Sitting of 30 November 1819

Preamble
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, he was extremely unwilling to occupy the attention of the House by any thing that respected himself personally, and he felt that, on the preceding evening, he had put an entire end to a misrepresentation that had taken place with reference to what he had said a few days ago. Ho had since been charged with saying, that at some meeting in the West Riding of Yorkshire, resolutions had been passed on the part of the Radical Reformers, in which the property of earl Fitzwilliam had been pointed at for partition. He explained to the House yesterday, that he never said that such resolutions had been passed; but that, in the course of a meeting held within the West Riding of the county of York, the property of the noble earl was directly pointed at for partition. There was a material difference between the two statements; because, if the Reformers had come to resolutions of such a nature, the persons concurring in them would have been implicated in their adoption, as much as the persons by whom they were proposed. What he ori-
508
ginally said was, if gentlemen wished to know the object of the Reformers, let them look to the resolutions agreed to at Leeds; and he added, that at a meeting held somewhere in the West Riding, the property of earl Fitzwilliam was "pointed at" for partition. He did not say that resolutions were passed having that object in view; but that, in the course of the meeting, the property was so pointed at. He was unwilling to believe that there was any intention to misrepresent the words made use of by the members of that House, but these were critical times, and if any accusation were thrown out against any party, it was most material that it should be precisely stated, and that words should not be placed in the mouths of gentlemen which they had not made use of. He would leave the matter here, being unwilling to press it farther. As in all those vehicles by which parliamentary intelligence was conveyed to the public, he appeared to have been equally misrepresented on this occasion, he could only attribute the circumstance either to the terms in which he delivered his explanation not being sufficiently clear, or else to some defect in the hearing of those who noticed it. He was most anxious, and he earnestly hoped, that the misrepresentation which had taken place would now be effectually done away.

MANCHESTER MEETING—PETITION FROM READING.
Mr. Fysche Palmerpresented a petition from the inhabitants of the town of Reading. It was numerously and respectably signed, he said, and related chiefly to the affair of Manchester on the 16th of August last. In consequence of information obtained by the petitioners, of the particulars of that day's transactions, not only furnished by the newspapers, but also by several respectable men in their neighbourhood, who had subsequently visited the scene, the petitioners were led to believe that the meeting was perfectly legal and constitutional, and that the conduct of the persons assembled was exemplary for good order and propriety; that an indiscriminate at-tack was made on this legal and orderly meeting, where by not only the leaders and audience, part of the meeting, but those who had been attracted by mere curiosity, suffered extreme cruelty and out-rage. The petitioners were convinced that this attack was a violent infraction

509
of the right of meeting, to discuss and petition for redress of public grievances, which right was fully warranted, and the exercise of it protected by the constitution. The petitioners thought that those who advised the Prince Regent to thank the magistrates and yeomanry for their conduct on that occasion were guilty of great harshness and injustice, and snowed a disposition to stifle inquiry into the most calamitous events which could befal a free people.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowdid not rise to oppose the bringing up of the petition; but the declaration of the petitioners, that the Manchester meeting was perfectly legal and constitutional, was one which he felt it to be his duty to protest against. The pretence of exercising the right of petitioning, could not, in his opinion warrant the military parade and banners used on that occasion. He thought, indeed, that the meeting was directly illegal, seditious, and dangerous to the public peace. The demand for "annual parliaments, universal suffrage, and, vote by ballot," inscribed on one of the flags, was utterly unconstitutional. "Liberty or Death," on another of the flags, proved the intention entertained of maintaining the first-mentioned claim at the hazard of life. This was riotous and treasonable; it was nonsense to confound such proceedings with the legal right of petitioning.
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

MANCHESTER MEETING—PETITION OF SAMUEL BAMFORD.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he held in his hand a petition from a person of the name of Samuel Bamford, of Middleton, in the county palatine of Lancaster. It was drawn up in a manner extremely decorous in every point of view, and furnished one of the most singular specimens of the talents and good sense which were to be found among persons in the petitioner's rank of society. The petitioner set forth that he was one of those who conducted a large body of individuals to the meeting at Manchester of the 16th of August. He stated that he was intimately acquainted with the motives which induced individuals to attend that meeting, that he was perfectly cognizant of the propriety of the means which they intended to use to accomplish their objects, and that he was most solicitous to appear at the bar of that House to
510
be examined. As he (Mr. Bennet) had had two long conversations with the petitioner, he had no hesitation in saying that the information which it was in his power to give was of the highest importance, and he should like nothing better than to have the petitioner examined at the bar in order to demonstrate what he thought the petitioner capable of demonstrating, that many of the accusations brought forward against the people were very highly coloured, if not altogether unfounded. As the petition would be read, it was not his intention to enter into any detail of its contents. The petitioner, as far as he had been able to learn, bore the reputation of being an honest, moral, well-meaning man. As to his political opinions, they certainly were dissimilar from those which he held; but he was yet to learn that there was any thing treasonable or seditious in his entertaining sentiments which had, at different times, been upheld and avowed by the great and powerful in this country, and, amongst others, by the duke of Richmond. Under these circumstances, he begged leave to offer his petition to the consideration of the House and he sincerely hoped the House would grant the prayer, of the petitioner, and hear what he had to say on the different points which the petition embraced.
The petition was then read, setting forth.
"That the petitioner having read the papers relative to the internal state of the country, presented to, both houses of Parliament by command of the Prince Re-gent, and printed at the London Gazette Office, and which papers, the petitioner is informed, have been delivered to the members of the House as the foundation of certain legislative measures, tending to alter the laws and constitution of this realm, and a bridge the rights and liberties of the people, and knowing that many of the allegations contained in those papers are untrue, and many off the circum-stances described as facts are grossly misrepresented, while the proceedings and intentions of the people are unfairly discoloured and distorted in many of the documents contained in the said, papers: the petitioner hum by requests, that, for the purpose of disproving the allegations and representations contained in the said papers, he may be examined at the bar of the House, and confronted in person, or, by evidence, with the persons who have thus traduced a large body of his majesty's

511
loyal subjects, whose sole design, as must be well known to the petitioner, was to address his Royal Highness, humbly to represent their various grievances, and petition for such reforms as might have a tendency to remove them; that the petitioner, from an honest conviction that the greater part of the grievances under which the people labour might be removed by such a reform as would restore to the people their right of suffrage, and diminish the amount of taxation, by lessening the expenses of the state, and conceiving that he was amply protected by the laws in exercising all those rights of a freeman which the constitution has conferred upon him, has never hesitated to unite with is neighbours in furthering every measure which tended in a legal manner to bring about the said reforms, and nothing further has ever been in the contemplation of the petitioner, nor, he believes, in that of his neighbours, although the petitioner freely acknowledges that he has been a willing and active participator, from a sense of public duty, in most of the measures which are so grossly misconstrued and perverted, in the papers which have been so presented to the House; that, in regard to the system of pretended training for military purposes, to the preparation of flags, to the marching in a body from Middleton to Manchester, and to all the legitimate and justifiable objects of such measures the petitioner is prepared to speak at large, and to demonstrate by his own, and various evidence, that, so far from their involving any design to break the public peace, they were instituted for the very purpose of its preservation, and of giving that unity of action and feeling to every individual as should most effectually secure the harmony and good order of the great meeting of the friends of reform then meditated at Manchester; all which explanations of the petitioner would, if made at the bar of the House, fully satisfy its members, and the nation at large, that the friends of reform in Lancashire have been basely traduced and calumniated in the papers so presented as aforesaid: that the petitioner humbly trespasses further on the time of the House, to state, that he attended, with great numbers of his fellow townsmen and inhabitants of the adjacent villages, at the meeting held at Manchester on the 16th of August, for the sole and lawful purpose of giving their personal vote and countenance to an
512
address to the Prince Regent for redrese of grievances, and for certain reforms tending thereto; that the petitioner, and his neighbours as aforesaid, walked in procession to the said meeting, after the manner in which the procession of benefit clubs and other associations take place in Lancashire and other parts of England, and, to enable the said parties to move with due decorum, a couple of flags were provided, in accordance with the manners and customs of the people of England from time immemorial for purposes of the like nature, whether for elections or any other peaceable and lawful object, which flags were provided with such inscriptions or mottoes as, in the humble judgment of the persons who directed their construction, were suitable, and as are to be found in the works of the best moral and political writers; a band of music being also provided to aid in the purposes of the flags, and to confer cheerfulness and hilarity on the people; all which appurtenances usually characterise similar processions for every variety of peaceable or social design in that country, and are in like maner believed by the petitioner to-be characteristic of the peaceable manners and customs of the entire population of these realms; which several circumstances have been unfairly and unjustly described in the papers alluded to as aforesaid; that the petitioner and his neighbours arrived at the proposed place of general meeting at Manchester, for the purpose aforesaid, in the greatest hilarity and good order, intending mischief to none, and suspecting none towards themselves, therefore wholly unprepared with means of offence or defence, and many of them affording an indubitable plege of their sincerity and sense of security, by taking in their company their wives and female relatives; and that after they had been on the ground half an hour, and within ten minutes after the chairman had taken his station on the hustings, without any previous notice, riot, tumult, or disturbance, the assembly, consisting as is supposed of above a hundred thousand men, women, and children, who, as the petitioner believes, had been collected under similar circumstances, with similar views, to those which directed the petitioner and his neighbours, found themselves suddenly assaulted by a charge of the Manchester yeomanry cavalry, who sabred, rode down, and trampled upon every individual who could not escape them; by which, as the petitioner be-

513
lieves, several hundred unoffending persons were severely wounded, and some killed on the spot, while, owing to the endeavour of so many thousand persons to escape from this continued, persevering, and unrelenting outrage, they were driven one upon another, so as, in some cases, to press each other to death, break the limbs of others, and occasion many to be trampled upon, thereby producing a scene of complicated horrors, of which no powers of language possessed by the petitioner can convey to the House an adequate notion; that the petitioner beheld the whole of this frightful scene with feelings which can never be erased from his mind, and the impression of which would render it highly criminal if he forbore to do his duty to the unhappy sufferers, to his country, to the cause of justice, and to the House, by thus solemnly impeaching the veracity of the various statements made by parties implicated, and criminal in those unparalleled atrocities; that the petitioner, for the reasons above stated, and that the House may not be taken by surprise, by ex parte statements, and may not be led to adopt measures derogatory of its honour and dignity, but may, on the other hand, be induced to institute such rigorous and solemn inquiries as may, through the means of its power, bring the criminal authors who appear to be above the reach of the ordinary tribunals, and above the humble means of the sufferers, to condign punishment, humbly prays, that he may be permitted to prove all and every of the allegations contained herein at the bar of the House."
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

CAMELFORD ELECTION.
The Resolution of the 7th of July last [see vol. 40, p. 1537] being read,
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, the House had, in the last session, agreed to two resolutions relative to the borough of Camel ford. One of these was, that the House would, shortly after its meeting, take into consideration the two reports which had been drawn up relative to the last election for Camel ford; the other was, that the warrant of the Speaker should not be issued, for a new writ, for members to serve for that borough, until ten days after parliament had met. He wished that the period for issuing the warrant should be farther postponed till the 6th of January next; and also, that the House should enter
514
into a committee to consider of these reports. He should therefore move, "That Mr. Speaker do not issue his warrant to make out a new writ for the electing of two burgesses to serve in this present parliament for the borough of Camelford, in the room of John Stewart, esq., and Lewis Allsop, esq., whose election has been determined to be void, before 6th January next.'' The resolution was agreed to; after which Mr. Harvey gave notice, that he would on Wednesday se'nnight move, "That the House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the two reports of the committee on the Camelford election."

BANK OF ENGLAND.
Mr. Grenfellwished to know from the right hon. gentleman opposite, whether any and what arrangements had been made for paying to the Bank of England part of the sum of 5,000,000 l., which, under the recommendation of the parliamentary committee that sat in the last session on the affairs of the Bank, was to be put in an immediate train of payment. According to his recollection, the arrangement agreed to on that occasion was, that a sum amounting to 5,000,000 l. should be paid between the months of July last and April; but as some misunderstanding had taken place on this subject, he should be obliged to the right hon. gentleman if he would favour him with correct information.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the House would do him the justice to recollect, that, when the discussion of the affairs of the Bank took place, he stated, that the necessary arrangement for raising a sum of money for the service of the year rendered it unlikely that any very early payment could be made to the Bank, unless that body chose to afford the usual accommodation with respect to the loan, by which they would be enabled to repay themselves a very large sum. They had, however, declined that accommodation, and the benefits they would have derived from it. He had, notwithstanding, to state, that a very considerable sum had been paid, to the Bank of England; and arrangements had been formed, by the operation of which, the directors of the Bank were satisfied, that the sum of 5,000,000 l. would be paid by the time pointed out by parliament. He therefore saw no reason for altering or encroaching on the system of arrangement which parliament had

515
deemed it advisable to adopt with respect to the Bank.

THE NEW PENAL BILLS.
Mr. Broughamwished to ask the noble lord opposite, whether he meant to persist in the notice he had given last night, to move the order of the day on Thursday next, for the second reading of one of the bills which he had introduced? The reason why he asked this question was obvious; because, whichever of those bills came first to be discussed, the debate consequent on it would involve the discussion of the whole system to which that bill had reference. He would ask the noble lord, whether it was a decorous proceeding towards the country, after three days notice, and occupied as they would be that evening, in an important discussion, to call on them to consider a measure which went to effect a most extensive change in the constitution of the country—an alteration greater than ever was contemplated in the memory of man, by any one act of the legislature?
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he saw no reason for altering the proposition which the House had adopted last night, namely, to read the bill (which had been printed and handed round in connexion with the others) a second time on Thursday next. The learned gentleman had, in his opinion pushed the connexion between the bills too far. The sooner they came to the discussion of the principle, the sooner they would separate the bill from all the misrepresentation with which the learned gentleman seemed so anxious to surround it, during his short speech of last night. That speech made him extremely desirous to come to close quarters on the measure, in order that the country might understand what the bill really was to which the learned gentleman and those around him attributed such fearful qualities, and that it should be completely freed from the misrepresentations that had been thrown upon it.
Mr. Broughamsaid, as there was no question before the House, he certainly had not a right to answer the noble lord, but he might be permitted to observe, that his having studiously endeavoured to surround the measure with misrepresentation, as had been alleged, so far from being a reason for rapid and immature decision, afforded the best possible ground for a short delay. The bill itself could not be affected by his misrepresentations: it might be laid in its own natural "features"
516
as the noble lord would call them, before the public; and its provisions might then be argued by the country and the House, with that deliberation and calmness for the exercise of which the delay of a few days was absolutely necessary. If the noble lord would not listen to him—if he would not consent to that delay—then he would say to the speaker and to the House, that, in common decency, some little time ought to be allowed for them to communicate with their constituents, whose most valuable and sacred, and until now, he would have said, inalienable rights and privileges, were about to be overturned by the system recommended by his majesty's ministers.
Lord Folkstonesaid, he had gone to the proper office and got a copy of the bill; and he defied any individual who had procured it, and who had turned over one or two of its pages, to say, that he could be at all prepared, considering the labour gentlemen were likely to go through that night, and the important discussion which was fixed for to-morrow, to decide on so important a measure on Thursday. It was impossible for any gentleman who examined the bill, and saw the numerous and complicated provisions which it contained, to be prepared to discuss it on Thursday, so as to justify his conduct to his constituents, for the vote he might give. Why should a bill of such importance be hurried through the House in this manner? Was it that the people should know nothing of it until it was passed? Were they so anxious to get rid of those meetings, that the bill, which restricted the assembling of the people, was to be hastened forward, so as to prevent the people from assembling to state their opinion with respect to the measure itself? If it were hurried forward with such precipitation, it could neither be understood in the country nor in that House. He hoped the noble lord would agree to the proposition of his learned friend, and postpone the second reading of the bill for a few days.
Mr. Bennetearnestly wished the noble lord to put off for a short time the discussion of a measure which he deliberately and advisedly considered to be subversive of the constitution. He was most anxious, as the bill would effect such a change in the constitution, that the House of Commons should be assembled together to meet it; and he now gave notice, that he would to-morrow move that the House be called over.

STATE OF THE COUNTRY.
Lord Althorpsaid, he could most unaffectedly assure the House, that he felt more oppressed on the present occasion, than he had ever before done when the House had honoured him by listening to what he had to offer to their notice. The importance of the question struck him as very great, even when he gave notice of his intended motion; but what had occurred since—he meant the introduction of those bills, the object of which the noble lord last night stated—had increased the importance of the question so extremely, that he felt unfeignedly sorry he was the person destined to bring forward this momentous subject. He wished very much that some person more able to impress its importance on the House than he was, had given notice of the motion; but feeling it to be his most imperious duty to draw the attention of the House to the subject, and having given notice that he would do so, he begged of the House to extend to him that indulgence, while he delivered his sentiments, which they had frequently done on former occasions. On all sides of the House it was admitted, that the state of the country was most alarming. Every gentleman on the other side of the House had allowed that great cause of alarm existed, though that alarm was traced to different sources. If, then, it was agreed by all, that the country was thus situated, surely it was necessary that the House, in passing the measures which they were called on to adopt, should proceed with the utmost deliberation, and take the greatest possible pains to satisfy themselves that what they did was not only not more than was necessary, but that the measures they pursued were exactly applicable to the danger which appeared to threaten the state. It was, therefore, necessary for the House to be clearly convinced, that the existing laws were not sufficient to meet the exigencies of the time; that measures of a coercive and vigorous nature were necessary to be resorted to; and, lastly, that the bills proposed by the noble lord were those which were exactly applicable to the dangers that were to be encountered and which they had reason to hope would check it. To enable them to come to this conclusion, it appeared to him, that every possible information should be laid before the House. He did not pretend to recollect precedents, but he believed such a question was never before brought under the consideration of the House, without
518
full information being laid on their table to enable them to understand correctly all the circumstances connected with the situation of the country.
There were only two grounds on which the House could agree to the measures now proposed—either a perfect confidence in his majesty's ministers, a decided conviction that they would propose nothing that was not proper; or that the papers laid before parliament gave the most full and complete information respecting the state of the country. Now, with respect to the first point, he thought no gentleman would argue that measures of this kind ought to be carried merely on the principle that confidence was due to his majesty's ministers. Therefore, he inferred, that the House, in agreeing to the adoption of severe measures, ought to be satisfied that the information contained in those papers afforded a full justification of their conduct. Alluding to the papers that had been laid on the table, he should state generally, the impression which they had made on his mind. They might be divided into two distinct classes—those that referred to the period preceding the 16th of August, and those that related to circumstances which occurred subsequently to that time. The statements contained in those papers showed, that in Lancashire the magistrates apprehended considerable danger before the 16th of August. But after the meeting, Mr. Spooner wrote word, that "he was perfectly satisfied the rising was not likely to take place in that part of the country." Danger, therefore, was not then apprehended there. Lord Fitzwilliam, who was attending the assizes at York, wrote, "that there was no disposition to create a disturbance amongst the inhabitants of the West Riding of the county of York." With respect to Lancashire, an alteration seemed to have taken place since the meeting of the 16th of August. Prior to that period it was said, that a system of training had been adopted, but no mention was made of arms. But after the meeting of the 16th of August, arms were alleged to have been prepared. Since the events of the 16th of August, symptoms of irritation were observable, it was stated, in different parts of the country. Meetings had taken place in Yorkshire and in Scotland, and a simultaneous meeting, for purposes which had not before been contemplated, was spoken of as fixed for the 1st of November. He would wish to call the attention

519
of the House to this point, because he conceived that this also would form part of the examination which his motion would call for. It appeared, that the meeting of the 16th of August was assembled for the discussion of a particular question. There was no mention before that, that it was to be for an illegal purpose; but since then quite another character and account had been given of it. Now, he wished to impress this upon the consideration of the House, because it showed that there were chasms and defects in the information before them, which ought to be filled up, before they could well consider of, or agree to, the measures proposed by the noble lord. It would, indeed, in his opinion, be quite inconsistent with the duties of the House to pass any such measures, without the most deep and serious consideration; first, into the causes which were said to require them, and then into the necessity of the measures themselves. Disturbances were said to have taken place in Scotland: into these he would wish that inquiry should be made; for he again begged to remind the House that it would be impossible to provide any effectual remedy, unless the origin and nature of the disorders were precisely ascertained. The state of the county of Lancaster was alluded to, but it would not be sufficient that we should know what had occurred on the 16th of August, but also what had occurred previously to that time. Full and complete information was necessary in order that the proposed measures should not act merely as a palliative or a temporary, but should operate as an effectual and permanent remedy. The statements of the noble lord (Castlereagh) and of his colleagues would not be sufficient. The assertions of any honourable members could not be taken for facts in debate where the proof of those assertions was not given. The chief ground on which ministers went, was the letter of Mr. Hay, but this itself required much explanation; His majesty's ministers had since seen, and held conversations with that gentleman, and they were bound to explain what they had further heard upon the subject of the letter. Unless they did so, it was impossible for the House to form any correct judgment on it. Indeed, the statements of the noble lord (Castlereagh) were quite at variance, or at least very different from those which had been given by Mr. Hay. Mr. Kay stated in his letter, that the Riot act had been read, and
520
the meeting dispersed. The noble lord opposite said, that the Riot act was read three times, and that one of the magistrates, in his attempt to read it, was knocked down and trampled on. Now, it was somewhat strange, that if this circumstance had occurred, it should not have been mentioned by Mr. Hay. Nothing could be more natural, than that he should have noticed this serious accident occurring to one of his brother magistrates. If then, such a difference arose between the statements of the noble lord and those of Mr. Hay, did it not show clearly the necessity of further information? The House, he contended, had a right to be informed of every thing which took place, not merely at the meeting of the 16th, but also what had occurred previously and subsequently to that period; for it was upon the whole of these matters that the measures of the noble lord were said to be founded. The House had at least a right to expect, that in forming their judgment upon those measures they should be put on the same footing with respect to information as the ministers themselves.
Another point respecting the meeting, which, in his opinion, the House should have explained, was the absence of the general of the district, sir John Byng, on the occasion. It was very generally said, and he believed it, that if sir John Byng had been present, the result of the meeting would not have been as fatal as it was. Why, then, was he not present? It would naturally be supposed that, as the commanding officer of that district, he should be at the post of danger. It was not, however, the case; but what was the cause? Why, the magistrates themselves acknowledge that sir John Byng was at Manchester on the 14th, and offered his personal assistance in case it should be found necessary; but the magistrates informed him that there was no danger, and that his attendance would not be required. Sir John Byng then said, that he would be within the reach of an express, and would attend if it should be deemed necessary. He was not, however, sent for. Now, if there was any blame to be attributed in this respect, it should be to the magistrates, who had declared the attendance of the gallant general unnecessary. At all events, the fact was one which showed a strong ground for farther inquiry, and it was, even if nothing else was concerned, due to the characters of all the parties, that such inquiry should be instituted.—

521
Another point to which he wished to draw the attention of the House was, that a great portion of the matter which had been laid before them was upon anonymous evidence. It might be necessary, he would not deny, that in some cases, where evidence was given of the state of disturbed districts, the names of the persons giving it should be concealed; but then, did it not look in this, and indeed in almost all cases, like the evidence of spies? Did it not seem as if some of the persons had made the evidence for the purpose of giving it? What was more natural under such circumstances than to believe that the persons who swore to the existence of pikes in several places, might have purchased them for the sake of giving information afterwards? At all events, was not anonymous testimony obtained under such circumstances to be viewed with suspicion? Indeed, it could not be otherwise, if the House recollected what had occurred on this subject two years ago. He would then put it to the House, whether they ought to pass the proposed measures on such evidence—whether they would let the matter rest on the prudence, the discretion, and integrity of such informants, as they were told gave this information, but of whom they knew nothing more than that it was said they gave it? He contended that such a proceeding would be calculated more to excite and increase, than to diminish the public alarm.
These were the reasons which occurred to him to show that a committee ought to be appointed to take the whole of the matters into consideration. One objection which he supposed would be urged against his proposition was, that it would occasion a very inconvenient delay; and another, that it would embrace an inquiry into the conduct of the magistrates at Manchester, which it was said would more properly come before another tribunal. To the first he might use the argumentum ad hominem, and say, that if the noble lord and his colleagues had known of those proceedings at Manchester and elsewhere before the 16th of August, why had they not called parliament together sooner? But this argument he did not mean to press, because if the House believed just grounds for interference to exist, they might fairly say, that the country should not suffer because the noble lord was to blame. He denied, however, that any inconvenience could arise on the principal measures pro-
522
posed by a delay for inquiry. As to the measure which went to prevent military drillings, he would not argue. He saw-in those drillings nothing of good and much of evil. With respect to the measure proposed for repressing them, therefore, he offered no opposition. But the other measures he could not consider in the same point of view. That which restricted the right of traverse to indictments under particular circumstances, could not operate until the next assizes. The delay, therefore, would not affect that. Then it was next proposed, that a power should be given to search for arms. Now, it did not appear, from any thing contained in the papers before the House, or from any thing which the noble lord opposite had said, that they had been accumulated in such numbers as to render a. short delay of the measures respecting them dangerous. There might have been twenty or thirty pikes in the possession of individuals in particular places; but that, in his mind, was not sufficient to warrant the immediate passing of the proposed measure, without a strict inquiry. With respect to the suppression of meetings, he contended, that when magistrates were prepared to, oppose their violence, if any, when it was seen that they had sufficient force to disperse the largest of them, it could not be supposed that any danger could result from a delay of the measures respecting them. It might or might not be necessary at other periods, to pass some of the proposed bills; but what be contended for was, that there could no danger arise at present from that kind of delay which would be necessary for the purposes of inquiry. In every state there might be some political evils, but when it was proposed to correct those evils, the measures by which that was to be effected should be seriously and maturely considered. As to the objection respecting the Manchester magistrates, he contended that it was not a fair one. He did not think that it had been properly brought against the amendment of his right hon. friend on a former evening; nor did he think it was of greater weight against the motion with which he should conclude. His motion, like the amendment to which he alluded, was made with a view to information upon those subjects in which the House were called to legislate. Those gentlemen who said that the country was in danger; that all law and authority were attempted to be trampled under foot; that

523
every thing which we held dear in this life and sacred in the next, were brought into ridicule and contempt;—such gentlemen surely would not contend that inquiry as to our real situation should be retarded, because something might possibly come out against Mr. Norris or Mr. Hay. Why, if those gentlemen were innocent, nothing could come out which would affect them; and if guilty, it would not be contended that they ought to be screened from the consequences of their acts. He did not mean to prejudice the magistrates in any way, but he maintained that their conduct, whatever it might have been, ought not to be placed as a bar to inquiry upon such important questions as were before the House.
He had now briefly stated his reasons why an inquiry should take place into the state of the country. He had pressed the necessity of having full information on the subjects before the House, and had endeavoured to point out the defects in that which had already been given, and to answer the objections against having farther information. Perhaps what he had urged would not be sufficient, if the House had not heard the measures proposed by the noble lord—measures which he had listened to with astonishment and deep regret. He regretted that it was not in his power to express the feelings which the mention of such measures excited, but he conceived it dishonourable and disgraceful to sacrifice the rights and privileges of the people in a case of only temporary alarm. The noble lord concluded, amidst loud cheers, by moving, "That the Papers relative to the Internal State of the Country, presented to this House by command of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, be referred to a Select Committee, to examine the matters thereof, and to report their observations thereupon to the House."
Colonel Davies, in seconding the motion, expressed his regret at perceiving that his majesty's ministers anxiously seized upon the state of alarm into which the country had been temporarily thrown, in order to invade the rights and liberties of the people. He should deem himself unworthy of the confidence of his constituents, or of a seat in that House, if he did not stand forward and express his disapprobation. He fully agreed with an hon. friend of his, in expressing his surprise at the awful denunciation of the noble lord opposite. He was astonished to find the House called
524
upon to adopt the severe measures proposed by that noble lord upon no other information than the garbled and imperfect statements contained in the papers which had been laid on the table.—Those statements were not sufficient to warrant the House in supporting the proposed measures. The papers in question afforded ample evidence in support of an observation made by an hon. baronet on a former evening, that if the law had been stretched beyond its proper limits, it was the fault of those whose duty it was to put it in execution. Were the House to shut their eyes on what was passing around them? were they to view with unconcern the demand made for a greater extension of power than was ever before vested in any ministers? It appeared from the papers before the House, that there was a design on the part of ministers to introduce despotism, and to trample on the liberties of the people. If there were any doubt on that point, the approval by the noble lord opposite of the principles laid down by the right hon. member for the university of Dublin was sufficient to remove it. That right hon. gentleman had urged, that if magistrates entertained a fear that the public peace was to be disturbed by the assemblage of large bodies of people, they had a right to disperse them, and if blood were shed in consequence of such a proceeding, the magistrates would be justified. This opinion was hailed with enthusiasm by the legal gentlemen on the other side of the House, and re-echoed with enthusiasm by the noble lord himself. The papers on the table were, in his opinion, an argument against, rather than in favour of, the measures of ministers. It appeared that government had been aware of the fact, that training had been carried on to a considerable extent—that they knew of large bodies having been assembled for this purpose in different places—that it was difficult for persons to pass about their ordinary business without being interrupted by these men—and yet no measures were taken to prevent such proceedings [Hear, hear!]. The papers were also evidence that arms were openly manufactured and disposed of in different districts, and yet no steps were taken by the magistrates, who were vested with the power, to prevent it. He was aware that such proceedings ought to be stopped; he felt, too, that the wild spirit which had gone abroad ought to be repressed; seeing that it

525
tended to demoralize the people. If the law was not strong enough to do this, he was willing to arm it with additional power—with power sufficient to crush disaffection wherever it appeared. But let the House examine the measures proposed as a remedy. He, for one, dissented from them, as he considered them calculated to subvert the constitution. But, as if these measures were insufficient to suppress disaffection, ministers called for an additional armed force! Let him, however, ask the House what it was which caused this discontent aed disaffection? They could not conceal from themselves that an excessive load of taxation was the cause. This it was which caused the distress and misery which were to be found in all parts of the country. And, with this fact before their eyes, were the measures of the noble lord the best mode of redress? If the people complained of their sufferings, were they to be answered by military execution—if they remonstrated, were they to be told that their only answer should be the bayonet? It appeared that government having once drawn the sword, were determined to throw away the scabbard. If the manufacturing districts were in a state of rebellion, and were to be ruled with a rod of iron, how, he would ask, was such a system to be supported by military force? It was impossible to go on in such a manner without subverting the constitution. It was taxation—taxation unequalled in the annals of history—which reduced the country to this miserable situation. They had at present a re-venue which was decreasing at the rate of five millions a year: though new taxes were added, still there was a decrease. Was this a system which could support measures of coercion? If ministers were desirous of relieving the wants of the country—if they showed themselves not inattentive to the feelings and distresses of the people, they would, instead of adding new taxes, practise economy and retrenchment in every branch of the public expenditure: but there never was a set of men less inclined to do this than the present ministry. He had a short time since occasion to look into the department of the military establishment, and he was sickened at heart to find the degree of extravagance which was carried on in all its branches. The expenses in that department were, now that we were in the fifth year of peace, double what they were in 1806. The salaries in the different offices
526
were double what they had been at that period. This showed that there was something radically wrong in the present system. He did not wish to resort to the cant term of reform, but it was evident some revision was imperatively necessary. He had heard the state of this country compared to that of France prior to the revolution. At that period France laboured under the most arbitrary despotism, and the revolution was hailed as the dawn of freedom. If the French government had not been deaf to the warning voice of public opinion—if they had attended to the interests of the people, that dreadful scene of bloodshed which en-sued would not have taken place, and the unfortunate monarch of that country would not have terminated his existence as he had done. Was this country to go on without being made wiser by experience, until the dreadful lesson was brought home to them. If ministers persevered in the measures which they had acted upon, then it required no great spirit of prophecy to foretel that it must end in a despotism. The hon. member concluded by giving his most cordial support to the motion of his noble friend.
Mr. Bathurstopposed the motion, and expressed his great regret at seeing the noble lord lending himself to such measures as those which he now advocated. It was with regret he saw those most respectable gentlemen who formed what was called the Opposition, pursuing their present course at a moment when the state of the country was such as to require the united efforts of the House to restore it to tranquillity. If the noble lord and his hon. friends conceived that by their present course they would conciliate the radicals, whom certainly they did not defend, but whose conduct they endeavoured to prevent the House from inquiring into—if they imagined that they would conciliate those men, they would, he thought, find themselves much mistaken. The House, he contended, stood pledged by the address, which was voted, to the opinion that those persons called radicals were wrong, and that their proceedings ought to be put down.—The right hon. gentleman here adverted to, and repeated several passages in the address and amendment, and contended, that by them, all parties in the House were pledged to give their aid, collectively and individually, to repress those practices which were complained of as disturbing the state of the country. It

