Lords Sitting of 23 November 1819

THE PRINCE REGENT'S SPEECH ON OPENING THE SESSION.
This day, at two o'clock, his Royal Highness the Prince Regent came down in the usual state, and, being seated on the Throne, his Royal Highness opened the Session with the following Speech to both Houses:
"My Lords and Gentlemen;
"It is with great concern that I am again obliged to announce to you the continuance of his Majesty's lamented indisposition.
"I regret to have been under the necessity of calling you together at this period of the year; but the seditious practices so long prevalent in some of the manufacturing districts of the country have been continued with increased activity since you were last assembled in parliament.
"They have led to proceedings incompatible with the public tranquillity, and with the peaceful habits of the industrious classes, of the community; and a spirit is now fully manifested, utterly hostile to the constitution of this kingdom, and aiming not only at the change of those political institutions which have hitherto constituted the pride and security of this country, but at, the subversion of the
2
rights of property and of all order in society.
"I have given directions that the necessary information on this subject shall be laid before you; and I feel it to be my indispensable duty, to press on your immediate attention the consideration of such measures as may be requisite for the counteraction and suppression of a system which, if not effectually checked, must bring confusion and ruin on the nation.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons;
"The estimates for the ensuing year will be laid before you;
"The necessity of affording protection to the lives and property of his Majesty's loyal subjects has compelled me to make some addition to our military force; but I have no doubt you will be of opinion that the arrangements for this purpose have been effected in the manner likely to be the least burthensome to the country.
"Although the revenue has undergone some fluctuation since the close of the last session of parliament, I have the satisfaction of being able to inform you, that it appears to be again in a course of progressive improvement.
"Some depression still continues to exist in certain branches of our manufac-

3
tures, and I deeply lament the distress which is in consequence felt by those who more immediately depend upon them; but this depression is in a great measure to be ascribed to the embarrassed situation of other countries, and I earnestly hope that it will be found to be of a temporary nature.
"My Lords and Gentlemen;
"I continue to receive from foreign powers the strongest assurances of their friendly disposition towards this country.
"It is my most anxious wish, that advantage should be taken of this season of peace to secure and advance our internal prosperity; but the successful prosecution of this object must essentially depend on the preservation of domestic tranquillity.
"Upon the loyalty of the great body of the people I have the most confident reliance; but it will require your utmost vigilance and exertion, collectively and individually, to check the dissemination of the doctrines of treason and impiety, and to impress upon the minds of all classes of his Majesty's subjects, that it is from the cultivation of the principles of religion, and from a just subordination to lawful authority, that we can alone expect the continuance of that Divine favour and protection which have hitherto been so signally experienced in this kingdom."
His Royal Highness then withdrew, and the House adjourned till 5 o'clock.

ADDRESS ON THE PRINCE REGENT'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION.
The Prince Regent'sSpeech having been again read by the Lord Chancellor, and also by the clerk at the table,
Earl Manversrose to move an address to his Royal Highness, in answer to the most gracious speech which had then been read. He hoped he might be permitted to observe, that he had never before had the honour of addressing their lordships, and that he felt himself unable adequately to discharge the important duty which he had undertaken. He found it necessary, therefore, to appeal
4
to that indulgence which their lordships usually granted to persons placed in situations similar to that in which he stood. In the sorrow which his Royal Highness expressed on account of his majesty's continued indisposition, their lordships must all partake. His Royal Highness next adverted to the causes which had induced him to convene parliament at this early period, and recommended it to their lordships, to direct their early attention to the adoption of such measures as might be necessary to suppress those seditious meetings which had been prevalent for some time back. That the country was in a situation of extreme danger, he believed few of their lordships would deny; and though he did not anticipate the precise nature of the measures which it was intended to propose, he hoped they would prove sufficiently energetic to meet the exigencies of the case. He was aware that much had been said out of that House, and that much would be said within its walls, respecting the rights of the people; but their lordships must be cautious, lest, whilst they were protecting the liberty of the subject, they should compromise the security, of the state. He was aware that in abstaining from offering any remarks on the other subjects adverted to in the speech of his Royal Highness, he left a wide field untouched; but he did so with the less regret, as he felt assured that ample justice would be done to those topics by the noble lord who was to follow him. The noble lord concluded by moving an address, which was an echo to the speech from the throne, and similar to that moved in the House of Commons.
Lord Churchillrose to second the address of his noble friend, of which he said he highly approved. His lordship spoke for some time, but in a tone of voice inaudible below the bar. He came forward, he said, as an independent peer of parliament, to give his feeble but honest support to the government of his royal highness the Prince Regent at a crisis like the present, which was undoubtedly one of great difficulty and danger.
Earl Greyrose. He said, that had he not been aware of the state of the country, the speech from the throne, the address which had been moved in reply to it, and the language used by the noble lord who moved, and the noble lord who seconded that address, would be sufficient to convince him that parliament had never as-

5
sembled at a more important crisis, or when there were greater difficulties and dangers to be overcome. He did not, however, think the line of policy pointed out in the speech from the throne, and recommended by the two noble lords, was such as ought to be adopted in the present situation of the country; or that the reasons urged in support of the address, ought to induce the House to concur in it without the fullest information. He had attended with the greatest care to every thing that had been stated in that House and elsewhere respecting the situation of the country. He had heard strong observations on the progress of sedition and treason, and on the necessity of adopting measures of coercion calculated to avert the danger which threatened the country. But he had as yet heard no recommendation to avert the danger, by relieving the people from some part of the heavy burthens which oppressed them. Neither of the noble lords had recommended that course which was best calculated to remove the cause of the existing discontents. It was by conciliation, by a reduction of the enormous public expenditure which weighed down the country, and by a system of timely reform and economy, that the threatened danger should be met: for such a system would in its result speedily suppress all the seditious practices referred to in the address, or in the speeches of the noble mover and seconder. Having said thus much in the way of general objection to the line of policy which had been recommended to their lordships, he had now to observe, that neither the noble lord who moved the address, nor the noble lord who seconded it, had described the dangers and difficulties of the country in stronger colours than he was disposed to view them. It was not with respect to the situation of the country that he was inclined to differ from them, but with respect to the causes which had produced it. It was the continued operation of those causes which was the great subject of alarm. The internal situation of the country was most afflicting, and even its external was not in his opinion perfectly satisfactory. The speech from the throne, it was true, stated, that his royal highness the Prince Regent continued to receive from foreign powers the strongest assurances of their friendly disposition towards this country; but even with respect to that part of our situation,
6
his confidence was far from being so great as many might suppose the assurances alluded to in the speech ought to produce. But, into the consideration of our external affairs, when circumstances so much more pressing at home called for immediate attention, he should not enter. The internal situation of the country was the primary object for their lordships deliberation, and to that subject he should now address himself. He had no desire to dispute the difficulties which the situation of the country presented, or to palliate any improper proceedings to which those difficulties might have given birth; though he was not prepared to admit the extent to which it was alleged those proceedings had been carried. He must, however, acknowledge, that the discontent of the country must be very general, and the danger great, if, as asserted in the speech from the throne, a spirit was manifested utterly hostile to the constitution of the kingdom, and aiming at the change of those political institutions which had hitherto constituted the pride and security of the country. Some extraordinary circumstances must have occurred, before any considerable portion of the people of England ceased to respect those institutions which were heretofore their pride. The danger in such a state of things must doubtless be great; but if their lordships were satisfied that the danger was rightly described, the next object of their consideration must be the causes which had led to it. The causes, he was confident, were to be found in that system of policy which he had already condemned—that system which refused to look at the danger which was most pressing and present, and which neglected to make those provisions by which it could alone be effectually averted. To one part of the noble mover's speech he had no objection, namely, that in which he urged the necessity of resisting plans of innovation, tending to the subversion of the constitution and the state of society. No noble lord could be more inclined than he was to oppose the plans of those persons who were endeavouring to lead the people to their ruin—men who, if not ail equally criminal, some perhaps acted from ignorance or zeal, while others might expect to attain distinction by introducing confusion into the country; but they were all equally mischievous in their proceedings. To the plans of innovations alluded to be felt the necessity of opposing the

7
most decided resistance. On this point there could be no difference of opinion among their lordships. But while opposing one danger, let care be taken that another was not incurred. The existing laws were adequate to put down those men. Their lordships ought therefore to consider well what might be proposed to them, lest in curing one evil the constitution was exposed to a much greater. The noble lord who moved the address, had, in the course of his speech, warned the House not to let an anxiety for the security of liberty lead to a compromise of the safety of the state. He, for his part, could not separate those things. The safety of the state could only be found in the protection of the liberties of the people. Whatever was destructive of the latter, also destroyed the former. If, therefore, the noble lord hoped that by taking from the liberties of the country he would be giving more security to the state, he had greatly mistaken the way to accomplish the end he had in view, and would, by any measure destructive of liberty, only more speedily incur that danger against which he wished to provide. In supporting the authority of the government, their lordships, he hoped, would not so far lose sight of the principles of the constitution as to sanction any precedent hostile to public liberty, and therefore injurious to the safety of the state. The history of this country furnished sufficient proofs of the danger of such innovations. What would become of that constitution which had always been the boast of the country, if the liberty of the subject were extinguished? The discontent existing in the country had been insisted on as a ground for the adoption of some measures. He must again observe, that where discontent generally prevailed there must be much distress; but there was another axiom no less true—that there never was an extensive discontent without great misgovernment. It was seldom found that a people, and, least of all, that a people such as that of England, manifested dislike or hostility towards a just and protecting government. Was not the change stated to have taken place in the sentiments and feelings of the people to be chiefly attributed to distress? If, then, this distress produced irregularity of conduct, was it not right when all the vigour of the law was exerted, to make a distinction between those who instigated such proceedings—
8
between those who were misled, and those who mislead? If it was requisite to punish the one party, it was not less so to relieve the other. The people ought to be taught to look to parliament with a confident expectation that their complaints would be heard, and protection afforded to them. Was it a wise, a safe, or a humane policy, to be always looking with a harsh and severe front towards the people—always ready to punish, but slow to give redress? He had inferred, that the presumption of mal-administration in government was strong when a general discontent prevailed in a country; and he would only ask their lordships to look back to what had happened in the course of the two last sessions, in confirmation of that opinion. He remembered, that two years ago, when their lordships had under consideration a subject similar to the present, a noble friend of his, now sitting at the table (marquis Wellesley) quoting the opinion of lord Bacon observed, that "the surest way to prevent seditions is, to take away the matter of them." Speaking in the spirit of lord Bacon, his noble friend recommended the taking away "the matter of sedition" by the reduction of every part of the public expenditure which could be spared, and more particularly by the reduction of that great and unnecessary military expenditure which bore so heavily on the country. Had the recommendation of his noble friend been attended to? No. Parliament had paid no attention either to the recommendation of his noble friend, or to the wishes of the people on this subject. Instead of reducing, had not the burthens of the people been rather increased? Profusion was obstinately maintained, as if the continuance of every abuse were necessary to the safety of the state; and at the very time when every relief was refused, severe laws were passed, and the great bulwark of the liberty of the country removed. This was the way in which parliament had unhappily proceeded. Last session, however, commenced in a way which gave reason to hope, that the House of Commons, whatever objection might be made to the manner in which it was constituted, would defend the interests of the people, and adopt measures for their relief; but the hopes which the commencement of the session afforded were soon dashed, and severely disappointed. Not only was no efficient measure of reduction adopted, but additions were made to the expendi-

