Sitting of 29 November 1819

PRINCE REGENT'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
Mr. Speakerreported the Prince Regent's Answer to the Address, as follows:
"Gentlemen: I receive with sincere pleasure this loyal and dutiful Address. The determination of the House of Commons firmly to support at this important conjuncture the laws and constitution of the country, cannot fail to inspire every loyal subject with confidence: Their declaration on this occasion is most acceptable to me, and I receive it with the highest satisfaction, as the surest pledge that the public tranquillity will be effectually and permanently maintained."

REVENUES OF THE COLONIES.
Mr. Humesaid, that towards the close of the last session, he had submitted several motions to the House respecting the state of the colonies; but as the lateness of the period did not allow them to be properly gone into, he now rose to renew his notice for the present session. The object he had in view was, to obtain a just ac- count of the expenditure of the different colonies, which would be comprised in his motion. Preparatory to that step, he should now move for a correct account of the civil and military establishments in certain of our islands, in the years 1793, 1805, and 1818, in order to see what increase had been made therein, and to ascertain whether any and what benefit had been derived from those settlements. He should also move for another return respecting those which were denominated "King's colonies." He meant those colonies that were exclusively governed by the Crown, and did not partake of the benefits of British law and British legislation. It appeared to him to be a question of great importance, whether those colonies should remain, as they at present were, governed by orders in council, or be subjected to the system which prevailed in the other colonies; the more especially as the money derived from them was, he believed, expended in a manner little conducive to the interests of this country. He particularly alluded to Ceylon, the Mauritius, the Cape of Good
356
Hope, and the Ionian islands, as far as this country was concerned. The state of these colonies had never been investigated; and he would, in the course of the session, bring the question before the House, in order that parliament might decide, whether they should continue under the government of the king in council, or be admitted to reap the benefit of a participation in British laws. He should move for a return of the civil and military expenditure of the islands of Ceylon, Malta, Gazo, the Cape of Good Hope, and the Mauritius, to the latest period to which it could be made up. The hon. member then moved "for a return of the amount of revenue collected in the island of Ceylon, from the period when the said island came into our possession to the latest time to which the same can be made up, with the several items of expenditure of every kind, civil and military; also an account of civil offices, the salaries affixed to which exceed 250 l. per annum, with the names of the officers filling them, the persons by whom they were appointed, and stating whether the duties were performed personally or by deputy; likewise an account of the military staff-officers, distinguishing their pay and emoluments." A similar motion was made respecting the Mauritius, the Cape of Good Hope, Malta, and Gazo, and the Ionian Islands; and also for an account of the civil and military establishments in the West Indies, in North America, and Canada, from 1792 to 1818, distinguishing the increase since 1797. The motions were severally agreed to.

BOROUGH OF CAMELFORD.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, the House had, in the last session, agreed to certain resolutions respecting the borough of Camelford. One of those resolutions was, that the Speaker's warrant for a new writ for that borough should not be issued until ten days after the commencement of the next session, which period would expire on Thursday next; and another pledged the House to take into consideration the report of the committee on the Camelford election. He wished that the issuing of the warrant should be postponed until the report was considered; and, with that view, he would to-morrow move, that the order for not issuing the warrant until ten days after the meeting of parliament should be discharged, and that the Speaker be directed not to issue the same until the re-

357
port should have been taken into consideration.

PUBLIC DEBT.
Mr. Humerose to move for an account of the public debt of Great Britain and Ireland, to which he had called the attention of the House last session. The account which he was about to move for would, if produced, show the total amount of the funded and unfunded debt of this country, from the year 1786 to the year 1819, in a much more clear and correct manner than any that had ever been laid before the House. He then moved for "An account of the amount of the public debt of Great Britain and Ireland, and the interest thereon in British currency, as it stood on the 5th January in each year, from 1786 to 1819, in separate columns:—1. Debt redeemed, and interest thereon, Great Britain, including the Austrian and Portuguese loans:—2. Debt redeemed, and interest thereon, Ireland:—3. Total debt redeemed, and interest thereon, both countries:—4. Funded debt unredeemed, and interest thereon, including the Austrian and Portuguese loans, England:—5. Funded debt unredeemed, and interest thereon, Ireland:—6. Total funded debt unredeemed, and interest thereon, both countries:—7. Total funded debt, redeemed and unredeemed, and interest thereon, both countries:—8. Unfunded debt, and interest thereon, Great Britain (including all interest due, but not paid, on the 5th January 1819):— 9. Unfunded debt, and interest thereon, Ireland (including all interest due, but not paid, on the 5th January 1819):—10. Unfunded debt, and interest thereon, both countries (including all interest due, but not paid, on the 5th January 1819):11 Total debt unredeemed, funded and unfunded, and interest thereon, including all interest due, but not paid, both countries:—12. Total debt, redeemed and unredeemed, funded, unfunded, and interest thereon, both countries, including amount of annuities paid in each country, and the expenses of management."—Ordered.

MANCHESTER MEETING. — PETITION FROM MANCHESTER RESPECTING THE CONDUCT OF THE MAGISTRATES.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he rose for the purpose of presenting a petition signed by a large body of merchants, manufacturers, tradesmen, and other inhabitants of the town of Manchester, praying the House to institute an inquiry into the fatal trans-
358
actions of the 16th of August. The signatures of between 6,000 and 7,000 persons were affixed to this petition, which bore the names of many eminent merchants, manufacturers, and tradesmen. It was, indeed, signed most respectably, and he thought that it spoke, in the moderation of its tone, and the propriety of its prayer, the sentiments of the great majority of the inhabitants of Manchester. It set forth, that which was unfortunately too well known to the House and to the country—that very great distresses had long prevailed in Manchester and its neighbourhood. Those distresses, which for some years past had weighed heavily on the lower classes, induced them to apply to parliament for relief; but their prayer not having been attended to, the consequence was, that a very general opinion had been entertained in that quarter in favour of parliamentary reform, as the only mode by which their situation could be ameliorated. In that opinion, he entirely concurred. He conceived that reform was necessary; but to what extent, or by what means it ought to be carried into effect, he did not at that moment presume to determine. The petition went on to state, that various meetings were held in that neighbourhood on the subject of reform, and at length one was called in the month of August last, which, in consequence of an illegality in the notice, did not take place. Another was convened for the 16th of that month. The result of that meeting, and the calamity which fell on many of the persons who were present at it, the House and the country were so well aware of, that he would not trouble them with any remarks on the subject. Notwith-standing what fell from the noble lord the other night, who thought fit to declare, that the whole case which had been made out on the part of the people, was founded in calumny—that it did not rest on the slightest evidence, he must say that he had read, and read most attentively, all the details of the transaction; and he pledged himself it would appear, that no less than eight or ten merchants and manufacturers, whose credit was perfectly unimpeached, had distinctly sworn to the truth of those allegations which the noble lord had attempted to disprove. When those statements, which were now only partially known, were laid before the public, containing, as they did, verbatim, the evidence of most respectable people, they would be found to corroborate much of

359
what had been said relative to the trans- actions of the 16th of August. He did not mean to assert, that they would establish completely the truth of all that had been advanced; but he was bound to declare, that, in his opinion at least, those eight or ten persons had spoken nothing but what was strictly true. If it was necessary to sum up the evidence, he believed it would be found that all those points which appeared to be contradictory, might be so united together, as to make out one clear, distinct, plain tale, that would not impeach the testimony of any man of honour, acting in the capacity of a witness, but would fully establish this truth—that the conduct of the military on that occasion was cruel in the extreme. The petitioners stated, that they, as well as the persons injured, had endeavoured, as far as lay in their power, to appeal for justice to the ordinary tribunals of their country. In the first instance, certain cases were selected, and sent before the grand jury, but unsuccessfully. It would be highly unbecoming in him to cast any reflection on the decision of that body, because independent of the respect which was due to an institution of that kind, and leaving out of consideration the conviction which he felt that twenty-four gentlemen, acting on their oath, would proceed cautiously, he might be permitted to say, that there were individuals on that grand jury, with whom he had been connected in ties of intimacy and friendship during the whole course of his life, even from his childhood, who, he was convinced, would perform their duty most conscientiously. Amongst these was his noble friend below him (lord Stanley), who acted as foreman of the grand jury, than whom no man possessed a more ho-nest head or heart. He was incapable of doing an unworthy action. Having tried the grand jury, and failed, the petitioners applied to the magistrates, and were in- formed by them, that they could not interfere, since it would ill become them to act as judges in their own cause. They next laid their complaint before the magistrates at Warrington, who stated, that they did not approve of the transactions at Manchester, but declined to take any cognizance of the business. Thus situated, they deemed it necessary to address that House, as the grand inquest of the nation; they prayed for their interference, and besought parliament to cause an investigation to be set on foot with respect
360
to the whole of the proceeding. They entreated the House to inquire, whether the magistrates had exercised a sound or a mischievous discretion; and, above all, whether his majesty's government, in giving thanks to the magistrates for their conduct during these proceedings, had not afforded the sanction of the Prince Regent's authority to an act which was viewed throughout the country with universal abhorrence. He most anxiously called on the House to receive this petition, and to attend to its prayer; because, from all he could learn, he believed there did exist a general distrust in the proceedings of parliament, which he wished, as much as possible, to remove. The tone and temper of the popular mind was much soured by those recent transactions. He believed one great feature of the English character to be, the love of impartial justice. It had "grown with their growth, and strengthened with their strength;" and the little attention which of late years had been paid to the petitions of the people, appeared to him to be one of the greatest calamities that had ever befallen the country, because it had tended to widen the differences which unfortunately existed between the Commons of England and the Commons House of Parliament—a difference which no man could perceive without deep regret, and which all who wished well to their country would endeavour to remove. The hon. member concluded by moving, "That the petition be brought up."
Sir Robert Wilson Sir Robert Wilson, in seconding the motion, said, he concurred most cordially in all that had been offered by his hon. friend. Having read the whole of the evidence, as well as the papers that had been laid before the House, and which might be said to be a bill of indictment against the people of Manchester, he would plainly declare, it was is conscientious conviction, that the only offence committed by the people was, not a resistance vi et armis, against the civil power, but that sort of unintentional resistance which a dense crowd of persons could not avoid giving to those who endeavoured to force their way through them. He believed that no resistance was offered to prevent the party from approaching the hustings; and it appeared to him, that no attempt was made to apprise the people that the civil power wished to approach, for a particular purpose. If such

361
an intention had been made known to Mr. Hunt, he had declared that he would himself have made way, and submitted at once to the civil authority. This was proved by what occurred when Mr. Hunt was apprehended. He immediately asked, "Have you a warrant? I will yield to the civil power; but I will not recognize military authority." The magistrates did, most unconstitutionally, order an armed body to advance against an unoffending multitude, composed of reformers and non-reformers, of spectators as well as actors. This was undeniable. But whether the military conducted themselves with temper—whether they exercised that sound discretion which they ought—whether they advanced with due caution—whether they were accompanied by a civil officer—and whether, having flourished their swords about their heads, they advanced rapidly, killing a constable and an unfortunate woman and her child, overturning and trampling on a feeble old man, who was supported by a crutch, and maiming in their course 400 or 500 persons— these things had not been inquired into, and they were matters of too serious a nature not to demand investigation. However the encomiums that had been pronounced on captain Birley by his hon. friend, and by the noble chairman of the grand jury, might have been deserved, still nothing appeared in that gentleman's evidence which controverted the statements that had been made relative to the conduct of the cavalry. He wished to say nothing to prejudge that in dividual's case, but he was certainly charged on oath with being one of the party who, on that occasion, cut down a man near the hustings, which man was supposed to be John Lees, and he was therefore implicated in the business which was now pending before the coroner. Another point of importance was the fact that the swords of the yeomanry were sharpened. Notwithstanding all that had been said within the walls of that House, nothing had been adduced that could contradict this statement, which was fully borne out by the evidence given before the coroner. [Coughing, and other marks of impatience.] If gentlemen would have a little patience, he could substantiate his statement. Daniel Kennedy, who was the cutler employed on the occasion, gave the following evidence: —" In the week ending the 17th of July, I had done 63 swords. Previously to the 16th of August I was told to sharpen those
362
that remained very well." He was asked "Did you make them very sharp?" The answer was, "Yes." It was next demanded, "Were the swords ever brought to you to be sharpened before?" He answered, "From time to time they were brought to me to be cleaned, but not to be sharpened." "Did any of those swords want repairing?" "Some of them," said Kennedy, "might, but they were sent to be sharpened." He was then asked, "Did they want sharpening?" He answered, "They were as sharp as swords usually are." If this evidence could be disproved, it must be done by information not yet before the House. As no judicial inquiry was likely to be obtained under existing circumstances—as there was no chance that justice would be done to the parties injured, in the county of Lancaster, and inquiry ought to be instituted in that House. When, in the first instance, the coroner's officer refused to proceed with the inquest—when one coroner had manifested a degree of indecency which he would not state to the House—when they saw another acting most improperly, as he had done—when they knew that 27 persons were kept in custody for eleven weeks, and then discharged without any offence being proved against them, and without being held to bail, it was impossible not to conclude that the county of Lancaster, under the present circumstances, was out of the pale of the law. He therefore hoped, in common with his hon. friends around him (to whom he was bound by no party ties, whom he supported, because he thought they had the best interests of the country at heart), that the whole of the case would be minutely investigated. He trusted his hon. friends would persevere in the course they had adopted, that they would place themselves in "the imminent deadly breach," and defend to the last the laws and constitution of the country. He hoped they would not allow any bill to go through that House which was calculated to trench on the liberty of the subject, until a full, fair, and impartial inquiry was conceded.
Mr. Mansfieldsaid, he had no opportunity, more than the gallant general who had just sat down, of forming an opinion on this subject; but, having read the papers that were submitted to the House, he was free to confess, that they had led him to form a conclusion very different from that which the gallant general had adopted. The gallant general had spoken

363
of the yeomanry carrying their swords to be sharpened; but he must say, that he was far from being convinced by any thing that had fallen from him, that their swords were improperly sharpened. He admitted that they were sharpened; but it struck him that it would have been a more extraordinary circumstance if they were not sharpened. Because, if he rightly understood the papers in his hand, it appeared, not merely from the statement of the magistrates, and from the evidence given before them, but from the declaration of the grand jury of Chester, that meetings were held at which persons attended armed with pikes and pistols—weapons no doubt proper for the purposes of reform [Hear, hear!]. Could it be supposed that an immense multitude would assemble, armed, for any good purpose? When men met together to petition for their rights, was it necessary that they should carry a pike and a pistol? Was it wonderful that the commander of a military force, when called on to attend such a meeting, should ask his men, "In what state are your arms?" and should direct them to come properly prepared? The gallant general had laid a great deal of stress on what was said at the inquest at Oldham. He must, however, tell the gallant general, that he was very much disposed to disbelieve many of the persons who gave evidence, even on their oath, because several of them were present at the meeting, and had partaken largely of that stream of sedition, impiety and blasphemy, which flowed through the country, and which taught men to treat our Saviour as an impostor. Would men who propagated or who cherished such doctrines be bound by the obligation of an oath? Assuredly not. Men who avowed a hatred to the magistrates, who were opposed to all order, who were desirous to pull down the constitution—such men had an interest in giving evidence of the description to which the gallant general had alluded. Without this explanation, it would be extraordinary if he refused to give credit to the evidence of many of those persons, on oath. In the last session an hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennet), whose philanthropy no man could doubt, brought a case of grievance before the House, which was very proper for inquiry. It was answered by his majesty's ministers; and in the course of the discussion the hon. gentleman said, Dr. John-
364
son had somewhere observed, "that cases might arise where even powerful circumstances would not carry the weight of conviction against the strong course of probability." In this instance, he conceived the strong course of probability was opposed to many of the statements that had been made. The yeomanry were said to have cut down women and children. He did not believe it. He would not believe that a yeoman or any other man-no, not even the infamous Carlile himself —could be guilty of such an act.
The petition was then brought up and read. It sat forth:
"That for several years past a great proportion of the labouring classes in the district where the petitioners reside have been suffering very severe privations, arising partly from the want of employment, and partly from the inadequacy of their wages to afford them a comfortable subsistence, evils which they have attributed in a principal degree to the great pressure of taxation consequent upon the inadequate representation of the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland in the House; that the same classes have therefore an earnest desire that a reform in the representation of the people may speedily take place; that the political bias of the labouring classes having, as it appears to the petitioners, been rendered more decisive by their personal sufferings, they have, to a great extent, publicly expressed their opinion, that annual parliaments and universal suffrage are necessary, in order sufficiently to guarantee the purity, the independence, and the integrity of the House of Commons; that into the consideration of this point the petitioners do not enter, but they state to the House, that within the last two or three years numerous public meetings, having in view the forwarding of this object, have been held in Manchester and the neighbouring towns, all of which, except where an interference by, or by order of, the magistracy has taken place, have been conducted from their commencement to their termination in an orderly and peaceable manner; that in the latter part of the month of July last, a meeting was announced, by public advertisement, to be held on the 9th day of August, 'to take into consideration the most speedy and effectual mode of obtaining radical re-form in the Commons House of Parliament, and also, to consider the propriety of the unrepresented inhabitants of Man-

