Commons Sitting of 23 November 1819

ADDRESS ON THE PRINCE REGENT'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION.
The Speech of the Prince Regent having been read by the Speaker,
Mr. Somers Cocksrose to move an Address of Thanks. He said, that, approving as he did of the measures pursued by his majesty's government, and feeling it his duty, under existing circumstances, to avow his sentiments, he rose with much pleasure upon the present occasion to move an address, in answer to the speech from the throne. In doing this he trusted the House would extend to him that indulgence which they usually showed to a person, like himself, inexperienced in public speaking, and every way inadequate to the important task he had taken upon himself to discharge. He should feel it necessary, in the progress of what he was about to say, to offer a few observations upon the variety of topics which formed the subject of the speech from the throne. Unaccustomed to public debate, and of course to that accuracy of language acquired by habit and experience, he felt apprehensive he should not be able to express himself with all the clearness he desired. The first subject alluded to in the speech from the throne was one upon which no difference of opinion could arise, he meant the lamented continuation of his majesty's illness. Upon this there could be only one feeling, that of profound regret. The House, he was assured, would be unanimous in their accordance with this part of the speech. In calling upon them to express such a sentiment, it was impossible at the same time not to make some allusion to the moral and religious character for which their revered sovereign was, at every period of his life, distinguished. Though afflicted, and labouring under so awful a visitation, he still hoped he would long remain; and that the examples of domestic and public virtues which he had at all times set, would impress the minds of those who revered him, with a desire to follow in the same course. In thus adverting to his majesty's virtues, above all to his habitual and exemplary attention to the sacred duties of religion, every one, who paid any attention to late events, must reflect with sorrow and apprehension, that feelings of the most opposite nature were now attempted to be impressed on the
52
minds of the labouring classes. Men were seen engaged in this diabolical duty, and exerting themselves in it with as much zeal as if they were the harbingers of substantial and real good. Was it not horrid, that they who cried loudly against abuses, who pretended to be the friends of the people, should thus attempt to deprive them of the best sources of consolation here, and of hope hereafter?—The second subject alluded to in the speech was one of the highest importance. The House was called together at this unusual season in consequence of the disturbed and alarming state in which some districts of the country were placed. He need not remind them of the general and eager anxiety with which the present meeting of parliament was viewed by all classes. Never perhaps was there a period when the eyes of the nation were more attentively fixed on them; when public curiosity was more anxiously turned on their proceedings. When late events were taken into consideration, the insidious and persevering attempts made to undermine the foundations of the constitution, to make religion a subject of mockery, and thereby to enervate the influence of the laws; when persons were heard proclaiming doctrines of the most dangerous nature, and inculcating them on assembled multitudes with all their force and zeal, doctrines utterly destructive of religion, of law, of happiness; when all this was Considered, they must feel confident that an occasion more important than the present could not possibly arise. He trusted he should be borne out in his appeal to the House, whether under such circumstances, and in such times, the difficulties were not such as ought to form a point of union for both sides of the House—whether they were not such as should unite the suffrages of all, in some strong, though temporary measures equally for the advantage of all. The constitution was now threatened; that constitution, which in his soul he believed to be, above all other human institutions, the best calculated to secure and preserve the happiness of a nation. To it they were indebted for all that was most valuable in life. It was the system best adapted to the preservation of their rights: the system which afforded the greatest protection against the encroachments of oppressive power, from whatever quarter its attacks might be directed. He should not attempt to dwell upon this subject. He felt himself

53
inadequate to describe in fit terms the blessings they enjoyed from that constitution, so long the boast of all who lived under it, and the admiration of the wisest and best of men. The most able eulogist, the most eloquent man that ever opened his lips within the walls of that House, could not touch upon such a subject without feeling his inability to do it justice. To support this constitution was their first and most important duty. If it was allowed on all hands that attempts were making to overthrow it, that designs for that purpose had been long in active progress, and so far from ceasing were gaining strength; if the proofs of this were so manifest as to require no confirmation, it was their first duty to stand forward for its preservation, to cling with one accord to that bulwark of their rights, to protect, preserve, and hand down to posterity the blessings it afforded. If danger did in reality exist, the question now was, from what quarter did it come; and if once ascertained, it was natural and constitutional to ask the House, whether they should suffer the cause any longer to exist? If he thought it proceeded from the Crown, he should in that event be as willing to come forward in the performance of a public duty as he was at present. It could not, however, be traced to such a source. Ministers acted in the usual way, upon those recognised constitutional principles from which no danger could be apprehended. Feeling convinced, therefore, that the cause of apprehension could not be traced to the Crown, they must look for the source of it elsewhere. When they considered what had been lately done in various parts of the country, the meetings that had taken place, the manner in which those meetings were held, the sentiments expressed by the leading speakers, their flags, and their whole system of proceeding, was it not clear that dangerous attempts were in preparation, and was it not equally clear from whence those attempts were to be apprehended? The danger could not be referred to the conduct of ministers. They adhered to established customs, and adhered to them perhaps too strictly, under existing circumstances, under the systematic endeavours now making to overturn all law and social order, every Messing, civil as well as religious. Every man who considered events with attention, must feel that the danger did not proceed from the Crown, and if it did exist he
54
would again appeal to the House, whether it was not fit it should be repressed—whether all should not unite their endeavours to put it down? It would be lamentable indeed, if, upon the present occasion, any party feelings existing in the House could be made instrumental towards their purpose by those whose object was to overturn the constitution. He trusted, that upon the present occasion no consideration of that kind would be allowed to operate, and that they would all concur towards the removal of a danger that threatened the happiness, the life, and the property of all. In quiet times he approved of a regular opposition; but when imminent peril threatened the country, it was not a fit occasion for that sort of political hostility which, under other circumstances, had its advantages. If, then, the danger existed, and could not be traced to the Crown, from whence did it proceed? From whence, but from the sources alluded to in the speech from the throne? From men who strove to instill into the minds of the people a tendency to sedition—from persons bankrupt alike in property, in knowledge, in character, and principle,—from a set of demagogues more infamous if possible, than the detestable object to which they aspired. Had they not seen them use every means within their reach to create sedition and disaffection, to undermine all principles of loyalty and morality, to destroy and confound all the common feelings of humanity? It was notorious that they endeavoured, and were unfortunately too successful, to induce the poor to look forward to the possessions of the rich. It was impossible, even upon a superficial view, not to see what their object was. Not only had they done all this—they even strove to aggravate the distress, that they might thereby increase the troubles of the country. It was notorious, that during the late harvest the surplus population of the manufacturing districts did not proceed as usual from one county to another in which there was a demand for labour. They remained at home, and thereby increased the distress. This was to be attributed to no other cause, but the meetings, the speeches, and the publications of which they had lately heard so much. The leaders at those meetings, and the persons who composed them talked of reform; but what did the word reform mean with them? Was it employed in the usual sense of a calm, temperate,

55
and moderate change of measures? in the sense applied to it in other times and by other men? No such thing. With them reform meant, if it meant any thing, such an alteration as it would be impossible to adopt without ruin to the constitution. As they used it, it did not apply to any mode of reform ever before suggested. It took in universal suffrage and vote by ballot. It was in fact a cant term, and meant nothing less than Revolution. All these alarming proceedings, however, it was said, arose only from the natural workings of a free constitution, and that no real danger existed. He wished it might be the case; but when he considered the information received from various parts of the country, the efforts made to bring large bodies of men together from distant parts, the doctrines preached up to them, their military organisation, their flags and all the other attendant circumstances, he could not consider their plans innocent. It should be recollected that in 1816, those who were anxious to produce revolution expressed their determination to carry on the system by occasional meetings for the purpose, as they stated, of giving confidence to their adherents by a display of their strength. This was the plan proposed for effecting their object. Had they not, accordingly, from that period forward witnessed their meetings, from time to time, at various places, and that they became more numerous every day? It was notorious that they pursued a plan of military organisation. To what else could be attributed their regularly marching from place to place, with banners and flags inscribed with mottos of a most treasonable nature? With respect to these and various other points, he did not pretend to have his information from more than the common sources of intelligence, but it was evident that such proceedings could arise from, nothing less than designs of a dangerous tendency. What must be the feelings of peaceable inhabitants under such circumstances? In the towns where they took place it was impossible that the people could feel their houses, their lives, or their property secure. He would put it to the House, whether, if such things were to be continued, the law, as it stood, could be sufficient for protection? How could it be sufficient, when an attempt to comply with the letter of the law, as it stood, had a directly contrary effect? As to the principal actors in those troubles,
56
their study, was, at least they pretended to adhere strictly to law in the manner of calling and holding their meetings; but who was so blind as not to see that this was mere pretence, that they acted in this manner for no other purpose than the better to accomplish their nefarious views?—There was one subject much talked of, upon which he should decline giving any opinion at present. It was natural, however, to expect, that upon an occasion like the present, he should allude to it. He had not sufficient information to give a decided opinion; but he wished it to be understood, that, judging from the intelligence he had hitherto any opportunity of receiving, he saw no reason why the examination of the matter should be taken out of the usual course. He was not disposed to enter into discussions on subjects of law, nor was he acquainted with them; but there was one principle which he thought a most just and proper one, namely, that every Englishman should be presumed innocent until he had been declared guilty by a jury of his countrymen. If this principle was in any one instance carried further than in another, it was with respect to the persons who composed the Manchester meeting. Their innocence was the theme of much declamation, and of many publications. They had, the full benefit of the principle. There was, however, another maxim not less just, namely, that no man should be put upon his trial until he was before a jury. With respect to the magistrates and yeomanry in the affair alluded to, he must say that this maxim was not very anxiously observed. They were, on the contrary, before their case came to be heard by any jury, unhesitatingly pronounced guilty. They were treated in a manner which to him appeared most unfair. When it appeared that a grand jury, upon their oath, and upon evidence received upon oath, did not find bills of indictment against them, this might not be thought sufficient, but when he reflected on all the circumstances, he must say, that there did not seem to him sufficient ground for taking this matter out of the usual course. It would not be fair and just, while a subject was before a court of law, to bring it before another tribunal. He was aware of the delicacy of this question, but still he felt it his duty to make some allusion, to it. He did not mean to imply blame, but he lamented the attempts made in certain quarters to inflame the passions

57
of the people with respect to this unfortunate transaction. These attempts were repeated by those who had the means within reach, by publication, of giving them additional force. He was desirous that the distinction between those who opposed the government, and those who opposed the existing order of things, might be strictly defined and made known. He knew the distinction was as broad as possible; but still it was important that it should be broadly expressed; nor should it be omitted, under existing circumstances, from a wish which naturally enough might prevail of leaning to one side for the purpose of gaining strength to a party.—There was another part of the speech which he felt it necessary to touch upon; the increase of the military force of the country. Now that they were at peace with foreign powers, and that there was every prospect of better times, it was greatly to be lamented that a necessity should have arisen for making any addition to the army, for the protection of the peaceable and well-disposed. If, however, they required such protection, it was the duty of government to afford it. What would be their feelings, if family, life, property, and all they held dear, were to be left in times of danger without necessary protection? Strong measures, at least for a short time, were now perhaps as necessary as at any former period; all should unite to preserve the existing order of things. This determination once made manifest, and these measures once adopted, would show the country that they were determined not to allow the mischievous plans now contemplated to proceed any further. If the exertions of the country were thus once roused, it would soon put an end to the views of the men who sought the overthrow of the constitution. He hoped the sentiments and information conveyed in the speech from the throne would have their effect, and that every thing would be done to check the diabolical system now in progress. Having said thus much, he should not trouble the House further, but should conclude by moving,
"That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to return the thanks of this House to his Royal Highness for his most gracious speech from the throne:
"To express to his Royal Highness the great concern with which we receive the intimation of the continuance of his majesty's lamented indisposition.
58
"To assure his Royal Highness that we learn with the deepest regret that the seditious practices so long prevalent in some of the manufacturing districts of the country have been continued with increased activity since we were last assembled in parliament; that they have led to proceedings incompatible with the peaceful habits of the industrious classes of the community: and that a spirit is now fully manifested utterly hostile to the constitution of this kingdom, and aiming not only at the change of those political institutions which have hitherto constituted the pride and security of this country, but at the subversion of the rights of property, and of all order in society.
"To return our thanks to his Royal Highness for his gracious intention to lay before parliament the necessary information on this subject; and to assure his Royal Highness, that we shall not fail to apply our immediate and most anxious attention to the consideration of such measures as may be found requisite for the counteraction and suppression of a system which, if not effectually checked, must bring confusion and ruin on the nation;
"To thank his Royal Highness for having directed the estimates for the ensuing year to be laid before us:
"To assure his Royal Highness that while we regret the necessity of providing for the protection of the lives and property of his majesty's loyal subjects by any addition to our military force, we shall be happy to find that the arrangements for this purpose have been made in the manner likely to be least burthensome to the country:
"To express our satisfaction at being informed, that though the revenue has undergone some fluctuations, it appears to be again in a course of progressive improvement:
"That we deeply lament with his Royal Highness the distress experienced by many of our fellow subjects in consequence of the depression which still continues to exist in some branches of our manufactures, and earnestly join in the hope expressed by his Royal Highness that it may be found to arise from causes of a temporary nature:
"That we hear with much satisfaction the friendly disposition of foreign powers towards this country, and gratefully acknowledge his Royal Highness's anxious wish to take advantage of this season of peace to secure and advance our in-

59
ternal prosperity, fully sensible however that the successful prosecution of this important object must essentially depend on the preservation of domestic tranquillity:
"To assure his Royal Highness that he may rely with the most perfect confidence on the loyalty of the great body of the people; but that we are at the same time fully convinced, that it will require our utmost vigilance and exertion, collectively and individually, to check the dissemination of the doctrines of treason and impiety, and to impress upon the minds of all classes of his majesty's subjects, that it is from the cultivation of the principle of religion, and from a just subordination to lawful authority, that we on alone expect the continuance of that Divine favour and protection which has hitherto been so signally experienced by this kingdom."
Mr. Edward Custsaid:—In rising, Sir, to second the motion of my hon. friend, I feel that I have to appeal to the more than ordinary indulgence of the House, inasmuch as I now, for the very first time in my life venture to address any public assembly, much less one like the present, in which my inferiority is so evidently apparent; nor, can I hold out as an excuse for my presumption in presenting myself to their notice any hopes of recompensing them for their time and their patience by force of language or extent of information which those of my predecessors on this duty may have afforded, who have had leisure and opportunity of devoting their early years to those studies which are more essentially useful to a member of parliament; mine has been passed in a profession which did not afford me such advantages, and in the prosecution of duties not at all analogous to those which I have now taken upon myself to perform. I think, Sir, there never was a time in which it would be more fortunate that unanimity in this House should prevail, than the present. The eyes of the country, and almost of the world, are turned upon us to learn our sentiments at this momentous period, when a party, humble, it is true, in the origin and the importance of its votaries, but not at all mean, if we may judge of their proceedings, in the abilities of their leaders, whoever they are, have, by a series of the almost unwarrantable exertions of their rights, created so great a ferment in the country, and assumed a position, so formidable,
60
as to impress upon the peaceable and well-disposed part of the community a well-founded apprehension as to their ulterior designs. His royal highness the Prince Regent, certainly not needlessly alarmed, but with a well-founded confidence in the wisdom and the counsels of his parliament, has called us together at a period much earlier than of late years it has been customary, that he might be informed as to the extent of the danger, and be advised in the remedy for it. I am sure that the House will fully participate in what has fallen from my hon. friend, as to the beneficial effects this country has derived from the character and example of our excellent and venerable sovereign, and I am sure, there is not an individual in this House or in the country, who does not at the mere mention of his beloved and revered name, recur with pleasure to the many virtues that adorned his character, and to the eminent services that he rendered to his country. But, Sir, whilst we all deeply deplore the severe calamity which it has pleased Providence to visit him with, we may perhaps be allowed to rejoice that, it is not permitted him to know, that his people, whom his firmness and perseverance saved in the hour of the greatest danger, when the principles which were then first broached by the French revolution were new, and the pernicious effects of them unknown, are, now that they are become matter of history and example, preparing to transfer to the page of our history the follies, as well as the eccentric crimes (as they have been called) of that great school of iniquity. I think it will scarcely be denied that a very bad and dangerous spirit exists in the country—a spirit which takes delight in browbeating our judges in their judgment seats, and in abusing all indiscriminately who are placed high by birth or situation in the country. It is no longer the echo only of that abuse which has been so lavishly levelled against every measure of every minister of the Crown for the last century, and which is likely soon to become the only perquisite of office. It now aspires to attack the Crown itself, and all who are placed in authority under it. To be a member of the aristocracy is declared to be a member of corruption, and even those of the democracy are alone pure who wear white hats, or have lungs strong enough to address a Smithfield meeting. That reform is the declared and only alleged cause of the discontents that have,

