1757 23 Jan - baptised at St George's church Mossley: Nancy dau of John Hully Clothier by Sarah.
1776 10 Mar - dau Dolly baptised at St George's church, Mossley - DOLLY d.of NANNEY HULLY, base
born Ashton.
1779 25 Feb - son John baptised at St George's chapel Mossley: John s.of Nancy Hully (IGI).
1781 17 Oct - married at St Michael's church Asdhton under Lyne: Joshua Prestwich Nancy Hulley
Ashton par.
PETERLOO MASSACRE AT MANCHESTER
16th August 1819
Evidence of John Hully of Moseley at the trial of Henry Hunt held at York Assizes from Thursday 16th March 1820 to Monday 27th March 1820
Background
The Peterloo Massacre (or Battle of Peterloo) occurred at St Peter's Field, Manchester, England, on 16 August 1819, when cavalry charged into a crowd of 60,000-80,000 that 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 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 military authorities to arrest Hunt and several others on the hustings with him, and to disperse the crowd. Cavalry charged into the crowd 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 ironic comparison to the Battle of Waterloo, which had taken place four years earlier.
John Hully (baptised at St George’s chapel Mossley on 25th February 1779) was the illegitimate son of Nancy Hulley (born 1757 at Mossley who married Josuah Prestwich at St Michael’s church Ashton under Lyne on 17th October 1781)
1820 24 March - The Times (also shown at archive.org/details/trialofhenryhunt00huntiala)
Evidence of John Hully - taken on the 7th day of the trial ie Thursday 23rd March 1820
(Lancs01-1106)
John Hully deposed - I am a clothier, residing at Moseley. I had business at Manchester, and went to it on the 18th August. I went with my mother and my wife. My mother’s is Nancy Prestwick; she is in the 65th year of her age. I saw no shops shut up in Manchester on the 16th. The people were following their usual avocations. I saw the procession that came from Oldham, Royton, Leeds and Moseley. The people appeared to be passing in a quiet and orderly manner. I saw no persons in the procession offer any insult to any of the respectable inhabitants. I went about to my customers to know if they wanted any thing.
I 1eft my goods at a private house; not because I was afraid, hut because I wishes to see the procession. I found my customers on whom I called at their usual occupations. I did not see one shop shut up. None of my customers expressed to me any fears about the meeting. My wife was with me. My mother had business of her own, and we agreed to meet after the meeting was over. I took my wife with me. I did not see my mother there. I did not see any acts of violence committed, or any insult offered by the people.
Did you see any acts of violence committed at the meeting?-Yes.
By the people -No.
Mr. Hunt.- Will your Lordship allow me to ask by whom?
The learned JUDGE replied- No; that question is not now to be tried. It is the character of the meeting, and not of the parties that we are trying.
Examined by the Court.- I saw the cavalry enter. I was about I5 yards from the hustings, and about 80 from Buxton’s house. I could see the whole ot the way between Buxton’s house and the hustings and saw no act of resistance done by the crowd, nor any insult offered by them, to the cavalry. I did not hear the cavalry state their object in proceeding to the hustings. I could have heard any communication made from them if the people on the hustings could have heard it, for I was nearer to the cavalry than the people on the hustings. I did not know that the cavalry were going to the hustings to enable a constable to serve a warrant If any communication had made to the hustings that this was their object, 1 should have heard it sooner than any person on the hustings.
Evidence of Nancy Prestwick (sic)- taken on the 7th day of the trial ie Thursday 23rd March 1820 (Lancs01-363)
Nancy Prestwick, the mother of the last witness, an old woman, with rather an infirm appearance, deposed- I live at Moseley about 10 miles from Manchester. I went to Manchester on the 16th of August. I am 64 years of age. I walked to Manchester that day all the way. I did nor walk in procession; I went with my son and my son’s wife. I saw a dozen of our townswomen at Manchester. I saw other women there in great numbers. After taking some refreshments, I took a walk out to Mr. Johnson’s. They formed me in a line with two or three hundred women, because I was the oldest. I knew St. Peter’s-field, and went the nearest way to it, as I thought. I was there before Mr. Hunt came on the ground; and after waiting to see him went to get a gill of beer; and when I returned the cavalry were coming on the ground. I then stopped, and did not go further. I saw the cavalry.
Is your eye-sight good?-Yes, good at my age.
Hunt here asked witness-Did you and the 300 women attempt to take the cavalry prisoners ?-No, Sir, exclaimed the witness, with great emphasis. I joined in the cheers when Mr. Hunt arrived,
Did you join in the cheers when the cavalry came on the ground?
No, I did not. I did not know what that cheering was for.
Did you hoot and hiss at them?-No, Sir.
Were you alarmed at the number and behaviour of the people assembled?
Mr SCARLETT here intervened, and speaking in a low tone of voice, which we at first did not distinctly hear, objected to the question being put to the witnesses for the defence, as to their own fears or apprehension of danger. He would admit that Mr. Hunt did not mean at this particular time to offer resistance; and that the word “enemies” he used, was not applied to the military.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, this was a liberal admission.
Mr. SCARLETT said, he did not mean to ascribe to persons any design, at that time, to make a tumult.
Then, said Mr. Justice BAYLEY, you have not expressed what you mean in the indictment.
Mr SCARLETT thought the question was, was terror excited? and if twelve persons said they were alarmed, it would not be disproved though 100 should say they were not alarmed.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that the question which would come to the Jury would probably be twofold -was there fear, and was there rational ground for fear?
Mr. SCARLETT.-I admit that Mr. Hunt did not design to produce disturbance, but I do not admit that he did not mean to intimidate.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.- I think the design to intimidate is not in your case.
The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant CROSS.- I was not at Smedley-cottage. I do not know who formed the line. There was no man; they were all women. I had nothing to do with the flags.
Hunt.- You were at the head of the female party ?-Yes.
You did not wear a sword, or carry a musket, did you?- No, Sir. (A laugh.)
1839 Mar qtr - died at Ashton under Lyne RD: Nancy Prestwich vol 20 page 23 (FreeBMD)
 Top
of Page |
|
Copyright © 2000-2022 Ray Hulley. All rights reserved.
|
