Commons Sitting of 15 May 1821

PETITIONS COMPLAINING OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT MANCHESTER.
Sundry petitions were this day presented, complaining of the proceedings at Manchester. On presenting a Petition from William Butterworth,
Mr. Harbordsaid, he believed the petitioner to be a very honest man. He was a weaver, and had received a cut of a sabre, on his right arm, which incapacitated him from following his occupation; so that, having a wife and three small children, he had been reduced to great distress. He prayed for justice, and that the perpetrators of the outrages of the 16th of August might be brought to justice. Perhaps, in courtesy to the hon. baronet, who was about to bring the subject before the House, he ought to abstain from any thing like an anticipation pf the debate. Yet, knowing as he did,
714
the store of information which the hon. baronet possessed, the ardency of his feelings, and the extent of his abilities, he confessed that he did not feel any great reluctance or delicacy on that score. The distresses which arose in the year 1819 produced meetings in different parts of the country, and among others notice was given of a meeting to be held in Manchester. The object of that meeting having been declared by the magistrates to be illegal, it was abandoned, and a meeting of a different nature was called for the 16th of August. No efficient steps were taken to prevent this; the civil force were not called into action; the military were placed in ambush; and the magistrates overlooked the whole proceedings from an adjacent house. The magistrates issued warrants for the apprehension of certain persons, and why those warrants were not executed by the civil power, he could never ascertain. It was said, that the civil power could not execute them; but he contended that the effort to do so, had never been fairly made. What was next done? The troops were ordered to advance. Now, he would ask any man what was likely to be the effect of an advance of regular cavalry upon a closely-wedged multitude? But, was it the regular cavalry that was thus employed? No; but a political soldiery. The havoc which ensued beggared description. Doubts having arisen as to the legality of the conduct pursued by the magistrates, one of that body posted to London, to inform the secretary of state what had occurred; and upon this information from one side, and without giving time for the slightest inquiry, their conduct was approved of, and they received the thanks of their sovereign. The chief actor in this scene was a minister of that religion which preaches good-will and charity to all mankind; that gentleman, on this occasion, discharged that duty which at any period was the most severe that could devolve upon a magistrate. How far those duties were consistent with the service of the church of Christ, it was for the reverend gentleman himself to consider. It was a little remarkable, however, that shortly after the 16th of August, for some reason or other, perhaps as a reward for that meekness, humility, and temperance for which he was so remarkable—that reverend gentleman had been advanced to a living of from 1,500 l. to 2,000 l. a-year. The magistrates had

715
stated, that training had been going on for some time before the 16th of August. If so, why was it not put a stop to? They next said, that much alarm was created in the town by the tremendous multitude assembled. Very true; but why were they suffered to enter the town? Why was not the civil power employed to block up the principal avenues to the town before those persons entered it? This would have prevented the fatal events which took place. Next it was said, that the Riot act had been read. He was fully convinced that it was read, as he had it from a gentleman of the highest respectability who was present; but then it was read in such a manner as not to be heard by the crowd. His opinions then were, first, that if such a meeting was illegal it ought to have been prevented; secondly, that proper means had not been taken to disperse it, but that the means used Were most unjustifiable; and, finally, that the avenues of justice had been obstructed in such a manner, that only one means of redress was left, namely, an application to that House. But, when that application was made, the reply was, that the courts of justice were open; though it was known that indictment after indictment had been thrown out by the grand juries before whom bills were preferred. Though he was not in the habit of saying any thing offensive to any quarter, he could not help stating, in conclusion, that, co-existent with the recollection of those transactions, there would remain on his mind an apprehension of personal danger from that government who could, without giving time for inquiry, pass a vote of approbation upon the men who had been the perpetrators of such deeds.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowsaid, he could not hear the hon. member call the yeomanry a political soldiery without entering his protest against it. The yeomanry were a most useful and efficient body, and no country on earth could create or support such a body except Great Britain and Ireland. As to the observations of the hon. member respecting Mr. Hay, the rev. gentleman was bound as a magistrate to act to the best of his judgment; and if he had refused to act he would have rendered himself liable to be struck out of the magistracy. Another assertion of the hon. member was respecting the living which had been given to this rev. gentleman. It was true he had not said it was given for any particular conduct on
716
the occasion alluded to; but, from the manner in which he had expressed himself, he had more than insinuated as much. Now, he could state that the living had not been given to Mr. Hay by government, or by any person connected with government. It had been bestowed by a right rev. prelate, in consequence of a promise which had been made two years before the transactions at Manchester took place. It was, therefore, unfair to insinuate that the living had been given from political motives.
Lord Miltonsaid, that his hon. friend did not speak of the yeomanry of England, but of the yeomanry of Manchester. He would ask any man connected with Manchester, to say whether the yeomanry cavalry of that town were like the yeomanry of Surrey or Sussex, farmers residing on their own lands, or whether they were not persons entertaining strong personal and party feeling. With respect to the living given to Mr. Hay, he had heard, and he should like to hear it contradicted, that an arrangement had taken place by which the rev. prelate who gave that living, was to have in return the disposal of one of those livings which were more immediately in the patronage of government.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, he had no hesitation in contradicting that assertion.
Lord Miltonexpressed his satisfaction at hearing the report contradicted.
Sir R. Wilsonpresented thirteen petitions from persons who had been cut down and wounded at Manchester. Among them was one from W. Cheetham, who stated, that he was addressed by Meagher, the trumpeter, who said, "Damn you, I will cut your head off," and who immediately gave him a wound in the neck, and cut nine inches off the rim of his hat. The petitioner went to Lancaster, in the expectation of bringing the cowardly trumpeter to justice; but, lo! the grand jury, of which lord Stanley was foreman, the petitioner's late colonel, threw out the bill; his lordship said laughingly, he was sorry one of his regiment should have brought himself into such a hobble; the petitioner then attempted to show to his lordship his hat that was cut, and the blood that run from his wound out to his clothing, but he would not look at them, or allow the petitioner to show them.
Lord Stanleysaid, he remembered, that having some recollection of the person in question, he had asked him to what

717
regiment he belonged? and finding that he belonged to his own regiment, he expressed his regret that he should have placed himself in such a situation. He might also have felt regret that the individual had engaged in such proceedings; but if it was intended to be conveyed that he had laughed or sneered at the sufferings of this or any other individual, he begged most distinctly to contradict the assertion. The petitioner had offered to show his wounds, but he, as foreman of the grand jury, told him it was unnecessary, as his statement was sufficient; and here the matter ended.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, that the next petition was from a person who had been considered as the leader of the Manchester meeting; it was from Mr. Henry Hunt, whose conviction at York was, in his opinion, produced by a violent straining of the law, and whose punishment was most oppressive, vindictive and unjust, in a country where justice was administered in mercy.
Lord Miltonsaid, that the case of Mr. Hunt was totally different from that of the other petitioners.
Mr. Scarlettfelt that it was but an act of justice, on his part, to state that the subject of the petition had been before the court of King's-bench, and that the charges had been answered upon affidavit; that the counsel of Mr. Hunt, after having heard the affidavit read, consented to have the conditional rule obtained by Mr. Hunt, discharged with costs.
Ordered to lie on the table.
Sir R. Wilsonpresented another petition from Mr. Hunt complaining of the conduct of the gaoler at Ilchester. The petitioner stated, that the cold and noxious vapours of the gaol were aggravated by the inhuman, cold-blooded, and remorseless keeper's conduct: that the judges had deliberately and intentionally selected the most unwholesome, the worst regulated, and the most immoral gaol in the kingdom; and that one of the judges, who had been born in the neighbourhood of this bastile, had not been able to conceal his joy, when he saw the petitioner sentenced to imprisonment in it for two years and six months.
On the question, That the petition do lie on the table,
Mr. Brightsaid, he felt himself called upon indignantly to notice the vile, base, and atrocious imputations which the petitioner had thrown upon the judges. How
718
was it possible that those learned persons could have known whether the gaol of Ilchester was well or ill regulated; or whether the gaoler was base or cruel? The very magistrates of the county were astonished (himself amongst the number) at the statements that had been lately made with respect to the state of Ilchester gaol: if it should turn out to be true, that the gaol was badly regulated—that prisoners were harshly and cruelly treated, most certainly the magistrates were ignorant of those things. Was it to be believed, then, that the judges could be better acquainted with the internal regulations of that gaol than the magistrates of the county? The imputations which the petitioner had cast upon those learned persons, he was convinced, were false, unprincipled, and atrocious.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he would leave it to every impartial man to say whether the petition was intended to inflame the public mind, or to seek for justice and redress of injuries. In his opinion, it was impossible that the House could suffer to lie upon the table a petition full of such monstrous aspersions upon the venerable judges of the land.
The Attorney Generalsaid, he had been present when the sentence of the court of King's-bench was pronounced upon the petitioner; and he could assert, that upon that occasion no expression in words or by gesture was made by any of the learned judges such as described by the petitioner. He believed in his conscience that the gaol of Ilchester had been selected because it was supposed to have been the best regulated.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, that the petition, as it related to the judges of the King's-bench, he looked upon as base, false, and slanderous. The terms of the petition were scandalous and base in the extreme; if such language as the petition contained was to be tolerated in that House, then it would be better to give up all respect for the administration of justice. The learned judges, throughout the whole case of the petitioner, had conducted themselves with a cautious and fearful anxiety. They were anxious throughout to do what was equitable and just. They gave to the defendant advantages and opportunities which few parties had ever possessed before; they gave him their assistance when he had no counsel, and bore with the utmost patience language and conduct from the petitioner which courts

719
of justice were not accustomed to hear. He agreed with the noble lord that the petition ought not to be permitted to lie upon the table.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that he would vote that the petition be rejected, because, instead of facts, it stated the mere opinion of the petitioner. It was now five weeks since a motion had been made for a commission to inquire into the state of Ilchester gaol, yet no inquiries had been made under it. If it were true that the keeper conducted himself in a cruel and barbarous manner, the sooner he was removed the better: it was not fit that 150 of his majesty's subjects should be under the care of a person, against whom such heavy charges had been brought, without the government proceeding to an immediate inquiry as to the truth of those charges.
The motion, That the petition do lie on the table, was then put and negatived.

MOTION RESPECTING THE TRANSACTIONS AT THE MANCHESTER MEETING.
Sir Francis Burdettrose. He said, that after the various petitions which had been presented to the House, stating, in terms as simple as they were incontrovertible, and as affecting as they were unaffected, the injuries which had been inflicted on the people whilst peaceably assembled for a purpose of the highest importance to the country, namely, the expression of their feelings upon the necessity of reform of that House—he rose, not knowing to whom the blame of the transaction ought to attach, but with the intention of discovering that point by his motion: for, whether it was to the ministers, or whether it was to the magistrates, or whether it was to the yeomanry, who so particularly distinguished themselves on that occasion, that the great share of blame ought to attach, or whether it was to attach to them all collectively, was more than he could tell at present, and was, therefore, a proof that some inquiry into the subject was necessary. It had fallen to the lot of others to celebrate the triumphs of our arms abroad: to him belonged the unpleasant task of repeating to the House one of the sad events of domestic war—celebrare domestica facta; and if, as the noble secretary at war had not long since said, the nation was now only in the first year of domestic peace; if, after war had so long ceased on the continent, a strife had been still kept up
720
in our own Island, which had only just been concluded by the extermination of the friends of liberty and justice, it was one of those triumphs to which glory had yet been attributed in no country of the world. The subject was so important in all points of view, whether it were considered as affecting the happiness and freedom of the people, the dignity and he would say the security of the king himself, or the laws and constitution of the realm, that in endeavouring to draw the attention of the House and of the public to it, he felt that he was likely to gain much more credit for zeal than for discretion; but
"——galeatum sero duelli
Pœnitet."
His object was to procure an inquiry into a subject, regarding which, to the disgrace of the government, no investigation had yet been instituted. In order fitly to introduce it, it would be necessary to recur to what had passed upon a former occasion, and to animadvert on what had fallen from different gentlemen in parliament, who had endeavoured to show that there was no ground of complaint; that all the statements made, of violence committed on the people, were without foundation; or that that violence was justified by the circumstances of the case. He recollected particularly that the noble lord, the member for Lancashire (lord Stanley) asserted, that it was not until the yeomanry had been attacked with bludgeons, stones, and brickbats, that they "turned round upon the mob, and some wounds were inflicted." His respect for that noble lord induced him to believe, that he would be glad to embrace this opportunity of confessing that the representation he then made was not founded in fact. In commencing a subject of so delicate and extraordinary a nature, it might be necessary for him in the onset to guard himself by protesting that in the language he should employ he meant nothing personally offensive to any honourable member. He was called upon to say this, because he really knew not of what terms to avail himself, unless he used those that most strongly expressed his meaning; and if he introduced the word "falsehood," as he must unavoidably do over and over again, he hoped it would be taken by those to whom it was applied, only in the sense of a statement contrary to the fact. The next honourable gentleman, whose language he bore strongly in memory, was the member for Dover (Mr. Bootle Wilbraham). He had said, that