61
for the last few years, prevailed in this kingdom is, by the discontented themselves, avowed; nor have they hesitated to acknowledge, that they will obtain it by physical force if" they cannot do so by other means. This is not now the time to discuss that question; but I may perhaps be allowed to remark, that innovation, at all times hazardous, is incontestibly dangerous, when backed by threats and clamour. But I trust, Sir, we are Britons still, and not to be frightened by the open declarations of the former, nor to be bullied into compliance against our judgments by the unceasing efforts of the latter. I am not one of those who conceive that reform is, in every one's mouth, the watchword of rebellion, nor that we are to conceive ourselves upon the eve of a revolution whenever that subject is mooted; but I must say, that such wholesale attempts at improvement are more likely to be dangerous than beneficial; and a question which is so evidently directed against the prejudices which always attend existing things, merits at least more dispassionate inquiry than we seemed inclined to bring to the question; and it is but fair to ask, what advantages have we in prospect that would at all compensate for the risk we run in attempting such a change in our situation? It is not for me, Sir, to state, nor is this the opportunity to discuss what may be the measures to be proposed, to use the words of his royal highness's speech, "for the counteraction and suppression of a system which, if not effectually checked, must bring confusion and ruin on the nation;" but I would say to those who profess to see in any measures, a revolution at hand from the encroachment of the Crown, if, indeed, there are men in these days who really believe this (and I must own, I can scarcely credit the public prints when they register it as the expressed opinion of a peer of the realm), to them, if they exist in the plural number, I would say, that assuredly the best plan to prevent our liberties from being encroached upon is, to quench the spirit which affords the excuse for it. It has been an opinion given in the House by an hon. and learned gentleman opposite, that the best way to effect this, is by employing sound reasoning and rational argument. To him I believe, Sir, we must leave this Herculean task; but I think the country has some reason to complain, that, as from the applause which was stated to have followed that
62
sentiment, it was led to believe it was the opinion of the gentlemen with whom he is in the habit of acting, no attempt of this sort has been made by them, seeing that they profess to possess the confidence of the people. Assuredly if it is practicable at all, it can only be employed by those to whom the people will listen. We certainly cannot expect from them a confession of the sad state they are fallen into in this respect; but perhaps we shall find the best excuse for the omission, in the known fact, that the people will not listen to them, unless they have a radical reformer at their elbow. That measures of some sort are necessary, will not, I think, be denied; but the House is not called upon by my hon. friend to pledge itself as to the nature and extent of those measures. I should hope that the gentlemen opposite will refrain from disturbing the unanimity which I hope will attend this night's debate, by confounding the nature of those measures: with their necessity. The latter may fairly be considered as part of the question before the House, and whether the former be conviction, conciliation, or concession, can alone be fairly argued when that matter is brought regularly before the House. I am aware that some gentlemen who are come up from parts of the country where the utmost tranquillity prevails, believe the alarm that has been spread to have been exaggerated, because there has been no cause for it in their own immediate neighbourhood; but I think, upon reflection, they will be satisfied that there must be some other object to be attained than a legitimate redress of grievances, from incessant meetings of multitudes, simultaneously assembled in various parts of the country, not assembling at their own homes and habitations, but marching with all the pride, pomp, and circumstance of war, from distant parts to their places of rendezvous. And here the House will have the goodness to remark, that those rendezvous were in the heart of populous districts, not arrayed as in prosecution of their ordinary occupation, but armed with weapons of defence, attended with republican and revolutionary emblems, and with banners and music in military array, according to the common-sense interpretation of the expression, however lawyers may dispute the propriety of it. Assuredly the well-disposed citizens of those towns, equally alive to the interests of the country with these

63
self-termed patriots, have a good claim upon our interference and protection, that they may not be interrupted in their daily occupations, nor be exposed to the caprice of a mob, the temper of which no one can measure. It has been maintained by some, I know, that the tranquillity which has attended the late meetings throughout the country, is a proof that no restrictive measures at all are necessary; but I would implore the House not to be led away by such delusive appearances, nor to wait until anarchy and atheism stalk openly over the land, before it stretches forth its authority to stay them. Yes, Sir, there has undoubtedly been an appearance of tranquillity; but it is the tranquillity of a lion waiting for his prey. There has been the apparent absence of danger; but it is that in a fire half smothered by the weight of its own combustible materials, which is ready to blaze forth again upon the least accidental movement. It is the suspense of disaffected persons, partly alarmed at the magnitude of their own intentions, and partly appalled by the preparations used against them. Nor will the House fail to remark the specious pretext it affords them for declaiming against those preparations, while it at the same time affords them a cloak under which they can carry on their ulterior designs. But, Sir, if the meetings themselves have been peaceable (and I have too good an opinion of John Bull to believe he would ever be otherwise, unless seduced and imposed upon), what shall be said of the resolutions that have emanated from them? Take, for example, the 6th and 7th resolutions of the late meeting for Middlesex, where it is openly declared, that if parliament shall enact any measures which are contrary to their philosophy, it is not to be considered a statute, but an error or corruption, and ought resolutely to be holden for naught. Under what definition of returning tranquillity may I ask, is such doctrine as this to be included? With regard to the increase of the military force of the country, of course the House will receive the necessary information from those whose duty it is to afford it: of course the executive power is bound to afford protection to the lives and property of his majesty's subjects. But as it is always an object of such proper constitutional jealousy to employ the military upon this duty, we have a right to expect the fullest evidence of its necessity; but I think we have very good pre-
64
sumptive evidence of that, from the known character of the gallant general who commands in the disturbed districts. Nobody will, I think, accuse him of being art alarmist; or, were he so accused, he would receive an instant exculpation from the mouth of every British officer or soldier who has seen him before an enemy, and who can nobly testify that he never knew fear, excepting that of sacrificing his gallant countrymen. It was, I presume, upon his report of the state of the district in which he commands, that it was considered necessary to increase the military force intrusted to him. This necessarily drained the rest of the country of troops, and although there was no immediate necessity for troops in the counties where every thing was quiet, it was impossible to say how soon these pedlars of sedition might carry their wares of discord into the most peaceable regions. But, Sir, my hon. friend calls upon the House for no approbation on this point. It is resolved into the question of the seditious practices, the evidences of which his royal highness has promised to lay before us and there will be a still farther opportunity of discussing it, when the army estimates are before the House. All that the House is called upon by my hon. friend to approve is, that this object has been accomplished in the manner least burthen some to the people. I think, Sir, it would be unnecessarily taking up the time of the House to say a word upon this subject. The men who have been embodied in consequence, have been receiving in retirement the full amount of pay, for which they are now called upon to serve their country; and, dividing the question, as the House ought in fairness to do, of the expediency of calling out any troops, and the manner in which it has been provided, I think there will be but one opinion in the House upon the latter. It will, as I conceive, only afford pleasure to those sober patriots who have determined to drink no excisable liquors, unless they have been smuggled, that the revenue in the last quarter has been deficient; but it must give sincere pleasure to all to hear that it has already begun to improve. It is not, I think, at any time a fair conclusion for despondency that the revenue in any one quarter has been deficient: various causes may occasion this. The result of the whole year is the only true criterion; and of that his royal highness's assurances afford a prospect; and if it is already in a

65
state of improvement, we have good reason to hope that we shall not be disappointed—Sir, it must afford all parties the sincerest gratification to find that the peace of Europe remains undisturbed, and the assurances his royal highness has received of the peaceful disposition of foreign powers, receives additional weight from the testimony of travellers as to the disposition of the people over whom they govern. The nations of the continent, not so blest as we in the hour of danger, know too well the calamities of war to hazard a recurrence, and tired of speculative opinions by which they have so much suffered, they are anxious to make use of this season of repose to recover from the pernicious effects of them, and to improve their moral condition. I wish I could also add, that I saw any prospect of improvement in their political; but the name of liberty has been so polluted by some of its modern professors, that it may well be a question with them whether they had not,
"—Rather bear the ills they have,
Than fly to others that they know not of."
It must give sincere regret to the real friends of liberty that this prostitution of her name prevents the dissemination of her benefits, and thus
"Enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn away,
And lose the name of action."
I am sure, Sir, his Royal Highness need not doubt that parliament will make every exertion in its power to advance our internal prosperity, and, notwithstanding the abuse which is so unsparingly levelled at it by the factious and the turbulent, it merits the applause of the world by its unremitting efforts in the cause of humanity. The House of Commons, Sir, best refutes the calumnies that are heaped upon it by its unceasing efforts to do good, and presents, indeed, much to that heart who can descry nothing but abuses, when we behold the time and the talents of the ablest and best men in the country gratuitously employed in it to ameliorate the condition of their fellow creatures, whether the sick or the poor, the prisoner Or the slave; and it is worth while for the country to consider, whether, when the pseudo-patriots of the present day shall have reformed this House according to their ideas of its pristine excellence, we shall find them as ready or as capable to attend to the condition of the poor and destitute, or to ex-
66
cite, as the House of Commons has done, the emulation and applause of rival nations. I am sure, Sir, it must be the cause of sincere regret to every well-wisher of his country, to see the progress which infidelity and impiety have made in the country. Good God! that Britain, the nurse of morality and protectress of religion, when she was almost an outcast, should have the disgrace of having it recorded in her annals, that within the walls of an English court of justice, Christianity was impugned, and that it was declared, and attempted to be maintained, that the Holy Book, incontestably proved by the evidence of a nation hostile to our belief, to be of Divine origin, that the oracles of the living God was declared to be a blasphemy and a lie! Will it be said there is no cause for alarm in such doctrine; or can it be urged that it is but the opinion of an individual, and not connected with the spirit that is abroad? Would that I could persuade myself it were so; but what says the convicted wretch himself of the profits of his iniquitous trade? How many honest bosoms, alas! may have been infected with this doctrine of hell? Into how many houses may it not have found its way, where sedition has already opened the door; where the wife perhaps is a member of the Female Reform Society; and the children of the Juvenile? And will not she who has sworn to instil into the minds of her progeny contempt for all allegiance and all authority, be easily induced to include that of a disbelief in the word of God? But, Sir, we must not forget, that religion has received a blow before; the liturgy of the church of Eng-gland is, to the members of that church almost as dear as the Bible itself; but yet this has been reviled and scoffed at, and what is worse, its scoffers not only escaped punishment but met with encouragement. I complain not of the jury who returned their verdict; there may have been a lack of evidence to bring the fact home to the accused; for aught I know it is not an offence against the statute. But, Sir, if it is not one, it is assuredly high time it should be made one. It is not the cause of one religion alone, but of all religions: Jews and Christians, Catholics and Protestants, all are alike interested in upholding the precepts of religion, for if it is fundamentally attacked in one, it is virtually so in all; and in what are we elevated above the savage and the slave, but in the knowledge and worship of the true God?

67
I feel, Sir, I have ill requited the kind attention of the House by the call I have made upon its patience; but I will conclude by earnestly imploring the House to sink all party differences upon this occasion, and whether Whig or Tory, or Reformer, that they will unite in conveying to the throne their unanimous determination to suppress a system which brings liberty into disgrace by debasing it, and which is not more directed against the throne, than against the real happiness and interests of the people; and that they will show by their unanimity to-night, to the country and to the world, that however they may differ in their opinions as to the means of bettering their country, they are all equally alive to its salvation, and that violence and clamour will only make them closer rally round the constitution as it is—pro aris et focis.
Mr. Tierneyrose. He said, that the ordinary manner in which a speech from the throne was received was, that no gentleman should oppose the address unless it contained something directly committing the House. He had little inclination, in the present instance, to deviate from the usual practice, especially after the construction that had been put upon the address by the hon. mover and seconder, from which it appeared, that all that was stated in the royal speech as assertion, would on some future occasion be made out by the papers to be presented to parliament. If those facts were not established, his temporary concurrence in what the address contained would of course be revoked. Although he might give his assent thus qualified to what had just been read from the chair, he felt called upon to say, that it did not comprise all that, under the circumstances of the country, it ought to have included. Looking at those circumstances, he felt that he was imperatively called upon to claim the attention of the House to an amendment he should in conclusion submit. He was as much aware as any man, indeed, more than many men who had not had the same parliamentary experience, of the inconvenience of offering an amendment on the first day of a session, because many persons who did not object to the matter of an amendment, resisted it merely because it was presented in that obnoxious shape; he should therefore have abstained, had he felt that the important object he had in view could be otherwise as satisfactorily
68
accomplished. As the kingdom was now situated, it was the duty of every member not to lose a moment in coming forward to state his opinion fairly and freely to the world, not merely by an acquiescence in an echo of the royal speech, but by a full disclosure of the sentiments by which he was actuated. No man could feel more deeply than himself the melancholy condition in which the country was placed: no man, he assured the hon. mover, could have heard with more disgust, with more abhorrence, than he had, the blasphemous doctrines, the farther promulgation of which the laws had now happily suppressed. This was not a subject on which he wished to enlarge, because the present was not the most fit occasion: he would only state generally, that the abhorrence he had felt was not exceeded by that of any gentleman present. It was attended, however, with this great consolation—a consolation in which others participated—that however extensive and daring the evil might be, it had been seen that the law was able to correct it. He did not believe that impiety, as some contended, had been widely spread; and it was his firm conviction, from what he had seen of various parts of the kingdom, and from the comparison he had been able to make with other countries, that a nation more pious, more devoted to its duty to God, and more sincere in its religion, was not to be found in the whole circuit of the globe. He had a right to express his confidence in this persuasion the more decidedly, because it had been stated on the other side of the House, and generally allowed, that the piety of the country had so enlarged itself, that the churches already built were not able to contain it. There was not room enough in the ordinary places of worship for the surplus piety (if he might so call it) of the country; and it became absolutely necessary to erect a number of new churches. It was therefore somewhat strange to hear it now urged, that such had been the rapid progress of impiety that the laws of the country were incompetent to put it down. If they were incompetent, he was ready instantly to vote for new laws; but he had yet seen nothing which did not prove that backed by the honest, upright, and Christian feeling of every jury in the kingdom, they were amply sufficient. The political state of the country was very different: dissatisfaction or disaffection, by

69
some called treason, pervaded the kingdom or, more properly, certain quarters of the kingdom: for he was happy to say, that it did not extend beyond the manufacturing districts. He was quite ready to admit, that if the existing laws were not adequate to remove it, or prevent its consequences—if treason or insurrection could not be quelled by laws now in force, new ones ought to be passed, and that without delay; but had that case been made out? or could it be made out? He desired to be distinctly understood as not setting his face against additional and extraordinary measures, if the necessity were shown; but, at the same time he was anxious to guard himself against a supposed admission, that the existing laws were not sufficient to maintain obedience and tranquillity. He believed at present (but he might be wrong), that nothing was wanting but a vigilant and wholesome exertion of the magistracy—nothing but fairness and firmness on the part of the government—to do all that the law authorized, and the circumstances required. If, on the other hand, no such disposition existed, and if the people were taught by facts to believe, that the existing law was not equally administered to all ranks, not only new laws might be required, but he would go further, and say, that he knew not what new laws could be devised that would be effectual in keeping down a people that had no respect for the government and the constituted authorities of the land. The House would do him the justice to recollect, that he had always represented that what was now witnessed would be the result. He had long since warned ministers, though in vain, on the subject of taxation, which had grown worse and worse, and heavier and heavier from day to day, until at last the burthen was intolerable. He had told them, over and over again, that the resources of the country, great as they undoubtedly were, were not inexhaustible: they had more confidence in them than he had felt: he had seen millions after millions voted, and spent as soon as voted—nay, sometimes before they were voted; and he had been called almost an enemy to social order and happiness, because he had maintained, that the day would ere long arrive, when it would be seen that he was not in the wrong, and that it would have been better for ministers to have paused in their career of profusion, and confined their lavish expenditure to nar-
70
rower limits. Where, then, was the real root of all our grievances? The pressure of taxes—a pressure which the country could not bear; by which more was to be extracted from its inhabitants than they could produce, consistently With their own reasonable comforts and conveniences. The nation was over-taxed, and that was the root of the evil. This was strong language, but not too strong: facts compelled him to use it; and a dreary prospect of those facts had formerly compelled him to declare the same opinions. Gentlemen on the other side never could be brought to admit, that any thing could possibly be wrong on the subject of taxation and revenue. It was here that they held themselves immaculate and above instruction. Even in the speech just delivered from the throne, there was what he should call, but that it proceeded from the royal lips, a miserable attempt to raise a fallacious hope. It was said that there had been some fluctuation in the revenue, and from thence it was inferred, that a continued improvement must take place; this was a wretched expedient—a poor attempt on the part of ministers to avail themselves of a temporary rise, artificially produced, and which could not be progressive, to delude the country with the empty vision of returning prosperity. It only showed how much the revenue sympathised with the meeting or prorogation of parliament: when the Houses assembled, it was contrived that the revenue should be always better, and when they adjourned, it gradually proceeded from bad to worse. It was not necessary to trouble the House by reading it; for it could scarcely be forgotten, that only nine months ago the country was congratulated from the throne on the commerce, the revenue, and the trade of the kingdom being in the most flourishing condition. These were the very words employed. Did ministers believe what they then asserted? If they did not, they had imposed upon the nation; and if they did, the House ought never again to listen to such men on any subject, much less on the subject of finance. An artificial and temporary improvement was called a fluctuation; and then it was idly held out that things were rapidly coming round, and that prosperity would soon be restored. This might be a pleasant topic for a royal speech; but it was most mischievous in the country; and only showed how radically wrong matters must be,

71
when, in the face of all the distress by which the people were afflicted, ministers attempted a delusion, by stating, that, if there were any distress at all, it would quickly be removed by the gradual and certain improvement of the revenue. He asserted, without fear of contradiction from any merchant in the realm, that such a stagnation of trade was never before known. Ask any and every manufacturer what was the state of his business, and what would he the answer? It never was at a lower ebb; and within a short time meetings of the agriculturists had been held, at which it was declared, that some assistance was necessary for them. The labouring classes would assert, and with truth, that wages were so low that they could not maintain their families by their severest exertions; and the paltry pittance of the poor-laws, to eke out a miserable subsistence, while it did not furnish support, weakened and broke down the honest and upright spirit of industry which used to be the happy characteristic of the people of England. Seeing all this, was it necessary to talk about sedition and treason? Treason and sedition he did not believe existed; but who could hope that the great body of the nation would not be in a state of miserable discontent? Could it be otherwise? He was an alarmist—an alarmist to a certain extent, though not, perhaps, on the grounds that many other gentlemen rested their fears. Every man was in terror; and his apprehensions grew out of what he best understood; but he felt as much general alarm as any man in the House; and it might not be improper for him to state a few of the causes of that alarm, and of the mischiefs that now afflicted the land. He was bound to speak out; and though liable to misconstruction, and though a clamour might be raised against him, he was determined to do his duty to his country and to himself. His settled conviction was, that there did not exist among the inhabitants of the country that confidence in the House of Commons that could be wished [continual cheers from the Opposition side]. That conviction did not pervade merely those who, to give every thing a name, had been called radicals; but it had penetrated much further and much higher; and many of those who wisely condemned the visionary schemes of reform at present afloat, were satisfied that there was something wrong is the state of repre-
72
sentation, or the nation could never have been reduced to the condition in which it now found itself. What had reduced it to that condition? Had the House refused to ministers any of the means of carrying on war? Had it been sparing in its votes for national improvements? Had it refused to make new laws when they were asked for? Had it resisted the raising of additional troops? or had it, in short, objected to comply with any request ministers thought fit to make? Certainly not. How happened it, then, that in the result the revenue was so deficient; that trade was stagnated; that the stocks fell; and that the House was to be told that there was not law enough to control sedition, or troops enough to prevent rebellion? How happened all these things; and above all, how could ministers now venture to demand that "new confidence should be reposed in them for having thus brought the nation to the brink of ruin and despair? These were not merely the opinions of the radicals in public meetings, but of sober, discreet men in private societies. Though they were unwilling to make an open avowal of their sentiments, they entertained them in fact, and parliamentary reform had been gradually working its way for years; and it was now almost universally admitted, that the great mass of the people did not feel that the present state of the representation was beneficial to them. It would be to bely the sentiments he had entertained through life, if he denied that he was honestly and sincerely a friend to parliamentary reform. Yet he was in no way a radical reformer; and he thanked the hon. mover for his fairness in admitting that there might be distinctions in the different classes of reformers. If asked whether he had not changed some of his opinions upon this subject, he would freely confess that he had: he was not ashamed to confess that as he became older, if he had not become wiser, he had at least become more cautious; and for many of the schemes to which he had formerly listened with ardour, he was not now so warm an advocate. That great improvements might, however, be made in the state of the representation—that those great alterations might be accomplished, not only without the smallest hazard, but with additional safety to the constitution, was as undeniable as that the majority of the nation demanded that those improvements should be effected.

