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." This
Committee 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
L3,408 1s. 8d. of which L1,206 13s. 8d. had been distributed, L250 having
been received from the local Manchester Committees. The amount expended on
law charges and expenses of witnesses is given as L1,077 6s. 9d.;
advertisements and sundries cost L355 13s. 6d.; and this leaves a balance
of over L768, 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 his _State 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 between 500 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 L710 "on account of the Trial at York; the
Manchester Committee voting L100 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 Principal Reynolds: "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 of _An Exposure of the Calumnies, &c._ One of these is the
actual subpoena 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 for certain 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. In _The 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 of _Wheeler's Manchester Chronicle_ for
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 in
_The 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 the _projected_ line of Peter Street.
[Illustration: Plan of Peterloo. From Farquharson's Report of the Trial,
1822. (See page 88.)
_Photo by R. H. Fletcher._]
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 a dotted 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.
(_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, in the
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.
[Illustration: A VIEW OF St PETER'S PLACE
_To face page 90_]
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 his _residence_ was at or near the place of meeting. I had been
directed to his _shop_, 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.
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.]