365
chester electing a person to represent them in parliament, and the adopting Major Cartwright's bill;' which meeting having, in consequence of the purpose for which it was called together, been publicly declared by the magistrates acting in and for the division of Manchester to be illegal, was immediately given up by its projectors, and a new notice issued for a meeting to be held on the 16th of August, ' in order to consider of the propriety of adopting the most legal and effectual means of obtaining a reform in the Commons House of Parliament;' that for several days before the 16th of August this notice was publicly and widely circulated; that as no intimation whatever was given, or, as the petitioners presumed, could legally be given by the magistrates, that the intended meeting was contrary to law, on the day appointed very numerous bodies of persons from most of the circumjacent towns and villages entered Manchester, walking with considerable regularity in parties of from three to six or eight abreast, accompanied by many women and children, and having along with them bands of music, and also various flags bearing different mottoes or inscriptions, and some of them surmounted with caps of liberty; that all these parties proceeded peaceably by different routes to the place of meeting, viz. the area near St. Peter's church, where, at about a quarter past one o'clock, the chair was taken by Mr. Hunt; that within ten or fifteen minutes after his arrival, and before he had entered upon the question for the consideration of which the meeting was called together, the corps of Manchester yeomanry, acting as the petitioners believe, under the order of the magistrates, or of some of them, rode impetuously into the immense crowd, many of whom were trampled upon by the horses, or cut by the sabres of the men, and surrounded the hustings, where eight or ten persons, including the chairman of the meeting, and several of those who were most active in calling it together, were, under a warrant issued immediately before by the magistrates, who were then assembled in an adjacent house, taken into the custody of the civil power; that the corps of Manchester yeomanry, together with the regiment of Cheshire yeomanry, and a body of the fifteenth hussars, both of which had by this time come upon the field, did then charge upon the people in all directions, and to
366
a great distance from the place of meeting, in consequence of which eight persons have lost their lives, and not less than four or five hundred of his majesty's loyal, though suffering subjects, including all ages, from old men and women of seventy-five to young boys and girls of fourteen, were grievously crushed, trampled upon, bruised, maimed, or sabred; that had the only object of the magistrates been to take into custody the persons against whom legal process had been issued for any real or supposed offence by them committed, such object might easily have been obtained without the intervention of any military force, and without injury to any of his majesty's subjects; that the petitioners understand! and believe, and indeed many of them are by personal observation enabled positively to assert, that no act whatever, giving to the meeting the character of a tumultuous and riotous assembly had at the period of this violent incursion of the cavalry been committed; that in the absence of any breach of the public peace, or of any act having a direct, manifest, and unquestionable tendency thereto, it does not appear to the petitioners that the large discretionary powers given to the magistrates by the statute of 1 Geo. 1, c. 5, commonly called the Riot act, can legally be called into action; that, admitting, however the right of the magistrates, in the exercise of their best discretion, to make proclamation commanding the meeting to disperse, the petitioners are induced to believe that at the meeting of the 16th of August no such proclamation was made; because they understand that at none of the inquests held on the bodies of persons who lost their lives upon the occasion was any proof of its being made given; and because neither themselves, nor any person with whom they have conversed upon the subject, ever heard it; that even if the rumour of the reading of the Riot act should turn out to be true, the petitioners have still no hesitation in asserting, that it was not read according to the spirit and intention of the statute, that means were not taken to give due publicity to the circumstance of its having been read, or to induce the people peaceably to depart without incurring its penalties; and further, that not one third of the time allowed by law for the dispersion of an assembly had elapsed between the opening of the business of the meeting and the period at

367
which it was forcibly dissolved by the cavalry; that the petitioners, in common with an immense majority of the country at large, and, as they fondly hope, of the House, are fully convinced that transactions evincing such a total disregard for the safety of an immense multitude of their fellow citizens, involving the infliction of so much severe personal injury, so much loss of life, and constituting such a complete infraction of the inalienable right of Englishmen to assemble, in order to petition for the redress of grievances, real or supposed, peremptorily and imperiously require the most rigid, extensive, and impartial investigation; that, accordingly, with a view thereto, and to obtain justice for the sufferers, at the last assizes for the county of Lancaster bills of indictment were presented against certain individuals, who were identified as having inflicted severe wounds upon the people in the course of the dispersion of the meeting; that, notwithstanding the positive testimony by which these indictments were supported, the grand jury did, for some reason unknown to the petitioners, and of which they can form no conception, think proper to return the said bills 'Ignoramus;' that application was afterwards made to the magistrates acting in and for the division of Manchester, by or on behalf of persons who were wounded on the 16th of August, for warrants against certain individuals on charges of cutting and maiming, such application comprehending not only those persons against whom indictments had been presented at Lancaster, but others whose cases had not previously come before any court of justice, and that the said magistrates positively refused to hear the evidence upon which this application was founded, or to grant the warrants, notwithstanding they were informed that the cases which had been presented at Lancaster were supported by additional evidence, whilst the testimony as to the others was distinct, positive, and complete; that on the 7th day of September, one of the persons who had been wounded on the 16th of August, named John Lees, died at Old-ham, and that in the course of the inquest held on the occasion, the reception of evidence necessary, as the petitioners conceive, to the full elucidation of the case, was repeatedly refused by the coroner, who did afterwards, in a manner totally unprecedented, and which was calculated,
368
as the petitioners believe, and intended to obstruct the course of public justice, adjourn the proceedings of the said in-quest (without assigning any reason for his conduct) to a distant period; that the petitioners regret the necessity which has obliged them to call the attention of the House to matters cognizable by the established courts of law, but that all the avenues of public justice having been hitherto found so unaccountably closed, they can only look to the House for a full investigation of the affair; that the petitioners feel it necessary to remind the House, that on the 9th of February 1818, a petition from certain of the inhabitants of Manchester was presented to the then House of Commons, setting forth various arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional acts, which the petitioners pledged themselves (if so permitted) to prove by evidence at the bar, to have been exercised by the magistrates of that district in the early part of the preceding year; that the House of Commons not only refused to inquire into the truth of the allegations of the said petition, but in conjunction with the other branches of the legislature passed a bill, giving impunity, and even full indemnity to the persons by whom the illegal acts were stated to have been committed, although not one single statement contained in the said petition was ever disproved or shaken; that the impunity and protection then granted to acts contrary to the law of the land, and subversive of individual liberty, have, as the petitioners apprehend naturally emboldened the magistrates, or at least those amongst them by whom the proceedings of the 16th of August were conceived, advised, and directed, to commit that more flagrant violation of the rights and liberties of Englishmen, and that more alarming outrage on the lives of his majesty's subjects, of which the petitioners have now felt it their duty to complain; that the petitioners, appealing to their uniform respect and obedience to the constitutional laws under which they live, in proof of their own constant loyalty, are anxious that the dignified supremacy of the law should be fully and effectually maintained; that its protective powers should be extended equally to the poor as to the rich; and that any breach of it, by whomsoever, or under whatever pretence committed, should be duly yet temperately punished; that the petitioners deeply lament the fact too notorious to

369
admit of denial, that the labouring part of their fellow townsmen and neighbours have upon many recent occasions been treated by the magistrates of that district in a manner utterly unwarrantable and illegal; that, in proof of this statement, the petitioners would inform the House, that on or about the 16th of August last many persons were taken into custody on charges of a political complexion, and that for a period of nearly eleven weeks those persons were detained in prison, whilst they were ultimately discharged from custody on the 30th of October last, not only without trial, but without any bills of indictment, or even articles of the peace having ever been presented against them; that as the poverty of these unfortunate victims of capricious tyranny, prevents them from seeking legal redress, the petitioners conceive that unless the House interfere to procure them justice the protection of the law will be virtually withdrawn from them, whilst, to assert the practical equality of the enactments of law, its administration here remaining unchanged, will only be adding the cruelty of insult to the injustice of oppression; having therefore a deep sense of the importance of the circumstances which they have herein stated, knowing their momentous consequence with reference to the future liberties of Englishmen, anxious for the speedy rendering of strict and impartial justice, and that the magistrates and soldiery, if guilty, may be punished, if innocent absolved from blame, the petitioners do most earnestly request and intreat, that the House will be pleased to institute a prompt, public, impartial, and full inquiry into the transactions of the 16th of August, and those which have resulted therefrom."
On the motion, that it be laid on the table,
Mr. Bootle Wilbrahamsaid, he was desirous of expressing his firm conviction, that the statements made by the hon. gentleman and the gallant general were not at all likely to be proved. He was convinced that the statement he had made on a former evening was the just one. The speech of the hon. gentleman was calculated to make an impression on the House which the petition itself did not warrant. He here begged to make an observation respecting the sharpening of the swords. About the middle of July an order was given for sharpening them, and the swords which were sharpened in
370
the end of July and the beginning of August belonged to those members of the corps who had forgotten to send in their weapons originally, for no order was given subsequent to the first.
Mr. Bennet, in moving, that the petition be printed, said, the hon. gentleman who had recently spoken was rather too harsh in his censure on all the persons who had been examined before the coroner. Of the facts, he (Mr. B.) certainly had no personal knowledge; but he would pause much before he condemned all the persons who attended at the meeting of the 16th of August, as being tainted with the doctrines of Paine, and converted to the principles of infidelity and blasphemy. He, for one, thought those sweeping censures did a great deal of harm. They tended to widen the unfortunate breach which existed between parliament and the people. Whatever the opinions of gentlemen might be with respect to individual guilt, they ought not to cast a general slander on large bodies of men, about whom they knew nothing. He would tell the hon. gentleman who had uttered this censure, that there were amongst those who gave evidence, persons of sober, calm, and religious habits. One of them had come up to town on a journey of philanthropy, to propose to the House those measures for the protection of children in factories, which were carried last year. He knew that individual, and his object was, to protect not only him, but all those persons who had given evidence, from the charge that had been made against them; because it was most unfair to make those general accusations in the absence of all proof.
Mr. Mansfieldsaid, he had not meant to make so sweeping an assertion as was attributed to him. He felt, however, that he had a right to make a strong assertion, because one of those persons who gave evidence against the magistrates, admitted that he had himself marched a large party from Leeds to that meeting.
The petition was then ordered to be printed.

PETITION OF MR. HUNT COMPLAINING OF MISREPRESENTATION OF HIS CONDUCT.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, he had been requested to present a petition which he had previously read, and which contained nothing disrespectful towards the House. It complained of

371
the Manchester magistrates—of the juries—of the officers—and more pointedly and strongly of his majesty's ministers. Attached to the petition there had originally been five affidavits respecting the intention of the petitioner to institute proceedings in the court of King's-bench, which he had been prevented from doing on the ground of his not being a professional man; but as the forms of the House did not allow such documents to be presented, he had removed them. After what he had said, the House would not be surprised when he told them that the petitioner's name was Henry Hunt. He stated generally the nature of the transactions at Manchester, declared that the papers laid on the table of the House were entirely false, and prayed that he might be called to the bar to prove his allegations, which he confidently pledged himself to do, not by his own testimony alone, but by the testimony of numerous respectable characters, totally unconnected with the reformers.
The petition was then brought up, and read. It purported to be the petition of Henry Hunt, esq. of Middleton Cottage, Hants: and sat forth,
"That the petitioner having been invited to preside as chairman at a public meeting proposed to be held at Manchester on the 16th day of August last, for the purpose as expressed by the requisitionists, and by the advertisements and placards published for calling the same, of taking into consideration 'the most legal and effectual means of obtaining a reform of the Commons House of parliament;' and the petitioner approving of such intention, and considering the objects to be perfectly legal and constitutional, as well as necessary, without any hesitation accepted, and attended the same as an act of public duty towards his distressed and suffering fellow countrymen; that on the petitioner's arrival in Lancashire on finding that considerable irritation had been excited among the people by an interference of the magistrates to prevent a previous meeting which had been announced, the petitioner with a view to tranquillize the public mind, secure the public peace, and exhibit the true objects of the meeting beyond the possibility of successful misrepresentation wrote, and caused to be printed and circulated, an address to the inhabitants of Manchester and its neighbourhood, of which the following are the principal pa-
372
ragraphs: 'You will meet on Monday next, my friends, and by your steady, firm, and temperate deportment you will convince all your enemies you feel that you have an important and an imperious public duty to perform, and that you will not suffer any private consideration on earth to deter you from exerting every nerve to carry your praise-worthy and patriotic intentions into effect; the eyes of all England, nay, of all Europe, are fixed upon you, and every friend of real reform, and of rational liberty, is tremblingly alive to the result of your meeting on Monday next; our enemies will seek every opportunity, by the means of their sanguinary agents, to excite a riot, that they may have a pretence for spilling our blood, reckless of the lawful and certain retaliation that would ultimately fall on their heads; every friend of real and effectual reform is offering up to Heaven a devout prayer, that you may follow the example of your brethren of the metropolis, and by your steady, patient, persevering, and peaceable conduct on that day, frustrate their hellish and bloody purpose; come then, my friends, to the meeting on Monday, armed with no other weapon but that of a self-approving conscience; determined not to suffer yourselves to be irritated, or excited by any means whatsoever to commit any breach of the public peace; our opponents have not attempted to show that our reasoning is fallacious, or that our conclusions are incorrect, by any argument but the threat of violence, and to put us down by the force of the sword, the bayonet and the cannon; they assert that your leaders do nothing but mislead and deceive you, although they well know that the eternal principles of truth and justice are too deeply engraven on your hearts; and that you are at length become (unfortunately for them) too well acquainted with your own rights, ever again to suffer any man, or any faction to mislead you; we hereby invite the boroughreeve, or any of the nine wise magistrates who signed the proclamation declaring the meeting to have been held on Monday last illegal, and threatening at the same time all those who abstained from going to the said meeting; we invite them to come amongst us on Monday next; if we are wrong, it is their duty, as men, as magistrates, and as Christians, to endeavour to set us right by argument, by reason, and by the mild