73
The question of parliamentary reform was first started during the American war; it was afterwards supported by Mr. Pitt, who did more than any man to diffuse a general inclination in its favour. It afterwards slept for some few years when he abandoned it; and it might still have continued to slumber had the nation found that the House of Commons, as at present formed, was practically beneficial. But, finding every day that things grew worse and worse—that the burden of taxes was increased, while the means of paying them were annihilated—the nation now again insisted on a remedy; and it was not unreasonable that they should look for that remedy in a change in the representation. The nation laid the blame on the House of Commons, which called itself the guardian of the public purse: if the public money had been squandered and misapplied, were ought the blame to rest but with the House of Commons? The House claimed to itself the privilege of maintaining the rights of the people, and of seeing that the laws were equally enforced. Had those laws been fairly administered? And if not, who was held responsible to the people? There were three branches in the constitution—two permanent and one elective; and whose conduct from day to day must be a subject of discussion, unless an abstract idea of representation could be formed. If that conduct was wise and temperate, many blessings would ensue; but if it was, careless and extravagant, endless mischiefs would arise, Had those mischiefs arisen? With regard to plans of reform, it was unfortunately but too true, that some men in this country entertained the strangest and most extravagant notions of parliamentary reform: and here he begged to be understood to be as much an enemy as any man to what were called the radical leaders: he was as willing as any man to mark in the strongest terms his contempt of their understanding, his disgust at their proceedings, and his jealousy of their objects. Some had availed themselves of a clamour for parliamentary reform to accomplish their own purposes; some had been guided only by excessive vanity, and a wish to be distinguished as popular leaders; and some from a sheer paucity of intellect had come forward, without understanding, or attempting to understand a syllable of the project they supported. In a few instances bad men might be linked by bad designs—designs
74
that aimed at utter destruction I and such being his opinion of radical leaders, he thought he now stood fair and above board with the House on this great Question.—The hon. mover had wished distinctions to be drawn: he (Mr. Tierney) had now drawn them, and without using harsher language towards men at present on their trials, he hoped he should not be misunderstood. In characterising the radicals as he had done, he had been actuated by no rancour; and he did not think the other side would charge him with too great partiality; for it was certainly impossible to conceive any set of gentlemen under less obligations to the radicals than the whigs were. True it was that ministers came in for a share of abuse and disapprobation; but it was mild and merciful compared with the castigation which their opponents received. The right hon. gentleman who were in office were unpopular with the radicals; but the unfortunate Whigs, who had long-left office, came in for a sort of post obit of unpopularity. He was thoroughly convinced, that if many of the seditious publications had not obtained such violent vituperations of the opposition, government and their friends would have been much more active in putting an end to their circulation and punishing their authors. There might be some madness in these effusions, but there was a great deal of method in it, and ministers took care to avail themselves of it. They argued in this way—"If we do not do something against these pamphleteers, we shall increase sedition, it is true; but if we put an end to them, we shall let our enemies go scot-free; therefore we will not be too severe with these seditious gentlemen, in order that we may not be too merciful to the Whigs" [cheers from the Opposition benches].—He had thus fairly stated his opinion on the state of the country: he hoped he should not be misunderstood: and he repeated, that there did exist out of doors a general want of confidence in the House; for even sober men began to be satisfied that the practical inconveniences they suffered, and which had been increasing for the last twenty years, were attributable to a defect in the representation. The doctrines of universal suffrage and annual parliaments was unquestionably a great evil; but, after all, as far as regarded them, it was not of wide extent—it had not many partisans; and though it was

75
common for the friends of ministers to talk of hundreds of thousands of its supporters, he believed it was a gross mistake or exaggeration. True it was, that men marched from one town to another; but they were the same men at both places, and they were to be looked upon like a company of strollers, who travelled about to perform their parts in different situations: 4,000 or 5,000 of these gentry would make an imposing display when their numbers were swelled by all the curious and unemployed of the large town where they were exhibiting. But if it were possible to separate from the gross mass those who were really and in earnest in favour of universal suffrage, annual parliaments, and the last improvement—vote by ballot, their numbers would be comparatively very small. In no part of Great Britain but the disturbed districts were any friends to it known; and the whole was a scheme which, by the great mass of the people, must be held in contempt, though some few might regard it with an ignorant and fond amazement. What could any man of sense, even among the lower orders, think of that project, by which a respectable baronet (sir Charles Wolseley) was to be returned, and was in fact returned, by the inhabitants of Birmingham, as a legislatorial attorney, to take his seat in the House of Commons? The name of a member of parliament was offensive to his self-enfranchised constituents; and accordingly, as legislatorial attorney he was to undertake this expedition to London: if he had undertaken it, and had carried his promise into effect, he would have found it one of the most inconvenient seats he had ever occupied in his life [a laugh]. The plan had not a shadow of law or understanding about it; and if the non-represented of Birmingham assumed the power of electing one, what reason was there that they should not have returned ten legislatorial attornies to claim or enforce an admission into that House? Such schemes as these satisfied him that there was no real ground for alarm at what was called the radical party in the country: his fears arose from other causes, to which he had already alluded, and which occasioned, in his mind, as much apprehension as he had ever felt in the course of his life, or could have felt had it been his fate to have lived in any of the most momentous periods of our history. Did gentlemen make sufficient allowances
76
when they set their faces so determinately against all kinds of reform? He had said what he thought of the radicals on one side of the question; and he would now make a few remarks on the radicals on the other, and a word or two by the way to the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Canning). He must take leave to say, that that right hon. gentleman was just as much a radical, as those to whose projects he was so strenuously opposed. There were radicals in favour of a complete change of system, and radicals in favour of an undeviating adherence to old customs. One of the latter was the right hon. gentleman, and he was decidedly opposed to every thing in the shape of parliamentary reform: he resisted all degrees of it, from opening close boroughs, to the monstrous proposition of electing legislatorial attornies. But he did not sufficiently take into consideration the different state of the country in point of education now, and thirty, forty, or fifty years ago. The proceedings of the House were formerly wrapped up in a sort of mystery: the debates were only given to the public in brief and imperfect notices, and under Roman names: the power of reading what passed in parliament was not diffused as at present; and could any gentleman at all acquainted with the state of society doubt that the whole population, in the proportion of three to one, now thought itself capable of thoroughly understanding, sifting, and criticising parliamentary proceedings? The blessings of education had been extended by the measures of the House itself; and could any hon. member suppose that its debates and votes had not thereby been often subjected to no very favourable comments? To act like wise men, times and circumstances must always be taken into view; and if the incalculable blessings of diffused information were to cease to be enjoyed, the House must submit to all the criticisms upon its proceedings that men thought themselves justified by the facts and their own knowledge in making. Thus, that which thirty, forty, or fifty years ago, might be thought a wholesome, or at at least a secure course, was now both injurious and dangerous. It was too late for ministers now to say, that they would hear nothing in the way of innovation—that they were well contented with things as they are, or that whatever is is right, and needs no improvement. Men were now capable of forming sound opi-

77
nions, and at the corner of every street these might be encountered who, by the mere use of the knowledge they had acquired, and by the force of their own strong sense, could bring such assertions and asserters to shame and confusion. If government thought that by passing new laws, by raising new troops, or by the promulgation of loyal addresses, they could put down the awakened spirit of the country, they would find themselves grievously mistaken: the progress of reason was not to be curbed by Crown influence, nor could a military force put an end to the assemblies of the people, who, having received the means, had a right to exercise the power of judging for themselves. Such was the state of affairs up to the 16th August: the hon. mover had felt it his duty not to advert to the events of that day; and much credit was due to him for so doing: he had thus shown that he was not the mere mouth-piece of the Treasury, in dwelling upon the scenes of a day which must be looked upon as one of the most eventful in modern times. Since those transactions, the question had been completely changed; it was now whether parliamentary reform should or should not be agreed to. A new subject of complaint was afforded, and that subject had provoked and occupied all the later meetings which had spread, in despite of ministers, from one end of the kingdom to the other. How, then, was it possible for him (Mr. Tierney) to discharge his duty without demanding inquiry, when he found the whole kingdom, by addresses, calling upon the Prince Regent most earnestly and anxiously for investigation? Yet, when called upon to vote an address in this House, that was the only subject that was to be entirely omitted [Hear]. However painful it might be, not a day ought to be allowed to elapse without the mention of this great topic. He was not prepared to go into the details, nor did he wish the House to do more than pledge itself to acquire all the information that could be obtained, as well to justify the magistrates as to satisfy the country. He would not prejudge a single point; he would not even give an opinion, but would confine himself to the statement of what was known to have occurred, and which, in his view, required immediate explanation. If ever a case had arisen in which explanation was necessary on the first meeting of parliament, it was the present. He found that, on the 16th August, a
78
multitude was assembled—a multitude admitted to be unarmed, for he would not introduce disputed facts; the numbers were differently stated at from 40 to 70,000; and they were suddenly, and without any previous notice, attacked by an armed force; several lost their lives, and hundreds were sorely maimed and wounded. If this was not a case which required immediate investigation, he could only say, that no case ever had or ever would occur that could demand it. He was not here stating who was right or who was wrong: on the contrary, he was willing to make every allowance for the alarmed state of the minds of those gentlemen who had for some time resided in the disturbed districts: a great degree of irritation and party spirit unquestionably prevailed, and differences had long existed between the higher and lower classes in Manchester and its naighbourhood. Yet, with all these admissions, he could not shut his eyes to the fact, that blood had been shed, limbs broken, and many persons reduced to the condition of cripples for the remainder of their lives, in consequence of a transaction, of which it was enough for his purpose to say that he did not understand it. It was a strong case at present, and he hoped, for the credit of the magistracy, that they had a strong case in answer to it. Explanation had not yet been attempted; it had been reserved for some future opportunity, and that opportunity was now arrived. If the House of Commons yet had any respect for the opinions of the people, if it wished to redeem itself at all from the imputations that had been cast upon it, it ought not to lose a moment in insisting upon a full, fair, and unsparing investigation. When he called for inquiry into this event, when he demanded what reasons could be adduced in justification of such a proceeding, he might be told, that the persons thus dispersed were disaffected to the government. Still, however, his case would not be answered, because it began after those individuals were taken into custody against whom the vigilance of the magistrates seemed to be chiefly directed. For the sake of argument, he would admit that it was proper they should be taken up; but it should not be forgotten, that that object was effected without resistance. They were conveyed, in perfect safety (except the injury which one of them declared he had received from the constable) before the magistrates, and were ultimately placed

79
in confinement. But why, he demanded, was the meeting to be violently dispersed by military force, subsequent to the arrest of those individuals? Why was it thought necessary to call out a military force against an unarmed multitude? They were wholly helpless; they had lost their leaders. It was, indeed, an army without a general. The general was made prisoner; and then, from one end to the other of the place where the meeting was held, nothing was to be seen but a body of cavalry cutting, slashing, and riding over men, women, and children. He did not mean to give credit to all that he had heard relative to the proceedings of that clay, but there were circumstances against which he could not shut his eyes. He must receive as evidence the infirmary return of persons who were brought in there wounded; and he could not overlook the coroner's inquests that had been held on the bodies of persons who were slain. He would say nothing harsh of the magistrates; he merely demanded a full inquiry. He wished to know why a military force had been employed at all? It might be answered, that Mr. Nadin had said, he could not arrest these people without the aid of a military power. Well; a military force was granted, and he apprehended the obnoxious parties. Then, he wished to learn, why that military force was suffered to remain, and to act against the defenceless multitude, after the persons whom the magistrates ordered to be apprehended were in custody? Did the magistrates approve of that proceeding? If they did not, why did they not exert themselves and put a stop to it? From the windows of the house in which they were assembled, they must have seen the horsemen cutting down those poor people; why, then, did they not use the same authority which they had previously exercised in summoning the yeomanry there, by ordering them to desist and retire? He wished especially to know, why the magistrates called on the Manchester yeomanry for their services—why, of all others, they had selected them for this business? If it were at all necessary to employ troops on this occasion, they should not have been called out. Was there any gentleman who did not feel, that a body of men who resided in and about Manchester, and who must have been infected by the heat and irritation of party feeling which had prevailed there for a considerable time, were those who,
80
of all others, ought not to have been selected? Other troops might have been found who would have performed this duty without difficulty and without violence. He had no doubt whatsoever, that if a regiment of dragoons had been employed to open a passage to the hustings, they would have effected their object without producing that dreadful scene, the recollection of which shook all England from one end to the other. Was it, then, under all the circumstances, too much to ask of parliament to take this unparalleled event into immediate consideration? Was it too much to call on the legislature to show to the empire, that, while they were alive to the necessity of causing the laws to be obeyed, they were also alive to the acknowledged privileges of the subject? Parliament ought now to prove, that, while they deprecated any thing like tumult or sedition, they were, on the other hand, determined not to suffer the rights of the people to be trampled on with impunity. He knew that an argument had been generally used against instituting any parliamentary inquiry into this proceeding, namely, that it would be a prejudging of the question. Many men, actuated by the best possible feelings and motives, who were anxious that justice should be done, and who supposed the business would be brought before a legal tribunal, besought all whom they conversed with to wait for the decision of that tribunal, and to abstain from delivering a premature opinion. Now, first of all, he did not know that any proceedings had been instituted before a legal tribunal, for the purpose of bringing the matter to issue. The trial of Hunt could not affect the question, because he was charged as a party in a conspiracy, which alleged offence occurred before the meeting took place. This could not be contradicted; for every person was in possession of the terms of the information. Hunt's trial, therefore, could have no relation, not even the slightest, to what took place when he was forced from the ground, and imprisoned in the New Bailey at Manchester. The whole of the case respecting the forcibly dispersing the mob could not come before the court: but, in his mind, even if it did, that circumstance would not remove the necessity of inquiry. They were the great inquest of the nation; and when they had before them positive information, that many lives were lost in time of profound peace, they could not, with justice, refuse to exercise their

81
powers of inquiry. It was asserted, that the people who had been injured might procure legal redress. What redress, he demanded, could they have against the magistrates and yeomanry? This was not similar to a case in which John Thompson knocked down George Jackson. There the party aggrieved knew where to seek for his remedy. It was not so here. This was an extraordinary, not a common occurrence. Let it also be remembered when redress was spoken of, that it had been the great object of his majesty's ministers to crush inquiry. Had any thing ever excited, or indeed could any thing excite, more general or more decided indignation, than the precipitancy with which they gave thanks to those individuals whose motives were wholly unexplained? He had not met a single individual, whether friend or foe of ministers, who did not condemn this act. He had not met a dispassionate man, who did not exclaim, that of all the ill-advised measures that ever entered the human mind, this was the most ill-advised. It was impossible for ministers to have been acquainted with the circumstances of the case; and yet, they at once, without any hesitation, expressed his royal highness's great satisfaction at the prompt and efficient exertions of the magistrates and yeomanry. Great satisfaction! For what? For an event in which 300 or 400 persons were maimed and wounded, and several were killed! With respect to what ministers might say on the subject, it was not worth attending to. They might as well talk to a Manchester magistrate as to a minister on this event; for ministers had absolutely made themselves partners in the business. [Hear, and laughter.] However on other occasions he was willing to allow due weight to what might fall from the noble lord, he could not pay any attention to what, as a minister, he might this night offer to the House on the subject of the proceedings at Manchester, because he had now a clear and direct interest in the acquittal of the parties concerned, with whom he and his colleagues had identified themselves. Therefore, all the noble lord might say this night would go with him for nothing.—The greatest pains, it appeared, had been taken by government to prevent great public meetings, at which the feelings of the community on this deplorable event might be collected. On that point he begged to say i a word or two, particularly as the interfe-
82
rence of ministers on one occasion of that kind, ought, in his opinion, to be taken up as a breach of the privileges of that House. He saw an hon. friend in his place (Mr. Wynn) who was deeply versed in questions of this nature; and he would ask him what he would say to the lord-lieutenant of a county who should conduct himself in the manner he would presently describe? A nobleman of great worth wrote thus to the high sheriff of the county: "We are in a state of great agitation in consequence of what recently occurred at Manchester: we do not wish to come precipitately to any decision on that event; but we are desirous that a meeting should be called for the purpose of petitioning the Prince Regent to call parliament together immediately, in order that a proper inquiry may be instituted." What was he to think of the lord-lieutenant of that county, who, in conjunction with one of his majesty's ministers, wrote a letter to the high sheriff, desiring him "not to call such a meeting, as it would be unconstitutional?" He demanded whether such a proceeding was not directly questioning the power of the House of Commons? Sure he was, that if it was not a breach of privilege, it most undoubtedly was a breach of all decency and decorum. Was it not saying to those who could be at all influenced by ministers, that if they wished to stand well with men in power, they must set their faces against any inquiry into the Manchester business? When he saw a paper like that, meant to stifle inquiry, signed by one of his majesty's ministers, he could not suppress his indignation: but, in spite of such arts, they would ultimately compel inquiry—such an inquiry as would visit with shame and confusion some of those who endeavoured to prevent investigation.—The great and anxious wish of the honourable mover was, that, at a critical period like the present, they should throw aside all party feeling, and only consider the public good. Let gentlemen look to the ex-ample that had been shown by ministers—let them examine whether they had forgotten party-feeling. This brought them at once to the dismissal of earl Fitzwilliam. That was the act which ministers performed to prove that they were entirely free from party feeling! [Hear, hear.] "Oh, but," said they, "the public good required it. It was necessary to remove him, because he, as lord-lieutenant, held a different opinion from that entertained

