State of public feeling. horses but more were crushed and wounded in their frantic struggles to escape from the military. Between 300 and 400 persons were injured but happily no more than five or six lives were lost. This grievous event brought to a sudden crisis the antagonism between the government, and the popular right of meeting to discuss grievances. The magistrates complimented the military upon their forbearance; and the government immediately thanked both the magistrates and the military, for their zeal and discretion in maintaining the public peace. But it was indignantly asked, not by demagogues and men ignorant of the law, but by statesmen and lawyers of eminence,— by whom the public tranquillity had been disturbed? Other meetings had been held without molestation : why then was this meeting singled out for the inopportune vigour of the magistrates? If it threatened danger, why was it not prevented by a timely exercise of authority? If Hunt and his associates had violated the law, why were they not arrested before, or after the meeting? Or if arrested on the hustings, why not by the civil power? The people were peaceable and orderly,—they had threatened no one,-they had offered no resistance. Then why had they been charged and routed by the cavalry? It was even doubted if the Riot Act had been duly read. It had certainly not been heard; and the crowd, without notice or warning, found themselves under the flashing swords of the soldiery.1 'The evidence on this point was very confused. Earl Grey, after reading all the documents, affirmed that the Riot Act had not been read. Lord Liverpool said it had been completely read once, and partly read a second time. Lord Castlereagh said the Riot Act had been read from the window of the house in which the magistrates were assembled. This not being deemed sufficient, another magistrate went out into the crowd to read it, and was trampled under many and peti inquiry. Throughout the country, "the Manchester Mas- Meetings sacre," as it was termed, aroused feelings of anger and tions for indignation. Influential meetings were held in of the chief counties and cities, denouncing the conduct of the magistrates and the government, and demanding inquiry. In the manufacturing districts, the working classes assembled, in large numbers, to express their sympathy with the sufferers, and their bitter spirit of resentment against the authorities. Dangerous discontents were inflamed into sedition. Yet all these excited meetings were held peaceably, except one at Paisley, where the magistrates having caused the colours to be seized, riots and outrages ensued.1 But ministers were hard and defiant. The Common Council of the city of London addressed the prince regent, praying for an inquiry, and were sternly rebuked in his reply. Earl Fitzwilliam, a nobleman of the highest character, who had zealously assisted the government in the repression of disorders in his own county, joined the Duke of Norfolk and several other noblemen and gentlemen of the first importance, in a requisition to the high sheriff of the county of York, to call a meeting for the same purpose. At this meeting he attended and spoke; and was dismissed from his lord lieutenancy.2 Hitherto the Whigs had discountenanced foot. Another vainly endeavoured to read it at the hustings after the arrest of Mr. Hunt. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xli. 4, 51, &c.; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 249, et seq.; Ann. Reg., 1819, p. 106; Trial of Mr. Hunt and others, 1820; Ann. Reg., 1820; Chron., 41; Barn, and Ald. Rep., iii. 566; Papers laid before Parliament, Nov. 1819; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xli. 230 (Mr. Hay's statement); Bam ford's Passages from the Life of a Ann. Reg., 1819, p. 109. 2 Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 263 -272; Ann. Reg., 1819, p. 113, and Lord Grey's observations; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xli. 11–15, The resolutions of this meeting, without condemning the magistrates, merely demanded inquiry. Parlia 23rd, 1819. the radical reformers: but now the rigours of the government forced them to make common cause with that party, in opposing the measures of the executive.1 Meeting of In the midst of this perilous excitement, Parliament ment, Nor. Was assembled, in November; and the Manchester meeting was naturally the first object of discussion. Amendments were moved to the Address, in the Lords, by Earl Grey, and in the Commons by Mr. Tierney, reprobating all dangerous schemes: but urging the duty of giving just attention to the complaints of the people, and the propriety of inquiring into the events at Manchester. It was the object of the opposition to respond to the numerous meetings, petitions, and addresses, which had prayed for inquiry; and to evince a spirit of sympathy and conciliation on the part of Parliament, which had