721
it Was not until the yeomanry had been most violently assailed by sticks, stones, and missiles collected for the purpose on the ground, that they lifted ah arm against the people. After him, rising in a just climax of—he knew not what word to use, —in a just climax of statement, since proved to be groundless and untrue, followed the solicitor-general for the Crown. He asserted, not only that attacks were made by the people, but that some of the Yeomanry were literally unhorsed. He egged leave to observe, that he did not impute to the learned gentleman any wilful intention to mislead by falsehood; and he should be especially sorry to charge improper motives in this instance, because he confessed that particular circumstances, of which the solicitor-general might think nothing, had produced a feeling in his mind, which he should never forget, and which made him anxious not to animadvert on the conduct of that learned gentleman in terms more harsh than were absolutely necessary. The learned gentleman belonged to a profession, the business of which was to make the best of a case: dolus an virtus was the peculiar motto of every lawyer; and if the learned gentleman would candidly admit that the case had been put into his hands, he should think the plea a perfectly just one.
Having thus noted, in the order they occurred, the different statements as they were made, he next came, in the due course of the climax, to the speech of the noble marquis opposite, who in the regions of fancy and imagination soared far above his compeers. The noble lord had stated to the House matters, not only since proved to be totally groundless, but proved not to have the slightest verisimilitude—to have no distant resemblance to the fact, but to be utterly and absolutely false and fabricated. The noble lord had maintained, that there had been no interference on the part of the magistrates until the meeting assumed the character of tumult and treason. He went on to relate, that the people assailed the yeomanry with sticks, stones, brickbats, and even with fire-arms. Yes! the noble lord had asserted, that fire-arms were used by the people against the military not by the military against the people—that though great care was taken to clear the ground of stones, brickbats, and missiles, on the day previous to the meeting, yet that a violent attack was made on the cavalry, that showers of stones were poured upon their beads, and that
722
from the very same place that the fore had been cleared "wagon-loads" of stones were removed. He should like to know whence those stones had been obtained. The noble lord had stated, that the people brought them in their pockets; yet it was admitted that they were so densely wedged and jammed together that they could not even lift their arms from their sides. From whence, then, had the stones come, unless the noble lord, with certain philosophers, held that they fell from the moon; and assuredly that was a much more probable conjecture than that the people should have brought them in their pockets. This flight to the moon, however, was not high enough for the noble lord: he mounted with a bolder pinion, and ventured to add, not only that the magistrates did not and would not interfere with the meeting until it assumed the formidable shape of tumult and treason; but that even then they were determined to act according to the strictness of the law: that one magistrate read the Riot act from a window in the first instance, but as that was not held to come up to what was required, another magistrate, notwithstanding the tumult and formidable appearance of the meeting, like another Decius, devoted himself to his country, plunged into the midst of danger to read the Riot act, and was trampled down by the people. That was not all: the self-devoting magistrates multiplied like Falstaff's men in buckram, and a third actually made his way to the hustings, and there read the Riot act; so that no person present could have the pretence of saying, that he was ignorant of the fact. Now, if all this had been truth, he could have had nothing to say; but it was proved to be utterly and completely false: it had been proved so in a court of law, which observed great strictness in evidence, and did not, as the House of Commons too often, did, receive implicitly the loose assertion of one of his majesty's ministers. A court of law looked into facts; it sifted them and tried them by many severe tests; and the statement of the noble lord had there been disproved by numerous and respectable witnesses, who had no connexion with the parties accused, and no political feelings in common with them. Still more: if gentlemen would take the trouble to read the evidence taken on the trials at York, they would find that, with the exception of Mr. Hulton, there was not a witness at the Crown who did not bear

723
testimony to the peaceable and orderly conduct of the people. Mr. Hulton was the only person who had seen the showers of stones, which the noble lord had added were afterwards collected in wagons. He hoped the noble lord would take care of these precious stones—that he would cause them to be preserved in the British Museum, or some other public depository, as a memento to the House to beware how it allowed itself in future to be misled by statements intended to be followed by new and violent encroachments on the rights and laws, and liberties of the country. [Much cheering.] But even Mr. Hulton, who took the chair among the magistrates because no other man could be found to fill it, did not state how the attack commenced—whether it was by order to the troops, or whether, without authority, they had fallen upon the unoffending multitude, excited by animosity or inflamed by intoxication. Surely, if there were nothing else, this alone demanded inquiry. Surely it ought to be ascertained, at least, by whom the shedding of blood upon that day was authorised. Mr. Hulton took upon himself to say that he saw the yeomanry beaten; and accordingly ordered colonel L'Estrange, with a party of the 15th dragoons, to support them;, yet it was as notorious as the sun at noon, that not a single witness had corroborated this assertion: even Nadin, the runner, who said, but only said, that he could not serve a warrant without the aid of the military, did not confirm it; even the Rev. Mr. Hay, who before and since the Manchester massacre had been in constant communication with his majesty's ministers, did not confirm it; only Mr. Hulton had been gifted with senses differently formed from those of all the rest of mankind.
He took it for granted that it would not be denied that the evidence produced at York completely disproved all those inflamed, exaggerated, and false statements with regard to the conduct of the people on the 16th of August, 1819. Without looking at any other part of the question, that alone demanded the fullest inquiry. He took it to be so clear that the interference of the military could not be justified, that he confidently trusted the House would adopt measures to ascertain where the blame ought to lie. It appeared that the magistrates were not the least aware that there was any illegality in the meeting. The imperfect Correspondence on
724
the table* showed that ministers had been long before acquainted with the intended banners, mottos, and all the other circumstances! yet they had never given a hint that the civil power had a right to interfere. It was evident, from a letter dated the 1st of July, 1819, signed by Mr. Norris and four other magistrates, and addressed to lord Sidmouth, who filled an office known to the old tyrannical government of France and to the new military government of England, that of Lieutenant de police, that they had no power to prevent the meeting. The next letter was from Mr. Spooner, of Birmingham, dated the 5th of July, in which he spoke of the apprehensions which he entertained of the approaching meeting, which had been called for a specific purpose,—the election of a legislatorial attorney, which had been declared illegal, though he (sir F.) could not consider it illegal any more than the election of a mayor of Garrat. However, there was another letter from Mr. Spooner of the 13th of July, in which he stated that the meeting which had been held the day before went off quietly, and that the language used was different from that which had been held to the northward, "which appears," says Mr. Spooner, "sufficiently to prove the knowledge of the speakers, that their audience were not prepared to bear that language, or to support those who might make use of it." Here they had evidence of the good conduct and orderly disposition of the people, which shewed that they were not likely to be intoxicated by speeches, or to be incited to any acts of violence. It was to be remembered, that this meeting at Birmingham had been deemed the most objectionable of any that had been held throughout the kingdom. Long before this, too, the great Smithfield meeting had been held in the metropolis under the eye of the government, on which occasion the then lord mayor, who was as much alarmed as the magistrates of Manchester, applied to the noble lieutenant of police, to know whether he could not prevent it; but lord Sidmouth, however well disposed to do so, had told him that there was no room for him to interfere. When that meeting took place, the ill-judged and every way improper arrest of Mr. Harrison took place. Mr. Harrison was
* This Correspondence will be found in Vol. 41 of the First Series of this Work, at p. 230.

725
taken away under a warrant by a few constables, from the chair of that immense meeting, and not the least show of resistance had been made. Though the whole circumstance was most likely to create irritation, the good sense of the people defeated the intention of its authors, and left no excuse for the interference of the magistrates. He would not pretend to the candour of believing that ministers did not wish to excite the people, when that excitement favoured their views. Some handbills, at least the most inflammatory one, which, by the coarseness of its language, was perhaps reckoned upon to produce the greatest effect, and which ended with the words, "Go it, my boys," had been seen by lord Sidmouth before the meeting, and was traced, he believed, to Edwards, or some other of those persons who were to be found wherever acts of violence were committed, to the destruction of the deluded people who joined in them, and to the general mischief of the state.
The next letter in the correspondence was the dispatch of the rev. Mr. Hay, after the memorable event of the 16th of August. In this dispatch Mr. Hay states, that it was the determination of the magistrates not to have stopped the meeting; he states the numbers which had assembled, but he states, that a line of communication was kept up by constables between the hustings and the House where the magistrates were. This proved, that nothing could have been so easy as to have executed a warrant; and, indeed, it was proved at York, that Nadin was continually walking up and down through these rows of constables, though it was on this pretence, that he could not execute a warrant, that the yeomanry were ordered to advance; which assertion, however, he shrunk from swearing to at York, as he and so many other fabricators had shrunk from their flagitious falsehoods when put to the test in a court of justice. Mr. Hay went on to say, that there was "no appearance of arms or pikes" (a noble lord, by-the-by, had said in another place that there were pikes) "but great plenty of sticks and staves." Mr. Hay then stated, that Nadin went up to the hustings, followed by the yeomanry cavalry. Here this dispatch, which his majesty's ministers had relied upon as evidence, was totally false; for it was proved by Nadin himself, that he followed the yeomanry, instead of having preceded them, which made all the difference.
726
Among the persons on the hustings, whom Mr. Hay particularized, was Mr. Saxton, whom he characterized as "the writer to the Manchester Observer." It so happened that Mr. Saxton was not the writer to the Manchester Observer, but there was a circumstance connected with him which showed the spirit of the transaction. One of the yeomanry cavalry near the hustings said to another, "There is that villain Saxton; run him through!" On which his comrade replied, "No, I had rather leave it to you." Upon this" the man actually made a thrust at Mr. Saxton, whose coat and waistcoat were cut through, and who only avoided fatal injury by shrinking away. Now, this "villain Saxton was an innocent man, against whom there was so entire an absence of evidence, that the Crown abandoned the prosecution. Yet this person standing there thus innocently might have lost his life by the brutal fury of his assailants. The law of England said, that even in taking a delinquent, it should not be justifiable to take his life, unless he made such resistance that he could not otherwise be apprehended; nor even then unless the offence he had committed had forfeited his life. What said the law of England to this? Even in apprehending a criminal, more violence than was necessary was not to be used; and his life was not to be assailed unless he made the most desperate resistance, and unless the crime with which he was charged rendered his life forfeit. Such was the law of England, founded on the law of God, handed down to us in that sacred book which we professed to believe. After the deluge, which had swept from the earth the race of violence and blood which had defiled the face of it, the first precept given by God to the surviving ancestor of mankind was, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be sued" The crime of blood was so enormous that there was no satisfaction for it except in severe retaliation. Even if the blood had been shed by accident, the shedder was not, according to the Divine law, free from guilt; and this was wisely ordained, that no negligence might prevail in a matter so important to the welfare of mankind. Until the blood was expiated, the land was defiled, and he who had shed it through misfortune, was obliged to fly to a city of refuge, whence he could not depart until purified by the high priest. In the same spirit, the English law attributed a certain

727
degree of criminality to all homicide, except in the only circumstance of justification, self defence; and even when attacked a man could not justifiably kill another until there was no other mode for himself to escape,—until, in the old and plain expression of the law, "he was driven to the wall." Great as the encroachments had been on the English law respecting public assemblies, (and there was no encroachment greater than the law which was intended for a temporary one, and which seemed to have become permanent—the Riot act), there was yet no law by which a man was authorized thus to shed the blood of another. If the Riot act had been read at Manchester ten times, instead of thrice, as the noble lord said it had been, the violence would not have been warranted. Unless due care had been taken, unless time were given to the people to disperse; unless great and immediate danger would arise from their not dispersing, there was no justification under that severe law for any violence, much Jess for such violence as was perpetrated o the 16th of August. Did it say that the soldiers should come in and kill the people? Certainly not: it provided only that those who remained an hour after it had been read, should be taken into custody, and if convicted, should be deemed guilty of felony. Under that law an execution had taken place at Shrewsbury, where a young man of seventeen years of age had committed no other offence; it being thought necessary to make an example of the kind. But had it ever till now been held legal under it, to attack unarmed men, nay, even women and children? To attack an indiscriminate mass of people closely assembled together—to cut them down with sabres prepared for slaughter, and that too without distinction of age or sex, was an outrage which froze the blood in one's veins. And that no part of the eclat of the day should be lost upon these Manchester heroes, as they had reason to call themselves, it was right to mention an occurrence which took place even as they were going to the atrocious attack upon an unarmed and unresisting multitude. They encountered a woman on their way who held a child in her arms: she naturally enough must have looked upon herself as safe from any ferocious attack: she had about her that protection which, one would think, would nave told for her, with any thing that bore the human shape: but what was her
728
fate? This woman, bearing her infant in her arms, was ridden over, and her child killed at her bosom as these heroes advanced to the attack! And then, to crown the whole, the verdict of the coroner's inquest was, that the child had died by a fall from its mother's arms! [Hear!]. When, however, they at length arrived at this memorable field of massacre and slaughter—when they attacked, sword in hand, the people who had peaceably assembled, and who were left without any intimation of what was intended, then it was found in what situation the meeting had placed itself. The people fled, or attempted to fly, from the dreadful charge made upon them; but, to their horror and surprise, they found flight impracticable; for the avenues of the place were closed by armed men. On one side they were driven back at the point of the bayonet by the infantry; while on the other they were cut down by the sabres of the yeomanry? The description of the event in the daily prints conveyed a full idea of the horror of the scene. In one of them, the "New Times," the description of the personal danger of those on the spot was striking in the extreme. In that print it was represented, that so great was the frightful confusion among the crowd in their attempt to escape from the sabres of the yeomanry, when they found all the regular outlets shut against them, that they actually bore down a wall or building by the pressure of their own weight; and the writer of the paragraph in question described, that he saw many of them buried under the ruins which they had caused by their violent contact with the building. The writer added—and well he might—that the cry of the multitude was sauve qui peut. Happy indeed was he who could save himself amid that frightful confusion? The writer afterwards states, that he had the good fortune to escape by placing himself under the protection of a constable. The account given of the massacre bore, indeed, no resemblance to the legal dispersion of any description of meeting; it rather described the taking of a town by storm, when the officers had lost, in the fury of the moment, all control over the excited passions of the soldiery. Well might he have asked—(he would not say what answer he got to his question)—"Is this a Christian land? Is this a land of liberty?" Yes, he would repeat, it was a Christian land. Yes, he would call it