83
by us, with respect to popular meetings." And yet, after this act, which spoke for itself, they exclaimed—"Oh, party has nothing to do with our proceeding!" Next to the general indignation produced by the thanks given to the Manchester yeomanry and magistrates, was the sensation produced by the removal of this venerable nobleman. He knew no individual at any time with whom the feelings of the country so entirely sympathised as they did with earl Fitzwilliam, on this occasion. No man could be selected, towards whom the great body of the people, those who knew him and those who did not know him, bore so respectful a feeling. He believed no individual could be found for whom the country entertained so deep-rooted and thorough an affection; and certainly no man more justly deserved it. His private virtues, his advanced age, the exemplary manner in which, for twenty years, he had administered the office of lord-lieutenant, ought to have been entertained by ministers as powerful reasons against degrading him—for such was their intention—by a removal. After the treatment he had received, he knew not how others, who had not served their country so long, could escape a similar visitation, if they acted with similar independence. It was his misfortune to differ from earl Fitzwilliam with respect to the steps that ought to be taken at a former period, when there were disturbances in the country; but he was convinced that his opinion was a sincere one, flowing from the dictates of his conscience. He was, at one time, the best stay the administration possessed, for effecting and preserving what they considered the tranquillity of the country. He had since done that which, if it had been done elsewhere, there would have been no necessity for his addressing the House that night. The noble earl had preserved the tranquillity of Yorkshire; and he was rewarded by a removal from the situation of lord-lieutenant! [Hear]. In Yorkshire there had been a display of flags; and there also that martial array of which so much had been said was observable. But those things had ceased in consequence of earl Fitzwilliam's exertions; the system had nearly evaporated; and many of those deluded persons had applied to his lordship to be enrolled in his corps of Yeomanry. The noble lord opposite (Castlereagh) smiled at that; but he was, notwithstanding, extremely sore about it. If
84
a lord-lieutenant acted improperly in his office, it was but just that he should be discharged. His offence should, however, be clearly pointed out. What, then, had earl Fitzwilliam done? Did the noble lord mean to say, that government had any thing to find fault with, as far as earl Fitzwilliam's conduct in the discharge of his official duties was concerned? Did ministers mean to say, that he was not ready to appear at any meeting, or to attend in any place, where tumult or riot might be expected? Would they contend that in these respects he was not so vigilant as he ought to have been? They could not allege any charge of that kind. It might be answered by ministers—"We must have a person in the situation of lord-lieutenant who reposes confidence in us, and in whom we, in turn, can repose confidence.'' This was the only answer that could be made. When gentlemen talked of doing away party feelings, it was right to call their attention to the case of earl Fitzwilliam, and to ask them whether it was necessary to state in a public newspaper, a month before a successor to the lord-lieutenancy could be found, that he had been removed from the office. How came it in that newspaper? It could not have found its way there, except from the cabinet: there was no other mode in which the communication could be accounted for. He asked of those who declared that they entertained no party feeling, but who were evidently influenced by a mean party-spirit, how they could justify this act? They showed how much they enjoyed their petty triumph, by slating the removal of Earl Fitzwilliam a month before his successor was appointed. By such a proceeding, they hazarded the tranquillity of Yorkshire; and in running that hazard, by what could they possibly be influenced, except by party feeling? "Oh! but," said they, "it is an act of spirit. It shows that government will not be trifled with; that they have assumed a vigorous and commanding attitude; and all will soon be well." He would, however, tell them, that there never was an act which tended more to set the country against the government, than the removal of earl Fitzwilliam.—There was another point connected with the Manchester business which he should like to have properly explained. Why, he wished to know, was Hunt arrested on the hustings, when he might have been taken the day before? Was there a desire to create an

85
opportunity for the employment of troops? He did not mean to say that so base a desire existed, but certainly it was a little extraordinary that such a course was taken. The same thing, however, happened in London. A person of the name of Harrison was arrested in Smithfield, when he was surrounded by thousands of individuals. "Why, then, endanger the peace of the city? why run the hazard of endangering the safety of the metropolis, merely for the purpose of apprehending a man at 12 o'clock on one day, who might as well be arrested at 12 o'clock on the next?—It was evident that the country had no confidence in ministers; it was clear their proceedings were disapproved of; and that was one great reason why he would not give them any additional force. Till the whole of those proceedings were explained satisfactorily, he could not extend any confidence to the government; and he knew not with what face they could demand fresh confidence from the House or the country, until they showed how they had exercised the powers which had previously been intrusted to them. He was aware, that throughout the country, the attempts made to run down the liberty of the subject had excited a very great alarm. The hon. mover doubted this, but he (Mr. T.) was assured of the fact. The jealousy of the people was roused by the proceedings at Manchester, and was farther inflamed by the precipitancy with which the yeomanry and magistrates were thanked for their conduct in that deplorable affair. When they saw the whole system crowned by the manner in which persons were arrested, the most dangerous periods being selected for that purpose; and when they witnessed the removal of such a man as earl Fitzwilliam, for no other reason but that his opinions were not in unison with those of his majesty's ministers, was there any thing under heaven which could induce him, or any unbiassed individual, to give additional confidence to the advisers of the Crown? The constitution was at stake; it depended on the debate of that night. He had abstained from giving any specific opinion on the Manchester business; he had confined himself to the mere fact; but that there ought to be a full and fair inquiry he could not doubt, unless parliament wished to state to the country, that their mode of allaying discontent was, by raising an additional military force, by enacting severe laws, and trust-
86
ing entirely to a system of coercion. If they meant to state this, it was in vain for him, or any other man, to raise his voice in that House hereafter in defence of the rights and privileges of the people. If there was an opposition to inquiry, what could he hope from the discussion of those severe measures which might, and probably would, be proposed? Such a want of sympathy for the feelings of the people would tend to produce that line of separation which occasioned danger in all countries where it existed—a separation between the interests of the high and of the low. He, however, would do his duty, under all circumstances, however discouraging. He would point out, what he conceived to be, the best cure for existing evils, and he hoped those in power would take a warning from the history of other nations—particularly from the events which occurred in the early part of the French revolution. Had there been a government in France willing and anxious to conciliate the people, and ready to admit that abuses existed which ought and would be remedied, hopes might have been cherished that the revolution would not have taken place. But a contrary course was adopted: every man who complained was subjected to persecution, and set down as a Jacobin and an agitator. This mistaken policy produced a dreadful convulsion, and every thing dear and valuable was hurried away in the general devastation. Let gentlemen beware how they proceeded in this question—one of the most momentous that was ever agitated within the walls of parliament. The radicals, as they were called, were, he believed, by no means in force in this country; but a large proportion of the people were acutely alive to the business transacted in that House, because they felt that much of their sufferings were to be traced to its proceedings. Let ministers do all they could to alleviate the distresses of the people, and he would stand by them to protect the law and the constitution; no man would do more, or go farther than he would, most cheerfully. Let the House but show a wish to remove the real grievances of the people, and he was convinced peace and harmony would be restored. But while they proved that they were most anxious to uphold the laws, they ought to let the people see that they were equally determined to protect and maintain their just rights [Hear]. He then read his amendment, as follows:

87
"To assure his royal highness, that, called together at a season when unexampled distress and extraordinary agitation prevail in some of the most populous districts of the kingdom, we will immediately proceed to take into our most serious consideration the various matters contained in his royal highness's gracious speech from the throne:
"Humbly to express to his royal highness our reprobation of the attempts which have been made to persuade the suffering classes of the people to seek relief from their distress in schemes injurious to themselves, dangerous to the public quiet, and inconsistent with the security of the constitution, which it is our duty and determination to maintain against every species of encroachment or attack:
"To represent to his royal highness that while we thus declare our determined resolution firmly to uphold the just authority of the laws, we feel that we are called upon by a sense of duty, so to conduct ourselves as to satisfy the people that their complaints will at all times receive from us that just attention, and their rights that ready protection, which is indispensable to their safety and freedom:
"That this seems to us more particularly necessary in order to maintain that confidence in the public institutions of the country, which constitutes the best safeguard of all law and government:
"That we have seen with deep regret the events which took place at Manchester on the 16th of August last; and that, without pronouncing any opinion on the circumstances which occurred on that melancholy occasion, we feel that they will demand our earliest attention in order to dissipate the alarm to which they have given birth, by a diligent and impartial inquiry, which may show that the measures of extraordinary severity, then resorted to, were the result of the most urgent and unavoidable necessity; or prove that an important constitutional privilege cannot be violated, and the lives of his majesty's subjects sacrificed, with impunity."
The Marquis of Tavistockseconded the amendment. At a time of peril like the present, he observed, it was the duty of every man to stand forward and deliver his opinions as to the best mode of removing those evils which were so generally allowed to exist. On this occasion, he assured the House, that he was not
88
actuated by any party feeling. He felt the dangers by which the country was surrounded so deeply, that he could not with justice to himself or his constituents remain silent on that occasion. The great object before them was, the result of the proceedings on the 16th of August. He alluded to these proceedings at present merely for the purpose of imploring the House not to disappoint and irritate the minds of the people. He hoped and trusted that a fair and impartial inquiry into these proceedings would be instituted. Let witnesses be examined, and let no biassed or party views impede their proceedings—let them have no object in view but the attainment of justice. To him it was a matter of little importance who was in or out of office, compared with his anxiety to secure the peace and happiness of the people. But how were these objects attended to at present? One of the first noblemen in the country had been degraded because he had opposed himself to the conduct of ministers. But it should be recollected that this nobleman was the first to detect and expose the spies and informers who had been sent about the country—that he was one of the first men who had had the courage to give to ministers his opinion of the state of the country, and whose great fault was his calling for an investigation of recent occurrences. For this the noble earl was entitled to the thanks of every friend of freedom, and in retiring from office he carried with him the respect and good wishes of every honest man. That there were circumstances of an alarming nature connected with some of those popular meetings, was the opinion of many; and perhaps, however inadequate the cause was, it might be owing to these circumstances that the country was to be burthened with 10,000 additional troops. But the House, he conceived, could not adopt a measure so unprecedented in time of peace, until they were furnished with satisfactory data. If they produced such data—if ministers showed that they could not carry on the business of the government, without an additional force—then he conceived they had much to answer for, because it was by their conduct that the country was reduced to that situation. Gentlemen might contemplate, with melancholy feelings, those past days when this once flourishing country, directed by wise councils, enjoyed undisturbed tranquillity

89
in time of peace—a tranquillity to which it was now a stranger. It was not surprising that there should be a want of confidence in government, when they reflected on the little sympathy which was shown in the votes of that House to the situation of the people at large. A former parliament did itself no credit by repealing the property-tax, and that which succeeded obtained still less by imposing taxes which fell heavily on the working classes. If the chancellor of the exchequer came down and proposed a property-tax, his vote should be at the right hon. gentleman's service; but on these conditions—that other taxes which bore heavily on the people should be repealed; that the universal desire for economy and retrenchment, in every branch of the state, should be met by corresponding efforts on the part of the government; that the county should not again be insulted by the unnecessary grant of a large sum out of the public money, and that every office which could be abolished should be speedily annihilated. Then, and not till then, would he vote for the property-tax. With respect to the difficulties that threatened the country, be thought they might be overcome, and the breach might be healed, if they did not drive the people to despair, by refusing inquiry. They should conciliate them by granting at least some step towards reform. In his mind, that question was, of all others, of the greatest importance. He would not presume to say what specific plan of reform ought to be adopted; but of this he was confident—that so long as that House was constituted as it at present was, it could not, and it ought not to possess the confidence of the people. Before he sat down he should express a hope, that the noble lord would not attempt to degrade the spirit of the people by force and coercion, but would endeavour to conciliate it by mild and equitable measures. There were some men who were pepetually boasting of their loyalty and attachment to the constitution; but to him it appeared as if those individuals had but a slight idea of the meaning which belonged to those terms. True loyalty consisted in preserving, not in restricting, the liberties of the people; they, however, made it to consist in a blind adherence; and servile acquiescence in the measures proposed by his majesty's ministers. Could, however, any person who had witnessed the trials to which the
90
people of England had been subjected during the last twenty years, and the exemplary patience with which they had sustained them, question for a moment their loyalty or their attachment to the laws and institutions of their forefathers? The patience they had exhibited during the late arduous contest in which they had been engaged, surely deserved some better return than the harshness with which they were treated, now that the contest was over. He therefore could not help imploring his majesty's ministers to institute a full and fair inquiry into the injuries which the people conceived themselves to have sustained at Manchester, and not to treat; them with any unnecessary violence or contempt. By conducting such an inquiry without any reference to party feelings or to party views, they would disarm the rage of thousands who were now excited against them, because they thought that they had been treated with harshness. He could assure the House, that into such an investigation he should himself enter without the slightest hostility to any of his majesty's ministers, though he must own that he should bring to it strong feelings of affection to his country, and a trembling anxiety for the safety of the constitution. The noble marquis concluded his speech by observing, that a dreadful storm was now hanging over us; that conciliation was the only method of averting it; and that to recommend measures of conciliation to the government, was the sole object for which he had that evening taken the opportunity of addressing the House.
The Speakerthen read the original address, and was proceeding to state, that in lieu of part of the original address, it had been proposed to insert an amendment, when
Mr. Tierneyagain rose, and said, that he had no wish to leave out any part of the original address: he would adopt the whole of it, and would content himself with proposing, that his own amendment should be received as an addition to it.
Lord Castlereaghrose. He began by observing, that there never was a crisis in which ministers felt a more awful responsibility than they did at the present moment; and never was a responsibility more awful than that which they were now obliged to take upon themselves in discharge of their duty to their king and to their country. Nothing but an imperious sense of the necessity of such a measure

91
could have induced them to have called parliament together at this unusual season of the year; and yet such was the state of the country, that if they had longer delayed the convening of it, they would have compromised their duty to the Crown, and have placed at hazard the safety of the state. Now that it was assembled, he should express a hope, that not only in the debate of that night, but also in the many and arduous debates which were likely to succeed it in the course of the session, the House would maintain that equanimity of temper and candour of argument, which, at the same time that it was most essential to the preservation of its dignity, was also best calculated to effect those objects which every member of it must have in view. Whatever insinuations the right hon. gentleman opposite might throw out regarding the little confidence which the people were inclined to place in that House (and the right hon. gentleman's speech was more calculated to diminish than increase that confidence), he was certain that the House would still continue to act with that calm deliberation and that steady character which had always previously distinguished it; for if they did so act, if they met their difficulties at home with the same manly resolution with which they had met their difficulties abroad; if they persisted in their determination to deal out justice, even-handed justice, to all ranks and classes of his majesty's subjects, and were resolved, when they did interfere in the internal administration of justice, to interfere no more than their interference was absolutely necessary, he was positive that, instead of losing the confidence of the people, they would acquire new and indisputable claims to it, for the House had never yet pronounced a deliberate decision on any question, without being supported in it by the sober opinion of the public. Indeed, so far was the House under the control of public opinion, that no government which opposed it could long exist in this country, it was the basis upon which every government rested; and if the House pursued the same line of conduct which it had pursued before, he would undertake to promise that the same confidence would be now placed in it as had previously carried it and the country through every difficulty. The right hon. gentleman had confessed in the outset of his speech, that there was
92
nothing in the address to the throne which called upon the House to pledge itself as to its future conduct; and in moving his amendment, had given a reason for doing so, which had on the first view of it created great satisfaction in his mind. He had said that the state of the country was so ambiguous, and the circumstances of the times so perilous, that it became every man to speak out frankly and boldly. From this declaration of the right hon. gentleman, he (Lord C.) had expected that the amendment would have contained some definite plan, some specific measures for the consideration of ministers; but, if he understood its meaning at all, nothing was so far from it as any spécific or tangible proposition, with the exception of one parliamentary inquiry which was to be instituted into the transactions at Manchester, of the confession which the House was to make of past misconduct, and of the promises which it was to hold forth of future improvement. The right hon. gentleman had also declared a strong wish to examine into the present state of the country; and in stating his reasons why such examination should take place, had much undervalued the circumstances in which it was now situated. What those circumstances were he should refrain from explaining at present; and he trusted that the House would allow him to do so, especially as he should to-morrow place the mass of information on which the government intended to act in the hands of every one of its members in a printed form, and without submitting it to any previous committee for investigation. Besides, his explanation of the state of the country would be better understood if it were combined with the measures which it was intended to propose: those measures he should open to them on Friday; but before any one of them was discussed, the House ought to know the intentions of government, the bearing of which each of them had upon the other and upon the whole, and the dangers which threatened the whole of our system. As, therefore, the term was so short during which he wished the House to excuse him from speaking on the general state of the country, and as nothing specific had been proposed by either the right hon. gentleman or the noble lord opposite, he trusted that the House would extend to him the indulgence which he desired. With regard, however, to the transactions at

93
Manchester, he had no objection to meet the right hon. gentleman at present: and here, he must say, that if his majesty's ministers had not expressed any sentiments of regret on this subject (and no humane or generous bosom could be without them), it was because nothing was more important than to maintain the confidence of the people in the due administration of justice, and nothing was more likely to destroy it than any such declaration of opinion: therefore, if in his answers to the questions of the right hon. gentleman he was compelled to say any tiling which had that tendency, he trusted that the House would recollect that it was forced from him, and was not voluntarily tendered. In answer to the question, why Hunt was not arrested before the 16th of August, and why he was arrested on that day, he would state, what he believed to be the fact—that there was no determination or intention on the part of the magistracy to arrest him on the charge on which he was arrested, previously to the 16th of August—that the charge on which he was then arrested arose entirely out of the events of that day [loud cries of Hear from the opposition benches] that it originated from the military array, and the seditious banners which were then displayed; and from the magistrates looking upon the meeting as of a treasonable nature, even if it did not amount to high treason itself. Therefore, if his assertion could have any effect with the right hon. gentleman he would believe the arrest of Hunt was not decided upon before that day. The right hon. gentleman had then asked another question—why a meeting, consisting of more than 40,000 people (and he had stated the numbers pretty correctly), among whom were many women and children, had been attacked by a military force after Hunt had been arrested and carried off without any opposition? But that was a false view of the question: it never was the intention of the magistrates to disperse the meeting as it was dispersed, any more than it was their intention on the preceding day to have dispersed it at all. If they had then entertained any such opinion, they would have declared it an illegal meeting, as they had declared that which was convened before it. It was not asking the House to show too much charity to the Manchester magistrates when he asked them to believe this to be the case, especially
94
as there was not the slightest scintilla of evidence to the contrary, except it were the heated evidence of those who had recently been tampering with the public feelings. If they had had any wish to commit an act of violence on the people, surely they would have carried it into execution on a meeting which it is acknowledged on all hands was illegal, and which they warned people not to attend, because it was illegal; and would not have deferred it to another, when the meeting had become at least of a questionable nature. He put it to the charity of parliament to say, whether the deferring of it to the latter period would not, if they had entertained such intentions, have been most irrational. The truth was, that the magistrates did not determine upon dispersing the meeting until it had assumed a character of tumult and sedition. And he would protest on all occasions, and at all times, most loudly against the doctrine which had been advanced that night, that the arm of the law was to be unnerved by—[Here Mr. Tierney made some sign of dissent.]] The right hon. gentleman most certainly had maintained such doctrines: he had asked why had Mr. Hunt, why had parson Harrison, been captured in the midst of the people? As to Harrison, he had fled from Manchester; and was taken by the officers in Smithfield, as it was their duty to take him, charged as he was with an offence, whensoever and wheresoever they saw him.—To return, however, to the subject from which he had digressed: as soon as the character of the meeting had declared itself, the magistrates put the warrants into the hands of the constables; and it was not till they had declared their inability to execute them, that a military force was employed at all. Then comes the right hon. gentleman and asks, why employ the military, and above all, why employ the yeomanry, and not the troops of the line? Why, formerly the only force which the right hon. gentleman would allow to be employed to defend the internal tranquillity of the country was his majesty's liege subjects armed in defence of their rights and properties. The circumstance only proved, that when his majesty's ministers blew hot, the right hon. gentleman blew cold; and that all they did was wrong, even when they adopted the suggestions which he had himself proposed. This consideration, however, led him to another fact, to which it was requisite to call the attention

