I mean, it's not that everybody in the country is radicals and they're being held down by a brutal and oppressive government. That's not the case. there is an important populist radical stream

and there's an important populist conservative stream and both of them actually interact right through the end of the 18th and the early 19th century. That's actually what makes it interesting. Sarah Richardson, can you tell us about the ideological impact of the French Revolution, develop what Jeremy said, into works which are around at the time. I'm thinking principally of, say, Thomas Payne's the Rights of Man.

The Rights of Man is extremely influential. It really encapsulates this concentration on universal on universal rights so ties in with this idea of reform I think that whilst Jeremy is right and some of the traditions, the radicalism go back, the emphasis coming out of the Enlightenment and ideas to do with what's happening in France

are about universal rights, rights for everybody, rights that don't rely on aristocracy, don't rely on birth, don't rely on income, but the rights that you're born with and this is something that clearly the working class, radical movements pick up on. Can you tell us how Thomas Paine, let's stick with Paine, but you can please bring another writer's now,

but he's very useful and, of course, important in America or in France, as well as in this country. The idea of rights was in itself, we just, listeners myself, think, well, there you are. But it was a radical idea, wasn't it? You didn't have power because of privilege. You didn't have power because of divine rights. You had right, because your rights as a human being born,

were by being born given you. That's right. And I think that when you look at it in terms, of political rights and civil rights, this is a very radical idea. The British constitution is really based on property, on the idea that interests are represented, that people aren't represented, that numbers aren't represented, but interests are represented.

And you are represented virtually by the fact that in Parliament, for example, you have members from across the country who are not necessarily voted in by the whole population, but they are representing that population via their interests. Now, what Tompain is... It's a Parliament of Property and Power rather than a parliamentary of people. And Tompane is really saying that

to sweep that system away, that individuals have rights that you should be able to participate as a citizen in the country and voting rights are one aspect of that that should be recognised. Can we talk a bit about the industrial unrest that preceded the events at Peterloo?

Peterloo 1819, 19, war finishes 1815. The industrial unrest started before that. You have the Luddites and then the blanketeers marching, smashing machines, resenting the fact that machines are taking away their jobs and employing children and women and so on. I mean, anti-industrial revolution turning into political action, especially up in the north.

That's right. The Luddite rebellions are very much anti-industrial, some way quite conservative and resisting change, but clearly this feeds into the political unrest, the fact that these people have no rights. They're not represented, their interests aren't being represented virtually. But we're talking about marches, smashing violence, smashing machines, violence, meetings against the acts that had been put in, as Jeremy said at the beginning, during the French wars.

Lots of violence. And the Blanketeers march is important in this context because it's one of the largest protests in the country around 10,000 people. And it's just a couple of years before Peterloo in 1817. And again, the magistrates send in soldiers to stop this march that the Manchester textile workers are trying to organise a march to London to present a petition to the Prince of Wales, Prince Regent. to ask him to intervene in the economic distresses in the country. Okay, Clive Ambley, we've already heard about the Napoleonic course and the appetite for radical politics. How were they surviving when Havius Corpus was suspended, when the treason acts and so forth,

how do they keep going? There are restrictions on mass meetings. It doesn't stop people talking. And part of the radical movement does appear to go on. underground. There is an interesting debate amongst historians. I mean, no one is quite agreed on the extent to which English radicalism is almost entirely constitutional. And the alternative view is that there is an extremely strong underground revolutionary element within English radicalism. So when we're looking at the radicals, we split again now, and we have the sort of constitutional, which we'll be coming. to it, Peterloo, because that's it. And then we have the real, you can, it could be suggested that there were, before Peter Liu, there were a couple of attempts which is what could be

called revolution in this country. Oh yes, and those attempts actually go back to the 1790s. There's, there looks to be a group of individuals who are working towards a revolution within the country in the late 1790s. In 1800s, you get the conspiracy of Colonel Despart. Who was a comrade in arms of Nelson, but is executed with several members of the brigade of guards for attempting to kill the king, or that was the story.

And then you have no serious revolutionary activity of that sort, but you get Luddism. And Luddism is infected with these radical ideas, or would seem in certain areas, to be infected with the radical political ideas. And that's an interesting new departure that you have industrial action linked with political ideology.

One of the things about Luddism is that the government's response is to send troops. Thousands and thousands of troops are deployed in Nottinghamshire and in the sort of Yorkshire area. So in the absence of a major police force, I mean this is the pre-age of... Are we still talking around our Peter Lutah? Oh yes, just before, just before. Just before.