9
ture which no public principle justified. He had, in 'vain, opposed some of those measures which had proved most injurious both to the character of parliament, and to that of the family on the throne. After this denial of justice—for to refuse a relief so necessary to the country was a denial of justice—the session was closed, in a manner most insulting to the distress of the people, by the imposition of three million of new taxes. When their lordships reflected on what had been done, how could they be surprised at the growth of discontent? When no attention was paid to the calls of the people for relief, when their petitions were rejected, and their sufferings aggravated, was it wonderful that at last public discontents should assume a formidable aspect?
The state of the manufacturing districts was alluded to in the speech from the throne. It was well known that in Glasgow, in Manchester, and in the West Hiding of Yorkshire, the greatest distress prevailed. Was it such as could be called a mere partial depression? Certainly not, for those districts were filled with a starving population. In the midst of so much distress, could it be matter of surprise that opportunity was afforded to some men to propagate opinions which were less dangerous to the government than to those who received them? Several public meetings had been held in different parts of the country: one for the mischievous, and, he might say, insane purpose—not of petitioning for radical reform, which, notwithstanding that he more strongly than ever though some reform necessary, appeared to him nothing less than radical subversion—of electing what was absurdly called a legislative attorney. A meeting of the same description was advertised to take place at Manchester; and he must here express his astonishment, that, in the speech from the throne, no notice whatever was taken of the events which had occurred in that town. The meeting at Manchester, ending as it did, was, he must say, by far the most important event that had occurred in the course of his political life. The purpose for which the meeting was first called being considered illegal, it was abandoned, and one was assembled for that object to which he had already alluded, and which, though most absurd and improper, he would not call illegal. But, God forbid he should desire to see the people of England deprived of the right of discussing that or any other
10
political question. The meeting took place, and a scene ensued of a kind which no man could witness, or hear described, without the most painful emotions. The events of the 16th of August must call for a separate, a full, and a solemn inquiry; and he therefore should abstain from any particular details at present. Thus much, however, he might now be permitted to say—that there appeared primâ facie evidence against the magistrates of Manchester, of conduct for which it would be most difficult to find any justification. When an inquiry should take place, it would not be sufficient to prove even that the meeting was illegal. He was ready to allow, that the manner of calling such meetings in large towns, and the populace marching to the place of meeting in large bodies, and in military order, from places in the neighbourhood, were circumstances calculated to excite alarm—that such a proceeding was an abuse of the right of petitioning, which was the more to be deplored, inasmuch as the abuse afforded pretexts to those who might wish to abridge that right; but he was not prepared to go the length of calling the object of the meeting illegal, or to admit that the interposition of the magistrates could be justified. Be this, however, as it might, it would be necessary not only to prove that the meeting was illegal, but that the steps taken for its dispersion were also legal. He would refer to the noble lord on the woolsack, whether an attack on a meeting could be justified until every other mode of dispersing it had been tried. It was only in the extreme case of no other means being left to guard against violence on the part of the persons assembled, that force could be lawfully resorted to. If it could be shown that the Manchester magistrates had acted under an imperious necessity, then they would doubtless stand justified for their conduct before God and man: but if they could not prove that imperious necessity, then all the blood shed on the 16th of August must rest on their guilty heads, and parliament would become a party to the guilt, if a severe inquiry was not immediately instituted, and every means taken to wipe so foul a stain from the character of the country.
He was, however, willing to abstain from entering into the investigation of this matter, until ministers had time to lay regular information on the subject before parliament; but there were some other matters

11
connected with the transaction which had taken place at Manchester, on which he thought it necessary to say a few words. He could not avoid calling to their lordships' recollection, the letter addressed by the noble secretary of state to the chairman of the Manchester sessions. Much had been said on the impropriety of pre-judging the question relative to the Manchester transactions; but, amongst all the surprising things to which those transactions had given birth, the most surprising was, to hear such an objection urged by those who advised the writing of that letter. The noble lords who supported the address were indignant at the question being prejudged. Where was this indignation when the noble secretary of state expressed his satisfaction at the measures which had been resorted to by the Manchester magistrates? Good God! Was not that prejudging the question? Next in order to this extraordinary proceeding, came the flippant and undignified answer given to the address of the common council of London. They were told that they were ignorant of what had occurred previous to the meeting, and of what had taken place at it; they were informed, that if any persons were injured or aggrieved, the courts of law were open to them; and it was intimated that to institute an extrajudicial inquiry, would be inconsistent with justice. Now, if the members of the common council were ignorant of what had taken place at the meeting, he should be glad to know what information ministers possessed when they advised the letter conveying to the Manchester magistrates the approbation of the Prince Regent. That letter was dated the 21st of August, and, allowing for the time necessary to send to his royal highness at Portsmouth, and to receive a return, it was plain that no sufficient information of what had passed could have been obtained. It was, then, a most extraordinary circumstance that the noble secretary of state should join in the indignation expressed at prejudging the question when he himself, without any inquiry, and without one expression of regret for the dreadful occurrences which had taken place, immediately advised his royal master to give the sanction of his approbation to a transaction of which he could know nothing, except what came from those very magistrates whose conduct was the subject of general reprobation. It would seem, that to ask for inquiry was, in the opinion of
12
his majesty's ministers, to prejudge a question; but that to approve and applaud a transaction which on the face of it appeared culpable, was consistent with candour and justice! The transaction at Manchester was one which their lordships were bound to investigate with the greatest strictness: and if it should be even found that there were circumstances to justify the conduct of the magistrates, still the hurry of the noble secretary of state to make the Prince Regent express an approbation of that conduct was most blameable. What more could have been done had a great victory been gained over a foreign enemy? In the good times of the republic of Rome very different was the conduct of its government; for the senate never decreed a triumph to a general who had obtained a victory in civil war. It was not supposed that the shedding of the blood of their fellow-countrymen could ever be subject for exultation or thanks. He thought it would have been more consistent with the best feelings of the human heart, to have shown some hesitation on such an occasion, than to express satisfaction at the event which had occurred at Manchester, without one word of sympathy for the many sufferings of the people. But it was said, that the courts of law were open. He should wish to ask, whether it was not the duty of the privy council as well as of parliament, to inquire into such transactions. Was it not the practice of the privy council to inquire into cases of sedition and disturbance, to examine witnesses, and to order prosecutions? Upon what principle did they refrain proceeding in this way in the present case? On the same principle, it was their duty, as protectors of the public peace, to institute an inquiry into such a breach of the peace, whether the actors were mobs or magistrates, and to order prosecutions. The answer given to the address of the city of London was therefore inconsistent with that regard to justice, which in such a case ought to be strictly observed. It was possible that the meeting was illegal, and that there might be a necessity for the interference of the magistrates; but these were subjects into which the privy council ought to have inquired before the conduct of the magistrates was approved, and before it was tauntingly said, that the courts of law were open for the redress of those who had suffered injury. The calling on parliament to inquire had been objected to, but

13
it was well known that it was the duty of parliament to inquire and direct prosecutions in cases in which the courts of law were open. Committees of the House of Commons were often instituted for inquiry into offences, and on their recommendation prosecutions were ordered. He would state a case by way of illustration. Suppose a set of ministers, acting on a violent and unconstitutional system of police, should publish a proclamation, imposing a tax, of ship-money for instance, and that magistrates were found disposed to issue warrants for levying the tax by distress, this would be a case in which any person would have a right to bring an action for redress: the courts of law would be open; but would it on that account be Jess the duty of parliament to inquire? Would it be reasonable to say, that parliament ought not to institute an inquiry into so unconstitutional a proceeding, because the individual who had suffered injury could resort for redress to the ordinary tribunals of the country? But he would ask, how long it had been considered, that inquiries into proceedings of this nature were extra-judicial?—that inquiries into matters which might become the topics of discussion in courts of law, were inconsistent with the principles of public justice? They had heard of inquiries and reports, declaring evidence and stating facts; and not only declaring evidence and stating facts, but pronouncing opinions upon the authority of both Houses of Parliament; not upon subjects of trifling import, but in cases where the lives of individuals were at stake, and at the moment when those individuals were taking their trials upon charges of high treason. If inquiries were permitted on occasions of this nature, he would ask, upon what ground could they be denied on the recent occurrences? Such a denial he could not help thinking shocking to common sense, a violation of all feeling, and in direct contravention of public justice. What would be the consequence of this mode of proceeding, if the people were told that when offences were committed against the crown, inquiries should take place, reports should be made, and their lives endangered by such extra-judicial proceedings, while, if they were themselves injured by offences committed against them, their rights should not be protected by the same means? Such a course of conduct, in his opinion, would not only aggravate the nature of their complaints, but would be
14
contrary to all former practices. Then, in this instance, they were shut out from obtaining redress in another way by the rejection of grand jurymen, and by a refusal of the magistrates to attend to their complaints. In this view of the case, how were they to obtain redress but through the medium of parliament? Was it possible, in such a state of things, by such a character of proceeding, that the discontents which now prevailed, could be allayed?
He had alluded to the address of the city of London. It was not necessary to say more on that subject; the feeling of those who voted that address was perfectly understood: all they desired was inquiry. He would now advert to the manner in which a noble friend of his (earl Fitzwilliam) had been treated, because he had thought it his duty to concur, or, if they would, to give his approbation to a requisition which was directed to the sheriff of the county of York, requesting him to call a meeting of the inhabitants of that highly respectable and independent county, to consider of the transactions which had taken place at Manchester, with a view to address the Prince Regent, and to call upon him to exercise his legal privilege in assembling parliament at as early a period as possible, for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into those transactions. Could there be an application of a more constitutional nature? Could there be an application to the Crown better suited to the circumstances of the country, or better calculated at that moment to allay the ferment and discontent to which the melancholy transactions at Manchester had given rise? It was impossible, in his apprehension, to have instituted a proceeding more admirably adapted to allay discontent. But what was the character of the proceeding itself? A meeting assembled, as large, as numerous, and as respectable in composition, as had ever assembled in that county. Were their proceedings tumultuous or disorderly? Were the speeches which were delivered by the individuals who attended the meeting calculated to inflame or to excite angry feelings? Were the resolutions in any degree such as would afford a construction or inference favourable to the designs of those who might be supposed enemies to the country, or in any way hostile to the laws and to the constitution? The fact was notoriously the reverse. The meet-

