In my last blog entry, I wrote about some similarities that I observed between how Tucker Carlson reacted to the Capitol “Insurrection” – and how Sir Francis Burdett reacted to the Peterloo Massacre (Manchester, England, 1819). The following blog entry contains an excerpt from Sir Francis Burdett: His Last “Make Believe” Interview, which goes into more detail on the Peterloo Massacre.
The excerpt is from a transcript of the fictional interview that I (RCB) had with Sir Francis Burdett (SFB). While the interview is fictional, the words spoken by Sir Francis were often direct quotes from his speeches to the English House of Commons, quotes from his correspondence, quotes from his contemporaries, or quotes from his primary biographer (Patterson).
+++ Start of Excerpt +++
RCB: … That takes us to 1819 and the “Peterloo Massacre.” Before getting into a discussion about the massacre, I would like to inform our viewers that in 2018 a historical drama, entitled simply Peterloo premiered in London. That movie, which I consider historically accurate, was later released in America by Amazon Studios, where it is available “free” to all Prime customers. The star character in the movie is your “friend” Henry Hunt. To get us started, tell me about the conditions in Manchester leading up to August 16, 1819.
SFB: Very simply, the working classes of Manchester were suffering greatly due to unemployment, reduced wages, and higher prices for food. Recall once again that Manchester was the second largest city in England – and it had no representation in Parliament. A meeting was scheduled on August 9th to “promote a radical reform of the House of Commons,” and Henry Hunt was to be the main speaker. That meeting was deemed illegal by the local magistrates. A second meeting was then scheduled for August 16th, “for the purpose of taking into consideration the most effectual legal means of obtaining a Reform in the Representation.” Hunt, somewhat perturbed by the delay, spoke at the rescheduled meeting.
RCB: The movie Peterloo, depicts the tens of thousands of people, proceeding in an orderly manner to the St. Peter’s area of Manchester; in the middle of which a platform, or hustings, had been erected, from which Henry Hunt eventually spoke. From most accounts the crowd was boisterous but peaceful. In any case, the local yeomanry and English military advanced to clear the crowd; eleven were killed and approximately six hundred were severely injured, including women and children. Henry Hunt and others were arrested. Talk to me about Henry Hunt’s role in the massacre.
SFB: Henry appeared to do the right things to discourage any actions that could be termed seditious, or which could lead to rioting. He knew that meetings like this could get out of hand. The “gagging” laws, sadly, allowed very little room for meetings to consider legal reforms. These were the kinds of meetings that I tried to avoid, for obvious reasons. Hunt gambled and lost. He was committed to the New Bailey prison and initially charged with high treason; which was reduced to “unlawful assembly, riot, and conspiracy to bring the king and government into contempt.”
RCB: I liked the way that Patterson described the situation:
“When a seditious movement is on foot, it is always difficult to know how far it is desirable to let the evil proceed, and at what precise point authority ought to put its foot down. The tortoise must be allowed to put its head out, before it can be crushed.”
RCB: Comments? What were you doing on the day of the massacre? How did you respond?
SFB: I do not believe that the turtle’s head had extended but a slight distance from its shell; I did not believe that any evil was on foot that day, except the evil of the government. I had just arrived at Kirby Park, my hunting box in Leicestershire, when I read in the newspapers the story of the Peterloo Massacre. I immediately wrote a letter to my constituents, the electors of Westminster, expressing my shame, grief, and indignation.
RCB: I will quote excerpts from your letter (dated August 22, 1819):
“This then is the answer of the Boroughmongers to the petitioning people ... the use of a standing army in time of peace. ... Is this England? This a Christian land? A land of Freedom? ... Will the gentlemen of England support or wink at such proceedings? ...
“For this purpose I propose that a Meeting should be called in Westminster ... Whether the penalty of our meeting will be death by military execution I know not; but this I know, a man can die but once and never better than in vindicating the laws and liberties of his country. Excuse this hasty address. I can scarcely tell what I have written; it may be libel, or the Attorney General may call it one, just as he pleases.”
RCB: This letter did get you in trouble. You were quicky charged with seditious libel. Before we get to that, however, tell me about how the government responded to the massacre.