95
of the House: the magistrates had nothing to do with any of this military array or armament, and were not responsible for it, except in so far as they legally were for giving the orders for its acting. It was colonel L'Estrange who selected the Manchester yeomanry for the service of the day, and who thought that he had done the most constitutional thing in the world in employing them. [Hear, hear!].—He would now proceed to state most distinctly, that the magistrates, if it was an illegal meeting and was carrying traitorous and seditious emblems, would have been guilty of a most flagrant dereliction of duty, if they had allowed that meeting to continue assembled one moment after the capture of Hunt. They, however, determined to disperse it, and to disperse it in the most mild and gentle and temperate manner. At the time the riot act was first read, it was read from the window of the house in which the magistrates were assembled: [loud cries of hear from all parts of the House:] it was suggested that this method of reading it was not such as was contemplated by the act: another magistrate was therefore sent into the crowd, and whilst attempting to read it there, was trampled under foot; they then sent a third magistrate to read it at the hustings, in order that no man might remain in ignorance of the fact of its being read. Why was it not read there? Why, because after the caption of Hunt was effected, those troops who effected it were violently assaulted by what the right hon. gentleman had called an unarmed mob. He begged leave to say, that he stated what he believed to be the fact; because, as the whole transaction of clearing the ground did not last five minutes, and as all the business was over in a quarter of an hour, some conflicting testimony might be expected. Still, however, he must repeat, that he believed what he stated to be correct. That, however, was not so much the question at present: the question was, whether the House of Commons was to erect itself into a tribunal to decide on this matter, and exercise the inquisitorial powers which it possessed by investigating it at their bar. Highly as he valued, and far as he would carry these inquisitorial powers, he was not for exercising them on the present occasion, as he did not think that the circumstances demanded it. To go on, however, with his narrative: this unarmed multitude, though the place had only the day before been cleared of all the
96
stones that were calculated to hurt a human being, assailed the military with so many, that the next day two cart-loads were found upon the ground; so that it was clear that the parties had come with stones in their pockets: it was also evident that there were men among them armed with pistols; for from the house behind the hustings pistols were fired upon the troops. Notwithstanding all these circumstances which he had related, he was sorry to say that among several men of high character, for whom he entertained the most profound respect, there was scarcely any cruelty, however horrid—any atrocity, however aggravated, which had not, without the slightest truth or foundation, been attributed to the magistrates of Manchester [Hear, hear!—Thus much for the character of the meeting. It was thus made evident that government had not taken any steps on the subject till they had convinced themselves of the law of the case, and the illegal character of the meeting which had been thus dispersed. He therefore repeated, that the Manchester magistrates had acted consistently with the law of the land, and with the best possible attention to the interests of the country. He would now apply himself to another important part of the inquiry: that was, whether the course of public justice, and of individual justice, would be promoted, or whether it would not rather be obstructed, by such an inquiry, as was recommended in the amendment of the right hon. gentleman. Before any such inquiry could be entered upon, they ought at least to know the state of the circumstances in which the transactions took place. Although he had no particular knowledge of the charge against Mr. Hunt, and although that charge might be intirely extrajudicial to this question, yet Mr. Hunt could, without any doubt, bring the magistrates before a jury of the country to explain their conduct. Let the House consider what they knew by public notoriety to be now in the hands of public law. In the first place, the House would allow upon the face of the question, that there was none which, prima facie, called so little as this for their interposition. How did the transactions which were to come before a court of justice stand before them at this moment. The magistrates of Manchester, and all who took that view of the question, were ready to go to trial; and who were they who postponed judicial inquiry? The injured, in-

97
nocent individuals, who complained of the severity with which they had been treated! All those individuals had put off their trial. Besides, had those persons availed themselves of all the legal means of redress, if injustice had been done to them? They had indeed preferred bills against some individuals of the yeomanry cavalry; and the fact of the illegality of the meeting had been found by the grand jury, who threw out those bills. As far as the yeomanry were concerned, the charge against them had been thus negatived by one grand jury of the country: for bills might have been found, and very properly found, against individuals of the yeomanry cavalry, and yet have decided nothing respecting the magistrates or the commanding officers. Because nothing was more clear than that outrages might have been committed beyond the necessity of the case, however proper the conduct of the magistrates and of the commanding officer might have been; and that individuals might be guilty of murder, while the magistrates and commanding officers were entitled to praise. But while they had preferred bills against individuals, not a single indictment had they preferred against the magistrates or the commanding officer. The first thing that ought to have been done was, to have gone to the officer, as in the riots of 1768, when the officer was tried in the King's-bench and acquitted. Therefore he was entitled to say that the courts of law were open to those who complained, and that they had not availed themselves of them, in the mode which the law prescribed. He was aware of an objection often urged on this point. How, it was asked, could so many indigent individuals support the expenses of legal proceedings? But, if five yeomen have been indicted, as many magistrates could have been indicted by the same means. If real public justice had been the object, the principals would have been first attacked. But if those who complained were indigent, they knew that in fact a subscription to a large amount, and under various descriptions of objects, had been made, and that there were in consequence ample means provided. Not less than 2,000 l. had been subscribed; and this-sum surely afforded sufficient means for supporting the expenses of a legal investigation. They had heard, indeed, a most audacious libel upon a branch of the constitutional administration of justice—a libel belied by the whole tenour and cha-
98
racter of the administration of justice in this country; and in no part of the country was that administration more pure than in Lancashire. They had heard a most audacious libel, that the grand jury at Lancaster had not done their duty, and had lent themselves to be the scapegoat for the violators of the law. But if it was so, if the magistrates could not be indicted for murder, yet if they were not justified in law, they could clearly be put upon their trial, by moving a criminal information against them, in the court of King's-bench, for their conduct. The circumstances of their conduct would be before the country as fully upon affidavits, as if they were to be tried for murder or felony. If, however, the court of King's-bench were so dead to a sense of justice and to the demands of the public, as to refuse a criminal information when it ought to be granted (and none could say that the court of King's-bench was dead or remiss in affording every facility to inquiry) into the conduct of magistrates; yet he admitted that a case might arise, although the House was never, in the first instance, to interfere with the judicial administration, emanating in purity and enlightened by discretion as it was, when the House might properly inquire whether the courts below had done justice. But, to call upon all persons to disclose the evidence to the House which they were afterwards to give in a court of justice, was a proposition so monstrous, that, if delusion had not been carried to such an extent, and if the gentlemen opposite had not lent themselves to that delusion, it could never have been proposed. It was so monstrous a proposition, that if the right hon. gentleman was not surrounded by legal advisers who suffered him to propose to take from the courts of justice the whole body of a judicial question, in order to have it tried here, he could not have believed that they could lend themselves to it. The court of King's-bench, was not apt to overlook the misconduct of magistrates; but if they were, and if they refused to interfere in this case, every man, even then, who had been removed off that ground by violence, or threats of violence, could bring a civil action for damages; and the jury, in estimating the damages, would have the whole legal evidence laid before them. Therefore, he begged leave to conclude that there had been no denial of justice. Every effort had been made by industry,

99
ingenuity, inflammation, and tumult. He did not mean to impute this conduct to the right hon. gentleman or to the gentlemen around him; but such efforts had been used to inflame and distemper the great mass of the people. What else: could have been the object of the mass of evidence produced at a coroner's inquest respecting not what happened on the spot, but what every individual in the streets of Manchester knew. But there were now several proceedings in courts of justice upon this subject; there were motions with respect to the coroner's inquest, with respect to the conduct of magistrates in a district near Manchester; there were, in fact, many grave and serious questions now before the proper court. He thought that the consequences would be the worst that could be imagined, if they lent themselves to a precedent unknown to parliament. Did the right hon. gentleman consider, that if parliament could take such a step, it was not very decorous, whether it was proper or not, to come to such a conclusion on the address? Would it not have been more decorous if the right hon. gentleman had given notice of a motion to this effect, so that the ministers could have their minds instructed by the legal authorities? But he could not conceive, unless the whole body of the inquiry was to be taken from courts of justice, how the amendment could be supported. Was it contended that they could proceed with the inquiry proposed, while proceedings were actually pending in courts of justice upon the same subject? If parliament, in such circumstances came to a conclusion to punish the coroner or the magistrates, it would form an additional reason for levelling the throne and the constitution. This was the most barefaced trap ever heard of, which the radicals had laid for gentlemen on the other side. Any thing more fatal to public justice he could not conceive, unless they were to hang the magistrates of Manchester without trial or evidence. No step could be more effectually calculated to deprive parliament of all confidence on the part of the public. He therefore had no disposition to fall into the trap. The right hon. gentleman could not impute to his majesty's government a desire of standing between any individuals and public justice; if he did, he did them great injustice. But the right hon. gentleman had said, that they had prejudged the question. Now, he would
100
submit, even to the right hon. gentleman whether, if magistrates were to be placed in a situation in which common justice would not be done to them, it would not be precisely by that course which the right hon. gentleman recommended. It was manifest that, in the temper of this country, the magistrates had not fared the better in consequence of the approbation of ministers. [Cheers and laughter from the Opposition.] He meant that there had been a previous disposition to treat the Manchester magistrates with party-feelings, which he never recollected to have been applied before to a public question. The opinion of government, if it was calculated to close the avenues of law, or defeat the ends of justice, had been improperly given. But the government was called upon to acknowledge the services of the yeomanry corps, who had come from a considerable distance in order to support the government. It had been said that a stipendiary magistracy had presided at Manchester. It was not so: they were the Lancashire magistrates, and of ten who were present, only one was a stipendiary magistrate: they and the yeomanry had come from a distance, and were entitled to thanks for their exertions. Why had not the right hon. gentleman objected to the expression of the approbation of government for the conduct of troops in the riots in Cambridgeshire, when lives had been lost in the Isle of Ely? The approbation of the government had also been expressed for the dispersion of the Blanketeer meeting. The same had been done for the conduct of the troops at Newcastle. It was the practice, whenever the troops were so engaged, that the government should give their opinion of their conduct; and this was the first time when the propriety of that practice had been called in question. In this case the government had not given their opinion till they were satisfied that the magistrates were right in law—till they were thoroughly satisfied that they had acted as became magistrates of this country If his lordship should advise his majesty to approve of the conduct of a foreign minister, that would not stand against the indignation of parliament and the law of the land. But he did say, that though, as between man and man, no opinion should be given before a legal investigation took place, when disaffection, treason, and rebellion existed, the magistrates had a right to know the opi-

101
nion of government; and base must that secretary of state be who would not communicate what was the honest and sincere opinion of their conduct. If that had not been done, the magistrates would have been placed in a most dangerous situation by ministers, and against their own conscientious judgment. They would have stood in the new and novel light of magistrates, of whose conduct the government of the country would give no opinion. If the opinion had been given under false reports, or under an imperfect and false view, his majesty's government were entitled, and they would owe it to themselves and to the country, to recall that opinion. But they had not given their opinion upon imperfect information. They had the report, first, of the chairman of the quarter sessions; next, of sir John Byng; then, of colonel L'Estrange; and last, of two gentlemen, one a magistrate, and the other chief constable of Manchester, who were sent up to explain the circumstances of the transaction. Upon this information they had given that opinion. He would not disguise, however, the fact that, after this, the ministers were again drawn to the consideration of the subject. There had not been, at first, that inflammation in the public mind, or it had not burst forth against the same objects against whom it was afterwards directed. For, notwithstanding all that had been said that evening by the right hon. gentleman, that the yeomanry alone were "the bloody dogs," it was, he understood, a moot point at first in the council at Manchester, whether the blame should be fixed upon them or on the regular troops. Though he should have had no hesitation to retract an opinion if he had been surprised into it, yet all subsequent inquiry had confirmed his first impressions, and if he had again to do it, he should have pronounced at least as strong an approbation.—He now came to one part of the subject of the debate, which was painful, not only because it was always painful to speak of a person who was absent, but on account of the estimable character of the person in question; he alluded to the removal of earl Fitzwilliam. The hon. gentlemen opposite would do him wrong, if they supposed that he intended to accuse the noble earl of a breach of public duty, or to detract from the high personal character which he had always borne; but he wished to speak on the subject
102
without reserve, to the right hon. gentleman or to the House. His majesty's ministers had acted on a sense of their public duty—the noble earl, on a different sense of his duty; but, taking into view the state of the county with which earl Fitzwilliam was connected, the ministers were of opinion, that if they had not advised his removal, they must have sacrificed the administration of the laws. Lord Fitzwilliam, in imputing to the ministers the crime of countenancing such measures as those which he imputed to the Manchester magistrates, had shown such a degree of distrust of the measures of the government, and in that particular line of administration, with the execution of which he was connected, that it was impossible for the government, with any dignity, to continue him in his office. It was essential to the due administration of public affairs, and to the dignity of the Crown, that none of its servants should hold opinions of it derogatory to its honour and character. Lord Fitzwilliam, when he went to the meeting at York, virtually tendered the resignation of his office. It was certainly impossible for him to execute its duties with persons of whom he had such an opinion. He fully allowed, that it was not necessary that a lord lieutenant of a county should agree in all the opinions of the administration under which he acted; but if he could accuse an administration of being in that branch of the police in which he was concerned, so sanguinary as earl Fitzwilliam seemed to suppose them, the members of that administration would plead guilty to the charge, if they failed to advise their sovereign to remove him. Giving lord Fitzwilliam all credit for the correctness of his intentions, he should say, that never was any conduct less calculated to advance the interests of the Crown or the people, than the manner in which the meeting was called together in the county of York. The circumstances under which, at the time in question, it was assembled, were calculated to lay the laws at the feet of that body of men who were the greatest enemies of the constitution. He desired to know, whether it was true that the persons who called that meeting, preferred the concurrence of the Radicals to that of others who were (equally with themselves) friendly to the constitution, and who were willing to join with them on certain terms? This party said, "We, too, are willing to agree to

103
petition for the calling of parliament, for we are willing to leave to the discretion of parliament the question of inquiry into the business at Manchester; but on this condition, that you recognize the real state of the country, and profess unshaken attachment to the constitution." He did not mean to assert that the persons who refused these offers, and called the Yorkshire meeting, were not friends to the constitution; but (and he would show by-and-by how cautious gentlemen should be of getting into bad company) they preferred a coalition with the Radicals. What was the consequence? At a meeting of 20,000 persons, which he might call a traitorous meeting at the town of Birmingham, a meeting held with the usual apparatus of banners, &c, lord Fitzwilliam was exhibited in a new and singular combination as a Yorkshire reformer. Who had ever heard lord Fitzwilliam vote for reform? Yet on one of the banners of the assemblage was the inscription, "Lord Fitzwilliam and the Yorkshire reformers." But, indeed, lord Fitzwilliam did not disguise his sentiments, for at the end of the clay's business at York, with a view of all the circumstances of the meeting, he proposed the thanks to the sheriff for assembling it. Never was the king's commission so degraded as when this nobleman, with Mr. Wooler on the hustings near him, offered his thanks to the meeting for being allowed to address them in connection with the radicals. It was the first county meeting which had been disgraced with all those emblems of flags and drums which had characterised assemblies of a different description. It was only, he understood, through the favour of the fugalman of the radicals, that any one had a chance of obtaining a hearing, and his hon. friend (Mr. Stuart Wortley) was, he believed, in the condition of obtaining an audience. He did not wish to mince the matter. The noble lord had on this occasion, by his conduct, and the resolutions to which he gave his sanction, disclosed opinions which put an end entirely to that confidence without which it was Impossible, in offices connected with the preservation of the peace, to carry on the government. An account of this meeting had been published by Wooler in the "Black Dwarf," and extensively circulated in the north of England. The writer first quoted from what purported to be a correct report of the speeches delivered, and then introduced his own remarks.
104
Thus his grace the duke of Norfolk was described as having said, that "at Manchester the swords of the military had been opposed to the government of the law." Upon this, the reformers were told, that in the case of their grievances not being redressed, the noble duke stood pledged to follow the example of his ancestor at Runnymead, and defend in arms the liberties of his country. The account went on to state, that Mr. Lawrence Dundas had said, "that the question now was, whether their dearest rights should be maintained or they should voluntarily become the slaves of a military despotism; and that what had been gained by the blood of their forefathers must not be lost by their cowardice." Mr. Fawkes was represented to have expressed himself to this effect—"that the louder they complained, the sharper did their enemies make their swords, and that he would rather perish in the temple of liberty than see it converted into a barrack." To this was added a quotation from Cowper, and the justness of resistance by force, when petitions were rejected, was declared to be the creed of Cowper, of Mr. Fawkes, and of every reformer. Mr. Ramsden was reported to have said, that there never had been such an outrage committed on the people, as on the 16th of August, and that such outrages had in former times been the means of depriving monarchs of their thrones. To lord Milton was ascribed the observation, that the people had the power of controlling their government, and the inference which the writer drew from this observation was, that the noble lord was bound to make that power effectual by putting himself at the head of those who were disposed to exercise it. It was thus that men of high station and character sometimes exposed their conduct and sentiments to misrepresentation, and subjected themselves to the belief of acting for other than their real purposes. The necessity of upholding the empire of the laws, and the important charge of securing the public peace, left his majesty's ministers no alternative, and they were compelled to adopt what had been described as a harsh and improper measure. It was impossible that the noble earl, after the sentiments he had avowed, could continue to act confidentially with his majesty's government. He trusted that he had now adverted to all the points of this subject, so as to answer satisfactorily the objections of the

