Article in The Hindu today about Peterloo massacre in Manchester UK in 1819 by then UK govt.; At that time only 2% of UK population had vote!
This article is by The Hindu's London correspondent, Vidya Ram: In memory of a 200-year-old massacre, https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/in-memory-of-a-200-year-old-massacre/article24780937.ece, 25th Aug. 2018
It covers the Peterloo massacre on 16th August 1819.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre
The Peterloo Massacre occurred at St Peter's Field, Manchester, England, on 16 August 1819, when cavalry charged into a crowd of 60,000–80,000 who had gathered to demand the reform of parliamentary representation.
The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 had resulted in periods of famine and chronic unemployment, exacerbated by the introduction of the first of the Corn Laws. By the beginning of 1819, the pressure generated by poor economic conditions, coupled with the relative lack of suffrage in Northern England, had enhanced the appeal of political radicalism. In response, the Manchester Patriotic Union, a group agitating for parliamentary reform, organised a demonstration to be addressed by the well-known radical orator Henry Hunt.
Shortly after the meeting began, local magistrates called on the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry to arrest Hunt and several others on the hustings with him. The Yeomanry charged into the crowd, knocking down a woman and killing a child, and finally apprehending Hunt. However in the midst of the throng they became separated into small groups and halted in disorder. The 15th Hussars were then summoned by the magistrate, Mr Hulton, to disperse the crowd. They charged with sabres drawn, and in the ensuing confusion, 15 people were killed and 400–700 were injured. The massacre was given the name Peterloo in an ironic comparison to the Battle of Waterloo, which had taken place four years earlier.
Historian Robert Poole has called the Peterloo Massacre one of the defining moments of its age. In its own time, the London and national papers shared the horror felt in the Manchester region, but Peterloo's immediate effect was to cause the government to crack down on reform, with the passing of what became known as the Six Acts. It also led directly to the foundation of the Manchester Guardian, but had little other effect on the pace of reform. In a survey conducted by The Guardian in 2006, Peterloo came second to the Putney Debates as the event from radical British history that most deserved a proper monument or a memorial. Peterloo is commemorated by a plaque close to the site, a replacement for an earlier one that was criticised as being inadequate as it did not reflect the scale of the massacre.
--- end wiki extracts ---
The above Hindu article states that "around 2% of the population had the right to vote at the time, according to the Peterloo Memorial Campaign, which is pushing for a “respectful, informative, and permanent” memorial to the event". I was surprised to read in the article that in 1819 only 2% of the British population had the right to vote and that their working class was attacked and crushed by the UK government then. Note that by 1819, the British via East India Company, had a big military presence in India having won major military victories at Battle of Plassey in 1757, Second Anglo-Mysore war (Tipu Sultan) in 1799 and last of the three Anglo-Maratha wars in 1818.
If that 2% figure is right then in 1819 the vast majority of people of both India and Britain shared a big commonality in that they were fully dominated by a tiny ruling class. In UK this tiny ruling class comprised of Britishers whereas in India it comprised of mainly Britishers but also some Indian kings and their courtiers, whose kingdoms were protectorates of the British.
In this context I recall being told in a Facebook exchange by a lady who was born (around or shortly after World War II) and raised in London (and perhaps some other parts of UK) that British colonization of India (largely) benefited the ruling class and that the working class did not benefit much. I don't know how true it is but I do think that there must be some truth to it for the period where East India Company effectively ruled India (till 1858 after which British Raj started with British Crown (and UK Parliament) having control of the British Raj). I believe that British Raj period would have benefited most people of UK in some indirect way as UK as a country became very rich at least partly through its exploitation of India as a colony.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/history/uk_through_time/government_through_time/revision/5/ seems to confirm that in early 19th century (till 1832 Reform act) "Less than 2 per cent of the population had the vote".
Hmm. That's something that I had not really known! I mean, early 19th century UK was completely ruled by a small group of elites with 98 percent of the population essentially being totally controlled by these elites! Somehow I was under the impression that good number of British men (I knew the women were denied the vote in the past) enjoyed democratic rights going back a few centuries. Now I have learned that that was a wrong impression that I was under.
