HC Deb 16 December 1819 vol 41 cc1180-9
Mr. Brougham

said, he held in his hands a petition from a person of the name of Thomas Redford. He had not any acquaintance with this person, nor could he vouch for the accuracy of the statements in the petition, but it was couched in respectful language.

The petition was brought up and read. It purported to be the petition of Thomas Redford, of Middleton, in the county palatine of Lancaster, hatter; and sat forth,

"That for the purpose of agreeing to an address to his royal highness the Prince Regent, and of adopting such resolutions as might seem fit, the petitioner, with many others of his fellow townsmen, attended a meeting at Manchester, on the 16th day of August in the present year, which meeting was legally convened by public advertisement according to the form prescribed by a law recently passed in the House, and sanctioned by the other branch of the legislature, as well as by the executive power of the land; but though guarded by the solemn enactments of the legislature, though acting under, and confiding in, the stern mandate of the law, which saith to the ruthless and violent, 'so far shalt thou go with impunity, and no further,' though rudeness or insult had not been known that day, by the petitioner or his neighbours, nor outrage expected, yet, in the very commencement of their peaceable and constitutional proceedings, they were interrupted by an armed force, denominated the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry, professing an extraordinary share of loyalty, which in the humble judgment of the petitioner is only to be found in a due observance of the law; by men thus circumstanced, disguised in military accoutrements, and with implements of death in their hands, was this sacred enactment broken, and the blood of his majesty's liege subjects shed without cause without warnings of any kind, and apparently without remorse; for be it known to the House, that the men disguised as aforesaid, rushed without delay into the crowd, cutting and bruising with their sabres, and trampling under the hoofs of their horses, the miserable victims of their fury, who were unable, through the intense pressure, to open a way before them, and after they had secured several persons as prisoners who were upon the hustings, even after this professed object of their interference had been accomplished, they suddenly wheeled round upon the astonished and defenceless multitude, and with a rage violent as it was unmanly and unprovoked, commenced anew the work of terror and destruction: in this moment of danger the petitioner was driven by the crowd towards some timber which lay upon the field, where, hemmed in on all sides by the military, and unable to escape, he received from one of the Manchester yeomanry Cavalry, named Alexander Oliver, a severe cut by the sabre, which separated his shoulder-blade, and penetrated deep into his back; that for this violent outrage and breach of the laws, the petitioner has not been able to bring the delinquent to the bar of his country, in consequence of the refusal of the local magistracy to receive depositions respecting the aforesaid transactions; therefore, to the justice and to the humanity of the House the petitioner now appeals, and humbly though earnestly, claims from it that indemnification which the law would award, but which is vainly sought for in the courts, and that protection from similar outrages to which every Englishman is entitled, but which the petitioner is convinced can only be obtained by the prompt interference of the House, in investigating the inhuman transactions of which he complains."

Mr. Lambton

presented a petition from Thomas Bowker of Crawshawfold, in the county Palatine of Lancaster, setting forth:

"That on the 16th day of August last, the petitioner attended a public meeting at Manchester, which meeting the petitioner at that time supposed, and still believes, to have been perfectly legal, but that, notwithstanding its legality, and the decorum which prevailed, it was violently attacked and dispersed by the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry, acting under the local magistracy; that in the confusion which ensued the petitioned was throw down and trampled upon by the horses, and by the crowd who were flying in terror from their attack, whereby he was shockingly bruised in many parts of his body and his limbs, and he had no sooner recovered from his perilous situation than he attempted, as well as his disabled state would permit him, to retire from the scene of danger and confusion, but had not proceeded farther than a street near by, the name of which is to him at present unknown, than he was attacked by a foot soldier whom he believes belonged to the 88th regiment, and received a severe wound in the belly from a thrust of his bayonet, at the same time that another soldier of the same regiment made a desperate push at the petitioner, which he avoided by throwing himself on the ground; that for these severe bruises and wounds, whereby the petitioner was prevented for a considerable time from earning his livelihood, and from the effects of which he is not yet recovered, he has received no indemnification, and trusting in the wisdom and humanity of the House, which cannot see the liberties of Englishmen wantonly violated, nor their lives put in jeopardy, he solicits such interference on the part of the House as shall bring the authors and executors of the above outrage to the bar of his country."