I mean, you know, they are deploying thousands of troops against what appears to be this working-class movement, which has a political tinge which they don't understand. Let's get Anumouton to Peterloo. Sarah, it's called by the Manchester Patriotic Union Society. Now, given what happened, given it became thought of by some, as a terrible... The Manchester Patriotic Union Society called this meeting. And at the end of their meetings, they sang Rule Britannia and God Save the Queen, which might surprise somebody thinking this was a bunch of terrible radicals.

Can you just tell us what they were after this outfit, the Manchester Patriotic Union Society? Well, they're raising profile. They're trying to get reform on the political agenda. As we've seen the government, it shows no interest in advancing. It's a Tory government. They're not their interest in repressing. this sort of move, they're not interested in legislating or changing anything.

So they're trying to use numbers, they're trying to use peaceful protest, and they're trying to raise consciousness by inviting important speakers like Hunt, also John Cartwright, who's another leading radical, to try and spread the message. So they're really trying to get reform on the agenda. And they're constitutionalists, they believe in Constitutional Monarchy, and to get it in particular local context, you have this booming city, massive city of Manchester,

with no representation in Parliament whatsoever, and you have a couple of houses, literally a couple of houses in Wiltshire, which sends up an MP. So this is what they're on about. One of the members of the Manchester Patriot Union Society who spoke to them as Henry Hunt. Can you tell us something about him?

Well, he's not, he doesn't come from Manchester. He's a kind of, he's a Wiltshire farmer, a real John Bull character, famous for his pugilism. And he's a fantastic speaker and can hold a crowd

and convince a crowd and has a reputation as the finest radical orator in the country. That's the reason why, you know, if you want to get a mass meeting, then you get orator hunt with these big white top hat to come and address them.

It's wonderful, Mitch, I love the fact there's a hunting, shooting, farming, fishing, John Ballman, going to Manchester. I got it wrong, He went there to address them, to address them on what then were thought to be radical, though constitutional issues. Yeah, and Hunt is a constitutionalist. There are other radicals.

This underground revolutionary element is continuing at the same time. Hunt knows them, and certainly in London he is involved in a meeting at the end of 1816, which leads to... serious disorder. But Hunt actually manages to control the bulk of the crowd while the extremists are all for storming the tower. What about Richard, sorry, Jeremy, you on session. Hunt's part of a

tradition, Burdette before him, cartwright before him, of radicals who want to work within the system to reform it, and many of whom are very strong in the north. I mean, it's no accident that the major reforming movement of the 1780s is the Yorkshire Association. The north of England has a very powerful reforming but constitutional reforming tradition. So they're called

meeting Sarah Richardson. They cleared it with the magistrates. They were going to be in St. Peter's View. We're told that up to 50,000 people turned up. There were masses of eyewitnesses. It was massively reported. They got there on the day in their best clothes, as we understand, which is a factor

because this is a celebration and they were told no weapons and so on. So they get there in the morning. Can you just tell us through to the speeches and then what happened? Around midday, the square is filling up with people, around 50,000 people by midday. Another 10,000 people by an hour later.

The magistrates are watching. There are a number of middle class commentators who are also watching, but it's fair to say that the majority of people, almost all the people in the square are working class who've come there in the best clothes to listen to the speakers peacefully. There's no real sign of disorder. So around 20 past 1 the speakers arrive, and there's a platform at one end.

They're taken towards the platform in order to begin their speeches about one. This is Hunt with his white top hat and Carlisle. Yeah, I mean, one of the other people is a member of the Manchester Female Patriotic Union called Mary Files, which is a female reform movement that's set up. There's a number of these around the country. So women are important as participants in the crowd,

but also speakers. She's on the platform with Hunt and Carlisle and a number of other leading Manchester radicals. And the press, they're there. The Times are sent its reporter. The local press are there. so they're also in square. So the speakers arrive.

The magistrates then decide that Manchester is in great danger and there's going to be disorder. So they decide to send the police in to arrest the speakers. The police turned to the magistrates and say, we can't go in unaccompanied, we need soldiers. So you have the Manchester and Solford-Jomery who've been set up, I think, after the Blanketeer protests,

the Manchester's wanted their own local militia. partly, as Jeremy said, because there's no police force, so therefore they want their own militia in order to control the order. So these are chaps on horses with sabers. On horses with sabres. And then there's sort of regular army hussars as well around there backing them up. Yeah. So they send the soldiers in, the crowd resist,

try and stop them getting the platform, link arms. And that's when they get the sabers out, the horses out, and basically slash down the crowd and kill a number of people, official estimates say 11 but... Well this new book here that I have before me, we just came out by Michael Bush says they've done

the sums again and it's 17 and over 600 wounded. I think that that's entirely believable. And Client Emsley, you've got the yeoman cavalry going. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? And what was their relationship with the hussars, the regimental cavalry that backed

them of these men who had fought at Waterloo? Actually, some of the people who were killed had fought at Waterloo as well, because he'd become very complicated. But just tell us about the yeomanry and then what part did the Hazars play? Well, in fact, sending the yeomanry in was probably the biggest mistake because the yeomanry were

generally speaking mill owners or the sons of miloners or farmers or the sons of farmers. These were local volunteers who trained once a month or whatever. And

this is almost the kind of manifestation of class war because these are people who employ the individuals in the crowd and so sending those individuals into the crowd

who are not as well trained by any stretch of the imagination as the regular cavalry with the potential for this class hostility was an astonishingly stupid thing to do. One thing I think we should record, because I thought it was very interesting. The Hussars, the professionals, the Regima, deeply disapproved of what the yeomanry did.