373
and irresistible precepts of persuasive truth; we promise them an attentive hearing, and to abide by the result of conviction alone; but once for all we repeat, that we despise their threats, and abhor and detest those who would direct or control the mind of man by violence or force: I am, my fellow countrymen, your sincere and faithful friend, Henry Hunt:' that several affidavits were on the second day of the present term tendered by the petitioner to the judges of the court of King's-bench at Westminster, for the purpose of obtaining a criminal information against the bench of magistrates of Manchester, for the criminal acts and wrongs therein described; which affidavits were not however permitted to be read, on the novel ground that no one could be allowed to move in a proceeding which merely tended to establish a criminal prosecution except through his majesty's attorney or solicitor general, or other counsel; although this new rule of court is obviously contrary to the principle, which permits every man in person to accuse before a grand jury, and is in direct violation of Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights: the petitioner therefore immediately applied to the public law officer of the crown, the attorney general, and offered to lay his whole case, and the affidavits before him, that he might move the court on behalf of the public, which the attorney general refused; the petitioner is therefore compelled to submit his case to the consideration of the House, as the only means which the constitution now appears to present, and which at the same time is commensurate with the power and influence of the offenders, particularly after they had received the countenance of his majesty's ministers by the official thanks of his royal highness the Prince Regent; the petitioner respectfully submits to the consideration of the House, that as the persons guilty of the outrages described in those affidavits, consisted of ten magistrates acting in the vicinity, having extensive local and family connexions, and as the officers and privates of the yeomanry cavalry who perpetrated the cruelties therein described were in like manner intimately connected with all or most of the persons exercising juridical and magisterial authority in the county of Lancaster, and were supported by a numerous train of dependents, unprincipled and desperate characters connected with the police, as it is notorious
374
it must always be the case in police establishments; the petitioner and ten other persons, whose political rights had been violated, and whose persons had been outraged, had, and can have no chance of obtaining redress or justice in the said district under such influence; and therefore the petitioner and his fellow-sufferers not only found themselves insolently baffled in every attempt which they made to obtain legal redress, but the said criminal parties, for the purpose of giving colour to their errors or crimes, conspired to invent, fabricate, and sustain criminal charges against the petitioner and his friends, and had the hardihood to commit them to solitary dungeons in the local prison, on charges of high treason; which impotent and malignant charges they afterwards abandoned, but for the pretence aforesaid, still persisted in charging the outraged, injured, and insulted petitioner and his friends with a misdemeanor and conspiracy, demanding excessive bail of them, and in a vexatious and wanton manner sending the petitioner and others upwards of fifty miles through the country to Lancaster castle, under the parade of military escort, and accompanied by every circumstance calculated to wound the feelings of the petitioner and his friends and fellow sufferers: and as it happened hat the assizes were held about ten days afterwards the said criminal parties hoping to take advantage of the excessive irritation which all the circumstances above described had created in the county, and of the influence which they necessarily possessed over the prejudices of many of the grand jurors, who consisted wholly of persons in the magistracy of the said county, and who therefore were unavoidably actuated by the very same party violence which had misled their brother magistrates of Manchester in committing those crimes which it was now become necessary, under colour of law, to screen from inquiry and punishment; that is to say, the said magistrates and yeomanry of Manchester, through the agency of their friends, connexions, and relatives, who composed the grand jury aforesaid, and aided by the solicitor of his majesty's treasury, proceeded to act the unworthy farce of presenting indictments against the petitioner and his friends for a pretended conspiracy, for acts committed by them in the open face of day, in presence of the whole world, and in which they were supported by the immemorial rights,

375
customs, and usages of the English people, and by the laws and constitution of the realm as exercised by their ancestors, and secured by acts of parliament, by the common law of the land, and by the coronation oath of the sovereign; the petitioner who profoundly respects all the legitimate arrangements of the jury system, is nevertheless persuaded, that his suspicions, in regard to the purity of the proceedings at Lancaster, will not be considered either as light or frivolous; and he ventures to suggest that so palpable was the connexion of the magistrates and yeomanry with the grand jury at Lancaster, that nothing but the consciousness of the necessity of shielding themselves under the colour of a form of law, could have stimulated them to adopt the gross measure of appealing for their justification to a grand jury of such men so situated; but although the petitioner formally protested against some of the jurors, who he had been able to discover were relations, and notoriously connected with the parties against whom he had better reason to complain, and who were implicated in the atrocities committed on the 16th of August at Manchester, and against whom bills of indictment for capital felonies the petitioner was prepared to present: yet these objections of the petitioner were overruled by the judge before whom the said parties were about to be sworn as grand jurors; and the said grand jury, composed as aforesaid, proceeded to entertain the said charges against the petitioner and his friends, and actually laid aside certain indictments which the petitioner and his friends had previously preferred against three persons who had committed palpable perjury before the magistrates at Manchester, and who, as afterwards appeared, were witnesses on the indictment against the petitioner and his friends; and to this, and the following circumstances, the petitioner most earnestly invites the attention of the House; viz. that the said grand jury had found a true bill for perjury against one Owen, and they had before them other indictments against two wretches of the names of Platt and Derbyshire, who had falsely sworn to the very same facts as the said Owen, and against whom the very same evidence was ready to be adduced; but as soon as the indictments against the petitioner and his friends for the said pre-tended conspiracy were carried before the said grand jury, composed as aforesaid,
376
and the names of the said Platt and Derbyshire appeared as witnesses on the back of the said indictment, the said grand jury refused to proceed further in the investigation of the three indictments before them, one of which they had found, but proceeded to investigate the indictments against the petitioner and his friends, actually receiving the evidence of the said Platt and Derbyshire in support of the same, and then, after finding on such evidence, and that of three or four other similar dependents of the police true bills against the petitioner and his friends for a conspiracy as aforesaid, the said grand jury ignored the indictment against the witnesses Platt and Derbyshire, although they had found a true bill for the very same fact, on the very same evidence, against Owen; that these facts, of which the petitioner has made affidavit in the humble judgment of the petitioner, prove beyond the possibility of doubt or equivocation, that although there were honourable men on the said grand jury, yet that the number of twelve required by law to determine a bill were influenced in their judgments by passions and feelings of which men are too frequently the patients and therefore it cannot be a matter of surprise, that a true bill was found against the petitioner and his friends, for acts which, it is palpable, were as notorious as the sun at noon day, and which, till it suited their purpose, had always been considered as meritorious duties of Britons and freemen, while the bills for unparalleled and cruel outrages were ignored; nevertheless, as the petitioner respectfully submits to the House, it must be obvious, that against so powerful a conspiracy of local authorities countenanced as they have been by his majesty's ministers, and aided by the law officers of the crown, who are supported by the public treasury of the United Kingdom, the petitioner has no rational ground of hope for justice and redress but in the power and authority of the House; that besides the application above described, to the court of King's-bench, and to the attorney general, the petitioner brought witnesses from Lancashire at a heavy cost, for the purpose of presenting indictments before that grand, inquest, which, as appertaining to the court of King's-bench, may be supposed to have co-extensive jurisdiction with its court, which jurisdiction it unquestionably had before the judges were made itinerant, and which has been

377
taken from it by no statute; yet on this occasion, the said grand inquest of all England, by which name it was heretofore known, was designated by the judge as the grand jury for Middlesex, and described as local in its jurisdiction, and incompetent to receive the indictments preferred by the petitioner; that as the petitioner verily believes the said criminal parties, for the purpose of securing their own impunity, have made false representations to his majesty's government by which they obtained the thanks of the Prince Regent, while the ministers of his Royal Highness, with a view to support their own hasty proceedings in so thanking the said criminal parties, have submitted their false statements to the House as authentic documents worthy of the respect and credence of the House, but the petitioner hereby declares, that within his knowledge, the greater part of the said statements, as relating to the proceedings at Manchester, are utterly false; and he therefore earnestly prays, that he may be called to the bar of the House, and there permitted to prove all and every the allegations contained in this his humble petition, which he is anxious to do, not only by his own testimony but which he respectfully pledges himself (if permitted, to confirm beyond the possibility of doubt, by the testimony of numerous respectable persons of family, fortune, and character, totally unconnected with the reformers in any way whatever."
On the question, that the petition be printed, there was a loud cry of "No no!" and there appeared a momentary disposition to divide, but it was abandoned and the petition was ordered to be printed.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of a motion for granting a Supply to his Majesty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a resolution, "that a Supply be granted to his Majesty."
Mr. Grenfellobserved, that he had seen in the public papers that there had been a deficiency in the revenue in the last quarter to the amount of eight millions. The amount was so great that he confessed it staggered him. It, however, required some explanation, and he requested his right hon. friend would have the goodness to give it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid,
378
that the alleged deficiency was not an actual deficiency, unless the sum issued to make good the deficiencies of former periods could be so called. There was an actual surplus. Since the incorporation of the treasuries of Great Britain and Ireland two millions and a half had been borrowed in the Spring from the consolidated fund for the service of Ireland. To this was added six millions for the purpose of making good the deficiencies he had already described. Instead of any deficiency having taken place in the quarter ending the 10th of October last, there was an increase. It was true, however, that the surplus in that of every year was generally considerable; and, comparatively considered, the surplus of the quarter ending on the 10th of last October, was not so great as that of the corresponding quarter of the preceding year, it being only 300,000 l. The total amount of the deficiency of that quarter, as compared with the corresponding quarter of the year immediately preceding, was 1,100,000 l., although it exceeded the amount of the corresponding quarter of the year 1817. Of that 1,100,000 l. of comparative deficiency, 920,000 l. was under the head of Customs, which was chiefly attributable to the stagnation of trade, of which so much had been said in the discussions last session in the Bank committee, and in some degree proceeding from the consolidation of the customs in the last session, which occasioned a larger sum to be paid in preceding; quarters by those who were desirous to avoid the increase of duty caused by that consolidation. The comparative deficiency in the excise was nearly 200,000 l. He was happy, however, to say, that in the period which had elapsed between the 10th of October, and the meeting of parliament, a very considerable improvement in the revenue had manifested itself.
The resolution was then agreed to.

SEDITIOUS MEETINGS PREVENTION BILL.
On the motion of lord Castlereagh, the clerk read the following passages from the Speech of his royal highness the Prince Regent, on the opening of the session:—
"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 or the manufacturing districts of the country, have been continued with increased acti-

379
vity 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 these political institutions, which have hitherto constituted the pride and security of this country, but at the subversion of the rights of property, and of all order in society.
"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."
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that in rising pursuant to his notice to call the attention of the House to the state of the country, as described in the passages which had just been read from his royal highness the Prince Regent's most gracious Speech, he confessed that he never felt a more awful impression of the painfulness and difficulty of any task that he had undertaken to execute. It was painful, for what could give greater pain to a minister of the crown than to be required by an imperative sense of duty to propose to parliament the adoption of measures of a restrictive and coercive nature? It was difficult—for while the House, the country, and every loyal British subject were entitled in the present serious crisis—a crisis, indeed, of imminent danger, unless parliament met the evil with manly firmness and vigour—to look to his majesty's ministers for the means of affording adequate security for life and property, and for the safety of the constitution, they were entitled to claim from his majesty's government that they should make any propositions which they might determine on bringing forward, as much as possible, in the spirit of the constitution under which we happily lived; and to expect, that while they recommended the measures which to them appeared calculated to meet the public exigency, they should not forget the sacred principles of right and liberty, which had made Great Britain a source of admiration and envy to all surrounding nations. He
380
could assure the House, that his majesty's government were most anxious to secure this double object; and while they directed their efforts against the abuses by which the public tranquillity was menaced, to protect as much as possible the best and dearest interests of the people. Having endeavoured to reconcile these conflicting principles, his majesty's ministers looked with confidence for the support in that House of a large portion of those who differed from them on questions of general policy, as they were most earnest in wishing to preserve the freedom of the subject, while they purged the land of the evils that the abuse of that freedom had generated.
As the House naturally looked to him for an intelligible detail of the circumstances which made the measures he intended to propose necessary, as well as of the nature of those measures, he felt he must occupy their attention for a considerable portion of time. He should now, without any further preface, even though some of the measures were to originate in the other house, offer all of them to their consideration, in order that no member might give an opinion upon them without seeing the full scope of each individual proposition, both as an isolated proposition, and as a proposition connected with others, and without being able to judge whether they would so fit in with each other as to make a perfect and consistent whole. He should, of course, support each and all of these measures, and the general principles upon which they were founded; but, in order to save the time of the House, he should not enter into any minute reasonings upon them at present, but state them broadly though distinctly. In order the more fully to direct the attention of the House to this point, he hoped he might for the present be allowed to assume as fact, the existence of the evils which the measures in question went to correct, not depriving the House of the right of discussing this part of the subject at any future stage of their proceedings. He would then assume for the present on the authority of the Speech from the throne, that great danger existed in the country; that there had been disclosed in the country a spirit which was incompatible with the constitution of the kingdom—that it threatened the destruction of all those rights which were most valuable—and that it aimed not only at the change of all those poli-

381
tical institutions which had hitherto constituted the pride and security of the country, but also at the subversion of property, and of course of all those rights on which society depended, which, if not speedily checked, was calculated to overthrow the principles upon which the property and happiness of society rested. These facts he had a right to consider as fortified by the speech of the right hon. member who moved the amendment to the address, as well as by the statements of several of the hon. members who supported it. That right hon. member had admitted, that there had gone abroad a wild and impracticable spirit of reform, which menaced not only the happiness of society generally, but more particularly the interests of the poor deluded persons who possessed it, and with several of his friends, had pledged himself to uphold the constitution against such doctrines to the utmost of his power. He was also confirmed in the statement which he had just made, by the opinions which had been formed by a set of gentlemen best calculated to judge of the situation of the country—he meant the magistracy and the grand juries of Cheshire and Lancashire, and of several other counties. If he wanted any farther authority on the subject, he had it in the statement of the noble lord who represented the county of Lancashire, a county containing a million of inhabitants, and possessing a large portion of the wealth and commerce of the country. In that county, according to that noble lord's statement, there existed a spirit of disaffection bordering on rebellion. The hon. member for Taunton also had mentioned the order of things in some of the manufacturing districts to be such as that either the House must put them down without delay, or else they would overpower the constitution, and further, that there were no interests more at stake than those of the poor deluded people by whom such opinions were entertained. From these statements he felt he had a right to assume the existence of that danger which induced his majesty's government to bring forward such measures as they in their consciences believed to be imperatively called for, and most effectual in rescuing the country from its perilous situation. In the statement he was about to make, he should be sorry to make any impression on the country that could be considered as imputing disaffection to the great mass
382
of the people. He had an individual pride (individual, he meant, as he was connected by birth and education with that part of the empire), in stating, that as far as Ireland was concerned, she had never experienced a greater degree of tranquillity, and he might add prosperity, than at this moment. There were, perhaps, one or two exceptions, but they were of a very trifling nature. Long might she continue in that state! Long might she continue to feel the value and importance of that constitutional position in which she had at last had the good sense to place herself, and which he doubted not would prove the source of numerous benefits to her, while it entitled her to the entire confidence of the sister country. In Great Britain, also, he was happy to state that the great body of the agricultural interests never enjoyed a greater state of repose than at this moment; and he hoped he might add, that it was fast recovering from that depression into which it had unhappily fallen. When he said this, he was not insensible to the difficulties with which the landed interest had still to contend; but, comparing its present situation with that in which, at no distant period, it had been, he thought he was warranted in expressing himself in the language which be had used. Considering nothing so important as that the subject should be stripped of all exaggeration, he was bound to state, that even in the manufacturing districts, he believed the loyal were sufficiently strong to put down, by themselves, the disaffected; but this could not be accomplished without risk of great devastation, ruin, and misery. It was not for the state therefore that he trembled, but it was for the inhabitants of certain districts, who had claims on the government for protection, and for the deluded reformers themselves; and on those grounds he called on parliament to support the law and to guard against the evils of a threatened rebellion. Into the causes of the discontent and dissatisfaction which prevailed, he did not feel inclined to enter at present; on a future occasion he should not shrink from discussing them; but all that he should now say was, that as far as his inquiries went (and they had not been scanty), he could not discover that the market for our industry had been narrowed either at home or abroad. At home it had certainly increased, and abroad there was no defalcation but in one instance, which was well