527
was admitted on the other side of the House, that a great degree of disaffection existed, for it was asked why had not ministers put down illegal meetings, drillings, &c.? Now, if this state of the country was admitted (and it was proved by the testimony or magistrates end grand juries in more counties than one), upon what ground, he would ask, could those measures be opposed which only went to put down such proceedings? The right hon. gentleman then took a review of the practices of the seditious, of the prevalence in many places of blasphemous and seditious doctrines, and described the danger which was likely to accrue to society by suffering them to remain unchecked. Was it, he asked, a time, when such things were admitted to exist, to stop measures calculated to suppress them, by calling for information which ministers could not properly give? His majesty's ministers could not lay all the information they possessed before the House; but the question was, whether they had not laid sufficient for the measures which were called for? With respect to the Manchester proceedings, he maintained that they ought not to come before the House, because, as far as inquiry was necessary respecting the magistrates, it would be better carried on in a court of law. It was not pretended that all the information which ministers possessed on this subject was laid before the House, but a sufficient portion was given. The right hon. gentleman then observed, that the Riot act was first read by Mr. Ethelston, a second time by Mr. Sylvester, and would have been read at the hustings by Mr. Trafford, if the confusion had not prevented it. The reading of the Riot act was not, however, of that importance which hon. gentlemen opposite seemed to consider it: for though the provisions of the act were destined to apply to certain emergencies, they by no means did away with the provisions of the common law, which, when a riot actually had commenced, allowed the magistrates to disperse it before the expiration of the hour. It had been argued, but the argument had been well answered on a former occasion, that the House ought by all means to institute an inquiry into the conduct of those who called, of those who attended, and of those who put down the meeting. He allowed that an inquiry might be necessary, but then it ought to be conducted before the usual tribunals of the country, and in
528
the usual manner in which other offences were investigated.—The noble lord had divided his subject into two parts, and had discussed separately the events which had occurred before, and those which had occurred after, the 16th of August. Now, he did not see what reason there was for marking that day so expressly, as the same system was in existence both before and after it, and was productive of the same alarm to the loyal inhabitants of Cheshire and Lancashire. The noble lord had also shut his eyes to the danger which arose from another quarter, and had almost argued that the people had no pikes, because the blacksmiths who made them had not been discovered and prosecuted. He had also said, that there had not been arming among the people till after the 16th of August: if that circumstance had been correct, it might have looked something like an argument, but unfortunately, it was sufficiently notorious that there had been arming before. The people had been taught to march in military array; they had been instructed to wheel, to form in column, and to go through other military evolutions in large bodies: and, would any person say that, with arms in their hands, these men, though not capable of contending with regular forces, would not be excessively formidable? For his own part, he believed that the object which they had in view was to plunder and destroy; and in this belief he was confirmed by the declaration of more than one bench of magistrates, and one grand jury. True, it might me, that this was not the object of them all; that their leaders might have one view, and their followers another; but still, was it not clear, from their simultaneous meetings, that, if plunder was not their object, they intended to carry some grand political purpose? What could that purpose be, except the total subversion of the government, and all the existing institutions of the country? Their intention evidently was to intimidate the sovereign and the two Houses of Parliament into an acquiescence with their designs, by the display of their numerical power; and, if that failed, to carry them into execution by the exertion of their physical force, or, in other words by force of arms. Could, then, the House ask to have a fuller exposure of the views of these infatuated men, than that which had been afforded to it by the papers now upon the table? The noble lord had also wished to inquire why sir

529
John Byng had not been at Manchester on the 16th, personally to superintend the employment of the military. A sufficient answer to this point was, that sir John Byng had previously made all the necessary arrangements for such an occurrence, and had left the troops under the command of an officer in whom he could place implicit confidence. The noble lord had likewise confessed the dangers to which the country was at present exposed, and the House had pledged itself to find a remedy for them. Now, considering the state in which the nation was at present situated, the time which an inquiry into all these points would consume, would be so long as to make him vote against instituting it, especially if the remedy which the danger required was not, according to the noble lord, to be administered until the inquiry was concluded; though at the same time it was only fair that he should repeat his conviction, that such an inquiry ought not to be allowed, even though it would not continue for more than a single day. Indeed, he thought that the government, so notorious was the system now existing in the disturbed districts, might have said—"We will put a stop to it," without making any inquiry at all.—The noble lord had declared, that he was not satisfied with the statements which were now before the House; because the names of the persons (who, he ought to recollect, had made them on oath) were not given to the public. The reason why the names were concealed was, that if they were known, the lives of those who bore them would be placed in the most imminent hazard, even though they were brought up to London for the purpose of being examined: the names, however, of one or two of them were stated, and in all cases the names of the magistrates who had taken their depositions.—The noble lord had seemed to think that the county of Lancaster was the chief focus of all this disaffection and sedition, and had argued, that because the magistrates had dispersed the numerous meeting at Manchester with a small military force, more troops were not wanted; but, was it not probable, that as the reformers had been once dispersed by a few soldiers, indeed by not more than thirty or forty of the yeomanry, they would take care not to be so easily dispersed on a future occasion? This was rendered more than probable by what had occurred at a recent meeting at Burnley. There a large
530
multitude had met, many of them armed with pistols, and most of them with staffs, in which a socket was made for the reception of a pike-head, which they likewise carried in their pockets. Now he would ask any hon. member, whether it was possible for any magistrate, without the assistance of a military force, to have put down this meeting, confessedly illegal, armed as those who attended it were, with pistols and with pikes? But were these all the facts which were at present before the House? Was there not the declaration of the constables at Manchester, stating their opinion regarding the inefficiency of their police? Was it possible that society, to say nothing of commerce and the ordinary transactions of life, could continue to exist, whilst such a horrible system remained in action? What would the hon. gentleman opposite say to the various attempts which had lately been made at assassination? Were they not aware that two public officers in the prosecution of their duty, had had pistols fired at them, and that at Manchester a constable had been absolutely stoned to death? Were they not aware that this method of intimidation had been extended from the manufacturing to other districts? Did they not know that attempts had been also made to assassinate the mayor of Newcastle? Could they believe that such endeavours to intimidate would not be extended, unless they were now checked? Was it a thing of little importance, that if any tradesman or publican exerted himself to preserve the public peace, not indeed as a yeomanry-man, but as a special constable, he was deprived of all custom, and found his business entirely ruined? There was, indeed, a case before the House which showed, in a strong light, the state of the kingdom—he was not now alluding to the meeting at Manchester, or to any of the meetings in Cheshire or Lancashire, but to the three distinct meetings which had been held at the same place near Leeds. There the magistrates had waited till some outrage had been committed. [Cheering from the Opposition.] He would give the hon. gentlemen the full weight which they wished to derive from this admission, and he would then ask them, whether it was either right or expedient that whenever a public meeting was called, the magistrates should be compelled to be upon the alert with their special constables, and to have no military force at hand to back them? And

531
yet, what would now be the result, if this was not the case? The House might easily judge by referring to the papers which were placed before it; for it was in evidence, that at Glasgow it was nothing but the military that prevented an attack from being made upon the lives and property of the loyal inhabitants. Was it not well known (and he really thought that the public press had disgraced itself by inserting the speeches of those radical gentry), that public discussion had been held regarding the time when the people ought to rise, and that denunciations had been made of certain individuals for not following up the successes which they had achieved? When this was nothing more than a bare statement of facts, how could hon. gentlemen come forward and say, that the House was in want of farther information? The right hon. member then said, that he could wish the noble lord, or any of the friends who surrounded him, to explain what they meant by the term conciliation, which they were so much in the habit of using. A right hon. gentleman had, on a former night, spoken in most decided terms of reprobation of the agitators who were now disturbing the state, and had condemned with great eloquence the principles on which they acted. Now, he should be glad to know, whether the right hon. gentleman wished to conciliate by granting concession to their principles, or alleviation to their distress? If concession to their principles was the meaning which was to be put on conciliation, how much of his own principles would he give up to them? Would he advise the House to grant them, not indeed what they asked, but what they did not ask—moderate reform about which they professed themselves indifferent? If it were granted, did he think that it would satisfy them? Was he not, on the contrary, quite positive that they would say, "We have a right to more, and we will not rest till that right is fully granted to us; it is not sufficient that you have granted to Birmingham, to Leeds, to Sheffield, and the other large towns, the power of returning members to parliament, and that you have diffused the right of suffrage more generally through the counties—you must grant us all we demand, or never will we rest content and satisfied?" If this was true—and he maintained that it was—nobody could doubt that concession to their principles would be of no avail, Then, as to the alleviation, of their
532
distress: and here he could not help expressing his conviction that the disaffection which existed in the manufacturing districts was much greater than the distress; and that though distress might lave originally enlisted many under the banners of disaffection, they would still remain disaffected when the distress was taken from them. If, however, the people were distressed, and the house in-tended, and was able, to conciliate them ay relieving their distress, for God's sake let them set about it, as soon as ever the way was clearly and distinctly pointed out to them. He had to apologize to them for the length at which he had ad-dressed them [Hear!] but he had been led to say as much as he had done, because the motion of the noble lord was calculated to paralyse the spirit which the House had so lately evinced. He had consequently felt it to be his duty to implore them to go into the consideration of the measures which had been proposed to to them without instituting a previous inquiry. If they were too strong, they could be altered; or if they were incorrect in any of their minute details, they could hereafter be corrected. The House was bound to redeem the pledge which it had on a former evening given to the crown, it was bound to give instant vigour to the law, because that vigour was calculated to prevent the employment of a military force; but till that law received that vigour, nothing else but a military force could preserve the tranquillity of the country. He had not said any thing upon the seditious and blasphemous publications which had lately emanated from the press, because the noble lord had not disputed the existence of them, and because the House appeared sensible of the general danger arising from them. He concluded by again conjuring the House to adopt the measures of vigour which had been proposed to them, and by reminding it, that nobody could justly complain against them, except those who expected to suffer by their operation.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that the motion of the noble lord was for the reference of certain papers to a select committee, and that if any thing had been wanting to convince him of the necessity of such a measure, it had been just supplied by the speech of the right hon. gentleman opposite. He had expressed his surprise at the conduct of those gentlemen whom he denominated the Opposition, and had as-

533
serted that the country would participate in it; but he would take the liberty to inform the right hon. gentleman, that the country now looked up to the opposition, with the utmost confidence, on account of the resistance which they had given to the late and the present most mischievous acts of government. That resistance was not made with any view of giving any support or countenance to the radicals as the Whigs had as little cause to like the radicals as they had to admire the ministers The reform which the radicals sought to obtain was, what would lead to the subversion of the constitution, for it was annual parliaments, universal suffrage and election by ballot; but would any body say that a single individual could be found to advocate such sentiments on the bench where he was sitting? The hon. baronet then proceeded to argue, that the call for inquiry which had been heard in every quarter of the kingdom, made it an imperative duty upon the House to institute it, and ridiculed the assertion that it was already making in the courts of law, when the only single point which was before them was Hunt's trial. He also inferred the peaceable disposition of the people in the neighbourhood of Manchester, and their willingness to submit to the constituted authorities of the country, from their not attending the meeting convened for the 9th of August, because the magistrates had declared it to be illegal; and asked, if the meeting of the 16th was so manifestly illegal as it was now contended, why the magistrates had not issued, as they had done regarding the intended meeting of the 9th, a proclamation declaring its illegality. The peaceful demeanour and willing obedience to the laws which they had then exhibited, was such as would lead him to oppose the vigorous measures recommended to the House, until he was convinced of their necessity by the granting of an inquiry. That inquiry was rendered more particularly necessary by the precipitate vote of thanks which had been given to the magistracy, and which was not to be justified by any of the precedents which ministers had adduced to defend it. The documents on which they had been called to enact severe and coercive measures, proved that the disaffection was only local and temporary. It was therefore too much to ask of the House, because dissatisfaction, and, for the sake of argument he would say, disaffection pre-
534
vailed in certain districts, to place the whole country out of the pale of the law, and to subject all the inhabitants of England to a system of persecution. [Loud cries of "hear."] He repeated, to a system of persecution—for to what else could these new enactments possibly lead? The hon. baronet then alluded to Mr. Bathurst's declaration that he did not know what meaning his noble friend attached to the word "conciliation.'' He would tell him, though he could not do so without expressing a wish that conciliation was a little more in the mouths and hearts of his majesty's ministers, as they would find it better calculated to preserve the peace of the country, than all the coercive measures which they bad latterly ad6pted. Conciliation, then, was to show the nation, that, while they made laws to coerce the disaffected, they would exhibit every readiness to receive the petition and redress the just grievances of the people—that they would use every endeavour to relieve their distress, and alleviate their burthens—that they sympathised in all their woes, wants, and calamities—and last, though not least, that they were willing to take the subject of parliamentary reform into immediate consideration. [A laugh from a member on the ministerial benches], Some persons might think the latter subject of little importance; but he could assure them, that during the last twelve months reform had made such an impression upon the middling classes of society, that not all the arguments of the gentlemen opposite, nor all the eloquence of a right hon. member of the cabinet, who was generally very eloquent upon that topic, would be able to remove it, unless indeed ministers would show by their future, what they had not shown by their past conduct, that reform was not so necessary as had hitherto been supposed.
Mr. Long Wellesleysaid, he had heard with the sincerest regret a violence of language on the other side which before that time he had but seldom been under the painful necessity of attending to. He did think, that the noble mover had pledged himself to sentiments not quite in unison with those he had heard from him on former occasions. He adverted to the former arguments of the Opposition against committees of inquiry, and wondered how they could now adopt the entirely opposite course, of recommending what they had hitherto so strenuously objected to.

535
One right hon. gentleman carried his opinion so far, that on the proposal for a committee of finance last session, be had declared it was no better than a packed jury, and could produce no desirable result. The hon. gentleman went on to show, that no advantage could arise from agreeing to the motion, nor would it allay the ferment in the country. The documents laid before them proved this plain fact, and it was supported by every legal and other authority which had been called on to deliver an opinion, that an alarming state of disaffection existed. This was the spontaneous and unanimous opinion of all the honourable men, in whatever capacity, called upon to inquire into the situation of the country. They therefore stood in need of no committee to ascertain this fact. It seemed to him that gentlemen opposite had abandoned the main point at issue; at least he was sure it was so considered by all the magistrates with whom he was in the habit of acting, who thought that the great question for the House to decide was, whether the Manchester meeting was legal or illegal, and especially which character the conduct of the magistrates bore. But as they had blinked these subjects, he was inclined very much to doubt the pretensions set up by the gentlemen on the other side to a superior knowledge of the public opinion. If they had possessed this, they would have come fairly forward, and not have yielded, as they had done the principal matters at issue. The hon. gentleman then went into the assertions which had first appeared in the public newspapers, and were re-echoed by the Opposition, and contended, that if these had been true, there would have been much greater inflammation than there really was. An hon. baronet the member for Southampton, had detailed to the House the hair-breadth escape with his life of a reverend divine, who had been prompted, by a very pardonable curiosity to see Hunt, to, attend that meeting; whilst another hon. baronet had descanted on the atrocity of the attempt made by the yeomanry to surround with a cordon of troops the hustings, on which that agitator with others stood. A third member had endeavoured to raise an argument upon the throwing out a bill of indictment against one of the military, as having been thrown out through a technical informality. The House had not betrayed any serious commiseration for the case of the curious
536
friend of the hon. Baronet, nor suffered itself to be shocked at the atrocity of surrounding these inflamers of the public mind, and the assertion had been very satisfactorily contradicted and disproved by a noble lord, the son of a Whig lord lieutenant that this indictment had not been thrown out for informality, but for want of sufficient matter alleged. Hon. gentlemen could not but see that no proposition was less likely to terminate in any beneficial result than that of rendering that House, composed of so many members, and incapable of examining witnesses on oath, a court for the exercise of any thing resembling judicial inquiry. No place could be so well adapted for that species of inquiry, in his mind as courts of law, where the witnesses gave their testimony and the jury its verdict upon oath. He most sincerely felt that there was no circumstance which could tend so directly to keep up the agitation and alarm which now existed throughout the country, as a display of any hesitation on the part of the House to adopt some well defined and salutary restrictive measures; as its natural result would be to convince the public that parliament was not as yet aware of the spirit which was abroad, or the dangerous designs of the disaffected.
Mr. Douglas Kinnairdrose at the same moment with several members, but the courtesy of the House gave the precedence to the hon. gentleman as a new member. He said he was anxious to raise his voice that night in behalf of the suffering people of this country, while yet they had a constitution; for after that night, he feared, they would be without the shelter of such a blessing. He was little acquainted with the forms of the House, but he thought, that when a communication like that lately made from the throne came under their consideration, it ought to be discussed in the most formal manner, and with that temper and deliberation which would at once show the best regard for the Crown, and become the character of the representatives of the people. He felt that the ministers of the Crown were in a most responsible situation—his alarm at the existing state of affairs was great, and increased it must be, if, by the event of this night, he was driven to the melancholy conclusion, that prejudice and passion got the better of the judgment of the House of Commons, and that they were prepared to take for granted the assertion of ministers as to

537
the state of the country, though that assertion was flatly contradicted by a variety of evidence. He felt the utmost pain at hearing a sweeping charge of sedition and impiety levelled against the great mass of the people of England. From the best authorities the House knew that the people were suffering under the weight of the severest distress; it was singular, then, to think that instead of seeking the means to remove this distress, they should at once plunge into the abyss of impiety, and endeavour to subvert the whole moral order of social life. He could never believe the people capable of such fatal and useless misconduct, and he was the less inclined to believe it, now that he saw the proposition utterly untenable from the evidence in the papers laid before the House. On the part of the people of England, therefore, he protested against those fearful accusations. It was singular that if the people, as had been stated, were ready for plunder, and only wanted the opportunity of carrying their intentions into effect, the gentlemen of the country should leave their homes, around which, if the danger were real, they would assemble their friends and tenants, to save their families and property from ruin and devastation. The hon. member then proceeded to enforce his opinion, that no such danger was apprehended, by alluding to the earl of Derby's inability, according to his letter to lord Sidmouth, to arm a battalion of yeomanry from the gentry of the county, even though the letter was dated one month after the occurrence at Manchester. He had every reason for thinking that much exaggeration prevailed respecting the designs of the people, even where the highest irritation prevailed. Pikes had been spoken of, but on authority that he thought questionable, because it was anonymous. He would presume to suggest to ministers the adoption of conciliatory rather than coercive measures, and to appease rather than exasperate the people by sowing mutual distrust among the different classes of society. The people, he believed, held together, and relied much on each other's support at the present crisis—[Hear, hear! from the ministerial benches].—Gentlemen might cheer, but were the people less likely to confide in each other when they were placed out of the pale of the law? He much feared that ministers relied too much on spies, and had created a system which was calculated to delude
538
them. On a former occasion they had been told that a dreadful toast had been given in a company of the disaffected. Dreadful indeed it was—"May the last of kings be strangled with the entrails of the last of priests"—and yet it ultimately appeared that this toast was given by Castles the spy, and received with disgust by the company upon whom it was obtruded. This was the spy who was decked out in good clothes, and produced in a court of justice in the hope of his imposing upon a jury. The hon. member then commented upon lord Castlereagh's speech in support of the intended measures—a speech which was well described as touching less upon the privileges that the new bills meant to take away, than upon those which they left. The noble lord had rather unfairly attacked the female reformers when he described their political interference as unprecedented in the history of this country. Did not the noble lord know that during the elections for Westminster the ladies were always prominent—and that even in the last election a ladies committee had actually been formed in favour of a particular candidate? Petitions had frequently been presented to that House from ladies, and duty answered by parliament. Lord Clarendon described the circumstance of a petition being presented to the House of Commons by five thousand of the wives of the citizens of London, Southwark, and the adjoining suburbs, and couched in very remarkable words. The petitioners addressed the House in behalf of their husbands, who were taken from them and imprisoned, and their estates seized in the most arbitrary manner. They prayed to be eased of their grievances, and protested in their frail condition. These females, in emphatic words, exclaimed, "See our husbands imprisoned from us, our children dashed against the stones, and our infants blood flowing in the streets." This petition was answered by Mr. Pym—the females pressed up the stairs of the House, and as they were importunate, the trained bands were at length called out and ordered to fire upon them, which they did, and the women, in the words of the historian, nothing daunted, cried out, "Peace, peace!" He hoped, by showing this precedent, and alluding to others, he had divested the noble lord's speech of any importance which attached to it from his observations respecting the novelty of the acts

539
of the female reformers. He was ready to admit, that the state of the country was in many parts alarming, but the evil he feared would be aggravated by coercive measures: a relaxation from taxation would alone allay the irritation which unfortunately prevailed among the labouring classes. On the subject of parliamentary reform many opinions might prevail, without the holders of them being liable to any imputation of criminality. The duke of Richmond's plan of reform had received the sanction of Mr. Sheridan, and though Mr. FOX did not go the same length of supporting it, he yet admitted it to be the ground-work of a better system than the then existing one. There was certainly a prevailing error, that only one mode of reform ought to be adopted; though he might dissent from such an opinion, he yet saw nothing criminal in those who held it, nor any reason why they should be held out as seditious and disaffected to the country; and he also thought that although the people put their claims forth in a certain shape, it was by no means a corollary that they would be satisfied with less than they asked. If they saw a disposition to concede, there was no doubt they would not be inflexible in their demands. The hon. member quoted, in support of this opinion, a resolution passed at one of the late popular meetings, which expressly called called upon the higher orders to join the lower, and avowed that an alienation of the rich from the poor would be the ruin of both. The hon. member concluded by earnestly conjuring the House to adopt a system of conciliation as the mode best calculated to allay the existing ferment among the people, and most consonant to the feelings of humanity and justice.
Lord Lascellesrose to state a circumstance which had been communicated to him by general Byng, to show the first intention of the magistrates at Manchester respecting the intended meeting of the 9th of August. The general had called upon the Magistrates when that meeting was announced, to inquire if they wanted his assistance or that of the military for the occasion: The magistrates answered, that they did not apprehend any danger, and would not require the proffered aid. The general apprised them, that he would remain in his own house, and not quit the immediate neighbourhood, until after the meeting of the 16th; in order that the magistrates
540
should, if necessary, have an opportunity of sending for him. Now no message came to the general, and the fair conclusion was, that the magistrates had no intention of dispersing the meeting until the morning of the day when they saw the entrance of the concourse of people into Manchester, and their numbers and nature. So much for the general
intentions of the magistrates prior to the meeting. The present question was, however, whether the House could enter into the consideration of ulterior measures without a select committee. Of the Manchester transactions, and the acts that occurred on the 16th of August; he knew nothing. [Hear, hear! from the Opposition benches.] When he said this, he begged not to be understood as condemning them, he meant to pronounce no opinion whatever. He was ready to believe, that the origin of the disorganization in the country was in the distresses of the people.—When parliament last broke up, the manufacturing part of the community were in a state of unexampled distress. Advantage was taken of their situation by designing men, and the idle people attracted by the force of novelty from one meeting to another, were unfortunately led, step by step, to the habit of listening to the doctrines of itinerant orators, who gave them neither rest nor repose.—What he most lamented was, that among those deluded characters there were many honest well-meaning men, who were artfully drawn into the schemes of others, and seduced into the sacrifice of their characters and their safety. Such men were, he knew, not ripe for rebellion; though he knew there were others of a different description, and who formed an immense class in the scale, who were ripe for insurrection. A sort of infatuation appeared to prevail, and there was no chance of ever getting rid of the difficulty so long as itinerant orators were suffered to perambulate distant parts of the country, and excite that idle curiosity which every one acquainted with the manufacturing districts must know prevailed to an extraordinary degree. If this system was suffered to continue, the manufactures of the country would be rooted out—and the wretched population who now complained would consequently become the first victims. He was willing to admit that even if the proposed laws were enacted, still a number of heavy privations must remain to be endured by the people. Though their trade must re-
*

541
vive, and though they must always have an ample portion in the mercantile traffic of Europe, still he feared that a number would remain unemployed, or at best but inadequately paid for their labour. It therefore required all the calmness and energy of the country to enable the people to work up against their difficulties, and to meet them in the manner which was best calculated to retrieve their situation. He denied that ministers had grounded their proposed measures on the general disaffection of the people; on the contrary, they had declared them necessary for the protection of the sound and loyal part of the community. A distemper had certainly grown in the state, which must be eradicated or else it would infect the whole of the community. It was agreed on all sides that something must be done to prevent the growth of disaffection and impiety. When this admission was generally made, he lamented that the gentlemen opposite should confine their views to one side alone of the question. With regard to what had been said by the hon. gentleman who last addressed them, he could not agree with him, that they were called upon to legislate merely against impiety and sedition. They were called upon to protect the sound, the honest, and the laborious,—and not to allow a distemper to spread which would destroy them all.—Were they to sit still while mischief did its work?—No. Something ought to be done. He did not pretend to define what that should be, and it was a fair proceeding to discuss the measures proposed and examine if they were calculated to effect what was desired. But he could not help lamenting the tone adopted by the gentlemen on the other side—a tone entirely coinciding with one view of the subject, presuming on the Manchester business, according to strong prejudices which they seemed early to have imbibed, and inflaming their minds by looking only at the bearings of the question as it favoured their inclination. It was thus that the measures offered to the House came to be characterized as harsh and oppressive; as if none but those whom these measures affected deserved their care—as if the peaceable and industrious were nothing, and the licentious and discontented every thing.—Alluding to the comment that had been made on lord Derby's letter, and the non-filling up of the regiment within a month after, his
542
lordship observed, that this had also happened in other places, but it was not because great alarm was not felt, but from other causes. What he most lamented in the present dangerous times (dangerous they were if tampered with) was any disposition to see one side of the case only, as, if such a course was persevered in, he greatly feared the consequences would be such as were not intended by those pursuing that course. One of the principal means employed for the introduction of dangerous principles into the minds of the rising generation was, the establishment of schools, in which children were instructed in impiety, and brought up with a total disregard of religion. Another feature in the progress of corruption and disaffection in the country, was seen in the Union Societies, which were in plentiful existence in every populous town in the kingdom. He himself had heard it lamented by some of the leading members of these societies, that the gentlemen of the neighbourhood would not join their body and enter into their views. And what was the object of these societies? They laid claim, as a right, to nothing less than universal suffrage, annual parliaments, and election by ballot! To reprove such ignorance would be no simple matter. It was to the poisonous sources from whence they derived these notions, that the remedy must be directed. It would be almost incredible to those who had not been witnesses of the fact, the pains that were taken, and the means that were put in practice, to circulate irreligious tracts and other publications, which were of a nature equally deserving of being proscribed; There was a regular system of carrying them into the houses of persons who otherwise could never have read them. It thus happened, that the labourer, after returning from his daily work, would set about, and read from beginning to end, these tracts; and this he would do day after day, till he actually had them by hearty and to this was to be attributed that clear explanation on these subjects, which excited the surprise of many who had been in situations to be brought in contact with them. He thought a line might be drawn, and he hoped prudent men would draw a line, between the disaffected demagogues and the persons who listened to them through curiosity.—But he did not think it prudent, in the present state of the public mind, to use any concession. He thought,

543
if the unanimous opinion of the House was, that the people should be allayed by endeavouring to show them the delusion under which they laboured, it would have a great effect on their conduct.—Every one knew, that these men were deluded, to the ruin of themselves and families. The proper course for the House to adopt was, to express an honest indignation at the conduct of those persons who sat the people in commotion. He would conclude by saying, that any attempt to support the errors of the people would be productive of ruin to themselves, and of injury to their families.
Mr. Bennett, of Wiltshire, rose with considerable diffidence to offer his opinion to the House. He had never had the honour of addressing it before; but, although he had always considered that it contained a great majority of the wisdom and talent of the country, yet he conceived it to be his paramount duty not to be silent, if, by the exertion of his small voice, he thought he could advance any thing for the interests of his country. He had listened, with great attention, to the arguments which had been used in the course of the several nights debate on this occasion, and his conviction was, that a committee should be formed on the papers at present before the House, before it passed such strong restrictive measures as had been proposed to them. He begged of the House to consider that the measures of restriction contemplated, applied to the whole country, whereas the seditious turbulence which originally called for them was confined to only a few districts. He would give full credit to all that appeared from the papers on the table; but he conceived the House was asked to go a great length, when they were called upon to agree to coercive measures without any other information. If disorders existed in some parts of the kingdom, should the House be called upon to agree to measures which would extend to the entire kingdom? He would compare the House, if it so acted, to a physician, who applied a remedy without knowing the cause of the disorder. He believed the causes of the present discontents might be attributed to the opinion which the people entertained, that their wishes were despised, that their petitions for reform were not listened to. To these causes one part of the disaffection might be attributed. But the distress of the productive classes was a more powerful cause. Every
544
person knew that the people were all but starving, and that starving people were the readiest to receive the poison of these mountebank orators. He would say there was not a county in England more attached to the constitution, and more opposed to the mountebank orators, than the county which he represented. Instead of passing coercive measures, the government ought to devise means of procuring food for the people. He felt convinced that some further inquiry was absolutely necessary, before such restrictions on the liberty of the country as had been proposed, could be honestly sanctioned.
Lord Miltonsaid, that although there was nothing in the early part of his noble friend (lord Lascelles') speech, in which he did not agree, yet he thought his noble friend had fallen into the error of which he had accused others, of viewing only one side of the subject, as he was prepared, not only to vote against the motion, but to vote for all the bills which had been brought in. The vote which was
now proposed to the House comprehended the events at Manchester, events which, of all that he remembered, were the most unfortunate, and called the most loudly for parliamentary interference. Much obloquy had been cast on himself and his friends for their conduct with relation to these transactions. If they had not felt that the constitution was at stake, no earthly consideration would have induced them to interfere. It was not affection for the leaders of the Manchester meeting, or its objects—it was not even sympathy for the blood that was shed, but a conviction that by the conduct of the yeomanry, sanctioned as it was by his majesty's ministers, rights the most important had been called in question. It certainly did make a difference whether the meeting was legal or illegal. If it was illegal it was to be dispersed according to law. He did not say, that if force had been used by the meeting, it might not have been met by force, but it remained to be proved that any violence originated from the people. He called to the recollection of the House the letter of Mr. Hay, written on the eve of the transaction, which confirmed all the suspicions he had entertained. The ministers indeed had said, that this letter was not a fair and full account, but that they were enabled to give it out with other information which explained the matter to their satisfaction, though they had taken care not to

