Star. — London, England, 1821-05-17 00:00:00

F F Lancaster, who had for its Foreman a Nobleman who usually sat at that side of the House. He (Sir Robert Wilson) was quite ready to bear every testi mony to the integrity of that Noble Lord (Stanley), but assuredly the Noble Foreman was not respon- , sible for the decision of the Jurors—(Hear, ilteer).- 7 Besides, it was fair to presume thatthe Grand Jury, in throwing out the bills, was actuated in some mea sure by political feelings. He did not use the expres sion in its offensive meaning.. He did not therefore consider that decision as putting an end to die lma lity of the question. The Solicitor-General talked of law proceedings as if law 4 was a cheap article. Now .what was the fact? A subscription had been set on foot for the purpose of affording relief to the persons who suffered in consequence of the transactions at -Mancfsster, and the total amount which.was col lected-ill over England was £3,418. Out of that sum £1,077 was applied to meet the expenses of the inquiry at Oldham, and £7lO to the charges of the trials at York ; so that, after other incidental expenses, no more thbn £1,206 remained to be distributed among the persons who had been sufferers; and all this without any remuneration to Mr. Harmer, who had given his services gratuitously to the Public on the occasion. The gallant General then went into an argument to prove the illegality of the dispersion of the Meeting at Manchester. He read the deposi tion of the Rev. Mr. Stanley, which detailed the whole of the circumstances of the Meeting. This de position contradicted the charge that the people came to the Meeting in military order; stated that no re sistance was given by them, except in one or two in stances; that before the dispersion occurred he had observed no disposition to riot ; that he heard no sentiment of a revengeful nature uttered by the People, until after the violent dispersion had taken place; that though his eyes were fixed steadily on the soldiery, he had seen no stones thrown by the people daring any part of the transaction. He (Sir Robert Wilson) then contended, that if the People had re sisted the aggression, they would not only have been justifiable, but it was their duty, as British citizens, to have resisted it by every means in their reach.— All Europe was surprised that in a country so jealous of its liberties as this, no inquiry had been instituted into a transaction which had so grossly violated those liberties—(Hear, hear).—The Solicitor-General, in deed, wished that all the circumstances of this affair should be buried in oblivion. He presumed that his Majesty's Ministers would be very glad to consign the matter to oblivion, but the country could not do so without forfeiting its best character. The House had now an opportunity of restoring confidence in the laws, and although they might obtain submission for a while, it would be the submission of prudence, and not of allegiance—(Hear.) Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY read a letter from a Gentleman of strict honour and integrity, who was present at the Meeting. The letter gave a full de s.:ri2tion of the Meeting, which, he said, was collected, and evinced no disposition to disorder until the attack. was made won it. if the Riot Act had been properly read, the writer expressed his con viction that the Meeting would have quietly sepa rated. He denied that the Riot Act was read; at least he had heard nothing of it. The letter then went on to describe the attack of the soldiery, and the absence of any disposition to violence on the part of the people. He described the trumpeter to be the most active person among the military, who cut about him, and rode about in a violent manner. The writer said that he was perfectly free from party bias, and he had no doubt that the Meeting would have separated quietly if the Yeomanry had not interfered. The Hon. Baronet said the name of the writer was _ the Rev. Robert Ilimbush, a clergyman, residing in Manchester; and he concluded with expressing his determination to support this motion. Mr. TINDALE lamented the transactions at Man chester; but, in his opinion, the Meeting, the Ma gistrates, and the Government, were all culpable. Mr. BEECHER said he was anxious to express his sentiments' upon this subject. He deprecated the principles of Reform.which were entertained by the people who met at Manchester, and nobody was more anxious than himself that the law should have been duly respected, both on that and every other occasion. He answered the objection that by con senting to this motion the House would be opening the door to discussions which they ought not to en twain, by saying that it was right they should shew at least a disposition to redress the people's wrongs. He had observed the House to be.always jealous of its privileges. Why not then exercise at least the same jealousy towards British subjects, with respect to their privileges ? Why not exercise the same jea lousy for the rights, liberties, and persons of those fiom whom they derived their authority ? Upon the whole then, he considered this a fit subject for in quiry. If the Meeting was an illegal one, it was not known to be so by those who composed it. The House would remember that it was admitted that much injury was done, and it was quite sufficient for the House to know, that such being the case, and' no redress being afforded, in order to induce them to in vestigate the whole matter he exhorted the House to enter upon it now, and to give a practical refuta tion of the reproaches of those who charged that House with a want of sympathy with the people. With these feelings lie should give his cordial support to the present motion. Mr. EGERTON defended the conduct of the Ma gistrates, observing, that the duty they had to per form was a very delicate and difficult one, and if they erred, it was for those who complained of their conduct to seek redress in a Court of Law. Mr. GRENFELL was anxious to offer himself to the attention of the House, having differed from those with whom he was in the habit of politically thinking with respect to this subject. He now begged to declare, that the sentiments which he held upon the former occasion, with respect to this transaction, and the measures which were founded upon it, re mained the same ; and he could Ochre that here was no act of his life to