SFB: After some hesitation the government summoned Parliament to meet in special session on November 23 to – “surprise” – tighten the law against sedition. Since I was still awaiting trial, I was able to attend the special session and speak and vote against the proposed laws.
RCB: In a little over a month’s time, the government passed repressive measures that came to be known as “the Six Acts.” Before the massacre in Manchester, the people (men, women, and children) had practiced marching in formation without arms. The first of the Six Acts made all unauthorized drilling illegal. The third act placed more severe restrictions on public meetings. The sixth act dealt with publications.
RCB: You spoke eloquently, and at length, during the second day of the special session. Here are a few excerpts from your speech:
“The mere assemblage of people cannot be said to imply a riot, unless such meeting appeared to be collected for a riotous or illegal purpose; or, otherwise, if a parcel of old women assembled, it might be maintained, that the Riot act should be read to them, lest they should set fire to the town.
“The Riot act, that disgrace to the Statute book, was never, with all its faults, intended for the purpose of authorizing military execution.
“What did it say? Did it say that if the people did not instantly disperse, they were to be cut, maimed, and killed indiscriminately; and if so, that no inquiry was to be demanded? ...
“It was known that Mr. Hunt acted in this instance with much more discretion than the magistrates. He went to the magistrates of Manchester previously to the meeting, and told them that if they had a warrant against him to serve it then, because if it should be done at the meeting, he could not answer for the consequences.
“Why had Mr. Hunt been allowed by the magistrates to go on in those treasonable practices till the very point of time when the warrant could not be served without shedding blood? The discharge of this duty was delayed till the people were wedged close around the hustings, and then it was executed by dashing in among them, sabering them, and trampling them to the ground. Military execution, it seemed, was the method adopted of serving a legal warrant. ... Christianity was felt to be a religion of liberty: it taught a doctrine abhorred by many – the natural equality of mankind. But it likewise inculcated justice, it recommended charity, and forbad the imputation of evil motives to others without sufficient ground. ...
“Was it possible to refute opinions or convince men of their errors by physical punishments? Actions and not opinions were the proper objects of legislation. The country was now threatened by the noble lord with all sorts of new restrictions, and this was supposed to be the true way of raising the character of parliament in public estimation.”
RCB: Let’s move on to your trial. You were arraigned at the Leicester Assizes on March 23, 1820, in the middle of a general election; before Mr. Justice Best as a “seditious, malicious, and ill-disposed person.” To start with, why were you arraigned in Leicester?
SFB: Leicester was chosen because, per the government, that is where the crime occurred – when I wrote my letter in Kirby Park, in Leicestershire – not where the letter was published or read. ... It was basically a way to get the trial out of London – to avoid any assemblies like the ones that occurred in Manchester, or in London before I was incarcerated in the Tower.
RCB: Prior to the trial, there were some questions regarding the judge and a “stacked” jury. You addressed the Court in your own defense, concentrating on the vague and uncertain libel laws. The jury met, without bothering to retire, and found you guilty as charged. Motions for a new trial were heard at King’s Bench in London on November 16, 22, and 29. How did that go?
SFB: After the arguments were heard the court ruled against me three to one on all points. On February 8, 1821, I was sentenced to pay the king a fine of 2000 pounds and was imprisoned for three months. The sentence was received by an outburst of applause, by my supporters, because it was deemed to be mild.
RCB: Lord Langdale later described how your fine was determined. Apparently, three of the judges were somewhat sympathetic to your cause and/or arguments. Lord Langdale reported:
“Each judge wrote down a sum, and the aggregate of the sums was divided by the number of judges. In the case of Burdett, Best J., as the junior judge, voted first, and wrote down the figure £20,000; this the other judges refused to accept, and Best’s figure was rejected till he came down to £8000; the other judges accepted this sum, and put down 0 after their own names, and divided it by four, and the result was £2000.”
SFB: Yes, a cute story, and indicative of the arbitrariness of the English justice system.
RCB: After the sentence you were immediately taken into custody and carried away in a hackney coach, cheered on by the acclamations of the populace. Thus, for a second time you entered the portals of a prison – this time the notorious prison at Marshalsea, in south London. How did that go?
+++ End of Excerpt +++
The source of the above quotes can be found in BS3: Etcetera and Sir Francis Burdett: His Last “Make Believe” Interview.