15
ing was as large, as numerous, and as respectable, as it was distinguished by orderly and peaceable behaviour. The speeches were characterised by fairness and moderation, while the resolutions studiously abstained from pronouncing any opinion whatever, farther than was necessary to state the ground of address; and yet for a proceeding dictated for so just and laudable a purpose, so happily devised for that purpose, and attended with such eminent success, was the lord-lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire removed from a situation which he had long held, with so much advantage to himself, and with so much honour to the country. He never could forget the surprise with which this act of extraordinary violence was viewed by every man of every description, whatever might be his political opinions or prejudices, throughout the country. But to a man like earl Fitzwilliam, who had been distinguished by his constant support of the Crown on every trying difficulty—a man of high rank, extensive influence, and princely possessions—a man beloved and esteemed—a man so properly described in resolutions which had been lately passed, from his particular situation, as affording security to the government and firmness and confidence to the people; when such a man was peculiarly marked out and devoted, in a season of such difficulty as the present, what confidence could exist in the ministers by whom such conduct could be sanctioned, and what hope remained for the deluded people of this country? That for the exercise of a constitutional right—for having presumed to question the transactions at Manchester—he should have been thus removed, was indeed inexplicable. He was aware that it was the undoubted privilege of the Crown to appoint and dismiss from offices of this description; but he knew also that the prerogative and power which the Crown exercised might become the subject of representation or remonstrance from either that or the other House. Whether it might be expedient to adopt any step of this kind, was a matter for after consideration. At present he would only advert to the existence of their right, if the exercise of that right should be thought advisable. He would ask, however, whether it was not extremely dangerous that a power should exist, by which, if they presumed to deliver their sentiments in opposition to
16
those of his majesty's ministers, they could be held up to public suspicion? And was it not extremely dangerous, at a period like the present, to place in such a situation such a man as earl Fitzwilliam? Was not such conduct calculated to increase disaffection in the country, and to produce additional hostility to the government? This observation was particularly applicable, when the House recollected the great manufacturing district over which the noble earl presided. What must be the effect in the minds of the people inhabiting that extensive county, when they found that, instead of affording them redress, the individual who had shown a disposition to inforce justice, and to support their rights, had been deprived of the situation which he held—had been treated as a person unworthy of further trust, and had been considered as one to whom the public security could no longer be confided? This was a lesson to persons holding similar situations; it was, in fact, neither more nor less than an intimation, that those who were not determined to support the measures of ministers, could no longer be considered as worthy of the confidence of the government, and would be turned out of any situation of trust or power which they might hold.
He had now adverted, first of all to the magistrates dispersing the people, or to the violence of those magistrates who had been acting in concert with the government: he had next called to the attention of their lordships the ready approbation, without any inquiry or examination, which his majesty's ministers had given to those acts: he had afterwards alluded to the answer which had been given to the city address; and finally to the punishment, or rather to the intended punishment (for he viewed it rather as an honour), of earl Fitzwilliam, for having presumed to listen to the voice, and to advocate the rights, of the people. The result of all these inquiries led him to the conclusion, that it was the determination of ministers to persevere in the measures which they had adopted, and to support that determination by a system of unqualified coercion. The next topic to which he should request their lordships' attention, was that part of the speech from the throne which referred to an addition of from 10,000 to 11,000 men to the regular troops of the country. He certainly had great doubts of the legality of this

17
addition to the regular army without the sanction of parliament; but he did not mean to say much on this part of the subject; neither was it his intention to dwell much on the state of distress in which the country was at present placed, or on the prudence of adding to their burdens an expense of at least from 200,000 l. to 300,000 l. He would simply observe, that this was another of that series of measures which had marked the progress of the existing government, and which was unaccompanied by a single measure of concession to keep down the spirit of discontent which so unhappily prevailed. He now wished their lordships to consider, to what end the conduct to which he had been alluding was likely to lead. Their lordships had some experience in that House two years ago, when restrictive laws were passed, and when the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, of the effect which such measures were likely to produce. The same complaints were then made of the existence of disaffection and discontent, and the same means of resorting to force were suggested. Did those measures produce the effects which were promised? He would ask their lordships, if they at all recollected the history of that time, or examined the situation of the country which resulted from those proceedings, whether the effect was not directly the reverse of that which was anticipated? Where discontent prevailed, was it not infinitely aggravated? The grounds for those measures on coming to be enforced—he meant the march of spies and informers, who were employed by the executive ministers of the Crown—were themselves the instigators of mischief, were themselves the originators of plans of treason, and were themselves the primary cause of an unconstitutional attack upon the liberties of the people. The effect of these measures was, in his opinion, the cause of a great portion of the discontent which now prevailed. After all the experience which they had had, however, there was no attempt at conciliation, no concession to the people; nothing was alluded to but a resort to coercion, as the only remedy which could be adopted. He had seen, and seen with regret, the progress of this system. The natural consequence of such a system, when once begun, was, that it could not be stopped: discontents begot the necessity of force; the employment of force increased discontents: these would de-
18
mand the exercise of new powers, till by degrees they would depart from all the principles of the constitution. This was the uniform course and progress of such measures.; and all the evils which were to be apprehended from their adoption must be expected, unless the preventive wisdom of parliament was called in to correct and to restrain the views of ministers.
The noble earl next alluded to the military force which was raising in different parts of the country, and the attempts which were making to arm one part of the people against the other. It had been said, that a malignant spirit was abroad, but he did not believe that there was any foundation for the charge. If the inhabitants of Manchester exhibited a disposition to disaffection, he verily believed that that disposition might fairly be traced, on the one side to those Orange societies, which were patronized by government; and, on the other, by the party feelings of those who were suffering distress, for the relief of whose complaints no attempt was made, and who, in consequence, assumed all the violence of radical reformers, and felt anxious to destroy, all those distinctions of rank by which the existence of society was supported. Such was the order of things which prevailed in Ireland previous to the rebellion, and which ended in the destruction of the independent legislature of that country. He knew not whether it was intended to adopt the same measures with regard to this country as had been adopted in Ireland, where the sword had been substituted for persuasion. The situation of the two countries was extremely different. In Ireland the state of distress was such, that it produced universal confusion: the danger was imminent; but it was suppressed by the power and interference of this country. If the discontents in this country existed to the same extent, and upon the same disparity of resistance, the consequences would be far different. Ireland had derived assistance from this country; but from Ireland we could expect no such advantage: on the contrary, it was to be apprehended that Ireland herself would be placed in a situation of danger. They had been told two years ago that Ireland was perfectly quiet. He remembered well an observation which was made on that occasion; it sunk deep in his recollection. He remembered the answer which was made by a noble marquis (Wellesley) to

19
that statement. The noble earl then quoted a passage from the speech to which he alluded, which, in substance, stated, that the quiet of Ireland was to be attributed to her endeavours to obtain a relief from her religious disabilities; but that if an opportunity offered, she would not hesitate to assert her independence, and to take advantage of any difficulties to which this country might be exposed. To obviate such an attempt, they could only look with confidence to a system of policy founded upon liberality and justice. He would put a case in the reverse: suppose the adoption of coercive laws—an addition to the army, and in fact the establishment of the reign of force and terror. Could this be depended upon? Could government rest with confidence upon the sword for security? It was impossible that a government of such a nature could exist in England. What would become of their manufactures? What would become of their credits; of their commerce; in fact, on what could they rest the stability of their resources without their constitution? Without that spirit which the knowledge of the advantages which they enjoyed under their constitution infused, all their energies would flag, and all their feelings by which their glory as a nation had been established would be utterly dissipated. He would put it to the test of the military experience of the noble duke who sat opposite (the duke of Wellington). He would ask him whether, in the moment of peril, any thing excited the superior qualities of the British soldier to the glorious feats by which he had been distinguished, but the sacred spirit of liberty which he derived from the constitution under which he had lived, and from the consciousness of the rights which that constitution preserved to him? If this principle, which was the great source of our prosperity, was destroyed, what would become of the boasted security of those laws and those measures of coercion which the language of ministers throughout had taught us to expect? Not alone would the various ranks of society be endangered, but the throne itself would be placed in jeopardy. The example of history had sufficiently proved, that there was no comparison between the security of a monarch who lived among a free people, enthroned in their affections, and him who, like the great emperor of Russia, looked alone for protection from the troops by which he was surrounded. It was with a view to esta-
20
blish this liberal principle, that he should move the amendment by which he should conclude. He was of opinion that the powers which existed under the law as it was constituted were sufficient for the preservation of the public peace; but if it could be shown that any new dangers, that any new circumstances, had arisen for which no provision had been made, and that notwithstanding all the diligence and active management of a good government, that government was in imminent peril, he was not prepared to say that, upon receiving such proof, he would not give his sanction to measures calculated to meet those unusual exigencies. But he must say, that his majesty's present ministers were the last persons to whom he would intrust the general interests of the state. He should grant them new powers, such as those to which he had alluded, with a degree of caution amounting to repugnance. It should, however, be their duty in the first instance, to institute a solemn inquiry into the circumstances which had attended the unfortunate transactions at Manchester on the 16th of August, and thereby convince the people of England that they were their true guardians, and sensibly alive to every thing in which their interests were involved. The noble earl concluded by moving an Amendment to the Address by adding at the end thereof the words,
"To assure his Royal Highness, that, called together at a season when unexampled distress and extraordinary agitation prevail in some of the most populous districts of the kingdom, we will immediately proceed to take into our most serious consideration the various matters contained in his Royal Highness's gracious speech from the throne.
"Humbly to express to his Royal Highness our reprobation of the attempts which have been made to persuade the suffering classes of the people to seek relief from their distress in schemes injurious to themselves, dangerous to the public quiet, and inconsistent with the security of the constitution, which it is our duty and determination to maintain against every species of encroachment and attack.
"To represent to his Royal Highness, that while we thus declare our determined resolution firmly to uphold the just authority of the laws, we feel that we are called upon by a sense of duty to conduct ourselves so as to satisfy the people that their