383
calculated to teach the deluded men who were ever complaining of the system of government established in this country, a salutary lesson. The American market was the only one that had tailed us. It was there—in a country which was represented as a perfect paradise—in a country governed under a system which many in England believed it was only necessary to adopt here to relieve us from all our burdens; it was in America that the greatest distress was found to exist, and there our commerce had experienced failures which were unknown in Europe. There had certainly been a depression felt in various branches of our trade from the termination of the war, but these were no more than were to be expected in the common course of things, and to these time alone could bring an effectual remedy. He was confident that no sober-minded rational man could for a moment believe that they were to be removed by any parliamentary interference.
He would now proceed to the most important object of the night, to the remedies which his majesty's ministers proposed to apply to the evils complained of. In enumerating them, he would name them in the order in which the state of the country seemed to call for them. They divided themselves into five heads. He would begin with that which was most pressing in point of time, and name that last which was most important with a view to tranquillising the country. The first subject was the tumultuous meetings which had become common, which were marked with a character wholly different from that of peaceful deliberation, which had never been known in this country till of late years, which were quite an innovation upon all its habits, customs, and prejudices, which were borrowed from the worst days of France, and which conduced most essentially to the progress of the. revolution in that country. The second subject was that part of the system of the disaffected, which, if not checked, would lead to results the most extensively mischievous;—he meant the training of large bodies of men for military, he might add, for rebellious purposes, without the authority of the Crown. The third was more of a local character, and went to give magistrates the extraordinary powers confided to them by an act passed in the year 1812, and enable them to search for and seize arms, where they had a right to believe they were secreted for improper
384
purposes. The fourth measure would go to ensure the more speedy administration of justice in certain cases, and particularly to expedite the trials of those charged with misdemeanors. The fifth went to affect that great and most important engine, the press, but only that part of it, which, in contradiction to the general press of the country, he might be allowed to call the treasonable, blasphemous, and seditious branch of the press. With regard to the first of these measures, he must desire the House to consider the abstract right on which the right of meeting to petition was founded. No man could value more highly than he did the right which the people unquestionably enjoyed to meet to consider on the grievances which they felt, either individually or collectively, and to carry to the foot of the throne or of parliament their petitions for redress of them. From the mode, however, in which this right had recently been laid down, and from the doctrines which had been founded upon it, it appeared to him, that unless common sense was applied to the law which had recently been promulgated on this subject (and law and common sense did not travel so far asunder as some people thought), the abuse of that right must inevitably lead to sanguinary rebellion in the first case; and that which was its never-failing concomitant, military despotism, in the second. He lamented most strongly, and he thought that several of those who had signed the requisitions for county meetings also lamented, that they had stated in such broad terms the right of the people to assemble. He had, however, never seen among the many resolutions which had been adopted any document officially signed, which carried this right to a higher point than the famous one signed by Thistlewood, who, no doubt, had good legal radical assistance. In that document it was stated, that he (Thistlewood) knew of no law that could prevent 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, or 1,000,000 of persons from assembling; and no magistrate, it went on to say, could touch them till they struck some blow; and that it made no difference whether they met with or without arms, with or without flags, or with or without all that novel paraphernalia which had lately rendered those meetings so conspicuous. Now, he would ask, if this ought, in common law, or in common sense, to be allowed. He would ask, whether it was consistent with common

385
law or with common sense, to assert that the people (and, for the sake of the argument, he was at liberty to assume the whole of the people), might meet at one place, and to say that the magistrates were to stand quiet after the meeting was assembled, until some positive damage was done? If such a principle existed, it proved that the law was, on the face of it, an absurdity, totally ineffectual for the purpose of preserving the lives or liberties of the people. If this were the case, the House must allow him to say, we were living in a country whose government was degraded and debased. If this were the case, then the magistrates must on all occasions have recourse to the aid of the military, of the exercise of whose power the country was so naturally jealous. Was it to be tolerated, that in a country whose constitution was so justly the envy and admiration of other nations, the whole of its industry was to be convulsed—the quiet part of the population were to be alarmed,—not with childish fears, but with just terror—that they were to be driven from their business—obliged to close their shops—that the public mind was to be kept in a state of continual ferment and agitation, by a set of itinerant orators, who marched large bodies of men 25 miles through the country, in military array? The minds of the lower orders in this country, were inflamed by artful tales about sinecures and pensions, and they were told that if these were done away, all their grievances would be at an end. He would take upon himself to say, that if the sinecures which had not yet been abolished, were done away—if the whole pension list were surrendered to their wishes, that the benefit derived would not in ten years give the Manchester cotton-spinner, who could earn 30 s. a week, the 5s. which he wasted in one day of idleness to attend a reform meeting. This he could prove to demonstration, and with equal ease could he show, that if the reformers could succeed in their dishonest and destructive scheme of annihilating the national debt, that the withdrawing of the interest of 29,000,000 l. of money from general circulation, though it might relieve some who now contributed largely to the taxes, would depress the markets of the country, augment the general distress, and carry ruin to the humble cottage as well as to the mansion of the great. The gentlemen who advocated the doctrine of Thistlewood, ought to re-
386
collect that the law provided against a bellum levatum, as well as a bellum percussion; that meetings even without arms were not allowed to assemble to the terror of his majesty's subjects; and that the magistracy were bound by their oaths to protect the lives and properties of the people, under such circumstances, as far as lay in their power. This fallacious doctrine, however, he was glad to say, was refuted by the late debates in that House, and if no other result had followed from the assembling of parliament, the late discussion was calculated to produce the most beneficial effects in the country. The house and the country were deeply indebted to a right hon. and learned gentleman opposite, for the able and eloquent manner in which he had stated that point on a former evening. Independently of his high legal authority (and higher there was none), there was something so clear and sound in the opinion he gave on the illegality of such meetings, that he must have removed all doubt on the subject. That right hon. and learned gentleman had well said, that although the rights of a British subject allowed him to do every thing which the law did not forbid, he was not permitted to contravene or to trench upon the rights of another. He did not wish to say any thing complimentary of the stream of eloquence which came from his own side of the House; but was there no inference to be drawn from the silence which had prevailed on this subject among the learned and hon. gentlemen opposite? There were occasions when silence was as eloquent, if not more eloquent, than words; and he conceived the present to be one of that nature. He certainly did suppose, that a gentleman of high legal talents on the other side (Mr. Scarlett), notwithstanding his explanations, had pronounced as decided an opinion as was possible, upon the illegality of that meeting, and that he had followed up his argument by making a complaint against his majesty's ministers for suffering several meetings like it (and he had instanced that of Smith-field) to take place subsequently. Another hon. and learned gentleman, who followed in the debate, seemed rather disturbed by the explicitness of this opinion, and therefore introduced into the discussion the swords of the cavalry, which he asserted to have been sharpened for the occasion. That, however, was now exploded. The noble lord opposite had

387
clearly proved, that those swords were sent to be sharpened several days before any intimation was given that a meeting was to be held. Another hon. and learned gentleman, who bore a high, and, he believed, a well-earned reputation in his profession, whom they were to hear tomorrow, had promised to prove the lawfulness of the meeting. With regard to his speech in expectancy, he (lord Castlereagh) had a right to take it on his side of the question; for if that hon. and learned gentleman had felt any difficulty on the subject, the recent decision of the House must, he should conceive, have removed it. This, however, he would maintain, that if any man could still doubt, whether or not meetings such as he had described were legal or illegal, it was high time for parliament to take care that this embarrassment should be felt no more, regarding what was and what was not the law upon the subject.
He would now call the attention of the House to the measures necessary to meet the evil. In framing the proposed remedies, the first object was, to suit the characteristics of the meetings against which they were to be directed. His first enactment would therefore be, the limitation of numbers. The second was intended to prevent persons residing in distant districts from attending meetings in districts where they did not reside. The third was, to prevent the existence of simultaneous meetings, for the House would recollect, that they had it in evidence, in the letter of general Byng, that this plan, though defeated by a schism among the leaders, had been seriously entertained, in order to divide the military power, and thus give the reformers a better opportunity of making a trial of their physical force. These were the three grand points on which he would stand, and for which he would now use a few short, but, as he thought, decisive arguments. Nobody would say, that any bill could effectually meet the evil which did not limit the numbers; and nobody would assert, that by limiting the numbers, they were trenching upon any substantial right of the people: for if deliberation were the object of their meetings, the great numbers in which they had recently assembled were not calculated to aid it. He had no wish to prevent them from assembling, when deliberation was really the object which they had in view; he had no wish to put an end to those meetings which were the peculiar boast of England, and which, till
388
modern times, had been productive of so much benefit and advantage. In latter times, however, these meetings had been of a different kind, and seemed, from the manner in which they were called, and in which they were conducted, to have been borrowed from another country. They had been held under the sanction of the laws to consider of the means best calculated to overturn, by physical force, the very laws under which they met. Far was it from him to call on the House to do any thing that would operate against the ancient and sacred right of the people to petition, under the protection and with the sanction of the magistrates, or the other constituted authorities of the land. He would, on the contrary, give increased facilities to this mode of petitioning. But meetings not called under such authorities, convened by men without character, rank, or fortune, were, in all probability called for improper objects, and therefore were a fit subject for the animadversion of the law, and it was but reasonable that they should assemble under circumstances that gave a sort of prima facie security against outrage; for the House might rely on it, that unless we could reconcile the exercise of our liberties with the preservation of the public peace, our liberties would inevitably perish, and society come to a speedy dissolution. With respect to the local and numerical modes of regulating the constitution of meetings, it was obvious, that when they came to the extent, in point of numbers, to which meetings ought to be allowed to go, it was impossible to fix any precise limit. An hon. gentleman on the other side had said, that meetings ought to be of such a description, as that the civil power would be sufficient to preserve peace, in order to prevent the indignity of calling in the military power. He could assure the hon. gentleman, however, that meetings could not be reduced to such an extent without chilling all deliberation. Besides, nothing could be more calculated to embarrass magistrates than such a limitation of meetings. Therefore he would propose what would effect the object, without encountering those difficulties or objections. From his proposition he would except county meetings, regularly convened, meetings called by corporate bodies, by grand juries, or by five magistrates. With these exceptions every meeting must be preceded by a notice, for a certain number of days to the magistrates of the intention to call such a meet-

389
ing, and must be within the parish of the persons assembling; the natural place for deliberation where they could meet with safety, and without loss of time. In reference to the impropriety and danger of allowing immense multitudes to assemble in the manner which had been recently witnessed, he would read the sentiments of a noble lord, who always looked with the greatest jealousy on every thing that might affect the liberty of the subject, and who could not be suspected of a disposition to curtail any popular right. Lord Erskine, in a publication lately given by him to the world (the Defence of the Whigs), applied the following observations to the public grievance of tumultuary meetings: —"— but holding sacred, as I do, the never-to-be-surrendered right of British subjects to assemble peaceably, to express to each other and to the government of the country their grievances and complaints, yet I feel no difficulty in saying, that nothing can be more obviously useless and mischievous than the assembling of immense multitudes, not in their own communities or neighbourhoods, but by moving upon other thronged and agitated districts. Such meetings, however legal they may be, cannot but be dangerous to the industrious poor, collected at a distance from their own homes, only to disturb the industry of others, aggravating the sufferings of poverty by the interruption of employment, by the hazard of fatal accidents, and the probable temptation to crime." He did not think it necessary to labour this part of the subject farther. In confining meetings to their respective parishes, it was proposed to make it a misdemeanor for any person, not resident in the parish, to attend a meeting in it. Two objects would be effected by this regulation. But before mentioning them he would remark, that some parishes consisted of more than one large township, under distinct overseers, and were so populous, as to require farther limitations as to public meetings. There were in the country about 30 parishes that were extraordinary populous, that was, they contained a population beyond 20,000 souls. No parish whose numbers were under that population was restricted from a meeting of the whole parish. But with respect to the parishes whose population exceeded that number, a power would be given to quarter sessions, who would not be apt to abuse such a power, to divide them into districts, of which each should contain a population
390
not exceeding 10,000. By this arrangement, it was manifest that there was no intention on the part of ministers to reduce meetings in such a manner as to destroy their popular character. They would, on the contrary, become better fitted for the purposes of discussion, at the same time that they would cease to be attended with danger. One hundred thousand persons would no longer assemble, and those individuals who reduced grievance-making into a trade, would no longer have it in their power to travel about the land and poison the minds of men who had not been aware but that they lived under the mildest government, and had not known that their greatest enemy was the House of Commons. The second object was, to prevent the distraction of the attention of magistrates by vast numbers of simultaneous meetings, not perhaps known to them till the very time of meeting, and then often corresponding with other public meetings, fairs, or markets. For that purpose, it would be required of the persons calling meetings to give notice of their intention six days beforehand to the magistrate, in order that he should have time to consider. The magistrate should also be invested with the power, within four days of that fixed for assembling, to change both the time and place, if he should find it proper, so as to defeat any plan which might have been formed to create confusion. The tumultuary character of meetings would thus be removed, and the system of itinerant orators destroyed. Another measure was one with respect to which, he apprehended, there could be but one sentiment in that House; it was, to put a stop to a practice which never had been British, but was borrowed from the worst times of the French revolution. None would be allowed to attend those meetings either armed or in martial array, nor with those symbols which threatened confusion and danger to the peaceable part of the community; and which presented the appearance of an assemblage demanding rather than petitioning for a redress of grievances. It was the law of this country, that a man might possess arms for the protection of his house; but he felt a persuasion that none would contend, that every person was intitled by law to go forth armed. The principle of laying on certain restrictions in this respect was not unknown to our law. That which he proposed was in fact nothing more than a declaratory law, but he

391
should certainly add a clause, which happily had never been called for before in this country, to prevent any kind of arms from being carried to a public meeting. This would extend to county meetings, as well as to meetings confined to the parish, because even a county meeting in this country had been disgraced by all the weapons and symbols of radicalism. All meetings were therefore comprehended in this measure. There was one point on which he should propose no law; it was the part which women had borne in the late transactions, for he trusted that it would be sufficient to restrain them from similar conduct in future, to let them know, that when the French republicans were carrying on their bloody orgies, they could find no female to join them except by ransacking the bagnios and public brothels. He was happy that no female had attended any public meeting in the metropolis. Such a drama would, he trusted, be put an end to by the innate decorum and the innate sense of modesty which the women of this country possessed, and which would purge the country of this disgrace. The bill which he should propose would, therefore, limit meetings (with the exceptions which he had mentioned) to the parish; would require six days notice to be given to the magistrate before a meeting; would invest the magistrate with the power of changing the day and place within four days of its being held; and would make it an illegal offence for non-residents to attend; or for persons to come with arms or revolutionary symbols, giving a French character to British transactions. The magistrates would of course be empowered to seize such persons, and take them away from the meeting; for, to render the measure effective, it was necessary to strengthen the hands of the magistracy, that they might resist the inroads of people not belonging to their parish. He did not mean that they should turn out any individual whom curiosity might have led to the spot; but if the influx of strangers-had a tendency to endanger the peace, or change the nature of the meeting, they should read a proclamation, ordering all strangers to withdraw. If this proclamation was not obeyed, they might then pronounce the meeting to be illegal, and dissolve it. A quarter of an hour would be allowed for the strangers to retire, and half an hour for the meeting to disperse. If after that time more than twelve individuals were found assembled,
392
he should propose to make it not felony with death, but a clergyable felony.—If the hon. and gallant general who had cheered his last statement, was acquainted with the principle of the Riot act, he must be aware that any person standing out against authority was guilty of felony. In 1817 (he did not know whether the gallant general was then a member of that House) a similar principle was acted upon. It would be, in the proposed measure, a clergyable felony; but as parish meetings could not require the usual time to disperse after proclamation, only a quarter of an hour would be allowed for strangers to withdraw, and in half an hour afterwards the meeting should become illegal.
The second subject to which he would call their attention was, the practice of training and drilling. He had omitted however to remark, that debating societies not regulated by a magistrate's licence, were, as by the bill of 1817, included in the restriction which he had detailed. The practice of training and drilling was foreign to every principle of our constitution, and must be reprobated by all who agreed in sustaining constitutional principles. Training, with or without arms, and all military manæuvres, would be prohibited. Meetings for those purposes would be rendered illegal, and magistrates might disperse them at their discretion. A distinction would be made between the drillers and the drilled, because the drillers must be supposed to be more intelligent than the drilled. It was most gratifying to him to be able to say, that, although it had been reported that old soldiers, forgetting their allegiance, had assisted in training others in military exercises, and that although in one or two cases it might be so, yet that the offence had been seldom imitated, and that in general nothing could be more exemplary than the conduct of those who having been the first to take up arms in the service of their country, had been the first at the return of peace to lay them down. For drillers, not only would fine and imprisonment be assigned as a punishment, but it was intended to vest in the court the power of transporting those convicted of that offence, if they thought proper. He now came to the third head. The state of the country, and the secret and seditious practices which prevailed in certain parts of it, called loudly upon parliament to enact some measure without delay for the

