§ Mr. Roebuckwished to ask a question of the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, whom he saw in his place, relative to a transaction that had occurred within the last few days. It appeared that a Proclamation, or a paper in the nature of a Proclamation, had issued from the Secretary of State's office respecting a meeting then about to take place in Cold-bath-fields. This Proclamation, if so it might be called, had no official, or indeed any, signature whatever affixed to it to indicate its authority; but such a document had been stuck upon the walls in different parts of the metropolis. It was supposed by many that it could not have proceeded from any official quarter, and that the meeting consequently was not illegal. As a judicial inquiry was going on, he (Mr. Roebuck) did not mean to enter further into the subject at present; but what he desired to know was, whether the hon. Gentleman opposite would have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the information which he had received respecting this meeting, and which had induced the Proclamation to be issued?
§ Mr. Lambbegged to suggest to the hon. Member, whether he ought to put a question on the subject at present. It would not only be extremely inconvenient to answer such a question under existing 1270 circumstances, but doing so might tend materially to frustrate the ends of justice. When the judicial inquiries now in progress had concluded the hon. Member might put any question he pleased, and his Majesty's Government would be ready to answer it. At the same time he must say, that there could be no doubt that the Proclamation was perfectly proper.
§ Mr. Roebucksaid, that, he would be one of the last men in that House to take any step likely to frustrate the ends of justice in this or in any other case; and if such would be the effect of having his question answered, he was perfectly willing to postpone it until after the Coroner's Jury had come to a decision, provided it was understood that then his present request would be complied with. [The hon. Gentleman paused, but no answer was given.] On no other condition could be acquiesce in postponing his inquiry, for in his opinion questions respecting such transactions could not be put too soon. As the Under Secretary refused to accede to his proposition, he should go on, but he would of course studiously avoid anything that could at all bear upon the case of murder, regarding which an investigation was then in progress before the Coroner. His object was to ascertain what the conduct of the Government had been in the affair, and not to touch upon any other topic connected with it.
§ The Solicitor Generalrose to order. It was, he believed, unparliamentary to bring forward a subject for discussion in that House which was undergoing judicial inquiry elsewhere.
§ The Speakerdecided that the hon. member for Bath was not disorderly. He had a right to ask the question he had put to the hon. the Under Secretary, but it would be for the House to deal with that question as they pleased.
§ Mr. Roebuckagain repeated that he would forego his question if such an understanding was come to, or if it was the opinion of the House that his pressing it would be likely to frustrate the ends of justice.
§ Mr. Roebuckcontinued. He merely wished to know whether the Government had done its duty, on what information it had acted, and if the Proclamation to which he had alluded had really issued from the Home Office, and received the sanction of 1271 the Chief Secretary of State for that department. He was perfectly ready to admit that a more contemptible meeting never had taken place. And had it not been for the interference of the police, there would have been no occasion for fright, nor the slightest ground for alarm or apprehension. The meeting would have gone off without any mischief having been done, if the police had not been sent to the ground, and he was therefore bound to declare, that their presence on the occasion was a most unjustifiable trifling with the rights of the people. It was well known that the people during the last three years had been not only indulged in public meetings on every possible subject, but allowed with impunity to use the most violent language. The Government had, he distinctly asserted, fostered this spirit in the people to promote their own views; and now they resorted to measures of severity to put down that which they themselves had created. They had, in the present instance, sent a body of ruffians to put down a public meeting and break the heads of the people. He willingly admitted that he was out of order, that he had used an epithet which ought not to have escaped him. He would therefore retract the word ruffian, and say that a parcel of foolish people had been sent upon this most unnecessary and disastrous mission. The means that had been adopted to suppress it had raised the meeting into an importance it did not deserve. Had it been allowed to go on three or four indiscreet persons would have talked nonsense and used violent language for a short time, and the matter would have ended without disturbance, broken heads, and loss of life. He would not, however, offer any comments upon the melancholy result of this unfortunate transaction, as with what had taken place he had nothing to do, his sole and only object being to ascertain what the conduct of the Government had been. He was prepared in the first place to contend that the meeting was not distinctly illegal, nor was there any thing in the notice calling the meeting together which would enable any man to decide that it was to assemble for an illegal object. Neither had the Government any means of knowing that the purpose for which they met was in contravention of law; for how could they know what was meant by a National Convention? For his own part he could not understand what it meant. He knew 1272 very well what it meant in France and in America, for in those places it was an extraordinary legislative assembly called together according to law. It appeared that there had been a misunderstanding relative to the right of the persons who convened this meeting to petition Parliament for a National Convention; and the Proclamation ought to have explained that such an object was illegal; but, if it was not so, it was clear that no Proclamation the Home Office could issue could change its nature, and make that an offence which really was lawful. He asserted that no proper means had been used or care taken to show that the meeting was illegal, or to warn the people from attending it. The only precaution which had been adopted was to send the police to the scene of action to rush upon the people and knock them down; and he therefore conceived, if they were sent there by the Government, his Majesty's Ministers ought to be held responsible for the indiscretion of the police. It seemed to him that the Government had rather created than prevented the disturbance, and he wished to ask under what information the Government acted, and whether the Proclamation alluded to had been issued by the sanction of the Chief Secretary of State for the Home Department?