105
right hon. gentleman. With regard to the general state of the country, he believed it to be critical in every point of view. He was far indeed from thinking that all who attended at these popular meetings, belonged to the number of the disaffected, or entertained sentiments in unison with those publicly professed. He should regret extremely to despair of the mass of the population; and there was, he apprehended, no ground for such a feeling. The best hopes might be entertained from the adoption of such measures as should protect them against the arts employed to delude them. He had lived long enough in Ireland, during a disastrous period of its history, to know how far delusion might be carried by popular agitators; and he had seen those who had been so deluded afterwards become faithful subjects, and zealous supporters of the laws. He had also the proud conviction that a great portion of this country was utterly exempt from the taint, and was animated by a spirit of attachment and zeal for the constitution, that required only the fostering assistance of parliament to render it effectual for our defence. But, at the same time, it was not to be concealed that a deliberate conspiracy did exist for overturning the government, and that there prevailed in many places a disposition to second this design. In such circumstances it would be impossible without the assistance of parliament, that any administration should answer for the public safety. Without it there could be no security against those scenes of bloodshed and confusion by which other countries had been desolated. On the other hand, by pursuing a course of policy adapted to our present exigencies, and firmly meeting the danger which threatened us, we might fairly expect to find ourselves, at no distant period, in a situation of perfect domestic tranquillity. The constitution, borne triumphant through the perils to which it was now exposed, might then continue to extend its blessings to the latest posterity. With all these views, and more especially with reference to the great and fundamental principles of justice, which would be compromised by that House taking into its own hands the subject matter of a judicial inquiry before other tribunals, he felt it his duty to support the original address.
Mr. Bootle Wilbrahamsaid, that as a member of the grand jury whose conduct
106
had been impugned, and being connected with the county of Lancaster, he was anxious to state the views by which the magistrates had been directed, and was sure that, whenever an inquiry should take place, they would come out of it not only with the credit of having acted properly, but with the general admission that they would not have discharged their duty had they acted otherwise. There would be many future opportunities of entering fully into these explanations. He was at present merely desirous of removing any unfavourable impression that might be entertained previous to those explanations being made. It had been asked, why the magistrates had not attempted, long since, to offer some defence to the charges which had been so generally brought against them. To this he replied, that they had not been called on in a manner that afforded them a fit occasion for so doing. Were they to enter into a controversy with writers in public journals, and sit down to refute the calumnies that had been daily circulated against them? Had they appeared at any public meeting, did any man believe that they would have been able to procure for themselves a patient or dispassionate hearing? The magistrates would hereafter show, that they had proceeded on a just conviction that the meeting of the 16th of August was illegal. The ostensible object was undoubtedly reform; but the real object, at least as far as the minds of the lower orders were affected, was ascertained to have been plunder, and the destruction of property. There were depositions which clearly manifested this fact. Their purpose, indeed, had been openly declared; threats had been used, and many of the most respectable inhabitants had been intimidated. It was also ascertained, that those who threw out these menaces, were not distressed or unemployed persons, but spinners and others who were by no means in want. Application was made to the magistrates for protection, on the part of twenty or thirty individuals, who considered themselves and their property in danger. These were some of the most considerable inhabitants of Manchester, who had distinguished themselves by their energy and exertion on former occasions in preserving the public peace. It was not denied that the meeting assembled in large bodies, or that they marched in military array. When they arrived at

107
the hustings, they erected their standards; and as they filed off, left a guard six deep to surround and defend them. As they marched through the streets, many were heard to exclaim, that a new order of things was at hand. Were the magistrates under such circumstances to remain silent and inactive? To what reproaches would they have subjected themselves, had they not taken precautions against the mischief that was likely to arise! Many, perhaps, recollected—he was old enough for one—the riots of 1780, when the lord mayor was prosecuted, whether civilly or criminally he forgot, for neglecting to take such measures as the occasion called for. The constables in this instance declared their inability to execute their office, and this might readily be believed when it was considered that there were but 300 in a crowd amounting to 50,000. The assistance of the military power was then granted; it advanced, accompanied by the peace-officers on foot, nor was a blow struck till they were assailed with stones, brick-bats, and other missiles, brought to the spot for that express purpose. The ground had the day before been cleared of all such substances. One man was knocked off his horse, and his companions apprehended for a moment that he was killed. There was, in fact, more forbearance displayed by the yeomanry than could have been under all the circumstances expected. They at length attacked the multitude in order to effect their dispersion. He did not know with which side of their swords they struck the people; but it was a subject of admiration to many who witnessed the scene, that so large a multitude should be dispersed with so few injuries. He had in his possession authentic returns from the infirmary, by which it appeared that the whole number wounded or hurt was twenty-six. Some of these had received their hurts from being thrown down in the confusion. He did not mean to deny that there might have been some other instances of bodily harm, or that individuals amongst the yeomanry might not have given too great a loose to their resentments. Every exertion, however, had been made to restrain them, and to put a stop to such proceedings. The cause of the yeomanry being employed in this service, was quite accidental, the regulars happening to have taken a wrong route, and arrived last upon the ground. They came,
108
however, early enough to act upon the orders they had received; and in the execution of this duty, it became very difficult to say whether the blows received were inflicted by them or by the yeomanry. Still, he believed, that neither had any intention to commit deliberate or unnecessary wrong. Many exaggerated statements had gone abroad upon this subject, which tended very considerably to increase the general irritation. It had been asserted by an hon. member of that House at a public meeting in Norfolk, that a woman had been attacked and severely cut, and that she and others would have shared a worse fate, but for the interposition of a gallant officer. This statement continued in circulation for a fortnight, when there appeared a letter from the gallant officer, major Cochrane, denying the truth of the matter, and adding that no such circumstance had occurred. As to the bills which were thrown out, he should say, that he happened not to have taken any part in them, and he had done so, on the ground that an objection had been made to him at first as being a near relative of one of the magistrates whose conduct was attacked. This, however, he could state with the most perfect conviction, that never were bills found where a grand jury had acted with more strict impartiality.
Mr. Cokeobserved, that it was he who had made the statement respecting the alleged attack on the woman, in which major Cochrane was said to have interfered. He had found afterwards that the whole was a mistake, and he would most willingly have given the contradiction to it, if it had not been made by major Cochrane.
Lord Miltonhad not intended to take any share in the present discussion, and was only induced to alter his intention, by having heard that something had been said during his absence from the House, respecting a communication between himself and those who acted with him at the York meeting, and some of those gentlemen who had signed the declaration in that county. It had been said, as he was informed, that the gentlemen who signed the requisition, had, in their communication with those who signed the declaration, refused an offer made which would unite all parties. The circumstances of that case he would state to the House, and he appealed to his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Stuart Wortley) for his recol-

109
lection of the transaction. On his application to him, his hon. friend's words were to this effect: "If you and your friends agree to add the declaration to your resolutions, I will endeavour to persuade my friends to adopt those resolutions, and I think they will adopt them." To this he (lord Milton) objected, conceiving it impossible that such an agreement could well be made. How could they define and distinguish in the case they wished to state? For the House would perceive that those declarations of loyalty on one side seemed to imply disloyalty on the other. The proposition was one, which, under all the circumstances, they could not agree to; yet there was no indisposition to act with them. Indeed, in the declaration, which had been signed, not by the hon. gentleman, but by a noble lord (Lascelles), there was an admission of the necessity of inquiry.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that after the appeal which had been made to him by his noble friend, he felt it his duty to offer a few observations. He admitted that he had offered to him, that if they (the requisitionists) would agree to the declaration, he would endeavour to persuade his friends to assent to the resolutions. In this he had done nothing more than merely say, he would endeavour to persuade them, which was all he could promise. This was done at Wakefield; and on the next day, to prevent any misapprehension, he put the proposition down in writing. He asked him in effect—Will you throw off the support of those who have thus agreed to this offer? Will you, without forfeiting any principle which you have ever avowed, throw us off, and only support those who have really no other object than the injury of the constitution? With respect to the address which had been moved, he was glad to perceive that there was no opposition to it. The object of the right hon. gentleman seemed to be, to assent to this address, on the ground that an inquiry should take place into the proceedings at Manchester. Now, he had no objection to inquiry; but he conceived that of all the places where it could take place, the bar of that House would be the worst. He did not, and would not shrink from the avowal of this opinion; and he believed that but for the shuffling of some of those persons who were concerned in the transactions, an inquiry would have taken place
110
long ago. He had seen inquiries take place at the bar, and he had not witnessed one in which the parties had not covered themselves with disgrace. [Cries of "No, no."] He alluded not to the House, but to the parties examined. Here was a court, consisting of 658 judges, all of them examining and deciding upon, but few of them agreeing as to the same particular points. In a court of law there were certain rules by which to determine, and certain practices to observe; but in this House the members were under no such restraint, and each followed that line which he conceived best. Could an inquiry so conducted be considered as the best mode of eliciting truth? Cases had occurred of alleged violence on the part of some of the authorities, where applications had not been sought in the House of Commons. The case of the dispersion of the meeting at Coventry was one in point. Distress there did exist, but it was not from the really distressed that the loudest complaints were heard; and here he conceived the right hon. mover of the amendment was mistaken in his view of the case. They who were loudest in their cry were those who had other objects in view besides a relief to the country. It was now he would agree with the right hon. gentleman, time to speak out, and every honest man ought to declare his opinion. And as his opinion, he would state, that the spirit which was abroad, and which already so much disturbed the country, was a republican spirit—one which sought the overthrow of the constitution, and the destruction of all property. There were, he would admit, many, and among them some of those whom he loved best, who conceived that a moderate reform was necessary; but they sought not that reform by acts of violence and were to be distinguished from those who, under the mask of reform, sought only the destruction of property. He would refer the House to the consideration of the resolutions of a meeting which took place in Halifax, he believed in October last, where the property of the earl Fitzwilliam, was in so many words, pointed at, as if for partition. He would not deny the clear right of the people to petition the crown or the parliament, but he maintained that those itinerant preachers of sedition who went about inflaming the lower orders ought to be put down. Such persons as Wooler or Hunt might

111
be tempted to their present courses by avarice or ambition, but they should be put down. The hon. member next adverted to the two-penny publications which were circulated so widely, and observed, that they ought to be repressed. He would not say that they ought to pay a tax equal to newspapers, but they ought to pay some tax, and he would most willingly assent to any measure of that kind. He agreed with the noble marquis as to the necessity of some measure by which the poorer classes would be relieved from their present burthens, and for many of those burthens a fair tax on property should, he thought be substituted. He had conversed on this subject with men of all parties and they almost all seemed to be of opinion that such a tax would be the best under the present circumstances.
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, that among the many extraordinary novelties which he had heard that night, there were none which gave him more surprise than part of the speech of the hon. member who had just concluded. That hon. gentleman had stated, that no inquiry which he had seen conducted at the bar of that House had ever ended but with disgrace; that one of the greatest functions of an important branch of the legislature could not be exercised but with disgrace.
Mr. Stuart Wortleyhere observed, that his remarks referred not to the House but to the party.
Sir J. Mackintoshcontinued—The explanation of the hon. gentleman did not alter the view which he had taken of this extraordinary assertion. What could the hon. gentleman have meant but that the disgrace would attach to the House? The very assertion itself was used to show that no inquiry ought to take place in the House. And why? Because, forsooth, no inquiry had been conducted by that House without disgrace. What was it whether the disgrace of an inquiry fell upon A, B, or C; it was still, according to the argument of the hon. gentleman a disgrace, caused by an inquiry at the bar of the House. Now, he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that a more gross attack on the constitution was not contained in any of those seditious libels which had been alluded to, and in disgust for which he fully participated. What did it amount to? Why to this—that the House could not engage in one of its most important functions, that of inquiry,
112
without disgracing itself or the object of the inquiry. He could not conceive a more seditious libel than was contained in this elaborate argument; or, he should rather say, this animated invective on the inquisitorial powers of the House of Commons. But this was not the only novelty in the hon. gentleman's speech. There were some others equally curious. The hon. gentleman had admitted at York the necessity of the very inquiry which he now deprecated as a disgrace to the House. He had agreed to a declaration which, as it were, pledged the parties signing it to inquiry, and upon that very ground he might call upon the hon. member for his vote in favour of the amendment.
Mr. Stuart Wortleyhere interrupted the learned gentleman and said, that the declaration was drawn up in such a way as not to pledge the persons signing it to a particular vote for inquiry.
Sir J. Mackintoshresumed.—He protested that every thing of judicial knowledge which he possessed was still more confounded by the explanation of the hon. gentleman. It was hardly possible to imagine any thing more strange than this conduct of the hon. gentleman. He, according to his own admission, stated, that he seemed to agree in York to a principle which he at the same time intended to defeat in London. Did he mean at that time that the inquiry to which he should give his assent should be a judicial one? If he did, was it that the House of Commons should prosecute the inquiry in a court of law? a proposition which, when considered as made at a county meeting, was almost too absurd to be supposed to have existed in the mind of any. But, it the hon. gentleman had meant by inquiry an investigation by parliament, that was clear and intelligible. Yet, how did he now strive to get rid of it? It had been objected to his right hon. friend that he was not decisive in his amendment. He (sir J. Mackintosh) conceived him decisive and explicit. His right hon. friend was at all times so clear in his reasoning, that it was impossible to mistake him. He denied also that the amendment or the observations which accompanied it, were of a vague character. They spoke a disposition to conciliate, and by that conciliation to render coercive measures unnecessary. If the noble lord (Castlereagh) was not satisfied with the observations of his right hon. friend, would he attend to

113
those of the noble marquis? He trusted that the manly, humane, and feeling speech of that noble lord—a speech which was worthy of his high rank and extraction—would not pass without effect. To the principles there laid down he fully subscribed. To institute inquiry into real or imaginary grievances, would do more good than all the coercive measures which it would be in the power of the House to enact. He conceived that coercive measures would be productive, not of quietness, but of increased discontent. The history of the world in ancient and modern times, particularly in the latter, gave ample ground for a doubt of the policy of coercive measures. To those who weighed recent events in this and other countries, that doubt must appear extremely natural. Coercion produced that kind of feeling which often rendered its increase necessary; and thus a system of action and counteraction was kept up, till it ended at last, through the bloody road of anarchy, in absolute despotism. He did not mean to say that this consideration should render statesmen inactive in times of popular ferment, but it should render them cautious in the adoption of measures by which that ferment should be allayed, and mindful of the fatal consequences which might result from an overstrained exercise of power. There was nothing so dangerous in a free state as to close the door against inquiry into any real or alleged grievance. With regard to the meeting of the 16th of August, he would not venture now to declare whether it was or was not an unlawful assembly: he should confine the few observations he had to make to the consideration of four points; and he should endeavour to show, first, that there was sufficient cause for inquiry; secondly, that no effective inquiry had yet been instituted in any of the courts of justice; thirdly, that there was one most important part of these melancholy transactions, which could not undergo an investigation in a court of law; and fourthly, that upon principle and uniform practice, this and the other House of parliament had inquired into such matters. As to the first point, the very existence of contradictory statements on the one hand and on the other, was a sufficient justification of the proceeding, especially as they were connected with some facts which were not denied by either party. It was, he believed, an undisputed fact, that a meeting
114
was convened at Manchester, for the purpose of considering a public grievance, and that the assembly, not having previously broken the peace by proceeding to any violent acts, was dispersed by an armed force, acting under the orders of the magistrates, and that this dispersion was attended with violence and bloodshed. That an inquiry was requisite few could doubt; and the only question was, in what manner that investigation should be made. With respect to the second point, that no effective proceedings had yet been instituted in any court of law, he was fully sensible; there were two prosecutions now pending, relative to this affair; the one an indictment against a man of the name of Owen, for perjury, and the other against Mr. Hunt and his associates for a conspiracy to subvert the laws and constitution by force and terror; but he wished to impress upon the House, that neither of these proceedings had any relation to the important point to be considered—the mode of executing the warrant, and of dispersing the meeting. The prosecution against Owen was for a matter wholly distinct from these two considerations; and with respect to the case in which Mr. Hunt was concerned, supposing that a verdict of acquittal should be found, what proof could it be that the magistrates had been guilty of improper conduct? In the event of a conviction, the same observation would apply, because Mr. Hunt and his associates might be guilty of the crime of conspiracy, and yet the magistrates might have committed a great impropriety in the exercise of their discretionary functions. It would be recollected, that there had been two warrants against Mr. Hunt, under the first of which he had been committed on the 16th of August as the ringleader of an unlawful assembly, and was bound over to keep the peace until the period of trial should arrive. This warrant did not allude to any previous conduct, but confined itself entirely to his behaviour at the meeting. It did not contain any accusation of conspiring to subvert the government; the charge was simply that he had been present at an unlawful assembly. On the 20th August he was again brought up, and was then informed by Mr. Norris, the presiding magistrate, that there was further evidence against him, and that he would be remanded for high treason. On the 27th, a fresh warrant was made out, and Mr. Hunt was committed for a conspiracy