21
complaints will at all times receive from us that just attention, and their rights that ready protection, that is indispensable to their safety and freedom.
"That this seems to us more particularly necessary, in order to maintain that competence in the public institutions of the country, which constitutes the best safeguard of all law and government.
"That we have seen with deep regret the events which took place at Manchester on the 16th of August, and that, without pronouncing any opinion on the circumstances that occurred on that melancholy occasion, we feel that they will demand our earliest attention, in order to dissipate the alarm to which they have given birth; and by the result of a diligent and impartial inquiry, which may show that the measures then resorted to were the result of an urgent necessity, or that an important constitutional privilege cannot be violated, and the lives of his majesty's subjects sacrificed, with impunity."
Lord Sidmouthsaid, he was induced to solicit their lordships attention in consequence of the manner in which the noble earl who had just sat down had thought fit to allude to events involving great official responsibility—a responsibility which attached principally, if not exclusively, to himself. The noble earl had commenced his speech with an admission of the existence of present danger. Indeed, he did not believe there was an individual either in this or the other House of Parliament, or in the kingdom, who was not prepared to make the same concession. The noble earl had attributed those dangers to the neglect of parliament in the performance of its duties. How far that proposition was well founded, their lordships were perfectly competent to judge It was within their lordships' recollection, that in the course of the last session of parliament military retrenchment had taken place to an extent which appeared to satisfy every individual calling for retrenchment. Another call which had been made on the House was for the abolition of sinecure places. In this, too, government had conceded to the supposed wishes of the country: whether those concessions had or had not been carried too far, was a question which events would probably demonstrate. With regard to the military retrenchment, those noble lords who had experience of the present state of the country, and who felt the insufficiency of the means which were af-
22
forded to support the civil magistrates, could best satisfy the House. It was not his intention to travel through all the parts of the noble earl's speech. The primary object was the internal state of the country; and to that, for the present, he should confine his observations. The internal state of the country it was that had determined the Prince Regent, by the advice of his ministers, to assemble parliament, for the purpose of laying before the two Houses such information as would present to them at one view a clear exposition of the state in which the country was placed. It would be for parliament to consider, upon reading this statement, and to say, whether some additional powers were not necessary for the preservation of the constitution, and whether the present laws were not too weak for that purpose. But the manner in which the noble earl had referred to the circumstances to which he had alluded, which he (lord Sidmouth) felt in his own mind to be immediately connected with his official character, induced him at once to apply himself to that subject. The transactions at Manchester on the 16th of August formed a prominent point of the noble lord's speech; and he would take upon himself to say, that there never was a transaction in which the public were interested, or respecting which they were solicitous, in which there had been so much misrepresentation, falsehood, and exaggeration as respecting the proceedings of that day. They had heard of the magistrates of Manchester as if they were merely magistrates of the town of Manchester, and as if they were the stipendiary magistrates of government. This was not a true representation of facts; the magistrates in question were appointed by the county, and commenced their duties in the beginning of July last. There were of them twelve in number, and their attentions were unremitting to preserve the public peace. They were none of them Manchester magistrates; they were men of the highest respectability in the county, who had associated themselves for the purpose of watching over the conduct of persons whose designs were but too evident to be mistaken. Two of them only were stipendiary magistrates; he alluded to Mr. Hay, who had been appointed by the quarter sessions; and to Mr. Norris, who had been appointed by the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, to whom he was only known by character. These individuals had been the objects

23
of much unfounded misrepresentation. He should have thought, from the policy of the system of government in this country, that the conduct of magistrates would not be condemned, at least without due deliberation, if not with great allowance, and that presumption would have been in their favour. They knew that in the first criminal court in the country, the court of King's-bench, the aberrations of magistrates, where they might have departed from the strict letter of the law, or acted from unintentional error, had always been treated with every possible indulgence. But, to place presumption aside, the danger by which those magistrates were surrounded on the day to which the noble lord alluded, was sufficient to justify every act which had been imputed to them. When they saw an immense assemblage of individuals, marching in military array, coming in large bodies from a distance, and declaring their object to be neither more nor less than the total subversion of the constitution or to perish; these persons carrying with them caps of liberty, pikes bearing the appearance of having been dipped in blood, and flags inscribed with the most seditious sentences; all, in his humble estimation, ought to have placed presumption on the side of the magistrates. But there were other grounds of presumption in their favour: if they had misconducted themselves, the courts of law were open for redress; and yet, not a single application or charge had been made against them, while bills had been found against every individual whom they had apprehended, by the grand jury of the county palatine of Lancaster. The noble viscount then proceeded to defend the yeomanry from the charges which had been preferred against them. He denied that they had done more than became them as soldiers, acting under specific orders; and instanced the various contradictions which had been given to the charges which had been brought against them, as proofs of the malevolent falsehoods by which they had been assailed. Under all the circumstances, he thought the presumption was as strongly in favour of them as it was in favour of the magistrates. On the illegality of the Manchester meeting he could speak with the utmost confidence. Without referring to information exclusively in possession of the government, and none of which had yet been communicated to the public; but taking the facts which
24
were generally stated and admitted, he would not hesitate to declare, relying on the opinion of the great legal authorities, in whom he could place the most implicit confidence, that the assembly of the 16th of August was not only illegal, but treasonable.—The next object of the noble earl's animadversions was the letter addressed to the lords-lieutenant of the counties of Chester and Lancaster, communicating the approbation of the Prince Regent's government to the magistrates and the yeomanry who acted on that occasion. He did not shrink from any responsibility which the writing of that letter imposed, and he was convinced that a plain statement of facts would convince their lordships, that his majesty's government could not have pursued a different course. An account of the transactions of the 16th, at Manchester, reached ministers on Tuesday night. On Wednesday, Mr. Hay, the chairman of the Salford Quarter Sessions, accompanied by another gentleman, arrived in town to give the fullest information on all the circumstances to the government. A cabinet council was summoned immediately, and attended by all those members of it who were then in town. It consisted of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, of the noble master-general of the ordnance, of the noble secretary of state for foreign affairs, and of several other members, and was attended by the law officers of the Crown. The two gentlemen who had come from Manchester made their statements in the presence not only of the cabinet, but of the law officers; and all the information which they gave, and all the circumstances which they minutely detailed, served only to confirm the conviction which had been produced by the original account, that the magistrates had faithfully done their duty. As soon as this step had been taken, and this explanation given, the law-officers gave it as their opinion, on a view of the whole case, that the conduct of the magistrates was completely justified by the necessity under which they acted. With this conviction on the minds of the Prince Regent's ministers, the letter in question was written. If, so convinced, they had not acted in the manner they did, and had delayed to communicate the approbation of government till they had made unnecessary inquiries, he would not hesitate to say, that they would have acted not only unwisely, but unjustly and basely. The

25
persons whose conduct had been thus canvassed, had performed a most painful and dangerous duty; they had exposed their lives for the preservation of the public peace; they had given a satisfactory account of the necessity which compelled them to act; the presumption was in favour of the truth of their statements: and, were ministers, in such a case, to say, after hearing them, "No, we cannot approve of your proceedings; there is every appearance that you acted with proper temper and decision; there is a certainty that you exposed your personal safety in the performance of your duty, but facts may afterwards come out against you, and on this vague anticipation of probable contradiction, we will refrain from thanking you till we have heard the statements of your accusers?" Would such conduct have been fair, manly, or generous? Ministers were charged with prejudging the question by the conduct they pursued; but how could they have done otherwise than they did, convinced as they were that the magistrates had acted under a necessity that admitted of no alternative? What would have been the consequence of any doubt thrown unnecessarily on their intentions or acts? What would have been thought of the conduct of government by the other magistrates of the kingdom? The times in which they lived were not those that would allow them with impunity to temporise in a manner so base and so unjust towards men to whom the protection of the public peace was intrusted. The noble lord here entered shortly into an account of the transactions of the 16th, and described the hostile conduct of the populace towards the constables and the authorities, both before and after the meeting. Campbell, a constable, had been actually stoned to death, in open day, in Manchester; and a constable of the town had stated that he considered his life in danger. This system of hostility to all who were engaged in executing the law, or preserving the public peace, was not confined to Manchester. It appeared in Newcastle, and other places. Referring to the cruelties said to have been perpetrated by the military on the 16th, he declared that not a single life was lost in consequence of the blows which they inflicted. On this subject he would not, however, dwell any longer at present: the danger with which we were threatened from the discontented state of
26
the public mind was generally admitted and its magnitude should induce their lordships to unite in vigorous measures to avert it. If, in the character of that danger, there was any feature more alarming than another, it was the conduct of some persons, who encouraged and emboldened the disaffected by standing between the government they assailed, and the party assailing. The noble lord, adverting to the observations of earl Grey, regarding the dismissal of lord Fitzwilliam from the lieutenancy of the West Riding of Yorkshire, said he would not enter at large into the grounds of that measure. The different view which that noble lord and his majesty's ministers took of the state of the country, and the public declaration which he signed in opposition to their wishes, showed that all confidence between them and him had ceased, and that a separation had become indispensable. These were all the observations which he felt himself called upon to make on the present occasion. He concluded by declaring, that he should vote for the original address as it stood; and if the amendment was persisted in, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon it.
Lord Erskine, in rising to support the amendment, said, that although he could add nothing to recommend it to the adoption of the House, because it had in his opinion, received no answer whatsoever from the noble secretary of state, though of all others the most bound to justify its rejection, yet he could not content himself with giving a silent vote, to be perhaps passed over in the published list of a division. He wished all the people of this land to know, that he was still in his place, as he ever had been when the rights of the people were invaded; and upon the present occasion, they had not only been most manifestly invaded, but wantonly trampled upon and insulted.—The unquestionable merit of his noble friend's amendment was, that whilst it supported the address in every part of it that pointed out any public offence or danger, and to all that pledged the House to maintain order and tranquillity, yet at the same time it justly and prudently called upon them to examine into the causes of the discontent and disorder which they condemned; to pledge them also to support the liberty of the subject under the laws, and to suffer no wrong which might have been committed under the

