CHAPTER XI

THE THIRD SUPPRESSION OF THE PLATFORM

THE new Parliament met on the 14th of January 1819, little changed in composition from that which preceded it. The popular party had gained slightly. It was computed, at the time, that the ranks of the regular opposition, all sections included, had been increased by some 30 votes or so, and Tierney, speaking soon after the meeting of Parliament, bore testimony to a change not recorded in mere figures. "He now spoke," he said, "in a House to which had been returned a larger proportion of men connected with no party than he ever remembered before. They were of a description of persons who professed that they would vote without reference to either side of the House; and that they would weigh measures and not men." But this, in those times of ministerial temptation, was rather an unstable class of men, very open to ministerial approaches, and not to be relied on by the people. Still, the general results of the elections and, more particularly, the popular victories in London city, and a few other places, afforded some encouragement to the popular party. The Seditious Meetings Act, or at least that portion of it which related to seditious meetings, and debating societies, had expired in the previous July. Whether the general election had somewhat exhausted the energies of the people, or whether they were waiting to see if the new House of Commons would be more disposed than the last towards considering their wants, and alleviating some of the hardness of their circumstances, the Platform had been quiescent during the autumn of 1818, and, with one exception, remained so during all the earlier part of the session of 1819. The exception was a meeting at Manchester on the 18th of January, which was got up by the reformers of that town, and which Hunt was invited

to attend. On his arrival at Ardwick, near Manchester, he was met by a deputation from the town, and a great crowd of people who unyoked his horses, and dragged his carriage into the town. A procession accompanying him with banners bearing mottoes-"Rights of Man," "Universal Suffrage," "No Corn Laws."

About half-past eleven o'clock the crowd reached St. Peter's Field. Hunt1 ascended the Platform and made a speech. He alluded to the Boroughreeve having refused to call the meeting, and remarked that they were called together as legally and constitutionally as if the municipal authorities had been present. "Some gentlemen had proposed a Petition, a Petition to that House of Commons, which, when last assembled, had kicked their prayers and petitions out of doors. Would they submit again to petition that House? or would they come forward as men, as Englishmen, and demand their rights?" Here the word "Remonstrate" from the assembled thousands drowned the voice of the speaker, and it was agreed that a Remonstrance to the Prince Regent should supersede the Petition which had been prepared. Hunt concluded his speech by strenuously enforcing the necessity of a prompt and efficient muster of the friends of reform, "in order to counteract the mischievous attempts that were secretly making to undermine their liberties," and expressed his detestation of the odious Corn Bill or starvation law, the repeal of which was the object of their present assembling. Several other speeches followed from men who stood at the head of the Manchester reformers, and the meeting broke up. About 10,000 persons, it was said, were present; but not the least disposition to riot or turbulence was evinced, nor was there any personal insult offered to any individual whatever.

In February, Westminster was enlivened by an electoral contest, extending over a period of fifteen days, for the seat rendered vacant by the death of Sir S. Romilly; the Platform was given plenty of occupation at it, and the newspapers were filled with reports of its proceedings.

But with these exceptions the Platform was idle during the first half of the year 1819. Such meetings as did take place were on another subject-namely, in favour of the Corn

1 The Examiner, 24th January 1819.

Laws, but they were not on a scale to call for any special notice. A large number of Petitions, praying for further protection of agriculture, were presented to Parliament, but few on other subjects, and those not from people assembled at meetings.

As the session drew near its end, however, signs of recommencing agitation in parts of the country began to make themselves apparent. Distressing accounts came from the manufacturing districts, of the large number of unemployed workmen, of the consequent wretchedness, and increase of pauperism. Notwithstanding all which the Government, early in June, determined on adding £3,000,000 to the taxation of the country, the great bulk of the new taxes being imposed on wool, malt, spirits, and tobacco.