729
still a land of liberty—one in which power, however absolute might be the attempt to exercise it, had yet its limits; and where, whatever became of the money which was torn from the pockets of the people, there was one place, and that place the House of Commons, where the shedding of their blood must be atoned for, be it shed by whom it may. It was some consolation for him to have heard that night, that a few of the wretches who had perpetrated the massacre at Manchester were at the time in a state of intoxication. It was always more consolatory to think that men engaged in a bloody purpose were not deliberately acting under the guidance of their own reason, but under the frenzy of feverish excitement; and he was happy to find that at least that excuse could be offered for some of those who were engaged in the outrages of that day. An idea might be formed of the violent and indiscriminate manner of the massacre, when it was known that these yeomanry, in their fury and blindness, actually cut down some of their own troops; for the constables on that occasion were armed, and some of them had fallen under the hoofs of the yeomanry. When a man was asked, how he came to know the constables on that day, his reply was singular enough —that he did not know them until he saw men in the crowd knocked down by their bludgeons, and then he ascertained that they were peace officers. Every thing both at the time, and subsequently to the 16th of August, was characteristic of the indiscriminate havoc of the day. A woman examined before the Oldham inquest, when describing the state of the body of the deceased John Lees, which she had seen stripped after death, said it was cut and stabbed from shoulder to hip; and she gave an illustration of its disfigured state, which he mentioned, on account of its allusion, with shame; namely, that the back of the deceased looked like that of a soldier after being flogged. With respect to the avenues to the place of meeting being closed upon the multitude by armed men, there was no doubt of the fact. People were forced back again into the field of havoc and slaughter; that act had been recorded in the face of the country: it was known in the courts of law, where it had been disclosed.
Referring again to what had been written by Mr. Hay, he found that that reverend gentleman went on to state that
730
the Manchester magistrates took Mr. Hunt. But afterwards came that most extraordinary part of the whole of this peculiarly anomalous transaction; for it seemed that when the man was taken and the meeting dispersed, there arose an unexpected difficulty. Difficulty! of what nature? why, for the magistrates to determine, and after the fact, what was the nature of the crime with which they were to charge the prisoners! They first apprehended a man whom they had no right to take into custody, and after that act they sat down in consultation together, to consider with what they should charge him; that was, they took a man first, and then they held a council to see what was the crime he might have committed! Having, however, done all this, they made it the subject of a despatch to government; and surely such a despatch, both as to the crime charged, and the manner of charging it, was never before transmitted to any government in any country. Doubtless the government, by whom that dreadful act was applauded, had consoled themselves with the hope that the terrible example of the massacre at Manchester would silence all public complaint, and terrify the people from meeting and where to promote parliamentary reform. It appeared, however, that the example, notwithstanding its obvious intention, had altogether failed in its effect; for the people, indignant as they were at the outrage, were not yet so entirely appalled as to be driven from the great question of reform; they met as before, and the ministers were compelled to desist from carrying on their system. Though, like Macbeth, they had stepped far in blood, yet they did net, like him, think that "returning were more tedious than go o'er;" they thought it better to stop where they had gone, than advance still deeper; and the people of Westminster and other parts of the country met, he believed, in still greater numbers than they had done at Manchester, to consider of the best means of relieving the unfortunate sufferers on the 16th of August. The number of victims by the catastrophe of that day was considerable; it exceeded the number of killed and wounded in some of those glorious, battles which redounded to the national fame; above 600 had been relieved by the public subscription; and, strangely enough, there would be seen in the list of those who had received pecuniary relief, special constables who had been wounded

731
by the yeomanry, and also a man named I Murray, who had even been represented as a spy of the magistrates on that day, and who had got 15 l. to pay his doctor's bill for attendance received during the cure of his wounds. In that melancholy and distressing list of sufferers relieved by the subscription, would be seen the names of 120 women; ay, and of children at the breast; neither age nor sex had found nature's safeguard. Mr. Hulton himself admitted, in his evidence at York, that he had seen in the house where he and his brother magistrates sat, a woman fainting under a wound received upon her breast. This was no doubt admitting enough of the fact of the atrocities having been indiscriminately committed on that day; but it was said, "await the justification." They had awaited that justification, and found it false. The ministers had themselves confessed the guilt of the parties. There could be no more correct conclusion than this—that when any party accused set up a justification for having committed a particular act, it was a confession, per se, that he had committed that act. If, therefore, all the reasons alleged in justification proved false, there remained only the party's own confession of guilt that stood on record; and such was the situation in which his majesty's ministers stood before parliament and the country for this flagitious act. He repeated, that all the attempted justificatory reasons had failed; and, in pronouncing that decision, he was not recording alone his own opinion, but also that of, he might say, the highest judicial authority on the bench, namely, Mr. Justice Bayley, who had said, at the trial at York, that none of the circumstances relied upon by the government, abstractedly considered, did of themselves necessarily imply guilt. The learned judge had distinctly laid it down, that the numbers at the meeting did not alone constitute guilt. No, nor even the carrying banners in the procession, nor the drilling itself: he said, that the intention alone constituted the guilt of the parties: that it was the intention with which their acts were done which must govern the jury in their verdict; and that it was unimportant, in estimating the circumstances of the meeting, whether the crowd consisted of three persons or three thousand—that the intention of those assembled, be they large or small, was the whole point for consideration in the case. The learned judge was an old lawyer, and
732
had, no doubt, read in his old books the maxim—"Voluntas et propositum, distinguunt maleficium." If to meet peaceably, for the consideration of a peaceable and legal subject, was to expose a meeting to military violence, and to put them out of the protection of the law, then it was time for every Englishman to reflect upon his situation, and bid adieu for ever to the liberties of his country. If numbers alone constituted guilt, how could the people ever meet with effect? It was by numbers they could alone speak, so as to give strength and consistency to their voice, and make their grievances be listened to by the reluctant ears of that House. Mr. Hunt at the Manchester meeting, had, in recommending a peaceable demeanor to the persons present, acted with more becoming prudence than the magistrates who had apprehended him.
The pretence of the people having carried arms to the meeting was utterly groundless; and to talk of their having commenced the attack upon the armed soldiers was, on the face of it, absurd and ridiculous. To tell him that an unarmed and defenceless multitude were preparing to attack an armed and equipped soldiery, was to talk of the attack of a flock of sheep upon a body Of wolves. The thing was, on the face of it, nonsensical. The people knew they had no means of repelling the attack. They thought they had assembled under the protection of the law, and they knew they had no other protection than that law, which used to be, according to the expressive phrase of an able lawyer, "the shield and helmet" of the people; but which, unfortunately, at this sad crisis, they felt neither as a shield nor as a helmet. The people were, in fact, employed in doing that for which it might be said they had the sanction of the magistrates who had so outrageously dispersed them. Upon a previous day, the 9th of August, there was to have been a meeting at Manchester, similar to one held at Birmingham for electing a legislatorial attorney, or some such object. The magistrates denounced that intended meeting, and thinking it to be for an illegal object, they did that which it was their duty to do—they gave public notice of their intention, and warned the people against attending any such assembly. That was a fair notice, to the people: it had its due effect, and the original meeting was abandoned. But it was said, the intentions of the people remained the

733
same, although they had nominally changed the purpose of their meeting; that they still intended to subvert the existing order of society; that there were among the people those who sought rank by convulsion, who meant to become dukes and peers when they had divided among themselves and their associates the estates of the aristocracy of the country. Really, persons who honestly and conscientiously entertained such sentiments of the people, were either wilfully mistaken, or must have obstinately kept themselves in a strange state of ignorance. It would be in vain to argue with those who steadfastly entertained such opinions. With just the same reason might they in their fears apprehend, that Atlas would resign his load, and the world fall into pieces around them.
He had already said, that when the people were warned of the illegality of the first intended meeting, they abandoned it in obedience to the admonition of the magistrates, and they then assembled for a different purpose, for one which they and which he considered both proper and lawful—namely, to prepare a petition for a reform in parliament. If the magistrates deemed the meeting of the 16th of August illegal, why not, as on the preceding occasion, have denounced it? Mr. Hunt had waited upon them a day or two before, in consequence of some rumour that a charge was intended to be brought against him; he wished to surrender to that charge if any existed, rather than expose the meeting to inconsiderate interruption at the time it was to take place. What was on that occasion the conduct of the magistrates? They denied having any charge against him; they notified no opposition to the approaching meeting; and therefore he felt himself entitled to assume that the meeting must be considered as having had the sanction of the magistrates. The people had invariably preserved the peace when not obstructed at their meetings. After the Manchester business, one was held at Wigan, which, according to the letter signed "Balcarras," addressed to lord Sidmouth, was attended by all the symbols of sedition, and such like; the people had their leaders, their flags, and their marches, —and what happened? They were left unmolested at their meeting, and "the day passed away in tranquillity." The same occurred at the subsequent meeting in York, at which there was, he
734
had heard, a still larger attendance than at Manchester; and the people, after going through the business of the day in a peaceable and legal manner, quietly dispersed without any obstruction from the bludgeons of the peace-officers. Indeed, all the meetings throughout the country were conducted in the same spirit of order when left to their own management, and without interference. The people uniformly showed the utmost deference to the laws, which were, he was sorry to say, only violated by those whose solemn duty it was to have kept them free from violation. He hardly knew a circumstance in history which was so much to be deplored, as the dreadful occurrence at Manchester;—
"Immortale odium, et non sanabile vulnus."
The people of England, he feared, never could, never would forget it? He was entitled to say that all would have been peaceable if the meeting had been left unmolested. Who, then, were the authors of that calamity which could never be forgotten? He would not stop to assign their share in the deeds of the day to the Manchester yeomanry. He would not stop to investigate the respective shares of the subordinate actors; but would at once demand investigation into the conduct of ministers themselves, and hold them responsible for all the calamities which they had countenanced. But, to return to the list of the killed and wounded—a list which was swelled in amount beyond the loss sustained by admiral Jervis in that great and brilliant victory off Cape St. Vincent, which conferred the splendor of a title upon his name. In that victory 15 sail of British ships defeated 27 sail of Spanish, and brought (what was unusual) two of them into port; and the loss, in killed and wounded, was between 300 and 400—a number falling short, by upwards of 200 of the amount which had suffered in the massacre at Manchester, comprising men, women, and children. It was surely impossible for the House to listen to this recital, and resist an inquiry into the particulars of an occurrence so unprecedented and so fatal: into these transactions they were imperatively bound to inquire; for, in fact, the inquiry could not now be instituted in any other place. The courts of law had been referred to, but those who referred to them knew that the subject was of too vast a size, for the courts of law. The courts of law, if, instead of being closed upon this occasion, they

735
were even open, could not conduct such an inquiry: all they could do would be to redress individual wrongs. They might inquire into the scale of redress or quantum of injury applicable to the cases of A. B. or C. D.; but they could not adequately inquire into the fatal injury inflicted upon the British constitution.
He had gone thus far, and had almost forgotten a document which, though short, was most precious. Indeed, its contents were brief; but not a word could be spared from the document. If it were true that nothing could be too long from which nothing could without detriment be taken, it must be equally true that that Could not be too short from which a word could not be spared. He alluded to lord Sidmouth's letter, dated Whitehall, August 21, addressed to the Manchester magistrates, and which expressed, by command of his majesty, "the great satisfaction" the king derived, "from their prompt, decisive, and efficient measures for the preservation of the public tranquillity." It was monstrous to declare that the king of England could have derived "great satisfaction" from the perpetration of these horrid crimes. The king had no connexion with that letter; it conveyed no feeling in which a king of England could ever participate, nor any words which such a king could use in the expression of his sentiments on such an occasion. "Great satisfaction," indeed, at the slaying of his subjects! He would venture to say, that had the noble lord ransacked the whole English language, he could not have picked out any one term which would have risen before his eyes more like a rock that he ought to have altogether avoided, than the term "great satisfaction," to put into the mouth of his sovereign. What! the king be made to feel and express great satisfaction on bearing of the instantaneous massacre of a large number of his subjects without distinction of age or sex, and to communicate to the perpetrators of such atrocious deeds, his high approbation of their support and assistance!—the thing was impossible; it never could have happened. It was the act of the minister: the king stood free from such an imputation. For the outrage of Manchester, he could find no parallel in the history of the world. Perhaps there was something like a parallel with it to be found in the conduct of the Romans, who decreed in their senate the destruction of the Goths, in
736
their Asiatic provinces. This inhuman decree was carried into effect by Julius, the master-general of the Roman troops, who carefully collected together on the appointed day the Gothic youth in the square or forum; the streets and avenues were occupied and blocked up by the Roman troops, and at a signal given, the unprepared and unexpecting victims were surrendered to indiscriminate slaughter. He would do the king of England the justice to believe that he had not expressed "great satisfaction" at the communication of the slaughter at Manchester. Nothing had been ever acted in the name of a king which could have been so inimical to the real feeling of that king, as the expression of such a sentiment as was on this occasion put into his majesty's mouth by his minister. It was not the least remarkable part of this unparalleled outrage, that the minister should have selected nearly such expressions for transmission to the authors of the crime as had been used in describing the massacre of the Goths in the Asiatic provinces of the Romans:—"His diebus Julii Magistri militia enituit efficia, velox et salutaris." Whether the noble lord, when he transmitted thanks in the name of his king to the authors of the crime, for "their prompt, decisive, and efficient" conduct, had had, in his classical recollection, the words used by Ammianus, or whether it was that the same devil which prompts men to do the same evil acts, had suggested the same words for conveying their description, he could not tell; but it was strikingly remarkable, that the only two acts which in history bore any thing like a resemblance to each other, should, at such a distance of time from their respective occurrence, be expressed in words nearly of the same import. That his majesty could have expressed any such satisfaction at the massacre of an unarmed multitude of men, women, and children, he never could believe. That such an event should have suggested "satisfaction" in the breast of the king, he repeated, he never could believe; he would not believe it from any man in England, even if the blood were necessarily shed, and therefore justified. If the shocking punishment were necessarily inflicted for the summary suppression of violence, and in the execution of the law, it was impossible that the king could have exhibited such a total absence of all feeling and common sense, as to make use of an indecorous