27
pretext of supporting them to pass unexamined and unredressed.—What answer had been given, or even what attempt at an answer had been made to that sound and statesman like proposition.—The noble lord who had just sat down, in a speech most unwise and unfit in the present agitated state of the country, instead of sympathizing with admitted sufferings, and lamenting the supposed necessity of inflicting them, had passed them by altogether, and closed the door at once, without the slightest consideration of them, against either inquiry or relief. Such a course of proceeding, however it might have been determined upon by ministers, even on grounds which might appear to them to be satisfactory, could not possibly justify the House to refuse examination, when the people appealed to parliament for protection, and tendered the proofs of most atrocious violations of the constitution—When the people, my lords (said lord E.), complain to us of the grossest misgovernment of the magistracy, and of the ministers for sanctioning their misconduct, can we possibly accept of their own declarations as conclusive evidence in their justification, whilst we refuse to hear the evidence of their accusers?—When ministers took upon themselves to pledge the Crown to support their rash pre-judgment, and to condemn the people, how could they be considered to be responsible, if parliament, upon their own suggestion, and under their own influence, rejected all inquiry into the facts offered to be proved, and which if established must condemn them? In laying their conduct before the House by the address which they have proposed, they must think, no doubt, that they have submitted their conduct, and the state also of the country to the impartial and constitutional judgment of the legislature, Be it so; but what then must the nation, and all other nations, think of the House of Lords as a branch of that legislature, if its decision echoed the address prepared by themselves who were accused, against the universal complaints of the people, and this without hearing a syllable of the proofs, which by petitions from one extremity of the country to the other, they had been solemnly called upon to examine. Such a proceeding was without example in the history of the worst times. It would have been wiser to give a wrong judgment after hearing the evidence, than ' to reject it altogether. The first could
28
only raise the presumption of an error in judgment, but the last might create suspicions of too gross a character to be stated.—The noble viscount, however, to justify the rejection of the amendment, had assured the House that the proceedings at Manchester had been grossly misrepresented; but this he thought was rather an additional argument for an inquiry into the facts.—But, putting aside all accusation or justification of ministers, was it not the duty of the House to examine impartially the state of the country, and the acts of the magistracy, to restore tranquillity, by inspiring the people with a trust in the justice of parliament, to afford relief and protection even to those who might have offended, if the laws had been overstepped. Can we, my lords (said lord E.), expect either affection or obedience from subjects, if we ourselves depart from the immutable rules of justice?—He had formerly observed to their lordships, that the diseases of the state, like those of the body, must be first traced to their causes before any remedy could be usefully, or even safely applied; and he was sorry to be obliged to say, that the principal cause of that now complained of was unhappily, too notorious. It arose (no matter whether with or without foundation) from a distrust of parliament: the great bulk of the people did not consider the House of Commons as their representative, nor the House of Lords as independent, when they uniformly, even more than the House of Commons, adopted every measure which every administration in its turn had proposed. They thought, no matter whether justly or unjustly, that the influence of the Crown in both Houses of Parliament, annihilated their use and office in the government; they declare in all their tumultuous meetings that whatever ministers introduced was always conclusively adopted, whilst their wishes and opinions were rejected. Now, nothing surety could be more dangerous than that such an opinion should spread, and take root throughout the country; yet could it possibly be a remedy for such a diseased opinion, or rather could it do otherwise than exasperate and confirm it, to defer to ministers as you are called upon today; to take their own words for their own wisdom and justice, and to refuse to hear the other side, that thus they might be pronounced by the House to be immaculate, and the people discontented without cause. Was it possible to expect tran-

29
quillity or obedience to government, if this course was pursued, or to fail in securing both the one and the other, by adopting the amendment? My lords (said lord E.) if whilst you shall maintain a just submission to lawful authority, even by military force when unfortunately necessary, you shall at the same time take care to limit its interference, and never to suffer it to pass beyond the bounds of the law; and if, when excesses occur, you shall open wide all your assemblies and tribunals to the sufferers, and hear their complaints with an affectionate feeling for the great mass of the people, appeals to force will be but rare and insignificant. Only do this systematically, beginning to-day upon so favourable an occasion, and every thing you fear will soon disappear, like an enchantment or a dream. Only show the world that you are not the slaves of ministers, but the faithful guardians of the rights of the people, and you may lay at rest all the laws against tumultuous assemblies, and your troops and magistrates may go to sleep. But he ought, he said, to have spared their lordships from hearing these truths from him; the causes of the present discontents had been already pointed out by his noble friend with so much truth and eloquence as the foundation of his amendment, that he felt his words return back upon him. The complaints which had convulsed the public mind from one extremity of the island to the other, were surely a sufficient presumption of their justice, not merely to vindicate inquiry, but to impose it as a solemn duty upon the House; and the more so as it was the only possible course by which the alienation of the lower orders of the people from the government of the country could be removed; and even if the result in favour of the magistracy appeared to be probable or almost certain, the more politic would be the examination of the facts, as it would show that parliament, instead of being cold to the wishes of the people, ran even before its duty, through sympathy for their feelings. There could be no doubt, and for the very reasons he had adverted to, that there had been tumultuous assemblies of the people in different parts of the country, in numbers too great to be useful, and which could not be brought together without leading to probable disturbances of the peace; neither had he any doubt that the meeting in the neighbourhood of Manchester was of a description to call
30
for the active vigilance of the magistrates; but at the same time it could not be denied, that the object of the meeting was legal, it being to petition parliament, and no overt acts had been committed, nor any conspiracy discovered, to prove it to have been a cover for rebellion or sedition. On the contrary, there was little ground for believing that violence or disturbance of any kind was contemplated, when very great numbers brought their wives and children along with them; for if tumult or danger had been contemplated or expected, the feelings of nature would have prevented the presence of women and infants in the crowd. Supposing, however, that the great numbers assembled, and the banners displaying the wishes of this multitude for a reform visionary and impracticable, had rendered the meeting in the honest judgment of the magistrates unsafe and injurious to the public peace, and therefore fit to be dispersed, was not the mode of accomplishing it most clearly prescribed by the laws, and completely and safely practicable? After mildly admonishing those who were nearest to them, were they not bound to read the Riot act in different parts of this immensely numerous meeting, so that the reading of it might be perfectly notorious, which most undoubtedly had been very insufficiently done; and no means taken to circulate the knowledge of it. The leaders of that multitude well knew, and no doubt would have made known to those who followed them, the consequences of remaining after an hour had elapsed, and this knowledge would in itself have soon dissipated or thinned the meeting; but what after all was the legal consequence of their keeping together after the period prescribed by the statute? Not that they were subject without imminent necessity, to be sabred right and left with indiscriminate and merciless violence, by cavalry impelled against them as in rebellion or foreign battle. No; they were felons only, and subject to indictment. Lord E. said, he admitted that even before the hour had elapsed so as to render them felons, or any portion, however small of it, if such acts of force or dangerous breaches of the peace had been committed or threatened as would justify magistrates to repel force by force, that force not only might, but ought most unquestionably to be employed; but did such a case exist at Manchester, or in the justification of the magistracy, had

31
any such acts of the multitude been proved?—Certainly not. On the contrary, their leader had offered his person to the laws if he had offended, and no violence had been committed when they were charged by the yeomanry and cut down. Now, my lords (said lord E.), when you are invoked by the universal voice of the country, can you, in such a case as this, refuse all examination, only because ministers forbid you; and is it possible that your lordships should be blind to the peril of pursuing such a course? It may be necessary perhaps very soon to employ military force in the support of lawful government, which is but another name for protection of the people; and if the amendment is accepted, recourse may be had to it without unpopularity or suspicion; but if, by now rejecting all examination, the unlawful employment of force shall be vindicated, government will then raise a question in public opinion between the people and itself which the military may be called upon to decide; and God forbid that such a dangerous arbitration should ever exist! When the military are employed upon lawful occasions, they do not then act against the people but for their manifest protection; but if this sound distinction comes to be disbelieved or brought into doubt or question, your lordships should recollect that the soldiers being themselves part of the people, partaking of course all their feelings, the arm may be palsied with which we may have to act. It appeared to him, therefore, that the House was bound by every principle of interest as well as duty to satisfy the people, that whilst parliament was determined on the one hand to put in force the laws of the country, and to maintain order and tranquillity even by force if unhappily necessary, yet that they were equally resolved to protect their liberties and avenge their sufferings; which was all that the amendment called upon their lordships to do. To this, however, it was objected, that the subject prayed to be inquired into had already been decided by the rejection of the bills of indictment by the grand jury of Lancaster, which brought these transactions before them; but the complaints of complaining individuals, and the evidence produced by them to which their lordships were strangers, was but a small part of so great a national question; might not the prisoners in 1791 have been proceeded against by
32
the state trials at the Old Bailey, without the interference of parliament, but the magnitude of the question formed the exception, and the reports of both Houses, even though they assumed the guilt of the individuals who were in custody and to stand their trials, were made public. This was done under the same administration of government which now refused inquiry, because bills of indictment by a few individual sufferers had been rejected. Nothing surely could be more completely at variance than the two courses which had been pursued! This (said lord E.) is the whole; the amendment neither negatives nor questions the principles which are the foundation of the address, and if adopted leaves the House solemnly and unanimously pledged, as it ought to be, to support the government as established by law, which I hope always to be found amongst the foremost to maintain; whilst, at the same time, it gives it the most efficacious support by assimilating it with the interests and affections of the people. For these reasons I shall vote for the amendment.
Lord Kingobserved, that the assertion of the noble secretary of state, that misstatements had gone abroad on the subject of the Manchester transactions, laid the strongest ground for inquiry. The speech of the noble secretary was remarkable for its coincidence with every thing that government had done regarding the melancholy transactions of the 16th of August. It contained not one expression of regret. The letter of thanks to the magistrates, the answer to the city address, the speech from the throne, and the address now proposed in answer to it, were all silent on this head. The magistrates had been approved of in a high quarter, but it was certain they were not approved of by the nation. It must be allowed on all hands that they had committed indiscretions; at least they had been guilty of rashness and precipitation. Magistrates might act lawfully, and yet be guilty of indiscretion. They had a title to apprehend the individuals upon proper depositions, but they might have been indiscreet in selecting the moment for their apprehension. Why did they not issue their warrants before the meeting? Why did they not prevent the meeting by declaring it illegal? or why not wait till it had dispersed, to apprehend its leaders? The dangers, if there