545
communicate it to the House and the country. Mr. Hay says, that "while the cavalry was forming, the most marked defiance of them was acted by the reforming part of the mob." From this two things appeared, first, that all the mob was not of one description, and in the next place, that the marked defiance was all that the mob could be charged with—which was something very separate from what followed. It was in fact as manifest from Mr. Hay's letter as negative proof could be, that there was no attack on the side of the people. They had been told indeed in that House, that the Riot act was read by Mr. Silvester, who was trampled under foot, and by Mr. Ethelston, from a window; but why was not the proof laid before them? Why were they to accept as evidence of this the word of a minister? That the yeomanry originated the violence seemed to him evident, but there was no proof that they did so by order of the magistrates. In following Nadin, the yeomanry pursued the orders of the magistrates; but in their subsequent conduct there was no evidence that they acted under command. "In the mean time," says Mr. Hay, "the Riot act was read, and the mob was completely dispersed, but not without very serious and lamentable effects." Let them only look how important it was to Mr. Hay's case for him to say (if he had been able to say it), that the yeomanry ban been previously attacked; but not a word was there of this. He had conceived that he should have found more friends to an inquiry into these transactions in the House. At York he imagined that gentlemen of both parties pledged themselves to demand an inquiry; and he could not help thinking that they must still feel awkward under their implied pledges. They were now told of an inquiry in courts of law. But, when all the trials now pending in the courts, Mr. Hunt's, Mr. Owen's, and even the information against an hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) were decided, the conduct of the yeomanry and magistrates would not have been subjected to any investigation, and we should still be told, that the magistrates were most anxious for inquiry. An hon. gentleman, the member for Dover, had said, that the magistrates were anxious for inquiry, but nothing satisfactory, it was said, could proceed from an inquiry before a committee up stairs. He differed with those who said so. Would not an
546
inquiry by such a committee lay grounds for a subsequent and solemn inquiry, if such should be deemed necessary? If, on the other hand, the committee found that the conduct of the magistrates did not demand an inquiry, they would state that fact to the House; and such declaration from such a committee would have great weight with the country. That inquiry, he thought, was due to public feeling as well as to public justice; the more so when he considered the nature of those measures which were last night introduced by the noble lord—measures which, in his mind, were sufficient to abolish the constitution. He agreed with an hon. gentlemen who had that night addressed the House for the first time, that if those measures were made the permanent law of the land, it was impossible that public liberty should survive. Those measures, it appeared, were intended not merely to put down what were called dangerous opinions in this country, but others—they were not intended for England alone, but for other countries—for Germany, for Italy, and for France. He confessed he felt alarmed for the liberties of England, when he saw an endeavour made to shape her constitution and her laws to the views of foreign governments—of crowned heads, who ruled their subjects by other maxims than those of liberty—of Prussia, who promised a constitution to her people, and then broke that promise in the hour of security, with the same facility with which it was made in the hour of need—of Russia, who governed with an absolute and unresisting sway—of Spain, for whose purposes an act was brought in last session, prohibiting the people of this country from interfering in the contest between her and the people of her transatlantic dominions—dominions which she had forfeited by misrule and oppression. He trusted that there was a spirit remaining in England, and that she could not be governed by the maxims of foreign states. This consideration, however, seemed to escape the attention of ministers, and they brought forward measures which filled him with the most serious apprehensions for the liberties of his country. He differed from his noble friend (lord Lascelles) with regard to the sources of our danger, and was of opinion that it rather menaced the people, than emanated from them. Referring to the affair at Manchester, and considering the conduct of the magistrates on that occasion, with

547
regard to its previous and subsequent effect upon the transactions of that period, he need only allude to Leeds, a place where there had been already several meetings held, each less numerous than the preceding. Then came the Manchester meeting of the 16th of August, which was followed by a variety of others in different parts of England, all of them then increasing in number tenfold. It was not by riding through a body of men, or mowing them down by soldiery, while they were assembled at a meeting of this character, that the people of England were to be subdued, but by means and measures of a more lenient and conciliatory character. His lordship proceeded to urge the necessity of a mild and temperate consideration of the condition and objects of the people, remarking, that the character of the House had been misrepresented to them, and that it should be their endeavour, therefore, to ensure the people's affections. He trusted that the House would listen to their petitions with attention; that it would patiently listen to their grievances; and even when they should prove unreasonable, that it would not notice the moody manner in which they might be presented; but that it would consider the privations and distresses under which they had been conceived. He would venture to hope even, that when they entertained the most wild and visionary theories, the House would not insult them by telling them that they were so, but would rather bear with all the faults of those who had had so much less education than hon. gentlemen themselves, and who by consequence had so little knowledge to guide and direct their conduct by. If hon. members viewed the important subject of an inquiry (and none more important could occur) as it regarded the magistrates alone, they neglected the more important question of the rights of the subject. Would they, when they saw the blood which had been spilt upon this disastrous occasion, the lives which had been sacrificed, the misfortunes which had occurred, overlook the more important fact, in their regard for a matter of less moment? Yet, when a parliamentary inquiry was asked for into the causes of these melancholy events, they said, "No; for we must support the character of the magistrates of Manchester." It was surely a most curious course to pursue, for the attainment of such an object, to refuse the inquiry demanded.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, he had no-doubt but that the part taken by his noble friend and his noble father, was dictated by the purest motives of public duty, and the warmest and most honourable anxiety for the good of their country, but he was prepared to show that they were mistaken. He would state to the House exactly what had taken place between him and his noble friend respecting the meeting at York, and he would show distinctly that no pledge was given by him or by his noble friend (lord Lascelles) which could bind them to vote for a parliamentary inquiry. Here the hon. gentleman went into a detailed account of what had taken place between himself and lord Milton before the meeting at York, and of the proceedings at that meeting. He said that the object of himself and his friends was, to exclude persons from that meeting who went about deluding the people, and to assemble the rank and wealth of the county; for that purpose he was willing to agree to join in an address for the calling of parliament, provided his noble friend opposite would concede to him another point, reserving to himself the right of expressing the opinion which he entertained that if an inquiry should be instituted, it ought to be instituted in a court of law, before a jury of twelve men. He had said to his noble friend, that he was willing to give up his opinion on one point, if his noble friend would give up his on another. That having been refused, by what right was he called on to stand to any concession ho might, for the sake of the country have been willing to have made. The hon. member proceeded to describe the state of the meeting, the conduct of individuals who attended it, the approach of mobs with drums and flags, upon one of which the words "Hunt for ever" stared him and his noble friend in the face. If he had given any specific pledge, he was willing to stand by it—nothing would induce him to violate it; but no pledge of the kind was given by him. With regard to the bills introduced by the noble lord (Castlereagh), the state of the country at present required some laws of their description. He did not say that conciliatory modes should be abandoned, but he felt at the same time that it was necessary to oppose the spirit which was abroad, and which spirit was opposed to the peace and the prosperity of the community.
Mr. Denmanfelt himself called on to explain the opinion he had lately expressed on a particular occasion. As an humble individual, he had no pretensions to high influence as a political authority in that House; but he felt that he was a member of the House of Commons, and thought he claimed some pretensions to legal authority, from the profession to which he had the honour to belong. A noble lord, he understood, on a very recent occasion, and, in his absence, had done him the honour to say, that he, as a lawyer, would not state in his place in that House the opinion which, as a lawyer, he had expressed in another place. But he could assure that noble lord, that he would not state an opinion here or elsewhere that he did not entertain. A right hon. and learned gentleman, who spoke last night, powerfully as to his eloquence, but whom he did not consider as a good law authority, had asserted, that by the law of the land, the magistrates were warranted in putting down, as they did, the meeting at Manchester, as being a riotous one even from its numbers. A good law authority, in this case, must be founded upon an intimate knowledge of the statutes and of the common law of the land; and from all the knowledge he could derive through a laborious intimacy with those laws, in the course of his professional experience, he must say that the principle laid down by that right hon. and learned gentleman was most dangerous. He had been charged with holding opinions in his professional capacity to which he did not agree; and he expected to be asked if such were his opinions. But it was not fair to consider persons who did not express their opinions as assenting to those of an opposite nature. Many opinions had been expressed last night in favour of the proceedings which took place at Manchester, which opinions he sincerely deplored, and he must say, that upon that subject he entertained an opinion perfectly different. It had been supposed, that he had stated the meeting at Manchester on the 16th of August to be an illegal meeting; but he now begged leave to say, he had expressed no such opinion. The point in question was, whether the meeting was or was not lawfully dispersed? From all that he had learned on the subject his opinion was, that the persons met there were not lawfully dispersed. He thought the meeting was legally assembled, that it did not
550
appear they had done any thing to warrant the imputation of riot, previously to the attack made on them by the yeomanry, and he thought the manner in which they were dispersed was a fatal blow to the constitution of this country, from which he feared it would never recover; more especially when followed by the repeated blows which the bills now in their progress would inflict. The meeting, he would say, was legally assembled, but the manner of its dispersion was wholly unlawful. The people of the town were legally convened to discuss the grievances under which they considered themselves suffering, and to petition for redress, and therefore they did no more in this instance than they were entitled to do as Englishmen by the laws and constitution of their country. But the people came from a distance there in great numbers, marshalled in columns and military array, and such was the statement in the dispatches of Mr. Hay. How far those persons who came from a distance used any riotous conduct he knew not; if, however, they had done so, this was only in degree, and was not to be charged upon the inhabitants of the town quietly met. But if such persons made use of any threatening language to persons as they came along the road, this was but the act of a few, and could not justly be charged upon a whole multitude. But if such persons made use of any threats of injury to the residents in the town, he thought their conduct was riotous, and that they would incur all the liabilities to which by law they were exposed. But if the magistrates had on the morning of that day used their authority, and the means in their power to prevent those persons from passing through the town, they would have done a most acceptable service to their town. But if the magistrates suffered those persons to advance into the town, he could not see why the people of Manchester were to be prevented from meeting, or how the march of those offenders through the town should prevent the townsmen from assembling peaceably to discuss their own grievances and petition for redress. Why, then, if those strangers only were guilty of riotous conduct, and the townsmen were conducting themselves peaceably, he would contend that they were guilty of no offence, and that there must be a considerable difference between the cases of both. When Hunt came on the hustings with his flags and banners, the magistrates, from what they had heard,

551
issued their warrant to take him up, and prevent him from inflaming the popular mind by his speeches. He had no hesitation in saying, that the conduct of itinerant orators of this description, who went about from place to place to stir up, by their inflammatory harangues, the bad passions of the common people, deserved the contempt and detestation of every good man; but when he was told that nothing but coercive measures, such as those now proposed, could reclaim the people to a sense of their duty, he trembled for the result. He was convinced, that however erroneous the temporary irritation of the popular mind might be at this present crisis, arising from a variety of causes, there was still in the great mass of the people of this country, an ardent feeling of loyalty to the throne, and attachment to the laws and constitution, which left no just fears for danger to either; and that the best and readiest mode of putting down the turbulent spirit which had for some time prevailed, was to put down those itinerant seditious demagogues who went about to disturb the country. This he said merely en passant. But with respect to the multitude assembled at Manchester on the 16th of August, he would say their motives and dispositions were as numerous and different as their persons: and while some might come to this meeting with dispositions to high treason, there must be many others whose views were perfectly innocent. But when it was said that their object was revolution and plunder, he thought it was a most harsh imputation against so numerous an assemblage of the people of England, whose conduct showed not the least disposition to riot or disorder. It was a cruel case thus to traduce the character of the common people of this country, who deserved the highest praise for the respect they had shown to the property of their neighbours under all the cutting privations they had endured for years past from the pressure of the times. He did not mean to deny that revolutionary intentions
were entertained by many mal-content persons in the country. Nor did he mean to deny that many of the numerous meetings which had been assembled in various parts of the country of late, might be intended by such men as a display of their strength in numbers. But vast numbers of persons wholly free from such views, must have mixed in those meetings, and it would be hard indeed to involve the innocent with the guilty. He
552
did not suppose that magistrates could be expected to enter into minute investigations upon such occasions, or that they could analyse the many-headed monster, called a mob. He would say, that if the peace was violated at such a meeting, the magistrates had no alternative but to put it down by the best means in their power, without any responsibility for the consequence of the necessity in which they were placed. But he would entreat of the magistrates to pause before the sword was drawn, and not mow down without distinction the innocent with the guilty. The House had heard of banners exhibited, and of expressions used by private individuals, which were, no doubt, of a questionable character; but then there was no evidence to implicate the whole meeting in any censure which might attach to those banners or expressions. This, then, formed a legitimate ground for the proposition of inquiry. At present it appeared to him, that the conduct of the magistrates of Manchester was uncalled for by necessity, and contrary to law; and let those who in thinking otherwise opposed, he had no hesitation in saying, the general impression of the country, accede to inquiry, in order to ascertain the real merits of the case. According to his judgment, Hunt, if there were ground for his arrest, should have been arrested either before he entered into the meeting, or after the meeting had dispersed. The period fixed upon for the arrest of Hunt was in every respect exceptionable, especially considering the manner in which the meeting was proceeding—that in fact, it was quite peaceable, and that Hunt was exhorting it so to continue. But his hon. and learned friend (the solicitor general), had maintained that it was a riotous meeting; that, indeed, the assemblage of numbers without any riotous act was unlawful.
The Solicitor Generaldisavowed that position.
Mr. Denmanresumed, and said that he of course misunderstood his hon. and learned friend, but such as he had stated was certainly his conception of his hon. and learned friend's doctrine. In order, however, to demonstrate the fallacy of such doctrine, and to show the real character of a riotous meeting, he referred to the authority of lord Coke, to the case of Howard and Gell in Hobart's report, and to the opinion of Justice Holt. But if his hon. and learned friend thought the Manchester meeting illegal upon the

553
grounds which he had stated, why did he not advise lord Sidmouth to act upon his opinion. The resolutions adopted at the Smithfield meeting were notoriously of the most inflammatory and illegal character, and why were not proceedings at once taken against Hunt, who presided at that meeting? Here the hon. and learned gentleman quoted the case of Demaree and Purchase from Foster's report, to shew the grounds upon which constructive delinquency legally rested. The people composing the meeting at Manchester ought, he maintained, to have been apprised that the warrant against Hunt was about to be executed; for neither the yeoman, nor any other agents of power, could be warranted in the exercise of violence, for the execution of a process among people, who were wholly ignorant of the nature of that process. The people assembled at Manchester were ignorant of the nature of the warrant against Hunt, and yet many of them were cut down or maimed, for impeding, or being supposed to impede, its execution. Such conduct could not, he contended, be regarded as consistent with the law of England, or with the law of any civilised nation upon earth, and therefore the circumstances connected with it imperiously call for inquiry. This inquiry was, indeed, the more necessary, in consequence of the measures proposed by the noble lord, to none of which, as an Englishman, anxious for the maintenance of his country's rights, could he possibly persuade himself to give his assent.—The hon. and learned gentleman sat down amidst loud and general cheering.
Mr. Mansfieldcommented with much force on the demand now made for a committee of inquiry by those who uniformly described the reports of committees of that House as merely containing the sentiments of the minister, every syllable of which he was, when such an argument suited their purpose, supposed to supply. He described the fatal consequences resulting from the formation of seditious clubs throughout the country, and said that in order to arrest these evils in their course, he was disposed to support the present measures.
Mr. W. Courtenaythought the House would best discharge its duty by resisting the motion for inquiry. He was not ignorant of the responsibility that attached to the House, yet he could not overlook the thousands and tens of thousands who were looking up to that House for protec-
554
tion. It had been argued, that lawyers were not proper judges of the present question. He differed from that opinion entirely. He would appeal to reason and common sense, and if these were exercised, he did not believe any one could contend that the meeting at Manchester, constituted as it was, was not inconsistent with every form of government in the civilised world. In his opinion the meeting was altogether illegal; and if so, it was the bounden duty of the magistrates to disperse it as an unlawful assembly. If the civil power could have effected it, it should alone have been employed; if not, it was their duty to call in the military. By what was the character of the meeting to be ascertained, but by the conduct of the persons who attended it? What had been their course? Why, not contented with proceeding in a straight course to the place where the meeting was held, Hunt, with the flags and emblems of military array, paraded through the principal streets of the town. Before the House was called upon to institute an inquiry, a prima facie case should be made out that some infraction had been made on the constitution. Was it possible for any man who had witnessed the proceedings of the last six months, to doubt that parliamentary enactments were necessary? In his opinion, it was the duty of that House to afford that protection to the community which they so anxiously sought. They asked not for a protracted inquiry, but for some legislative measures to repress the torrent of sedition and blasphemy that had so long been spreading throughout the country.
Mr. W. Lamb, on reviewing all the circumstances of the case, found it absolutely impossible to doubt that inquiry into what had taken place at Manchester ought to be immediately instituted. This was necessary for the character of the magistrates themselves. To the argument which seemed to be principally relied on, that a parliamentary inquiry would prejudice proceedings about to take place in a court of justice, he would reply, that in a case of national importance, this was an inconvenience that must be submitted to. In the next place, he would remark, that he knew of no pending prosecution that would bring the whole case before any of the ordinary tribunals; and for himself he would say, that in his opinion, nowhere could so impartial an investigation of the circumstance take place, as in a committee of

555
that House. If it were admitted that the magistrates had acted legally, still an important political question must arise on the discretion which they had exercised, and this made a parliamentary inquiry desirable. He was apprehensive that coercive measures, in the present state of the country, would prove injurious, and was afraid that more meetings like that at Manchester might be expected, if something was not done to conciliate and tranquillize the public mind. A measure he understood, was to be brought forward by an hon. friend of his, the object of which was, to effect a reform in parliament. He should be ready to support it if he thought its provisions were good. He had hitherto objected to the plans of the advocates for a parliamentary reform, because he thought them not calculated to effectuate their object, and tending to degrade rather than to improve the representation of the people. He should certainly vote for the motion.
Mr. Lawsonrose amidst loud calls for the "Question!" The distinction attempted to be drawn by the last speaker between a judicial and a parliamentary inquiry, appeared to him to supply no good reason why the latter course should be adopted. The annals of inconsistency, teeming as they did with the exploits of the gentlemen opposite, offered nothing equal to their unaccountable conduct in calling for a committee on this occasion, after lifting their voices so frequently against the reports of the committees of that House, which they had heretofore affected to regard as the reports of ministers. Suppose the circumstance of the case reversed—suppose that instead of wishing the proceedings to be brought before a court of justice, they were to demand that they should be referred to a committee of that House! What in that case would be the language of their opponents? The cry would be, that they wished to withdraw them from an impartial tribunal, that they might be inquired into, where the acts of ministers were sure to be judged right—that they therefore took the case from a court of justice, to bring it before a partial committee of a corrupt House of Commons. It was now proposed that such a course should be taken, and that too, to satisfy those very persons who had no confidence in the House of Commons as at present constituted. He censured the language held respecting the yeomanry. The members
556
of those corps he could only view as special constables in red coats; and was it for those to complain that such a force had been employed, who had been declaiming all their lives against paid mercenaries and a standing army? It had been asked, if it were possible that justice could be obtained from the funds raised by the penny subscriptions of the radicals. He did not wish to wait till a sufficient sum could be advanced to meet the expense of the proceedings, from their verdigrise exchequer. He, for one, would be content to vote any sum out of the public purse that might be necessary to bring the question before a legal tribunal. He proceeded to show the difficulties that would arise if it were resolved to institute a parliamentary inquiry on this subject. Adverting to what had been said of the sharpening of the swords of the yeomanry, he observed this was no proof of "malice prepense." As well might it be contended that the fact of one of the yeomanry having made a hearty breakfast was a proof of "malice prepense;" for he believed it was not more the practice of yeomanry to make a hearty breakfast once a day than it was for the yeomanry corps to have their swords sharpened once a year. On this subject the most palpable misstatements had appeared in some of the newspapers. They had seen a story of a boy who was said to have travelled two hundred miles to show Mr. Orator Hunt his wounds—that was, to tell a lie. Then there was an account of a person who had had his ear cut off, but who was so very peaceably disposed that he never attempted to retaliate, but coolly pocketed the affront and the ear together. One man was described to have been taken to the Infirmary covered with wounds, and, on his way, like another Regulus, or rather like one of the ancient reformers, he had declared his sufferings served but to increase his attachment to the cause of reform. He defended the magistrates, and the thanks which had been given to them in the name of the Prince Regent. The meeting at Manchester he regarded as illegal. The inscriptions on the flags which they had carried threatened death and vengeance to some of their countrymen, and though he did not know exactly who were the victims intended to be sacrificed to the offended deity of radical reform, it was pretty clear that the fury of the malcontents would be directed (where they had the means of following their inclinations) against the anti-reformers.
Mr. R. Martinsaid, the House had heard much from the noble lord opposite on the subject of conciliation. He wished for conciliation as much as any man, but he desired to know what was meant by the word as it was now used? He wished to know from the noble lord who had brought forward the present motion, and those who supported him, what they would be disposed to give to conciliate the radicals? Would they propose other taxes to the chancellor of the exchequer in lieu of those which now pressed heavy on the lower classes? Would they propose a new property tax? If they would do this, he, for one, would approve of their efforts of conciliation.
Lord Castlereaghrose amidst loud cries for the "question." Nothing, he assured the House, could persuade him to address them on this occasion, but the wish to state the nature of, rather than to argue, the present question. The noble lord who brought forward the motion, intended by it that the papers relating to the state of the country should be referred to a committee, and this, if carried, he intended to follow up with another—that this committee should have the power of sending for and examining persons, papers and records. It had in this a double view; one was, to inquire into the whole of the proceedings at Manchester; and the other to take the general state of the country into consideration, and for this purpose calling before them persons from every county where they might imagine that any disturbance or discontent existed. The question resolved itself to this and he submitted to the House whether they would consent to it—that the whole of the remedial measures should be postponed until this tedious double inquiry were gone into, for that was really the object in view. Would they submit, in the state of the country which had been alluded to in the speech from the throne, and described in the papers before them, to postpone all the measures arising from that state to an indefinite period—till this committee should have terminated its lengthened labours? Was the House prepared to rescind the vote it had come to the other evening, which vote decided, in his opinion, that the Manchester proceedings could not properly be inquired into by parliament? Would they wait until this committee reported the testimony of the Pearsons, the Bamfords, and all the other radical evidence which would, no
558
doubt, be offered to them? The radicals, however, knew their business much better than to wait until the committee had decided upon them; and before that time, they would have taken care that this committee should never report at all. They (the radicals) had taken a very different view of things; they looked to some such circumstance as this delay, though certainly without any concert with gentlemen on the other side of the House; but was the House prepared to swallow down their view of things? Would they, after what had transpired respecting the opinions and conduct of the radical reformers, consent to a delay of measures, upon which, in his conscience he believed, the tranquillity and security of the country depended? Would the right hon. gentleman opposite think this a fair way of treating the country? What would the radicals themselves say to it? Why, they would despise those who could legislate in such a manner: for they did not disguise it from the public—they did not disguise it from each other, that they only waited for an opportunity of trying their strength. But what would the loyal portion of the community (and it was consoling to know that they formed out of all proportion the majority of the population of this country]—what would they say to such a measure? They had looked to the House, they had earnestly demanded security and protection for their lives and property. Were they now to be told, when danger pressed around them, that they must wait—for what? Must wait for an inquiry, first, into the proceedings at Manchester, and then for a general one into the state of the country at large. He would admit that there were in the country many men of untainted loyalty, who were slow in admitting the existence of danger to themselves and to the state, to the extent, which he thought he might say it was generally believed; but what was the House called upon to do in this case? Why, as good subjects, and faithful guardians of the public security, they were to act for such men; they were to take such steps as would prevent themselves, and those who were less apprehensive of the danger, from being involved in one common ruin. Yet in the face of those loyal subjects, who were so anxiously expecting protection and security at the hands of the legislature, what was parliament called upon to do by gentlemen on the other side? To

559
postpone those necessary measures of safety until a period when, in all human probability, they could be of no avail. Honourable members talked of conciliation, and of the necessity of ministers uniting with them in effecting such measures as would produce that conciliation. He would assure the right hon. gentleman opposite, and those honourable members by whom he was surrounded, that ministers would have no objection to co-operate with them in any measure which might attain the desired effect, if they thought they could hope for their support. [Cheers from both sides of the House.] If they could rely upon their willing assistance, there would be no objection on the part of the ministers to join with them for the better security of their common country. But, after what he had heard last night, after, having witnessed the whole course adopted by the gentlemen opposite since the opening of the session, he professed that he saw little ground for hoping for any assistance to his majesty's government from that quarter. He had seen them interpose to prevent by inquiry justice from reaching those who wished to destroy all social order, and all regular government. He had seen them joining in the cry of men against the government, who wished to destroy every thing valuable in our constitution. He would not impute this to the ambitious view of getting into power, for he believed that every gentleman on the other side would go along with him in thinking, that office at the present moment was a heavy and serious responsibility, he would not therefore impute any unworthy motives. The right hon. gentleman had, however given currency to the assertion, that at this moment the Whigs alone could save the country. [Mr. Tierney, across the table, I never; said any such thing (Hear, hear, from the opposition).] Lord Castlereagh continued.—The right hon. gentleman might not have said so in so many words, but he had said it in effect. "There," said he, "ministers have enjoyed power for such a time, and see what are the effects. These said the right hon. gentleman" mentioning a long list of grievances, "are the effects of their being in power.'' What was that but saying, that if their opponents had enjoyed the confidence of their sovereign and of parliament, no such thing could have occurred. In his opinion the gentlemen opposite would have
560
acted a better and more useful part for their country, had they lent their support to the government on the present occasion. Instead of this, they acted in concert with a set of men, who, he would readily admit, had nothing in common with them. They had contributed, unwillingly no doubt, to sanction opinions which they themselves condemned—they had kept in countenance the notion that government was a delusion—a notion in which he could not but think that they themselves were deluded. Notwithstanding, however, that they had chosen to adopt this line of proceeding, he felt confident that there was sufficient good sense, firmness, and spirit in the House and the country to save both—not, indeed, in spite of the Whigs, but without their assistance. This speech, which was delivered with more than the noble lord's usual animation, was at its conclusion followed by loud and repeated cheers from his side of the House.
Mr. Tierneyrose. Never, he observed, in the whole course of his parliamentary life, was he so unexpectedly called upon to address the House: for up to the extraordinary rant which the noble lord had just concluded, he had not conceived that it would have been necessary for him to offer one word upon the question before them. But the House would perceive that he had been goaded into it
by the noble lord, in a speech the sole object of which seemed to be, to rouse a strong party spirit, as if the debate could not be as well concluded without it. Indeed, next to the surprise which this unexpected call had excited, nothing astonished him more than the tone and manner in which it was delivered. He had never before heard the noble lord express himself in a similar manner. The noble lord had on all former occasions so demeaned himself in debate as to entitle him to the respect of all who heard him; but, on this occasion, he had gone into a complete rant, with no other view, as it appeared to him, than that of exciting a strong and acrimonious party spirit. The noble lord had talked about conciliation. Did this look like it? Was not this any thing but an attempt at conciliation? Was it not rather calculated to excite strong party feelings on both sides? In some of those insinuating terms, of which the noble lord was so perfect a master, he had declared that the Opposition were allied with the radicals. They who, had ever

561
stood in the front rank against those deluded men, were now taunted by the noble lord with being associated with them; and this was the return which they got from the noble lord, as well as from the radicals—that they were abused by each for being hostile to both. The noble lord had said, that he (Mr. T.) had declared that the Whigs alone could save the country. He had made no such assertion; but a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning),whom he regretted not to see then in his place, having boasted that ministers had been in power for nearly fifty years, be had ventured to say, "Yes, and see the effects. I,'' continued Mr. Tierney, "did not want that the Whigs should be in power. I did not assert that they alone could save the country; but. I did ask, what had been the effects of the long continued power of their opponents. I now ask the same thing—What are those effects? We have the annual expenditure raised from fifteen to sixty millions. We have a nation overburthened with debts and taxes, and a chancellor of the exchequer obliged to break faith with the public creditor (for that was really the fact, whatever other term they might give it), in order to support a sinking revenue; and these were some of the effects of the administration of the Tories. We had acts of severity and coercion multiplied, acts to increase and prop up a falling revenue. We had paupers increasing with the increase of the poor-rates; trade and commerce declining; and the people naturally discontented; and these, too, were the effects of the excellent administration of the Tories." Yet the noble lord called upon them for confidence; he wished them to unite in support of such a government! Now, he (Mr. Tierney), said that such a government could not be supported: the House might mate laws for them, and raise money, and put troops at their disposal; but they could never give them authority; they might exercise all the powers of which they were possessed, but, as an administration, they could never command the respect or esteem of the country [Cheers]. He felt warm on this occasion: it was very natural—he could not feel otherwise; for he never expected to find such a turbulent gentleman opposed to him as the noble lord had proved himself to be. He had not expected that a polished nobleman, as the noble lord was admitted to be, would have indulged in such a strain as that which ho had now
562
uttered. Indeed, he had expected that the noble lord would have gone quietly to bed, contenting himself with the majority which it was likely he would gain on the present occasion. But no; that would not satisfy him; and when he conceived that the House was about to adjourn quietly, he all at once found the noble lord, to his great astonishment, indulging in this most extraordinary rant. The noble lord had said, that one object of the motion was, to make particular inquiry into the conduct of the Manchester magistrates. That was not the case; but if such an inquiry was brought on, it would be the result of the shifting, miserable temporizing conduct which had been pursued on the other side. The noble lord might complain of the conduct of members on this side of the House, in touching upon that subject; but he himself and his colleagues were to blame—the matter had been forced upon them (the Opposition) by the papers which had been laid before the House. Those papers, he maintained, were garbled, and insufficient for the object for which they were said to be produced. It was on thi3 account that a more full inquiry was demanded. The noble lord had said, that the House, in having agreed to the address, and rejected the amendment, stood pledged not to consider that case. This was entirely erroneous; there was no such pledge expressed or implied; and he hoped that no honourable members would be led away by this kind of sophism. The papers which had been laid before the House had forced their attention not only to the proceedings at Manchester, but to the state of the country generally. It should be recollected that those papers only referred to one part of the country, but that the measures to be founded on them were not local or temporary, but permanent and general, now, and for ever, all over the country. That was to say, it was intended to mulct the whole people of England for the misconduct of some persons in two counties. That misconduct was said to exist, and those seditious practices to be carried on, in Lancashire and Cheshire; but there was none in Yorkshire. A noble lord opposite (lord Lascelles), whose manner of expressing himself in that House entitled him to the respect of every member, had not stated that any disturbances had occurred in Yorkshire, but that the people were in that state which exposed them to

563
the pernicious influence of a few designing men, who endeavoured to mislead them. And had not the noble lord well accounted for those feelings of discontent, which would Lay them more open to the designs of the seditious, by alluding to the excessive distress which reigned among them? What had the magistrates themselves said upon this subject? "When the people are oppressed with hunger, we do not wonder at their giving ear to any doctrines which they are told will redress their grievances." Would the noble lord point out any violent criminal outrages which had been committed to justify his proposed measures? He denied that any could be shown, except the fatal one at Manchester; and upon the nature of this he need not say that opinion was divided. There had been no acts to disturb, the public peace. It was true that the people had assembled together in large numbers, preceded by flags and music, and in a kind of regular, or, as it was said, of military order; but he was certain, if they had been let alone, and not disturbed, they would have been found as peaceable as several similar meetings had been before and since. Indeed, the experience of every succeeding day showed that these meetings would die away if not opposed. The people would find, that after assembling and hearing some three or four speeches which they did not understand, and being some four or five shillings put of pocket, these were practices which they could not follow. But, upon all these local transactions, what did the noble lord do? He brought in a general law affecting the whole country, and that without giving the House any particular information. If he had confined himself to such a measure as the Watch and Ward act, it might not have been objectionable; but a general sweeping law, affecting the whole country, now and for ever, founded upon such grounds, was, he believed, a thing which never entered into the mind of any person but the noble lord himself. He had asked, besides all these additional securities, for an additional force of 11,000 men: indeed, he had called them forth without asking. What did the papers on the table say of the necessity of such a force? Why, from all he had read of them, and he had read them through, it only appeared that two troops had been called for, one at Leeds, and the other at Wigan. The right hon. gentleman then alluded to the conduct of the mayor of Leeds, and contrasted it
564
with that pursued by the magistrates of Manchester. In the former instance, every necessary precaution had been taken to prevent a breach of the peace: there had been no unnecessary parade of the military. Troops, it was true, were near at hand, but they had not been ostentatiously paraded before the meeting. What was done at Manchester? When the vast multitude were assembled together, the military force was drawn up before them. The mob, on seeing this, gave three cheers; and what did the yeomanry do? They also gave three cheers, and drew their swords. Was that, he would ask, like a fair and impartial administration of justice? or did it evince men determined, to keep the peace? Now, as to the arrest of Hunt in the centre of the meeting, was not that a case into which a court of law could not inquire, and which might very properly call for the censure of parliament, if upon inquiry, they found that the arrest was unnecessary at that time? He firmly believed, that if Hunt had not been arrested that day, no riot or disturbance would have taken place. The meeting did not look like one which had come prepared for riot; they had brought their wives and children with them—a circumstance the least likely to have happened, if they had determined upon violence. What was there in the nature of this meeting, which should have led to the supposition that it had assembled for violent purposes? When they had seen others nearly as large assemble and disperse quietly, because they were not molested, why should it be inferred that this meeting had previously determined upon riot? What had been said of the meeting at Leeds? That a great portion of them consisted of the idle and the curious, and that scarcely a fourth or a fifth part could be said to be radical reformers. Indeed, he believed, that if the radical reformers had been separated at all those meetings, from those who had been brought together from idleness and curiosity, their number would be found but very small; and he did not see that a man, conscientiously believing the justice of universal suffrage and annual parliaments, might not be a loyal subject, and have no disposition whatever to subvert the constitution. With the example of the duke of Richmond before him, he was not prepared to say that what brought one man into the cabinet should take another to the gallows. Itinerant orators had been com-