393
detection of arms provided for an illegal purpose. The measure he would propose would be drawn from a similar measure which he had proposed to the House in 1812 (the Disarming act for the midland counties). It would extend only to certain counties, but it might be extended to others at the desire of the lord-lieutenant of any county. There was no principle introduced by this measure which could be considered new, always connecting it with the actual state of certain parts of the country; and it would be liable like the measure of 1812 to be repealed if found unnecessary.
Another measure which he had to submit to them, respected the unbounded licence of delay which existed in certain cases of misdemeanor, and it would provide that such persons should go to trial immediately, unless they showed cause to the contrary. No principle could be more congenial to the spirit of the laws, and no measure more called for by the situation of the country, than one which would render the administration of justice in these cases more prompt. An individual charged with a crime which affected his life, was immediately put upon his trial: but in cases of misdemeanors, the accused had it in his power to postpone his trial, so as to defeat the ends of justice, perhaps for a year and a half. The object was, to make such a regulation as would bring misdemeanors more nearly, in that respect, to the state of graver and capital cases. He must observe, however, without stating technical reasons, there were instances in which some delay must take place, as in cases in which there were rights of removing by certiorari from inferior to superior courts. The object of the new law would be, to reduce the time as much as possible, without reducing those rights. On this point it was unnecessary for him to enter into any further explanations; but he should add, that the measure would be connected with another, which the state of the country, he trusted, justified his majesty's ministers in bringing forward, and which should consist in an attempt at realizing the intention which they had long entertained, of facilitating the administration of justice in the country by some regulation respecting the going judges. The long interval between the autumn and spring assizes afforded great opportunities for escaping due punishment, and presented difficulties in repressing dangerous and seditious practi-
394
ces. It would, therefore, be matter of consideration, whether a system could not be arranged that would give a third assize to those counties. His majesty's ministers would have been liable to the charge of having acted upon ex-post-facto principles, if they had proceeded against the individuals charged with a misdemeanor in the county of Lancaster, per saltum, and that was the reason why they had not appointed a special commission, as the accused would thereby have been deprived of the power of traversing.
He now came to what he had postponed to the last, as being, in every constitutional point of view, the most difficult and the most important—he meant the danger which arose from the abuses of the public press. He was very happy to say, that the measure which he had to propose to meet this danger, applied only to what he might call the treasonable and seditious press of the country—to that class of publications, which, unfortunately as the law now stood, were made vehicles for the dissemination not merely of treason and sedition, but also of blasphemy. It was in his opinion utterly impossible for the mind of man long to withstand the torrent of criminal and seductive reasoning which was now incessantly poured out to the lower orders; and unless some remedial principle could be hit upon, compatible with the genius of the constitution, not only all the other measures which he had proposed would be inadequate for the restoration of tranquillity, but the mind of the country could never settle down to industry and content. He was ready to admit that this country owed much of the intelligence and high character, for which it was so eminently distinguished, to its free press; and that we could not hope long to retain that envied pre-eminence without the possession of what every rational man would call a free press; but if a free press could not be made compatible with morality, peace and religion, then a free press might become a great evil, and produce effects by which a free press itself and every other right and advantage we possessed, would be swept away in one general ruin. No endeavour then could be more laudable than one to dispel that well-founded alarm which now existed with respect to the press. He conceived, that nothing which he had to propose would strike at, or touch, what might be considered the two great pillars of a free press. Every man would be at liberty to

395
publish his sentiments without any previous investigation into their nature, and without any thing in the shape of a censorship or restraint upon individual discretion. In the second place, nothing should be done to affect the trial by jury as applied to the question of libel in which the jury had the decision of both law and fact. There was no intention to affect the tribunals appointed by law for the trial of libels, or to prevent any man from publishing his sentiments in the first instance; but measures ought to be adopted to cut off the pestilent abuses of the press, because nothing could lower a free press more than such abuses. The first part of the measure he would propose, was one to which no serious opposition could be made, because, in his opinion, it involved no new principle, but left the law in the same situation as before. It went to protect that law, and to punish and destroy an abuse which had already been long in operation—he knew not precisely how long —but one from which he thought every mischief arose. This abuse had operated greatly to defraud the revenue, and greatly to the prejudice of the respectable persons who were engaged in the conducting of newspapers. If this evasion were to be tolerated, it would have the effect of throwing all the periodical press into the hands of men who had neither property nor the means of procuring security, and enable them to inundate the country with poison, at a price so humble, that no individual, however necessitous, would be unable to purchase it. The law, therefore, which he meant to propose, was, that the political publications, now published without a stamp duty, should be hereafter subjected to a duty like other newspapers. By the stamp laws all advertisements inserted in newspapers were liable to pay a certain tax, consequently the general stamp duty to which newspapers were subjected, had reference more to the other matter contained in them than to advertisements—namely, to the accounts of events and comments on these events, matter of a similar nature to that contained in the publications which, in point of duty, he now wished to assimilate to them. It was also to be taken into account, that as the political pamphlets now circulated were of a small size, they could be furnished at a much cheaper rate than newspapers. Indeed, the authors of some of those publications which had done the most mischief, so far from considering themselves
396
exempt from the law of newspapers, did for a great length of time continue to publish on stamped paper. The price of Cobbett's paper, for instance, had been ten-pence; but suddenly it was published without a stamp and sold for two-pence. What he now proposed was, to follow up the intentions of the Stamp act—to follow to its legitimate conclusion the law as it now stood with respect to newspapers, and while adopting a means to guard against offences of the press, to guard also against frauds committed not merely against the revenue but against the respectable newspaper press-to place the publications in question on the same footing with newspapers. Without now entering into any general definition he might state that it was proposed that any thing of the nature of pamphlets or newspapers, and not exceeding two sheets, containing either news, intelligence, or political discussion, or the description of political and religious subjects, in short, all subjects which might be considered as political, should be held as coming within the description of newspapers, and subjected to the same duty. Such a measure was necessary to prevent the respectable circulation of newspapers from being defeated, and to render the circulation of dangerous publications more expensive. Such was the first regulation which he had to propose. The second regulation was also a principle already established and recognised by law, particularly with regard to this class of publications. The law now declared that the names of publishers in general, not merely of publications of the description of newspapers, but of publications of all sizes, should be given, and that every publication should be considered unlawful which had not the name of the publisher on the face of it, for the purpose of making him amenable to justice. But that regulation was at present rendered completely nugatory by a practice which had been adopted, by which the individual who did the mischief was enabled to escape from the consequences of it. When it was wished to do any act which would draw down the animadversion of the law, the mode adopted for that purpose was to put forward some wretched hack, who for a small hire would run all risk of punishment. Now, if any man would run the risk of being lodged in gaol for a trifling sum, while the individual who was the real author of the offence ran no risk whatever, the object of the law was

397
entirely defeated. He had heard in the case of an individual who was convicted, while another individual for whom the illegal acts was done, could not be touched, that the latter had the impudence to say, "For half-a-crown a day I can always procure a man to stand in my situation, and I can carry on my trade in his name, while he runs all the risks." When it was recollected, too, what time elapsed before applying the penalty of the law after conviction, some remedy on this subject was imperiously called for. What he proposed, was, to check the practice of publication by individuals who had no property in their hands—the practice of individuals who had no visible means of paying the penalty to which they made themselves liable, making themselves responsible for others who derived nearly the whole of the benefit from the publication. In the case of these small publications, he proposed that all persons should be required to give a previous pecuniary security, to abide any judgment that a court of law might pronounce against them either for treasonable, blasphemous, or seditious libels. He did conceive that this would operate in every way for the protection of the respectable part of the press. It would have the effect of bringing forward the man at the bottom of the whole, who would not be allowed to put a faggot in his place. The judgment would attach to the security given, and this he trusted would have the effect of throwing the punishment on the proper person. The third regulation with regard to the press which he proposed was rendered absolutely necessary to give effect to the other two. It was to impose a moderate penalty on all persons publishing or hawking about publications not duly stamped, or not published by persons who had never given any security. If the persons engaged in these publications were not to find instruments for propagating their poison in this manner, they would fail in their object; and therefore it was he proposed to impose a moderate penalty on persons found hawking them, and that the penalty should be recoverable on conviction before a justice of peace or other magistrate. He knew that reproaches had been thrown out against ministers for not taking effectual means for putting a stop to these seditious and treasonable publications, but these reproaches came with a very bad grace from gentlemen who had complained against the late attorney-general for the
398
number of informations ex-officio which he had filed. He knew it might be asked by the other side, "Have you applied the existing laws?" In his conscience he believed, under the existing law, the mischief was beyond the reach of any public prosecutor; his learned friends felt that it could only be dealt with by the regulation proposed, which he had no doubt the House would accede to, as the whole country was interested in protecting the people against the pernicious poison.
He had nothing to state upon the subject of the regulation of the press, but these three measures,—1st, To apply the existing stamp duty applicable to newspapers, to all publications not exceeding two sheets, of the same character. 2nd, To require all publishers to give previous personal security, and two responsible securities in the same sum as himself. 3rd, To apply a penalty recoverable before all magistrates, for hawking about publications, with respect to which the provisions of the law had not been complied with. He was now to call the attention of the House to a subject connected with the last. It was a principle not unknown to our law in many offences, and which he thought ought to be applied to the specific offence now under consideration. The House would remember that in 1796 it was enacted, that upon a second conviction for sedition, a higher punishment might be imposed, and in addition to fine and imprisonment, transportation or banishment for seven years might be inflicted when a person had been convicted a second time. He did not mean a cumulative offence, but an offence committed after judgment being pronounced for a first offence, when the person so offending was liable to transportation, or banishment for seven years. He proposed that the court should be empowered, on a second conviction, for either treasonable, blasphemous, or seditious libels, to transport the person so convicted for seven years, or banish him for such shorter period as might be thought adviseable. If there were individuals among us who had such an abhorrence of our institutions, that they were determined to sin with their eyes open after they had once been punished, they could not be considered as visited with a punishment disproportionably rigorous, by being subject to transportation. With these measures and the other measures which his majesty's ministers had adopted, he trusted the evil would be arrested.

399
Having made these observations, he did not know any thing further which he had to state, excepting that it had been found necessary to augment the military force. This augmentation had been made in the manner, which was conceived to be the most effective, the least expensive, and the least connected with any motive of interest or partial views. It would be most gratifying to government to find that the state of the country rendered all farther augmentation unnecessary. Much depended on the spirit and energy with which parliament acted; and much on the readiness and determination of the sound part of the community to defend themselves against the dangers which surround them. He hoped they would feel it necessary to come forward in armed associations, and to show, that if any persons were disposed to make efforts against the constitution, the friends of the constitution were determined to make greater and more effectual efforts to defend and preserve it.
He did not think it was necessary for him to say any thing farther as to the proposed measures—he had opened to the House what in candour he was bound to state with respect to them. He was perfectly sensible that when any law was proposed of the nature of an infringement on the valuable rights for the protection and maintenance of which the constitution was established—when parliament were called on to abridge such rights, or only temporarily to suspend them—when it was necessary for any minister of the Crown to propose the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act (though it was a great gratification to ministers that at the present moment they were not under the necessity of proposing any such suspension), the only just ground for passing such measures, was the necessity of parting for a moment with some of our liberties for the permanent benefit of the whole. But he begged the House to take distinctly into their consideration that the measures now proposed were not directed against the rights of the people, but against the abuses of these rights, which abuses shook the security of the rights themselves. With respect to the bill which he was now proposing to introduce, similar to that in 1812, giving extraordinary power to the magistrates to search for arms, he had it not in contemplation to offer that bill on any other principle than as a local and temporary mea-
400
sure. But if he distinctly understood the nature of the rest of the proposed measures, and in particular of that intended to repress seditious meetings, it appeared to him that they should be made permanent. He was not aware that they infringed on any popular right. If it were objected that seditious meetings were now confined only to a part of the country, and that the measure applicable to them ought also to be partial, he would say that he did not conceive such a measure could be considered in the light of an infringement on the liberties of the country, being only a solitary protection against the danger from those meetings. The same observation would apply to the bill against training and drilling, to the traversing bill, and also to those regulations which could not be looked on in any degree as an infringement on the liberty of the press, fairly understood, but merely as a remedy against a crying evil. He should not propose, with respect to those bills, any limitation in point of time. He did not mean to say, but that on the country coming back to its former state—or on the game of the disaffected being rendered hopeless—he did not mean to say but that the hon. and learned gentleman opposite in some future review of the laws, when this measure would have ceased to apply to the state of the country, might question whether it should not undergo some alteration, or whether it ought to be allowed to remain on the Statute book. But if there was really nothing in these bills which narrowed the rights of the subject; if they were rather to be considered as protecting the subject in the exercise of those rights, and if a fatal influence had often already been produced on the minds of the wicked and evil-disposed from the indisposition of parliament, to apply temporary laws to-temporary evils, he thought the House ought to make them perpetual. They had already seen with what cunning, wicked and evil-disposed men often availed themselves of the expiration of a law or the circumstance of parliament not sitting, to resume all their old practices; and therefore if the House saw those laws in the light in which they were viewed by his majesty's ministers as a remedy against abuse, and not as an encroachment on rights, they would think that much greater benefit would be derived by the country from rendering them permanent. They were called on in political wisdom when they

401
looked to the scenes around them—when they saw what was passing both at home and abroad—when they considered what theories of government were afloat, not only here, but elsewhere, they were bound, he said, to create a fence around the constitution, and a bulwark to protect it against those spurious rights which were so foreign to its sober genius. How long were the prosperity and tranquillity of the country to be put in danger in this manner? He implored the House for God's sake to look their difficulties in the face. The evil was permanent; at least as permanent as an evil of such a character could be. Wicked and dangerous men ought to be deprived of the power of keeping the country in continual agitation. He therefore proposed the measures without any limitation as to time, leaving it to the wisdom and discretion of parliament to deal with them as it might think proper when the motives for adopting them were passed away; for he believed they were safeguards to the constitution, and not encroachments. He regretted he had been compelled to trouble the House at so much length. The bill giving magistrates a power to search for arms would be introduced first into the other House, as also the traversing bill. The other bills would be introduced in the House of Commons. With respect to one of them, it would be necessary they should go into a committee of the whole House on the subject of it, previous to bringing in the bill; and he should tomorrow or next day, propose such a committee. He should now move for leave to bring in a bill "for the more effectually preventing Seditious Meetings and Assemblies."
Mr. Tierneyobserved, that the awful denunciation by the noble lord, of many of the principles which he (Mr. Tierney) had been accustomed to hold most sacred, must of course occasion him to rise under considerable embarrassment; but that embarrassment would be greater if he imagined that after the statement of the noble lord, the House would expect him on the sudden to be prepared to go into a general argument upon the question. Great variety of matter had been introduced, the greater part of which, to him at least, was perfectly new. When he came down to the House he had not the most distant conception that the noble lord would advert to many of the points on which he had dwelt at large. He as-
402
sured the House, that he attended in his place, (and he hoped the noble lord would believe him), with a very sincere inclination to listen calmly and dispassionately to all that was to be advanced; he felt not the slightest prejudice on any of the points (on some it was impossible that he should feel any, as he was totally ignorant of them); but after what he had heard, he was conscious that he should not discharge his duty, if he did not trouble the House with a few, and a very few, observations. The noble lord had stated, that members on the opposition side of the House, on the first day of the session, had in substance agreed with all parts of the address relating to the seditious spirit pervading the manufacturing-districts. It was almost needless to remind the House that the noble lord had no authority for that statement; for his own part, he (Mr. Tierney) had expressly asserted his agreement with the allegations in the address, as far only as they should be established by evidence to be produced. It was really astonishing that the noble lord, who could be candid enough on the first day of the session, should now, for some purpose of his own, not only state that which went even beyond the address, but attempt to ratify that statement by a supposed confirmation derived from the other side of the House. He (Mr. Tierney) had said then, and he repeated it now, that the measures to be adopted must depend upon the necessity, and that necessity could only be ascertained by due inquiry. He did not say that a possible case might not arise where new laws might be required; that a House of Commons in the discharge of its duty might not entertain projects of this kind, but what he maintained was that they ought not to do so until the necessity had been clearly and unequivocally made out. He denied that necessity at starting: no such case had been made out that justified such measures as had been proposed, even supposing, upon examination, it should turn out that the safety of the country required them. All the House had before it was the notoriety of certain proceedings; but the grounds of those proceedings, their motives, and extent, was only to be gathered from the papers communicated by the Prince Regent. Without meaning to anticipate the debate of tomorrow, to be introduced by his noble friend, he would say, that a more garbled, mutilated account was never presented to

