Sir EdwardSugden said, he was sure that every hon. Member who was present at the discussion on this subject on a former evening, would remember that he (Sir Edward Sugden) then deplored as deeply as any one could, the violence which had been resorted to against the people, and that he regretted the necessity, if such there was, of the cavalry acting, in that instance, against the people. Hon. Members would perhaps recollect, that he went on to say, that this outrage was obviously a premeditated one, and that while what had occurred was to be regretted, it was, perhaps, to be considered as a happy termination to what might have been a still greater evil, and a more fearful outrage. Now, in 1400 an article in an evening paper, to which his attention had been that day called, his sentiments on this subject had been grossly misrepresented. It was there stated, that he viewed the cutting down of the people as a matter of indifference—that he hailed the termination of this affair as a happy one; and it was finally asked whether the House could have heard such sentiments without disgust? Now this he must say, on his own part, that he had not given expression to sentiments on that occasion that any one Member of that House would have been ashamed to utter. He had expressed his regret at what had occurred, and he had also expressed his opinion, that probably what had then taken place had prevented the occurrence of a still greater evil.
Mr. Humewished to know from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whether one of the results of the inquiry on this subject was, that the military had been called in without the sanction of the bailiff of Clithero, and against his protest on the subject, and whether they had not proceeded to act before the Riot Act was read?
Mr. Lambsaid, that the protest of the bailiff of Clithero against the introduction of the military was made when he was only acquainted with a part of the outrage that had been committed; at that period the bailiff certainly thought that there was no necessity to send for the military, and he accordingly proceeded to stop them on their inarch to the town; on his way, however, he was convinced, from communications which reached him relative to the progress of the riot, of the propriety and necessity of calling in the military for the purpose of suppressing it. There was, in fact, no regular protest made by the bailiff against calling out the military, and the moment he was convinced of the propriety of such a step he acceded to it. With regard to the second question which had been put by the hon. Gentleman, he was ready to say that there was no doubt that the troops had entered the town before the Riot Act had been read; but no attempt was made on their part to disperse the crowd until the Riot Act had been read, not once only, but five times. The inquiry, as far as it had gone, had shown that the troops had acted with great forbearance, and under circumstances of great provocation, and he did not think that any blame attached to the Magistrates for their conduct in this instance.
Mr. Humewished to know whether the hon. Gentleman had any further information 1401 to communicate as to the reasons which the Magistrates assigned for calling out the troops, and whether he would state that any further steps would be taken to prosecute the inquiry on this subject?
Mr. Lambsaid, that there was such a mass of contradictory evidence on both sides on this subject, that he was not at present prepared to say what further steps would be taken towards the prosecution of an inquiry into the matter.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, that he had heard a very different version of this affair from that which had been given of it in that House. He would say, that if the elections of the people of England were hereafter to be carried on contrary to law, at the point of the bayonet, and under the surveillance of a military force, it was high time for the people of England to do that which The Times had recommended them to do last Christmas—namely, to arm themselves, in order to protect themselves against the aggressions of the borough mongers. Having been an eye-witness of the Manchester massacre, he would state that the grossest falsehoods had been uttered in that House on that subject, in order to screen the military, and it was not at all improbable that the same was the case in this instance. As to inquiries, all inquiries on the part of Government were mere farces, for they were only inquiries on one side of the question.
§ General Phippssaid, that the military had conducted themselves in this instance in the most exemplary manner.
§ Lord AlthorpI agree with the hon. member for Preston, in hoping that it may not be necessary to call in the military at any of the approaching elections, because it is unusual, and even contrary to law to call them in at the time of an election taking place; but if a riot takes place, it may become necessary to call them in, though this would only be justifiable in such a case. The hon. member for Preston says, that he hopes the people will arm for the purpose of resisting the aggression of the military. I hope that the law will always have power enough in this country to protect the people of England without their having to take the law in their own hands. I am satisfied that the advice given by the hon. Gentleman would produce the most serious evils. If the military act improperly, and the King's subjects are injured, the law is open to them; and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, that the Government will not 1402 be slow to protect the people if they are improperly attacked. But if the people are thus called on to take the law in their own hands in a moment of irritation, and when no one can form a cool judgment, I am afraid that such a course will tend to produce the greatest calamities to the country. The doctrine of the hon. Gentleman, therefore, is one which I feel it necessary to protest against in the strongest manner. The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, thinks that inquiry in this case ought to be made: that inquiry has been made: but then he tells us, that if we do institute an inquiry, such an inquiry as that he does not care one farthing for, and that that is not what he wants.
§ Mr. Huntbegged to say, that he did not advise the people to arm. He had merely asked the question whether the time had not arrived when the advice given by The Times last winter for the purpose of carrying the Reform Bill—namely, that the people of England should arm themselves, to protect themselves against the aggressions of the borough-mongers—should be adopted by the people of this country? The noble Lord attributed to him different words, though perhaps not a different meaning.