565
plained of, as exciting the people to seditious practices. There were, perhaps, five or six persons of this description; there were Hunt, and Wooler, and Johnson, and Harrison, and one or two others whose names he did not recollect; but he believed of all these, Hunt was the only one who had been heard of or known before. How would the measures of the noble lord prevent the opinions of these men from gaining circulation? They might, it was true, be prohibited from going to spout at several places, but would not their opinions still get abroad among the people? It was well known that the speeches delivered in one place were not confined to that particular spot, but were disseminated very widely. How could this be prevented? Reports of them would be printed and read: like the rant of the noble lord, they would not be confined to the place where they were delivered; and if that should be reported, it would no doubt set all the noble lord's friends capering from one end of the kingdom to the other. One consequence of those small and restricted meetings would be, that the reporters, from the thinness of the attendance, would get front places, and, of course, be able to give all that occurred much more accurately to the public. He really did not conceive that the orations of these demagogues were listened to with such serious attention as was supposed. From the account of the meeting at Birmingham it appeared that when Wooler and major Cartwright were willing to deliver their orations, the people were not disposed to listen to them.—There was one thing asserted, to which he would particularly wish to call the attention of the House. It had been stated, that schools had been opened in particular districts, where sedition and irreligion were inculcated upon the minds of children. Now, was not that in itself a matter of sufficient importance to warrant inquiry? Could any thing be more serious, or more deserving the consideration of the House, than the alleged fact, that parents suffered their children to be instructed in such principles? Why, then, not inquire into it? The House had before them a statement, garbled and broken as it was, said to be of facts. How did they know that? One good effect of the committee would be, that it would guarantee those facts, if they were such: for all the House knew, the greater part of this information might
566
have only existed in the imagination of the noble lord opposite. One thing was certain, that a great part of it rested upon the information of spies. From the letter of Mr. Lloyd, it appeared that a meeting was broken up, because the persons assembled said, that one of those who had addressed them was a government spy. This perhaps was the sixth itinerant orator; but then he was the orator of the noble lord. The noble lord had said, that they (the Opposition) had forced this question forward. This he denied. It was forced upon them; for if it was not meant that parliament should inquire, why were the letters of Mr. Hay and others laid before them? With respect to this letter of Mr. Hay, there was one question which he wished to put to the noble lord. Was the letter describing the dispersion of the meeting on the 16th of August that on which the thanks of the Prince Regent had been founded? If it was, and if there was no other information, he would say, that never were men more branded with guilt than those ministers who had advised those thanks. What was it, but as if they had said to their prince, after learning that a large meeting was violently dispersed, many of them sabred, and some of them killed—"Now, Sir, is your time to show your contempt for human life, by thanking those who shed this blood?" But he did not think that any of his majesty's ministers were capable of such conduct. What, then, was the inference? That they had received other information on the subject of the
meeting, besides that which was contained in the papers on the table. For that information he now called. He wished that the House should be put in possession of whatever information ministers had received in their subsequent personal communications with Mr. Hay.—The right hon. gentleman next adverted to the declaration in Yorkshire by those who did not agree to the requisition for the county meeting, and contended, that, according to the opinions there expressed, it was clearly admitted an inquiry should take place. He then read the whole of the declaration, after which he contended, that it was the direct compact offered by the declarers, that they would join in an address to the Prince Regent, praying that he would assemble parliament for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into the transactions at Manchester, provided the requisitionists agreed to a decla-

567
ration as to the state of the country. If that agreement had been assented to, he had no doubt whatever that the gentlemen who signed the declaration would have faithfully adhered to their contract, and voted for that inquiry which they now so strenuously opposed. But it was said by an hon. member (Mr. Stuart Wortley), that by an inquiry he meant an investigation by the courts of law. That, however, would not be prevented by a parliamentary examination; for if the House saw grounds for it, they might, as they had done in other instances, direct the attorney-general to prosecute. It would, perhaps, be said, that the attorney-general could prosecute still. He denied that he could; for it should be recollected, that his masters were some of the parties accused; and if they turned earl Fitzwilliam out of office for only expressing an opinion in favour of inquiry, what might the law officers of the crown expect?—The right hon. gentleman next defended the conduct of the Yorkshire requisitionists against the charge of having joined with the radicals. There was nothing done there, no question agitated, but the one for which they had assembled, namely—to demand an inquiry into a transaction in which it was admitted on all hands that British blood had been shed, and where no sufficient grounds had been made for the attack. Was it not, he asked, natural that such a demand should be made? When torrents of blood had flowed, when several had been maimed, and some killed, what could be more rational than that an inquiry should be instituted? But the fact was, that they who gave the thanks to the magistrates knew right well that they had not a case to make out. If they had any colourable one upon which they could rely, the House would never have heard of; such a thing as this outcry against all investigation. The right hon. gentleman then contended, that if meetings were allowed to go on, there would be an inquiry, a parliamentary inquiry, sooner or later into the Manchester business. He maintained that from the papers now upon the table, they were bound to be able to aver, that a case had been made out which affected not only the right of the three counties which were disturbed, but also the rights of the remainder of the fifty-two counties of England. Now, forty-seven of them, according to the noble lord himself, were untouched; and yet all of them were to be put out of the; pale the law, because
568
disturbances had arisen in others from the pressure of distress. He would not give the clerk the trouble of reading, he would merely allude to the words of the Prince Regent's speech at the commencement of the last session of parliament, in which the nation had been congratulated upon the commerce and revenue of the country being in the most flourishing condition. Now, the noble lord must have known that this assertion regarding the flourishing condition of the trade and revenue was any thing but true; and he (Mr. T.) had told him so at the time, and had advised him to try the effects of conciliation. The noble lord had, however, now turned round upon him, and had asked him, what he would do in the spirit of conciliation. One thing he would not do—he would not vote for the addition of three millions of new taxes. He was not bound to say what he would do; it would be sufficient for him to say what he would not do. He would not, among other things, have imposed a tax upon wool. That tax had done more to alienate the people of Yorkshire from the government, than all the other measures which they had proposed; for it was a tax that affected not only the lower orders, but also the master manufacturers, at a time, too, when there was a complete stagnation of their trade, and almost a total want of orders. What object, then, could be attained by such an impolitic measure, except the exasperation and irritation of the people? Was the noble lord still anxious to know what he would do in the way of conciliation? He would at least show a wish to relieve the distresses of the people; he would,—but he would not, even if he had any measures to propose for the present emergency, say what those measures were, because coming from him they would be certain not to meet with fair play among the gentlemen on the other side of the House. One thing, however, he would advise them to do: if severe laws were to be passed, and if a resolution was to be adopted to restrict still farther the liberty of the country, it was their bounden duty to take into consideration the distress, and the causes of the distress, which now prevailed. The noble lord, indeed, had asked them, whether they would wait and postpone the passing of his measures, until they had inquired into the necessity of enacting them. With as great reason might the poor man turn round and say to the noble lord, "Will you postpone to relieve me, when I am starving, until you

569
have inquired into the means of removing my distress?"
The House then divided; when the numbers were, Ayes, 150; Noes, 323: Majority against the motion, 173.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, hon. J.

Hamilton, lord A.

Allen, J. H.

Harvey, D. W.

Anson, hon. G.

Heathcote, sir G.

Aubrey, sir John

Hill, lord A.

Barham, J. F.

Honywood, W. P.

Baring, Alex.

Hornby, Ed.

Barnett, James

Howard, hon. W.

Becher, W.W.

Howorth, H.

Benett, John

Hughes, W. L.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Hume, J.

Benyon, Benjamin

Hurst, Robt.

Bernal, Ralph

Hutchinson, hon. C.

Birch, Joseph

Kennedy, T. F.

Brougham, Henry

Kinnaird, hon. D.

Browne, Dom.

Kingsborough, visct.

Burrel, hon. P. D.

Lamb, hon. W.

Byng, G.

Lamb, hon. G.

Beaumont, J. W.

Lambton, John G.

Buxton, T. F.

Langton, W. G.

Burdett, sir F.

Latouche, Robt.

Calcraft, John

Lemon, sir W.

Calvert, C.

Lloyd, sir E.

Campbell, hon. J.

Lloyd, J. M.

Carter, John

Longman, Geo.

Cavendish, lord G.

Lyttelton, W. H.

Cavendish, Henry

Macleod, Rod.

Clifford, capt.

Macdonald, James

Clifton, viscount

Mackintosh, sir J.

Colborne, N. R.

Martin, John

Coke, T. W.

Maule, hon. W.

Concannon, Lucius

Maxwell, John

Coussmaker, G.

Merest, W.

Crespigny, sir W. De

Mills, George

Calvert, N.

Milton, visct.

Crompton, S.

Moore, Peter

Davies, T. H.

Mostyn, sir Thos.

Denman, Thos.

Maberly, John

Denison, W. J.

Maberly, W. L.

Duncannon, visct.

Mahon, hon. Step.

Dundas, hon. L.

Nugent, lord

Dundas, hon. G.

Newman, R. W.

Dundas, Thos.

O'Callaghan, J.

Ebrington, visct.

Ord, W.

Ellice, E.

Palmer, C. F.

Euston, earl of

Pares, Thos.

Fazakerly, N.

Parnell, sir H.

Fellowes, hon. N.

Parnell, Wm.

Fitzroy, lord C.

Peirse, Henry

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Pelham, hon. G. A.

Fitzgerald, lord F.

Pelham, hon. C. A.

Folkestone, visct.

Philips, Geo. jun.

Farrand, Robt.

Phillipps, C. M.

Grant, J. P.

Powlett, hon. W.

Graham, Sandford

Prittie, hon. F.

Graham, J. R. G.

Primrose, hon. F.

Griffiths, John W.

Price, Robt.

Guise, sir W.

Pringle, J.

Gurney, R. H.

Ricardo, David

Harcourt, John

Ramsden, J. C.

570

Rancliffe, lord

Tavistock, marquis of

Robarts, W. T.

Taylor, M. A

Robarts, A.

Thorp, alderman

Rowley, sir W.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Russell, lord. G. W.

Waithman, alderman

Russell, R. G.

Walpole, hon. G.

Rumbold, C.

Webbe, Ed.

Rickford, Wm.

Wharton, John

Scarlett, James

Whitbread, W. H.

Scudamore, R. P.

Wilkins, Walter

Sefton, earl of

Wilson, sir Robert

Smith, hon. R.

Wood, alderman

Smith, W.

Webster, sir G.

Symth, J. H.

TELLERS.

Spencer, lord R.

Althorp, lord

Stuart, lord J.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Stewart, W.

PAIRED OFF.

Stanley, lord

Curwen, J. C.

Talbot, R. W.

STATE OF THE COUNTRY.
The Marquis of Lansdownerose, in pursuance of his notice, in furtherance of a duty, the importance of which he most seriously felt, to propose to their lordships to appoint a committee to inquire into the state of the country, and more particularly with reference to the distress of the manufacturing districts, and the execution of the laws. In doing this, he felt all the difficulty of the task he had under-taken, and was sensible how much reason he had to lay claim to their lordships' indulgence for the details into which he should find it necessary to enter in bringing this important subject under their consideration. He was aware, however, that he came before them at a time when there could be little difference of opinion as to the momentous nature of the subject on which he was addressing them. It had been common, and nothing was more natural on ordinary occasions, to impute to noble lords on that side of the House,

419
a disposition to magnify the dangers of the country, and to accuse the noble lords on the other side of placing them in a point of view by which they were too much diminished. But, at the present moment, this difference of opinion did not prevail. Indeed, when he recollected what had taken place within these few years; when he considered that within the last month there had been added to an already large standing army, a force or rather a new array, greater than that which a hundred years ago had been thought sufficient for internal defence, and external operations; when he found their lordships' table, and that of the other House, covered with measures for restraining the liberty of the subject; when he saw all this, joined to the great anxiety which every where prevailed respecting the state pf the country—an anxiety, which was greatly increased by the conduct of those in whose hands the government of the Prince Regent was placed—he was, convinced that it would be a waste of their lordship time to offer any argument on the extent of the existing danger. He felt this conviction the more, when he considered that their lordships were called upon by the Prince Regent's ministers to adopt measures to check or avert the evil. It must from all these circumstances be admitted that a primâ facie case was made out for requiring their lordships to consider the nature and cause of the danger, and the remedies which ought to be applied.
To perform this duty, it would be necessary for their lordships to take a large and comprehensive view of the situation of the country, in order that they might be enabled to make up their minds to the whole extent of the mischief, and to the means of cure; and, in particular to ascertain whether they had nothing more to do than to pass the bills which the noble secretary of state had recommended for their adoption, and then to return tranquilly to their duties or amusements in the country. The variety of considerations that offered themselves, and the difficulty of making out particular cases, were the chief reasons which induced him to bring the subject in the shape he proposed before their lordships. He was confident that it would be a great mistake, were their lordships to content themselves with taking a partial view of the situation of the country. To look merely at partial danger would tend only to mislead, and produce a false conclusion. This kind of
420
error would be inevitable, if they founded their opinion on any single circumstance or transaction, without connecting it with the whole situation of the country, and bringing under their review not only the events which had taken place, but the causes of those events. No man could look at the events which had recently occurred, but must feel that violence was to be repressed by violence, and that sedition of every kind was to be put down by the law. But when the violence was repressed and the sedition subdued, was not the evil which had led to that state of things to be explored? Were their lordships to stop at this point, and forget that it was their duty to look farther, and to consider how the causes of the evil could be removed? Their lordships must not be satisfied with finding a case made out with respect to the circulation of seditious publications; but must inquire into the cause which produced them, and obtained for them readers. It was not sufficient for them to know, that itinerant demagogues had travelled over the country, addressing seditious harangues to multitudes of people; they were bound to make themselves acquainted with the causes which had, produced these extraordinary effects, and to ascertain why so many tongues were thus, employed, and why they found so many ears disposed to listen to them. It would be in vain to attempt to discover these causes by any partial view or examination, as it would be absurd to account for them by their effects. From all that their lordships had seen, it appeared that there existed, among the people a strong desire that something should be done to ameliorate their situation. Whatever desire there was of change, it appeared to be founded merely in a feeling of uneasiness, and exhibited a wish to embrace any scheme, whatever, which might appear calculated to give them relief. Looking, then, at all the circumstances which had come to their lordships knowledge, it appeared that one principal cause of this feeling, and one which unfortunately was founded in truth, was distress. He did not mean to say that there were not other causes which were calculated to excite great jealousy among the people—a jealousy even justified by the acts of that and the other House of Parliament; but it was evident that the spirit which, under the name of radicalism, had prevailed in different parts of the country, had always taken a deeper

421
root, and more vigorously flourished, in proportion to the extent of the distress of those to whom that fallacious and destructive doctrine was recommended. This would be evident, if their lordships took the trouble to compare the state of the agricultural and the manufacturing districts. The agricultural labourers, though not in that happy situation in which they had formerly stood, were much better off than the labourers or manufacturers. Accordingly, it would be found, that it was in the manufacturing districts only that the mischief which their lordships were called upon to correct had any existence. If he went farther, and inquired among what descriptions of manufacturers the poison was most widely diffused, he was again compelled to point to those who were suffering under the greatest degree of distress. Among the cotton-manufacturers, whose situation was worse than that of any other class, the spirit of radicalism had been carried to the greatest extent. It was important that their lordships should feel the truth of this view of the subject, in order that their attention might be fully directed to the state of the manufacturing districts, which formerly employed so great a part of the population of the country. From statements which he had before him on the table, he could prove to their lordships, that in all the great stations of the cotton-manufacture, such as Manchester in England, and Glasgow and Paisley in Scotland, the earnings of the manufacturers had, at an average, fallen more than one half. Even adding all that could be obtained by working additional hours, the average rate of payment did not exceed Ss. a week in the principal manufacturing districts. There were, however, other places where, from local circumstances, the master manufacturers could not afford to give even so much as 5s. a week. This was the case at Maybole, in Scotland, and some other parts, where, from the smallness of the capital of the master manufacturers, they had been compelled to reduce the rate of wages to half-a-crown per week. There were other places where the price varied to 4s. and 5s., and where some addition was supplied to the labourer from other sources.
He would not trouble their lordships by entering farther into the details which the papers before them afforded; these details were all of the same description, and proved to demonstration, that it was this
422
lamentable distress which afforded employment to the agents of sedition. It was the material on which they worked. It became their lordships to turn their attention to this distress, and to investigate its causes. Those causes appeared to be of no recent date, and their operation might be traced, through the last twenty years, to measures of political economy, connected with the political events of the times. It was one effect of great civilization to produce a great quantity of fixed capital; and the greater that capital was, the greater became the difficulty when any derangement of its usual course of employment took place, of throwing it into new and productive channels. That very division of labour, too, which was another consequence of social improvement and high civilization, formed on such occasions an additional evil; for the workman became a part of the same fixed capital, inasmuch as the talent and ingenuity he had acquired in his particular art or manufacture could not be otherwise employed. It was in every sense of the word, in his hands a fixed capital, which he could not remove to any other productive source of employment. When a great proportion of the population of a country was employed in manufactures, of which a diminished demand suddenly took place, the distress produced must be great. The master-manufacturers lowered the rate of wages: this reduction induced the labourers to work a greater number of hours; and thus more goods were produced, which served only to add to the evil. During the late war it happened (for it was the effect of every war to throw capital into new channels), that various profitable branches of commerce were carried to a great extent. In the course of a contest which had continued longer than any other in which the country had been engaged, and which was connected with a monopoly of the carrying trade, the commercial advantages which presented themselves were necessarily great. The effect of the profitable employment of capital was, to raise up a vast population, supported by means which, from their very nature, could not be permanent. Intimately connected with this circumstance was the disproportion which naturally followed between the agricultural and manufacturing part of the population, the latter being to the former in the proportion of 900,000 families to 700,000. The

423
evil was greatly aggravated by same other circumstances in our domestic policy, by the state of the finances, the Poor-laws, and our paper currency.
Without troubling their lordships with all the details into which he might enter, to prove the pernicious influence resulting from such a state of things, it would be sufficient for him to remind them, that the. poor laws, by making up to the labourer the deficiency of wages, had served: as, a. bounty for an artificial speculation in manufactures. The paper currency also afforded another means of artificial speculation. Capital and labour having, in the manner he had described, been thrown into new channels, a great charge was imposed upon the public, when the cause which produced the impulse was withdrawn. The population which had been raised by commercial speculations during the war, was thrown back upon the country, in a very different situation from that in which the population stood at the commencement of hostilities. They required aid, when the means which the country had of affording it was greatly diminished, This could not surprise their lordships, when they considered the effect of a revenue increased from sixteen to between fifty and sixty millions, and the burthen which such an increase necessarily imposed; when they considered that every individual in the country was subject to burthens equal to triple the amount of what had been paid before the war; and that, compared with the principal manufacturing countries of Europe, our charges were double, and considerably more than the double of those countries. These circumstances could not be loft out of any view which their lordships were called upon to take of the internal situation of the country. When they reflected on the effects which must naturally result from such a state of things, could their lordships be surprised, that many among the unfortunate part of the population he had described, were disposed to listen to projects which might be suggested for bettering their condition, without examining the nature of those projects with sufficient discrimination? Having exhausted all their means in a struggle between life and misery, was it surprising if nothing was done to remove the cause, that they should proceed from poverty to crime, till society, grown weary of the load, wished to shake off the incumbrance? It was however, satisfactory, to their lord-
424
ships to know, that, notwithstanding the industry of the agents of sedition in working on this distress, the poison had not extended to all the population of districts in which the misery prevailed; and that by far the greater portion was acknowledged to continue firm in their allegiance. Even at Manchester, where that unfortunate event had occurred of which he should speak more at large by and by, it appeared that there was no ground for supposing the majority of the distressed population disaffected. If their lordships referred to the papers on the table, they would find that Mr. Hay considered only a part of the mob that composed the meeting to be what he called reformers. Of whom, then, did the other part of the meeting consist? Certainly not of
persons whose minds had been poisoned by seditious publications, or by the harangues of itinerant demagogues. Besides, what proof had ministers afforded of the dangerous spirit having spread beyond the distressed districts, or of any thing which could stamp the character of treason or disaffection on the population in general? Policy, as well as humanity, called upon their lordships to devote all their minds to the present situation of the country. If by any apparent want of attention, an opinion should prevail among the middling classes of society, that their interests were either not duly consulted, or sacrificed to other interests, it was impossible to calculate what might be the consequences of such an impression. Then vain would be levies of soldiers and all enactments of severe laws. Then would the arm of the constitution be withered, and those institutions which had been the pride of the country, and the safeguards of liberty, and which depended entirely on the confidence of the people, would be annihilated. He thought the situation of the country in this respect truly alarming; for if the middling classes were to become disaffected to the institutions of their ancestors, it was impossible to say where the danger which their lordships were called upon to avert would end.
Having said thus much, with the view of impressing on their lordships the necessity of diligently investigating the causes of the existing discontents, he should now proceed to consider what means of cure might be in the power of the legislature—first, with reference to the causes of the distress; and secondly

425
with reference to the execution of the existing laws; for with regard to the latter part of the subject, if any cloud was hanging over the conduct of those who had to put in motion the laws of the country, it was fit it should be removed, or the circumstances which gave rise to it explained. Among the means of relief which had occasionally been suggested, was a parliamentary grant for the assistance of those who were suffering by the decay of trade and manufactures. This mode, however, involved a very objectionable principle, and was a mode of relief which, he confessed, he could not accede to without great consideration and caution; for evil was always to be expected when any considerable amount of capital was suddenly removed from one quarter to another. If, indeed, he could bring himself to the opinion that the evil was temporary, that it depended in a great measure on the distress of other countries, and that the means suggested would give effectual relief to the distressed population, then he might be induced to depart from those principles of political economy which, under other circumstances, he should be disposed to hold sacred. If he could be persuaded that a parliamentary grant would carry the people of the distressed districts over their difficulty, he would not hesitate to give it his concurrence. There were, however, other means which, in his opinion, might be resorted to for the purpose of diminishing the burthens which pressed so heavily on the people in general, land palsied every branch of industry. He would for the present suppose that it should be found impossible to carry the reduction of the public expenditure farther than had been done; still, when their lordships considered the manner in which the revenue had been raised for many years past, when they recollected that it had been the object of every minister to look merely at the resources of the present moment, without sufficiently calculating the effect which his measures might have on the future state of the revenue, he believed they would not think it unreasonable to expect some relief from an improved distribution of the public burthens. It was also probable that there were particular duties, the removal of which would afford an important relief without affecting the general amount of the revenue. For instance the article of tea was one the consumption of which, in consequence of
426
the high duty, was, he understood, considerably diminished, particularly in the districts to which he had so frequently alluded. If the duty on tea were lowered it was to be expected that the consumption would be resumed and carried to a greater extent; especially as from long habit, it might be regarded rather as a necessary than a luxury. In considering this subject, it ought not to be overlooked, that the smuggling of tea was carried on to a great extent. It had been estimated that America re-exported tea to the extent of a million and a half; and if this calculation was correct, there was no doubt that a very great portion of this tea was introduced by smugglers into the British dominions. It must then be obvious, that a reduction of the duty would, by taking away the temptation to this contraband trade, increase the revenue. At the same time, a careful revision of our commercial system ought to be undertaken.
It had happened most unfortunately, that the present administration had not succeeded, under the most favourable circumstances in which they could possibly have been placed, to conclude at the close of the war a commercial treaty which might have proved beneficial to the country; but even without any such treaty, much might be done to encourage trade and facilitate the exportation of our manufactures. He would again, merely for illustration, state an instance in which this desirable end might to a certain degree be easily accomplished. The trade with Norway had been sacrificed with the view of encouraging the importation of timber from Canada. The result of this arrangement was, that we had been deprived of the advantage we derived from the opportunity of procuring an article of great value in building, while our export trade was, by the same exclusive system, diminished. It could not be questioned, but that if the prohibition against the importation of timber from Norway were removed, an opening would be made for the exportation of some of our manufactures. There were other regulations which might be made, all tending to open additional markets for our manufactures, and above all, there was South America, where a great mart might be opened for our manufactures, as was evident by what had been done through the appointment of a consul, and the opening a communication with the government of Buenos

427
Ayres. But he should not dwell longer on this part of the subject, being confident that, if he prevailed on their lordships to go into the inquiry, he should propose to institute, either with respect to relief from the weight of taxation, or the improvement of our commercial relations, no practical means would be omitted which might appear calculated to lighten the burthens of the country generally or tend to improve the situation of the manufacturing districts.
Besides the hope of finding the means of removing distress, there was another great object which he thought ought to make an important part of the investigation of any select committee appointed to inquire into the state of the country. That part of the subject embraced the consideration of public meetings and seditious publications; and when their lordships' attention was directed to these objects, he must think them bound to inquire how far the administration of the laws had been fair and uniform; he used the word "uniform," because certainly nothing could produce a more unfavourable impression on the public mind, than affording ground to suppose that the laws were capriciously executed. Now, with respect to seditious publications, it ought to be explained how it happened that the law of libel had been, for two or three years, so laxly and ineffectually enforced, as to permit the most extraordinary multiplication of works of that description. Their lordships should be informed of the reasons which had induced the law officers of the Crown to allow sedition to stalk abroad without any attempt to check it, as if it had been intended by permitting its increase to lay a foundation for measures restrictive of the press. Upon what other ground could libels, which no twelve men in the city of London or any where else could hesitate for a moment to condemn, be allowed to circulate in the metropolis and all over the country, until it seemed that a connected system, having for its object to pervert the public mind, and which he was afraid might in some instances have proved but too efficacious, had been acted upon? For the purpose of calling their lordships attention to this part of the subject, and showing to what a degree the duty of checking seditious publications had been omitted, the would select from a mass of other libels which had been permitted to circulate, two: one, an attack on the rights of property,
428
and a provocation to subvert the existing order of society; the other, a libel on the person at the head of the government, and a provocation to assassination. Nearly a year ago the latter libel had been put in circulation, and yet no step had been taken to check it, or punish its publication. Among other observations the writer of this libel proceeded to state, that if the Prince Regent persevered in paying no attention to the sufferings of the people, there would be but one course for the people to pursue: they would recollect what their ancestors had done in the case of Charles; and the house of Brunswick would, like the Stuarts, be banished from the throne. The other libel to which he had alluded was in the following terms:—"We must look into the coffers of the descendants of our forefathers' oppressors for plundered wealth; we must look at the land-leviathan's hoards, extorted by excessive rentals charged upon their sweating industrious tenantry; we must examine title-deeds; we must know by what right, social, natural, or divine, they became possessed of one or other part of the property they hold; and should they rend the air with their wailings after any unjustly accumulated store, still at a breaking up of an accursed system of exclusion and privilege, justice must be the order of the day. It is said, an infinite God is no respecter of persons; then how presumptuous in man to be so? Truth will make its way; sooner or later it will come to this; for they have pawned all, they are bankrupts, and living upon the spoils, the mercy and forbearance of their creditors the people, whom they and their fathers have for ages defrauded; and when the commission opens, should they not render a true and faithful account, they must even suffer the fate of felons, and depend on the mercy of the offended majesty of the people. They may cry aloud to the property-mongers, the Mammon worshippers of the land, and the town and country gentry, that cling around the falling system, as the miser hugs, in the agonies of death, the precious darling gold to his breast, and thinks that the only source of happiness; but it will not all do; if these show any disposition to join the unhallowed band, to "fight for their property," as a rich man (a mistaken patriot)" once said they would, they must even share the fate of their companions." This article had appeared in the course of last spring; the other atrocious

429
libel, as he had already stated, was published about a. year ago. He would not suppose that it would be maintained, in answer to this observation, that a British jury would have overlooked the offence, and refused to give a verdict against the offender. Let it not be understood that he was demanding a severe administration of the laws with respect to libel, when he appeared urgent for such prosecutions. He thought that a libel which occurred from inadvertence, or at an unguarded moment, was a proper subject for leniency, and ought, in many cases, to be entirely overlooked; but when libelling assumed the form of a system, and was directed against the order of society, and the most sacred institutions of the country, he thought that the law officers of the Crown did not perform their duty, if they did not endeavour to repress it by all the penalties of the law. These officers might be able to account for their late inactivity, but he could hot see the grounds on which they could plead their justification of neglecting to execute the existing laws, which might have been sufficient; while they demanded laws of greater seventy, which might be unnecessary. At any rate the efficiency of the existing laws ought to be inquired into before any change was made; and it ought to be known, whether their intrinsic, insufficiency, or the neglect of those who were required to watch over their execution, had allowed the evil to grow to such a height as to require the application of the measures proposed yesterday by the noble secretary of state. He recollected a time when prosecutions were instituted for much less offensive libels than those which he had read; when the editor of a newspaper was obliged to defend himself before a jury for saying that his majesty's successor would have a glorious opportunity of being popular. No conviction was obtained in this case, but the acquittal did not prove that a jury would have returned the same verdict in cases of an atrocious description. So in another instance, where it was said that lord Castlereagh had bribed Mr. Canning, or Mr. Canning lord Castlereagh (he forgot which), a jury might fairly be in doubt as to the importance of the charge. At any rate the offence was venial when compared with that contained in the passages he had read. In those passages the throne of the king was held up as an object of attack, and the property of the rich pointed out for plunder and spolia-
430
tion. That a British jury would have refused to convict the author of such a libel, had he been prosecuted,, could scarcely be believed.
Another topic of great importance, on which he would beg leave to trouble their lordships with a few observations, was, the execution of the law regarding public meetings. Had the conduct of the magistrates and,, the execution of the law, been uniform over the country in respect to those meetings? He was not disposed to deny that public meetings were differently conducted in different places, and that they, might on that account be treated differently. But in many parts where they were left "unmolested, those who attended them marched to the spot with banners and music in martial array, and under regular leaders; whereas these circumstances, in one case, had been declared the symbols of rebellion, and were pleaded as a justification of a forcible dispersion. Now, he would ask, were the same flags, music, inscriptions, and parade, legal in one part of the country, and illegal in another? What instructions had the noble secretary of state for the home department given to the magistrates to guide them in the execution of their duty regarding these meetings? The noble secretary had not before been slow to issue his circulars, when there was not such a necessity for his advice. How was the present abstinence to be reconciled with, the former assiduity of the noble viscount in issuing his Circular to instruct the magistrates as to the course to be pursued by them with regard to the circulation of libels? Neither the noble viscount nor the magistrates could say, they were taken by surprise; they knew, long before, the nature of the meeting that was to take place at Manchester. They had seen similar meetings all over the manufacturing districts, and knew the doctrines which were inculcated by their leaders; and they ought to have determined beforehand on the course which it was proper to pursue regarding them. If ever "coming events cast their shadows before," the seditious publications to which he adverted were the natural prognostics of those meetings. Looking, therefore, at their character, and anticipating their consequences, government ought to have taken the best advice, and followed a course of conduct which would have prevented the unfortunate occurrences at Manchester. There were three important circumstances to