403
the House of Commons. The noble lord had stated what undoubtedly was very consolatory, but for the comment with which it was accompanied—that the main body of the nation was sound and loyal; that in principle it was attached to the law and the constitution. Even in the disaffected districts, it had been admitted to-night, that the great, mass of the population was untouched and untainted by disaffection, and that they were prepared to stand by the law and the constitution; nay, the noble lord went further; he had stated what would have astonished him, if any thing could astonish him from the present ministry on the subject of finance,—that the internal state of the country was perfectly prosperous; that in our foreign trade there was nothing to apprehend, but from the distress of America; that all our manufactures found their accustomed vent on the continent; and that it was the condition of America alone that restrained the commercial industry of the nation. Certainly, if the representations of the noble lord were to be believed in opposition to the evidence of our own senses, the country ought to be in a very happy condition; but how was it then that, as if the nature of the people had changed, as if they had become blind, obstinate, and perverse, it turned out that the nation was to be called upon to sacrifice its constitution on the altar of public security? The subjects of the realm were now told, that the old laws of England were not sufficient to guarantee protection to property; that what they had been accustomed to venerate as their safeguards were inadequate; that not only 10,000 additional soldiers were to be placed over them, but that those soldiers were to be backed by corps of yeomanry, and by statutes hitherto unknown; and after all this, they were to be assured that their condition was fortunate, and their finances flourishing! The noble lord had maintained, that by the amendment, he (Mr. Tierney) had marked his sense of the schemes by which the lower orders were misled. He admitted it; he meant to mark his opinion decisively, that those schemes were dangerous to the constitution, injurious to the public quiet, and most of all injurious to those who were deluded by them. If those unfortunate men could now look into the House, they would see the result of their endeavours; let them abuse the Whigs as violently, and stand by their
404
champion Hunt as firmly as they pleased, if they could now witness the proceedings of parliament, they would see to what a miserable pass their leaders had reduced them, bound hand and foot, and delivered into the hands of those who, by new laws, and new troops, were establishing an inquisition upon the ruins of the constitution. A right hon. gentleman had said on a former night, that the Whigs had been for 50 years excluded from power. It was true, and here was the fruit of that exclusion. After the lapse of 50 years of rule, what had the opponents of the Whigs done for the nation? They had brought it to such a condition of discontent and disaffection, that in a period of profound peace, the tranquillity of the country could not be maintained without new laws, not consistent with the spirit of the constitution. The noble lord had opened five bills to the House. The first was against Seditious and Tumultuous Assemblies—the second against Drilling—the third against the Possession of Arms—the fourth was against Traversing—the fifth branched out into two or three heads; and was aimed at the liberty of the press. With respect to the right of traverse, he freely confessed that his mind was open to information. He did not profess to be acquainted with all the grounds on which that right had originally been conceded to the subject; inconveniences might have arisen from it, and the remedies of the noble lord might be applied with out danger. Yet with fear and trembling he should undertake to change an established principle of the common law, founded upon almost immemorial usage; and though he did not undertake to pronounce peremptorily against it, he approached it with a degree of awe, and would not change it until the necessity should be sufficiently established. If by the power of searching for arms the noble lord meant to go the length of saying that an Englishman was not to be allowed to have weapons for self-defence in his possession, a most grave case indeed must be made out before he could consent to the proposition. Going about in armed bodies from place to place was already illegal but between that and the established constitutional principle that a man had a right to have arms for his own defence he took a wide and material distinction. He begged of the House to pause before it sanctioned a measure

405
which directly violated that privilege, in which twenty years ago men would have shuddered had it been even hinted that an alteration was intended. As a temporary measure it might under some circumstances be necessary; such as that large bodies of men were arming themselves in a way dangerous to the community. What was the fact? The papers upon the table merely proved, that certain persons had been making a limited number of pikes, that certain other persons had obtained some pistols and that a few more were in search of other fire-arms, if they could obtain them at a cheap rate. It was only pretended that Lancashire, Cheshire, a small part of Scotland, though thickly populated, and some districts of Yorkshire, were in a disturbed state: yet upon no better testimony than this the whole people of England were to be deprived of arms. [Lord Castlereagh said, across the table, that the Arms' bill was only to be local.] What then were the districts to which the law was to apply? [Lord Castlereagh replied, "Those included in the Watch and Ward act."] As he (Mr. Tierney) had not that measure precisely in his memory, he would not waste time by observations upon it. As to the law against drilling, he had heard with great astonishment, that such practices were not already against law; that no punishment could now be inflicted upon men who drilled and trained at night, and formed themselves into military array. If this were not so, he was, ready to submit to a new law on this subject. If it could be worded so as to meet the exigencies of the case, he honestly admitted that he had no objection to it; guarding himself with this observation, that it must be drawn so as not to go a single step beyond the necessity of the case, and that it was established that the men were drilling themselves evidently for the purpose of military operations. He next came to what in his mind was the great question of all—the new regulations against seditious and tumultuous meetings. Upon this subject the noble lord had asserted, that all the learned gentlemen on the other side of the House had very carefully abstained from giving any opinion whether assemblies of a particular description were or were not illegal. If he had understood his learned friends, their difficulty was this—that the question must depend upon particular circumstances; and until the facts of a case were laid be-
406
fore them, it was impossible to give an opinion upon it. No doubt a case might be shown in which it would be highly improper for the magistracy not to exert themselves by preventing a projected meeting, to preserve the public peace, a breach of which might threaten the safety of the country. Here the only question was, whether the particular circumstances under which the Manchester meeting was held were of such a description as that nothing but a military force could have put an end to its proceedings? To this he answered, that a meeting as large, or nearly as large, had taken place in Yorkshire; bodies of men had marched to Hunsletmoor of the same description as those that had attended at Manchester, with flags flying, and what had been termed an appearance of military array. What had become of it? The mayor of Leeds had felt no disposition to interfere; he had taken the proper precautions for the security of the peace, in the event of danger, though he did not think it right to make an ostentatious display of those precautions until a justifiable cause (which he did not apprehend) should be afforded for resorting to them. Such a cause did not occur. The persons assembled dispersed quietly; and from first to last, in Yorkshire, there had been no symptom of confusion. In Scotland, also, the magistrates had exercised a sound discretion; they had let the feeling of animosity waste itself; it did waste itself; and no such proceedings as those of Manchester had occurred there. And now the noble lord came forward, and assumed it as indisputable, that meetings must be confined within some other limitations, than those which at present existed, either numerical or local! The noble lord's plan appeared to be this—that no meeting should be allowed in any county, unless convened by the sheriff, the lord lieutenant, or by five magistrates: in certain towns, it must be called by the mayor; or if called by individuals, that no man could discuss and deliberate upon any public question out of his own parish. If such were the plan, there was at once an end of all the old wholesome spirit of the law upon this important subject. It would really seem from the cheers, as if the noble lord was restoring that old wholesome spirit, and that he (Mr. Tierney) was resisting it. Yet under that old wholesome spirit this country had flourished more than it would under the

407
sage administration of the noble lord if he were to live for a century. Whether in former times any meetings as numerically great as those of which the noble lord complained had been held, he did not know; but every page and every corner of every page of our history showed that assemblies had been convened, where men were allowed to harangue in any times of alarm. Mr. Burke had well called them the safety-valve of the constitution, by which all the foul air was permitted to escape. This safety-valve with all his fears, the noble lord would destroy, and while he exclaimed that his only purpose was to preserve the constitution, no man could fail to see that he was preventing the exercise of an accustomed constitutional right. This attempt was to be viewed with the utmost jealousy; it was to introduce an entirely new system, and that not merely temporarily, but permanently. When the bills came before the House, many opportunities would be afforded for objections in detail, and he was much mistaken if they would not be found in every corner of every measure: he was now objecting only to the principle, and it ought not to be forgotten, that these acts were not to be local; they were to extend to England, Scotland, and Ireland. When the noble lord mentioned that he should open a whole system, he had flattered himself that a part of that system would be conciliation. It was now seen, however, that nothing but rigour and coercion were to be resorted to: a blow was struck at the very vitals of fair and free discussion, and did the House really believe that in following the steps of the noble lord it would not be treading upon very dangerous ground? Did it believe that the danger arising from the state of the country was as great as it was represented, or that the refusal of what the noble lord demanded, and a reliance upon the venerable laws of the kingdom, would not be the least hazardous experiment? Would not the new bills rather exasperate than repress? If there were these large bodies of men in a state of dangerous effervescence, which he much doubted, would not the peril be doubled, when they wore told that they must expect nothing but coercion—that new Jaws should be invented to put them down, and that none of their grievances, whether real or imaginary, should receive a moment's attention? If parliamentary reform were mentioned in any shape, the immediate
408
answer was—"Now you are going to innovate." Yet ministers were to make what innovations they pleased; they were to invade the most dear and settled rights of the people; to infringe upon privileges that the practice of many centuries had confirmed; and if a charge of innovation were made against them, they met it with a look of astonishment and a cheer of surprise. What must be the event? Would not those who were now agitated be worked to a state of madness or desperation, instead of being quelled and subdued? He warned the House how it consented to steps that might be attended with the most baleful consequence, and neglected the voice of the people; not merely of those who were enthusiastic on parliamentary reform, but of sober thinking men, whose experience gave them this unanswerable demonstration—that something was wrong here, and that something must be altered. Ministers might fancy that they could control the distressed by overawing them with 10,000 men; but they would find it impossible. A dead silence in the country might for a season be produced by soldiers and penal laws, but nothing could reconcile the people to the loss of their rights, or compel them to submit quietly to that grievous deprivation. The number of armed men might, in time, be rendered greater than the unarmed, and then, instead of venting their feelings by becoming spouters at public meetings, the discontented would be converted from empty boasters in public places, into real conspirators in dark corners. These matters well merited the attention of the House, and especially of that portion of it who thought of nothing (and he did not blame them for it) but of the preservation of property. Property never could be exposed to greater danger ultimately than for a popular representation, as this House called itself, to pass nothing but acts of rigour, and omit all attempts at kindness and conciliation. The right of meeting was not only to be taken away, but what the noble lord had called the broad liberty of the press was to be invaded. As to the cheap publications as they were called, no one viewed with greater disgust than he did their effusions, as well on the subject of religion as in vilification of the best characters in the country; and his chief astonishment had arisen from observing, that for three or four years together no attempt had been

409
made to put a stop to them. The noble lord had observed that complaints had been made against the number of ex-officio informations, and it was true: they had been objected to as arbitrary and needless; but could any man read but the tenth part of the cheap publications, and not be persuaded that grand juries would have found true bills, and petty juries verdicts of guilty against their authors? Did ministers by this abstemiousness of prosecution mean to bring the matter to a crisis like the present? Did they contemplate a time when the vast accumulation of the evil would warrant them in this new infringement? If the libels had been brought before juries, ministers seemed to apprehend that the existing law would have been found sufficient, and they would thus have been deprived of one main ground on which their measure rested. As to the question of the liberty of the press, if he were to enter into it, a wide field indeed would be opened to him; but though he might lament the excess to which that liberty had in some instances been carried, he was persuaded that the old and recognized laws were adequate to restrain it. Upon this point the case was as defective as upon others; and as nothing was more valuable than the preservation of the liberty hitherto enjoyed, he hoped the nation would feel it, and that before the noble lord's bill passed into a law, depriving the people of their ancient privileges, they would assemble without fear, and pour in upon the House a tide of remonstrances which even the noble lord would not be able to resist. It was unnecessary for him on the present -occasion to say more. The liberty of the press was as yet in safe hands—in the hands of the press itself: which would no doubt speedily throw light enough on the subject to show what the real causes were of the licentiousness of the few, that was to be made the ground for encroaching on the liberty of all. He had come down to the House with a sincere inclination to listen impartially to what the noble lord might suggest, and disposed to concur in the measures proposed, rather than to oppose them; but he had then no notion of the extent to which the demand would be made. He might have been willing to concede something if a necessity had been shown, but nothing would satisfy the noble lord but an attack upon the very vital principles
410
of the British constitution. Were we to live in entirely new times? Were we now to hold up to the world, that the constitution which we had hitherto venerated for its antiquity, and loved for the blessings it has conferred, was of no value? Formerly, when foreigners asked in what way we became possessed of such and such institutions that attracted their admiration, we could reply, that we were indebted for them to the right which the people of England enjoyed of thinking and speaking freely. But now another lesson was taught by the noble lord, who would convince us, that what had been the salvation of our liberties was the destruction of our happiness—that what we and our forefathers had believed, was false and foolish; and that to preserve freedom and property, the constitution must undergo a change which, in his conscience he (Mr. Tierney) believed it could not survive. He said fairly and openly that suspecting as he did the administration from which these measures emanated, he considered them as only the advanced guard of the array of bills which they were to direct against the constitution. He saw on the part of the government an evident determination to resort to nothing but force; they thought of nothing else; they dreamt of nothing else; they would try no means of conciliation, they would make no attempt to pacify and reconcile; force—force—force, and nothing but force! that was their cry, and it had been the same for years: one measure of coercion had been, and would be, followed up by another, and the result would justify what he asserted, that 10,000 men would not answer their purpose; one measure of violence must succeed another, and what they gained by force they must retain by the same detestable means. The people would never rest until they were allowed to live under laws equally administered; until their honest industry could procure them the means of maintaining their families, and until they should again enjoy the blessings of that constitution which their ancestors intended they should partake. If not, discontent would increase to disaffection, and distress would produce discontent, notwithstanding the bold assertions of the noble lord, that the nation was prosperous, and had no wants but those which arose out of the present condition of America. If the noble lord had confined himself to the grant of 10,000 men, he should have deemed it a

411
strong measure in a time of profound peace. Was any evidence offered that a body of the military had been overpowered, or even that it had not always been sufficient to the dispersion of any meeting? But if the country gave him more troops to put down new meetings, surely it was somewhat hard that he should also ask it for new laws, that were to prevent the possibility of new meetings. If the noble lord thought that the new laws would be effectual, where was the occasion for the 10,000 men? It was clear that the noble lord felt that his new laws were more likely to exasperate than to conciliate, and the best comment upon all the noble lord had advanced in favour of his new projects, was his declaration, "I want 10,000 men into the bargain." His sincere belief was, that the noble lord would want many more than 10,000 men, and what a melancholy prospect did that hold out to the country! It might be said that he used violent language. He admitted it; and all he could say in answer was, that he did not utter a single syllable that he did not on his honour, believe. He was an alarmist, he felt alarm, because he was compelled to trust to men who would rely on nothing against the people but brute force. He was alarmed be-, cause an attempt was to be made, under false pretences, to destroy all that was valuable in the constitution, unless it were defended by the free spirit of a yet free nation. Therefore it was, that he indulged a hope, that while the right of meeting remained, the people would meet and express their opinions with such effect that the threats and measures of coercion might be abandoned. He had hoped that a more moderate course would have been pursued, because, with the exception of the disturbed districts, as they were called, there was no part of Great Britain where assemblies might not be held, even by the admission of ministers, without the slightest danger to the public peace. He trusted that the country would thoroughly understand the nature of these novel laws, that the real objects of government would be evident, and that those objects by the public voice would be for ever defeated. If the country abstained from that course, and if the House, without any evidence to warrant those innovations, should consent to follow the noble lord in his desperate and adventurous course, all he could say was that he should witness it with the deepest
412
and most sincere regret. He should then have lived long enough, and could no longer be of use to his country in that House. He saw an hon. gentleman on a bench below him smile. If that hon. gentleman expected him to secede, he should tell him that it was contrary to his principles to do so. He did not mean to retire from parliament—he would still attend, and by his vote oppose the progress of laws destructive of the nation's rights, but he should not feel bound, after the people had shown such apathy, to sacrifice for them as he had hitherto done, his time and his health. He hoped that all members would give the subject their most deliberate attention. The new laws were not such as the public exigency required; the extent, or even the existence of disaffection was not proved; and until it should be so, it was the duty of every honest man to pause. At least, attention ought to be paid to this point—whether some course of conciliation might not be adopted; whether steps ought not to be taken to satisfy the people, and to prove that, while the House was willing to repress sedition, it had a fixed determination to listen to their grievances, and, as far as possible, to apply a remedy.
Lord Castlereaghexplained. He had not asserted that the only distress arose from the diminution of the trade with America; but he stated it as a consoling circumstance, that amidst our distress, it did not appear that the consumption of our manufactures in foreign markets was diminished, except in America, where the diminution was to be attributed to temporary circumstances. He had admitted the distress, though that, too, he believed to be exaggerated; nor were those the most disaffected who were the most distressed. He held, too, that the distress depended upon causes to be removed by time alone, not by the hand of parliament, still less by the particular nostrum which had been brought forward for their cure. Any thing which might now be done by the House would not prevent them from taking that distress into consideration at some future period.
Lord Folkestonesaid, he was unwilling to offer himself to the attention of the House; but he felt it impossible, after the speech of the noble lord, to suffer them to separate, without expressing his detestation of the measures proposed. He conceived he should not be perform-