[I thank wikipedia and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extract from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
It covers the Peterloo massacre on 16th August 1819.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre
The Peterloo Massacre occurred at St Peter's Field, Manchester, England, on 16 August 1819, when cavalry charged into a crowd of 60,000–80,000 who had gathered to demand the reform of parliamentary representation.
The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 had resulted in periods of famine and chronic unemployment, exacerbated by the introduction of the first of the Corn Laws. By the beginning of 1819, the pressure generated by poor economic conditions, coupled with the relative lack of suffrage in Northern England, had enhanced the appeal of political radicalism. In response, the Manchester Patriotic Union, a group agitating for parliamentary reform, organised a demonstration to be addressed by the well-known radical orator Henry Hunt.
Shortly after the meeting began, local magistrates called on the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry to arrest Hunt and several others on the hustings with him. The Yeomanry charged into the crowd, knocking down a woman and killing a child, and finally apprehending Hunt. However in the midst of the throng they became separated into small groups and halted in disorder. The 15th Hussars were then summoned by the magistrate, Mr Hulton, to disperse the crowd. They charged with sabres drawn, and in the ensuing confusion, 15 people were killed and 400–700 were injured. The massacre was given the name Peterloo in an ironic comparison to the Battle of Waterloo, which had taken place four years earlier.
Historian Robert Poole has called the Peterloo Massacre one of the defining moments of its age. In its own time, the London and national papers shared the horror felt in the Manchester region, but Peterloo's immediate effect was to cause the government to crack down on reform, with the passing of what became known as the Six Acts. It also led directly to the foundation of the Manchester Guardian, but had little other effect on the pace of reform. In a survey conducted by The Guardian in 2006, Peterloo came second to the Putney Debates as the event from radical British history that most deserved a proper monument or a memorial. Peterloo is commemorated by a plaque close to the site, a replacement for an earlier one that was criticised as being inadequate as it did not reflect the scale of the massacre.
--- end wiki extracts ---
The above Hindu article states that "around 2% of the population had the right to vote at the time, according to the Peterloo Memorial Campaign, which is pushing for a “respectful, informative, and permanent” memorial to the event". I was surprised to read in the article that in 1819 only 2% of the British population had the right to vote and that their working class was attacked and crushed by the UK government then. Note that by 1819, the British via East India Company, had a big military presence in India having won major military victories at Battle of Plassey in 1757, Second Anglo-Mysore war (Tipu Sultan) in 1799 and last of the three Anglo-Maratha wars in 1818.
If that 2% figure is right then in 1819 the vast majority of people of both India and Britain shared a big commonality in that they were fully dominated by a tiny ruling class. In UK this tiny ruling class comprised of Britishers whereas in India it comprised of mainly Britishers but also some Indian kings and their courtiers, whose kingdoms were protectorates of the British.
In this context I recall being told in a Facebook exchange by a lady who was born (around or shortly after World War II) and raised in London (and perhaps some other parts of UK) that British colonization of India (largely) benefited the ruling class and that the working class did not benefit much. I don't know how true it is but I do think that there must be some truth to it for the period where East India Company effectively ruled India (till 1858 after which British Raj started with British Crown (and UK Parliament) having control of the British Raj). I believe that British Raj period would have benefited most people of UK in some indirect way as UK as a country became very rich at least partly through its exploitation of India as a colony.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/history/uk_through_time/government_through_time/revision/5/ seems to confirm that in early 19th century (till 1832 Reform act) "Less than 2 per cent of the population had the vote".
Hmm. That's something that I had not really known! I mean, early 19th century UK was completely ruled by a small group of elites with 98 percent of the population essentially being totally controlled by these elites! Somehow I was under the impression that good number of British men (I knew the women were denied the vote in the past) enjoyed democratic rights going back a few centuries. Now I have learned that that was a wrong impression that I was under.
[I thank wikipedia and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extract from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
Comments
Post a Comment