The petition having been brought up and read,

Mr. Lambton

said, he regretted extremely the troubling the House with any thing relating to himself. But in consequence of what was stated the other night by a noble lord, he had written immediately to his agent. It would be in the recollection of that House, that the noble lord had stated he was informed that his (Mr. L.'s) agent had dismissed several individuals from his mines in consequence of their being radicals. By a letter which he had this day received from Durham, his agent positively assured him that no radicals had been dismissed from his employment, that he was astonished such reports should be propagated; that the men were never more peaceable than at the present moment.

Sir Robert Wilson

presented a petition from Thomas Barlow, of little Heaton, in the county Palatine of Lancaster, weaver, setting forth,

"That being at a public meeting which was legally convened at Manchester in the aforesaid county on the 16th of August last, and which said meeting was assembled in an orderly and peaceable manner, when it was assailed by an armed force, styled the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry, and thrown into great confusion thereby, and a number of lives lost by pressure, by being trampled upon, and by wounds inflicted by the sabres of the yeomanry, aforesaid, and in the horrid confusion which ensued, the direct road of the petitioners retreat was obstructed by one of the said yeomanry, to whose humanity he appealed for that forbearance which in the day of battle himself had never refused even to the enemies of his country, but which, as a sailor and an Englishman, he now asked for in vain; for in attempting to pass the person aforesaid, the petitioner received from him a severe cut upon his head, followed by a lunge at his body, which with difficulty he parried from him with his arm, having no stick or weapon of any kind; that for this outrage and attempt upon his life the petitioner has not received indemnification, nor is he able to identify the person of his assailant, in consequence of his being disguised in the clothes and accoutrements of a soldier; wherefore the petitioner humbly prays, That the House would take such measures as may bring the authors, abettors, and executors of this unmanly outrage to justice."

Sir Francis Burdett

presented a petition from Robert Lees, of Oldham, the father of Robert Lees, a young man who died in consequence of the wounds he received on the 16th of August, at Manchester, chiefly complaining of the manner in which the inquest on the body of his son had been conducted by the coroner, and of the impossibility of bringing the persons guilty of the violence by which his son lost his life, to trial.

Mr. Blake

said, it did not appear that any application had been made for a criminal information against the magistrates who were said to have refused to interfere. The petitioner therefore had not done what he ought to have done. The conduct of the coroner was complained of. It appeared from what took place in the court of King's-bench, in consequence of the application for a mandamus, that the inquest was one of the most illegal proceedings which ever took place—as soon as the coroner perceived he had done wrong, he did what he could to redress that wrong.