33
were any, arose from its dispersion, and not from listening to speeches; and there was every reason to believe, that if not interfered with, it would have passed off like innumerable other meetings of the same kind. The noble lord then went on to state, that distress was the cause of the present discontent, and appealed to those places where disaffection appeared exactly proportioned to the privations endured. He then adverted to the meetings for loyal declarations, and said, that such effusions always preceded attacks on the liberty of the subject. He did not deny, that there was now considerable danger, and considerable discontent; but contended that the former could only be averted, and the latter removed, by measures of conciliation and kindly reform. Regarding reform, the nation was divided into three parts; the adherents of ministers, who objected to all reform; the radical reformers, whose plans would be a subversion of the constitution; and those who supported the necessity of a gradual, a practical, and a moderate reform. The noble lord professed himself desirous of being ranked in the latter class, and thought great good would result from a correction of abuses, when they should be proved to exist, and a careful repair of the breaches which time might have made in the constitution. An opinion had unfortunately gone abroad, from the neglect of this species of reform, that parliament, instead of being a check and a control on the measures of the executive, had become its minion and its tool. It had last year increased the taxes by three millions, without any ostensible object but to benefit the fund-holder; and the grant of 10,000 l. a year to the duke of York, for visiting, at stated intervals, his afflicted father (a measure which gave more disgust than any thing that had been done for a long time) was quoted as another instance of disregard to national interests. The noble lord then drew a parallel between the treatment of Ireland, before the late rebellion, and that of England, recently; and showed how the system of spies and informers had been transplanted from the one country into the other. Nothing could more tend to alienate the people from the government than a refusal of inquiry. The noble lord, therefore, after a few more observations, concluded by supporting the amendment.
The Earl of Carysfortsaid, it was our
34
duty, as members of society, to protect each other, by upholding those principles on which society depended. Much had been said of the meeting at Manchester on the 16th of August, and the transactions of that day. It seemed to him extraordinary, that there should be a second opinion as to the legality of that meeting. Was it possible that it could be lawful for men to meet in such enormous numbers, and in a threatening manner, as on that occasion? Could a proceeding be lawful which went to defeat all the ends for which men entered into society? Men entered into society for the purpose of leaving the protection of their rights to public authorities constituted for that purpose, and not to the adjudication of themselves. If that principle was departed from, no individual could have any security for his life or property. The meeting of so large a body, and with such devices, even under pretence of a lawful purpose, could not be allowed; for it must necessarily inspire terror, and such terror was, in its nature, an act of violence and compulsion. The present times were different from those of the civil wars, when there was a claim of arbitrary power in the Crown, and a contest on the part of the people for the recovery of ancient rights and liberties. Those liberties were now well understood, and he was convinced that no family was ever more attached to those principles than the illustrious family under whose auspices we lived. The king undertook to administer justice in mercy, and so mild had been his reign, that in the performance of this duty numerous cases had occurred in which mercy might be thought to have been carried too far. What would have been said at the period of the Revolution, by the judges of that day, had a grand jury been abused in public libels, as the grand jury of Lancashire had been treated for doing their duty? He hoped, that, laying aside party spirit and prejudice, all would unite in supporting the constitution, and that was only to be done by giving support to the magistracy of the country. He was anxious that full and complete support should be given to the executive magistrates in the discharge of their duty; for those principles, on which every thing valuable in society depended, could only be maintained by supporting the executive. He certainly was of opinion, that lenient measures were better indications of firmness, than those which partook of a

35
character of violence. He always considered, that if the magistrates had violated or misused the powers intrusted to them, the courts of law were open to the persons aggrieved. In allusion to what had fallen from a noble lord respecting the lord lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire, he remarked, that had he been placed in the same situation as earl Fitzwilliam, he should probably have acted differently. Had that noble lord asked his advice, be should perhaps have advised him to take a different course from that which he had pursued; for he could not but feel, that at a juncture like the present, persons of high station, like that noble lord, and possessing extensive property and influence, in the country, should come forward and prevent the people from being led away by designing and seditious persons; should not abet them in their errors, but teach them to look up to them for direction. Still, however, he could not but sincerely wish that his majesty's ministers had viewed that noble earl's conduct in the light in which he viewed it. It must be admitted, that that noble lord never was one who gave his countenance to proceedings of a dangerous character; but that, on the contrary, upon trying occasions, he had in more than one instance given his support to the administration, in opposition to the opinions of those with whom he usually acted. He could not, therefore, but regret the extent of the punishment which had in this case been inflicted. The noble lord said, he should conclude with an earnest hope that none of the apprehensions of public danger which were at present entertained might be verified.
The Duke of Atholobserved, with reference to the present situation of the country, that the artifices of factious demagogues were working on the loyal and industrious poor, by means of the worst poison that ever contaminated the public—a poison sufficient to awaken the horror and detestation of the government under which we lived. He did not mean to dwell on the particular circumstances of the Manchester meeting, but to state what he knew from local experience of the northern part of the kingdom, with which he was more immediately connected. He did not hesitate to say, that a short time ago, a more moral and religions set of people did not exist; but he knew that attempts had been made to corrupt them, although those attempts had not perhaps
36
been so successful in that quarter, as in some other parts of the kingdom. He knew that delegates had been employed in disseminating blasphemous and seditious tracts among them, either gratis, or at so low a price, as to enable the poorest to purchase them. These tracts had certainly not been so successful there, in destroying order and morality, as they had been in this part of the country; but still they had to a certain degree succeeded. He had the satisfaction to state, that in the country where he resided, the projects that had been suggested for the relief of the labouring poor had in part succeeded; and that, notwithstanding the swarm of publications spread among them, for the purpose of rendering them dissatisfied with their situation, they were convinced that every thing practicable had been done for the amelioration of their condition. He was one of those who thought themselves bound to call the attention of their lordships to the state of the lower classes, in order to save them from the specious delusions of those demagogues, who were disseminating among them the injurious principles of radical reform. The question of reform had been often agitated, but he never knew any specific, practicable plan, on which twenty persons were agreed. We had at last, however, got one. We had now a radical reform, a reform by which noble lords would not remain in possession of their estates three days after it was carried into effect. He had a newspaper in his pocket, in which a radical reformer stated pretty plainly what he meant. An exchange of poverty for property was the principle and purpose of the radical reformers. If their lordships did not adopt some measures to restrain such men, they would not do their duty. The mass of the people were loyal, but if not protected, they would be lost in the gulph of radical reform. He would recommend the signal of lord Nelson when at the battle of Trafalgar, "England expects every man to do his duty." Let the House also do its duty, and by so doing it would have done that which, under divine Providence, would arrest the calamities with which the country was threatened, and insure its safety. He had sat in that House nearly forty years; he had seen, in that time, many black clouds hanging over his head, but the good sense, the loyalty, and the morality of the people had never failed to dispel them; and that, he was persuaded,

37
would be the case, in the present crisis of the country.
Lord Lilfordsaid, that the liberties of the people were involved in the protection of the constituted authorities, whose reputation could not suffer without injury to those over whom they presided. He would ask, then, whether some of the speeches of noble lords, who pretended to be the exclusive champions of liberty, were not calculated to degrade that respect which was due to the magistracy? In advocating their cause, he advocated the cause of the people. The little he had to say should be confined to his own local knowledge. He had received information from persons in the middle rank of society, not of the privileged orders, but men of sound judgment, and without prejudice or partiality; he held this correspondence in his hands, and he should state two or three passages from it. Its date commenced with January, 1819, and it stated that the radicals, in urging parliamentary reform, and decrying the corn bill, only meant to excite a prejudice against the landholders; that the people in the quarter in which he resided were goaded on by reformers, and ready for any act of desperation; that their minds were assailed by seditious tracts, and if sedition was allowed to go on they would write down any government on earth. The cotton trade had improved, and he was sure would improve, if not prevented by the madness of those men—but reform had got possession of their minds; it mixed with all their habits and ideas, and constituted the subject of all their conversation. He was a man of but plain intellect, and did not pretend to see far before him; but it did appear to him to be a strange per. version of optics to see only the possible mischief that might accrue from government, and to be blind to the immediate danger already flowing from the conduct of the people. For his part, he was willing to give, by his vote, a pledge of his opinion, that in the present state of the country some remedy was necessary to check the mischief which he saw existing.
Earl Greytook that opportunity to explain, that, with reference to the objection that any parliamentary inquiry would be extrajudicial, he had stated, that according to this mode of reasoning, it might happen that ministers might Order the most illegal acts, such, for instance, as the levying of ship-money; and yet parliament might be precluded from any exami-
38
nation of their conduct, by being told triumphantly that any inquiry by them would be extrajudicial.
Lord Lilfordbegged to be allowed to supply an omission in his speech: it was, that he knew personally the character of the magistrates at Manchester: he knew them to be men of the highest integrity: he knew also that they were most desirous of inquiry.
Earl Grey, in explanation, observed, that he had carefully abstained from saying any thing respecting the character of the magistrates, though he certainly had a very strong opinion as to their conduct; but all he wished was a full, fair, and impartial inquiry; for if, as was said, their conduct was capable of justification, an inquiry was the more necessary even on that account.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that whatever might be the tendency of parliamentary inquiry to allay local uneasiness, and however much he might, as an individual, wish it for the sake of justifying the character of the magistrates, yet, looking at the question in his public capacity, he must say, that no such inquiry as was called for could be granted consistently with the spirit of the laws of the country. No noble lord had ventured to say that the meeting at Manchester was a legal meeting. When he considered what proceedings were now in progress in the courts of Taw, be almost feared to speak out his opinion; but when he read in his law-books that numbers constituted force, and force terror, and terror illegality, he felt that no man could say that the Manchester meeting was not an illegal one. It was a new and somewhat strange ground that was taken on the present occasion by the advocates for the liberty of the subject. He had, to be sure, often heard it stated on former occasions to the attorney-general, when he filed an information, "Why have you done so? why have you not adopted the old constitutional course of laying the complaint before a grand jury?" whereas, now the cry was, "Why do you not, since that constitutional tribunal a grand jury, has rejected the bills, instantly file an unconstitutional information in order to allay the popular ferment?" He felt from the bottom of his heart that the meanest subject of this country was better than the highest of any other country under heaven; but he would be no longer so, if he gave up his ear and soul to those evil counsellors who