Oh, yes. And there are, one of the Hussars' lieutenants, Lieutenant Joliffe, wrote an account in which he describes, and indeed the Times reporter, describes the Yeomanry cavalry, cheerfully sabreing people, and the regular cavalry being ordered not to do that, specifically not to do that. I mean, there's also the problem of when you, the physical problem for the soldiers of sitting on a horse in a very dense crowd. And certainly the regulars were told to use the flat of their blades. So they're having to control their horses with their left hand and twist their wrist, given the structure of a sabre grip. twist their wrists to bring down the flat of the blade.

Now even bringing down the flat of the blade means that an edge can slice an ear or whatever, but an extremely difficult thing to do, even for a good swordsman on a horse. Excellent. Now then, Jeremy, you mentioned. Journalists were there, good, and they were arrested, and rather surprising, not surprising,

the journalist from the Times was arrested. That wasn't surprising. What was surprising at the edge of the Times went through the roof and insisted on publishing everything he could about how black a day it was. And this was very influential. Can you talk us through that? One of the things that worth remembering is that there isn't such a thing

as a conservative establishment in which everybody has the same opinion. I mean, the Times is a conservative newspaper, but it is equally horrified by what is going on, as a lot of reformers are. The newspapers reported it fully. They brought home to a national and indeed international audience, people abroad were able to understand what had happened by reading the London newspapers, something that had happened in the provinces.

And again, this is a relatively new development. In essence, in the 18th century, the reporting in the London press, in the national press, of what happened in the provinces was generally quite small, quite modest. By having reporters actually physically there, and these are early days

for having newspaper reporters. Most newspapers in the late 18th century had no reporters. They essentially just used cut and paste, taking reports from other newspapers. elsewhere, by actually sending reporters, by actually then, when their reporters got arrested, taking local Manchester press reports. The Times reporter got arrested. Got arrested.

So they then took Manchester Press reports and published them through the London press. They made Peter Liu anyway was very important, but they made it an incredibly totemic moment through the newspapers. Did the reporting, as it was done, stir up a body of opinion then which had an importance? Oh, yes, absolutely. I mean, for one thing, it provokes extremist radicals. It also embarrasses a lot of the conservative establishment. And I think the government is probably in a bit of a quandary. I mean, what can we really do about this?

We're scared about the potential of some form of insurrection, some extreme radicalism, but we can't start criticizing our magistrate. or prosecuting our magistrates. And so the government is in a bit of a cleft stick here. But there's also a very serious impact on the, well, even on members of the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry. Less than 10 years after leading the Cavalry,

the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry, a cotton manufacturer called H.H. Burley is actually calling for parliamentary reform at a mass meeting in Manchester, which is an interesting vault farce. But in a sense, the government, if we're looking at it terribly crudely, and I do apologise, one, Henry Hunt, the great speaker in the white top hat, John Ball, two and a half years in prison. Richard Carlyle, newspaper, man, six years in prison.

His wife kept on publishing his newspaper. She's put in prison while pregnant for two and a half years. his sister's put in prison for two and a half years. So in that sense, the clampdown continues. Carlisle manages to use his trial to get around the suppression of the press because trials were published, and therefore there's a further inflammation of public opinion for his trial. Tell us about that, Sarah.

Well, Carlisle's interesting because he actually escapes. He's one of the few people who escapes from Peterloo from the square and manages to get to London. He's harboured by local radicals, and then he gets to London and publishes an account in his own newspaper. He gets six years, as you say, where Henry Hunt gets two and a half, because he is prosecuted for publishing seditious libel. And so therefore...

The ambitious libel being the account of the meeting. Yeah, and insurrectionary words and so on. But his trial is an incredibly important piece of political theatre, I think, because one of the things he does in his trial, for example, is read out Tom Payne's age of reason, because trials can be reported verbatim and where you cannot publish accounts of Peterloo without being chucked in prison or arrested.