431
which the attention of the noble viscount and the magistrates ought to have been directed: 1st. It was of great consequence, that if any violence was to take place it should commence on the part of the populace, and not on the part of the constituted authorities. 2ndly. It was of the utmost importance, if violence was to be employed, that notice of such intention should have been given before hand, that the people might have been aware of their danger. And 3rdly, It was of the utmost consequence, that if violence was to be employed, and punishment inflicted that punishment should have fatlen on the leaders of the meeting, and not on those who were aware of no offence, and who perhaps attended out of curiosity, and from no participation in the views or objects of those leaders. Without meaning to impugh the conduct of the magistrates or of the yeomanry on that unfortunate occasion, he was compelled to ask their lord ships, and beg their lordships to ask them, selves, why Mr. Hunt was arrested when on the hustings, surrounded by such a multitude? why he was not arrested when on his way to the meeting—circumstance which might have prevented it? or why he was not arrested after the meetings had dispersed, which there was every probability, it Would have done peaceably? He would ask still farther, why; if the meeting was considered illegal, no precautions were taken to apprise the people of the intent to disperse it, by posting up placards over the town? If such a step was advisable in any place, it was in Manchester, where a caution of the magistrates, warning the inhabitants not to attend the meeting of the 9th, had been attended with complete success. He made these observations, not for the purpose of passing sentence on the magistrates, but as laying the foundation for inquiry; and with them he would dismiss for the present, the consideration of the affair of Manchester.
When he called for inquiry on this subject, it was no sufficient answer, that such inquiry would affect the character of individuals in highly respectable situations. Such an objection was not allowed any weight in 1717, when a riot happened at Oxford from some persons of Jacobite principles, which the troops were sent to quell. The affair was merely local, but the lords went into a committee of the whole house to inquire into the circumstances. Not many years afterwards a
432
similar proceeding was adopted regarding the riots that took place in Edinburgh, when captain Porteous was put to death. Lord Carteret then came down to the House, and proposed a committee of inquiry A motion was made to call to the bar the magistrates who exercised authority on the occasion. In opposing this motion, several of the Scotch peers then in the House contended, that it would, if agreed to, cast a slur on the lord president of the court of session, the lord provost of Edinburgh, and the other official persons whose conduct was the subject of inquiry. On this representation the debate was adjourned to the following day, when the duke of Newcastle came down to the House, and consented to their being examined at the bar. Now, he would ask; were the magistrates of Manchester above that inquiry which was instituted in the cases of the riots of Oxford and Edinburgh? or did the state of the country then less manifestly and imperiously demand of the House to show an anxiety to watch over and enforce a pure and impartial administration of the laws? If their lordships should entertain the proposed inquiry into the administration of the existing laws, into the distresses of the country into the cause of those distreses, and the means of removing them, they might, with the best graces if found necessary, pass the measures of coercion before the House. If, after inquiry, such measures should be thought indispensable, they would, though harsh and severe, be received with acquiescence, and submitted to without murmur; but if inquiry were refused, the proposed laws, though good in themselves, would fail in producing the desired effect. The noble viscount last night strongly expressed himself against concession. If, by saying he would not concede, the noble viscount meant that he would not yield to vague claims, insolent demands, or irritated feelings, he would concur with the noble viscount, and declare likewise against concession. But he was willing to concede what could not be withheld without injustice—he was willing to concede the important benefits and privileges of the British constitution. One of these was, a parliament prepared to hear the complaints of the people, and inclined to redress them; disposed to inquire into their grievances, to listen to their petitions, and to satisfy them, that if restraints were imposed, they were only imposed on the ground of necessity. It

433
had been said from the throne, that their lordships had great duties to discharge. Their lordships would best discharge some of those great duties by endeavouring, by measures of conciliation, to remove any distrust that might exist between the people and the legislature, and by endeavouring to gain the attachment of those whose rights they were bound to protect. The noble marquis concluded with moving, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the country, and more particularly into the distresses and discontents prevalent in the manufacturing districts, and the execution of the laws with respect to the numerous meetings which have taken place."
The Marquis of Wellesleyexpressed his full sense of the praise that was due, and the importance that must attach, to the able and statesman-like speech of the noble marquis who had just sat down—a speech distinguished by those comprehensive views, and embellished from those sources of literature with which his mind was adorned, and which rendered his eloquence and opinions entitled, upon all occasions, to the attention and respect of the national council. After, however, following the noble marquis as closely as he could through his eloquent address, he thought it amounted to no more than this—that in all the complicated and varied perils of a state, the causes of those perils must be of a complicated and various nature, and the remedies must likewise be complicated and various. But this was not the question now to be solved. The question, in all cases of threatened danger to the institutions of a country, would be with all able statesmen, and all great and wise states, what was the paramount duty of the hour? The noble marquis had said, with an eloquence and manliness characteristic of his accomplished mind, that violence must be subdued by force, and sedition repressed by law; but that their lordships ought to inquire into the cause of that violence which must be so subdued, and of that sudition which must be so repressed. In every word of this he entirely agreed with the noble marquis; but the question to-night was, whether, though much violence had been done, worse violence was not intended—whether sedition was not in existence which had not yet been put down by law—whether we had not arrived at' that state of constitutional danger which called for exclusive consideration—whether we
434
had not before us that case of violence which must be coerced, and of sedition which must be encountered and extinguished by law? This was the real point at issue, and to have it settled, he had only to appeal to a few facts. Why was parliament now assembled, if peril and sedition did not exist? Parliament was now called together for its own preservation—not in the narrow, limited, selfish, meaning of the term, as it had self-interested privileges to maintain with which the people had no concern, but in the general and important sense of preservation which was implied when the constitution of parliament as an essential part of the constitution of the country was menaced. It met to exercise the first of all the duties and all the rights of a state—that of maintaining the public security from violation and ruin. The noble marquis, in a part of his speech, had entered into a consideration of the perils which now surrounded us, and, in the course of his remarks, stated, as their cause, that great distress existed, and that a general desire of a change was felt, without being accompanied, however, with any fixed object, or regular plan. Here he was at issue with the noble marquis. He would contend, that the object was evident, that the plan was definite, well arranged, and perseveringly pursued, which pointed to a parliamentary change, the effect of which must be the overthrow of society, the destruction of the rights of property, and the demolition of the whole frame of government. The noble marquis had said, that all their lordships admitted the danger. It was their duty, therefore, to examine it, to look it fairly in the face, to see what was its character, and what were its powers, and to meet it with proper firmness. He believed that it was as extensive in its diffusion, as it was alarming in its character, and he begged their lordships to consider in what it consisted. It was of no vague description. It was a fixed and unalterable purpose, a regular and settled project, announced in all the publications of the disaffected, embodied in all the resolutions of their public meetings, and perseveringly pursued with all their energies, to effect such an alteration in the constitution of parliament as would establish universal suffrage, annual elections, and voting by ballot. Were those points on which there could be any doubt—were those doctrines which they had denied, disguised, or renounced? No. Some

435
years ago, their plan was more indefinite; there was a dissension among the supporters of reform, and several of them did not go the length of the tenets which he had stated. Now, they were all agreed: they maintained to a man, that universal suffrage, annual parliaments, and voting by ballot, would redress their grievances; and that unless those concessions were made, their expectations would not be satisfied, nor their grievances redressed. All parts of their plan adhered together, and if carried into execution, would be the destruction of all regular government, the destruction, of all religion, and the destruction of all private property. The next circumstance in the danger was the mode in which the plan was to be carried into effect. Their publications and speakers at public meetings announced a settled design to carry their objects by physical force, but recommended, in the first place, to observe order and peace. If their projects could be carried peaceably their adherents were told it was well; but if not peaceably, at any rate they must be carried. "We come," said they, "with our minds prepared and armed for the conquest of our rights: we would wish to obtain them mildly if we can; if not, we must resort to physical force, and our success is secured." If any man could place reliance on their professions of peace, and surrender his alarms on hearing their exhortations to order, that man must have firmer nerves than he had. No one regretted more than he did the unfortunate occurrences at Manchester. The noble marquis had said, that if the meeting had not been disturbed by the interference of the magistrates, it would have gone oft' in perfect tranquillity. Perhaps that might have been the case; but why? in the contemplation of times to come. With the most quieting declarations of loyalty and respect to the laws, the disaffected proceeded meekly and peaceably in their projects, boasting of their physical force without using it, waiting for the happy day and the halcyon hour when they might accomplish loyally and unresistedly their schemes of plunder and anarchy. Their peaceable and quiet demeanor, instead of lessening the danger, in his opinion ought to aggravate the alarm. He might say of them Ipsa silentia terrent. They became more dangerous from entertaining such disorganizing doctrines in settled tranquillity. He would put a case:—Suppose they had
436
agreed at one of their assemblies to repeal the Act of Settlement, to depose the king, or to abolish the monarchy, would the alarm of their lordships be reduced, or the guilt of the conspirators lessened, by assurances that they meant to proceed peaceably in the execution of their projects, and that the meetings in which they measured their strength, and confirmed their purpose, passed off with the utmost quietness? In his mind, such quietness, with such designs, appeared like malice prepense, which, though concealed for a, time, was more dangerous than temporary passion; and the very circumstance of their tranquillity aggravated their guilt. There was another circumstance which had been stated regarding them, as lessening the alarm with which they ought to be viewed, but which, in his mind, increased it. It was said their projects were so wild, absurd, and extravagant, that they could make no progress towards their execution, and therefore they could not be accompanied with danger. He need not tell those who had either attended to the principles of the human mind, or. studied the pages of history, how much mischief had arisen to the world from practical attempts to accomplish impracticable schemes, and realize absurd theories. There was in virtue, in science, and in art, a certain point of excellence which was unattainable, but towards which the admirers of each never ceased to aspire, and in approaching which every step was fraught with improvement—every step added to the dignity of human nature. So with the arts of confusion and anarchy. They might not succeed, but they had an invincible tendency towards realization. In those wild and destructive theories which had for their object the subversion of society, although there was a point of ruin which might not be achievable, every step in the progress towards it had its evil. Universal suffrage might not be attainable; but in the pursuit universal confusion might take place, and every step towards the accomplishment of so absurd and chimerical a scheme would be but a step towards creating new mischiefs. He might apply this also to another subject—he meant, to those attempts which were made to subvert the religion of the nation. Attempts so wild and fantastical as these would scarcely enter into the imagination of any man. So frantic an opinion could scarcely enter the head of any man, as to suppose that in this en-
✶

437
lightened country, where knowledge was so advanced, and where the purest religion was established, the monstrous doctrine of unmitigated atheism could be disseminated with any success. But in attempting to realize this object, although the pursuit was not likely to be attended with success, yet the very effort which was made, would tend to dissolve the purity of religion, to undermine faith, to destroy morality, and to dissolve all those bonds which bound man to man: and would it in such a state of things be any satisfaction to be told that the establishment of atheism was impracticable, and could never be accomplished? Why, then, he would ask, were such attempts to be treated with indifference? He was willing to believe that these projects were confined to a few visionary individuals;; he did not believe that the whole people of England were tainted with such principles; nevertheless, he submitted that they demanded the powerful and vigorous efforts of the legislature to suppress them. His, noble friend had told them, that it was very proper to inquire into the state of distress throughout the whole country. He was not disposed to deny the policy of was a proceeding at a proper time, and the expediency of applying every measure which might be calculated to remedy that distress; but was that inquiry to take precedence of those steps which the imminent danger in which the country was placed so imperiously demanded? Would it be proper to appoint a committee, the investigations of which must, necessarily engage the attention of all the ability and all the integrity of the House, from hour to hour, and from day to day, at a moment when the absolute safety of the country was at stake? The noble marquis had also stated, that part; of his plan was to consider the administration of justice, with respect to the enforcement of the law of libel, and whether, in their lordship's judgment, the proper means had been taken of carrying into effect the provisions of that law. This certainly was a very fit subject for their lordships attention; but was that a, reason for appointing a committee before they proceeded to take into consideration the specific measures that were addressed to the immediate evils known to exist? The noble marquis surely did not mean that the bills, which had been so properly submitted to the notice of the House, were to be deferred in order to make way for
438
his inquiry; if not, he would ask, how-was it possible, if the committee were appointed, for any of their lordships who usually took part in such subjects to pay that attention to those bills which their importance demanded? He repeated, that to examination at a proper season he had no objection; but when the nature of the danger to which the country was exposed came under their view, he apprehended all other topics ought to give way to the adoption of measures for meeting that danger in the most effective and decisive manner. The noble marquis had also alluded to a subject connected with this question to which he felt himself called upon to advert—he meant the necessity of conciliating the people of England, by making some alterations in the constitution of the Commons House of Parliament.
The Marquis of Lansdownedisclaimed Having spoken of any such necessity.
The Marquis Wellesley The Marquis Wellesley, in continuation, said, that the noble marquis might not perhaps mean to express himself to that extent; but that it was evident nothingless would satisfy the discontented. He had seen petitions forced upon the House of Commons, signed by a number of persons resident in Manchester, in which it was stated, in the true language of the radicals, that the constitution of that House, as it stood, was so great a grievance that it. was thought to be the source of all other grievances; that it was for the purpose of declaring this that the meeting was convened at Manchester; and for the purpose of calling upon that House, the purity of which they questioned, to appoint & public inquiry into the causes of their distress. This was, in fact, neither more nor less than saying, "We declare the constitution to be a nuisance, which we are determined to abate; and while you are sitting in deliberation, we will continue to take those Steps which we conceive necessary for its abatement." He would ask their lordships if it was at all probable that those very persons who called for inquiry would rest quiet while that inquiry was going forward? Would they not, in pursuit of their main object, the attainment of universal suffrage, continue to pursue their plans of demolition? Was it a safe course for parliament to take, to furnish them with an opportunity of effecting their purpose? Would it be safe, while these persons were engaged in enterprises for de-

439
molishing the constitution, deliberately to enter into an investigation of the causes of their dissatisfaction? The best, the wisest, and the most prudent course to pursue, would be, as the noble earl had so properly expressed it, "By law to put sedition, and by force to subdue violence." But was this the disposition of the people of England at large? Of this he had the strongest doubts, and he believed that the distresses of the manufacturing districts had been greatly exaggerated; but, supposing distress to exist to a considerable degree, was it because the people were so distressed that their lives were to be unprotected? Was it because the distresses of the people exposed them to the artifices of designing demagogues, who would lead them to the commission of every violence, that therefore laws were not to be created to prevent their mischievous purposes? It was true, that the distresses of the people were not to be disregarded, and no man more deeply lamented the existence of those distresses than himself; but he thought a more urgent consideration presented itself to the House, and that was, the importance of adopting measures calculated to repress that spirit of violence by which the peaceable and respectable part of the community was at present threatened. It would, indeed, exhibit an inexcusable absence of that vigilance which the trust reposed in them demanded, if they were to shut their eyes against those scenes which were daily exhibited in the most populous districts of the kingdom. He did not mean to contend, that the bills which had been submitted to the House by his majesty's ministers were of necessity to be adopted; nor did he mean to contend that they did not require due deliberation; on the contrary, he thought it was fit they should be viewed with every prudent caution, and that the talents and the experience of the noble lords by whom he was surrounded should be applied to their improvement, if improvement were necessary, or to their alteration, if alteration were conceived expedient; but he apprehended, that the true course of wisdom would be, to suffer them to take precedence of all other measures, so that an effectual check might be given to those mischiefs, from which there was at present so much reason to anticipate consequences of the most afflicting character Among other causes of alarm, and not the least prominent, were the meetings
440
which were unfortunately so prevalent. He did not think that these meetings could be called the meetings of the people of England. He had too much respect for the people of England as a body, to suppose that they were actuated by similar motives to those which distinguished the generality of these assemblies. He considered them altogether as a wretched Babel, as a set of vagabonds, who met, not to deliberate and to examine into supposed grievances, not to discuss the question of reform, but for the purpose of ascertaining what force they could apply to that atrocious object which they had in view—the subversion of the constitution, and the substitution of those wild and fantastical theories, by the detail of which that House had been so repeatedly disgusted. It would, indeed, be the prostitution of language to characterise such wretches as the people of England—a people who had justly excited the wonder, the admiration, and the envy of the world. To call them the people of England was but a trick—a decoy, for the purpose of alienating the affections of those who were suffering under a temporary distress, from their sovereign, for the purpose of promoting a system of wickedness, fraught with the most terrific consequences to society, and for the purpose of destroying all that happiness which the people of this country were capable of enjoying under the blessings of their glorious constitution. This was the character of the meetings which he had been attempting to describe—meetings which, he would repeat, were calculated, unless suppressed by parliament, to sap the spirit of loyalty, of morality, and of religion, and altogether to subvert our laws and our liberties. Such meetings had justly been described by lord Holt, not as an assault upon parliament, not as an assault upon the state, but as an assault upon the people themselves. Could the liberties of England be said to be supported or promoted by the vagrant licentiousness of such men? Their conduct was, indeed, a libel upon the character of British liberty. The liberty of the subject was most opposite to that which these persons were ambitious to enjoy. He was a warm advocate for the liberty of the subject; but by this what did he mean? He meant the liberty of those who were subject to the laws of their country; of those who were subject to the religion of their country; of those

441
who were subject to moral restraint; of those who were subject to the constitution of the state; of those who were subject to all those principles upon which British liberty, as distinguished from that which, existed in every other part of the world had been pillared and founded; and which if maintained in its purity, must bid defiance to every attack, however violent, but if not, and the radicals were once allowed to lift their heads, radice in tartara tendit. He thought it their lordships duty to proceed with as much despatch as possible to the consideration of the measures which had been proposed by his majesty's ministers; and with great respect to his noble friend he must therefore declare his conviction that the subjects proposed by his noble friend's motion ought not to precede that consideration.
Lord Erskinesaid;—My lords, I have listened with great attention to the very; eloquent speech of the noble marquis who has just sat down; and if I could at all agree with him in the facts which he assumes, I should not be disposed to differ from him, either as to the dangers which surround us, or the duty imposed upon the House for the public safety: neither should I differ from lord Holt as to the powers of the magistracy, when the state is in imminent peril, or the peaces dangerously broken. My opinion is that they are amply sufficient, as they have been found for ages; and that if they are defective they ought to be amended. But the difference between us is upon the facts, and not upon the; law; supposing however the proposed bills to be necessary, and necessary without delay, surely the proposal of my noble friend would not at all delay that consideration. The bills might be considered in their ordinary progress, without at all clashing with the important objects to be considered by a select committee which you are called upon by the motion to embrace, and which, on the very first day of the session, ought in another shape to have been our earliest duty.
My lords, I am now an old man, and have been nearly forty years in parliament, yet I declare solemnly that I never felt more unqualified regret for any proceeding in it, than at the rejection of the amendment proposed by my noble friend, and so eloquently pressed upon our attention on the first day of the session. If your lordships had fortunately adopted it, you could have had nothing farther to consider on this
442
painful subject, and would have escaped the double error of rejecting the proposition of the noble marquis to-night, which I cannot but painfully foresee. You would then have had an unanimous parliament; pledged by the address, and not at all touched, but on the contrary con- firmed and strengthened by the wise addition proposed to it; you would have had this unanimous parliament, reprobating all seditious combinations, calling upon both magistrates and people, by the combined authorities of the state, to support the constitution and to maintain public order and tranquillity. In all this, the amendment concurred with the address, and asked nothing more than that the people should hot be condemned unheard, and that Whatever might have been the extent of individual indiscretions or offences, or of a disposition to disturb the government, the offenders might have been withdrawn from dangerous and impracticable courses, by our showing them, that whilst we were bound in duty and firmily resolved to enforce obedience to the laws, even by military force, when: necessity demanded the painful resort to it; yet that we were equally bound, to suffer no excess or abuse of it; equally determined to protect the people, and, sympathising with their sufferings, to exert the whole authority of the state to arrive at the real truth of the blood shed at Manchester, so as to see that the ends of justice should be accomplished. I am convinced, my lords, that if you had pursued this course which my noble friend recommended, you would have done more to tranquillize the country, and to bring back the affections of the disaffected, than all the law you can pass, and all the prosecutions by which you can carry them into execution. I have had many more opportunities of knowing the sentiments and feelings of those who are classed as seditious subjects, than most of your lordships can have had; and it is my unalterable conviction and belief, that a system of alarm, supported by mysterious green bags, and the array of special commissions, followed as they have been, and will be, by convictions not sufficiently numerous to inspire terror, only exasperate evils, the unfortunate existence of which I lament as much as any of your lordships. He must surely be a total stranger to the long-proved characteristic of the British people, to their loyalty, in more recent and perilous times, and, above all to the fortitude and patience with which they are bearing at

443
this moment, unexampled privations, not to be convinced, that even if your inquiry were sure only to confirm the opinions you act upon, and would publicly condemn those you have condemned without hearing, it would exalt your authority, and bring back those who from error only had opposed it. My lords, a systematic indulgence at this moment would place our government as upon a rock, and sedition against it would be trampled under foot. Take my word for it, there is no other course by which affection can be cultivated, and contented obedience secured—tranquillity may be enforced by severity, and turbulence be made silent, but it would be a dangerous silence.
Nevertheless, my lords, I do not wish to go beside the question before the House, nor to deny, that we might have had a very different duty to perform, if we had materials before us to establish that a widely extended conspiracy existed to overthrow the government, that overt acts of rebellion or of dangerous sedition had been committed, and that the proceedings at Manchester, which we have sought as yet in vain to investigate, was a manifest branch of that treasonable combination; but what materials have we to pronounce this judgment? Certainly none at all. That multitudes led by evil minded, but more probably by ignorant persons, have clamoured for unfit, impracticable changes in the constitution I readily admit, and that they have held meetings so absurdly numerous as to render disorder probable and dangerous, and I admit that the meeting at Manchester was one of them, but does the papers laid upon the table which I now hold in my hand bear us out (or any thing like it) in more than I have described; does it warrant us in believing that a treasonable conspiracy was then on foot. His majesty's ministers may have farther information which they may think right at this moment to conceal, and which on their own responsibility, they may give credit to; but your lordships can only act upon the materials before us; and it appears to me very strange how the noble marquis who spoke last can have collected from them the desperate state of the country as he has described it. The Manchester magistrates, even at so late a period before the 16th of August as the 1st of July, tell the secretary of state, "that they cannot state any specific facts on which legal responsibility would attach to any individual,' but they add, "that
444
though they cannot sufficiently applaud the hitherto peaceable demeanor of the lower orders, yet they do not calculate on their remaining unmoved." Are these facts to proceed upon as portending a revolution, more especially as the magistrates immediately afterwards expose the fallacy of their own apprehensions, since the Birmingham meeting went off to their "perfect satisfaction," as they themselves express it, "breaking up before? o'clock without any breach of the peace;" and they say, that "women and children were a great proportion of the crowd." The meeting at Hunslet moor was also equally quiet; and when the one advertised for the 9th of August, which afterwards took place on the 16th, was declared to be illegal by the magistrates, they gave it up, and it did not take place. These are all the public meetings, or other acts that are mentioned in the papers on the table, showing undoubtedly tumultuous assemblies which ought to be suppressed, but reflecting great blame on the magistrates for not using the powers already vested in them by law, for their safer and earlier dispersion. On the part of the multitude there appeared no disposition to a forcible resistance. On the contrary, as I have just observed, when they were informed by the magistrates, that the meeting projected to be held on the 9th of August would be illegal, it was abandoned. This was known to the Manchester magistrates, who had also full knowledge of the meetings held at Birmingham and other places, and who had themselves prohibited the meeting on the 9th of August with effect. Why then, I ask, did they not take the same steps, or stronger ones if necessary, to prevent the one in question from taking place, though they saw it publicly advertised; and having failed in that salutary precaution, why did they not, when they saw numerous and concentrating masses of people advancing from different quarters to form a junction on the margin of so populous a city as Manchester, why did they not station a numerous body of peace officers and constables, supported by the yeomanry or other troops at their command, at the mouths of the different avenues through which this junction was to be formed, before an assemblage could take place which they considered to be so dangerous to the public peace? What possible excuse can be made for this omission? They cannot say, that they thought the powers vested in them by law

445
were insufficient for that useful purpose. Their subsequent conduct, on the very same day, when they authorised all the violences which were committed, sufficiently prove that they had no idea of any such defect in their authority, when without necessity they so notoriously overstepped it, yet now contend that they did not. Surely the Riot act itself was a sufficient authority safely to have effected the dispersion of an assembly which their own negligence had swelled to such an amount.
I distinctly admit, that when overt acts of felony or destructive mischief are committed, every man is a magistrate, and may repel force by force; but no overt act of felony or mischief had been committed or threatened when the yeomanry were directed to rush upon this defenceless multitude, with women and children in their path. But even supposing that so much danger was apprehended by their not dispersing within the period appointed by the statute, why, as has happened in many instances in London—why did they not advance upon the people firmly but slowly, and push them back? What colour or excuse for sabring right and left this unarmed multitude? Is this the law, my lords? [Here lord Erskine quoted a passage from lord Holt.]—The statute only declared them felons, if an hour had elapsed; and they were then only subject to indictments, but not to be cut down as in rebellion or battle, unless such acts were committed as to take the case out of the Riot act, and out of all other laws and statutes, when property and even life are to be defended and secured. But no such case appears from the papers before us, whilst the agitation of the public mind upon a transaction so visible and public, made known to us by petitions from so many quarters, affords a strong presumption of an invasion of public liberty, which it is the duty of parliament to resist and to punish. Your lordships must forgive me for not immediately taking for granted the truth of every thing collected together and laid upon the table of this House. In the year 1794, your lordships prepared and published a report which declared, that a conspiracy of a far different and more perilous description, was on foot;—no less than the formation of a traitorous convention to overthrow the government; and the same proceeding took place in the House of Commons also. I make no question that parliament gave full credit to the facts which it so report-
446
ed and made public. It is not my practice to impute to others what I should be ashamed to do myself. Yet, what was the result when the prisoners accused of all this, were arraigned and brought to trial? Nothing more than that many seditious libels had been written and circulated, and many misdemeanors had been committed by people for the most part strangers to one another; but no traitorous conspiracy was found to have been either formed or contemplated.
Compare, however, my lords, the evidence so collected and reported by the two Houses of Parliament with the papers now before the House. The last, my lords, could not be gravely opened at the Old Bailey to convict any individual for more than perhaps having been present at an assembly, arguable to be illegal.—What evidence have we here to support the charge of a traitorous conspiracy—or, properly speaking, of any act whatsoever? Only the affidavits of A. B. C. and others their companions. I have not been accustomed to deal with those alphabetical witnesses, though I am obliged to confess that when I came to O. P. I thought that there must have been a riot. But to speak gravely, I do not find fault that names do not in general appear to these informations—the reason for which is fair and obvious, and I have no doubt that they are the declarations or oaths of individuals who, for any thing I know to the contrary, may be worthy of credit; but I have no way of cross-examining the letters in a spelling-book; I must see wit-nesses face to face before I can pronounce upon any facts that they depose; and that appears to be an additional ground for granting an inquiry into the whole matter which may be made the foundation hereafter of important changes in the laws. But, taking the papers as they are, without any such objections, what do they contain beyond the very imprudent and improper collections for any purpose however legal, so manifestly dangerous to the public peace. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Nadin, whose names are subscribed to their depositions, inform us, that when they came to examine those formidable trainers as to the objects they had in view, they answer-ed that they were practising so as to be able to march with the band at the Manchester meeting, and upon the whole evidence this appears to have been the truth. Was it a crime, then, to appear to, have an ear for music, and to keep the step?

447
It is true that numbers—greatly increasing as the public burthens have accumulated, have maintained and still contend for universal suffrage, as a vested right which I hold to be absurdly preposterous; but what then? It is no kind of evidence that they are traitors, or rogues, or vagabonds. Was the duke of Richmond a traitor, who may be said to have been the author and the strenuous advocate for this system? Was Mr. Pitt a traitor, who so nobly distinguished himself in that cause? [lord Sidmouth said across the House, that Mr. Pitt had never supported universal suffrage] Lord E. said, I dare say not; my noble friend must better know it; but he acted with and was supported by those who then were friends to the most extended representation.—Was Mr. Sheridan also a traitor; Mr. Sheridan the invaluable supporter of government in the most awfully trying times?—Is it fair in short to consider every tumultuous meeting in support of any kind of reform as proof of a traitorous disposition? It is to overt acts, and not to opinions we must look, when criminal charges are to be made. There were no such overt acts upon the 16th of August, and nothing can be more affecting than the sufferings of many who, from mere curiosity, were present; yet no regret for this was to be found in the speech from the throne.—I am aware that your lordships sitting here in parliament can only consider the Prince Regent in his public capacity, and I may perhaps therefore be out of order in expressing feelings which regard him as a private man; but, having been in his Royal Highness's service from the beginning of my public life, and under many personal obligations, I cannot but be much affected by any thing which personally concerns his honour and reputation. Why then, my lords, did not his majesty's ministers, even supposing them to have been justified, which I deny, in sanctioning the acts of the Manchester magistrates in the Prince Regent's name, why did not they in the speech to be delivered from the throne, introduce the strongest expressions of sorrow for the melancholy sufferings which unquestionably had taken place, from whatever cause they proceeded.—The higher orders undoubtedly well know, who are acquainted with the forms of parliament, that the Prince Regent's speech no more proceeds from himself than from the porter at Carlton-house; but the lower orders do not know this, and it is noto-
448
rious that many injurious remarks have proceeded from this omission, and that his Royal Highness may thereby have appeared to the multitude as dead to those humane and good natured feelings which have been his Royal Highness's characteristic when occasions have called them forth.
To conclude, my lords, I lament that new laws are to be enacted, when, if all the facts were before your lordships, it would appear that not only the existing ones are sufficient, but that their authorities have been wantonly exceeded and abused, whilst, at the same moment, they are unaccountably suffered to sleep when they most ought to be exerted.—I have seen within a few days, not only in the shops of booksellers, but in others of all descriptions, a placard announcing for sale the Mock Trial of Mr. Carlisle, and in large letters, "Infamous Conduct of the Judge," whose lenity was carried throughout the trial to the utmost limits of indulgence.—Surely, my lords, libels of this description should not pass unpunished; yet they are suffered to corrupt the public mind with impunity, whilst you are about to pass new statutes, instead of carrying those you have into execution. It is this negligence which is the parent of offences. Execute the existing laws with promptitude and vigour, and it will be quite unnecessary to enact transportation for a libel—a punishment unknown to the constitution.
The impolicy of imposing new restrictions on public liberty we shall very shortly, I fear, have but too many opportunities to consider, and I shall therefore pass it by for the present. I shall content myself with only saying, that they never can restore confidence, nor willing obedience to government—confide yourselves in the people, and all murmurs and discontent will be at an end. For my own part, whilst I have life and strength, to raise my voice, I will continue to protest against them here, and every where; I will not repeat with the same oath what I said in the House of Commons when similar restrictions were in agitation, but I will say firmly, that I was born a freeman and will not die a slave.
Lord Grenvillerose, and spoke to the following effect:*—
My Lords;—The admission with which
* From the Original Edition printed for John Murray, Albemarle-street.