39
would make not (as they pretended) the poor man rich, but would make both rich and poor "poor indeed!" It was complained, that not only had the grand jury rejected bills, but that magistrates had refused to receive information on oath. This latter conduct was either right or wrong: if right, why complain about it? if wrong, why interfere with measures already under consideration in the court of King's-bench? Another ground of complaint was, the conduct of the coroner in adjourning an inquest. But what was the fact? The coroner alleges that the jury had been tampered with, and that there is a fear that they might give their verdict on evidence not before them on oath. He, therefore, adjourned the inquest, in order to have the opinion of the court of King's-bench in a matter of such high importance. What was there unjust in this? His noble and learned friend, of whom he always should speak affectionately as of an old fellow-labourer in the same vineyard, had stated that there were precedents of parliamentary interference with the courts below. If there were any, he was sure they must be bad precedents; but he was not aware of any that bore any analogy to the present case. Those cases of high treason to which he had referred were not at all in point: parliament had then interfered, or rather had instituted a contemporaneous inquiry; not for the sake of, or in any connexion with, the persons under trial, but with reference to those numerous classes throughout the nation who were supposed to be implicated in some general designs of mischief against the government. Was there any similar state necessity in the present case? Was there ever any reasonable ground of fear that the magistrates would run wild and exceed their duty throughout the nation? He must confess that he thought the danger was one of a very different kind. He thought that the magistrates had been remiss rather than over active; and had neglected to take notice of many seditious and blasphemous publications which ought to have been noticed. One observation of his noble and learned friend he must particularly remark upon, because the great source from which it proceeded might give authority to error. He alluded to what he had said about the Riot act. It should he recollected that the act, specially called the Riot act, did not exist till the 9th of Geo. 1st; yet that a great
40
many acts of parliament (which though not generally known, were yet in force) had previously been passed against illegal, as distinguished from riotous or routous meetings. As the law now stood, if the magistrates thought proper to read the Riot act, and the mob did not disperse within an hour, they were guilty of felony; but if a case should arise of an assembly, after the reading of the Riot act, conducting itself in such a way that it ought to be immediately dispersed, was it to be said that the whole powers of the common law were palsied, and could not be put into execution till a full hour had elapsed; and that therefore all the mischief possible might be done with impunity in the remaining three quarters of an hour? He would not now give any opinion on the proceedings at Manchester, as a case was in progress for trial. A bill had been found, though perhaps, according to the reasoning of the noble lord, that circumstance was a strong presumption of innocence, the rejection of a bill having been considered as the surest proof of guilt [a laugh]: but as all the facts of the case were about to be laid before a jury, he would not enter into details—no; not even in that debate which was threatened would he be induced to enter into any minute explanation. This only he owed it to himself to say-that it was his fixed, his unqualified opinion, that the meeting at Manchester on the 16th of August was, in every sense of the word, an illegal meeting.
Lord Erskineexplained. He did not say that an hour after the reading of the Riot act was requisite before the law of the country could be enforced against tumultuous assemblies. On various perilous occasions he had been put to the test, and did not then think that an hour was requisite. During the riots of 1780, when the mob was preparing to attack the house of lord Mansfield, he was in Bloomsbury-square, and attended with some military, when he offered to defend the house. He was also in the Temple when the mob was preparing to force the gate, and when several houses in London were on fire, and he went forward to the gate, which he opened, and stood beside a field-piece, prepared to fire, in case the attack was persisted in. In such cases every man was a magistrate, every subject was bound to act, to defend his country and its laws. But the rioting mob of London in 1780, was different from the assembled multi-

41
tude at Manchester on the 16th of August. It was no slight matter that the inoffensive crowd at Manchester should be sabred to the right and left within a short time after the reading of the act. But to him it was particularly a matter of astonishment to find that although much misunderstanding existed on both sides, it should be said that all inquiry was unnecessary, for one alone was right. He had always thought when two parties disagreed, inquiry was most needful.
The Marquis of Lansdownebegan by observing, that in the discharge of his public duty he proposed, if no such motion should emanate from the government, or from any other quarter, to move for an inquiry into the causes of the proceedings at Manchester which occasioned so much and such just disquiet. He rose, however, now to state his reasons for voting for the amendment—a determination which he had come to, not without great anxiety, but which was not the less firm, and which he conceived to be perfectly compatible with the recommendation of the speech from the throne. He must first avow most distinctly, that the amendment would not have had his concurrence, unless it had most unequivocally expressed the utmost abhorrence at the abominable and persevering attempts which had now been made for two years past to subvert the allegiance of the lower orders. Indeed, he did not think any man was entitled to public confidence who was not prepared to come forward with such an avowal. He thought, however, that this confession of danger should be followed up by a proposition calculated to allay any exaggerated alarm—he meant, by the parliamentary assurance, that their lordships were not asleep at their posts, but were ready to consider fully and impartially, not only whether the public peace had been broken, but also whether the lives of his majesty's subjects had not been wantonly endangered. The transactions at Manchester, on the face of them, demanded inquiry; but what said the noble viscount? He said that he had only meant by his opinion, uttered on the spur of the occasion, to express a confidence in the magistracy of the country, and not to prejudge the facts of the case. The noble viscount had talked a great deal about his anxiety, and as proof of it, had related the mode by which he came to his decision. He told their lordships that two persons had come up to him from
42
Manchester; persons who, it must be notorious, must have been interested in persuading the ministers that they were innocent; persons whose fame and character were at stake; and yet he told their lordships, that after examining these two persons, and after a consultation with two counsel, he found himself in a situation to pronounce judgment, and to turn round to the public and say, "My sentence is definitive; you shall have no opinion but what I have formed. With this sentence I shall close the mouth of every independent man in the kingdom; and even such a man as lord Fitzwilliam shall be disgraced, not because he has prejudged the question, which nobody but myself has ventured to do, but because he calls for inquiry, which I do not think proper to be granted." He assured their lordships that he thought it a valuable characteristic of the amendment of his noble friend, that it exaggerated nothing, but called merely for the real merits of the case. It desired merely facts and truth. How different was the conduct of the noble viscount! He contented himself with saying, that the magistrates were entitled to a strong presumption in their favour. What could be meant by such a declaration? If it was merely meant that the magistrates should not be condemned without a full, fair, and impartial inquiry, he most cordially subscribed to the opinion; but he must add, that no more deadly blow could be aimed at the magistracy of the country than to hold them up as irresponsible persons, whose excesses were not only to be screened from punishment, but could not either legally or constitutionally be subject to inquiry. Whether the particular meeting was legal or not he did not know. Sufficient circumstances had not transpired to justify any conclusion on that point, and for this very reason inquiry was necessary. Whether, however, the meeting was legal or not, nothing had been said to justify the particular mode of dispersing it. But the noble viscount had confessed, that the magistrates themselves were not aware that the meeting was illegal, and that their object had been solely to take Mr. Hunt, and not to disperse the meeting. He sincerely hoped that this view of the case was correct; for, certainly, if the magistrates had been aware that the second meeting was illegal, after they had seen their warning against the first meeting complied with, what censure was too great for them,

43
who thus chose rather to risk the lives of their fellow-subjects, than have recourse to a precaution which they had already found to be available? There was another question—why arrest Mr. Hunt in the midst of his partisans, who, it was reasonable to suppose, might be excited to some act of outrage, by seeing their chief torn from their assembly? It is true, that reasons of unavoidable necessity might exist for so violent a measure. He himself did not see them; he did not mean to say that there were none, but they ought to be fairly made known, in order to establish the propriety of the magistrates' conduct. This at least was clear—that on the day referred to, blood had been shed; the blood of his majesty's subjects, for the first time, by his majesty's subjects, in a county already too much irritated in consequence of its distresses, and whose irritation, he feared, rankled far too deeply to be allayed by any wisdom which could be hoped for from the present administration. But an inquiry was necessary, not merely for the sake of the sufferers at Manchester, but for the public, who should feel that they may look to the laws for protection. The stability of the government depended on the institutions of the country being held in reverence; and here he must say, that ready as he was to express his abhorrence of the radicals, and not to under-rate the mischief of which they were capable, yet that he saw more to regret than to fear on their account. He believed a much greater danger threatened the nation from another source—he meant from the prevalence of an opinion among the public, that the institutions of the country were not so favourable to the lower as to the higher classes. If this feeling were once general, it would be a formidable weapon in the hands of those who combined so much zeal with their abominable endeavours to shake the foundation of confidence between the governors and the government, and to gain ultimate possession of the country. The way to render these men harmless was, for parliament to adopt a conduct calculated to conciliate the esteem and confidence of the people; and by such sentiments and such measures as were recommended in the amendment, to convince the public that their rulers felt that peace and stability could never be secured without an equal administration of the law.—One word as to the expression of the noble viscount, that those
44
who stood between the government when assailed, and those who assailed it, gave weight to the side of the assailants; he must have much greater authority than that of the noble viscount before he could implicitly adopt such an opinion. He would never allow that greater weight was given to discontent by a manly opposition to government in favour of the people, than by that prostration of understanding which the noble viscount seemed to expect from every man in the country; and without which the noble viscount thought that no talent, no honour, no integrity, could qualify an English nobleman to be of service to the nation. "I (said the noble marquis) am of opinion, that the noble viscount has given the greatest encouragement to discontent, by withdrawing from the service of his king and country, one who, by his irreproachable character, by his long-tried services, by the admiration in which he was held by the whole kingdom, was eminently calculated to be a peace-maker, and to conciliate not merely respect, but that love and affection without which no government, however powerful, can long be secure."
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that as the noble marquis had given notice of a motion for inquiry, he should not now enter into any details, but he could not let the speech of the noble marquis go by without one or two observations. The amendment proposed by the noble earl, and recommended by the noble marquis, was in part true, but alluded to circumstances not fit subjects for discussion that day. They were that day called to give a test of their readiness to do their duty to the nation generally, and not to refer to any particular subjects on which the widest difference of opinion prevailed. He would defy the noble marquis to tell where an inquiry had ever taken place under circumstances similar to the affair at Manchester. The cases of the year 1793, and of the year before last, had no reference to the conduct of individuals, but embraced the consideration of precautionary measures for the nation generally. What analogy was there between those cases and the present? Besides, how was a parliamentary inquiry to be instituted? It could only be done by suspending the functions of the courts of law, and by silencing all subordinate tribunals. But, how can proceedings there be stopped? They are begun, and already far advanced. The noble viscount had been spoken of as