Although the Times did, I mean they were too powerful to chuck in prison. Lots of journalists arrested at this time and there's a lot of censorship and the government introduced six acts after Peterloo in order to further to repress the press. Yes, we must say that as well. Six further acts of repression introduced as a result of Peterloo. Yeah, partly as for the siddish words

but also to increase the tax on newspapers to try and tax them out of existence so you're driving the radical press underground. Quickly, Jeremy, I started this programme with the couple of stanzas from a very long poem by Shelley. He's over in Italy, is it? Italy, and he gets word of it and he

really wakes up and dashes it off. He writes it in 1890, but it's censored until 1832. But did it have any effect? Is he engaging yet another constituency with this presumably, it was passed around Very much so. I mean, sort of romantic opinion, fashionable opinion, is helped by responses such as Shellies to feel that the government system in some way is corrupt. I mean, in practical terms, there are very serious issues in British society. I mean, how do you manage economic difficulties? How do you manage political change? And sometimes the emotional response isn't always appropriate. But there is no other real response to Peter Loo than an emotional response because it was, such a an appalling mishandling of a situation.

And I mean, looking forward, the climate of opinion helps to make it very, very difficult to defend what increasingly to many people seems indefensible, which is the political system, which is the representational system.

But that's a slower burn, Jeremy. What happens in the aftermath of Peter Do if you look at, you tell me, you three historians, I'm just read a bit of story, is that actually the government gets its way. I mean, people say, oh, sorry, oh dear, oh dear,

but there are six acts coming in. The government has helped. Tax the newspapers out of existence. Absolutely no more meetings whatsoever, tying everybody's hands. And then, and it isn't as if people lose the end of something, could be said at the beginning of something,

because a year later we have the Cato Street conspiracy. Just tell us why that was important, Climb. Hunt goes back to London, and there is an enormous celebratory welcome for him. And the extremists with whom he'd had these

slight links in 1816 and 1817, who went under the name of the Society of Spenceian philanthropists. They followed a kind of proto-communist Newcastle schoolmaster called Tom Spence, who felt

everyone should get back to the land and we should stop all of this industrialisation and there should be equality. And there are three principal leaders, Dr Watson and his son, and a former militia officer called Arthur Thistelwood. And these people have already attempted at least one coup d'etat. And they, after Peterloo, they are incensed and say,

something must be done. So what do they do? They plot to kill the cabinet at a cabinet dinner. Why did it take so long then? Everybody thinks Peter Lom has got reform, but it's 13 years before there's reform. before there's reform, which actually comes in with the things, the government's still very much in charge. Whigs are an absolutely rotten opposition.

Tories got Wellington there, a great icon, despite how much it might have been disliked. So very quickly, Jeremy, sorry about this. We'll have to do this bit again some other times. Why did it take so long to get to the great reformer? It wasn't all that great anyway when you think about it, but still, why did it so long? Why did it take so long is because, first of all,

there's an important conservative populist side, which we haven't talked about. Second of all, because the radicals and the reformers are divided, and third of all, because what historians need to do is to look at process as well as structure. Structure demands change, as it were, but the process of getting change is much, much more complicated. Incidentally, it leads to a whole lot of big riots. Peter Liu was not a riot. The riot was by the yeomanry.

The riot was actually by the yeomanry. But there are big riots in the 1830s in Bristol and in Nottingham by pro-reformers. And that is very interesting because the relationship there between popular activism and the demand for political. change is a complex one. Sarah. I think that you can't get change with out of government that's going to introduce change and the basic fact is the wigs are not empowered.

They're the only party that is going to embrace any sort of change. And so that is the straight answer why you don't get reform until the 1830s. Sorry, Jeremy mentioned the phrase conservative populism, Clive. Can you just amplify that into two paragraphs? Yes, I mean it links with the notion of the future. free-born Englishman and the idea of the English constitution still being generally speaking superior and the English being

superior to everybody in Europe. So that is, that conservative populism slowed it down. I think conservative populism slows it down. I think Sarah's absolutely right. Wiggs not in power, Taurus aren't going to introduce it. No two ways about it. And as you say, 1832 is not I mean, you know, people think of it in the late 19th century. It's a great reform act. The practicality is that most people, most males still don't have the vote. Women, of course, don't have the vote,

and it's only some parliamentary boroughs that get the vote. The Manchester crucially does. And the interesting thing, of course, is an enormous number of males lose the vote in 1832, which is something which is conveniently forgotten very often in the notion of a progressive linear development in the vote in British society. Well, thanks very much for people are good support. I was sorry about that stampede. There you go.

Now and then. Sarah Richardson, Clive, Eamisle, and Jeremy Black. Thank you very much indeed. And next week we will be talking about heaven. We hope you've enjoyed this Radio 4 podcast. You can find hundreds of other programmes about history, science and philosophy at BBC.com.com.com. com.