737
expression of his "satisfaction" at the shedding of the blood of his people.
If this outrage was left unredressed, it would entail disgrace upon the age in which we lived. The courts of justice were, he repeated, shut against inquiry; and the attempts of the sufferers to obtain redress had been defeated out of doors by every species of chicanery. This was the first time since England was England that a coroner had taken upon himself the responsibility of refusing to perform his duty. Such an act must be received with detestation and horror. He first neglected to perform his duty, and then made that neglect the ground of his ultimately abandoning it. When he had instituted an inquisition, his unwarrantable adjournment of that inquest was an obstruction of the stream of justice from pursuing its even course. How was it that a judge had astutely discovered that the defect in the mode of conducting the inquest was fatal to its continuance after the defect was remedied? First, the coroner being necessarily absent upon other business, suffered his clerk to swear in the jury, as was customary upon similar occasions; but the court of King's-bench at length discovered, that what never had been the practice ought to have in this case occurred, and that the coroner (not his deputy) and the jury, before they were sworn, should have together seen the body of the deceased. There probably never was a legal inquisition conducted in this country with all the nice legal technicalities which it seemed should have been observed in this particular case. Here the hon. baronet took a review of the manner in which all the attempts made by the sufferers to obtain legal redress had been repelled. The magistrate refused informations, because a grand jury had thrown out some of the bills. The people finding that to be the case at Lancaster, went to Warrington to tender their complaints. There again Mr. Bon-ham refused the proffered information; and in this manner, by one evasion or another, justice was obstructed, delayed, or denied.
He must again say, that this was not an inquiry into individual wrongs, but into a flagrant violation of the constitution. When it was considered that the king's ministers were not contented with making a gross and groundless statement to delude the House and turn them from inquiry into these transactions; and more-
738
over when it was considered, that they had grounded upon that delusive statement no less than six acts, which were the greatest encroachment upon the rights of the people since the time of the Revolution; so much so, that of them it might be said, that they effected in 1819 a revolution of the great principles which had been established by a revolution in 1689; when this was considered, he thought that House could no longer resist inquiry.
He had thought, when the outrage was committed, that it was unfortunate the inquiry was not then entered into; but now that nearly two years had elapsed, he thought that that which at the time appeared unfortunate, had turned out to be rather a piece of good fortune; for it enabled them calmly and dispassionately, unheated by the influence of the moment when the outrage was fresh in their mind, to come to a sober and deliberate investigation of the question. The House had now a proper opportunity to form a just estimate of those false, profligate, and vile impostors, whose testimony had led to-such grievous results. Time had fortunately done that which it never failed to do—it had rent asunder the veil which hypocrisy, and trick, and chicanery, had thrown around this subject; and it now presented to the eyes of an astonished country this portentous event in all its naked and hideous deformity. That event he might well describe in the language of an ancient writer—"Nihil est scelestius, nihil perniciosius, nihil quod hæc civitas magis plorare posset;" Unless that House had lost all respect for itself—unless it had thrown aside all regard for public liberty—unless gentlemen had not only dismissed all reverence for justice, but all feeling for their own character and estimation in the world—they would go into that inquiry, which he now demanded on the part of the people of England; they would now make good those professions, which some of them had expressed, when they stated that they wished a full inquiry to take place. The time had arrived when those professions were to be tried, not by their loudness, but by the test of fact and experience. It was impossible that a subject of this kind could be allowed to remain in its present state. It was impossible that an administration stained by the blood of the people—for so, he must contend, the present administration was stained,

739
until that blood was somehow atoned for —could continue as it now was. And it was equally impossible, that that House could refuse ah inquiry into that scandalous, and wanton, and profligate expenditure of blood; for, however lightly the profligate expenditure of the public purse might be viewed, it could not be supposed that the same levity of feeling would be entertained with respect to their persons. This was the only way by which the could come before the country and the world, in a fair, open, and candid manner. And he called on those gentlemen who had stated circumstances which had so much deluded the House, to declare to the country and to the world, what it was that had thus imposed on their understandings. He wished to drag some of their spies and informers (if they had received their intelligence from such impure sources) before the public. He wished "to drag those monsters into day." Ministers could no longer screen themselves under those depositions which lay on the table, and which, instead of names, presented all the letters of the alphabet. He desired to know at least who A, and B, and C, and D, were. He wanted to learn the names of the parties whose information led to an event which overwhelmed them and their abettors with disgrace. He could only say that, as far as he was concerned, he had, to the best of his power, endeavoured to do justice to the people, and to give ministers an opportunity to do justice to themselves. The noble lord opposite—whose statements in that House, with reference to the subject under consideration, had had more weight than the observations of any other person—would, he trusted, for that season concur with him, on this occasion, in the propriety of the motion he was about to submit, which was, "That this House will resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to inquire into the Transactions which took place at Manchester on the 16th of August 1819." [The hon. baronet sat down amidst loud cheers.]
Mr. Hobhouseseconded the motion.
Mr. Bootle Wilbrahamsaid he presented himself to the House with great diffidence on this occasion, although he was most anxious to rescue the conduct of the magistrates of Lancashire from the aspersions which had been cast upon it. Notwithstanding he felt personally interested in this question, he was extremely
740
glad that it was now fairly at issue before the House. He did not, however, think that the hon. baronet had dealt justly, either to the parties accused or to those persons whose cause he professed to support; and he would briefly state his reasons for thinking so. The circumstance which formed the subject of the present motion took place two years ago. The events at Manchester occurred before the session of 1819, and in the month of April following, the hon. baronet gave notice of a motion which he afterwards put off, on grounds that did not appear to him to have adequately justified the postponement of a question of so much importance. Now, having suffered the subject to sleep for upwards of a twelvemonth, he did not think the hon. baronet had acted fairly, either to those who were accused or those who complained, in bringing it forward now. He meant to impute nothing that could be personally offensive to the hon. baronet, and if any unpleasant expression should escape his lips, he was ready to ask pardon for it. To the eloquent statement of the hon. baronet, he had nothing to oppose but plain, unadorned facts. He had recourse to facts, because they would have more weight than any statement coming merely from himself. The House and the country had, perhaps, been led to draw an inference unfavourable to the magistrates of Lancashire, on account of the silence they had thought proper to preserve with respect to the charges that had been made against them. The magistrates, however, had from the first signified their wish to go before a tribunal where substantial justice would be done. They were in expectation of going before a court of law; but they had not been called on; and they thought it was more dignified, more worthy of their situation, and more consonant with the innocence which they felt, to submit their conduct to judicial investigation, rather than to send forth a statement of that conduct, in answer to the attacks which had been made on them out of that House. They thought it better that their defence should be made in that House, or before a court of justice.
In considering the question now submitted to the House, he was relieved from one considerable difficulty. It was not necessary for him to enter into any argument to show the illegality of the meeting. It was declared on the trial at York to have

741
been illegal; and that decision had since been confirmed by all the judges of the court of King's-bench, on a motion for anew trial. The trial at York was conducted with the greatest fairness and impartiality. The prosecution was led by his learned friend, the member for Peterborough, with all that ability for which he was distinguished; and the case was tried before a constitutional judge, who could not be accused of bearing harshly on any defendant who happened to come before him. He felt a satisfaction in stating, that the question was tried at the instance of the parties themselves in the county of York; and the decision clearly showed that evidence given solemnly on oath removed the first unfavourable impression of the transaction in the minds of the freeholders of that county. As it was obvious, that no mere statement of his would be attended to by those members who gave credit to that of the hon. baronet, he should be obliged to trouble the House with some documents explanatory of the real circumstances; and he would read them as shortly as he could. He would proceed to give a very brief narrative of the transactions, because he relied more on the statement of the facts he had in his possession, than on any observation of his own. The House would recollect what was the state of the country in the beginning of 1819, and particularly in the early part of the Summer of that year. The disposition of the people in the northern manufacturing districts was so well known that, at the Chester quarter sessions, the magistrates entered into resolutions, binding themselves to exert their best endeavours to preserve the public peace. The grand jury at the Salford sessions followed their example; and, on the 3rd of July the king's proclamation, respecting the disturbed state of the country, was issued. About this time the meetings, which had not before been very numerous, increased considerably. They increased in proportion to the impunity which they met with. They were all conducted by the same itinerant orators, who went from one meeting to anothor, and moved a series of resolutions, amongst large bodies of the people, where it was impossible that any discussion could take place. From January to June only one or two meetings were held; but, from the 1st June to the 16th of August, no less than a dozen were held. These meetings followed the memorable letter of Mr. Hunt to lord Sid-
742
mouth, reclaiming a petition which he had left with his lordship to be presented to the prince regent. In that letter he declared "that he would find some other means of making the sentiments of the people known to the prince regent;" At the meeting at Oldham, on the 14th of June, there were deputies from twenty-eight places; and their object was, to adopt some mode of harmonizing their political union and proceedings. They declared, that "a government emanating from the free choice of the people could alone give security to the country:" and they voted thanks to Wooler, Cobbett, Carlile, and others, who were all invited to attend the meeting of the 6th of August. This meeting of the 9th was called for the avowed purpose of electing a member for the unrepresented town of Manchester. But a learned counsel having stated his opinion that such a meeting would be illegal, the idea was given up. There was, however, a large procession through the town of Manchester. At this time a number of the magistrates for Cheshire, who were also magistrates for that part of the county of Lancaster, together with some of the Lancashire magistrates, formed a committee, which met frequently at Manchester to devise means for preserving the public peace. That committee called Mr. Hilton to the chair. He was a leading man in the county of Lancaster, and he would say, that he never knew an individual who possessed a greater portion of humanity and courage. After the 9th of August, a meeting of the people was fixed, for the 16th. Their object was, to consider a fair and avowed proposition; but, at the same time, strong indications of a desire to tumult and not were observed. The magistrates, therefore, gave directions that all persons who were willing to undertake the duty, should be sworn in as special constables. Many persons were so sworn in; but a person of the name of Bamford, who was now suffering for his infraction of the law, published a proclamation, threatening those who obeyed the call of the magistrates. This proclamation had the intended effect; and, in the populous place where Bamford resided, only two or three persons could be found who would act as special constables. The loyal part of the population became intimidated, and the training and drilling in the neighbourhood of Manchester after midnight struck terror into the minds of the well-disposed. Before the 16th of August the activity of

743
the night drills had greatly Increased. And here he begged leave to make one observation, in answer to what had been said by an bon. member, as to its being the duty of the magistrates to put a stop to them. Now, it was impossible for the magistrates to do so, seeing that they did not know of them until after they were over. It was generally from 12 at night to an early hour in the morning that the people were exercised, and it was, therefore, morally impossible for the magistrates to prevent their taking place. Two men of the names of Shawcross and Murray, who watched one of these midnight assemblies at a place called Whitecross, were discovered by their scouts, and beaten most severely. At this period a circular letter was written by Hunt, in which he stated, that he considered the meeting of the 16th to be an adjournment pf the meeting of the 9th; the latter, be it recollected, having been called for an illegal purpose, namely, that of electing a member to serve in parliament for the town of Manchester. The hon. member here produced and read a number of depositions stating the drilling at night, and the terror and alarm of the people in the neighbourhood.
Lord Miltonwished to know what the precise nature of those documents was? Whether they were depositions taken before a magistrate; or whether they were depositions made is a court of justice where the witnesses were cross-examined?
Mr. Wilbrahamcontinued. He stated, that he had no hesitation in saying, that they were not of that description, but were depositions made before the different magistrates, by persons who voluntarily offered themselves to state what they saw and heard. He did not wish to give them a, higher character than they deserved, but he believed that those who made those depositions: swore, only that which they were, convinced was true.—The hon. member, then read a number of depositions, stating the drilling, and the violence used; towards those who would not join in. them. He also read, depositions stating the language of the people, as to their revolutionary intentions and as to their expectations, from the meeting on the 16th of August. The magistrates, conceiving the meeting would be numerous, had every, thing done to preserve the public, peace which was in their power. They s had, three hundred constables stationed; forming two lines to the hustings; but in
744
order to prevent this, the people moved the hustings further off to prevent their access and, linked arm-in-arm, no less a number than thirty or forty thousand men, marched into the town of Manchester in bodies of several thousands, and with flags and banners, when they came opposite the Exchange, they shouted in defiance, and hissed. When they passed by the military, they gave three cheers with the like view; and as they proceeded before the house where one of the men was who had been ill-treated the night before, they paused and hissed; an evident proof which identified them with the drilling party at Whitemoss. On their arrival on the field with all this military array, they formed six deep round the hustings. This, as might well be imagined, created general alarm, and many persons, not timid ones, but those who had in a former period of danger stood forward in their duty, alarmed at their steady and determined appearance, called on the magistrates to interfere, and deposed to the danger which they thought threatened the peace of the town. Some of the magistrates thought the reading the Riot act would be a proper step to be taken in the first instance; and one magistrate, who had a remarkably loud voice (Mr. Ethelstone), read it from the window of the house where the magistrates had stationed themselves in view of the meeting.
Mr. Bennet.—May I ask where is his deposition? Has he ever sworn to this fact of having read the Riot act?
Mr. Wilbrahamsaid, he did not know, but he had been told so. Another magistrate, thinking that not sufficient, went into the street and read it again; but he was speedily tripped up, and trampled upon. Much stress had been laid upon the Riot act not having been read, or heard read; but he thought that of little consequence, for it must be considered, that the meeting was liable to be dispersed, not because it was riotous, but because it was a decidedly illegal meeting. He admitted that professedly it was, not illegal; but it was so in fact and in law. Then the military array in which those who assembled at it proceeded to the spot, and many other circumstances, combined to make it of a very peculiar as well as very formidable nature. It could not, therefore, be considered as a meeting of any known or ordinary, character, such as those were which were, contemplated by the Riot act, at the time, of its en-

