This is an extremely one-side account of the event, but even from it I think if you squint right you can see the other side of things just a bit. The crowd wer

This is an extremely one-side account of the event, but even from it I think if you squint right you can see the other side of things just a bit. The crowd were carrying 'Liberty and Fraternity' flags (which echoed the bloody French Revolution's 'Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité' slogan); they had poles with Phrygian caps (a symbol of the French Revolution). The civil authorities were deeply concerned about an English Revolution, and not without cause. Remember how ghastly the Terror was, and how much you'd want to protect yourself and your family from it, even if you agreed with the protesters. Those symbols weren't wholly peaceful symbols; they could legitimately be seen as violent threats. Should the authorities have issued a warrant for the arrest of Messrs. Hunt, Johnson, Knight & Moorhouse? I don't know; it's arguable that it was necessary to preserve the peace. Did they need to use cavalry to execute the warrant? It's arguable that in the circumstances they needed to. But it's also arguable that they should have issued the warrant, and that even if they had they shouldn't have executed it the way they did. At this distance in time, it's impossible for me to be firmly on one side or the other (kinda like the Free Silver issue in the United States, also in the 19th century). The questions they were arguing about and the premises they had in common are alien to us now. It may be even that the immediate repression which followed the event was what enabled a longer-term, peaceful reform of the English government, whereas a lighter hand might have resulted in revolution and far more bloodshed. I certainly don't feel certain one way or the other.