45
being the only party to the letter of thanks to the magistrates; but he must say, that whatever blame attached to it, belonged to him (lord Liverpool) and to other of his majesty's ministers who had sanctioned it. He would undertake most explicitly to say, that the Manchester magistrates would not have received the thanks of the government, unless they had done their duty. And on all occasions where it had been considered to have been so performed, it had been the custom to give them thanks. How difficult and painful a situation would they stand in, if they were at a loss to know whether they had the approbation of his majesty's government or not? But, supposing government had decided in a different way, did their lordships consider what would have been the course in that event? He would pledge his word, however, that there never was a case of assault more fully and irrefragably proved than that which, in its consequences, had so recently called down all the obloquy of the noble lord. It had been said that many of the circumstances which were alluded to in the answer of his royal highness the Prince Regent, to the address of the city of London, were either circumstances not generally known, or of previous occurrence. True; but let the fact of this meeting be stated in the manner in which it was made known to all the world. He was content to take it thus—that bands amounting to at least 20,000 men, disposed in military array, marching in military order, and commanded by military leaders, came to one spot with banners and streamers, upon which might be read the motto of" Equal Representation or Death," and he would venture to declare, that this was not only an illegal, but under all the circumstances, a treasonable meeting. Their intention was, to carry into execution their avowed object by violent and illegal means. It was so considered by the magistrates of Manchester, who had made affidavits, declaring that such was the belief of themselves. Good God! how was the government to be carried on—how was the country itself to exist—if these things were to be permitted? Had their lordships ever heard of such meetings before? Did they ever hear of peaceable or legal meetings, armed and carrying banners and emblems totally destructive of good order and of loyalty. If there were certain circumstances connected with that meeting
46
which must, and actually did inspire terror and alarm, what was it but an illegal one; and, minutely considered, what but a treasonable assembly? Under these circumstances he must contend that the magistrates were justified in their proceedings: and if the question were put more strictly—if it were considered that in the opinion of the highest legal authorities, it was their duty to disperse the people,—it became a second question how far the magistrates themselves would have neglected their duty by failing so to disperse them? What his noble friend has stated to their lordships was this—that the magistrates had no intention of dispersing the meeting before they were actually assembled on the 16th of August. They decided upon that step, when they saw what was the character of it. They did not decide it to be illegal till they saw separate parties of 2,000, 5,000, and 7,000 men, each marching in columns, and in military array. It was then that they did decide it to be illegal, whatever appearance it might have assumed before. They had sometimes heard the noble lord strenuously maintaining the right of trial by Jury; but here it appeared to be looked on with perfect contempt: he chose now to uphold a very different course of proceeding. Any of the parties aggrieved by the events of the 16th of August might have sought for redress either by a civil or a criminal suit. That they might have done this all who heard him were well aware. And why had they not? The parties acted on their own responsibility. Now, their lordships might ask, what was the conduct of the Manchester magistrates? Having arrested the individuals, they presented three weeks afterwards, to the grand jury, bills for a conspiracy against such persons for what took place on that day. The grand jury found these bills; and, therefore, he did not feel it necessary to say one word more upon that subject; it would be, he thought, improper that he should. Well, the grand jury having found them, what happened? An individual, the agent for some of those who had suffered upon that day, presented no less than five bills against so many of the yeomanry. Was not this, he would ask their lordships, putting the question under judicial investigation? The grand jury ignored these bills; yet, that did not satisfy the noble lord. [Here

47
earl Grey and other noble lords said, "No, no."] Now, it should be remembered, that the depositions upon which the grand jury had decided were upon oath. It appeared, however, that the grand jury—a body of men as respectable for talent, for character, and for property, as any that he knew of—acting upon the evidence, and acting also upon their own responsibility, had ignored all the bills against the yeomen. Did he (lord Liverpool) say that this fact decided the question before them? No: but he did say, that while grand juries were to be upheld, their decisions were not lightly to be called in question, nor was the evidence upon which they had already decided, to be re-examined in another place, except upon the showing of a strong case. If other judicial evidence was yet to be brought forward, let it come in a proper and legal shape. But no: an attempt had been made to put down the magistracy altogether; it had been hazarded for the purpose of trying what could be done with juries and coroners and magistrates, till it could be ascertained how far the constitution itself might be set aside.—There was one other circumstance which he felt himself obliged to allude to, and, he assured their lordships, not without considerable apprehension. He trusted that the number of the disaffected, as compared with the great aggregate of the people was not very great. He knew that the activity of the former was very great; and he was aware of the speed with which they diffused the poison of sedition from one district to another. But he knew also that revolutions in all countries had been brought about,' not by the number of the disaffected, not by the sedition which they excited, not by the falsehoods which they insinuated, but by the terror of the whole community. Terror had been the unfailing engine with which they had effected their mighty mischiefs; and in all those cases which had ever come under his observation, he had condemned the course of proceeding which he condemned in this case, where one county sat in judgment upon another: the effect was, to excite a feeling of terror in the country. He so condemned it, because he felt that, in the present crisis, whatever might be the amount of distress in the kingdom, the great object of calling their lordships there, and the only good they could do there, was to give their confidence to all
48
the loyal part of the community; to make the magistrates feel that they were protected; to make property feel that it was protected. In a few days, from information to be laid before them, their lordships would see with pain, that in some parts of the country it had been found impossible to put the laws in force by reason of the resistance manifested towards the magistrates. If the magistracy—he would not indeed say the magistracy—but the magistrates of Lancashire, were to be treated as the noble lord wished them to be, what would be the effect of such a determination? In conclusion, from information which he might hereafter allude to, while facts were unanswered, which indeed admitted of no denial, he felt confident that the Manchester magistrates had only performed their duty; and that government would basely abandon its own duty if it did not now protect them.
The Marquis of Lansdowne, in explanation, said, he considered that the calling the magistrates before parliament could not be more improper than the measure of calling other magistrates, at least equal to themselves in rank and consequence, before the same tribunal on a former occasion. He did not know that the summoning of the Scotch magistrates on a question involving their conduct, before that House, had reflected any disgrace or dishonour upon them.
The Earl of Carnarvonanimadverted upon the declaration of the noble earl, that it was impossible for parliament to go into any inquiry upon judicial proceedings. Notwithstanding all that had been said and published on the subject, he could not believe that there was a man in the country who did not think the interference of the military on the occasion alluded to unnecessary. It was stated, that though they brought their wives and children to the spot, yet, that this circumstance offered no proof that it was not meant and known to be an illegal meeting; and that when women came into the midst of such scenes, they lost the softness and tenderness natural to them. With all deference to the noble duke, from whom this ingenious argument had proceeded, he must acknowledge that it did not appear to him very natural that they would bring their wives or children for the purpose of being mangled or slain. He offered no opinion of his own as to the legality of this meeting; but he was far from being satisfied, that the only le-

49
gitimate means of its dispersion had been adopted. But it had been designated a treasonable meeting: why, then, was it permitted to take place? Those noble lords who did not wish to prejudge the question, forsooth, had declared the fact of the meeting to be neither more nor less than an overt act of treason, before their own tribunals had decided it. The noble lord then observed upon the publications daily put forth, not more remarkable for blasphemy than for sedition; in which the people were called on to arm, and a threat of the scaffold was held out against ministers and other illustrious persons. He meant the "Medusa", the "Cap of Liberty,'' and others. Why were government so backward in prosecuting those disgraceful productions, while they discovered so much promptitude in pursuing those whose conduct in the business of Manchester had been is any degree deserving of reprobation? The noble earl, after passing an animated eulogium upon the character, talents, and conciliating conduct of earl Fitzwilliam, declared that he thought the disapprobation of his conduct, expressed by his majesty's ministers, did him the greatest honour; and concluded by deprecating every harsh and coercive measure, arising out of the present question, towards the British public, whom justice, kindness, and forbearance, never failed to bring back to their duty.
The Marquis of Buckinghamsaid, he would not now enter into the question whether the Manchester meeting was legal or not, nor into the conduct of the magistrates or yeomanry. Their conduct, upon the occasion alluded to, if improper, was open to investigation, before the proper tribunals. He had heard as yet no argument sufficient to persuade him that they should, upon the present occasion, deprive them of the advantages of the trial by jury. The point at issue now was between the address and the amendment, between ministers and those who opposed them. The case was one of no difficulty. It presented itself without the labour of much investigation to the mind of every person. There was not one man in that House or out of it, who did not know that the country was in a state of danger. They all saw the same exertions now making, plans of the very same kind pursued, as, at no distant period, brought upon a neighbouring country revolution, anarchy, and, at last, a degrading despotism. The state is which they were
50
placed was this: the Christian religion was that of the country, recognised by law, and professed by the wisest and best of men; the bond of society, and the best source of comfort in this life and of hope in the life to come. They had lived to see the time when the country was told, not in a whisper, not in a concealed or smothered manner, but in broad day, that the sacred truths of the Christian religion were gross impositions and polluted falsehoods. Now, were open attacks upon religion, upon the laws of the country upon the life of officers who attempted to enforce those laws—were these things to be disregarded? Had they not seen a committee appointed for the ostensible purpose of petitioning for a reform in parliament, direct their measures in a way evidently calculated for the overthrow of the constitution. Public right might be used in such a manner as to become a public wrong; and if the right of petition was made a cloak for mischievous purposes, it was high time that some remedy should be applied to the evil. The country was in imminent danger. This was not a time for inquiring into the causes. The danger must be provided against without delay, or ruin would be the consequence. When a house was on fire, what was the fittest thing to be done—to inquire into the causes of the conflagration, or to take means of putting it out?
The House then divided on the amendment: Contents, 31; Proxies, 3–34. Not-Contents, 120; Proxies, 39–159. Majority against the amendment.

List of the Minority.

Dukes of Kent

Earls Darnley

Sussex

Bessborough

Somerset

Donoughmore

Grafton

Rosslyn

Devonshire

Grey

Hamilton

Minto

Argyll

Lords Saye and Sele

Marq. of Lansdowne

King

Earls of Thanet

Hawke

Essex

Holland

Albemarle

Erskince

Jersey

Crewe

Lauderdale

Auckland

Cowper

PROXIES.

Waldegrave

Earl Spencer

Fitzwilliam

Visc. Bolingbroke

Grosvenor

Lord Hutchinson

Carnarvon

The Address was then agreed to.