745
actment. The depositions proceeded to show, that when Hunt and his party arrived, the warrant for their apprehension was made out. Here he would take the liberty of mentioning to gentlemen who might happen not to be aware of it, what the municipal constitution of Manchester was. It had no corporation, but was governed by a borough-reeve and two constables, invariably chosen from the most respectable and wealthy inhabitants. Upon this particular occasion it appeared that the borough-reeve professed his entire conviction that any attempt to serve the warrant without the assistance of the military power, would be futile and dangerous. This apprehension of his was confirmed by the two constables; and finally, in consequence of their representation, the military power was called in. The hon. gentleman then read the affidavit of an individual who saw a great many stone6 thrown during the transactions of that day; although from personal observation he could allege, that before the meeting there were on the field neither stones, sticks, nor bludgeons, nor any other implements that could be used offensively. After the dispersion of the meeting, however, he found both sticks and stones; the former appearing to be some of them hedge-stakes, the others walking sticks. Another person declared in his deposition, that being desired by the borough-reeve, shortly alter the meeting was dispersed, to go over the ground, he had found many stones, several of them having all the appearance of having been brought thither, and of having been used for the purpose of throwing at people. One person deposed to having met, on the morning of the 16th, several parties armed with sticks and bludgeons. He saw the men standing, twelve feet deep, before the hustings, linked arm in arm. He saw stones and brickbats thrown at the yeomanry cavalry; and one man near him struck at a yeoman with a bludgeon or short stick which he carried. The hon. gentleman then read parts of depositions of persons, who spoke to having seen sticks and stones upon the ground; some of the former being four feet long. It was stated in the deposition of a constable that the military aid being called in, two companies of yeomanry advanced, preceded: by the borough-reeve and two constables. They marched by files, very slowly, and six abreast. Now, by marching in this manner, it was quite impossible that the yeo-
746
manry could then mean any thing hostile because the two outside men only, of each file, could use their sabres against the people. The depositions asserted that not a blow was struck by the yeomanry until they were themselves assailed by the bludgeons of the populace. Another deponent alleged, that before a blow was struck by the yeomanry, he saw stones and brickbats flying about, directed against them from a variety of quarters; that captain Burley, when the yeomanry advanced, preceded them about 36 yards, and that many of the constables walked considerably before captain Burley. The next deposition described the fact of Mr. Hulme, a trooper in the yeomanry, having been knocked off his horse and hurt.
The hon. gentleman observed, that he had much more of this evidence, which he forbore longer to detain the House upon; hoping, however, that by so abridging he was not weakening it. It might very naturally be asked why this evidence was not produced at York, on the trial; and his answer was this. The learned judge, before whom the cause to which he alluded was tried, thought proper to narrow the question (and no doubt with very good reason) solely to the legality or illegality of the meeting which took place at Manchester. This, and no other, was the question which he felt himself called upon to try; and, limited as it was, it occupied eight days. This limitation, which was, as to all points of evidence, strictly enforced, was allowed—with that humane and honorable feeling which is naturally always entertained for persons in similar situations—to operate in favour of the defendants; and much evidence, both of a specific and a collateral nature, in consequence, was not brought forward. There was perhaps another reason why it was net-produced. The gentleman—an eminent solicitor—who was sent down to prosecute, did not address himself to the magistrates; but on his arrival at Manchester applied to a professional gentleman of great respectability, but unacquainted with most particulars of the transaction, and not at all connected with the magistrates. What was proved by Mr. Hulton, the only magistrate who was put into the box, was most satisfactorily proved; and the jury found a verdict of "guilty" against the defendant, which of course they would not have done had the evidence been of a nature to leave any doubt on their minds upon its propriety. He did not wish to

747
say anything invidious on this subject; but he felt that he should not discharge the duty he owed to himself, to the magistracy of the country, and to that House, if he did not call the attention of hon. gentlemen for a few moments to the nature of the evidence. Mr. Garble, they all knew, was one of the persons summoned to attend the meeting in question. The political and the religious opinions of this person were also well known; and he would put it to any of those who now heard him, and who had any sincere belief in the Christian religion, whether he could believe evidence given, for instance, by Mr. Carlile? Some of those who did give evidence were so far parties concerned, that it could hardly be expected they should candidly declare with what intentions they went to that meeting; while others, as the hon. baronet had said, went there, no doubt, with the best and most innocent intentions in the world. But, in such a confused scene, and amidst the tremulous agitation of 50,000 people, it was obvious that men, in giving an account of what they had there beheld, were very liable to be warped and misled by their fears, their prejudices, or their passions.
As to the inquiry proposed by the hon. baronet, he thought there were very many objections to the mode of it. They all knew the length to which such examinations ever went. They could not be carried on with that closeness and unremitting ness with which judicial proceedings were conducted; and the great objection of all was, that they would not be upon oath. What, therefore, would be the consequences, if the House acceded to the proposition of the hon. baronet? People would be summoned from all quarters; long investigations would be gone into upon one side, and followed up by as long ones on the other; and, after all, the result would depend upon the credit given by the House to the individuals who gave their testimony.—The hon. member then, adverting to the day of the meeting at Manchester on the 16th, stated, that the magistrates had taken every precaution to guard the town against danger; and he produced a placard which had been posted up by them, in which they cautioned all persons to keep their servants, children, and apprentices within doors on that day. It was said, that the magistrates ought to have arrested Hunt before that day but when this objection was made,
748
it should be considered that the magistrates had no charge against him before then. No act had been done by him before then of which they could take cognizance. Mr. Hunt himself had called at their office to know whether there was any warrant out against him, and he was answered that there was none; of course they could not have interfered with him. It was also said, that the magistrates should have prevented the meeting; but he should wish to know how the passage of a body of 50,000 persons could be stopped. If an attempt of the kind were made by the civil authorities, their power would be set at defiance, as it was afterwards; and he presumed it would not be contended, that force should have been resorted to in the first instance; but even if that were the case, they had not a sufficient force. It was next said, that they should have waited until some seditious act had been done; but to this he replied, that if time had been given to have the passions of the multitude inflamed by seditious harangues, it might have been found extremely difficult to prevent its effects. The magistrates waited until they had found the leaders fully identified with the multitudes they had collected, and in this he thought they had acted most wisely. If they had waited until the irregularity of the meeting became more marked, it might have proved too powerful for their utmost efforts to repress.
The hon. member then proceeded to contend, that the meeting could not have the peaceable intentions which were attributed to them, else why should they have brought sticks out of the ordinary size, and such quantities of stones as he had proved were brought by them to the ground in their pockets? As to the charge of their not having tried the civil power, he maintained that they had tried it as far as it could be done without imminent risk. Neither magistrates nor constables were bound to expose themselves unnecessarily; and it was perfectly clear that 300 constables would have been of no avail against the opposition of such a vast force. The magistrates had seen an instance of the futility of such an attempt a few evenings before, when a man had been attacked for posting up a proclamation of the prince regent. The borough-reeves and constables interfered, but they were hemmed in by the mob who began to pelt them; and it was with difficulty they escaped. But they had an example in

749
the employment of a military force on an occasion somewhat similar, and that by an individual who would not be suspected of any violent measures against public meetings. He alluded to the case of the meeting of the Blanketeers, as they were called about four years ago, when sir John Byng sent the peace-officer, along with the soldiers, who surrounded the leaders of the party, and took them into custody. He had no hesitation in saying, that had the meeting not surrounded the military who were sent among them at Manchester, not a life would have been lost. The magistrates saw that the civil power, as well as the yeomanry, was in danger: added to this, they had the depositions of several respectable inhabitants, who swore that the town was in danger; and they did what they conceived would prevent it —they dispersed the meeting; by which the danger was completely averted; and several other meetings which had been announced in the county were avoided.
As to the charge, that the troops had stopped up the avenues to prevent the people from escaping, it was completely refuted by the declarations of all the officers of the regular troops who were on duty on that occasion. He now came to the yeomanry cavalry; and he contended that if they had attacked the people, it was only in defence of themselves. They had gone to assist the civil power, when they were assailed by the crowd, and it was natural that they should defend themselves. But it was quite erroneous to say, that many persons had fallen by their hands. That some persons had lost their lives and that a number were wounded and bruised, was a fact; but he would show that the accounts which attributed all those circumstances to the attacks of the yeomanry were quite erroneous. The hon. member then read a report from the coroner at Manchester of the number of inquests which he had held after the 16th, in order to show that many of the cases which were said to have occurred by wounds at Peter's Field were cases of accidental death. The first of these was on a woman who was said to have been cut down at the meeting; but by the coroner's inquest it appeared that her death was accidental. She had come to the meeting, apparently very zealous for its object, and was heard to express a wish at a house where she stopped to drink, that she might not return alive if the good cause did not carry the day. In the pressure of
750
the crowd she fell into an area and was killed; and the verdict of the Coroner's jury was given accordingly. Another inquest was on an infant which had died of convulsions through fright. The hon. member mentioned other inquests which had been held by the Manchester coroner, between the 16th of August and the month of November; in none of which, he observed, did it appear, except in one case, that the party had died of sabre wounds; the most of them were accidental deaths, arising in many instances from circumstances not connected with the meeting. One of those cases was that of a man said to have been killed at Peterloo, as it was called, but who actually met his death whilst eating some mutton, a piece of which stuck in his throat. With respect to the reports of the numbers said to have been taken into the infirmary, they were equally erroneous; and it was also without foundation that a man had been turned out of the infirmary because he had been one of those who attended the meeting. The reports of many said to have been killed were equally without foundation. As a proof of this, and of the avidity with which such stones were believed, he would mention one or two cases. The first was that of a father who went to the infirmary to seek for his son (as it was reported), and seeing some clothes in one of the rooms, he declared that they were the clothes of his son, and thence concluded that he had been murdered, and that his body was disposed of. Now he had an affidavit from the son himself, a young man about 19 years old, which stated, that he had not been at the meeting, had not been wounded, and never was in the infirmary in his life. Several other cases he could mention, but he did not wish to detain the House. One case he could not avoid stating; it was that of a man named John Nuttall, who was said to have set oft" for the meeting on the morning of the 16th, but who was not afterwards heard of. It was of course concluded that he had been killed; and it was added that the agony of his wife and four children was not to be described. Now he had an affidavit from Nuttall himself, from which it appeared that he had left his home to go to Manchester, not on the 16th, but on the 14th, and having been detected in stealing 28 lb. of tobacco, he was committed to the New Bailey, where he remained on-the 16th, and of course could not have