413
ing his duty, if he did not endeavour to impress upon the House the necessity of extreme caution and consideration, before they adopted any of those measures. He fully concurred in one part of the noble lord's speech—in the confident hope that the House would stand by the constitution. He conscientiously hoped that they would not suffer the proudest pillars of that constitution to be pulled down by the audacious hands of ministers. He would put it to every gentleman in the House—to those, even, who cheered the noble lord's speech—whether, on their conscience, they did not believe that the objects of the noble lord were, on the one hand, to put down the liberty of the press, and, on the other, to prevent all public meetings. County meetings were indeed left open; but, after the so prevailing fashion of the sheriffs refusing to convene them, could it be mistaken, that the noble lord's object was to prevent altogether those numerous meetings, in which Englishmen communicated to one another their sentiments of attachment to the laws and the constitution, and of opposition to the inroads of arbitrary power? Besides these measures, as if they were not considered sufficiently severe, there was what he conceived a most serious attack on the liberty of the press. On this subject he begged of the House to consider fully the nature of the course that had been already adopted. Scarcely had a statute been passed connected with this bulwark of our liberties for the last thirty years, which had not placed additional trammels upon it; and what was now the result? Why, that ministers felt themselves called upon to ask for new measures of severity. They had thus, on their own showing, only made the matter worse by continued restrictions. Now, he would ask, whether, having failed in so many trials of one course, it would not be prudent and politic to resort to another, and see what might be done by that? Upon one of the proposed measures he begged to offer a word; it was that which went to restrict the right of traverses under particular circumstances. The noble lord had said, that he did not see why, when a man accused of a capital offence could not put off his trial without stating strong grounds, such an indulgence should be given in cases of misdemeanor. One would think that the noble lord was wholly unacquainted with the forms of law upon this
414
subject. The cases were very different. In the case of felony, the person knew from the first the particular crime of which he was accused. It was stated in the warrant of commitment. But the man accused of misdemeanor very frequently was ignorant of the precise nature of the charge against him, until after the grand jury had found the bill. It could not, therefore, generally speaking, be expected, that he would be then ready to proceed to trial. Indeed, the cases, if he was not mistaken, to which allusion had been made (the cases of the commitment for a conspiracy at Lancaster), were in point upon this subject. There the parties had been detained in solitary confinement for 11 days, and it was then uncertain whether they were to be charged with conspiracy or treason. They were at length accused of a conspiracy, and they could not of necessity until that moment know the nature of the charge. Would it then be surprising, under such circumstances, that men should not be disposed to go to immediate trial? He would not now advert to the other topics embraced in the speech of the noble lord, but he could not help remarking on the tone and manner of the noble lord on the occasion. The noble lord would wish the House to think it an act of kindness on his part, that some of the measures were not most severe. In his kindness he had said, that it was not intended to make the stranger who should remain a quarter of an hour at one of these meetings after it was ordered to disperse, liable to the punishment of death. In his kindness he had mentioned, that it was not intended to put a general censorship on the press; in his kindness he had informed them, that it was not intended to take away the invaluable privilege of trial by jury. But, notwithstanding this apparent kindness, he trusted that the House would see and understand the real nature of the measures proposed; and if they did not resent the tone in which their dearest rights were treated of, they could not be possessed of the spirit which it was imagined belonged to every Englishman. He could not help connecting the words of the noble lord with what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend on a former night. Only one of the measures which were now proposed was to be local and temporary, all the others were to be perpetual, and to apply to the whole country. Mark the conduct of the ministers in this case.

415
They had brought down evidences of disturbances in a particular part of the country, which might pass away, as they had passed away before. They had brought down measures restrictive of liberty, general and for all time to come. His hon. and learned friend, in referring the other night to the seditious publications which had been allowed to go forth in different parts of the country during the last two or three years, had fairly asked, why they had not been prosecuted, and their authors punished? He had said at the same time, that although he did not think this neglect intentional, yet it would seem as if those publications had been permitted to accumulate, in order that a pretence might be found for striking a blow at the general liberty of the press. Would his hon. and learned friend now think, after what he had heard, that there had been no intention? If he did, he (lord Folkestone) for one, differed from him on that point. Again, he asked, why these publications and practices of a seditious nature had not been sooner checked? Why had not the law of the land been before applied? According to the opinion of the learned solicitor-general, the seditious practices complained of might have been checked by the existing law; for he had declared that they were contrary to the law. The magistrates of Manchester themselves had said the same thing, and in their letters, upon which all these proceedings were to be founded, had over and over again complained of these meetings and practices, and begged to be enabled to arrest their progress. They prayed ministers for some clue to direct their proceedings; but ministers would give none. From the account of the affray of the 16th, it appeared to him to be very evident that ministers wished not the event that took place, but that which arresting Hunt in the face of the meeting it was very probable would occur. They had let the mischief grow up, and the storm gather to its present height, in order to induce parliament to pass, and the people to sit by whilst they passed measures restrictive of the rights, and subversive of the liberties of the subject.
Mr. Broughamsaid, it was not his intention to trespass long on the attention of the House, but he felt it due to his hon. friends and himself to state why it was they did not wish to take the sense of the House in this stage of the proceedings. It was not because they did not object to
416
the proposed measures as a whole. It was not because they now concurred in any part of them: for against the spirit which pervaded the whole, he fully agreed with his noble friend who had just sat down, in entering his solemn and decided protest. But at this time, when they were so little aware of the detail of the noble lord's plans of restriction, when they knew so little of what was really meant, when the parts were so little before them, he thought it better to take the sense of the House at another stage. They were now but little aware of the precise shape of this momentous measure for putting down public meetings, by confining every man to his parish, and even by cutting and carving particular parishes, according to a standard of numerical propriety, so that every man called to a public meeting, must consult the population abstract, to know whether the population was 19,000, and he might go, or 20, that he must stay away. The noble lord had not said whether the new act was to apply to meetings within doors, to assemblies in taverns, or to associations purely literary. He had not told them whether it would be lawful to attend a Bible meeting, or assist in promoting a charity out of one's own parish. An hon. friend of his had lately attended a public meeting at Kendal, for a good purpose, but in a sort of itinerant manner: was it now to be understood that he should be no longer allowed to attend such meetings, unless he belonged to the parish in which they were held? The right hon. the president of the board of control, whom he regretted not to see in his place, and the more so as he understood his absence was caused by indisposition, must be in favour of the principle which he (Mr. B.) now urged, as his practice had been in accordance with it. The right hon. gentleman had attended meetings in this very county of Lancaster, out of his own parish too, above ground and below ground, in all sorts of places—at Liverpool before his election, and at Manchester, after it—at Manchester, of which he could not be member, and at Liverpool when he was not its member. Was it to be now said, that a repetition of such conduct would be illegal? Or did the noble lord mean not to extend this measure to canvasses for elections? Did the noble lord mean to say, that no person proposing himself as a candidate for a seat in parliament should be allowed to address a meeting in

417
his canvass, unless he belonged to the place for which he offered himself as a representative? What distinction did the noble lord make with respect to parishes having 20,000 inhabitants, and other less populous parishes? How was the act intended to operate in conterminous parishes, in one of which a meeting should exceed a certain number? Were strangers to be warned off, as soon as the excess in point of numbers was perceived? Or suppose some hapless orator were to stand exactly in the boundary, and address two parishes, one having a greater number than the act allowed, would it not then appear that one part of his frame might be committing an illegal act, because although on one side he addressed himself to 10,000, on the other his auditors exceeded that number? Another ground why he and his hon. friends did not wish to press this question to a division was, that they had no information as to the facts alleged. There were many assertions, but not one had yet been proved. He would not now give any farther opinion upon this subject, but he trusted that, unless the House should get security for the truth of all the facts now brought forward as the ground and justification of these measures, and for their absolute necessity, they would object to them in toto. Even should those facts be substantiated, he would not now pledge himself to the vote which he might feel it his duty to give on any part of these measures. As to the liberty of the press, and the proposed restrictions on it, he would only say, that, admitting a certain degree of mischief to exist, and allowing that something should be done, yet one of his great objections was, that while the proposed measures tended to submit that great blessing to a kind of arbitrary authority, they did not tend to provide a remedy for the actual evil complained of. What that remedy should be he would not then pretend to say; but he pledged himself to oppose every restriction which did not, in his opinion, provide one; and at some future period to put the House in possession of his views on the subject.
Lord Rancliffeobserved, that it had been his custom to express his sentiments merely by his vote; and he should not now have deviated from it, but that being convinced by the reasons of his hon. and learned friend, he would not press this matter to a division, and was therefore
418
desirous of declaring, that he regarded the whole of the proposed measures as highly unconstitutional.
Mr. George Lambthought the time was now arrived when the House should show that it meant to deal even-handed justice to the people. He viewed with perfect horror the measures which had been proposed; but he wished to know whether there was to be a scintilla of justice—something like a show of reparation—to the people for a right taken away? When the House was about to pass measures restrictive of their liberties, and to deprive them of some of their ancient privileges, it would be but fair to remove certain practices which they, on their part, had found to be oppressive. He would ask the attorney-general whether, when the right of traverse was under some circum-stances to be taken away, and the party accused put immediately on his trial, it would not be just that he, the law-officer of the Crown, should be deprived of the power of suspending ex officio informations for any length of time, over the heads of his majesty's subjects.
Strangers were again ordered to withdraw, and the gallery was cleared, as if for a division. None, however, took place: the bill was read a first time, and the second reading fixed for Thursday.

MISDEMEANORS BILL.
The Lord Chancellorrose to introduce a bill. He begged leave to assure their lordships, that it did not arise out of the circumstances of the times. It was well known that it had been his intention to introduce this bill, whether the circumstances which at present called for their consideration had occurred or not. He then proceeded to describe the object of the bill. He stated, that it was the practice of the courts to allow defendants, in cases of information or indictments to imparle or traverse. The effect of which was, to gain time till the next term or sessions. The effect of this practice had been, in several instances, that the trials of individuals against whom informations had been filed, or indictments found, had been so delayed that the prosecution failed to answer any of the purposes for which it was commenced. His object, therefore, in the present bill, was, to take away the right of imparling or traversing, by compelling the parties to plead in the term or at the sessions in which the information should be filed or the indictment found, unless, upon any special grounds urged, the court should think proper to allow the parties to imparle or traverse. This would prevent those unnecessary delays to which he had already adverted, without in any way interfering with substantial justice. His lordship presented the bill, which was read a first time.
Lord Hollandwished to understand distinctly the object of the bill. He had not caught sufficiently the expressions of the noble and learned lord to understand whether the bill was intended equally to apply to imparling and traversing, to prevent both, or in what particular way it was in that respect to operate. He wished, therefore, for further information upon those points. There was another point also respecting which he wished to know whether any provision was introduced into the bill—he alluded to informations filed ex officio by the attorney-general. He wished to know whether there was any provision by which that

343
officer, in case of his not proceeding after a certain time upon an information, might be compelled either to go on or to enter a nolle prosequi? He wished likewise to be informed, whether any provision was introduced into the bill for the purpose of enabling the court to grant a copy of an information or indictment to the defendant, at the public expense? As, according to what had been stated by the noble and learned lord, the defendant was to be hurried on to his trial much more rapidly than at present, it seemed more than ever necessary that some provision should be made, by means of which he should be enabled to know the precise nature of the charge against him. If this were not the case, the bill would appear to do every thing for the prosecution and nothing for the defendant.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that what was called imparling in civil actions, was more generally known by the name of traversing in cases of prosecution for misdemeanor, and it was the right arising out of this practice, which it was the object of the bill to take away, except in those cases where, from special circumstances, the court, either of king's bench or at the sessions, should deem it advisable to allow the party the benefit of traversing. Respecting ex officio informations, there was no provision in the bill, but it would be, of course, competent to any noble lord, in the progress of the bill, to move any clause he might think requisite. Neither was there any provision in the bill with regard to the granting of copies of informations or indictments to defendants at the public expense. Every court, however, would of course feel it to be a duty that a defendant (who must of course, know the general nature of the charge against him) should be made acquainted with the precise nature of the charges against him contained in any information or indictment on which he was to be tried.
The bill was ordered to be printed.

BLASPHEMOUS LIBELS—SEIZURE OF ARMS—TRAINING PREVENTION BILLS.
Lord Sidmouth roseto call the attention of their lordships to the measures which the ministers of his royal highness the Prince Regent thought it necessary to propose in the present situation of the country. He trusted that their lordships would find those measures to be such as would suit the necessity of the case, with-
344
out going beyond it; and to combine a due regard to the right of the subject, with that consideration which was due to the safety of the state. It was unnecessary for him to go into any detail of the danger in which the country was placed; that was admitted: it was known, that a conspiracy existed for the subversion of the constitution and of the rights of property; and that it was intended to subvert the fabric of the constitution in church and state. Among the means adopted for the accomplishment of this end, it was with grief he had to state, that the press was one of the principal. It had greatly contributed to produce the danger against which their lordships had to guard. It was a subject of most melancholy regret that the free press, which had hitherto been the glory of this country, and had contributed so much to its greatness from a shield and guard of liberty, should become an instrument of its destruction. Yet this was what their lordships had witnessed. That act which was calculated to instruct and console, was perverted to rob mankind of all hope of future happiness; because it was supposed, that when the people of this country were deprived of all the consolations of religion, they would be the better prepared to throw off their allegiance, and lose their accustomed respect for the laws and the constitution.
He should now state to their lordships, as accurately as possible, the nature of the measures which were at the present crisis thought necessary to meet the enormous evil he had described. It was the great character of a free press that its productions were not interfered with before publication; but that when the publication took place, if it should be considered to be injurious to morals, to religion, or to the good order of society, it then became liable to prosecution. In the bill which he was about to describe to their lordships, as one of those to be submitted to their consideration, this great principle, on which the free press was founded, was not invaded. It had been, indeed, in consideration, but for a moment only, whether some step ought not to be taken preliminary to publication; but that idea was immediately discarded, as inconsistent with the principle to which he had referred. The bill he had first to propose to their lordships, had not in view to visit offenders with increased punishment in the first instance; but, in case of

