Political trials and the suppression of popular radicalism in England, 1799-1820

This chapter examines the decision-making process between the Home Office and the government’s law officers in prosecuting individuals for sedition and treason in the period 1799–1820. The term state trial suggests a more centralised and government-led repression of popular radicalism than the process was in practice. Provincial reformers also faced the complex layers of their local justice system, which was more loyalist, committed to stamping out political radicalism. The trial of the “Thirty Eight” Manchester radicals in June 1812 demonstrates the mutable definitions of treason, sedition and processes of justice in the theatre of the court.Peer reviewe

Comparison of the US and Russian Cycle Ergometers

The purpose of this study was to compare the U.S. and Russian cycle ergometers focusing on the mechanical differences of the devices and the physiological differences observed while using the devices. Methods: First, the mechanical loads provided by the U.S. Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation System (CEVIS) and the Russian Veloergometer were measured using a calibration dynamometer. Results were compared and conversion equations were modeled to determine the actual load provided by each device. Second, ten male subjects (32.9 +/- 6.5 yrs, 180.6 +/- 4.4 cm; 81.9 +/- 6.9 kg) experienced with both cycling and exercise testing completed a standardized submaximal exercise test protocol on CEVIS and Veloergometer. The exercise protocol involved 8 sub-maximal workloads each lasting 3 minutes for a total of 24 minutes per session, or until the end of the stage when the subject reached 85% of peak oxygen consumption or age-predicted maximum heart rate (220 - age). The workload started at 50 Watts (W), increased to 100 W, and then increased 25 W every 3 minutes until reaching a peak workload of 250 W. Physiological variables were then compared at each workload by repeated measures ANOVA or paired t-tests (p<0.05). Results: While both CEVIS and Veloergometer produced significantly lower workloads than the displayed workload, CEVIS produced even lower loads than Veloergometer (p<0.05) at each indicated workload. Despite this fact, the only physiological variables that showed a significant difference between the ergometers were VE (125 - 250W), VO2 (175 and 250 W), and VCO2 (175 W). All other physiological data were not statistically different between CEVIS and Veloergometer. Conclusion: Although workloads were different between ergometers, relatively few physiological differences were observed. Therefore, CEVIS workloads of 87.5 - 262.5 W can be rounded to the nearest 25 W increment and performed on the Veloergometer