Peterloo
by Robert Poole
(Oxford University Press, £25)

ACADEMIC analysis of Peterloo has been surprisingly scarce, so Robert Poole’s new book is welcome in shedding new light on the events of August 16, 1819, in this bicentenary year of “The English Uprising.”

[[{"fid":"14923","view_mode":"inlineright","fields":{"format":"inlineright","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false},"link_text":null,"type":"media","field_deltas":{"1":{"format":"inlineright","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false}},"attributes":{"class":"media-element file-inlineright","data-delta":"1"}}]]Revealing a complex set of influences, Robert Poole rejects the notion that the Peterloo massacre occupies a point on a continuum with repression at one end and reform on the other.

He focuses on the impact of national politics, war and issues local to Manchester, such as the city’s finances, leadership and institutions.  And he considers the precursor events that informed the strategy of radical movements that frightened the British aristocracy.

As the book makes clear, the war against France (1793-1815) made Britain a fiscal-military state in which contractors flourished and prices spiralled.

That state demanded greater loyalty from the poor, who became poorer. Service under arms was a common experience for working men and this contributed to both the military-style organisation of protesters and the state’s aggressive response to insurrection.

Poole’s painstaking scholarship discredits the notion that Peterloo was a “one-off” episode. Both the protest itself and the reaction it elicited were rooted in the economic fallout of what Henry “Orator” Hunt called “a war against the principles of liberty.”

Meanwhile, the corrupt and exclusive local establishment of Regency Manchester drew political criticism, fuelled direct action and led to the development of networks of opposition. The city’s ruling clique insisted on a process of food market deregulation that shifted costs to working people.

The city, Poole reveals, was managed by an oligarchy that dominated Manchester’s unreformed semi-public institutions. In 1819, the editor of the Manchester Observer said that the name of the town was “synonymous with the grossest corruption.”  

In examining the politics of the period, the author stresses the role of the women reformers, from Luddism on to trade unionism. Women were on the front line at Peterloo and some suffered injury or death.

He also discusses the impact of a colourful cast of reformers, rebels and political schemers. Hunt’s influence and actions are evaluated in detail, as is the shadowy partnership of Home Secretary Lord Sidmouth and Major-General John Byng.

In conclusion, Poole reflects on the catalysing effect of Peterloo on the rise of radicalism, extension of the franchise and parliamentary reform. Its outcome, he asserts, was to put authority on trial through a series of organised, non-violent reforms.

Carefully researched, this is a comprehensive and clearly argued book which has much to tell us about social, economic and political conditions in the early 19th century.

It is lent a chilling contemporary relevance by its compelling exposition of the way violent oppression can be triggered by the collision of an economy under pressure and an insecure ruling class.