751
attended the meeting. From these few statements the House might judge of the nature of many of the assertions which had been made respecting the list of the killed. As to the number said to have been wounded, he believed they were greatly, exaggerated, and that many persons showed wounds and bruises said to have been received on the 16th, which they were, induced to come forward with by the premiums for wounds offered by the committee. He knew one case of a man who had, received 4l. for a wound, which he said he had got on the 16th, but which he afterwards confessed was occasioned by a nail which had run up through his foot.
He hoped he had now answered the charges brought against the magistrates and the cavalry: if he had not, it certainly was not from want of materials, or the weakness of the case. But if he had not succeeded in defending them, let the House recollect the difference of their situation then, and that of the House at present. The House was now, after a lapse of, nearly two years, debating upon the propriety of that conduct, of which they (the magistrates and cavalry) had had but a few minutes to consider. The House was now certain that the danger was all over; they had to decide in a moment of fear and alarm. He did not speak of personal fear, but of alarm for the safety of the town. The hon. member then read an extract of an address to the prince regent, signed by 8,000 inhabitants of Manchester, in which they approved of the conduct of the magistrates, and described the danger in which they considered the town to have been placed. This he did to show that the feeling of danger was not confined to the magistrates alone. The hon. member contended, that to institute an inquiry at the bar of that House would be to cast an imputation where none was deserved. The power of parliament to interfere was what he did not deny; but he objected to an examination at the bar of the House, which would operate as an inference that the magistrates were, to blame. No bill had been preferred against them though intentions to that effect had been loudly declared. No attempt had been made to bring the question to issue, although there had been, funds raised for the purpose; the subscriptions for the sufferers having been diverted in a manner which had only; been, made public by a quarrel among the
752
parties. What he implored was, that the House would not interfere with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts. If the magistrates had been guilty, let them be tried by the law of the land, which was equal to punish them; but if innocent, why should the House interfere and create a new offence unprovided for by the common law? If they wished to discountenance the magistracy of the kingdom, they would do it by bringing the conduct of these gentlemen to the bar of that House. He did hope the House would pause before it adopted a measure which must be detrimental, and the obvious effect of which would be to paralyze the efforts of the magistracy in the event of danger to the country. He would conclude with a few words which he had selected from a speech in the other House of Parliament, made by lord Grenville on a motion to a nearly similar effect as the present by the marquis of Lansdowne, which from the lapse of time it was not disorderly to allude to. He avowed the sentiments it contained, and he could not do better than read it. "Need I say what would be the effect of such a motion? It would teach the whole magistracy of your country, that, when in the hour of peril they have discharged their public duties with intrepidity and firmness, yet if unjust prejudice, if groundless clamour, be raised against them, they must look to no protection from the government or the legislature. After all their exertions, and all their sacrifices, they must prepare themselves to meet unfounded suspicion and harassing inquiry; to appear, perhaps, as culprits in this place, defending themselves against the vindictive malice of those very criminals, whose guilt they may have exposed and punished. Thus discredited, thus degraded, what must be their resource? They might appeal perhaps to yourselves against your own cision. They might remind us that the discretion which they exercise, and the duties which they perform, are committed and enjoined to them by law; by that law of which they are the ministers, and you, your lordships, the high at hereditary guardians. And they might confidently claim, from your justice, that you should suffer them, to enjoy unmolested its full protection for their own conduct and character, while they are engaged in uprightly administering it to others."*
* First Series of this work; vol. 4l, p. 473.
Lord Miltonsaid, that though he respected as much as any man, the character of his hon. friend who had just sat down, yet on this occasion the House had nothing to do with the character and station of his hon. friend; they had only to do with the case which he had made out, and that which had been attempted to be made out against him. It would, he thought, have been better had his hon. friend abstained from making the allusions which he had indulged in towards the close of his speech, respecting the power of the House to make that a crime which was not so before. His hon. friend had read a number of depositions made by various persons relative to the events of the 16th of August. He was glad to find that those persons no longer thought it necessary that their names should be concealed from public view. But he must ask why those persons were not called on the trial of Hunt? There was a person named Barlow, who had deposed that there were not twenty persons in the Exchange, and that the people at the meeting had bludgeons. But on the part of the witnesses on Hunt's trial there was not one word of this. What was his hon. friend then doing? Were he and the other magistrates sleeping at their post? They could not have been ignorant of the nature of the evidence. Why was the evidence on the trial so different from that given before the magistrates? But Barlow was not the only one in the same predicament. Dunthorpe had stated, that he heard one person coming from the country to the meeting say, that they intended to meet in such numbers as to overawe the civil and military power. That person's name was Wilde; he was one of the defendants, and it was remarkable that judge Bailey, whose name he could never mention without feelings of affection and veneration, in summing up had stated, that there was no evidence against Wilde. Would it have been so if Dunthorpe had been called? But they did not venture to produce him, notwithstanding such a deposition. Perhaps they were influenced by some knowledge of the character of the witness. But whether it was so or no, this was an important question which he was firmly convinced, could never be set at rest but through the intervention of parliament. As the hon. baronet had well said, it was a question whose dimensions were too large for one of the ordinary tribunals. It was not a question affecting
754
private individuals, but the rights of all persons, and the interests of the country. It was in this light he had always considered it, and he begged the House not to mix up with such a question the characters of individuals; he begged them to consider the subject on its own principle and merits, and to forget the name of Hunt, as well as the unworthy petition which he had attempted that night to have laid upon the table of the House. If they mixed up Hunt with other persons interested in this question, they would mix up characters totally dissimilar. He did not stand there to attack or defend Hunt, but he called on the House to take care that no rash interference should lead to establish the precedent of a military instead of a civil power in this country. It would be recollected, that on the trial at York, the judge had over and over again told the jury, that the conduct of the magistrates and yeomanry was not the question. The question on the trial was, whether the meeting was a lawful or a riotous one, and not whether the conduct of the magistrates had been unconstitutional or violent. Therefore the question which came at issue between the magistrates, military, and government, on the one side, and the people of England on the other, had not yet been tried. He was willing to concede to his hon. friend, that the injuries stated to have been inflicted at the meeting were exaggerated, and that the numbers of the wounded and- killed were not so great as were at first stated; but his hon. friend could not deny that at the very least there had been 25 in-patients at the hospitals, and thirty-two out-patients, in consequence of the events of that day, and, were the transactions of such a day unworthy of the most solemn consideration of parliament? As to the persons killed, he would put the number at the lowest possible level. He would take his hon. friend on his own showing, and say, that if but one person had fallen by a sabre wound, whose relative could not procure redress, it was the business of that House, as the great inquest of the nation, to interfere. The latter part of his hon. friend's speech had been taken up in the justification of the magistrates. He (lord M.) was inclined to believe, though the question was involved in much mystery, that the magistrates were not the most to blame. Mr. Hulton had stated, that it was not the intention of the magistrates to interfere. That determination was most

755
wise, and he wished; the magistrates had it in their power to adhere to it; but he doubted whether, when the military rushed in, the magistrates had that power. The Riot act was not then read. It did not appear that it had been read before the military drew up in the face of the hustings. Why was there not evidence given that it; had been read? No one could peruse the charge of Mr. Justice Bailey to the jury, without perceiving that the learned and venerable judge could not make up his mind as to the verdict, and that he in some measure anticipated a complete acquittal. Five of the persons who were included in the indictment were positively acquitted. If it was illegal to have merely been at the meeting, it was clearly proved that those five persons were present. Why then were they acquitted? The persons who were found guilty had been convicted on evidence of a conspiracy to contrive the meeting. Neither judge or jury decided that merely being present at the meeting was an illegal act. He must, therefore presume, for any thing that was shown to the contrary, that all the persons, except those convicted of a conspiracy, were perfectly innocent. He would call upon those who acted as magistrates and yeomanry to say whether, the conduct of the magistrates and yeomanry of Manchester was an example which ought to be followed through the country. As the case now stood, it was a matter of doubt how they ought to conduct themselves; for some might think that they were not called upon to act, on looking to the conduct pursued by other magistrates: while some might conclude that they were, on looking to the example of the 16th of August. That was a point which ought to be settled by a decision of that House. His hon. friend had stated, that the meeting at York had sanctioned the legality of the meeting of the 16th; but that was not the case; the resolutions passed at the, meeting alluded to did no such thing; and his opinion was, that whether the meeting was illegal or not, the manner in which it was dispersed was illegal and unconstitutional. But declining to give any opinion as to the legality of the meeting, he would say, that it was peaceable. He drew that inference from the depositions which had been read and from the evidence which had been given at the trial of Mr. Hunt, and even from the evidence which had been given against, him. They had it in evidence,
756
that the men came there attended by their wives and daughters from the distance of fifteen miles. Could any one suppose that they thought they were capable of overpowering the civil and military authorities, or, even if they did, that they would bring their wives and daughters in the contemplation of a contest? But then it was said that the peaceable inhabitants were alarmed: it was in evidence, however, that many persons went to the meeting through curiosity, and that among those there were many who were hostile to the purpose of the meeting. The judge had stated, over and over again, upon the trial, that the court had a right to examine into the conduct of the meeting, though not of the magistrates or the yeomanry. Another observation of Mr. Justice Bailey was, that there was no evidence to justify the employment of the military power. He would ask of those who maintained the contrary opinion, why was not Nadin: called? Mr. Hay and Mr. Ecclestone were also at York; why were they not called to prove that the Riot act was read; and Nadin to prove that he could not execute the warrant? Mr. Stanley was also at that meeting, and in the room with the magistrates, where he could see what was going on as well as they could. This it might be said was no evidence, but it was as good evidence as any that was produced on the other side. Mr. Ecclestone had said, that from the moment the military attempted to work their way to the hustings, swords were up and swords were down, but whether they struck with the flat or with the edge he could not undertake to say. That was as good evidence of violence on the part of the military as any that had been adduced to prove the violence of the people. He did not mean to deny that in such an assembly there might be many persons anxious to excite them to violence, and excited the themselves by wild and visionary projects; but every thing connected with the case had a tendency to prove that it was incumbent upon parliament to enter into an inquiry. An important conclusion to be deduced from the whole was, that if they wished to preserve the balance of the constitution —if they wished to preserve the prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges of the higher orders, they must interfere for the protection of the lower orders in the security of their rights and privileges. If this was not done, the people would sooty begin to feel that they had no protector

757
and that the House of Commons, instead of defending them was, subservient to the power and authority of others. If they wished to consolidate the power of the country, they would show to all ranks and orders of society that they had an interest in supporting the laws and constitution, and that if those laws were not sufficient, the House of Commons was capable and willing to afford them redress. Should they decline to do so, he feared that they would loosen the bonds of society, and lay the foundation of consequences more injurious to the nation at large than it was possible for them to anticipate.
Mr. Wilmotassured the House, that if he did not consider that this was a question which was capable of being argued conveniently and conclusively within a much narrower compass than that in which it had been discussed in the course of the debate, he should not have risen, feeling as he did, that it was impossible at that late hour of the night to enter fully into the subject; yet, when he considered how deeply the character of the magistracy, the yeomanry, and even of the government itself was implicated, he trusted the House would not refuse to indulge him with a hearing for the very abort time he should claim its attention.—With respect to one gentleman whose name, had been mentioned by the hon. baronet, he thought it his duty to state, that whatever might be the opinion of the House as to his conduct in this instance, no person who had the pleasure of his acquaintance, could entertain a doubt as to the uprightness and humanity of his intentions. He alluded to Mr. Hulton, the chairman of the magistrates on that distressing occasion. He had known Mr. Hulton well in early life, and he appealed to those who also knew him, whether he was not distinguished for that manliness and high and generous spirit which were utterly incompatible with cruelty and oppression. They had heard a number of petitions read, which could not but have excited a considerable degree of regret, as they contained a melancholy detail of individual misfortune; but it appeared to him, that these petitions had been unnecessarily presented to the House, for if they once determined, as he had no doubt they would, that the magistrates, under the peculiarly trying circumstances of the case, were justified in calling in the military to aid the civil police, it would at once be seen, that the extent of casualty
758
did not bear upon the merits of the case, at least not upon the conduct of the magistrates. With respect to the motion of the hon. baronet, he could not but express his astonishment that he should have thought it advisable or expedient to make it. He had avowed, not in covert expressions, or in ambiguous terms, but plainly and distinctly; that he thought the government, for purposes of their own, had sanctioned and encouraged the proceedings which had taken place. Upon that point he (Mr. W.) had a strong opinion, indeed he had the authority of an hon. and learned gentleman. (Mr. Brougham) not inferior in character, ability, and talent to the hon. baronet, who stated on a late occasion, in the most explicit and public manner, that he did not think any person could have the folly to impute such conduct to any government; and he must repeat his astonishment, that the hon. baronet should have suffered his political feelings so to have blinded his common sense, as to suppose that the government of this or any country could act upon such self-stultifying and irrational principles.
With regard to the details contained in the depositions of the events of the 16th of August, the House must not putout of their view the unfortunate transactions of that day. He called them unfortunate, yet he thought it would not be a discreet or prudent measure, especially at this distance of time, to call evidence upon them to the bar of the House. There were other means much more satisfactory for eliciting the truth, which most inexplicably, in his opinion, had not been resorted to. When they recollected that there were only three public meetings from the month of January 1819 to June, and no less than fourteen between June and August, they must consider whether the poverty and distress of the people of Manchester and its vicinity did not make them of necessity the prey of agitators. The people were told that their wants and privations were owing to the defective form of their government—they were told, that to join in the overthrow of that government was the only mode of obtaining a redress of their grievances. He would ask the House, whether this was idle declamation? He could read; the resolutions which were published on the subject: they contained all the attributes and characters of incipient treason. The magistrates having caused the postpone