115
to subvert the constitution. It followed, therefore necessarily, that the evidence intended to be produced was believed subsequently to the commitment under the first warrant. Upon the best consideration, therefore, which he could give to the subject, he could not conceive any more fair or equitable mode of investigation than a parliamentary inquiry. For his part he could not understand how these legal proceedings could be conceived for a moment at all to involve the real merits of the case. The noble lord opposite had, in the course of his speech cited names of very high rank and respectability; and had hinted at indictments which might be instituted against the yeomanry. But even if such a prosecution were commenced, how would that affect this question? The conviction or acquittal of the yeomen would not decide the question as to the propriety or impropriety of the conduct of the magistrates. How, then, did the question stand with respect to these magistrates? They had an undoubted jurisdiction, and for the improper exercise of their power, they could not be rendered amenable in a court of law, without a proof of malice. If it appeared that they had behaved more rashly in this affair than usual, or had been overheated by passion, this was no crime, and could not be punished by a court of law; for he never yet heard of a criminal information filed against a magistrate for want of calmness, moderation, or forbearance in the exercise of his magisterial powers. It never could become a question in a court of law, whether a magistrate having before his eyes between 40 and 50,000 people, a great portion of whom were women and children, and curious, idle, and innocent spectators, exercised his discretion properly, by directing the execution of a warrant, the consequences of which might naturally have been foreseen. It was a fact which all admitted, that these magistrates saw the whole of the transaction, the execution of the warrant, and knew the irritable disposition of the people. Were not, then, all these circumstances so many reasons for further deliberation before the warrant was executed? It had been said, he knew not with what truth, that one of the magistrates had been impeded, and that another had been knocked down. Allowing for a moment that this were the case, was this a sufficient justification of their conduct? Was this an answer to all the accusations
‡
116
brought against them? Were they on this account to be allowed to do that in five minutes which the Riot act required to be done at the expiration of an hour? It was indeed said, that there might be danger in delay; but who would be so bold as to venture to assert that the danger was so great that the time required by the act could not be allowed to elapse? Could the people, surrounded as they were on every side with troops, have created any disturbance? He really should be almost inclined to think that the attack was made more in the wantonness of triumphant strength than in consequence of the existence of any real danger. With these reflections upon his mind, he could not help contrasting the conduct of the Manchester magistrates, with that of the magistrates of Glasgow and Paisley. Those gentlemen had conducted themselves with a most praiseworthy forbearance: they had shown true courage and sound discretion, and had permitted every thing short of actual violence, rather than spill the blood of their fellow-countrymen. This was the firm, manly and intrepid conduct of British magistrates, and it was not until the 16th of August that this temperate conduct and praiseworthy forbearance was departed from, and a scene of violence; attended with acts of bloodshed, commenced. With respect to the number who were wounded on this memorable occasion, an hon. gentleman opposite had stated the whole amount to be twenty-six, according to the list of the infirmary. In making this statement the hon. gentleman should have recollected that this return could not possibly include the whole number of wounded, as it must have embraced a circuit of from ten to fifteen miles round Manchester. With respect to this point he had kept his understanding in suspense, being well aware, that in such cases as these, exaggeration might inevitably be expected. In this way of viewing the subject, he found great consolation, as it stripped the case of many points which would otherwise tend to embarrass it. The noble lord opposite, to his utter astonishment, had asserted, that the proposal for a parliamentary investigation was a perfectly novel proceeding. This was to him, of all the other statements made by the noble lord, the most extraordinary; because he was satisfied in Ins' own mind, and he hoped also to convince; the House, that it was almost the uniform

117
practice of both Houses of Parliament to investigate such subjects as the one now presented for consideration. On this point he had collected some precedents which he would shortly cite with the j leave of the House. The first was one of rather a singular nature, inasmuch as it applied to the magistrates of the county of Lancaster. That county had been remarkable for disaffection of various and and opposite kinds; it was at present supposed to be hostile to the constitution; and it was formerly charged with entertaining too strong an attachment to the exiled royal family. In 1704, the House of Lords addressed her majesty for a copy of the commission of peace. A list of the names of the magistrates of the county was furnished; and from this list several names were struck out. This was done after a strict inquiry had been instituted; and he saw no sound reason why that course should not in the present instance be followed. The next instance of this nature was in the case of the execution of Porteous, in 1737. An inquiry was instituted, and the result was, that a bill of pains and penalties was passed. The House had not yet forgotten what was the mode of proceeding in 1794, when the secret committee sat on the state of the nation. Did not their reports tend to influence the judge, the jury, and the public, on the subsequent trials for high treason, and was not the same evidence produced on the trial as was made public from the labours of the committee? Of this he did not complain, because it was the regular constitutional course; but he might, if it were necessary, allude to many instances of a similar nature, all having the same tendency to influence the public mind. It was also well known to be the common practice of that House to address his majesty for the purpose of obtaining the prosecution of an individual: and it was in the knowledge of honourable members that the attorney-general was frequently instructed to prosecute for bribery and other offences. This was the common practice; but could this be said to be prejudging? No, it was an accusation only which the House had full power to make. If this was prejudging, a grand jury might be said to prejudge in finding their bill, or the counsel for the prosecution in stating the case to the jury. This was a view of the subject, the fallacy of which a very little reflection would readily demonstrate. The noble lord had told
118
the House, that such a demand as wag now made was novel; but would the noble lord state any instance since the revolution, where a meeting, legally and peaceably assembled, was dispersed by a military force? He did not ask this as a matter of law but as a matter of fact. The answer must be obvious. Was it not, then, he would ask, worth while to consider, that when those hasty thanks were communicated to the magistrates, a most dangerous example was set to all the other magistrates of the country; and was not the praise of such conduct as he had described, a tacit censure upon the excellent magistrates of Glasgow and Paisley? In the cases where the latter had acted, there had been such a violation of the law on the part of the populace, as would have justified an immediate resort to severe measures, and have raised every hand against them. Yet they were treated with lenity; and what was the consequence? No serious injury ensued. The noble lord had said that ministers had not disgraced earl Fitzwilliam. True, they could not. He had also added, that the conduct pursued towards him did not throw an additional lustre on his popularity. He (sir J. Macintosh) believed it did. But then it should be asked, was such the intention of the noble lord and his colleagues? Did they mean to honour, or to debase him? For his part, the dismission of earl Fitzwilliam appeared to him to be as gross an outrage on honour and virtue, on rank and fortune, as had ever disgraced any administration in this country in modern times. It was a mark of that kind of exclusive and proscriptive policy, which ministers seemed determined to adopt towards all those who should presume to hold an opinion of their own. Lord Fitzwilliam had not fawned upon the government in the days of its power, but he stood by it in the time of danger. He was one of those who were described by his great friend (Mr. Burke), who said, that the hour of danger was the time to distinguish the true friends of the government from the time-serving and slippery sycophants of the court. The noble lord had called in new evidence against earl Fitzwilliam. He had had recourse to the evidence of Wooler; as if he did not consider his own sufficient. It was rather surprising that the noble lord had not had recourse to the editor of the "Cap of Liberty," the "Medusa," and other journals equally respectable. They might

119
have borne equal testimony against the noble earl; but the fact of the noble lord having adopted this new ally in his war against earl Fitzwilliam, proved, that in the strict and honourable discharge of his duty, the noble earl had not lent himself to either the court or the levellers; but had condemned the excesses of both, and thereby lost the favour of each. The hon. and learned gentleman then observed, shortly upon the general satisfaction with with which the vote of that evening would be received, if it embraced the amendment of his right hon. friend. The question, he said, was one of the most important which had ever occupied the attention of the House. If the inquiry should be gone into, it would rub oat as foul a blot and black a stain as ever disgraced the history of this country. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded amidst considerable cheering.
Mr. Plunkett*commenced by observing, that the question before the House had not been very fairly treated. Much had been introduced which did not necessarily connect itself with the subject, and which had a tendency to divert the attention of the House from the deeply important matters which pressed for their consideration. There had been some address in making the case of lord Fitzwilliam so principal a topic. As a ground of argument, applicable to the present question, it could not be justly resorted to by any person who did not go the length of asserting, that the dismissal of that nobleman would warrant parliament in a refusal to consider, or to make provision against, the dangers with which the country was threatened, and which were announced in the speech from the throne. No person, on any side of the House, had laid down so extreme a position; on the contrary, the amendment of his right hon. friend admitted the danger, and the necessity of meeting it by suitable provisions. He would therefore, in his view of the subject, relieve himself from a discussion which he could not approach without feelings of great embarrassment. His habitual reverence for that distinguished nobleman was such, that he could scarcely hope to bring his mind, fairly and impartially, to any investigation which affected him. He considered his character as uniting every thing noble and generous in
* From the original Edition printed for J. Hatchard, Piccadilly.
120
freedom, with every thing which could exalt or dignify the aristocracy of the country; and he therefore took leave to dismiss this subject as one not connected with the debate; and, in doing so, he felt much satisfaction in the statement of the noble lord (Castlereagh) that the dismissal of earl Fitzwilliam was founded, not on any personal imputation, but on a difference of opinion with his majesty's government, on points involving the exercise of his duties as lord lieutenant of the West Riding.
Again, he thought the subject had, in another respect, not been very fairly treated by his right hon. friend, or by his hon. and learned friend who immediately preceded him. It was stated, in the speech from the throne, that a revolutionary spirit was at work in the country, which threatened its safety and its existence; and the truth of this statement was not denied, but indeed admitted, by the amendment: Was it then perfectly fair to call the attention of the House from the consideration of this public danger, and its remedies,—from the machinations and arts of those who were preparing measures for the subversion of the state, and the overthrow of every constituted authority,—to the plans and objects of that portion of the peaceful and loyal subjects' of this country, who respected the law and constitution, and were desirous of improving them? This latter description of persons were entitled to the most attentive and respectful consideration. However he might differ from them, on the subject of parliamentary reform, he considered their objects as honest, and their means of effecting them as constitutional. Whenever, at any proper time, and in any proper form, their claims should be brought before parliament, they should be listened to with attention, and with respect. Their proposals, if reasonable, should be yielded to; if not so, should be met by fair argument and calm discussion: and the result, in either event, would be satisfactory and conciliating. The people of England were a reasoning and reasonable people: but was it fair, either to them or to the country, to confound their cause, and their objects, with the persons whom we now were called upon to deal with, whose undisguised aim was to pull down the entire fabric of our constitution, and to effect a revolution by force? Against this immediate and overwhelming danger it was the first duty of

121
parliament to provide. And to turn aside from the discharge of this urgent and paramount duly, to the discussion of subjects of inferior importance, and of distinct consideration, would be an abandonment of the interests of the country. "When he saw a revolutionary project ripe for execution,—when he saw that sedition and blasphemy were the instruments by which it worked, and that open force was to be employed for its accomplishment,—he felt it to be trifling with the duties of the House, and with the safety of the country, to turn our view to any other object, until the terrors which hang over our existing establishments were first dispelled.
No person, he was happy to see, denied the existence of these dangers; but he thought there was some tendency to underrate their extent, and to undervalue their consequence. It was said, that the public mind in general was sound: he trusted and firmly believed it was so. He was convinced that the strength and spirit of the loyal subjects were sufficient to put down the enemies of law and of order; he therefore was apprehensive, not of revolution, but of the attempt at revolution, which he believed in his conscience would be made, if not prevented by the vigilance and energy of parliament: and what he contemplated with the deepest alarm was, the miseries which 6uch an attempt, in its progress to certain and necessary failure, must produce. If this mischief should once burst forth, he anticipated a series of horrors which must shake the safety and happiness of this country to its foundations. The very circumstances which must ensure the ultimate failure of the enterprise aggravated its dangers. Revolution, always calamitous, yet, when pursued for some definite purpose, conducted by abilities, tempered by the admixture of rank and of property, may be effected, as it had before been in this country, without any incurable shock being given to the safety of persons or of property. But here was a revolution to be achieved by letting loose the physical force of the community against its constituted authorities; a revolution for the sake of revolution, to take away the property of the rich, and to distribute it among the rabble; and this, too, no ordinary rabble, but one previously debauched by the unremitting dissemination pf blasphemous libels, and freed from the restraints of moral or religious feeling. On
122
this subject he felt sufficient confidence at once to express his opinion, without waiting for any of those documents which the noble lord proposed to lay before the House. There were facts of public notoriety, known and seen by every man who did not choose to shut his eyes. Had not meetings been proposed for the purpose of assuming the functions which belonged only to the sovereign power of the state—meetings, which if they had been actually held, would have been acts of high treason? When it was found that matters were not sufficiently ripe for this undisguised act of public rebellion, had not the same masses of the populace been again convened, under the direction of the same leaders, under the pretext of seeking Universal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments,—their very pretexts such as the constitution could not survive, if they were effectuated, but their real object being to overawe the constituted authorities by the display of their numerical strength, and to prepare for direct, immediate, forcible revolution? Had we not seen the same itinerant mountebank, who set their powers in motion, publicly assisting at the orgies of the blasphemous wretch lately convicted? and could we doubt that treason was the object, and that blasphemy and sedition were the means? When he saw these fiends in human shape endeavouring to rob their unhappy victims of all their consolations here, and of all their hopes hereafter,—when he saw there with their levers placed under the great pillars of social order, and heaving the constitution from its foundation, he was rejoiced to see parliament assembled. Their first duty was to convince these enemies of God and man, that within the walls of parliament they could find no countenance; and through the organ of parliament to let them know, that nothing awaited them but indignant resistance from the great body of the people.
They were bound to assure the throne of their loyal and cheerful co-operation for these purposes; and on this ground alone the amendment was objectionable, even if the measure suggested by it were in itself desirable; inasmuch as by tacking it to the address, and not proposing it as a separate resolution, it declared the measure of inquiry so essential, as to preclude all exertions for the safety of the state, until that inquiry should be disposed of. But, waving this objection, he should proceed to consider: it on its own merits.

123
It was said, then, that the dispersion of the meeting at Manchester, of the 16th of August, called for parliamentary inquiry;—and here he begged leave 10 remind the House, that parliamentary inquiry, though certainly a proceeding recognized by our constitution, was, still, not the ordinary mode of investigating, either the conduct of magistrates in the execution of the laws, or the conduct of those who were the objects of the execution of those laws. A case, therefore, for inquiry, was to be made out by those who called for it. What, then, was the inquiry proposed? Was it into the conduct of government, for thanking the magistrates? Such a proceeding, he owned, appeared to him most premature and uncalled-for. If the magistrates had issued orders for dispersing the king's subjects peaceably and legally assembled;—if, in consequence of such orders, the blood of innocent and unoffending persons had been shed, the conduct of ministers in advising his royal highness the Prince Regent to thank them for such acts would call for inquiry and for censure. If, on the contrary, bodies to the amount of 20,000, or 70,000, he cared not which, but to an amount beyond the means of the civil power to deal with, had marched in regular columns, and in military array, with seditious banners, into the heart of one of the most populous and most inflammable towns in the empire; if these men had been previously drilled to military exercises;—if they had been shortly before convened for a treasonable purpose;—if they resisted the authority of the peace-officers executing the warrant of the magistrates;—if, in short, the case stated by the noble lord, and by the honourable member for Dover, was correct, then he had no hesitation in saying, that his majesty's ministers were not only justified in returning thanks to the magistrates, but that it was their bounden duty to do so; and that those gentlemen, acting in the discharge of a most important duty, in a crisis of public peril, and undertaking an awful responsibility for the public service, were entitled to have the sense of the executive government on their conduct. When it was said that this is prejudging the question, it seemed to be taken as granted, that the executive power of the country is not in any degree lodged in the government. Would it not have been their duty to have given previous advice and instruction to the magistrates on such a subject, and
124
with a view to such an emergency? When they direct the public prosecutor to proceed against any individual, can that be considered as a prejudging of the question? To this extent it is the exercise of their proper function, which they cannot neglect without an abandonment of duty; and if they felt, under all the circumstances, that the conduct of those most meritorious public servants deserved their praise, it would have been unjust and mean to have withheld their expression of it. How, then, could the propriety of the letter of thanks be judged of until the facts were ascertained? True, it was said; and therefore inquire. Certainly; but how? Clearly by the regular course of law, and by the regular tribunals of the country, unless some case were previously established, showing that these tribunals were inadequate or unsuited for the purpose. Bills had been found against several of the persons alleged to be actors in this seditious meeting: on these trials the legality of the meeting would be necessarily the subject of investigation. And why was it that these trials had not taken place, and the public mind, through the regular constitutional channel of a trial by jury, been informed of the real nature of these transactions? Why? because the persons so accused had availed themselves of the delay which the law unfortunately allows, and had postponed their trials until the Spring assizes. But it is said, that although the legality of the meeting might be decided on in those cases, still the conduct of the magistrates in dispersing it might be illegal; and this would not necessarily, in them, come under discussion. Why, then, were not proceedings taken on the part of the persons alleged to be aggrieved or injured by the acts of the magistrates? The hon. and learned member made the absence of such proceedings a ground for parliamentary inquiry; but was not the fair inference from the absence of such proceedings this, that no reasonable foundation for them existed? But the grand jury had thrown out the bills preferred on behalf of these persons: Was this a ground for parliamentary inquiry? Was it to be presumed that the grand jury of the county of Lancaster had violated their oaths? An artifice had been resorted to, for the purpose of rendering the administration of justice suspected in the public mind, by publishing the informations which had been sent up to the grand jury; but every gentleman must be

125
aware of the difference between an information, in which the party states the facts according to his own views, and a vivâ voce examination before the grand jury, in which the entire truth is extracted from the witness. But, suppose the grand jury had erred in ignoring the bills, fresh indictments might be sent up to any succeeding grand jury. Was the entire county of Lancaster to be pronounced incapable or unwilling to exercise such functions? But magistrates refused to receive informations: was not their conduct examinable in the court of King's-bench? And might not all the facts connected with such a transaction be fully examined on affidavits? and, if any doubt existed, by a jury, on an information under the sanction of the court? Was the court of King's-bench also to be included within the ban of this proscription of all the constituted authorities? But the hon. and learned member said, that the court of King's-bench would not interfere, unless the magistrate acted wilfully; and that he might commit an error which would not subject him to punishment: was this, then, a ground for parliamentary interference, to stop the course of law, and subject the public functionary to an extraordinary visitation of public vengeance? Were the different points of the argument of the hon. and learned member altogether reconcileable? When his object was to make out a case so important as to call for parliamentary inquiry, he stated the conduct of the magistrates as a daring violation of the subject's privileges, a triumph of authority over law, a foul stain upon our laws, forming a black era in the annals of our country; but when it became an object to shew that there might be a case in which the courts of law would be incompetent to investigate the truth, then this foul deed, this portentous violation of the laws and of the constitution, dwindled into an error in judgment, too slight and too pardonable to warrant the interference of the court of King's-bench. Was such an error, if it did exist, he would ask, a case for parliamentary inquiry? Was this the way in which the conduct of magistrates was to be examined by parliament? He owned he was not one of those who were disposed to examine too critically the conduct of magistrates acting in perilous times, under heavy responsibility; and sure he was, that if the benignant principle of the law shielded their errors,
126
it was not the province of parliament to deprive them of that protection. Further he would ask, if any individual was aggrieved, where was the bar to his remedy by civil action, in which the whole merits of his case would be discussed in a court of law, and decided on by a jury of his country? What pretence was there for saying that justice had been denied, or even delayed? Unless the House was prepared to bring to its bar the grand jury of Lancashire,—unless they were prepared to say that the whole body of public functionaries, petty juries, grand juries, magistrates, and judges, were linked in one common conspiracy against the peaceable petitioners, who assembled at Manchester on the 16th of August,—they had not ground or principle on which they could order this inquiry. He deprecated such a proceeding, as calculated to give efficacy to the plans of the revolutionary party for the degradation of the public functionaries, and to stamp, with the authoritative seal of parliament, what hitherto had rested in vulgar calumny, and in popular clamour. He believed that such an inquiry, instead of being calculated, as was alleged, to allay dissatisfaction, and to conciliate the public mind, could have no other effect than to raise the hopes and spirits of the revolutionists, and to strike damp and panic into the heart of every loyal subject. Besides this, the course was wild and impracticable. How was this inquiry to be conducted? At the bar of the House, or in a committee? Was this inquiry to supersede the proceedings already instituted in the king's courts? Or, were the two classes of proceedings to be carried on simultaneously? If the former was to be the course, the laws were to be robbed of their authority, and the subject of his redress, by a proceeding utterly unsuited to the purposes either of punishment or of compensation. If the latter, we were to have the anomalous and unprecedented spectacle of persons being tried, on charges affecting their persons and properties, perhaps their lives, in proceedings before juries, and with witnesses on oath, in the regular courts of law, while the very-same facts were undergoing a discussion; without oath, before the extraordinary tribunal of parliament. Was it possible that either public or individual justice could be obtained by such a course, or that any result could be derived from it, calculated to maintain the authority of the