449
my noble friend who opened the present question; commenced his temperate and able speech, relieves those who may follow him in this debate from all necessity of expatiating on the painful circumstances of our present danger. He sees and acknowledges its existence; he is deeply sensible both of its magnitude and its urgency; and the glowing colours in which he has represented our present situation, must have made the strongest impression on the minds of all your lordships. For myself, unquestionably, need not say what is my own conviction on this subject. Often has it been my painful duty to express, in this House, the continued and increasing anxiety with which I have regarded the attacks unceasingly directed against the whole frame and fabric of our government. Often have I laboured and laboured ineffectually, to impress these feelings on the minds of others. My apprehensions have been considered as visionary, originating much more in a fond and solicitous attachment to the interests which I conceived to be endangered, than in any just view of the actual condition, or future prospects, of my country. And would to Heaven that it were so! Joyful indeed would this hour have been to me, if I could now rise and confess my error; if I could say to those from whom it has been my misfortune to differ on these questions, "My apprehensions were vain; your security was well grounded."
The reverse unhappily is true. During a large portion of a long public life, now closed, I have watched the destructive tendency of these revolutionary projects.—I have marked their unremitted activity,—their growing confidence,—their extended influence,—their fast advancing progress. But the evil has outrun my apprehensions. Never, at any former period, has it presented so fierce and menacing an aspect; never yet has it so imperiously required, from the wisdom and firmness of my country, the most immediate, vigorous, and determined resistance.
It is this persuasion which alone induces me; it is this which irresistibly compels me, contrary to all my expectations and all my wishes, once more to solicit your indulgence in the discharge of duties which I thought had been for ever closed.
Let me, then, in the outset of these deliberations, entreat your lordships con-
450
tinually to bear in mind that the mischief against which we are now called upon to defend our country, is not merely of the present day; no, nor of the present year. Its true origin must be traced much farther back,—its real causes must be sought much deeper,—its remedies must be applied with a foresight and policy extending far beyond that presure of temporary distress to which alone my noble friend is willing to ascribe it. Even in the course of this debate, your recollection has been called to those measures which, in the year 1795, now nearly five-and-twenty years ago, it had already become necessary to adopt for the defence of our laws and government. And it was then that Mr. Burke declared, and he has consigned the sentiment to posterity in his immortal writings, that the grounds of that necessity did not originate among us even with the French Revolution, although that terrible convulsion of the world did, undoubtedly call them forth, increase them, and give fresh vigour to their operation.
In what manner your security was then provided for, and how it was maintained during the long and arduous contest which ensued, I will not now detain you by examining. We all remember, that from the happy restoration of peace increased confidence was felt, increased assurance drawn by many, for the permanent and undisturbed continuance of our domestic tranquillity. From that. very date the mischief has on the contrary been constantly increasing. Every successive period, down even to the moment in which I now address you, has brought us only fresh menace, augmented violence, more open and more ostentatious defiance of the public authority in all its branches. And I now call with earnestness on all who hear me, to reflect, how rarely the history of any country has exhibited so rapid a progress of such a danger within so short a time!
Unquestionably, when such designs are entertained, and such projects are pursued, the distress of any part of our population must always give great opportunity and advantage to the promoters of sedition. It is the most powerful engine by which they can operate; the stimulant, by which they inflame the passions of the ignorant, and drive their deluded victims on to acts of desperation, which, instead of alleviating, can serve only to aggravate, and to prolong their

451
difficulties. But occurrences like these are the instruments, not the causes of the mischief. Much of this evil exists where these distresses have had comparatively little operation. Many are most forward in the sedition whom the pressure has least affected; while those on whom it has most severely borne, have, in many cases, conducted themselves with exemplary patience and resolution, untainted by this pernicious contagion, obedient to the laws, and inviolably attached to those institutions which have so long been the glory and happiness of Englishmen.
If then it were possible, by any measures within the reach of human legislation, to alleviate their difficulties; if, by any operation of law or government, we could hope to mitigate the present distresses of our manufacturing population, most readily would I enter on the discussion of any such proposal, and most earnestly, I am sure, would it be pursued by parliament. We all deplore, in common, these melancholy effects of causes which we cannot control; we deeply sympathize in the afflictions of our fellow-subjects; and not our interests and and policy alone, but every higher feeling which animates the heart of man, would lead us to embrace with joy, and to follow up with perseverance, the remotest expectation of contributing to their relief. Even those general principles of legislation to which we are most bound to adhere, because by them the permanent prosperity of the whole community is best promoted; even these, I would consent, on such an occasion, to disregard for a time; could I be persuaded, that in that course an effective and adequate remedy could be found against the present pressure.
But my noble friend, in the very act of proposing such an inquiry, has but too well enabled us to judge how little real benefit we can derive from its result. He felt too justly what belongs to his high rank, and still higher station, in this country; he followed too closely the dictates of his own exalted and honourable mind, to countenance those vague and groundless insinuations, which, not in-deed within these walls, but in popular assemblies, and in seditious publications, have been profusely poured out against the British legislature. He condescends not so to delude the multitude. He imputes not to parliament the blame of events which are beyond the control of man;
452
nor does he charge upon his political opponents the neglect of a duty, which he well knows that no government, and no legislature, could possibly perform. He has stated, on the contrary, in the language, and with the science, of a statesman, the true causes in which he considers the pressure to have originated; causes far removed from affording the smallest grounds for any such imputation. And he has, with no less candour than ability, distinctly enumerated the only measures to which, in his judgment, this House could even now resort, with any hope of rendering our interposition honourable to ourselves, and beneficial to our country.
Through these details I will endeavour shortly to follow him. The interest of the subject will apologize for what may be tedious in the discussion.
With respect, then, to the origin of the present distress, we must, no doubt, in some degree, ascribe it to temporary causes of depression, to which so complicated a system of commerce and manufacture must always be liable. The products of our industry cannot be so exactly calculated as never to exceed the demand for them; nor do the markets themselves remain unaltered. Fashions vary, other productions enter into successful competition with ours, and the occasional distresses of foreign nations lessen their powers of purchase and consumption. It is then that the necessity of transferring capital and labour to more profitable employment becomes urgent and difficult. Hazardous and groundless speculations are made; and even the most skilful commercial enterprises are affected by disappointments and embarrassments, to the production of which they have in no degree contributed.
But in any more permanent view of our present situation, nearly all, I think, that my noble friend has stated, and certainly all that I should venture to press upon your attention, may be referred to the operation of one general and leading principle of political economy. In peace, and under the happy influence of domestic tranquillity, the capital of every civilized community, especially if permitted to find for itself its most profitable employment, tends naturally to increase in a more rapid proportion than the population; and the effect of this its augmented and growing preponderance, is felt in the correspondent increase of all which constitutes

453
national prosperity. But it operates most immediately, and visibly, to the benefit of the lower classes of society. It is by the application of capital alone that any employment is ever found for their industry; by augmented capital, additional employment is provided; and hence again arises a new and growing demand for labour, and a continually progressive improvement in the reward and the condition of the labourer.
The tendency of war is, in all respects, opposite to this; especially of such a war as that which this country, in common with every other European state, has recently and unavoidably been compelled to sustain. In war, large amounts of capital are continually and utterly destroyed. Much is also diverted to channels of employment, wholly or comparatively, unproductive; from whence, on the return of peace, it cannot again be transferred into its natural course, without much difficulty, delay, and loss.
It is therefore, to a long continuance of this great calamity, that we must ascribe our present distress, and that of so many other nations, who unhappily share it with us. The implacable hostility, the inordinate and insatiable ambition of the successive revolutionary governments of France, are the true causes which have extended this, with so many other incalculable evils, to every quarter of the globe. Hence arose the call for exertions unexampled in duration and extent; the sacrifices required indispensably for national independence; and the necessity of those united efforts, by the unparalleled magnitude of which, alone the contest could have been successfully, or safely terminated. Who can doubt how much all these causes, aided also in this, and in other countries, by the unhappy error of an excessive and forced paper currency, must, in a long course of more than twenty years, have contributed to arrest the natural increase of capital, and perhaps, in some of the last of those years, to effect an actual diminution of it? But the population of our own country, instead of experiencing any correspondent diminution, has, on the contrary, during this whole period, been continually and greatly augmented. The result, probably, not only of our insular situation, and comparative exemption from the direct calamities of war, but also of the artificial and improvident system of our poor laws, established more than two centuries ago!
454
But whatever be the cause, the fact is certain. The proportion which before existed, between our capital and our population, has been essentially varied. And the conclusion follows irresistibly. No art, no wisdom, no power of man, can make our diminished capital equally productive as before of employment and subsistence for our augmented numbers.
Where, then, shall we look for the remedy? There only, where it is placed by Providence, in the admirable disposition of moral as well as of natural causes. To the flow of the flame tide which has already ceased to ebb; to those altered circumstances which now again operate in a favourable direction; to that returning and rapid accumulation of capital, which reason and experience teach us again to expect; when the science, and enterprise, and Industry of a great and enlightened nation are protected in peace, and secured in domestic tranquillity.
In addition, however, to this firm and sure hope of progressive improvement, there are three measures, or rather subjects of inquiry, which my noble friend suggests for the examination of a select committee of this House, with a view to more immediate and present relief. As brought forward fey him, they are entitled to our respectful attention; they would animate all our exertions if they held out any just expectation of promoting the purpose for which he proposes them.
But the first of them he does not him-self recommend to your adoption, unless you entertained a hope, which neither he feels, nor can you venture to encourage. If you believed that this pressure was the effect only of some sudden and transient calamity, and likely, therefore, to be very Speedily removed, you might, he thinks, be inclined to discuss the question of giving temporary aid to the sufferers, by grants drawn from the national credit, or national finance. And, undoubtedly, there have been cases of that description, where our feelings, prevailing perhaps over our better judgment, or at least overruling our general principles of legislation, have induced us so to act. But to those examples, our actual condition bears no resemblance, either in the nature or in the causes of the pressure, in its present extent, or in its probable duration. Nor must we forget what has been, even in those less objectionable cases, the true operation of such interference. Arrangements of this description, however plausi-

455
ble and popular, make no real addition to the wealth of the nation; they furnish, therefore, no new means of employment for its industry. Capital is not created by them, but transferred. It is for the most part diverted from that channel, in which it furnishes profitable employment to one portion of our people, and forced into another course, in which the labour which it sets in motion, is avowedly less productive to its employer, and consequently less beneficial to the community.
Touching, therefore, but lightly on this suggestion, on which he himself manifestly places no reliance, my noble friend passed to his two other more general subjects of investigation; both of them, undoubtedly, well entitled to the fullest consideration of parliament, but both, as it seems to me, extending very far beyond those bounds, which could be embraced by the labours of a select committee.
The first of these includes the whole wide circle of our finance. He would examine, whether the means could not be found of levying a revenue equal to that by which we now provide for the public faith and public safety, but collecting this amount in some mode of less unpopular or less burthensome taxation. An inquiry of almost infinite detail! To be entered upon, not in the gross, but with a careful and scrutinizing survey of each particular change which may be recommended: and even in this course, the only one in which it can be usefully pursued, leading us almost immediately to the most intricate and complicated combinations! In the present state of a revenue, composed of so many various branches, mutually bearing upon each other in almost innumerable relations, what questions of greater difficulty, of wider compass, and more hazardous decision, can be proposed to any statesman? There might, for example, taking the very instance which my noble friend alleges; there might be reason to believe, that by a diminution of duty, and a consequent increase of consumption, foreign wines might be made to yield their present amount of revenue at a lower rate of taxation. I think it probably would be so. But, for practical purposes, the inquiry must not stop here. Before this measure could safely be adopted, its operation must be deeply considered with reference to the other weighty considerations which it involves, both of commerce and of revenue. We must ascertain, if indeed it be possible to
456
ascertain before-hand, in what manner, and to what degree, the increased use of foreign wines which we should thus promote, would affect the production and sale of the many other articles of analogous consumption, which are so important to our trade and to our agriculture, and from every one of which so large a revenue is derived.
It is far from my purpose to discourage the due examination of any such projects. The attention both of government and of parliament would be well directed to them; and never would I dissuade you from the task. But it is necessary, on this occasion, and with reference to the motion which we are now considering, to remind you of its great extent and difficulty; of the impossibility of pursuing it usefully through the inquiries of a select committee; and above all, of the utter hopelessness of looking to it for any present or sensible effect in relieving distress, or appeasing discontent.
The same remarks apply, but still more forcibly, to a similar examination with which it is proposed that this select committee should be charged, as to the whole system of our commercial legislation, susceptible, undoubtedly, of great improvement. On that subject my noble friend and I are, as I believe, fully agreed in principle. We both consider that policy as erroneous, which purports to encourage domestic industry by the prohibition of foreign commodities. We both believe that such devices, instead of promoting, have obstructed our commercial prosperity, exactly in proportion as they limit the free, and therefore most profitable, employment of capital. We are both persuaded that, besides this general mischief, these regulations directly counteract their own purpose, by narrowing the only means which the foreign merchant has both of purchase and of return; and by thus closing the market of the world against those very manufactures, whose prosperity we are labouring to advance. I will add, that in the particular case which he instanced, that of the discouragements now opposed to the import of timber from the Baltic, I am myself as much satisfied of their impolicy as it is possible to be without minute and detailed inquiry. Other errors of a similar description might, I fear, very easily be pointed out. But every session offers the opportunity of bringing these, distinctly and separately, under the view of parliament; and they

457
would be thus much more safely, because much more deliberately, corrected, than by any general inquiries instituted in the form now proposed, and with reference to the urgency of present distress.
For in truth there can scarcely be any subject on which deliberation is more necessary, or where greater dangers would result from inconsiderate haste. Our prohibitory code in this respect closely resembles the system of our poor laws. Both are, as it is now generally acknowledged, prejudicial to the public welfare, though the latter no doubt is by far the most injurious to our labouring population. But both are of very long standing in our Statute book; closely interwoven with all our interests, deeply grafted into our system, both of commerce and of agriculture, and in our actual condition inseparably connected even with the subsistence of a very great proportion of our people. They are both therefore to be approached only with the utmost solicitude and caution; to be touched only with the most delicate and tender hand. The same enlightened policy which now condemns their principle, the same juster views of benevolence and patriotism which have taught us to regret their establishment, teach us also that in a state of our society which they have mainly contributed to make what it now is, there can be no safety in their removal, otherwise than by a long succession of temperate and well-considered measures, uniformly, but slowly, directed to the ultimate object of a better legislation.
It is obvious, therefore, that from this source nothing is to be drawn by which present distress can be alleviated. Gradual improvement may be made, and future benefit derived. But sudden and extensive changes in our commercial code would always be dangerous, and might in the present moment lead us to destruction. They would infallibly increase the existing pressure, they might possibly aggravate it almost beyond endurance.
And let me farther remind your lordships with respect to both these proposed investigations, that their inconvenience and hazard arise not merely from the extent which they embrace, or the results to which they might possibly lead, but also from the very nature of the subjects which they propose for discussion. I am far from agreeing in the opinion which has been stated to us, that these inquiries, even if unproductive of any practical good,
458
would still produce conciliatory and tranquillizing impressions. From such a disappointment of hopes so raised, I should fear a directly contrary effect. I know of no policy more injurious, none more dangerous to the public peace, than that of exciting, in moments of pressure, expectations which we cannot realize.
But much more is such an experiment to be deprecated, when the very questions which it involves are such as cannot even be proposed, without exciting to mutual opposition and contest many and powerful conflicting interests. We are arrived, I trust, at the end of the painful duty of taxation. If its burthen can be alleviated without affecting its produce, happy will those be to whose lot it may fall to confer so great a benefit upon their country. But without the certainty of this result let us not tamper with the revenue, nor trifle with the feelings of those who contribute to it. Unless the advantage of change be indisputable, the very proposal of change is in itself injurious.
As to our commerce, we have now the opportunity of considering, under the happy auspices of peace, how it maybe most certainly, and most beneficially, extended. The removal of prohibitions, and the reduction of
prohibitory duties, on foreign produce and manufactures, are pointed out by my noble friend as the best measures for that purpose. They unquestionably are so, and they are the fittest to be gradually adopted. But let us not forget that they are also, however unjustly, the most repugnant to the prejudices of every people; and the most likely to irritate and to inflame, instead of appeasing, the discontents of those classes of our own population whose present sufferings we lament, and whose feelings we are solicitous to sooth and to conciliate, by every practicable measure by which real kindness can best be manifested.
I pass then to the second part of my noble friend's motion, that which more directly relates to the internal situation of our country, and to the threatened interruption of its domestic tranquillity. On many parts of this subject, we are all agreed. If, by whatever means, either of previous preparation, or present distress, evil-minded men are endeavouring to plunge us into the unmeasurable calamities of civil discord, our duties cannot be doubtful. To our sovereign, and to our country, to the British nation, and to the whole civilized world, we are answerable

459
for the preservation and maintenance of our religion and morals, of our laws and government. To our peaceable and loyal fellow-subjects, we owe the defence and security of their rights, properties and lives. To the deluded victims of these machinations, we have also a duty to discharge; a duty of protection and kindness. We owe it to them, and it is the greatest of all benefits which can be conferred upon them, to rescue them, if it be still possible, from the seduction and treachery by which they are beset; and to remove from their paths and dwellings, the snares unceasingly laid for their destruction. This is the office of their true friends; their bitterest enemies are those who are labouring to inflame their sufferings into disaffection and treason.
To the execution of these great and awful trusts, let us then apply ourselves with diligence and resolution: neither disguising from ourselves the real extent of the evil, nor shrinking from the remedies, unpleasing as they may be, which it must unavoidably require. Our danger is no longer to be searched for in hidden consultations or secret conspiracies. It courts our notice, it obtrudes itself on our attention. We are daily assailed with undisguised menace, and are little removed from the immediate expectation of open violence. Let us, then, attentively review the steps which have brought us to this situation. Observe their beginnings, consider well their rapidly accelerated progress. You will find them in near conformity to all that led to the subversion and misery of France. A close and striking resemblance, a servile, yet ostentatious imitation, which it is of the utmost importance that we should forcibly impress upon our minds! If such a parallel were found, even in the remotest history, yet, of the remotest history what better use could we make, than to draw from it whatever conclusions it affords of policy or wisdom, applicable to our own condition? Shall we, on the contrary, now in the hour of our own peril, strive to banish from our thoughts and counsels all memory of this recent and forcible example! We, the nearest spectators of that dreadful convulsion, our minds still shuddering at its crimes, our hearts still bleeding at its miseries, shall we turn aside from the painful but instructive lesson, and in wilful blindness close our eyes against the prophetic mirror which exhibits to ourselves, of the progress of the same
460
machinations, the fearful advance of the same destruction? No, my lords, let not the warning voice have been heard in vain! We have shared deeply in that widely extended calamity; the bitter draught which France prepared for herself, has overflowed into our cup. Let us at least derive from it the benefits of an experience so dearly purchased! Observe what were the beginnings of that great catastrophe; follow up its progress; mark by what course it reached its terrible consummation; trace it through subversion and ruin, through plunder and confiscation, through slaughter and massacre, till all was swallowed up in military despotism!
What first occurred? The whole nation was inundated with inflammatory and poisonous publications. Its very soil was deluged with sedition and blasphemy. No effort was omitted of base and disgusting mockery, of sordid and unblushing calumny, which could vilify and degrade whatever that people had been most accustomed to love and venerate. No artifice, no incitement, was left untried, which could stimulate the deluded multitude to the most savage acts of insult and outrage, of violence and fury, against the ministers of their religion, and the dispensers of their government and law; against all who were eminent for birth or rank, for talent or for virtue, and against those most especially who had been most distinguished as their kindest friends, protectors, and benefactors!
Who is there that is not struck with the resemblance of this picture? Who can be ignorant how closely this detestable and malignant wickedness has been imitated in our own country, how long it has been pursued, and to what a height it has now attained? You heard the papers read to you this night by my noble friend, and you shuddered at the recital. Exhortations to murder and treason, from which the heart recoils and the blood turns back to its fountain! If these were only a few and extraordinary instances, exceptions to the, general character of the publications daily obtruded on all the lower classes of your community, yet against these, no doubt, you would call down the vengeance of the law, against these the arm of justice would be directed with universal concurrence and approbation. But it is from a torrent and deluge of such mischief that you are now called upon to protect your country. The poison has been profusely scattered throughout the

461
land: it has pervaded not only your towns and manufactories, but your peaceful villages and farms. Its malignity is hourly increasing, and fresh activity is employed in its diffusion. This, my lords, is the true root and source of all your danger; against this, no social institutions can possibly maintain themselves; it is incompatible with all peace, all security, all public, and all private happiness. It is of power, and it openly boasts itself to be of power, to overthrow all that is now standing in this country; and to level in the dust all your prosperity, and all your glory, involved in one common ruin with the magnificent and splendid fabric of the noblest government which has ever yet provided for the welfare of any society.
In this unbounded licentiousness of an inflammatory press, pointing continually the poisoned weapons of sedition and blasphemy against all that constitutes human happiness in present possession, or in future hope, shall we content ourselves with asking, as my noble friend has done, why the voice of the law has been silent, and the terrors of its arm unnerved? We must now, indeed, all regret the too sparing exercise of powers, which our ancestors had, with more provident wisdom, interwoven into our constitution; we must lament the too reluctant discharge of duties, of which no discouragement could ever justify the dereliction. But we must also confess, that this forbearance is of no recent date. Indulgent as your laws have been, in all that affects this subject, their execution has, for a long time back, been yet more tolerant, even of acknowledged wrong. And happy is that condition of society, in which the mildest laws may, without injury to the public interests, be still more mildly administered! This had been our fortunate situation; and this, in consequence, had been our practice. May both speedily return to us! Soon may we again be enabled to boast, as Englishmen, not only of the unexampled freedom of our press, but also of its comparative exemption from those enormous evils to which such freedom great as are its benefits, does, in its abuse, open so wide a field. But such, unhappily, is not our present state. We feel, too sensibly, its altered character. I speak it with the deepest affliction; lamenting the change which I have witnessed, and deploring the necessity to which it leads. But we must not forget, that it is to the actual condition and exigencies of every
462
society, that its legislation must conform itself, and that when new evil arises, it must be met by new remedies.
When this current of mischief, uncontrolled, and bearing down before it every barrier of public authority or law, had thus far succeeded to sap the foundations of civil society, what next ensued? The next step has been the same here as in the French Revolution. The formation of local societies, clubs and unions, of various description, sedulously contrived and organized, for the diffusion of these impious and destructive doctrines, by frequent and familiar intercourse, and for the establishment of an extensive concert and cooperation in the prosecution of the only practical results to which such principles can lead.
And when at last, by the unremitted effect of all this seduction, considerable portions of the multitude had been deeply tainted, their minds prepared for acts of desperation, and familiarized with the thought of crimes, at the bare mention of which they would before have revolted, then it was that they were encouraged to to collect together in large and tumultuous bodies;—then it was that they were invited to feel their own strength; to estimate and to display their numerical force; and to manifest, in the face of day, their inveterate hostility to all the institutions of their country, and their open defiance of all its authorities.
The question therefore on which we are now compelled to deliberate is nothing less than this, whether parliament shall continue to disregard this fast accumulating panger, conscious of its progress, and certain of its inevitable tendency; or shall oppose to it a vigorous and effectual resistance, before it reaches the gates of the sanctuary, and shakes the pillars of the commonwealth?
If, indeed, this resistance be not now made, one other period only of resistance can remain; that in which the evil shall have reached its last stage, shall have assumed its last hideous form of open insurrection and declared rebellion. Then, indeed, it will be resisted, and I have no doubt effectually. The British nation is not of a character to suffer its government to be overwhelmed by a tumultuous populace, by whatever artifices excited against it. The great and enlightened body of the inhabitants of this country, the people of England, truly so called, will never submit themselves to see, by the effect of

463
such machinations, their laws subverted, their property confiscated, and their lives made the sport and prey of some ferocious and sanguinary demagogue. But to meet and to subdue the danger, if once suffered to assume this shape, force must be opposed to force. Recourse must unavoidably be had to those means of repression and defence at the thought of which every British heart bleeds. I will not dwell upon them; the task would be too painful. Sure I am that the bare imagination of such a contest, aye, and the very circumstances with which success itself must be attended, will be the strongest of all inducements to urge and to compel your lordships, by provident and timely interposition, to avert that dreadful, but otherwise inevitable necessity.
The resistance which you may now make is of a very different character; resistance by law; by the authority of the legislature; by the intervention of the civil government. Can it be doubtful which we should prefer?—But the crisis is arrived in which this option must finally be made; the decision must now be taken and must now be acted upon. If it be still postponed, the choice may probably no longer rest with ourselves. And yet, placed as we are in such circumstances as these, deliberating on the exigencies of such a moment, in what manner is it that we are advised to commence our measures for the repression of those enormities which threaten to involve us in civil bloodshed? By suspicion and distrust, directed not against the authors of the mischief, but against those by whom it has been hitherto successfully, though imperfectly counteracted: by inquiries into the conduct of our magistrates, and of those who have supported them in the discharge of their painful duties. Shall we accede to this proposal? Do we wish to debilitate all our efforts; to cast away from us our readiest and surest resources; to undermine the best bulwarks of our defence; and to shake to its foundations all hope of mutual confidence, and united exertion? If such were our desire, most powerfully would this course contribute to its accomplishment. My noble friend, I am certain, has no such wish: far, very far, is it from his intention to produce so great an evil. I am well assured of it. But I am not the less convinced that such would be the unfailing consequence of your adopting this suggestion.
For I entreat your lordships to ask
464
yourselves, what has been the real character, and what the immediate object of these tumultuary assemblies, to which the present motion refers, and against which your magistrates have finally been compelled to exert the full extent of their constitutional authority. Examine them in all their circumstances; mark their previous preparation, and their actual conduct; the emblems displayed, the language held, the resolutions adopted: and let it then be explained, if any such explanation can be given, for what other purpose such proceedings were intended, but for menace and intimidation,—the most powerful of all revolutionary engines, the very instruments by which in France all religion, law, and government, were levelled to the earth! To strike terror into the peaceable and well-affected; to deter them from supporting the public authorities in the hour of danger; to alarm and to dispirit those authorities themselves, and to drive them, if it were possible, to a desertion of their highest duties:—Such, and such alone, were the consequences naturally to be expected by those with whom these projects originated; and such, we are informed by the papers on our table, are the effects which have already, in some degree, been actually produced.
Hence it is that we cannot hesitate to pronounce, as far as our, present information of these facts extends, that, not only the meeting which was dispersed at Manchester, but many other similar meetings, held both before and after that event, have been decidedly illegal. Doctrines, new to my ears, have indeed been recently promulgated on this subject. The notion, wild as it is, seems actually to have prevailed in some quarters, that no assembly of any part of the people of this realm can be deemed illegal, be they armed or unarmed, arrayed or unarrayed, from whatever quarters collected, in whatever numbers, or under whatever previous or attendant circumstances; unless the fact of present violence, or, at least, the intention of present violence, can be proved against them. I have no pretensions to deep skill in the science of our law; but directly opposite is this doctrine to all which I either learnt in my youth, or have at any time since collected, either from books, or from living authorities; utterly repugnant to any lights which our own experience or history afford, and in manifest contradiction to the plainest principles, by which all civil societies are connected and up-

465
held. I have been taught that, independently of actual or meditated violence, every sort of menace, intimidation, and array of force, are in themselves abundantly sufficient to stamp on such proceedings the plainest characters of illegality. Every assembly held in terrorem populi, the English law, as I have always been instructed, does in express terms declare to be unlawful. No such menace, no such intimidation, no such array, have ever yet been tolerated under the British government. And it is among the first elements of all political science, that men combine in civil society, to obtain for themselves and for their families, not only the safe enjoyment of life, and properly, and peaceful occupation, but also the full and undisturbed confidence and assurance of that safety. Banish this principle from the British constitution, establish the contrary doctrine, if any one can now be found to maintain it, and your government must thenceforth, in self-defence, assume an attitude purely military, armed in never-ceasing preparation to meet a danger perpetually arrayed against it; while your people must for the same cause, revert to the condition of savages, relying for personal security, not on the warranty of law, and the protection of a common government, but on the exertions of individual strength, or on the separate support of partial associations.
If then so many of these meetings must thus, in reason and in law, be regarded as illegal, my noble friend asks, and it is one of the first objects of his proposed inquiry, whence it arose that one alone amongst them all has been dispersed by public authority? The law he thinks should have been more equally, more uniformly, administered. On fuller consideration, he will perhaps himself be sensible, that an exact similarity and correspondence of practice on this subject is neither necessary, nor easily attainable. The interference of the magistrate with any such assembly, must always be in some degree discretionary. No two of these cases can be exactly similar; and were they so, the mere differences of place and time would still essentially distinguish them. Much, therefore, must unavoidably be left to the judgment of those who are intrusted with the public peace. And we must all feel, were it only from what we have heard this night, how painful is the responsibility which these cases sometimes impose upon them. The question is to be determined
466
respecting each particular assembly, whether there be just cause of apprehension to men of firm and constant minds, that the public tranquillity will be disturbed, or the safety of the king's peaceful subject's endangered: a question in some of these cases abundantly clear, in others perhaps of nicer and more difficult decision. It admits of no fixed line of demarcation, no rule, no definition previously laid down. The principle is the same as in the case of an individual, who claims the protection of the law, against apprehended or threatened violence. The magistrate has there no book which he can take down from his shelf, to draw from it an unerring rule of conduct. He cannot say to the complainant, here is the precise boundary of the law: if these words were used, I can interpose in your defence; but if the same meaning was differently expressed, I have no such power. If your adversary raised his arm thus high, it was a menace, but if one inch lower, it was none: if a dagger was pointed at your breast, the law will protect you; but if it was only a clasp-knife, you must defend yourself. Our law deals in no such subtleties. The general and broad principle is unequivocally laid down: actual safety and full assurance of safety, are alike the right of all; the right of the individual, and the right of the public. It is for magistrates, and courts, and juries, to apply this universal rule to the infinitely-varying circumstances of each particular occasion.
Where such a discretion was to be exercised by so many different persons, and in so many various instances, we cannot be surprised to find some seeming contrariety both of opinion and of conduct; the result, sometimes perhaps of real differences between cases apparently similar, and sometimes of the opposite judgments formed on the same circumstances, even by the most enlightened men. The mere want of uniformity affords therefore no ground for censure, nor any presumption of misconduct. But I will not disguise my own impressions on the subject. The facts themselves are not fully known to us: we cannot therefore, speak decisively of the conduct to which they led. It does, however, appear to me that the indulgence of the magistrate has, in almost all these instances been carried to the very utmost extent, which was consistent with the public safety; and on more than one occasion, I think it has been pushed to an extreme,

467
productive of considerable evil. It is no light matter, to have witnessed these repeated and ostentatious defiances of law and government, even where they have not as yet been followed by actual violence. It is no pleasing recollection, that our greatest manufacturing towns, and this metropolis itself, the capital and seat of our empire, have, even for the shortest time, been placed, as it were, in a state of siege: their business interrupted, their industry suspended; waiting in fearful expectation of impending tumult, or looking for protection to troops collected with difficulty, and harassed with preparations and marches, as in the presence of an enemy.
The wisdom of this forbearance may well be questioned, though I am sure we all sympathise in the kind and benevolent feelings in which it originated. But it would be a strange perversion of reasoning to maintain, that because it had been pushed thus far, it was in future to have no limit; that because so much had been tolerated, all was thenceforth to be permitted. We have neglected the outworks, must we therefore surrender the citadel? We have disregarded the approaches of the storm, must we take no measures of security when it rages with redoubled violence? Where danger was less imminent, your magistrates had been content to overlook it. Does it therefore follow, that no menace, no defiance, no hostility, no nearer and more urgent peril, could justify their final resolution to interpose for the safety of a great commercial town, and for the tranquillity of a populous and wealthy district? If such be your opinion, the whole foundations of our government are already broken up! Let it then be openly avowed! Let us not deceive our country with the semblance of authorities which are no longer to exist. Let it be declared and known that the king's commission of the peace is henceforth to be unattended with any power, or any duty, to give protection to his faithful and loyal subjects!
Far different is the light in which these gentlemen have considered their office, and discharged its obligations. They have proceeded on the long-established principles by which it has always hitherto been governed; they have acted in conformity, I trust, and in obedience, to the laws which they undertook to administer. And is it for this conduct that you will visit them with parliamentary inquiry?
468
On the first night of this session, I expressed by my vote, and on such grounds of knowledge as I then possessed, my decided disapprobation of our adopting any such proceeding. Since that time I have been strongly confirmed in the same opinion. Much "more has been stated to the public of these transactions: many most important and satisfactory circumstances have been brought forward, resting, as it should seem, on indisputable authority. As the facts now stand before the world, on the assertions of those best qualified to explain them, the conduct of the magistrates, who sat at Manchester on the 16th of August last, appears to me not only free from blame, but highly meritorious. And should the case be ultimately established, such as it now appears to be, I am confident they will deserve, and I trust they will receive, a complete and authoritative approbation of that conduct.
I say a complete and authoritative approbation, because I cannot at all consider in that light the letter of the noble secretary of state, of which so much has been said. Neither can I see any resemblance between that communication and the resolutions promulgated on this subject, by the meetings, held, first, I believe, in this metropolis, and afterwards in various counties throughout the kingdom. Those proceedings are, in my judgment, most deeply to be regretted. While the courts of justice were completely open to all complaints respecting these transactions: while criminal proceedings upon them had already been instituted, and were, in some cases, still actually depending, before the regular tribunals appointed for that purpose by our laws and constitution, what could be more unfortunate than the popular and extra-judicial agitation of such questions? Little real knowledge could be obtained by such meetings, even from report, of the facts most essential to the case; and great misapprehensions were likely to prevail there, as to the legal conclusions to which such facts would lead. The citizens of London, the freeholders, or the inhabitants of a distant county, could have no authority to pronounce on such occurrences; no cognizance of the crimes reciprocally imputed; no means of proof; no power either of condemnation or acquittal. Was it for them to hold public deliberations on the guilt or innocence of their fellow-subjects? Do we wish that a habit should thus be established of anticipating, by the