759
ment of the meeting of the 9th of August, what was the conduct of Mr. Hunt? Was it possible not to take into consideration his conduct and his words? He declared that the meeting of the 16th was to be considered as an adjournment of the meeting of the 9th. Then the hon. baronet asked why not arrest Mr. Hunt? For the plainest of all possible reasons, Mr. Hunt was at that time guiltless of any overt illegal act. The meeting of the 16th of August was a meeting leg any convened, precisely the contrary of that which was intended to have been held on the 9th inst. But when the House re-collected that Mr. Hunt came to the meeting of the 16th of August, accompanied by an immense multitude marshalled in military array, deploying upon the town from various points and advancing with measured steps in regular order and displaying eighteen flags, five caps of liberty, and numerous banners with seditious mottos and legends inscribed on them —and these were facts which he did not state upon light authority, but upon evidence which he was disposed implicitly and unequivocally to believe—he could not for a moment suppose, that the English law could contemplate such a meeting as one that bore a legal character: and, in fact, a grave, unsuspected judicial decision had confirmed the opinion of its decided illegality. He would then beg leave to call the attention of the House, to the very difficult situation in which the magistrates were placed, when, believing it to be their duty to prevent mischief, they arrested Mr. Hunt; and here was the difficulty: the unfortunate casualties that occurred were matters of fact, though highly exaggerated in many quarters. The mischief that might have ensued had the meeting been permitted to continue, and the people been taught their own power, and the alarms of the constituted authorities—that mischief, incalculable as it might have been, was, it seems, wholly to be Bet aside as a negative quantity in any analysis of the proceedings of that day. It did not by any means follow, that the magistrates, in availing themselves of the military power, could have contemplated the unfortunate scene which afterwards took place. Such were the transactions, and the state of affairs at Manchester, at the moment when the magistrates, being informed that the civil power were incompetent to effect the arrest of Mr. Hunt,
760
gave orders for the co-operation of the military. He would say it was not for them to disconnect the meeting of the 16th of August with the circumstances of the former proceedings, or to disconnect them with the state of the public mind at the time. The noble lord (Milton) had said, that up to the moment when the military interfered, the meeting was orderly and peaceable. It might be peaceable, but it was the peace of the thunderstorm, which advances slowly on with dark and lowering aspect, which may pass away, but which more probably may burst upon you with all the rage and fury of the tempest. The discretion to be exercised by the magistrates was a painful one. It was impossible not to feel for them. If they found that the men who were instrumental in giving this order to the military were men of humanity, it was impossible that and motive could be attributed to them but an imperative and overbearing sense of duty, which in a complete degree justified the satisfaction expressed by the ministers of the Crown. Could it fairly be supposed, that the satisfaction expressed by ministers, meant any thing like rejoicing at the events which had taken place? No; but it was a source of satisfaction to find that English magistrates would con-sent to take upon themselves such a responsibility at such a moment. "Was it possible that any man could have contemplated the infliction of wounds on persons of the other sex, on the aged, or on children? Be it remembered too, that the necessary precautions were not omitted: for the circumstances were such as to create a deliberate belief that the treason had arrived at a height which made it uncertain what might be the result. The hon. baronet had stated, that the responsibility of the magistrates was a grave responsibility; and he had reminded them of the denunciation in Holy Writ, that "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed;" but this denunciation was not to be construed literally; for if it did, it would impeach that blood which was shed by the sword of justice; and, in this instance, if the magistrates were justified in calling in the military, they were not responsible for the accidents that occurred, and the transaction must be considered as one sanctioned by the law, and, as such, included in the exercise of justice on a more extended scale.

761
The hon. baronet had complained, that the liberties of England had passed away; but he thought that the very circumstance of his having made this complaint this night in such a tone as he had employed, was a sufficient disproof of the assertion. He would say, that those on whose beads the vengeance of the law ought to fall, were those who took advantage of the distresses of the people of the country, in order to gratify their own malignant or ambitious views. He thought, with regard to the hon. baronet, that he stood acquitted of any improper motives because the very men whom he supported were those who stigmatized him as a false patriot, as a mere charlatan in politics, and who vilified him in the same terms which he himself employed to vilify his majesty's government. The hon. baronet had quoted an adage, "Voluntas et propositum distinguant maleficium." Let that test be applied to the conduct of the magistrates assembled at Manchester, who were improperly termed, Manchester magistrates, and let that test be conclusive. He really thought an inquiry at the bar of the House, would be attended with the most prejudicial consequences: instead of supporting and consolidating the bonds of society; instead of strengthening the link that connects the people with the magistracy, the governed with the government, it would destroy that union, and place them in a state hostile to each other. Of this he was persuaded, that a more honourable body of men than the magistracy, not only at Manchester, but throughout the country, could not be. He had not yet heard it satisfactorily explained, why it was so difficult to prosecute any act of violence that had been wantonly or unjustly committed. If the grand jury had thrown out one or two bills, that was no reason why others might not have been preferred; and he would ask whether this subject would not have come with more propriety before the House if it had been founded on three or four verdicts. The hon. baronet had said, that the memory of this day would never be forgotten; and he had talked of the "Immortale odium et non sanabile vulnus:" certainly, that odium would be immortal, that wound would never be healed, if there was no statute of limitations for grievance, and if the hon. baronet was to come down here every year, and repeat this studied series of accusation and invective. He trusted, however, that
762
the time would soon arrive, when the odium of the transactions at Manchester would attach on theirs real authors—those men, who endeavoured to set the laws at nought, at the government at defiance who.
"Give the warm1 people no considering time,
"For then rebellion might be deemed a crime,"
He hoped, when these transactions should be dispassionately considered, that there would be but one prevailing sentiment with respect to them, and that although it might be deemed an unfortunate period when such measures were resorted to, yet that it would be thought still more unfortunate, that evil and designing men should have been suffered to induce and provoke the people to seek their own destruction as involved in the destruction of the government.—The hon. member concluded with expressing a hope that the time was not far distant, when, contrary to the prediction of the hon. baronet, the people of England would feel and acknowledge that the magistrates of this country had no other desire than to do their duty, and that the magistrates assembled at Manchester, had acquitted themselves, conscientiously in the exercise of a severe and painful discretion.
Mr. Denmanrose amidst repeated cries of adjournment. He said he was sorry to trespass on; the attention of the House at so late an hour of the night: he knew that the word "adjournment" had in it a magic charm for: the ears of gentlemen at that hour, but after witnessing the effects of an adjournment upon the decision of an important question in some recent instances, he hoped nothing would induce his horn friends to risk the experiment on the present question. He could have been content to leave the question to the effect of the powerful speech of the hon. baronet who opened the debate; for notwithstanding the eloquent speech they had just heard—not withstanding the detailed statements of the hon. member for Dover, he was confident the House could not but feel as he did, the utmost astonishment and indignation at the determined silence of his majesty's ministers, not one of whom had ventured to speak in reply to the charges of his hon. friend what yet remained unanswered and wholly unshaken. The hon. member for a 'Dover had stated, that it might be possible that in the alarm of the moment the magis-

763
trates had committed certain acts which required apology. To that plea he should have had no objection; but it was not now a question of apology, but of praise—not; a question of indulgence, but of reward. Another hon. gentleman had said, limit the individuals who had suffered; on/the 16th of August were to be; considered as having suffered under the sword of justice. If such doctrines were, not immediately reprobated, all the magistrates who were warmed and encouraged by his harangue, might go into the country with that sword in their hands, and sheath it in the bodies of their countrymen, whenever a questionable meeting was held in their neighbourhood, and they had a military force to back their interference. With regard to the Manchester massacre, he considered it to be an event which was more deserving of compassion, than of being held up as an example worthy of imitation. He offered the magistrates who acted on that unfortunate occasion his compassion for having been made the instruments of the slaughter of their fellow-countrymen; but he must withhold from them his praise. He cared little whether the depositions which the hon. member had read were made at the time when they were said to have been made, or whether the Riot act had been read to the multitude, because they had not been produced in evidence on the trial at York. If the government could have proved those circumstances, he had no doubt they would have done so; for he could not for a moment admit the excuse made for the learned judge who had presided at that trial, that he, to prevent a waste of time, had not allowed those questions to be gone into. One objection made to an investigation by the House on a former occasion was, that the riot, and all the circumstances regarding it, would be proved upon the trial. The trial had now taken place, and no such riot was proved; and yet even now those assertions of riot were reiterated, upon nameless affidavits sworn before no proper authority, subjected to no cross-examination, and against which no indictment for perjury could lie. It was stated on a former occasion, that it was not right to take any step that might prejudice the case, as if the thanks of the prince regent and the declared congratulations of his ministers, had not rendered it almost impossible to obtain a fair trial. Nay, eyen the attor-
764
ney and the solicitor-general bad been employed in the court of King's-bench to resist the reasonable application of Mr. Hunt to have his trial removed from a county where the very magistrates whose conduct was in question might sit as jurymen upon his case. He charged the government with having given the instructions to the magistrates on which they had acted that day; for he could not think it possible that they would have otherwise departed from the usual course pursued by the magistrates of this country upon similar occasions; nor could he otherwise account for the premature, precipitate, and unfeeling satisfaction expressed by his majesty's ministers in that odious letter of lord Sidmouth, when all they knew of the case was that blood had been shed. In the answer to the address of the city of London, praying for inquiry into the transactions at Manchester, the prince regent was made to say, "With the circumstances that preceded that meeting you cannot but be wholly unacquainted." Why, he would ask, must they have been more so than the hon. member for Dover, or than ministers themselves, who had had no time for inquiry? "The tribunals of the country are open; and any inquiry of an extrajudicial nature, under the circumstances of the case, could not but be attended with considerable inconvenience to the interests of justice." Why! at that very time when that answer was given, an extra-judicial inquiry, set on foot by the government, was carrying on in secret at Manchester. The solicitor of the Treasury was then busily employed in hunting out secret information into the conduct of Mr. Hunt and his associates. Why might not an inquiry have been also instituted into the conduct of the other parties? This was a specimen of that impartiality and neutrality which they too often witnessed on other occasions—it was that sort of impartiality which always found the strong in the right and the weak in the wrong—it was that neutrality which always sided with power against right. When parliament met, and the subject was introduced into the discussion on the address, all interference, all discussion of it in parliament was deprecated, lest it should prejudice the pending judicial inquiry. But, what was the sincerity of such a plea from those who had dictated the thanks of the prince regent to one oft the parties? The trial at length came

765
on; when nothing was heard of the defence which had before been set up, no appearance of the waggon loads of stones, no account of pistols fired on the ground, no statement even of a magistrate being thrown on the ground and trampled on in attempting to read the Riot act. Nothing of all this appeared at the trial; and he was at a loss to know for what purpose these stories were now again revived. It was not for the purpose of ascertaining how many persons were actually received into the Infirmary; it was not for the sake of proving the number of sabre wounds inflicted; it was not with a view even of awarding relief to the unhappy sufferers—but it was to vindicate the laws and constitution of the country from the wrong they had sustained, that his honourable friends pressed for inquiry. It was a case in which the House was particularly called upon to show its independence, by proving its anxiety to have justice done to the country. His hon. friend had been charged with want of candour in not bringing forward his motion before: but how could he have done so? Last session a strong interest was newly awakened on another subject of importance. When inquiry was proposed, it was urged that such an inquiry could not be conveniently pursued in that House; that the forms of the House were ill adapted for the examination of witnesses; and that it never attempted to proceed into an inquiry by evidence, without involving itself in disgrace. And, at what period was it that this argument was urged? It was at the very time when those who urged it were willing to subject an injured woman to such an inquiry: it was when they were sweeping the hotels of Germany and Italy of pimps and panders to swear their foul and perjured calumnies against the character of a lone and defenceless female: it was when they had determined through such an ordeal, to drag the queen of this country to that fate from which she had been rescued by the people of England. It was thought by some that the time had gone by for the proposed inquiry, and that the subject ought to be allowed to drop and be forgotten. But, if the House of Commons were inclined to drop the subject, had ministers shown any such disposition? Had they not thought proper to pursue the hon. baronet with respect to it? If they had been disposed to drop the subject, it
766
would surely have been no excess of indulgence if they had allowed that prosecution to drop also. Instead of that, they had kept it alive amidst difficulties; they had selected the place of trials which was not where the alleged offence was committed. The trial being over, one of the judges entertained a doubt of the greatest magnitude, as to the legality of the jurisdiction. The prosecutors, however, persevered, and the sentence was pronounced by the tips of that very judge who had delivered a clear and admirably reasoned opinion, that the court had no jurisdiction to try the alleged offence. At that late period of the night he would no longer detain the House. He was quite satisfied, that in refusing the proposed inquiry, the House would play the game of those whose wish it was to degrade it. If they were desirous not to do this, they would not shut their eyes to the clear statement of grievances Which had been submitted to them.
The Solicitor-Generalobserved, that his hon. and learned friend had expressed his surprise that no person connected with government had risen to offer his opinion on this most important question; and had not merely insinuated, but boldly asserted, that the magistrates of Manchester had proceeded under the immediate directions and orders of government. That assertion he took upon himself confidently to deny. He distinctly affirmed, that although his majesty's ministers felt it to be their duty to support the magistrates, not doubting they had acted conscientiously, yet they were in no way personally responsible for that conduct on the part of the magistrates, which they had not directed, and of the intended nature of which they had no previous knowledge. He regretted that his hon. and learned friend had introduced into his speech, subjects perfectly unconnected with the question, for the purpose of inflaming the passions of the House, and through the House the passions of the country against his majesty's ministers. Among others, he had revived a question which it was for the happiness and interest of all parties that it should be buried in oblivion. He could assure the hon. and learned gentleman, that ministers were not at all ashamed of the part they had acted on that subject. They had discharged a painful but imperious duty. They had discharged that duty faithfully and conscientiously; the House