Mr. Brougham

said, the hon. gentleman was quite mistaken as to the particulars of the proceedings in the Court of King's-bench, with regard to the inquest. The court entertained the motion for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued to the coroner, and the only reason why the mandamus was not issued was, that the coroner came forward and stated his own irregularity as an excuse for not proceeding further with the inquest. The coroner had acted illegally —he did not mean to say wilfully so—but he had acted illegally, first in proceeding with an inquest, which had been sworn by his deputy, and without having seen the dead body, and then adjourning the inquest for seven weeks. His own irregular proceeding rendered it impossible to proceed with that inquest. The coroner jumped at this. "O," says he, "if I have acted illegally, I shall stop here, and not go on any farther." The coroner himself had effected this—he jumped at it—and then they were to be told that the people were extravagant in their demands, when they were not satisfied with this mockery of all justice! He was always disposed to speak with respect of the courts of justice; but when he saw that called justice which was a mockery of alt justice; when he saw a bare-faced collusion like that which had long been exhibited in the face of the country, when he saw a coroner questioning his own irregularity, and availing himself of his own breach of the law, to escape from the necessity of executing the law, he could not think of dignifying such a mockery of the people of England with the name of justice. They might depend on it, the more they probed these disgraceful transactions, the more infamous they would appear. Gentlemen might wish to stifle all inquiry; but they would never succeed in stifling the discontent which existed, till they inquired both into the proceedings of the 16th, and the proceedings of the coroner. He did not approve of the transactions of the 16th of August, but he was convinced that not half the agitation and disgust had been excited in the country by those transactions, as by some which unfortunately had followed them; the first, the unhappy fatality (for he blamed no one) by which the grand jury for the county of Lancaster threw out the bills which were presented to them. For if there had been a trial before a jury of the county, and one of the twelve judges of the land, not before a Lancashire magistrate, or an Oldham inquest, whatever the result had been, the country would have been satisfied with it. That was the first unfortunate circumstance; the second, was the conduct of the coroner at the different examinations, coupled with the subsequent proceedings at Warrington, and the ultimate adjournment of that inquest, as if with a view to prepare the way for putting an end to the inquiry altogether, in the way which was afterwards pursued: these facts, he feared, had made the breach between the people and the constituted authorities, if not irreparable, at least infinitely wider than it had been before. It was said by an hon. gentleman, that there were false statements in the petition, but this was no objection to the reception of the petition, nay, even in the present practice, it seemed to be no objection to a speech. When it was necessary to raise a false alarm, there was no objection made to a statement, that 100,000 men were in arms, out of a population of only 150,000 men, women and children, altogether. The physical impossibility was not thought of. It was rather deemed an argument to heighten the alarm. What! it was said, in so narrow a district as that between the Tyne and Weir, in a district with so few people, good God—100,000 men in arms! Then afterwards, in a place which he could not name, it was said by one noble lord, that the colliers on the Tyne were all in arms, to the number of 16,000. Another noble person immediately took up the subject, for both seemed on the occasion respondere parati, and said "yes, they are all in arms, not 16,000, but 16,600 exactly." [A laugh.] But now it turned out on the statement of the hon. member for Newcastle, that the whole of the colliers in the district barely amounted to between 15 and 16,000: so that not only more than the whole male population were armed above ground, but more than the whole population were armed under ground also. The hon. member for Durham had also told them, that out of the whole of the colliers, his own amounting to more than 1,000, were not in arms. But it seemed that in the fervour and enthusiasm of alarm, gentlemen did not care what statements were made, or what statements were believed; it reminded him of the Hudibrastic couplet, so often quoted— Certes, the pleasure is as great Of being cheated as to cheat. The petition was then read. It purported to be the petition of Robert Lees, of Oldham, in the county palatine of Lancaster, cotton spinner; and sat forth,