127
laws, or the dignity of parliament? Such a proceeding, he must say, appeared to him wild, unprecedented, and impracticable.
His hon. and learned friend had adverted to three cases, as precedents to warrant such a course as that now recommended. The first was a case in the year 1714, in which the House of Lords, for the purpose of procuring the removal of magistrates who were supposed to entertain Jacobitical principles, had addressed the throne for a list of the magistrates, and entered into a strict inquiry; in consequence of which, several of those magistrates were dismissed. Was there any trial then depending in a court of law? Was there any specific fact that could be inquired into in a court of law? Or, was it any thing more than a proceeding to enable parliament to advise the Crown, with respect to the wholesome exercise of it's prerogative?—The second was the case of the murder of Porteus, by the mob of Edinburgh (which had derived much celebrity from a late popular work). Was that a proceeding affecting any trial depending, or with a view to any individual punishment? It was, as fairly stated by the hon. and learned member, an inquiry, in order to ground a bill of pains and penalties against the town of Edinburgh, and which was accordingly passed.—The third instance alluded to, was the inquiry instituted before the secret committee in 1794. That was an inquiry for the purpose of grounding measures for the public safety; and was with reference to the general state of the country, not into the conduct of local magistrates, and on a particular occasion. Again the danger of its incidentally affecting the rights of individuals, who were liable to be tried in the courts of law, was so strongly felt, that the inquiry was a secret one; when published, the names of individuals were suppressed; and even under all these circumstances, the possibility of an impression unfavourable to these individuals having been made by the report, was so strongly felt, that Mr. Erskine relied on it, and successfully, and in some instances, as he (Mr. P.) believed, acquittals were obtained on that ground.—When his hon. and learned friend, with his extensive knowledge and research, could produce no other instances than these, he felt himself justified in repeating the assertion, that the measure was unprecedented.—But there was a
128
case not alluded to by his hon. and learned friend, as he recollected, about the year 1715, in which a parliamentary inquiry having been directed, into the nature of a certain meeting at Oxford, which was alleged to be riotous, a number of affidavits were produced on one side, and after an unavailing demand of examination on the other, the inquiry was found so impracticable that it was dropped, and no further proceeding founded on it.*
* The reference appears to have been made from memory, and, though substantially true, was certainly inaccurate in expression. The facts were these:—A tumult having arisen at Oxford, on the prince's birth-day, and the loyalty of the mayor and of the heads of the university being called in question, the lords of the council examined into the case on affidavits, not with reference to the riot, but with respect to their conduct as to rejoicing on the prince's birth-day,—a matter which could not be the subject of any legal inquiry. The council came to the following resolution: "Resolved, that the heads of the university and mayor of the city neglected to make any public rejoicing on the prince's birth-day; but some of the collegiates, with the officers, being met to celebrate the day, the house where they were was assaulted, and the windows were broken by the rabble, which was the beginning and occasion of the riots that ensued, as well from the soldiers as the scholars and the townsmen; and that the conduct of the mayor seems well justified by the affidavits on his part." On the 25th March, 1717, the Lords addressed the Crown, that the proper officer should lay before the House the complaints and depositions relative to the riots and disorders complained of at the city of Oxford, and the proceedings which had been had thereon. In consequence of this address, the documents, consisting among others of fifty-six affidavits by the officers and soldiers, and fifty-five affidavits on the part of the mayor and city, were laid before the House of Lords, and referred to a committee of the whole House. On the 3rd of April, 1717, the committee repealed two resolutions: viz. an approbation of the resolutions of the lords of the council, already stated; and, secondly, that the publication of depositions, while the matter was depending in council, was disrespectful to the prince, and tending to sedition. A petition against this re-
The case for inquiry, he therefore contended, was unsupported by precedent, and was not bottomed on any ascertained fact, or even on any statement made by any member in his place, of any case which, if true, would warrant its adoption. Indeed, he had not heard any member assert the legality of the Manchester meeting. He was confident that no man, acquainted with the laws and constitution of the country, would venture to do so.
The House, he trusted, would excuse him, if he trespassed a little further on their patience, by stating his opinion, as to these public meetings. The right of the people of this country to meet, for the purpose of expressing their opinions on any subject connected with their own individual interest, or with the public welfare, was beyond all question; it was a sacred privilege, belonging to the most humble, as fully as to the highest subject in the community: they had a right to the full expression, and to the free communication, of such sentiments; to interchange them with their fellow subjects; to animate and catch fire, each from the other. He trusted that to such rights he never should be found an enemy. But he must say, that these rights, like all others, to be exercised in civil society, must be subject to such modification and restriction as to render them compatible with other rights, equally acknowledged, and equally sacred. Every subject of this realm had an undoubted right to the pro-
solution was offered on behalf of the vice chancellor, the mayor and magistrates, who desired to be heard in reply. Their application was refused, and the resolutions already stated were adopted by the House, and no further proceedings were taken. And even from this mere adoption of the resolution in council twenty-eight peers dissented, assigning this among other reasons, namely, that the matters of fact were not sufficiently inquired into, from want of opportunity of replying to the affidavits; and because, by such proceedings, the magistrates may be discouraged from doing their duty on such occasions. These facts appear on the Journals of the Lords; and it is conceived they substantially warrant the statement of this case, as one tending to show the futility of such inquiries, although they do not confirm the exact words of the statement.
tection of the laws, to the security of his person and his property, and still more, to the full assurance of such safety; and he had no hesitation in asserting, that any assembly of the people, held under such circumstances as to excite in the minds of the king's peaceable and loyal subjects reasonable grounds of alarm, in this respect, were illegal assemblies, and liable to be dispersed as such. He thought it important that it should be understood, that these rights were restricted, not merely to this extent; namely, that they must not assemble for an illegal purpose; that they must not assemble with force and arms; that they must not use seditious language; that they must not revile the laws or public functionaries; but, beyond all this, that they must not assemble under such circumstances, whether of numbers or otherwise, as to excite well-grounded terror in the minds of their fellow subjects, or to disturb their tranquil and assured enjoyment of the protection of the laws, free from all reasonable apprehension of force or violence. A vulgar notion may have prevailed, that if the avowed and immediate purpose of such meetings were not illegal, or if they had not arms in their hands, or if no force was actually used, or immediately threatened, the assembly was legal:—no opinion could be more unfounded. And he did not fear contradiction from any constitutional lawyer, when he asserted, that any assembly of the people, whether armed or unarmed; whether using or threatening to use force, or not doing so; and whether the avowed object was illegal or legal, if held in such numbers, or with such language, or emblems, or deportment, as to create well-grounded terror in the king's liege subjects for their lives, their persons, or their property, was an illegal assembly, and might be dispersed as such. Such had been the law, as laid down by the ablest of our lawyers, and of our judges, from the earliest period of our jurisprudence, and in the best times of our history and constitution, before the revolution, and since the revolution, independent of the Riot act, or of any state table enactment, by the principles of our common law, which was always founded on the principles of common sense. The application of this principle to each particular case must always be a matter of discretion; but, in cases like the present, it could not admit of doubt or difficulty. When meetings became too strong for the

131
civil power to deal with them, the laws must prohibit them; if not, recourse must necessarily be had to military force. When the citizen became too strong for the law, the magistrate of necessity became a soldier; and those who justified these unrestricted meetings were the worst enemies to the liberties of their country, and laid the foundation of a military despotism. If bodies of the people, not convened by any public functionary, but called together by mountebanks, whose only title was their impudence and folly, were entitled to assemble, not in thousands, but in tens of thousands; to march, with banners displayed, in military array, into the hearts of populous cities; and if the laws were not competent to assure the people of this country against the panic and dismay excited by such proceedings, there was an end to the constitution.—He implored the House to protect the country from the effect of these desolating plans which were now in operation. Even though they should not break out in actual rebellion, their mischiefs were beyond calculation. The principles of respect for the laws and orders of the state, the reverence that was due to the sacred obligations of religion, these were not the results of momentary feelings, which might be thrown aside and resumed at pleasure; they were habits which, if once removed, could not easily be restored. If those sacred sources, from which were the issues of public happiness and virtue, were once tainted, how was their purity to be restored? He had reason to believe, that the blasphemies, which had excited the horror of all good men, had been fashioned by these miscreants into primers for the education of children, that these helpless beings, in receiving the first elements of knowledge, might be inoculated with this pestilence. He again implored the House to act with decision and energy, while yet it was in their power. If the great foundations of public safety were once shaken, the united exertion of all the honest men of every party might come too late. On these grounds he deprecated the amendment, as calculated to give encouragement to the worst enemies of the state; and cordially concurred in the original address.
Mr. Scarlettbegan by observing, that with many of the magistrates of Manchester he had long bees inhabits of intimacy, and every one of them he knew
132
personally. He should certainly be most unwilling to see them judged by the exaggerated and distorted statements that had been laid before the public. It was not, however, because he thought them guilty, that he wished for an inquiry, but in order that circumstances might appear that would destroy the delusion which had taken hold of the public mind. His hon. and learned friend coming from a distant part—distant, he meant, from the scene of these proceedings—did not appear to be informed so intimately of the facts of the case as to warrant the decided manner in which he had spoken of them. There was one recommendation of his hon. and learned friend which he certainly never expected to hear on this side of the channel, and that was, "that they should decide on the facts first, and then inquire." [A laugh]. Without saying, that he imputed to his majesty's ministers the intention of governing the people by force, he might remark, that such an inference had been drawn by part of the public from the proceedings in question; and since it was so alleged, it was necessary that an inquiry should take place, in order to remove that dangerous delusion; and if, on inquiry, it should appear (which he could not suppose) that government had entertained such an intention, that government should meet (he censure which it deserved. He was sorry to observe the manner in which his hon. and learned friend who spoke last had argued on this subject. He (Mr. Scarlett) did not mean to treat this as a legal question; he conceived it to be paramount to all special pleading, of which his hon. and learned friend's speech had too much the air. He should not enter at large into the character of the meeting at Manchester, but from what he had heard he thought it likely that the motives of the persons who called it were criminal, and that many of the persons attending it had criminal intentions. But many such meetings had been held before and since; and he was surprised that the persons attending these meetings had never been punished. In July last, a few days after the prorogation of parliament, a meeting was held in Smithfield, at which it was resolved that the laws were not to be obeyed after January, 1820, and that no taxes were to be paid after that date; and having never yet heard of any proceeding to punish the persons who had passed these resolutions, he was surprised

133
that a meeting should be down by force, at which no such resolutions had been passed. The first meeting advertised would undoubtedly have been illegal, and on this account the object was changed, and the second Manchester meeting, of the 16th August, took place. What followed? Hunt and his associates were arrested, and after the warrant of the magistrates had thus been executed, the people assembled were cut and trampled down by the yeomanry. The noble lord had asserted that the magistrates never contemplated the dispersion of the mob by the military. Would the public give the noble lord credit for this important fact? Would they not require that it should be proved at the bar? As a lawyer he agreed that the Riot act need not be read before the dispersion of an illegal meeting, and he also agreed that if in a contest with constables in dispersing an illegal meeting, the civil power destroyed life, it was justifiable homicide; but he denied most firmly that, if persons continued on the ground after the arrest of the ringleaders, the yeomanry, by any law of this country, were authorized in cutting them down. Those who remained were guilty of a misdemeanor, but only of a misdemeanor; and it was quite too much to say, that to prevent a misdemeanor life might be destroyed with impunity, though it was otherwise in cases of felony. It might be said that the yeomanry only endeavoured to arrest; but did they secure one individual, or did they take a single man to the New Bailey? Certainly not; and, in this view of the question, supposing the meeting to have been illegal, the military had been guilty of a high offence in the deaths they had occasioned, and the wounds they had inflicted. What complexion, then, did the transaction take? The people meet to petition. The magistrates issue a warrant to arrest certain individuals; and that being executed, the yeomanry disperse the crowd at the edge of the sabre: three days afterwards, the thanks of the Prince Regent were given, both to the civil and military authorities; and what was the unavoidable inference, but that opinions, however absurd or preposterous, were to be put down by the bayonet, and that ministers intended to act on a system of military coercion? Did not this demand inquiry? Did not this call upon the whole nation to insist that inquiry should be instituted? where, then, ought it to be conducted?
134
Where, but in that place which was the professed sanctuary of the rights of the people—the House of Commons; where but before the grand inquest of the nation, the guardians of the constitution, and the liberties it conferred? The noble lord had talked much about the law which he did not seem to understand; but was it meant to be said, that the right of the people to meet and petition was to be left to a private action, commenced by some starving weaver, or some old woman who might take upon herself to be the championess of the nation? A great constitutional right was at stake, and the House of Commons was the only proper forum for inquiry. After some further remarks upon the point whether the Court of King's Bench would grant a criminal information against a magistrate, unless malice or corruption were proved, the hon. and learned gentleman proceeded to notice the dismissal of earl Fitzwilliam. It was known that there was not a man in the country more opposed to the visionary and absurd schemes of the radicals, yet ministers had removed him; and, what was the inference from this fact, but that, as they intended to substitute a military for a civil force, they did not think that he would be an instrument in their hands sufficiently complying? They feared that his ardent love for the constitution would oppose a barrier to their plans in Yorkshire, and that he would support the resolutions of the House of Commons in 1680, when it was declared that those who misrepresented the objects of the people, when they met for redress of grievances, betrayed the liberty of the subject. If it were quite clear that the magistrates would come out of the inquiry pure and unsullied, they would not thank the Prince Regent's ministers for their injudicious friendship in refusing to allow them to justify themselves to the world. But, notwithstanding their refusal, it became the House of Commons to act for itself, to consult the wishes of its constituents, and he never should think the worse of it for sympathising with the people.
The Attorney-Generalrose, amid loud cries for the question, and for an adjournment. He congratulated the House on the general admission that the meeting at Manchester, on the 16th of August, was illegal; and he imagined that the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last must have forgotten that the efforts of the yeomanry were not directed, in the first

135
instance, to disperse the meeting, but to repel an attack that had been made upon them. The fact had been asserted, and had not, and could not be denied. And because the gentlemen on the other side might not have obtained information enough to satisfy them, that was no adequate ground for inquiry at the bar. He denied that a case of suspicion had been made out against the magistrates, and said that the presumption, after the decision of the grand jury of Lancaster, must be all in their favour. The question of the legality of the meeting would soon come before a court for decision; and he insisted that that was not only a competent, but the most competent tribunal.
Sir W. De Crespignynow moved an adjournment of the debate. The motion being seconded by sir Robert Wilson, and supported by Mr. M. A. Taylor, a division took place: Ayes, 65. Noes, 453. Majority against an adjournment, 388—When the gallery was re-opened,
Mr. Wilberforcewas in possession of the House. He objected to its yielding to the clamour out of doors by concurring in the amendment. He insisted that the great body of the nation, at least the great body of the thinking part of it, approved of the steps the magistrates of Manchester had taken, and would be dissatisfied if inquiry at the bar were instituted. He knew that the House of Commons acted, in many instances, as the grand inquest of the nation; yet when gentlemen considered that they would be called on to investigate the conduct of the magistrates in their official capacity, and that in so doing they would be obliged to examine men, not on oath at the bar—men too, it should be observed, who professed the new system of morality, who defied the laws of God and man—perhaps they would pause before they determined to exercise those functions, by agreeing to the amendment. With respect to the transactions at Manchester on the 16th of August, he felt as deeply concerned at the circumstances of that unfortunate day as any gentleman possibly could; but, if he asked himself how the peace of the country was to be preserved, the answer must be, that if they assented to any such motion as the present, and thus sanctioned the proceedings of those bad men, who wished to produce anarchy and confusion, it would be the means of creating more discord and bloodshed than any other measure
136
that could be devised. He admitted that there was considerable distress in the country, and if, in our present situation, it could be done without detriment to the state, he would be willing to take off some of those taxes that bore on the lower classes. But gentlemen should recollect, that the exigencies of the government must be provided for, and that it was easier to remove a tax than to propose a substitute.
Mr. Humerose amidst loud cries of "Question, question." He said, that, in order to give every member an opportunity of stating his opinion on this question, which, at that late hour, it was impossible to do, he would move an adjournment of the debate.
The Speaker—What does the hon. member move?
Mr. Hume.—That this debate be adjourned to this day.
The Speaker.—I beg leave to submit the difficulty that arises on this question. The House has already decided that this debate should not be adjourned.
Mr. Hume.—Then I beg leave to move that the House do now adjourn.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took place. While strangers were excluded, the question was debated, whether it was consistent with the rules of the House for a gentleman to persist in moving the adjournment, minute after minute, in order to prevent the consideration of a question, as was done by the party in opposition when Mr. Fox was last in power. After Mr. Hume, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Bennet, lord Castlereagh, Mr. Scarlett, Mr. Bankes, and Mr. W. Wynn, had delivered their sentiments, it was agreed that the debate should be adjourned till to-morrow.