§ Mr. Lambprotested against the premature discussion sought to be provoked by the hon. Member, and declared he would not be tempted to enter into it then; but he was, he must say, astonished to hear the hon. Member launch out such extraordinary opinions, if not for the purpose of influencing the Coroner's Jury, at least, in some degree, prejudging the question. The hon. Member required to know whether the Proclamation had emanated from the Home Office, and under the sanction of the Chief Secretary of State, and he (Mr. Lamb) had not the slightest hesitation in replying that it had. With regard to the taunt which the hon. Member had levelled against the Government of their having fostered and winked at turbulent and illegal meetings, he (Mr. Lamb) denied the allegation, and in proof of his assertion need only refer to the Proclamation which about two years ago was issued by the Government for the suppression of a similar meeting advertised to take place at White Conduit House. On that occasion a notice similar to that which had been given in the present in- 1273 stance of the illegality of the meeting was published and circulated, and the result was, that the people, being better advised than they had been with respect to the meeting alluded to by the hon. Member, did not assemble.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, there could be no doubt the notice for holding the meeting was foolish in the extreme; but, at the same time, he knew of no law in this country prohibiting meetings for establishing a National Convention. In 1792, the Roman Catholics of Ireland held meetings for this purpose, and, what was more, a deputation from that Convention presented an Address to the King upon the Throne, so that at that period at least such a Convention was not illegal. Now, however, such a thing would be illegal in Ireland, because a prohibitory statute had been passed upon the subject; and he threw out this explanation in order that the statement of the Under Secretary might not in its turn affect the investigation that was in progress. But if the meeting in question really was, as had been stated by the Under Secretary, illegal, a Magistrate ought to have been present, and to have accompanied the police to the spot to read the Riot Act, in case the people refused to disperse. The people were not obliged bylaw to disperse until the Riot Act had been read; but he was prepared to admit, if, previous to that, the police had been attacked by the populace—that if force had been used on the one side—force was perfectly justifiable on the other; for the maxim of the law was, that force might be repelled by force, and in such a case every constable had aright to act upon the defensive. This he conceived to be the law in this country, although it was different with respect to Ireland; for by a particular Act, if a meeting of the Irish people refused to separate within five minutes after they were ordered to disperse by a Magistrate, the persons then and there assembled would be guilty of an offence punishable at law. For the present, while a judicial inquiry was pending, they should cautiously abstain from all observations that might bear upon the subject of that investigation, for no man ought to attempt even to anticipate its result; but if a murder had been committed, if life had been sacrificed, those by whom the measures taken on the occasion had been advised lay under a deep and serious responsibility.
§ The Solicitor Generalsaid, that considering the investigation now proceeding might lead to a trial of a grave and highly penal nature—namely, the trial for life or death of one of his Majesty's subjects at the Old Bailey—he thought the hon. member for Bath would have done much better if he had abstained from the observations in which he had indulged. He (the Solicitor General) also wished the hon. and learned member for Dublin had refrained from the remarks which he had made. The legality of the meeting would be inquired into by the competent authorities, and that being the case, he (the Solicitor General) had nothing more to say at present but to enter his protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that an illegal meeting could not be dispersed without reading the Riot Act. The contrary was the law.