William Cheatham’s story—a Bolton weaver, army veteran, and Peterloo Massacre victim—significantly enhances our understanding of history. It reintroduces a working-class figure whose experience highlights key societal dynamics of that era. Cheatham was not merely a passive victim of government violence; he was a politically aware worker who travelled to Manchester to advocate for parliamentary reform. He survived a sabre attack by a yeomanry cavalryman over a mile from St Peter’s Field and dedicated years to seeking justice via courts and Parliament. His failure was not random but rooted in structural factors.
Cheatham’s story reflects a common pattern among
contemporary radicals and modern Marxist historians: rather than remorse or
reform following Peterloo, the British ruling class engaged in repression,
intimidation, and history rewriting. The significance of Cheatham’s case lies
not in its novelty but in its clarity, exemplifying the capitalist state's
response to working-class activism.
The current depiction of Cheatham’s story — linking it to
ongoing debates about democracy, protest rights, and challenging entrenched
power — illustrates a liberal viewpoint that obscures the class implications of
Peterloo. The aim is not merely to restore Cheatham’s biography but to uncover
its deeper significance beyond the ideological stories that have historically
tried to soften Peterloo.
Peterloo and the Machinery of Bourgeois Repression
The aftermath of Peterloo is a
revealing episode in British history. The ruling class responded with a
consistent strategy: Medical denial and coercion. Waterloo veteran John Lees
died from his injuries three weeks later, while James Lees, wounded by two
sabre cuts, was denied treatment unless he disavowed political meetings.
Judicial obstruction was evident when Margaret Goodwin’s civil case against neighbour
Thomas Shelmerdine was dismissed without thorough review. Weavers injured in
the incident, who sued Hugh Hornby Birley and others, were told their attackers
acted “justifiably." The radical Manchester Observer, which exposed the
massacre, faced prosecution and harassment, leading to its destruction.
Additionally, Manchester’s official plaque labelled Peterloo a “dispersal” for
decades, deliberately omitting any mention of the dead.
Cheatham’s case belongs squarely within this pattern. He
identified his attacker, Edward Meagher. He pursued him through the courts. He
secured a parliamentary hearing. He gathered witnesses. And he lost. The state
closed ranks. The yeomanry were protected. The working-class victim was
defeated.
This is not a story about the failure of individual courage
or the imperfections of early nineteenth-century justice. It is a demonstration
of the structural function of the capitalist state: to defend the interests and
agents of the ruling class against the political demands of the working class.
Liberal Heritage and the Sanitisation of Class Struggle
Today's portrayal of Cheatham’s story—via genealogy sites,
BBC heritage media, and the rhetoric of “democracy”—is inherently political. It
continues a long tradition of liberal co-optation of Peterloo. The founding of
the Manchester Guardian in 1821 exemplifies this trend. Created by cotton
manufacturer John Edward Taylor after the Manchester Observer was destroyed,
the Guardian aimed to divert working-class democratic fervour into bourgeois
reform efforts. Its promise to “warmly advocate the cause of Reform” was
quickly seen as a tactic to capture and disarm working-class radicalism. George
Condy’s 1836 description of the Guardian as the “foul prostitute and dirty
parasite of the worst portion of the mill-owners” was not mere hyperbole; it
reflected class analysis.
The 2019 bicentenary commemorations continued this
tradition. The Guardian positioned itself as Peterloo’s successor. Manchester
City Council unveiled Jeremy Deller’s memorial quietly, concerned about the
political consequences of an open memorial. Even Labour’s language —
referencing Peterloo as a moral foundation for parliamentary reform — echoed
the same liberal framing that Engels critiqued in 1846. The liberal approach to
history reinterprets Peterloo as a heritage event instead of a clash between
classes. It shifts focus from working-class agency to sentimental stories of
“ordinary people.” It replaces discussions of rights with themes of class
struggle. Additionally, it depicts the capitalist state as misguided rather
than inherently violent. Cheatham’s account, viewed through this lens, becomes
a sombre reflection on the slow advancement of democracy rather than a lesson
about the futility of justice within bourgeois institutions.