Weighed down with troubles, the people began once more to have recourse to their one friend-the Platform. On the 14th June "a most numerous assemblage of unemployed workmen" met at Hunslet Moor, near Leeds. A "stage" for the speakers had been previously erected, and several persons addressed the meeting. The great theme dwelt on was the necessity for Parliamentary reform-that was the one panacea which the distressed people were never tired of invoking. Several resolutions were passed as preliminary to a Declaration to be signed by all "who are determined not to become passive slaves"; and it was nearly ten at night before the assemblage dispersed. On the same day a meeting of the inhabitants of Ashton-under-Lyne took place, some 12,000 to 15,000 persons being present. The Reverend J. Harrison took the chair. He gave a most pathetic account of the deplorable condition of the poor, and exhorted his hearers to observe peace and good order. Various resolutions were passed which dwelt on the means of remedying the people's distresses; on Universal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments; on the Constitution of the House of Commons as now existing, "which was a mockery"; on the Corn Laws; on the contempt with which their Petitions were treated; on the suspension of the laws "in order to be able to keep men in dungeons"; and on the "Acts of Indemnity to screen Government officers from deserved punishment; and finally, on the necessity of resistance to increased taxation until every sinecure and pen

sion should be abolished. The people dispersed without any tumult. 1

On the 16th June a numerous meeting of operative weavers took place at Glasgow, and a resolution was carried for Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and a diminution of taxation.

Another meeting was held at Hunslet Moor on 21st June. A Mr. Booth took the chair. The old lesson was repeated. "We can," he said, "only attribute our distress to the misrule of Ministers and the defective state of our representative system." A man named Petre made a very violent speech, but instead of its receiving approbation it gave great offence to many, and it was insinuated that he was a Government spy, endeavouring to lead the people into actions which would enable the Government to suppress the right of Platform speech.

A numerous meeting was held at Dewsbury, in Yorkshire, on the 21st, at which reform was demanded. Similar meetings were also held the same day at Manchester, and at other places in Yorkshire and Lancashire. "These different assemblies everywhere conducted themselves peaceably, and there was no occasion for calling on either the civil or military power."

It was beginning to be evident that the civic population of the country, temporarily silenced by the repressive legislation of 1817, was again moving. Nor was it to be wondered at. The only wonder was that they were so submissive, so longsuffering, so quiet. Parliament had done nothing for themhad, on the contrary, added to their burdens; it had turned a deaf ear to their complaints; it had spurned their petitions; it persisted in maintaining for its own advantage the most outrageous abuses, and perpetrating the most shameful jobs. Constituted by a corrupt and degraded system of so-called representation, the Commons House of Parliament systematically set the interests of its majority above the interests of the people, and resented with violence the least indication of a movement which suggested the curtailment of their selfishlyused power, or the bringing of the House more into accordance with the views and interests of the people. "Reform is innovation; innovation is revolution; revolution means the

1 The Examiner, 27th June 1819.

guillotine and the dagger; down with reform." Such was the exaggerated formula with which was justified the maintenance of the existing order of things.

Though the ministerial majority possessed the power to refuse reform, they could not prevent the subject being discussed. And on the 1st July Sir F. Burdett gave the question an additional impulse in the country by bringing forward a motion about it in Parliament. 1 "He was convinced," he said, "that, according to the true principles of the English Constitution, every man is entitled to participate in the power of making those laws by which he is governed-to some share in the appointment of those who dispose of his liberty, his property, and his life. . . . He could not feel any apprehension from pursuing too far the ancient and recognised common law maxim, the corner-stone of the edifice of our liberties, 'that the people of England have a property in their own goods, which are not to be taken from them without their own consent'; in other words, that they are not constitutionally liable to be taxed without their own consent, expressed by a full, free, and fair representation in Parliament. On this principle he stood, as upon a rock, from which he thought it impossible to be removed."

But the Government would have none of it. Waithman "implored the House to take this subject into its most serious consideration, to apply a remedy, to carry tranquillity and confidence to the people; "" but the motion was rejected by 153 votes to 58, and once more the masses of the people of England were told that the House of Commons-the people's House-should remain a close corporation-once more were they shown that a phalanx of peers and boroughmongers were determined at all costs to retain the monopoly of Government which the existing Constitution gave them.

And so the people were driven to the Platform, to meetings, and resolutions, to speeches, which now would be regarded as harmless, but which then were regarded as seditious, or treasonable, if legal ingenuity could twist them into being so. The truer the speeches were, and the more self-evident and uncontradictable the resolutions adopted by the meetings, the more wroth were the Government and their followers.

1 Parliamentary Debates, 1819, vol. xl. p. 1440.

2 Ibid. p. 1492.