"That the petitioner's son John Lees, a youth twenty-two years of age, having attended the meeting held at Manchester, on the 16th of August last, was, as the petitioner is led to believe, without any just cause or provocation, most inhumanly attacked and cut by the yeomanry cavalry, and afterwards most unmercifully beaten by the clubs or batons of the police and special constables, and also trampled upon by the horses of the cavalry, whereby he was so much injured that he was from that time incapable of attending to his ordinary employment, and lingered in pain and debility until the night of the 6th of September following when he died; that the surgeon who attended the petitioner's son having certified that his death was occasioned by violence, several householders in Oldham and the neighbouring townships were served, late in the evening of the 7th of September, with summonses from the coroner of the district, to attend the next morning, at half-past ten o'clock, to serve as jurors on an inquest to be held on the body of the petitioner's son, and, at the time appointed, the said jurors assembled, and were met by a person named Battye, who attended as deputy for the said coroner for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of the death of the petitioner's son; and, having sworn the jury, he attended with them to take a view of the body, but finding that several witnesses had arrived from Manchester to give evidence upon the said inquiry, he refused to proceed in the inquest; and having adjourned the same for three hours, he at the expiration of that time further adjourned the same until the 10th day of the same month, when the said Battye promised that either Mr. Ferrand, his employer, or Mr. Milne, a neighbouring coroner, should certainly attend and proceed in the investigation; that, on the next day, a surgeon attended by the direction of the said Mr. Battye, to open and examine the body of the petitioner's son, and he was then allowed to be interred; that, on the 10th day of September, the jury again assembled; but, although Mr. Milne attended, he refused to interfere, in the business as he said it did not belong to his district, and the inquest was farther adjourned until the 25th day of the same month; and during this interval some of the Manchester newspapers inserted the vilest falsehoods to depreciate the reputation of the deceased, with a view as the petitioner believes, to extinguish every feeling of sympathy, for his fate; that, on the 25th of September, Mr. Ferrand attended, and after swearing the jury, and ascertaining from them that they had all seen the body, he proceeded to examine witnesses; but in the course of the investigation he adjourned several times for days together, without any reasonable or probable cause, and merely, as the petitioner believes, to harass and tire out the witnesses, who came day after day a considerable distance to give testimony; that in detailing his complaint to the House, the petitioner exceedingly regrets he should be under the necessity of impeaching the conduct of any individual, especially one employed in the administration of justice; but the petitioner is compelled by a regard to truth to declare that according to all the information he had received from numerous individuals who witnessed the proceedings of the inquest the coroner throughout evinced a manifest partiality for the magistrates and yeomanry cavalry of Manchester, to whose illegal and violent conduct the petitioner attributes the premature death of his son; that, among other things, the said Mr. Ferrand refused to allow the witnesses to give in evidence numerous acts of violence and atrocity committed by the said Manchester yeomanry upon the people so assembled at the meeting in St. Peter's Field, or to state the names of the said yeomanry, immediately before they entered the field, evincing a determination to perpetrate the violent acts of which the petitioner complains: that the said Mr. Ferrand prohibited the reading of the acts of parliament passed for the regulation of the conduct of coroners, whereby all coroners were directed to receive the species of evidence rejected by him on this occasion; that, in the progress of the investigation, the solicitor employed by the petitioner inquired of the coroner whether or no he had seen the body of the petitioner's son, to which inquiry he peremptorily and repeatedly refused to give any answer; but sometime afterwards he went secretly and clandestinely, in the middle of the night, and had the grave of the deceased opened for the purpose of seeing the body; by which extraordinary proceeding the town of Oldham, and the surrounding neighbourhood, were in some degree alarmed and agitated, whereupon the coroner stated that he found it necessary to adjourn his court to Manchester to pursue the investigation; that, at length on the 13th of October, when the evidence on both sides was, as the petitioner believes, brought very nearly to a close, the coroner, without offering even a pretext for such an unparalleled proceeding, adjourned the inquest until the 1st day of December instant; that the pe- titioner believes, from the evidence before the said coroner, that a verdict of wilful murder must and would have been given against many individuals engaged in the cruel attack before mentioned; and the petitioner is informed, that Mr. Ferrand the coroner, stated that he had no doubt such a verdict would be pronounced if he allowed the jury to come to a decision; and the petitioner has good reason to believe that the last mentioned adjournment was made solely with a view to screen and protect the delinquents who were likely to be affected by the verdict of the jury; that it being understood the said Mr. Ferrand, intended still further to adjourn the said inquest, an application was made in the last term, by the petitioner's solicitors, for a rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to be directed to the said Mr. Ferrand, directing him to proceed forthwith in the said inquisition; but the said Mr. Ferrand showed cause against such a writ being granted, and the court discharged the rule, as the petitioner understands, on the ground that Mr. Ferrand had probably rendered the proceedings of the said inquest invalid and nugatory by neglecting to view the body at the same time with the jury, that the said Mr. Ferrand, gladly availing himself of, and seizing with avidity the suggestion as to the illegality of the proceedings, wholly neglected to meet the jury on the 1st instant as he had appointed by his own adjournment, but, his clerk, Mr. Battye, stood at the door of the inn, and told the jury as they arrived that their attendance was no farther required, and that they might go about their business, and thus has terminated the proceedings on which alone the petitioner relied to bring the guilty before a superior court of judicature for trial, and ultimately justice; that it has been intimated, as the petitioner is informed, that the course of justice was not impeded by the proceedings of the before-mentioned inquest being set aside, because it was still open for the petitioner to proceed, either by obtaining a writ directing the magistrates of the county to take the inquisition, or by indictment before the grand jury, but, independent of the delay which must result by adopting either of these modes, the petitioner humbly submits to the House, whether it is not mocking his already agonized and harassed feelings, to refer him for justice to the very persons against whom he com- § plains, or to a body who are likely to be composed of their relatives and intimate friends, especially when it is considered that the prejudiced opinion of a similar body has been already evinced by their throwing out bills of indictment against several of the Manchester yeomanry for maliciously cutting down the unarmed and unoffending people on the melancholy 16th August, and by their extra judicial denunciation transmitted to government at the very last assizes held for the county of Lancaster, wherein, after assuming that, the people are misguided and disaffected, they impute to the lower classes in general, "that their object is to reverse the orders of society, and by force to seize and divide the landed property of the country among themselves:'' that the petitioner, considering that he had no immediate legal resources to bring to justice the authors of his son's death, has presumed to lay a simple statement of the facts before the House; and he therefore most earnestly supplicates the House to listen to the facts he has detailed, and' take them into immediate consideration, so that he may have the consolation to find that his grievances are heard, and that the House will afford him that redress which he cannot obtain or expect from the legal authorities of the country."

The several petitions were ordered to be printed.