Engels and the Historical Logic of Cheatham’s Defeat
Cheatham’s story notably confirms Engels’s analysis of the
era. In The Condition of the Working Class in England and his 1846 letters,
Engels argued that the core dynamic of early 19th-century politics was that the
“essentially democratic movement of the working classes was more or less made
subservient to the liberal movement of the bourgeoisie.”
Engels pointed out that the working class had yet to fully
understand the crucial difference between liberalism and democracy —
specifically, the distinction between the emancipation of the middle classes
and that of the working classes. Cheatham’s extensive efforts over a decade to
seek justice through courts, magistrates, and Parliament serve as a condensed
example of this broader historical process. He believed that the bourgeois
state’s institutions could ensure justice, thinking evidence, testimony, and
parliamentary appeals could challenge class power. His defeat was not personal
but structural, reflecting the unavoidable outcome of a political system meant
to safeguard the interests of the ruling class.
Cheatham’s story is therefore not a tragedy of failed
reform. It is a lesson in the necessity of working-class independence from
bourgeois institutions.
Memory, Class, and the Struggle Over Peterloo
The dispute over Peterloo's memory is a battleground of
class conflict. The ruling class has consistently tried to tame the
event—turning it from a massacre into a mere 'dispersal,” from a clash of
classes into a symbol of democracy, and from a call to action into a heritage
tour. In contrast, working-class remembrance has always challenged this
distortion. John Wrigley, interviewed fifty years after Peterloo, expressed the
true significance of the event: “Never forget, lad! Let it sink in your blood.
Stand up and fight for human rights — the rights of poor folk!”
This is not the language of liberal reform; it is the
language of class struggle. Cheatham's story belongs to the political tradition
of working-class struggle, which his biography underscores. Reclaiming
Cheatham’s biography is valuable, but only if its significance is pulled from
liberal narratives and restored to the tradition of working-class political
activism.
Conclusion: What Cheatham Teaches Us
Cheatham’s story reveals little about the “enduring
questions of democracy' and instead highlights the persistent reality of class
power. It vividly illustrates how the capitalist state reacts when working
people seek accountability from its armed forces, showing why the working class
cannot depend on courts, magistrates, or Parliament for justice. The story
supports Engels’s analysis of the era and uncovers the ideological role of
liberal historical narratives. Its significance lies not in sentiment but in
political clarity, reminding us that Peterloo was not merely a reform tragedy
but a clash between the working class and the capitalist state—an ongoing
conflict with vital lessons.
Bibliography and Sources
Primary Sources
- Engels,
Friedrich. The Condition of the Working Class in England.
Leipzig, 1845. Foundational Marxist analysis of early industrial
capitalism; Engels’ discussion of the political subordination of the
working class to bourgeois liberalism is directly relevant to Peterloo.
- Engels,
Friedrich. The Principles of Communism. 1847. Contains Engels’
reflections on the development of working-class political consciousness.
- Hunt,
Henry. The Trial of Henry Hunt and Others for the Peterloo
Massacre. London, 1820. Contemporary documentation of the legal
aftermath and the state’s efforts to justify repression.
- Manchester
Observer (1819–1821). Radical newspaper that exposed the massacre; its
destruction by state repression is central to understanding the political
climate.
- Parliamentary
Papers, House of Commons Debates (Hansard), 1819–1825. Includes
petitions, debates, and references to cases brought by Peterloo victims,
including Cheatham’s parliamentary appeal.
- Wrigley,
John. Interview in The Manchester Guardian, 1869. Contains the
famous working-class testimony: “Never forget, lad! Let it sink in your
blood…”
Contemporary Radical Accounts
- Carlile,
Richard. Account of the Manchester Massacre. London, 1819.
Eyewitness testimony and radical analysis of the event.
- Knight,
Henry. The Political and Social Condition of Manchester. Manchester,
1820. Radical critique of the magistracy and yeomanry.
Modern Scholarship on Peterloo
- Read,
Donald. Peterloo: The Massacre and Its Background. Manchester
University Press, 1958. Classic scholarly account; still valuable for its
archival depth.
- Poole,
Robert. Peterloo: The English Uprising. Oxford University
Press, 2019. The most comprehensive modern study; essential for
contextualising Cheatham’s experience.