469
excitation of popular feeling, the trial and decision of accusations which our constitution has reserved for judicial cognizance? No greater calamity could possibly befal us. No other course could certainly tend to erase, not only from our practice, but even from our recollection, the sacred principles of criminal justice, and those inviolable provisions for its temperate and impartial administration, which have hitherto been the peculiar glory and blessing of our country.
Far different was the situation of the king's ministers: they had a regular and constitutional duty to perform. It would in them, have been, not only an unworthy and base abandonment of all honourable feeling, but a positive dereliction of official trust, if they had withheld from the magistrates their judgment upon the conduct pursued in circumstances so critical. That judgment they were bound to form, and they were bound to act Upon it; they were responsible for it to parliament and to the laws; and it was their duty to communicate it to those whom the constitution has placed under their direction. If your lordships could doubt this principle, I would entreat you to consider the reverse of the proposition. Imagine, then, for a moment, that, instead of a reluctant interposition for the maintenance of the public peace, against a tumultuary and menacing array, there had been the most open and wanton violation of unquestionable right: that the magistrates, for instance, had dispersed by force the freeholders of their county, peaceably and regularly assembled, under the authority of the sheriff and in obedience to the king's writ, for the choice of their representatives in parliament. Would your lordships endure to be told that, in such a case the king's secretary of state had remained silent? Would you not require it to be proved to you, that not a moment had been lost by the servants of the Crown, both in condemning and in repressing this outrageous infraction of the constitution? And if it be the duty of persons placed in such stations to convey censure where censure is due, who will be found to argue that the more pleasing duty of expressing merited approbation is alone to be withheld from them?
And in this view of the case, my lords, let me now beseech you to turn your attention for a moment from its general principles, such as I have hitherto endeavoured to establish them, to the actual si-
470
tuation, and real conduct, of the individuals most concerned in it: of those gentlemen who have received from the ministers of their sovereign this testimony of public gratitude, but whom it is now proposed to your lordships to hold out to the world as the first objects of your suspicion and jealousy.
If there be one among the many noble institutions of this country, which can with more confidence than any other be exhibited to foreign nations as a matter of exclusive triumph to the British name, it is the manner in which local justice is administered, especially in our counties, by the persons who gratuitously undertake that task, under the king's commission of the peace. I need not describe, and no words could magnify, the labour, the self-devotion, the pure benevolence, the unspotted integrity, with which this duty is discharged. The fact is universally admitted; all men of liberal and enlightened minds repose the fullest confidence in the proceedings of this upright and truly honourable magistracy. The law itself establishes in their behalf, from long experience of their conduct, a presumption of pure intention, and even a favourable construction of error, such as may occasionally, though it rarely does, arise from unprofessional education, or from human infirmity.
But the merit of the individuals, whom this motion would place almost in a state of accusation, does not rest merely on this general ground of habitual and honourable service. It was explained to us in our last debate, but it is of the utmost importance to be repeated, that this duty was undertaken and performed by them in no common manner. During the course of last summer the two great counties of Lancashire and Cheshire were exposed to imminent danger of tumult and violence from the effect of those seditious and traitorous machinations of which I have already spoken. In such a situation, their security, and most especially the security of the town and neighbourhood of Manchester, required a more than usual degree of vigilance, a constant and unremitting superintendance. And for this special service, a committee was formed out of the whole body of the truly respectable magistracy of those counties. It must be remembered that the danger, though more urgent in a few particular places, was not confined to them, but was extensively and widely diffused. In such

471
circumstances, therefore, these gentlemen, in the same manner as all the other peaceable and loyal inhabitants of this whole district, had the deepest interest in watching, each of them over the tranquillity and safety of their own immediate neighbourhood. In a season of so much alarm, the care of their own properties, the protection of their own houses, families, and dependants, would naturally demand their constant presence, and personal exertions. But these considerations they disregarded; their houses and their families they left to the protection of their country; they assembled at Manchester; and there they continued to hold their sittings, because there was the chief root of the evil—there the scene of greatest peril—there the utmost certainty of benefitting the public by their patriotic and voluntary labours. With such feelings, and such conduct, your lordships may well believe that personal danger was the subject which least occupied their thoughts. But they also knew that there were other perils to be encountered; they could not but feel the heavy responsibility to which they would thus be subjected; they could not be ignorant, that if the painful necessity should arise of employing force for the maintenance of the public peace, no industry would be spared, no artifice, no calumny untried, which could excite the prejudices, or inflame the feelings of a humane and generous people. They were sure that their motives would be misrepresented, their actions vilified, their characters defamed. But they suffered no such apprehensions to deter them from rendering to their country what they justly deemed a most important and necessary service. They relied, first, on the uprightness of their own intentions, and on the consciousness of that pure and public spirit, by which alone they were actuated; they thought perhaps that they might securely trust to the dispassionate and impartial judgment of their fellow-subjects; they certainly looked with confidence to the honourable feelings of your lordships, and to the well-earned favour and protection of the British parliaments.
In the execution of this service, the time at length arrived when forbearance could no longer be maintained. To have neglected to interpose against the dangers justly apprehended from the meeting of the 16th of August, would, in their view of honour and duty, have been a ma-
472
nifest violation of both, and a total abandonment of the awful trust which they had undertaken under circumstances of such peculiar obligation. They were well apprised of the nature and extent of the previous preparations made for that assembly; they were eye-witnesses of its menacing array; no doubt was left on their own minds of its real character and tendency; their apprehensions of its too probable result were confirmed and strengthened by those of the peaceable inhabitants of Manchester; their protection was demanded, and it could not legally be refused: And, had they hesitated on that day to assert and to enforce the law, he must, indeed, be a bold man who will venture to affirm that the consequences of such an error could ever have been retrieved.
The tumultuous and insurrectionary spirit which produced that meeting, was not, however, extinguished by its dispersion. There was no hope that it could be so. The mischief continued to extend itself, and the dangers in which so large and so important a district of this kingdom was thus involved, have made it ultimately necessary that parliament should be assembled to provide effectually for our common security.
In this situation we are now met. The eyes of all are upon us. There is no state in Europe which does not feel its own security involved in that of the British government. There is no individual, capable of appreciating the real interests of society,—no friend of order,—no lover of virtue,—but looks with anxious solicitude to the conduct of parliament in this great conjuncture. What, then, would be the impressions of mankind;—what would be the appearance which we should exhibit to this country, and to the world, if our first step for the security of lawful government should be to discredit and to degrade our upright and honourable magistracy? What would be thought of our wisdom,—what of our justice,—should we turn aside our eyes from the violators of the public peace, and fix them with jealous suspicion on its champions and assertors; exerting the great powers, with which we are invested for the public safety, not against the savage depredators of the fold, but against its faithful and intrepid guardians? I have heard of many instances of public ingratitude: History is full of unrequited merit,—of services repaid by oppression and injury. But, I

473
trust, we shall suffer no such example to stain our own records,—no such stigma to be fixed on the proceedings of this day. No, my lords! Respect the feelings of honourable men, who have well discharged an arduous and painful duty! Treat with affection and kindness those branches of the public defence, to which you are already so much indebted! Inspire them with fresh confidence in themselves, and with fresh attachment to the constitution and legislature of their country! On them is our firmest reliance; in their zeal,—in their exertions,—is our best hope of security against every difficulty which now surrounds us, and against every danger which we may still be destined to encounter.
Nor let it be said that, by refusing this inquiry, you preclude the regular and legal investigation of any error which the most zealous and adverse scrutiny can possibly discover in these proceedings. If any intemperance of zeal, in the execution even of the most justifiable and necessary directions,—if any heat, excited by tumult and contest,—if any other feelings, be they what they may, have betrayed even a single individual into a conduct unworthy of his cause, the courts are open,—the laws will do justice to all! Not twenty-four hours have elapsed since we have seen how readily such complaints were received and inquired into, and I am happy to add, how satisfactorily they were answered. By rejecting this motion you can do no injury, nothing is prejudged; nothing closed against any complainant.
Need I say what would be the effect of its adoption? You would teach the whole magistracy of your country, that, when in the hour of peril they have discharged their public duties with intrepidity and firmness, yet if unjust prejudice—if groundless clamour,—be raised against them, they must look to no protection from the government or the legislature. After all their exertions, and all their sacrifices, they must prepare themselves to meet unfounded suspicion, and harassing inquiry, to appear, perhaps, as culprits in this place, defending themselves against the vindictive malice of those very criminals, whose guilt they may have exposed and punished. Thus discredited, thus degraded, what would be their resource? They might appeal, perhaps, to yourselves against your own decision. They might remind us that the
474
discretion which they exercise, and the duties which they perform, are committed and enjoined to them by law; by that law of which they are the ministers, your lordships the high and hereditary guardians. And they might confidently claim, from your justice, that you should suffer them to enjoy, unmolested, its full protection for their own conduct and character, while they are engaged in uprightly administering it to others. But, whatever were the result of such proceedings, never, I trust, would they be induced for any cause to deprive their country of the inestimable advantage of services which they alone can render to it. Under whatever circumstances they can be placed, in grief, in depression, in dismay, their characters assailed, their feelings wounded, their authority impaired, may there always be found a spirit in the magistracy of Great Britain resolutely to persevere in the discharge of their duties! Should that hope fail us, should it ever happen that the landed gentry of this kingdom were driven, by whatever discouragement, to relinquish their high trust, and to leave to other hands the faithful administration of our laws, and the vigilant defence of the religion and government of their forefathers, our condition would, indeed, be desperate.
Look also to another class of voluntary exertions; not less honourable, scarcely less useful. Do you wish to shake the confidence which the armed yeomanry of Great Britain now repose in the justice and gratitude of parliament? You know what efforts have been made, what calumnies employed, to inflame the passions of the people against that portion of this force which was employed at Manchester; you have seen what industry has been exerted to intimidate those individuals from persevering in their honourable service, and to deter all others from venturing to associate for the same loyal and constitutional purposes. Nor can you be surprised that it should be so. Could these objects be accomplished—could this establishment be discountenanced, this force disbanded, much, indeed, would have been done for the cause of disaffection. But still more complete, much more unexpected, and unhoped for, would be the triumph of that cause, should the conduct of' this House be found to have contributed to it. Far be it from us! I trust we shall accede to no proposal that can have such a tendency. If there be

475
sufficient ground to impute to any man, charged with the execution of a painful duty, even a single act of wanton and needless violence, I repeat it, the law is open to all. Let the facts be legally examined, let them be judicially determined. The previous interposition of this House, in such a case, if any such there were, could operate only to the prejudice of impartial justice; but it would have the farther mischief of sanctioning those indiscriminate calumnies which have for their true object, not the conduct of any individuals, but the character of the institution itself. To that institution the fullest protection, the warmest encouragement, is due from parliament. I acknowledge that on this point I speak with strong personal feeling. I had much share in the original formation of that establishment; I earnestly promoted it both by counsel and by personal exertion; and I look back to it with unqualified satisfaction, as to one of the most useful services of a public life now brought to its conclusion. Great advantage, I say it with full experience and knowledge of the fact, did then arise from the exertions of those meritorious and patriotic bodies; and still greater we shall, I trust, derive from them in the present exigency. Nor let these benefits be considered as merely occasional, calculated only to meet the pressure of some momentary danger. A much more solid and permanent good, and of far wider influence on the highest interests of our society, has already resulted, and will I am confident, continue to result from this institution. It has habituated the middle classes of our community, under the authority of the sovereign, and with the guidance and co-operation of the magistracy and gentry of their neighbourhood, to take an active share in defending our free and happy government against all its foreign and all its domestic enemies. What can be in principle more constitutional, in practice more beneficial? It was in its origin, and it will ever be, both in its impression and effect, a pledge of mutual confidence between these different orders of the state; most honourable on both sides to those who have offered it, and on both sides most gratifying to those by whom it has been received. It has been and may it long continue to be, a strong, I trust an indissoluble link and bond of union between them, in the support of that cause which is common to us all!
And shall this be called arming our
476
fellow-subjects against each other? No; we are arming them in their own defence against lawless violence; we are arming them for the protection of their peaceful dwellings against plunder and devastation; we are arming the people of England itself against designs, which, if they could be realised, would leave not a trace behind of all that has made the British name respected, admired, and honoured, among the nations of the earth.
On whom then does the imputation justly rest of arming our fellow subjects against each other? Is it not on those who, in the midst of peace, have lighted up among us the torch of discord? Who have deluded the ignorant, and inflamed the discontented; who have drawn aside their unhappy followers from habits of tranquil industry, to designs and practices ruinous to themselves, and destructive of the public safety; who have animated them against the very persons from whose skill and enterprise their subsistence was derived; and by instigations, incessantly repeated, inciting them to the foulest crimes, have at length, in the very centre and heart of our greatest commercial establishments, impaired the security of property, and the security of life itself!
And this, my lords, brings us back to that consideration of present and local distress with which my noble friend commenced this discussion. Whatever be the remoter origin of that distress, we all acknowledge for its immediate causes the diminution of commerce, the suspension of manufacture; the cessation of employment. And what, let me ask your lordships, what could tend more effectually than the present disordered and fearful state of your great manufacturing districts, to subject them, and through them to subject every part of the kingdom, to the continued operation of these calamities? Already you are told what is the condition of Manchester. Individuals are retiring, capitals are withdrawn, and establishments about to be transferred from that scene of disturbance and alarm. It could not be otherwise. It is of the nature of commerce to flourish only under the shelter and protection of law; its blossoms will not expand themselves, much less will it mature its fruits, except in secure and undisturbed tranquillity. It shrinks from the rude blast of power; it is instantly withered by the tempestuous hurricanes of popular commotion. Let us not deceive ourselves. Never can our

477
commercial prosperity maintain itself under the lawless dominion of self-constituted and tumultuary assemblies. Never can it endure the rapacious and vindictive despotism of mutually conflicting demagogues. To other shores, to more peaceful countries, to better-ordered communities, the trade and manufactures of Great Britain would, in such circumstances, speedily remove themselves. They were first attracted to this happy country by that security which our institutions alone could then afford to them; greatly have they flourished under a government, which has defended them alike from the unjust aggression of power, and from the capricious tyranny of the multitude; they would vanish like a dream at the first aspect of revolutionary terror; they would fly far away from tumult and violence, from plunder and confiscation, from massacres, and from judicial murders!
They would vanish! and what would then be the condition of your manufacturing population? What means would then remain of alleviating their present distress, what hope of terminating their future misery?
If, therefore, on no other ground; if, from no larger and deeper views of policy and justice, such as may best become the legislators of a mighty empire; yet, for the single purpose of preventing these unhappy men from aggravating and perpetuating their own distress, let me implore your lordships to step between them and their betrayers. Interpose your high authority to rescue them from this destruction. Take speedy, take effectual measures to give peace and security to those disturbed and agitated districts of your; country. On peace and security depends the prosperity of all; there is no other prospect of reviving commerce to the manufacturer, no other hope of renewed employment to the artisan.
In every view which can be taken of our situation, there is but one course which you can now pursue. Do you think that present distress is the sole cause of all this evil? What, then, must be the first steps towards its removal? The discontinuance of alarm; the punishment of sedition; the
vigorous and instant suppression of all that produces, and all that threatens, disturbance. Do you look to the permanent protection of your constitution and government? Then, also, must the same determination be
478
adopted. You must give energy and vigour to the laws; you must uphold and strengthen the authority of magistrates and courts of justice; you must protect the well-affected, encourage the loyal, and animate the whole body of the British nation, by the best of all exhortations—the example of your own resolution and constancy.
And, with this opinion, thus decidedly entertained, thus unreservedly expressed, let me finish what I had to submit to your lordships on the present occasion. I little expected to have troubled you so much at length. But I have obeyed the impulse of an irresistible duty; the last, perhaps, that I may ever be called upon to discharge within these walls. Whether it will be so I know not; for, who can now anticipate the events which are impending over us? But how can I, under any circumstances, better close my long service in this place, than by an effort, earnest, however weak, to uphold the laws, and to preserve the tranquillity, of my country? With what sentiment nearer to my heart can I conclude these labours than by finally conjuring your lordships to guard, as you have hitherto done, with unremitted vigilance, with unshaken firmness, the sacred deposit of the British constitution? It has been the work of ages; formed on no preconcerted plan of human policy; resting on no delusive principles of imagined right; the happy result of a long series of unforeseen and uncontrollable events; the produce of many jarring and contending elements, combined and harmonized by the tried experience, by the unwearied diligence, and by the traditional, yet cautious wisdom of a legislature better adapted than any other yet known in the history of mankind, to promote the happiness of the community, whose interests it administers. Such is our government; the boast of Englishmen,—the admiration and envy of the world! Such may it long continue! And wise, indeed, should that man be, who hopes to improve it by the preconceived theories, and baseless speculations, of his own imagination.
Earl Greyexpressed his sincere regret at the difference of opinion which now existed between himself and his noble friend, to whom he had been peculiarly attached, not only by the ties of political connexion, but by the more endearing bonds of personal friendship—a regret which he felt the more keenly from his

479
having been accustomed to look up to that noble lord with sentiments of deep delight as his guide and oldest instructor. His regret was scarcely less when he saw the noble marquis also differing from him, recollecting, as he did, the powerful eloquence which the noble marquis on every occasion had displayed, and that in the year 1817, under circumstances not very dissimilar, that noble marquis had brought to his side of the question, in the struggle then made for the constitution, all the brilliancy of his eloquence, all the strength of his argument. He felt these to be serious disadvantages; but, notwithstanding them all—notwithstanding the infirm state of his health, he felt it his duty to rise, perhaps for the last time, to fight once more for the liberties of his country. It was a duty which he would execute at any risk—which no fear of misrepresentation, no weight of obloquy, should induce him to forego. No apprehension that his opinions might be represented as calculated to endanger rather than to secure the peace of the country, of which he would hold himself forth to be as zealous a defender as any noble lord in that House, should make him hesitate in his endeavour to discharge what he conceived to be a paramount duty, by supporting the motion for inquiry made by his noble friend.
It had been objected, that the proposed inquiry comprehended too wide and extensive a field: the field was indeed wide and extensive so also were the difficulties which were to be inquired into; and to the understanding of which no close or confined investigation could be adequate. His noble friend, in his statesman-like speech, had stated his objects so distinctly and conclusively, that he should only weaken the subject by attempting to add to it. He therefore would not go into that part of his argument which related to the financial condition of the country, because, much as inquiry was there necessary, yet another subject pressed so much more immediately, and occupied so much more intensely the public mind, that he should now confine himself to a consideration of that branch of the question—the internal situation of the country. On a former occasion which had been more than once referred to, he had certainly acknowledged the difficulties and dangers of the country to be very great. All seemed to be agreed upon this point; and it was with reference to the causes of
480
them that the main difference of opinion existed. His noble friend who last spoke had maintained, that distress was not a sufficient cause of the existing evil. He differed from his noble friend entirely. The cause of the distress itself might be doubtful; but that that distress was the main and operative cause of the disturbed state of the public mind, was proved by evidence which the senses could not reject—was proved even by those scanty papers—[Hear, from marquis Wellesley]—he must repeat that epithet, though it seemed to give offence to his noble friend—was proved even by those scanty papers which had been laid upon the table with so much parade. What was the language of those papers? The very first of them, dated so far back as the 1st of last July, and which it should be remembered was received by ministers before parliament was prorogued, and which, though stating the existence of danger, and its cause, ministers had not thought of sufficient importance to lay before parliament, or to propose for consideration any preventive measure, said "Of the deep distresses of the manufacturing classes of this extensive population, your lordship is fully apprised; and the disaffected and ill-disposed lose no opportunity of instilling the worst principles into the unhappy sufferers in these times; attributing their calamities, not to any event which cannot be controlled, but to the general measures of government and of parliament; and when the people are oppressed with hunger, we do not wonder at their giving ear to any doctrines which they are told will redress their grievances." Such was the language of the magistrates at Manchester; and if their lordships would look at the representations made from Yorkshire, Cheshire, or any other part of the country, they would see that they completely proved that it was the opinion of every one of the writers, that distress was the real cause of the danger. His noble friends, indeed, had allowed, and had expressed themselves with great complacency—a complacency natural to so consoling a topic—that the people were not generally disaffected. How was this to be explained? Why, in those districts where distress did not prevail, as for instance, in the agricultural districts, there the evil did not exist in the same degree, and in some of them not at all. Was it, therefore, too much to conclude, both from the papers on the table, and even

481
from the admissions of his noble friends, that it was distress which had disposed men's minds to listen to designing and wicked demagogues? Was it, therefore, inconsistent with humanity and justice to say, that when the circumstances of this dangerous influence on the public mind were under consideration, their lordships should in the first instance look to the cause, and endeavour to check the evil in its source? Was it not their duty, while deprecating the designs of evil men,—and no one could deprecate them more than he did—to draw a distinction between those who misled, and those who were misled? He was grieved, therefore, to hear that Latin quotation of the noble marquis, which implied that the whole people were filled with fury and detestable malice against the government, and all indiscriminately combined against the institutions of their country. On the contrary, he from his heart believed, that those who really entertained mischievous intentions against the constitution were few in number, less in consequence, and would be as nothing in effect, unless a perseverance in the impolitic system of government, by his majesty's ministers, should increase that evil of which he believed it to be the cause.
His noble friend who had last spoken had taken credit to himself for having marked the growth of the evil from and even before the French Revolution; and had asserted, that it had now come to that height of unparalleled danger, of which not only the history of this, but of no other country could furnish an example. But while his noble friend thus congratulated himself on having foreseen, and on having carefully watched the progress of the mischief, he must beg to recall to his recollection what he had prophesied as to the efficacy of the remedies on which he had formerly insisted as able utterly to extirpate that mischief. What were those remedies? A war with France, and
a domestic system of force and coercion. The war did indeed suspend, and to a certain degree extinguish, the progress of internal disquiet; but at the conclusion of the war that disquiet revived: and why? Was it not to be found in the conduct of parliament on that occasion? Did his noble friend believe that the country, looking as it did, with the utmost anxiety to the proceedings of parliament, was not acutely alive to any supposed betrayal of trust in
482
that quarter? And would not such betrayal produce disaffection? At the end of the war, parliament had new duties to perform; and the people, who without a murmur had made the greatest exertions, and submitted to the greatest sacrifices, had a right to look to parliament for an active protection of their interests. His noble friend had at that time certainly acted from this impression; and with that constitutional spirit which he believed always animated him, had urged the reduction of the army to such a degree that even he (earl Grey), anxious as he was to reduce the military power of the Crown, from a conviction that the best defence of the sovereign was the affection of his people, even he had been induced to pause before he could give his entire concurrence to the proposition. His noble friend, however, had expressed in the most energetic language his apprehension of a design to establish a military rule, and had urged with the greatest force, and had shown with the most laborious accuracy, why and to what extent the army should and could be reduced. Parliament, however, did not reduce the army, did not do what even his noble friend conceived to be its duty; and was it unreasonable to suppose that this was a cause of public discontent—of discontent which he was sure would not exist without materials to work upon? He had himself been frequently misrepresented, as being the cause of results which he had never intended. He would not, however, though he had a fair opportunity, retort on his noble friend, and say that his conduct had been the cause of breeding discontent and an ill opinion of parliament.
His noble friend had desired them to mark the march and progress of the evil; he (earl Grey) would call upon them to mark the march and progress of that system which ministers had adopted to check the evil. He would call to their attention the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, the restraints on the liberty of meeting, the restraints on the press,—restraints now so increased, that he believed they would lead in a short time to the complete extinction of that right; in short, a general code of coercion and force, to which parliament had too readily assented, on the ground that even urgent distress was not to be reasoned with, but to be silenced. And what was the consequence? Why, according to his noble friends, the danger was so immediately threatening, that par-

483
liament must proceed without a moment's delay, to remove the fences of that liberty which they were professing to defend. There was an old and homely proverb, "look before you leap," but it was full of wisdom; their lordships would do well to pause and consider before they took their desperate leaps beyond the limits of the constitution. But his noble friend had dilated on the horrors of the French revolution, that pregnant source of alarm. He (earl Grey) had hoped that he had survived that disagreeable topic. He thought to have heard no more of it after the happy restoration of legitimacy. His noble friend, however, thought differently, and had maintained that the same system, with the same objects, and with the same means, was in progress here, as had overthrown the French government. And what was his remedy? Coercion and restraint. "You must," said he, "restrain the press; you must put a stop to public meetings—you must take away from an Englishman his oldest privilege, the possession of arms for his defence." But would all this operate as a security? Why, this was a mere joke, compared with the power possessed and exercised at the beginning of the French revolution: yet there the evil was not checked, nor would it be here, by such means: for in such a system there was no stopping till it came to the power of the sword, and that, when public opinion was once excited against it, would produce the very evil it was intended to prevent. There was, indeed, no real defence in any country, especially in a country under such a constitution as that of England, but a system of liberty which should conciliate the affection and esteem of the people. All other devices were absolutely futile.
He now came to another part of the speech of his noble friend, which he confessed he heard with astonishment, and with a degree of pain amounting almost to horror. His noble friend was not only against inquiry, not only approved the Letter of the noble secretary of state, but had gone so far as to express his opinion that the magistracy of Manchester had deserved what he had called "authoritative approbation." He sincerely believed that his noble friend was the only man in that House—nay, in the whole country, who had even approached to such an opinion. Who could for a moment conceive that the conduct of the magistrates had been not only free from blame, but highly me-
484
ritorious; and who could venture to say, that the only question for consideration was, whether they had not been too forbearing? But he would leave this part of the subject, which he could not touch upon without the greatest regret, and proceed to examine a little the speech of the noble marquis—a speech which he owned seemed to him to be more remarkable for brilliancy of expression than for solidity of argument. The noble marquis had said that the meeting was obviously illegal—that there could be no question as to the right of putting it down. The noble marquis had professed himself to be greatly alarmed, not indeed at any acts of violence committed by that assembly, but at its silence—ipsa silentia terrent. A riot, no doubt, was bad enough; but that a meeting should disperse without any riot at all, was enough to fill the whole nation with terror. This was certainly a notable discovery, the credit of which entirely belonged to his lordship: but the noble marquis had another argument—he had inferred that the meeting was illegal, because its object was illegal; and its object was illegal, because it was universal suffrage and annual parliaments. And the noble lord had illustrated his argument by asking, whether it would not be illegal to discuss the propriety of assassination, or of establishing atheism. To this he would answer, no; there was no analogy in the cases, because assassination and atheism were in direct contravention to the known laws of the land; but he had yet to learn what law was infringed by discussing the propriety of universal suffrage. He would appeal from the speech of the noble marquis that night to his speech in the year 1817, when, with powerful eloquence and irresistible argument, he had recommended not to put down radical reformers, however absurd, by force and violence, but by reason and conciliation—when, in short, he had reprobated that system of coercion in support of which he was now so stoutly engaged, and had called upon parliament, in the words of the wisest of men, to "take away the matter of sedition." His noble friend had on that occasion referred to the conduct of the duke of Richmond, and it was conduct worthy of being again referred to. What! was it to be charged as a crime on "the deluded people of England," as it was the fashion to call them, that they entertained a question which they had been taught to consider a

485
proper one, from so illustrious an example? When they recollected that a bill, with that very reprobated object of universal suffrage and annual election, had been brought into the House, and read a first time, at a season of the greatest public danger, when parliament was threatened and besieged by an outrageous mob? When, too, they had the means of reading that strong recommendation of this now called illegal purpose, in a letter written by the duke to colonel Shirman? What! should that which was entertained as a question in parliament, be charged as a crime on the people of England? He would go so far as to say, that the people had a great practical grievance to complain of, in the disregard of parliament to their just and reasonable wishes—wishes, which were expressed not now for the first time, and which, if they were criminal, had been encouraged by the example of great names. He had himself, though certainly with but humble powers, contributed to create the delusion. In his early years, Mr. Pitt himself had been a reformer; for in the House of Commons he declared that no ministry could be honestly entrusted with public affairs unless there was a reform. But not only Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, sir George Savile, the illustrious lord Chatham, and many other distinguished characters were guilty, if guilt were imputable. But there was no guilt; for who would endure that such men as he had referred to should be branded as rebels and traitors, who were looking only for the subversion of the constitution? Connected with this part of the subject was the case of sir Manasseh Lopez, who had been made a baronet for no conceivable reason except his parliamentary influence. He defied any noble lord to point out one ground of character or service for which sir Manasseh Lopez would have received that reward, unless on the score of the influence to which he had alluded. But what followed? He was detected in some comparatively trifling act of bribery, and an election committee sent him to trial; and the result was, the severe, though certainly just punishment, of a fine of 10,000 l. and three years imprisonment; just, it must certainly appear to all those numerous gentlemen who were conscious that they had never been guilty of any thing bordering on such an offence. But what occurred on the occasion of passing the sentence? The learned judge, for
486
whose merits he would refer to the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, and indeed to all who had ever an opportunity of seeing or hearing of his conduct, had expressed himself, in the most decided terms, on the enormity of the offence of which the defendant was convicted. He said, "the crime was one of the greatest magnitude, and he confessed his own poverty of language to express the abhorrence in which such a crime ought to be held by every man in the country. It was of the highest importance to the public that the purity of election should be preserved. There should be no inroad into the House of Commons by corrupt means; for how could the country have any confidence in that House, if its doors were open to corruption; or could the public be induced to believe, that persons who obtained seats by such means would themselves be free from being corrupted in that place?" With the conclusion of the learned judge's observation, reasonable as it appeared, he did not entirely agree; for he certainly had known persons who paid for a seat without any expectation of deriving profit from it. Still, the principles there laid down by the learned judge were sound and just; and was it to be wondered at that the people of England should cry out with impatience against an abuse which the judges of the land had denounced with indignation, and punished with the utmost severity?
His noble friend who spoke last had advanced another reason for the illegality of the Manchester meeting. He had said that an assembly in terrorem populi was illegal. He did not deny the principle, and was glad that his noble friend had so worded it, because he thought the noble and learned lord on the woolsack had stated a similar proposition too broadly. For himself, he certainly thought that numbers alone did not constitute illegality. Every large assembly, to a certain degree, was calculated to produce intimidation; but, however great the numbers, unless there was such reasonable ground of fear as a firm and constant man might entertain, no magistrate could be justified in a violent and forcible interference. Taking this, then, as an established point, he begged to ask, did any of the other circumstances render the meeting illegal? Could their marching in military array be called illegal? Could their marching with flags be called illegal? Could their wearing caps of liberty, or their being

487
accompanied by music be said to be illegal? None of these singly, nor all collectively, were in his opinion illegal, unless it could be shown that the assembly meditated some outrageous or seditious proceeding. He saw no reason to allow that the meeting in question was illegal. Looking at the documents upon the table—looking at the evidence furnished by the magistrates themselves—he could not bring himself to believe, that men without arms, and accompanied with women and children, unless they were fit for Bedlam, could have contemplated any acts of violence, much less any regular conflict with the armed authorities. While, however he expressed his opinion, he did not mean positively to affirm that the meeting was legal. He did not either assert or deny the illegality of the meeting, he was ignorant on the subject; he wished to have the facts fairly before their lordships; he wished the country to be fully informed on the subject, and therefore it was, that inquiry was imperatively necessary. But did it stop here?—Admitting the illegality of the Manchester meeting; what then? Did that illegality authorise the magistrates to send in the military among them—to charge them—to cut them right and left in all directions? He was sure that his noble friend would not attempt to maintain such a proposition. If, then, there was a reasonable ground of presumption, that the meeting had been illegally dispersed, why refuse to satisfy parliament and the country by instituting an inquiry? He agreed with his noble friend, that nothing was more necessary than to uphold the magistracy; and he was glad to have an opportunity again to bear his feeble testimony to the merits of a body who sacrificed their case, and sometimes incurred the greatest risks; in the gratuitous performance of their high and important office. To uphold such a body, was the duty of every public man: but how was that duty best performed? Was it by an indiscriminate approbation of all their acts in all times, and under all circumstances, or by a prompt support of them when right, and a firm remonstrance with them when wrong, and by an investigation of their conduct, when any reasonable objection existed against them? His noble friend, indeed, had argued, as if the government was bound at once in all cases to approve or disapprove; but there was a middle case which his noble friend had forgot to mention, where doubt, or even
488
strong presumption of misconduct existed; where therefore either blame or praise would be in the first instance unjust; and that was precisely the case now before the House. His noble friend had asked, if, when it had been proved that magistrates had acted improperly, ministers were not bound to censure them, and then he took the converse of the proposition, and assuming that the magistrates had acted right, contended that ministers were bound to thank them. This he would fully admit, provided the facts were equally clear in both cases. But here the case was not clear; on the contrary there was strong presumption against what had been assumed as true. Here had been a meeting assembled for the purpose of discussing parliamentary reform. Of what occurred at that meeting, or in the attempts to disperse it, the House knew nothing, save what appeared in the letter of Mr. Hay. It was a remarkable circumstance, that there was no other evidence but that of one of those magistrates, who were, in fact, to be indemnified by the measures of ministers. Now, what was Mr. Hay's statement?" "The special committee have been in constant attendance for the last three days, and contented themselves till they saw what the complexion of the meeting might be, or what circumstances might arise, with coming to this determination only, which they adopted in concurrence with some of the most intelligent gentlemen of the town, not to stop the numerous columns which were from various roads expected to pour in, but to allow them to reach the place of their destination." Now it was a remarkable fact, that the magistrates had evidence of the extent to which training was carried in their district—that they knew of parties of men marching in military array—that they knew of their carrying flags, caps of liberty, and music—it was an established fact they knew of all these circumstances which are said to have rendered the meeting illegal, and yet they took not a single step to prevent the meeting from being held. Now he would ask whether the magistrates being of opinion that these circumstances rendered the meeting illegal, were not in duty bound to keep the people from assembling, and thereby prevent the havoc and bloodshed which took place on the charge of the cavalry? Was not this in itself a strong presumption of misconduct in the magistrates? Mr.