been signally wanting in the government. Earl Grey said, "there was no attempt at conciliation, no concession to the people; nothing was attended to but a resort to coercion, as the only remedy which could be adopted." "The natural consequences of such a system, when once begun, was that it could not be stopped: discontents begot the necessity of force the employment of force increased discontents: these would demand the exercise of new powers, till by degrees they would depart from all the principles of the constitution." It was urged, in the language of Burke, that, "a House of Commons who, in all disputes between the people and administration, presume against the people,-who punish their disorders, but refuse even to inquire into the provocations to 1 Lord Liverpool, writing to Lord Sidmouth, Sept. 30th, 1819, said:"As far as the Manchester business goes, it will identify even the respectable part of the opposi tion with Hunt and the radical reformers."-Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 270. 2 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xli. 4, 51; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 297, et seq. them, this is an unnatural, a monstrous state of things, in such a constitution." refused. Acts. But conciliation formed no part of the hard policy Inquiry of ministers. Sedition was to be trampled out. The executive had endeavoured to maintain the peace of the country but its hands must now be strengthened. In both Houses the amendments were defeated by large majorities; and a similar fate awaited distinct motions for inquiry, proposed, a few days afterwards, by Lord Lansdowne in the Lords, and Lord Althorp in the Commons.2 Papers were laid before Parliament containing evi- The Six dence of the state of the country, which were immediately followed by the introduction of further measures of repression, then designated, and since familiarly known as, the "Six Acts." The first deprived defendants in cases of misdemeanour of the right of traversing: to which Lord Holland induced the chancellor to add a clause, obliging the attorney-general to bring defendants to trial within twelve months. By a second it was proposed to enable the court, on the conviction of a publisher of a seditious libel, to order the seizure of all copies of the libel in his possession, and to punish him, on a second conviction, with fine, imprisonment, banishment, or transportation. By a third, the newspaper stamp duty was imposed upon pamphlets and other papers containing news, or observations on public affairs; and recognizances were required from the publishers of newspapers and pamphlets for the payment of any penalty. By a fourth, no meeting of more than fifty persons was permitted to be held without six days' notice being 1 In the Lords there were 159 for the Address, and 34 for the amendment. In the Commons, 381 for the Address, and 150 for the amendment.-Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xli., 50, 228. 2 Nov. 30th. Contents, 47; Noncontents, 178. Ayes, 150; Noes, 323.-Ibid., 418, 517. The bills opposed in Parliament. given by seven householders to a resident justice of the peace; and all but freeholders or inhabitants of the county, parish or township, were prohibited from attending, under penalty of fine and imprisonment. The justice could change the proposed time and place of meeting: but no meeting was permitted to adjourn itself. Every meeting tending to incite the people to hatred and contempt of the king's person, or the government and constitution of the realm, was declared an unlawful assembly; and extraordinary powers were given to justices for the dispersion of such meetings, and the capture of persons addressing them. If any persons should be killed or injured in the dispersion of an unlawful meeting, the justice was indemnified. Attending a meeting with arms, or with flags, banners, or other ensigns or emblems, was an offence punishable with two years' imprisonment. Lecture and debating rooms were to be licensed, and open to inspection. By a fifth, the training of persons in the use of arms was prohibited; and by a sixth, the magistrates, in the disturbed counties, were empowered to search for and seize arms. All these measures, except that for prohibiting military training, were strenuously opposed in both Houses. They were justified by the government on the ground of the dangers which threatened society. It was argued by Lord Castlereagh, "that unless we could reconcile the exercise of our liberties with the preservation of the public peace, our liberties would inevitably perish." It was said that blasphemous and seditious libels were undermining the very foundations of society, while public meetings, under pretence of discussing grievances, were assembled for purposes of intimidation, and the display of physical force. Even the example of the French Revolution was not yet considered out of date: |