345
the repetition of any seditious or blasphemous libel, it was thought advisable that an additional punishment should be inflicted. It was therefore proposed, that any person, having been tried, convicted, and punished for a seditious or blasphemous libel, should, on conviction of a second offence, be liable, at the discretion of the court, to the punishment of fine, imprisonment, banishment, or transportation. It was also proposed that, in such cases of second conviction, a power should be given to seize the copies of the libel in the possession of the publisher: the copies so seized to be preserved until it should be seen whether an arrest of judgment was moved, and then to be returned to the publisher, if the judgment of the court should be in his favour. These were the chief provisions of a bill which he should have the honour to submit to their lordships; but he might here be permitted to advert to what was intended to be proposed in another place, in order that a distinct view might be obtained of the whole of the measures which his majesty's ministers thought it their duty to recommend. The principle of the bill which he had next to explain, he must acknowledge, was not similar to that which he had just described. It was intended to propose, that all publications, consisting of less than a given number of sheets, should be subject to a duty equal to that paid by newspapers. This might, perhaps, be said to be breaking in, in some degree, on the principle laid down in introducing the previous bill to the knowledge of the House. It would be for their lordships, however, to consider the necessity of the occasion, and to say, whether this degree of infringement of the principle was not indispensable, in order to check the progress of blasphemy and sedition. Another provision of this bill would be, that persons putting forth a publication of the kind to which he had adverted should be required to enter into recognizances, or give security of their ability to pay any penalty which might be inflicted on them. A great feature in the evil which their lordships were called upon to correct, arose from the assemblages of great bodies of people. Those assemblages were influenced by seditious publications and itinerant demagogues, who availed themselves but too successfully of the present state of the laws, in order to bring great bodies of people together from different parts of the country. As the law
346
now stood, any individual might issue his mandate to bring together all the idle and curious part of the population of the country at any time, or in any place he pleased. The persons who had called these meetings considered themselves empowered (whether legally or not was not at present the question) to attend them with martial music, flags, and banners, all of which ensigns, independently of that flagitious standard displayed at Manchester, and which was so indicative of the designs of those who bore it, were of a nature calculated to produce disorder and alarm. He should now state to their lordships, what were the provisions of the bill by which it was proposed to obviate the danger arising from such tumultuous and seditious meetings. In the first place, he could assure them, that it was not intended to interfere with the right of the subject to petition the Prince Regent or parliament, or to meet for the discussion of any grievance under which the people might conceive that they were labouring; but it would be seen, by reference to the bills on the table, that one of the principal causes of the agitation, alarm, and disorder which at present prevailed in the country, was, in addition to the licentiousness of the press, the assembling of great bodies of people to hear the harangues of itinerant orators. Nothing would be introduced into the bill that would tend to impede or interrupt meetings regularly called by a sheriff, borough reeve, or other magistrate; but it would be proposed to enact, that if any parties should be desirous of meeting for the consideration of subjects connected with the church or state, their intention should be notified by a requisition, signed by seven householders, and that it should be illegal for any person not usually inhabiting the place for which such meeting was called to attend it. In another provision, it was proposed to give to the magistrates the power, with some limitations, of appointing the place and time of the meeting.
These, according to the best of his recollection, were the leading provisions of the bill relative to public meetings, which, with the preceding bill, would be introduced in another place. He had now to call their lordships attention to another measure which he should have to submit to their consideration. It appeared, from the correspondence now before parliament, that the persons who agitated the country by large assemblages, emboldened

347
by their numbers, had contemplated means for attaining their ends, very different from their ostensible purpose of petitioning, and that they were prepared to proceed to accomplish their illegal object by force of arms. The preparation for this object had been carried on to a most formidable extent; and yet he had been told, that, in consequence of the present state of the law, unless the criminal intent should be proved, or a breach of the peace take place, meetings of military training could not be visited with any penalty. Full proof of the extensive drilling and military exercise which prevailed in Lancashire was afforded by the numerous depositions in the papers on the table. It might, it was true, be urged, that very few names appeared to these depositions; in many instances only the initials were printed, and sometimes the names of individuals were left blank. The reason of this was, that many of the persons who had been examined did not choose that their names should be made public: the apprehension of danger from such disclosure was great, and was sufficient to account for the suppression of the names; but for the authenticity of the depositions their lordships knew the magistrates were responsible. In all cases, the names of the magistrates were given, though the names of the individuals who gave the information might remain unknown. His lordship referred to the evidence of one person for what took place on the day previous to the Manchester meeting, and the deposition of that person was signed with his name. It was known that there was to be a meeting in the neighbourhood on the 15th of August, for training, and that that assemblage was to be the last previous to the Manchester meeting. Their lordship's upon reference to the papers, would see the account which was given of the conduct of the persons who assembled for military exercise at White-moss. The witness, after describing what he saw, stated, that he and his companions had been pursued by part of the persons assembled, and, when overtaken, received very severe treatment. In consideration of this state of things, it was proposed to prohibit military training, except under the authority of a magistrate or lord-lieutenant of the county. Their lordships were also aware of the terror which prevailed in consequence of the knowledge that the disaffected were in the possession of arms.
348
Papers on the table left no doubt of the danger which was to be apprehended from this source. It had, therefore, he regretted to state, been deemed indispensably necessary to give to magistrates in the disturbed districts, on evidence which might afford a well grounded suspicion of arms being collected for the purpose of being illegally employed, the power of searching for and seizing them. It was also proposed to give the power of apprehending persons carrying arms for such purpose, and of seizing the same, and of detaining the individual on whom arms might be so found; the right of appeal to the quarter sessions being, however, allowed to the person so apprehended and detained.
These were, in outline, the whole of the measures relative to the state of the country, which ministers thought it their duty at the present moment to submit to parliament. He had abstained from many details which appeared more suitable to subsequent stages of the bills. He was impressed with the hope, that, improved by the assistance of their lordships and the other house of parliament, they would be found suitable to the momentous occasion which required their introduction. Conciliation had been recommended, and it was with the most ardent wish of his majesty's ministers to resort to measures which were truly conciliatory; but they would not consent to compromise the safety of the state. Any mode which should be proposed for relieving the distress of the country would always receive their thanks and attention; for that was the great object which ought to be kept in view. If such proposition should present itself to the mind of any noble lord opposite, it would be gladly received by himself and his colleagues. But, to hold out a disposition to blend conciliation with concession, was a course to which he could not agree; for it was one fraught with danger; bat what, he would ask their lordships, had they to concede. Did they not possess the constitution they had received from their ancestors? And was it not their duty firmly to maintain it? That constitution was now in greater danger than it ever had been at any time, since the accession of the House of Brunswick to the throne, and he therefore called upon their lordships to rally round it. He called upon the noble lords opposite to give their aid, to assist in defeating the common enemy that

349
threatened the subversion of the constitution and every thing valuable in the existing order of society. Whatever differences they might have, let them in the mean time go hand in hand in this great object, and not only endeavour to avert the danger of the present moment, but, as far as possible to, secure the constitution against future attacks. He assured the noble lord that his great object was, that the government should be administered according to the constitution; that the country should never be placed under a military government, but should always enjoy the government of the laws. He proposed that the bills he had prepared should now be read a first time. On Thursday he would move the second reading, and in the mean time they would be printed.
Earl Greysaid, he should object to so early a day as Thursday being fixed upon for the second reading of these bills. The noble secretary had, indeed, prefaced the proposition of his new measures with a statement which contained the grounds on which he meant to support them; and, by the connected view which he gave of the whole system, had enabled the House to understand the extent of the demands to be made upon it; yet their lordships would necessarily expect more information than had yet been given, before they proceeded to legislate, and would require that the introduction of each bill should be accompanied with a clear exposition of the reasons which rendered it necessary, or justified its enactment. On that day the House was summoned to the discussion of the bill brought in by the noble and learned lord on the wool-sack, which contemplated, as was rightly stated by the noble and learned lord, a most important alteration in the existing law of the land, an alteration which could not be allowed to take place without the fullest investigation, and the evidence of its necessity. With the prospect of this discussion on the second reading of the noble and learned lord's bill, their lordships would not, he was convinced, consent to appoint the second reading of three other important bills on the same day. The noble secretary had called upon their lordships to support his proposed measures, from a consideration of the dangers by which they were surrounded; and if he could be prevailed upon to think that the bills now before the House could meet and repress the evils described, he would be the first
350
to obey the call, and lend them his cordial support. But, viewing as he did their character in a different light from the noble secretary; having a different conception of the danger, looking upon it as arising from causes and requiring remedies which were little attended to, if not entirely overlooked by his majesty's government; and believing that the system of force, coercion, and terror, which was now attempted to be established in this once free and happy country, was calculated rather to irritate and inflame the discontents that existed, than to allay or repress them; to increase the danger rather than to diminish it; and to confirm rather than to remove that settled distrust and want of confidence between the people and legislature, which, he was sorry to say, the proceedings of parliament were calculated to spread throughout the land!—thinking and believing in this manner, he would declare, that instead of promising his concurrence in those measures called for by the noble secretary, he must take the earliest opportunity of protesting against them, and state his conviction, that instead of saving, they would produce ruin to the country. He could not but view the encroachments now attempted on our most valuable rights with the utmost regret and alarm. The proposed bills went to impose restraints on the right of public meetings for petitioning, which, he allowed might, in some cases, be abused, but which restraint could not be established consistently with the maintenance of the right. The restraints about to be imposed on the press, he had heard with the utmost dismay. They were absolutely incompatible with the freedom which the noble secretary admitted had produced so much advantage to this country; which had protected those institutions and diffused that spirit which constituted its boast and its glory. The noble secretary had stated, that the seditious and blasphemous publications were one main source of the dangers with which the country was now threatened; but, had he ascertained that the destruction of the freedom of the press was the only mode of checking its abuses; and had he reflected on the evils which restriction would bring along with them? To the freedom of the press this country owed the preservation of its liberty, which could not be long maintained without such an alloy, and with its liberty, its strength, its happiness, and its glory. When, there-

351
fore, he saw a design to impose new restraints upon the press by enacting severe additional punishments in cases of second convictions, and requiring securities before publication, he could not but be alive to the evils which the measures would produce. He was alarmed when he reflected how it would raise the price of knowledge, and impede the progress of education to the poor. It took away the protection allowed to free discussion, and aimed a blow at one of our most valuable rights, such as the most arbitrary ministers in the most arbitrary times, never proposed to parliament, and against which he would never cease to protest.—But there was another view of the case which rendered the proposed restraints the more obnoxious, by taking away all pretext for them. The noble secretary now demanded the enactment of new laws for the protection of the government, and the maintenance of public order: but had the old laws been enforced, and found inefficient for that object? The noble lord, before he asked for additional restrictions, was bound to show that those seditious and blasphemous works which had been so long in circulation, had been made subject to the most rigorous exercise of the existing laws of which they were susceptible. He (lord Grey) knew that the law officers of the Crown had in one or two instances, prosecuted without being able to procure a conviction; but he knew at the same time, some horrible and disgusting publications—publications directly recommending assassination—publications supporting principles contrary to all Jaw and order—had not been prosecuted. For two years the most seditious doctrines had been published in a work alluded to in the papers on the table— "Sherwin's Political Register;" and yet no attempt was made to check their spread. Such works had poisoned the public mind, if the good sense of the people would allow them to be poisoned by such offensive trash; but no endeavour was made to suppress them by the existing laws. The noble secretary, therefore, before he came to ask for new enactments, was bound to show that such offenders had been prosecuted as they ought, and that the existing law was insufficient for their coercion and punishment. Feeling as he did on these points, and looking as he did with dismay on the proposed system of government, which would increase the danger it was meant to avert, he
352
could not but take the earliest opportunity of expressing his sentiments, although he did not mean to enter at large into the separate measures: those measures comprehended restraints on public meetings and on the liberty of the press, and put it into the power of the magistrates to deprive the subject of those arms which he might have for his own defence. The justification of such restraints rested on the papers which had been presented to the House, and which were considered by his majesty's ministers as disclosing a great extent of danger. Now, he was willing to allow that these papers, incomplete as he maintained them to be, and requiring many additions and explanations, did prove a considerable extent of danger, but a danger arising from the distress of the people—a distress amounting to absolute hunger, and admitted in their first accounts, as the cause of the danger. That there were persons who took advantage of this distress to inflame the discontents of the sufferers, he was willing to allow: but he said there was no evidence either in the papers on the table, or in the general state of the country, to convince him that any conspiracy against law and order had been formed, or that the public tranquillity was extensively threatened. Such a conspiracy, and such a danger, he neither saw in any way proved, nor could he believe in its existence. The noble lord had spoken of conciliation; but his notions of it were rather rigid. He had declared that he would subdue first, before he would concede. Now, he (lord Grey) could not conceive on what ideas of dignity the noble secretary went when he maintained such a maxim. If there were demands which the people had a right to make, and which, from the state of the country, it was proper to grant, why resist concession? He was prepared to admit that the people had a right to an indulgent attention to their grievances; that there existed abuses in the government, and defects in the construction of parliament which ought to be taken into consideration; and that a yielding to the prayers of the nation in this respect might allay discontent, without being a dangerous concession. To these and such things parliament ought to turn its attention. It ought to institute inquiries into their grievances, and show a desire to redress their wrongs or injuries where they have been suffered or inflicted. Such mea-

353
sures of conciliation would do more to bring back the country to peace and tranquillity than the present bills, and give it more strength and security than any system of restraints, or laws of severity and coercion.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of entering on the discussion of any of the bills which had been submitted to the House. The question now was as to the first reading; and to this there seemed to be no objection. But he could not allow the speech of the noble earl to go forth to the world without some reply, as it was calculated, if left uncontradicted, to produce a false impression. The noble earl had treated the proposed measures as a system of coercion; whereas he (lord Liverpool) was prepared to maintain that they composed a system of protection. If they prevented those acts which endangered the existence of our rights, they were the best safeguards of those rights. He was prepared to deny that any one of them, with the exception of the bill relative to the search of arms, went to affect the proper, legal, and well-understood privileges of Englishmen. The bill for preventing seditious meetings, so far from having any tendency to abridge the right of petition, was its best protection by putting a stop to those tumultuous assemblages which had grown out of a good, but which might endanger that good, by disgusting every Englishman with such an exercise of it. The bill before the House would thus give the right of petition tenfold additional security. It was a bill not to prevent meetings of the people in their own districts, but to put a stop to the assembling of great multitudes collected from distant parts, and guided by demagogues, who stimulated their minds to a hatred and contempt of every thing dignified or venerable. If such evils were allowed to proceed to greater inveteracy, how could they be put down? Why, by military force. And would any good man, or lover of his country, wish "such a result? No; therefore such disorders must be checked and put down in time. Those were the best friends of the right, who prevented its abuse. The other bill regarding restraints on the press, he was prepared to contend, must be viewed in the same light, the noble earl had not understood the extent of the evil of seditious and blasphemous publications, or the power of the law as it at present stood in checking them.
354
The present laws were not adequate to check the mischief. They had been tried; they were now in a course of trial; but unless some more effectual enactments were added, the evil would continue. The severity of the proposed measures did not justify the complaints of the noble earl. The extent of the proposition before the House did not go to alter the law, as far as respected first convictions. It merely said that a person who had been tried, convicted, and punished for a blasphemous and seditious libel, might, on a second conviction be subjected to greater severity of punishment, by imprisonment, banishment, or transportation, at the discretion of the court. The other measure affecting the press, which would go to impose a duty on a certain class of publications, could scarcely be regarded as any change of the law; it was rather an enforcement of an existing law which had been evaded, than the enactment of any new law. Nor did he see any tiling particularly objectionable in the bill which required the printer and publisher to lodge securities, against any fine that might be imposed on him for the abuse of the freedom of the press. Was it to be endured, that these men should be allowed to scatter their poison about, without being known who were responsible for them? The noble earl had spoken of moral tracts; but with respect to them, some satisfactory resolution would be introduced into the bill. The only other law in what was called this system of coercion, namely, that authorizing a search for arms, was merely a re-enactment of the statute against Luddism. Having said thus much, he would not trespass longer on their lordships' attention than merely to speak of the arrangements for the second readings. His noble friend had fixed Thursday for the second reading of all the bills; if they could not be discussed then, along with the bill introduced by his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, the debate might be postponed to another day. He could assure their lordships, that there was no disposition on the part of ministers to prevent the fullest examination and discussion. He would wish that the training and search bills, as they were of imperious necessity, should be first discussed. He would suggest, that the lord chancellor's bill might be read a second time on Friday.
The training and search for arms bills were ordered to be read a second time on

355
Thursday; the lord chancellor's bill a second time on Friday; and the blasphemous a second time on Monday next.