489
Hay said in his letter, that "a body of constables took their ground, about 200 in number, close to the hustings; from them there was a line of communication to the house where we were." Now it was in evidence upon oath, that this line of communication remained unbroken up to the time that the cavalry reached the hustings. This was proved by the evidence of Entwistle and Nadin, who were called before the coroner's jury by Mr. Ashworth. Nadin, obnoxious as he was to the people, had walked up and down this space uninterrupted: and even Mr. Norris one of the magistrates, passed repeatedly in and out through it. He would ask their lordships, whether with these facilities of communicating with the meeting, the magistrates could not, if they thought the assembly illegal, have read the Riot act? He would ask whether they had not an opportunity of informing the poor deluded people that they were committing a serious crimes and of guarding them against its consequences? But no such thing was done. Was not this, then, a strong presumption that those magistrates had misconducted themselves. He would go further: Mr. Hay said, "There was no appearance of arms or pikes, but great plenty of sticks and staves, and every column marched in files of three or four deep, attended with conductors, music, &c. The most powerful accession was in the last instance, when Hunt and his party came in." But it seemed the magistrates were determined to leave themselves without excuse for not having prevented the meeting from taking place. Mr. Hay went on to state; "but long before this" (the assembling of the meeting) "the magistrates had felt a decided conviction that the whole bore the appearance of insurrection; that the array was such as to terrify all the king's subjects, and was such as no legitimate purpose could justify. Now he appealed to their lordships whether, if such was the impression of the magistrates before the meeting had fully assembled, whether they were not bound in duty to prevent its taking place, when they could have done so without danger? He asked, whether their not having done so was not a neglect of that duty? Did the noble lord mean to call this forbearance on the part of the magistrates? The manner in which the people had been allowed to assemble, appeared to him more like the manœuvre of a skilful general, who wished
490
to draw the enemy into a situation from which they could not retreat, and where they must be in his power. But when the people were placed in this situation, what was done? It was in evidence, that the people committed no act of violence before the soldiers reached the hustings. The magistrates, having allowed them to meet, ought, in common humanity to have suffered them to remain until the last extremity before they interfered. But no; the cavalry were ordered to advance at a gallop into the crowd, for the purpose of arresting a man who could have been taken on the previous day, or on the day after. This would not do; the cavalry mast act, and the consequence was, according to the noble viscount's statement, the loss of three lives; but according to his (earl Grey's) information, of seven lives, besides the wounding of near four hundred persons.
He maintained, that this conduct of the magistrates furnished primâ facie grounds for inquiry.—In justice to the magistrates—in justice to the country—in justice to parliament, this inquiry ought to be instituted. He begged their lordships to attend to the flippant manner in which Mr. Hay mentioned the reading of the Riot act—"In the mean time the Riot act was read." Indeed, from all which had transpired upon this subject it appeared that the Riot act was not read. None of the witnesses examined before the coroner had heard of its having been read, though some were close to the house in which the magistrates were stationed; even Nadin and Entwistle, and a man named Hall, said they had never heard of its having been read, or of any warning having been given to the people to disperse, or of the meeting being illegal. He asked, then, was not this again presumptive proof that the magistrates had misconducted themselves? The magistrates asserted, however, that the Riot act was read, but if they acted upon it they ought to abide by its provisions; yet the meeting was dispersed immediately after the period when it was stated to have been read.
But it was urged that there had been much misrepresentation on this subject. He admitted it, there had been a good deal of misrepresentation on both sides. Was it possible that all the misrepresentation could be on one side? Was it possible that the magistrates, who had the making out of their own case, had not

491
allowed a little prejudice to infuse itself in that account? Was it not possible that some misrepresentation had crept into that account? It had been sworn by most creditable witnesses, that no resistance was offered to the cavalry before they got to the hustings. Here he would make his stand and call for inquiry. Was it to be tolerated, that without any opposition being offered—without any attempt at violence by the people, these men were to inflict wounds, and put to death several of his majesty's subjects? He said, without fear of contradiction, that there never was a case where the most prompt and minute inquiry was called for. There never was a period when the House ought more seriously to pause before they decided against inquiry. There existed much discontent in the country. The evidence laid before the House could not be relied upon. He was asked, would he give way to popular clamour? His answer was, "No, but I will use my utmost endeavours to obtain justice for the people." This justice was demanded at a time of great public distress; it was demanded too for what was considered an invasion of the people's privileges.—Let inquiry be granted—let the magistrates be acquitted, if innocent; let them be punished, if their conduct was proved to have been culpable;—let the inquiry be instituted, and in either case their lordships would take a considerable step towards calming the public mind. There were cases of palpable misrepresentation respecting the yeomanry, which he wished to mention. The first was that of a yeomanry man named Hulme, who had been knocked off his horse. It was urged by the magistrate that this person had been struck before he used his sword, whereas it was sworn that he had cut at several persons, and that he was striking at a man when he was struck with a brick bat. The next case was that of a person named Campbell who was acquitted of a charge of having fired at a man from his window, on its having been proved that he was in the habit of firing pistols from his windows. He did not urge that any of these statements were true, but he said that they called for inquiry. The circumstance of the swords of the yeomanry cavalry having been sharpened, was also a subject on which there existed much difference of opinion. It was, no doubt, right that the arms of soldiers should at all times be prepared for duty; but here it had been
492
proved before the coroner, by the person who had been employed to sharpen them, that 60 swords were sharpened in the week ending on the 17th of July, and others a short time before the meeting at Manchester. These were facts that had been proved, and that could not be doubted or denied. Their lordships had been asked if they would protect the disturbers of the public peace? He asked, who were the disturbers of the public peace? There was strong ground of presumption that the magistrates were the disturbers: he asked for inquiry to establish or disprove the fact. "But, then," said the noble lords, "inquiry will prejudge the question in courts of law.'' He should like to know how the magistrates were to be brought before a court of law. They ordered the yeomanry to act, in the exercise of the discretion vested in them, and he would ask what power there was to bring this conduct under legal discussion? This was an inquiry which parliament, and parliament only, could institute. Their lordships were called upon to enact laws restricting the rights of the subject; was the evidence on the table sufficient to induce them to do so? The noble lord said that all the facts were proved. By whom were they proved? The statements were almost all anonymous. Were the statements of A. B. and C. D. to be implicitly credited; and were the liberties of the people to be invaded on such authority? A. B. says he went to a blacksmith's shop and bought a pike-head—that he went to the public-house and had certain conversations with this blacksmith, from which he learned certain treasonable matters. Was all this to be implicitly believed by parliament, who knew nothing of A. B. or C. D.? It reminded him of a curious device, practised in a book written by lord Orford, which he had read some time since. In that book, the names of the different personages were left out in the print, but afterwards supplied in manuscript. But the statements of these anonymous individuals were ridiculous. On one occasion, a search for arms was made—and what was found? One pike-head, two pistol-stocks, concealed on a shelf, and a box containing some unfinished balls! In another instance, the socket of a pike-head, with a small pistol, and a paper containing the pattern of a pike were discovered! This was if possible more ridiculous than the stocking full of ammunition which was to be used

493
in seizing the Tower, and taking possession of London.
It was said that the people were at present providing themselves with arms for the purpose of carrying their revolutionary plans into execution: but it should be remembered that the same was said in 1817. What followed on that occasion? The Habeas Corpus act was suspended, but none of the arms which were said to have been provided were ever discovered, although the most diligent search was made for them! The present case, however, was a great deal stronger than that of 1817, for here parliament were called upon to make new laws, without even the authority of a committee to sanction the credibility of A, B, and C, whose testimony, supposing it to be confirmed, was incomplete in many points. He had made some extracts from the report of the committee appointed in 1817, in which it was said that pikes had been manufactured, and other arms provided, in different parts of the country; but the fact was known that none of these pikes or other arms had ever been found. Again, on the subject of Mr. Horsfall's atrocious murder, these were the words in the report of the committee—"When he fell, the people surrounded him, and reviled him, instead of offering him assistance; and no attempts were made to secure the assassins." Thus the people were charged with the brutal cruelty of reviling the unfortunate sufferer, instead of offering him any assistance. But what was the fact? The murderers were afterwards secured, tried, and convicted; and, on the trial it was proved, that the people, instead of reviling the wounded man, had assisted him to the nearest house. Here anonymous evidence had been satisfactorily contradicted on the trial; and yet, on similar testimony, parliament was at present abridging the liberties of the people. If this was not a fit case for parliamentary inquiry, he could not see when such a case could occur; and that being his opinion, he thought it his duty to support the motion of his noble friend. He observed with astonishment that there was nothing from the lord-lieutenant of the county of Lancashire on the subject of these proceedings. It was to him an unaccountable matter, that his majesty's ministers, as far as appeared from the documents on the table, had not applied to the lord lieutenant, the highest authority in the county, but had received all their in formation from magistrates
494
in inferior situations. From the lord-lieutenant it was that ministers ought to have sought for information, instead of passing him over and applying to the magistrates, who were parties in the case. In saying this he meant no personal disrespect to the magistrates.
He felt it unpleasant to speak of himself, but he appealed to the House whether he could have any other motive in advocating inquiry than a conscientious wish to perform his duty to his country. Could he be suspected of any attachment to the principles of the radical reformers? Was he not aware that those persons called radical reformers were decided enemies to the Whigs—that he himself was pointed out by name as their greatest, if not their principal enemy? He knew that if those persons were to succeed in obtaining that which they sought for, he would be their first victim; but, notwithstanding this, when he found an attempt made through these people to aim a vital blow at the constitution of the country, he was determined, as far as in his power, to interpose his shield and prevent it. In doing so, he could have no ambitious purpose in view; for he was not so weak as to suppose that at his age, and with his state of health, he could, in the event of any popular commotion, "Ride on the whirlwind, and direct the storm.'' His only object at his time of life was and ought to be peace and tranquillity, but above all, he was anxious for the peace and prosperity of the country. He was anxious to see that blessed constitution which had been the work of our ancestors preserved pure and inviolate. If that were attained, he should sink to his grave with peace and satisfaction. For the reasons which he had endeavoured to submit to their lordships he must give his most cordial support to the motion of his noble friend.
The Earl of Liverpoolapologised to the House for addressing them at that late hour, after all he could say had been anticipated by the noble marquis, and also by the noble baron who had that night delivered one of the ablest and most eloquent speeches that had ever been heard in that House. He could not, however, in justice to the cause which his noble friends had taken up, in justice to himself, or in justice to the administration with whom he acted, suffer this question to go to the vote, without delivering his opinions upon it. How injurious so ever he

495
supposed that the views of the noble mover would prove, if adopted by parliament, he was ready to render him that justice which the noble marquis, he knew would on his part, give him for purity of intention. In addressing himself to this subject, he could not help observing the very different views which were entertained by the noble marquis and by the noble earl who had just sat down. In the opinion of the noble marquis, the motion embraced every thing; but the noble earl restricted it to an inquiry into the proceedings at Manchester. The noble earl said, on the first night of the session, that he objected to the whole proceedings of ministers, as injurious to the interests of the country: from the noble marquis they had heard a different opinion, for he had said he did not doubt that some of the measures proposed by his majesty's ministers would be beneficial to the country.
The subject of the motion before their lordships might be considered in two points of view—either that they should go into an inquiry with reference to the whole state of the country, as the noble marquis proposed; or, as the noble earl proposed, that they should institute an inquiry on the question of the proceedings at Manchester alone. The noble marquis had attributed the present troubles to the distress which prevailed in some districts of the country; and the noble baron had said, that these troubles were owing to a plan that had been regularly formed long ago to subvert the constitution. He would not, at that late hour, enter into the examination of these two different opinions, because they all admitted that, whether the evil proceeded from distress or not, distress did exist, and that every endeavour should be made to relieve it. If the noble marquis had said, that this distress proceeded from the measures of parliament, that would have been a fit ground for a parliamentary inquiry; or had he even said that it could be relieved by parliament, that would have been a fit ground for inquiry. But the noble mover had not said any thing from which it could be inferred that he entertained either of these opinions. As to the first of the remedies that had been suggested, the issuing of exchequer bills in aid of the commercial interest, he did not think it necessary to enter into any argument to prove its inefficacy, especially as the noble marquis himself had great doubts of the propriety of such a measure.
496
With respect to the second remedy, even if the smuggling alluded to was really practised, he was sure the noble marquis had too enlarged a view of the subject, to suppose that any material good could result from the plan proposed. It was evident that great delusion had been practised on the public mind respecting the causes of the present distress, for every one who looked at the papers on the table must know that it was connected with circumstances over which neither the executive government nor parliament had any control. It arose from the state of an internal trade, affected by foreign commerce; and he maintained that, whatever might be the circumstances of this distress, it was not connected with political causes. It was impossible it should not have happened that a war of more than twenty years, a war in which not only this country, but all Europe had been involved, should be followed by great distress in this country, as well as in all other countries in Europe. If, however, the noble marquis would inform himself on the subject, he would find that this distress existed to as great an extent in the United States of America as in this country—a circumstance which he regretted, both on account of America itself, and on account of the effect it had on this country. If their lordships considered the situation of America, they would find there those principles of reform which had spread through this country. The Americans had no king—no nobles—no established church—no tithes. They had too—what was called equal representation—and we were told they had no taxes; yet that country was more distressed than this, in which all those establishments existed. He did not urge this as a matter of blame against the American government—it arose from a cause simple, plain, and intelligible.
For fifteen or twenty years that country had remained neutral, had carried on an extensive commerce, and during that time had made great progress in prosperity; and when the circumstances which had given rise to its prosperity were changed, it was impossible that a country so situated should not go backwards. Its present situation, he hoped for our own sakes, would not be of long duration; but he had stated these circumstances to show that the causes of distress were not to be attributed to the government of a county.
In inquiring into the circumstances

497
which had given rise to the distresses of this country, it was material to consider how rapidly the population had increased within the last 60 years. What was the consequence? To meet the great demand for manufactures, machinery was introduced, which had a tendency in the end to produce something like a glut in the market; and this, combined with the increase of our population, might easily account for some portion of the distresses that existed. He stated these circumstances, because he thought, generally, that they were most material for consideration, and also because they were most important with reference to the formation and adoption of any measures for the amelioration of the state of the country. Every man must look with an anxious desire towards any measure that was calculated to afford relief to the lower classes of people in this country, and more particularly to the manufacturing population. But the legislature must proceed with great caution. Measures of that kind could not be viewed as matters of indifference. If they did not effect good, it was probable that they might do much harm; and he believed that, for one instance in which benefit was produced by legislative interference in matters of trade and commerce, ten cases could be pointed out in which injury was the consequence. This was a doctrine that ought to be impressed on the minds of the people of this country. They ought to be taught, that evils, inseparable from the state of things, should not be charged upon any government; and, on inquiry, it would be found that by far the greater part of the miseries of which human nature complained, were, in all times and in all countries, beyond the control of human legislature:
"How small, of all the ills that men endure,
"The part which kings or states can cause or cure!"
Whatever the cause of the present distress might be, it could not, he would maintain, be ascribed, in any degree or in any way, to the government or legislature of this country. The observation of the noble baron who spoke last but one was worthy of the deepest attention. If there were any suggestions to be made worthy of notice, either to alleviate the distress that prevailed, or to contract its duration, let them be brought forward at the proper time, and they would always receive full consideration from the parliament and government of the country. But those
498
points did not, in his judgment, form any ground for proceeding with such an inquiry as was now called for.
The noble marquis had, however, declared, that an inquiry ought to be instituted, not with a view to apply relief to any distress which existed, but because he conceived that there was some defect in the formation of the other House of Parliament, and that the people looked to some reform in that House, where they conceived they were not sufficiently represented. This was a severe charge to advance against the House of Commons, and, in his opinion, an unfounded one. He knew not on what ground it could be defended. The noble marquis, in support of his argument, had referred to the conduct of the noble baron and of the noble marquis some years ago, with respect to the military establishment of the country. He would not now enter into a discussion of the reasons which induced them to suppose that the establishment then in existence was not more than sufficient; but the noble marquis had entirely forgotten the reduction that took place in preceding years—a reduction, he believed, that went to the full extent of any wish or expectation that was ever stated by those who opposed a very large force. The result of that reduction was, that though the question of the amount of the army and ordnance establishment had been in every preceding session a great subject of conflict and discussion in both Houses of Parliament, yet it would be found, on referring to those sources which were open to all their lordships, that in the last year the army was so far reduced that the vote passed the other House of Parliament with little observation, and except what had been offered by a noble earl opposite, without objection in that House. It was, therefore, most unfair, considering the evil that must arise from it, to endeavour to excite distrust in the minds of the people, by making an accusation against parliament in general, or the House of Commons in particular, unless the noble marquis could adduce a more grave and well-supported ground of censure than he had offered: but did the noble marquis believe that the spirit of reform—that spirit which produced those numerous meetings—had, in reality, any connexion with the distress that existed?
The noble marquis had asserted that meetings convened for the purpose of procuring annual parliaments, were not? ille-

499
gal. That opinion he conceived to be erroneous. By the same rule, the people might meet to alter the succession to the Crown. If the noble lord's argument were carried to its extreme, he could see nothing more illegal in their assembling to alter the line of succession, than in meeting to demand annual parliaments and universal suffrage. If the doctrine laid down by the noble lord were true, the people might meet to petition parliament to do any act that was within its power, and no person could argue that the power of altering the succession to the throne did net belong to it. In the first place, the noble lord had stated that numbers alone did not constitute illegality. He would not take on himself (for he did not profess to have sufficient confidence in his knowledge of the law) to decide whether numbers alone rendered a meeting illegal, but he would maintain, that the appearance of great numbers established a fact, from which the nature of a meeting might in some degree be inferred; and if with numbers they combined the circumstances stated in the papers laid before the House, the whole taken together constituted an illegal meeting. What could be the object of previous training—of military array—of coming armed, even with sticks and staves—of answering to the orders of commanders, as the people at those meetings did, except for the purpose of carrying their designs by terror? Could any person examine the evidence, and say that there was not a design on the part of many individuals by terror or force to shake the constitution of the country? But the noble lord observed, that there was nothing to be feared, for there were no persons of rank or property amongst the discontented. If the noble lord examined the proceedings at former periods in this country, he would see the dreadful mischief that was occasioned even by such men as Wat Tyler and Jack Straw. He would find a vast quantity of property destroyed and confiscated; he would perceive that many lives were lost, by popular commotions, unaided by men of property. He would learn that the country might be visited by destruction, without the interference of people of rank and consequence. But the noble lord said, he did not believe the great mass of the people to be of the description stated by his noble friend (marquis Wellesley) in the course of his speech. His noble friend did not assert that the whole or
500
even the greater part of the people were of that description, but that there were many dangerous characters amongst them. If the noble lord would look to the history of any revolution that ever took place, he would find, that, on those occasions, the active leaders were few. When the government of this country was overturned, those who first entertained the project were very much restricted in numbers. In every instance, it was the desperate conduct of the few, and the fears of the many, that produced revolution. He would not say, because he did not believe, that the great body of the French people were at first implicated in the revolution which formerly ravaged that country. If any person had told them, a few years before, that they would soon assist in overturning the monarchy of France, he believed they would have shuddered at the bare idea, but they soon became familiarised to scenes of devastation. The noble lord, to prove that the meeting was peaceable, stated that it was attended by women and children. He (the earl of Liverpool) never saw a mob in his life without women and children. He had witnessed some of the most active scenes in the French revolution: he was present at the capture of the Bastile; and he could assure the noble lord that he saw many women busily employed on that occasion.
He had heard, with the highest satisfaction, the noble baron's speech. He had heard it with the highest satisfaction, both because it took the view which, in his opinion, appeared to be the just view of the transactions in question, and because he knew that what had fallen from such high authority, must have an excellent effect throughout the country. But the noble marquis whose motion was before their lordships, declared, that the facts disclosed afforded a sufficient ground for inquiry. Now, he had no difficulty in stating, that if all the noble lord advanced had been true—if he could make out his case to the utmost extent, and show that there was a fair ground of suspicion, with respect to the conduct of the magistrates of Manchester—still he should think, that it was not a proper subject for inquiry in that House, but one that should be investigated in the courts below, before which a part of the case had already come. He would not, however, let the statement of the noble lord go forth, without expressing his concurrence in the opinion of the noble baron, that no reason, no ground

501
for inquiry existed, because the conduct of the magistrates was not only legal and justifiable, but highly laudable and judicious. It was not, however, necessary for his purpose that he should go that length; because he had no difficulty in saying, that if they were actuated by an honest desire to do their duty, if they were uninfluenced by passion or partiality, and had applied their minds fairly to the circumstances of the case as they occurred at the time, he should not have thought them liable to blame, because he or others had formed a different conclusion with reference to those circumstances. It would be exceedingly unjust if they were censured, not for a wilful abandonment of their duty, but for a mere error of judgment. The noble lord said, the magistrates had a previous intimation of the views of those who intended to meet on the 16th of August, and their first object ought to have been to prevent the people from assembling, by stopping the different columns as they approached. That consideration did occupy the serious attention of the magistrates for some time, and they at length determined not to adopt such a course. Their motive for not preventing the meeting appeared to him to be a sound one. They could not do it without causing such a diversion of the military force, in and near the town, as must have endangered its safety more than the meeting of the people could do. This was the deliberate view they took of the subject, and he conceived it was a correct one. They, however, caused placards to be posted round the town, calling on the heads of families to keep their children and servants within doors, and warning them that if they attended the meeting it must be at their peril. Thus it appeared, that they did employ the best means in their power to render the asgemblage as little numerous as possible. The question then was, whether the meeting was of such an illegal character as would justify the magistrates in dispersing it by force? Their lordships were aware of the previous drilling—of the appearance of military array—and of the people to the number of at least 30,000 marching to the ground, under regular commanders. Few persons had raised a doubt, looking to all the facts, that the circumstances and character of the meeting were altogether illegal. But, independently of their own observation, the magistrates had the depositions of 50 persons in the
502
town and neighbourhood of Manchester, in which they stated that they believed the town to be in imminent danger, by the accumulation of a vast body of people there: and when all the shops were shut up, when business was suspended on a labouring day, was there not, he asked, a reasonable ground for fear? The magistrates did consider the meeting to be illegal, and they felt they were justified in signing a warrant for the arrest of the principal persons who convened it. The noble lord had observed, that there was a line of constables from the house where the magistrates were assembled, to the hustings; but he forgot to state, that the hustings were several times removed, in order that the parties who called the meeting might have the assistance of a compact body of men, who were linked together by the arms, round the hustings, and could effectually prevent the approach of any persons towards them. The noble lord said, the warrant might have been executed by means of these constables, without the intervention of military. What was the fact? Nadin and Andrews, who were intrusted with the execution of the warrant, declared to the magistrates that they could not serve it without the assistance of the military; and, under these circumstances, it was the duty of the magistrates to grant the aid required. The noble lord next asserted, that the military charged into the midst of the mob, before any resistance was offered. What was the nature of that change? The yeomanry proceeded in single files, and the slowness of their pace might be ascertained from this fact, that Mr. Nadin and Mr. Andrews were able to keep up with them all the while, until they arrived at the hustings.
He now came to the question of reading the Riot act; and he had learned from authority which he could not doubt, that it was completely read once, and partly read a second time, but the magistrate who undertook the duty was thrown down. On this part of the case, however, he did not lay any stress, because the magistrates were legally empowered to disperse such a meeting, without reading the Riot act at all. He believed it was the original intention of the magistrates to disperse the assembly an hour after the Riot act was read, but, when the officers went to arrest the accused person, the yeomanry were assailed. They were fired at with pistols, and sticks and stones were hurled at them. He spoke on the authority of

503
the officers, Nadin and Andrews, who both declared that they considered the yeomen to have been overpowered. At this moment an individual exclaimed, "For God's sake save the yeomen!" and, in consequence, the 15th Dragoons were ordered to charge the mob, who were almost immediately dispersed. The whole period between the advance of the cavalry and the dispersion of the meeting was not more than ten minutes. He believed the yeomen (he spoke of them as a body, and did not mean to answer for any individual) did not remain longer on the ground than was necessary to complete the business, or do any act that was not absolutely necessary. He stated these circumstances for their lordships' consideration, and he defied any man to point out any part of the conduct of the magistrates in this case to which blame could be fairly attached. He protested that, if he had been in their situation, he did not know one point in the whole of the proceeding where he thought he could have acted better himself. But if there were objectionable points—points on which more prudence might have been displayed, still, when they recollected the danger which threatened them at the moment, no impartial man would say that an error occasioned by inadvertence should be visited with censure. This again brought him to the question of inquiry, and he felt, as he had stated before, that this was not the place for such a proceeding. In fact, the case had in some degree proceeded to inquiry already, because the finding of bills against Hunt and others was, as far as it went, a species of inquiry, through the medium of which the legality of the meeting would be decided. He would say farther, that when certain parties preferred bills against five of these yeomen, which bills were rejected, it was an ex parte justification of their conduct. The noble lord said, it was not in the power of the persons injured to obtain redress. This was not correct: they could proceed by criminal prosecution or civil action. Was it then fair, when a judicial investigation might be had, to set aside all the ordinary course of justice and to demand an inquiry in parliament? The noble lord alluded to the case of Porteus, in Scotland, which underwent an investigation in parliament. But then the fact was, that the magistrates had not done their duty, and parliament was the only place in which a remedy could be obtained. Where cases of that kind arose, it was certainly
504
proper to apply to parliament; but a simultaneous proceeding in parliament and in the courts below could not be admitted without violating every principle of justice.
The noble lord had said it would be improper to pass such measures as were now in contemplation, without due consideration. This was very true; but ministers would rest their justification on the papers laid before the House, combined with the notoriety of the facts narrated in them, which were well known to every person in the country. The noble lord might take objection to insulated parts of an affidavit, but he believed a more complete body of evidence, taking the whole of it together, was never laid before parliament. Here was information, derived not merely from the Manchester magistrates (for the papers were not laid on the table for their justification) but from individuals of the highest respectability. They had the authority of the grand jury of the county of Lancaster, which was as respectably composed as any in the kingdom. It comprised individuals not only of high property and consideration in that county, but who entertained political opinions extremely different from each other. They had also the statement of the respectable individual who filled the situation of lord-lieutenant of the county. He could speak of that individual's conduct from experience when he held the situation of secretary of state for the home department, and he never knew a person who discharged the arduous duty of a lord-lieutenant in a more exemplary or abler manner. For many years it had been found of the greatest benefit to the county of Lancaster, that it possessed so excellent a lord-lieutenant as the earl of. Derby; a nobleman whose services could not be too highly appreciated, and who, although a zealous opponent of his majesty's ministers, had conducted himself in such a manner as to induce them, at any critical period, to congratulate themselves that such a man was at the head of a remote district. In addition to the authorities he had quoted, they had also the statement of the grand jury of Chester, and of the lord-lieutenant of that county; and having thus briefly adverted to them, he would ask whether there ever was so complete a mass of evidence laid before a secret committee of that House. From the conviction

505
which ministers felt that this evidence was correct, they thought that laying it on the table would be sufficient to prove, that a state of things existed in the country which called for the interference of the legislature. The noble lord, on that and former occasions, had made a charge against the government for not having prosecuted a sufficient number of those infamous libels with which the country at present teemed. He would venture to say, that prosecutions, inopportunely taken up, were always productive of more evil than good. This was a subject, however, which for months past had most anxiously occupied the attention of government. Their lordships were aware that several prosecutions were instituted in Michaelmas term last year, particularly with respect to Sherwin's Register. If the noble lord thought they were dropped through neglect, he was mistaken. It was not from the supine-ness of government, but from the deficiency of the law as it now existed, and which their lordships had it in their power to remedy, that the proceedings were slow or unsuccessful. He could state that up to the present day, it was not in the power of the law-officers of the Crown to bring one of those libels home to Sherwin himself. It was, however, true, that fifty prosecutions had been instituted, some of them several months ago, not against himself, but against other persons, for publishing his register; and he believed that a prosecution was commenced against Carlile, for a letter on the subject of assassination, so long back as Christmas, 1818, but the forms of the law as it at present stood prevented it from being brought forward till Michaelmas term last, when it was further postponed, at the request of the defendant. They would have another time to go into this subject; but he wished now to put it to their lordships, whether it was fit that such a state of law should exist in this country, as enabled individuals to circulate libellous publications for nine or twelve months before they were subjected to legal punishment. Their lordships had on their table a most important measure connected with this subject. It was an alteration of the existing law respecting traverses which he deemed indispensable. He did not, however, mean to say that it would answer the intended purpose, unless it was combined with other mea-
506
sures. This subject was under the serious consideration of the Prince Regent's government, who were as convinced, as he was, that the alteration was indispensably necessary for the administration of justice. Those who consider the increase of the population must feel with him, that the legal machinery, which 200 years ago might have answered every purpose, could not prima facie be calculated for the present state of things. He again repeated, that with the exception of one measure authorizing the search for arms, which was of a temporary and local nature, all the others which had been introduced by his noble friend last night, were consistent with the existing laws and principles of the British constitution. Those measures, were, indeed, proposed in furtherance of the principles of the constitution, and for the purpose of protecting the people of this country against a series of evils, which, if not checked, must subvert their rights and liberties. If they looked to this question in a proper point of view, they would see that whatever they might have gained by commercial exertions, whatever benefit they might have derived from the persecutions which had driven individuals from other countries, it was possible that they might be deprived of them all, if they did not guard against the persecutions of a mob. The fear of the mob invariably led to arbitrary government; and the best friends of liberty were therefore those who put down popular commotion, and secured the inhabitants of a country in the peaceable enjoyment of their rights.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, he should support the motion, and contended, that this was a subject on which the minds of the people required to be satisfied, and on which an inquiry was absolutely necessary.
The Marquis of Lansdowereplied. He was perfectly ready to admit that he was favourably disposed to the principle of some of the measures about to be adopted; but to others of them he was decidedly adverse. Whatever opinion might be entertained of them could not affect the propriety of the inquiry he proposed; which would be honourable to the House, satisfactory to the country, and would give to the magistrates an opportunity of vindicating their conduct.
The House then divided, when there appeared:—Contents—Present, 35; Proxies

507
12–47. Not Contents—Present, 110; Proxies 68–178. Majority against the Motion—131.

List of the Minority.

PRESENT,

Earl Grey

Duke of Kent

Minto.

Sussex

Lord Saye and Sele

Somerset

Hawke

Grafton

King

Devonshire

Holland

Hamilton

Montfort

Argyle

Auckland

Marq of Lansdowne.

Erskine

Earl of Essex

Alvanley

Thanet

Yarborough

Darlington

Foley.

Albemarle

PROXIES.

Fitzwilliam

Earl Spencer

Jersey

Marq. of Downshire

Lauderdale

Duke of Leinster

Cowper

Viscount Ansn

Grosvenor

Ear Derby

Carnarvon

Suffolk

Darnley

Charlemont

Bessborough

Visc. Bolingbroke

Donoughmore

Lord Sondes

Dundas

Blessington

Hutchinson

Rosslyn

Crewe.