- Poole,
Robert. “The Manchester Observer and the Making of Peterloo.” Manchester
Region History Review 23 (2012). Detailed analysis of the radical
press and state repression.
- Bush,
M. L. The Casualties of Peterloo. Carnegie Publishing, 2005.
Systematic catalogue of victims; provides context for Cheatham’s injuries
and legal struggle.
- Bush,
M. L. “The Aftermath of Peterloo.” Transactions of the Lancashire
and Cheshire Antiquarian Society 103 (2007). Examines the judicial and
political consequences of the massacre.
- Thompson,
E. P. The Making of the English Working Class. Victor Gollancz,
1963. Essential Marxist historiography; situates Peterloo within the
broader formation of working-class consciousness.
- Hammond,
J. L. & Hammond, Barbara. The Town Labourer 1760–1832.
Longmans, Green & Co., 1917. Classic social history of early
industrial workers; includes discussion of political radicalism.
Marxist Analyses and Socialist Scholarship
- Bond,
Paul. “200 Years Since the Peterloo Massacre.” World Socialist Web
Site, 16 August 2019. Detailed Marxist analysis of the massacre, its
aftermath, and the liberal appropriation of its memory.
- North,
David. The Russian Revolution and the Unfinished Twentieth Century.
Mehring Books, 2014. Provides theoretical context on state violence and
bourgeois democracy.
- Trotsky,
Leon. History of the Russian Revolution. 1930. Not directly
about Peterloo, but foundational for understanding the Marxist theory of
the state and class repression.
- Marx,
Karl. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. 1852. Essential
for understanding how bourgeois institutions function to suppress
working-class political agency.
Historiography of the Liberal Press and the Guardian
- Ayerst,
David. The Guardian: Biography of a Newspaper. Cornell
University Press, 1971. Includes detailed discussion of the paper’s
founding in the aftermath of Peterloo.
- Williams,
Raymond. Keywords. Oxford University Press, 1976. Useful for
analysing the ideological language of “reform,” “democracy,” and “rights.”
- Jones,
Aled. “Press, Politics and Society: The Guardian and Liberalism.” Journal
of British Studies 32 (1993). Scholarly analysis of the Guardian’s
political role in the nineteenth century.
State Violence, Class Repression, and Political Theory
- Hobsbawm,
Eric. The Age of Revolution: 1789–1848. Weidenfeld &
Nicolson, 1962. Situates Peterloo within the broader revolutionary and
counter-revolutionary dynamics of the period.
- Hobsbawm,
Eric. Labouring Men. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1964. Essays on
working-class politics and state repression.
- Linebaugh,
Peter & Rediker, Marcus. The Many-Headed Hydra. Beacon
Press, 2000. Explores the long history of proletarian resistance and state
violence.
- Stedman
Jones, Gareth. Languages of Class. Cambridge University Press,
1983. Important for understanding how political discourse shapes class
consciousness.
Genealogy, Heritage Media, and Liberal Memory Culture
- Samuel,
Raphael. Theatres of Memory. Verso, 1994. Foundational critique
of heritage culture and liberal historical memory.
- Porter,
Bernard. The Absent-Minded Imperialists. Oxford University
Press, 2004. Useful for analysing the ideological framing of British
history in contemporary media.
- Olusoga,
David. Black and British: A Forgotten History. Macmillan, 2016.
Representative of the contemporary BBC mode of identity-centred historical
narrative.
Archival and Local History Resources
- Greater
Manchester Archives and Local Studies holds extensive Peterloo-related
material, including casualty lists, magistrates’ papers, and local press.
- National
Archives (Kew) HO 42 and HO 44 series contain Home Office
correspondence on Peterloo and subsequent prosecutions.
- Bolton
Archives Potentially relevant for Cheatham’s background, military
service, and local radical networks.
Optional: Further Reading for Marxist Context
- Lukács,
Georg. History and Class Consciousness. 1923. Theoretical
grounding for understanding how events like Peterloo shape proletarian
consciousness.
- Anderson,
Perry. Arguments Within English Marxism. Verso, 1980. Useful
for situating Thompson, Hobsbawm, and the Marxist historiographical
tradition.