767
had already decided on their conduct; and it was for the country to determine whether that conduct had been in any respect censurable. The hon. and learned gentleman had also censured his hon. and learned friend and himself for the part which they had taken in. a much more, humble proceeding—he meant in resisting the application of Mr. Hunt to remove his trial from Lancaster. After much consideration, his hon. and learned friend and himself had felt it their duty to resist an application which had been made in an unprecedented shape; for they thought that they could not acquiesce in that application without passing a censure on the whole body of the inhabitants of the county of Lancaster; for the application could be made only on the ground that a special jury of the county of Lancaster would not do its fair duty. If they had acquiesced in that application they would have done what lie imagined no hon. gentleman believed they would have been justified in doing—they would have subscribed to the justice of the imputation cast on the county of Lancaster. Under these circumstances, he put it to the candor of the House, whether the hon. and learned gentleman was justified in making an attack on his horn and learned friend and himself. The hon. baronet also had made some personal allusion to him (the Solicitor-general) of which he did not profess exactly to understand the object. He did not know whether it was made in the spirit of courtesy, or in that of hostility; if the former he would receive it as such. The hon. baronet had no right to complain of him. He had not the honour of the hon. baronet's acquaintance; and in public had done nothing which ought justly to give him offence.—The hon. baronet had, in his opinion, adopted a very extraordinary course. Shortly after the transaction in question, a motion similar to the present had been made in the House. The subject had been canvassed and discussed at great length, and, after an adjourned de-bate, a great majority—in the proportion of 381 to 150—refused to agree to the motion, He by no means intended to say that that decision was of necessity final: but that session had passed away without a renewal of the subject. Another session had followed, in which the hon. baronet gave a notice, which he adjourned from time to time, and ultimately abandoned; and, that too, after the trial of
768
Mr. Hunt was over. But now, after that abandonment, on a subject which had been so frequently discussed, with no alteration of the circumstances oft he case (except that the meeting had been declared illegal), and at the end of the third session, at a period when, according to the ordinary limits of a session, the inquiry could not, if commenced, be brought to a close in the session, the hon. baronet again proposed an inquiry at the bar of that House!
Let the House consider for a moment the history of the proceeding. It had been declared by all the public meetings held immediately after the occurrences at Manchester that the Manchester meeting was a peaceable and legal one. It was not until the subject had been brought forward in parliament, that every one, with the single exception of the hon. and learned gentleman, pronounced the meeting illegal. Both sides of the House expressed that opinion. The question then came on in a court of law; a trial took place, and it was at once decided that the meeting was an illegal meeting. Nor ought it to be forgotten, that that trial took place under circumstances of advantage to the accused, never before possessed by individuals in their situation. When an application was made to the court of King's Bench by Mr. Hunt to remove the trial to some other county than Lancaster, the Court (and so far was he from blaming them, that he highly applauded their conduct) acceded to that application, and gave the applicant the extraordinary benefit of choosing the county in which he would be tried. Mr. Hunt very properly and prudently chose the county of York. He did not find fault with that choice; on the contrary, he rejoiced at it. It was certainly, impossible to find in any county juries more disposed to do impartial justice. He might appeal to his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Scarlett) who had conducted the case in question with so much fairness, judgment, talents, and eloquence, if it were possible to select a jury more judicious and impartial than the particular jury by which that case was tried? It was not composed of friends of administration, but contained many individual, who were decidedly opposed to the measures of government; and yet that jury without any difficulty, came to the conclusion, that the meeting which had' been held, at Manchester was illegal. If so,

769
therefore; if that meeting was illegal, the question was, whether the magistrates were not justified in issuing a warrant for the apprehension of Mr. Hunt, the leader of the meeting, and in using means to enforce its execution? He was quite ready to admit, that even in a legal act an excess might take place, justly amenable to the laws. But what lie contended for was, that as far as the magistrates and the military were concerned in the instance in question, no blame was justly imputable to them; or if it were so, that the House of Commons was not the place in which the subject could be properly considered. If the magistrates and the military had been to blame, the courts of law were open to the parties complaining; but the House would observe, that from any such appeal they had studiously refrained.
In looking at this subject, he must go back one step. He must go back to the Smithfield meeting; because, as the House well knew, that meeting was formed and assembled in concert with the reformers of the North. At that meeting, which consisted of many thousand persons, Mr. Hunt presided, and proposed those celebrated resolutions which were afterwards sent down to be proposed at the meeting at Manchester. Among other treasonable passages which those resolutions contained, was a declaration, that the House of Commons had acted so infamously that, it was not entitled to the obedience of the people after the 1st of the ensuing January; and another declaration, that the debt infamously called national, could not be considered binding on the people. Was he wrong in characterising those declarations as treasonable? The object of the meetings at those periods was simultaneously to bring the physical strength of the country to act for the purpose of overturning the government and the constitution. No one who recollected the publications issued, not anonymously, but with the sanction of the names of their authors, could for a moment doubt of the treasonable nature of the doctrines and projects then afloat. At the time of the Smithfield meetings there was not a week but two or three meetings, consisting of thousands of persons, took place in the principal-towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire. They were directed by the same individuals who directed the meeting at Smithfield; they agreed to the same resolutions; and the object of the whole was perfectly obvious.
770
He had stated all this to show that it was the duty of the magistrates at Manchester, when such opinions were openly avowed at a general meeting in that town, to entertain alarm as to the consequences likely to result. A circumstance much calculated to increase that just alarm was the drillings which nightly took place in the county of Lancaster, the existence of which had been fully proved by the subsequent trial and conviction in courts of justice of persons charged with that offence. Although the persons drilled might not use arms in their exercise, it was well known that arms were secretly manufactured for the purpose of being placed in the hands of those persons whenever their projects became mature. Such, then, was the state of the country; a state perfectly known to the magistrates of Manchester. He would ask any one, whether, in such a situation, deeply interested as they were, and as country gentle-men, not profoundly versed in the law, their conduct ought not, under any circumstances, to be viewed with indulgence? They had no power to prevent the meeting because they could not anticipate the numbers which it was intended to assemble. To divide the civil force, for the purpose of stopping in various directions those who were assembling, would have been an imprudent measure. They took their post, therefore, near the place of meeting, that they might watch the proceedings; and they prepared a military force for the purpose of counteracting any violence that might be offered. Mr. Hulton was chosen the chairman of the magistrates; and he appealed to every man who heard him—and who knew that gentleman,—whether an individual of higher character for integrity, firmness and humanity, existed in his majesty's dominions [A laugh.] Notwithstanding that sneer, he would confidently repeat his assertion. Mr. Hulton was chosen the chairman of the magistrates, and no better qualified person could have been selected. When Mr. Hunt arrived on the ground, the magistrates thought proper to issue a warrant for his apprehension. For this step they bad abundant reason. They knew that great alarm existed in Manchester: that the shops were all shut; and that business was at a stand. But they were'"' not satisfied with those facts. They received the depositions of above thirty eyewitnesses of the dangerous character of the meeting; and they then felt them-

771
selves bound to act; Indeed, if they had not done se; if under those circumstances they had not issued their warrant for the apprehension oft he leader, they would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of their duty, which would have rendered them amenable to the laws of their country. When, the warrant was committed to Nadin, the chief constable, he said that lie could not execute it without the aid of a military force. It should be recollected, that the line of communication which the magistrates had directed should be kept up between their place of assembling and the hustings had been broken in upon by the mob. That circumstance, and Nadin's representation, induced the magistrates to order the military to interfere; and he repeated, that if they had not done so, they would have been guilty of a breach of their duty. The hon. baronet had asked, why the yeomanry had been selected for that service? They had not been selected; their employment was purely accidental; they had arrived first at the spot, in consequence of the regular cavalry having been obliged to take a circuitous rout. They had not, therefore, been chosen by the magistrates from any improper motive; but their employment was entirely accidental. The magistrates having given these orders, fear nothing more to do with the transaction. But with regard to the military, he was quite satisfied, both from what had come out during the trial at York, and from the result of all his subsequent inquiry, that at the moment at which they arrived at the hustings they were assailed both with sticks and stones. The hon. baronet had charged him with incorrectness in having asserted that some of the yeomanry had been unhorsed. He had never used the word "some." He had spoken of "one" of the yeomanry, a gentleman of the name of Hulme, and he had said that Mr. Hulme had been knocked off his horse by a brickbat; a fact which had since been established by proof. What followed? It was said, that the soldiers had been guilty of excesses. If so, that was not the result of any order from the magistrates. But he was convinced that what had taken place had been grossly exaggerated, for the purpose of inflaming the country. He knew a little of the means taken for that purpose. He knew a little of Mr. Charles Pearson, and of the means which he had used. Among other things, Mr. Pearson had stated
772
through the medium of the public press, that one man, whose shoulder was dislocated, and who had received a sabre wound, had been carried to the Infirmary; but that in consequence of his having dropped some words expressive of disapprobation of the conduct of the magistracy, he had been turned out of the bed in which he had been previously placed, and compelled to walk six miles to his home. No sooner had this story been promulgated, than the medical officers and the governors of the Infirmary met to inquire into the subject, when it appeared that the whole was an infamous fabrication, put forth to inflame the public mind. In another instance, this Mr. Pearson, who had been the principal agent of the reformers, had moved for a rule against Mr. Warren, for refusing to take evidence; but-upon hearing, the Court had refused the rule, and awarded Pearson to pay the costs. As to the statement of another individual whose petition had been rejected that night, it was only necessary to refer to it, to show its falsehood. There were no limits to the fabrications of that individual He had actually stated, that the fact of Birch, the constable, having been shot, was an invention. He remembered a petition having been presented to the House, signed by 3,000 persons of Oldham, complaining of an outrage committed on the people of that- place by the military. An inquiry took place on that occasion. A prosecution was commenced, not against the soldiery, but against the people for an attack on the soldiery, and they were tried and convicted. It was true that bills were preferred before the grand jury against the yeomanry for wilful murder, and they were thrown out; but not until after the fullest consideration of the grand jury. They were preferred on the following assizes to another grand jury, and met the same fate. On this account it was said that no redress could be obtained from the grand juries. Allowing it was so, there was not a person who had been hurt illegally that could not have brought his action of damages. He might be asked what pecuniary means they had to bring actions. The hon. baronet could answer the question, by telling them he had contributed largely to a fund for that purpose; and that fund, he was informed, was under the charge of a committee, who advertized for grievances. Sufficient funds were provided, but not a single action had been brought. If the magis-

773
trates had acted illegally, or the soldiers had been guilty of wanton excesses, would there have been and difficulty in obtaining justice? If there was any case where wilful murder could be proved, whether the party was killed by a soldier, or any other individual, could there be any doubt that an inquiry followed up by punishment would long ago have taken place? And yet they were told that inquiry in the way proposed by the hon. baronet ought now to take place. Could any hon. member consider it possible that an inquiry could take place in that House, where 600 persons would have the right to ask questions of a witness, and to sift his evidence? He was convinced, if such an inquiry was entered into, that it would not end in a satisfactory result; but he contended, that further inquiry was unnecessary, as the question had been completely settled by the decisions of the courts of law.
Mr. Philipssaid, that the peculiar circumstance of his residing where the meeting took place, must be his apology for rising at that hour of the night to address the House. He had considered it his duty to get at the knowledge of the facts of what took place at the meeting before he had made up his mind as to what occurred on the 16th of August. Much had been said as to the state of the county of Lancaster before the meeting took place: he agreed with the hon. member for Dover, that the neighbourhood of Manchester required great care at that time, as he knew that trainings took place in the day-time; he had no doubt but they were illegal, and was of opinion that the magistrates ought to have put them down. There was no doubt but the magistrates thought that the meeting of the 16th of August was legal. He was convinced it was the determination of the people to be peaceable on that occasion; and no doubt they would have been so if they had not been so cruelly attacked by the yeomanry. He had inquired of a great many persons, who went there as spectators, and were not connected with either party, and could state, that the meeting was quite peaceable until the advance of the yeomanry; but the scene that followed, as described by those who saw it, was sufficient to excite horror. He knew persons who had placed themselves near where the magistrates had stationed themselves, and they never understood that the Riot act was read. A Mr. Stanley, a gentleman of the greatest honour and
774
respectability, had informed him, that he was situated at a window in the house where the magistrates were assembled, and that he could see a line or passage from the house to the hustings, and his opinion was, that there was nothing to prevent the warrant against Mr. Hunt being executed by the civil power. He also spoke most decisively as to the ill-treatment Mr. Hunt had received, and: the cruelty of the military to the mob. Mr. Stanley added, that as far as his observation went, the representation of 'the transactions in "The Times" newspaper was correct. As far as he (Mr. P.) had been able to ascertain, the people had armed themselves but little before the 16th of August: if arms were discovered anterior to that date, he believed they had been deposited by spies and informers. He was ready to admit, that after the 16th of August the people armed themselves extensively, with a view to their own protection. To this day it was unknown who had ordered the yeomanry to advance. This of itself deserved investigation; and the whole case, for the sake of the liberties and security of the people demanded inquiry. With regard to the rejection of bills by the grand jury of Lancashire, he meant to cast no reflection upon the members of that body; but, in reflecting on the grounds on which they might have thrown out the indictments, it was but fair to take into consideration the state of parties and of political feeling in the county. From their influence it could not be expected that grand jurors would be altogether exempt; Many doubts had existed with regard to the legality of the meeting; and if it were illegal, they might entertain an opinion that those who had been present were liable for the consequences of attending if, and ought not to be the prosecutors of bills to punish those who had inflicted injuries among them. He did not say that such had been the ground on which the decision of the grand jury had proceeded; but it did not seem at all improbable that some such notion might have operated upon them. Upon the whole view of the case, he thought the motion of the hon. baronet highly expedient.
It being now three o'clock in the morning, the debate, on the motion of sir Robert Wilson, was adjourned till to-morrow.