which he looked back with a more approving conscience. Mr. BERNAL contended, in contradiction to the Law Officers of the Crown, that the verdict at York did not establish the illegality of the Meeting at Manchester. The fact was, that the defendants on that trial were found guilty on the fourth count of the indictment; and it would appear, by a reference to the document, that that count charged them with conspiring to bri;►g his Majesty's Govesument into hatred and contempt, and notfor being necessaries in an illegal Meeting. But whether it was illegal or not, it was a doubt if all those who attended the Meeting were there for illegal objects—and so MI. Justiceßayley declared—(Hear). It did not appear that any effort was made to execute the warrant br fore the assistance of the military was called in ; and the Learned Judge told the Jury that no evidence had been tendered to sheer that the warrant could not have been executed without military aid. The Hon. Member then noticed what he said was stated by the Hon. Member for Dover—namely, 'hat a cog stable (Campbell) was dragged out of his house by the populace on the 16th, and that his death ensued in consequence of the treatment he received. Now it appeared from the evidence given before the Co roner who sat op the body of this man, that he had fired a pistol loided with balls on the populace—and three of the Jurymen deposed to that effect on their own knowledge. The House would observe, too, the remarkable discrepancy between this fact and the representation of it on the other side, that it occurred on the 17th of August and not on the 16th. This was another instance of that perversion of truth which Ministers found necessary in order to screen their own conduct. He did not charge them with falsehood—they might have believed their own state ment—" libentur homines id quod relunt crediolt."— He begged to know, then, what objection there could be to a temperate, firm, and minute inquiry? He should be satisfied with a Parliamentary inquiry—he saw smiles Ln the countenances of some Gentlemen op- , posite—he believed there was nothing absurd in the suggestion: it was only a few days ago that a com mission was consented to, to"visit Ilchester Jail. He would admit, indeed, that a Parliamentary investi gation would be no longer useful, for Ministers had so mixed themselves up with the transaction that they would naturally employ all their influence to defeat the objects of the inquiry. But he exhorted the House to institute an inquiry by some means, and he considered that the House would not do its duty if they did not support the motion of the Ho-. nourable Baronet. Mr. B. WILBRAHAM, in explanation, denied having stated the particulars which he was repre sented to have stated, with respect to Campbell, the, constable. Mr. HORACE TWISS contended that the an swers of the witnesses for the defence on the trial of Mr. Hunt, so much alluded to in this debate, would alone justify the, House in rejecting the motion of the Hon. Baronet. The statements of the same transactions were so various on both sides, and so little was ad mitted as matter of fact, that there was no possibility of corning at the real truth. He thought the best way of dealing with the case of the Honourable Gen tleman opposite would be to rest all his arguments on the evidence of the witnesses for the defence on the trial of Mr. Hunt, in which the whole question, was laid open to proof. Fioni their statement the state of the neighbourhood of Manchester, prior to the 16th of August, would be collected ; and from it would be seen that not only hundreds and thousands, but myriads were everywhere seen marching in a well-organised, connected, and imposing manner. Mr. Tyas, a Gentleman connected with The Times newspaper, and who, as a witness for the defence, was the most important, the most intelligent, and, setting aside his politic a l bias, was perhaps the most accurate, estimated the number of persons collected together on the field near Manchester, at 80,000. He stated that they were for the most part armed with l walking sticks, although they were denominated by other witnesses, bludgeons and staves. As to the in tention or use of these sticks, it might, perhaps, be best ascertained by a regard to their declarations, as borne un the banners under which they ranged them selves, the general nature of which were—" Equal Representation or Death r—and " Let us die like Men, rather than live like Slaves r This, then, was the character of the Meeting, and under those circum stances, what was done ? Not as was stated, a charge of cavalry to disperse it, but a repetition of what had been found successful at similar Meetings at London and Leeds, viz. the apprehension on the spot of the ringleader. The principal witness for the defence, Mr. Tyas, said that it was not till after the apprehen sion of Mr. Hunt thlat any assault on the military was made, and it was not till after that period that any assault was charged upon the military. This wit ness did not deny that the multitude set up a shout on the approach of the military, which Mr. Tyas called after the mitigated name of a cheer, for the purpose of shewing that the populace was not daunted by their unwelcome appearance. This was answered by the Yeomanry Cavalry brandishing their swords over their heads, so that, up to that period, not a head was broken on either side—(llcar, hear). — They were now to look at the situation of the Ma gistrates, who, witnessing the rush of the multitude upon the Cavalry as they passed, their deafening cheers, and also their struggle upon the seizing of the standards, could not but apprehend danger to the military, and accordingly felt themselves called on to send in the troops under Cohooel L'Estrange, to the assistance and protection of their companions. This statement of the case, derived from the defence on the trial at York, was the basis of his argumenii. From the tone assumed in speaking of that trial, it might almost be supposed that an acquittal had taken place, instead of a conviction. It should be remembered, that the Learned Judge who presided had informed the Jury, that a Meeting which had a tendency to create terror and alarm in the minds of his Majesty's peaceful subjects, was an illegal Meet-' ing. And as there could be no question that this Meeting had that tendency, he was surprised to hear the course of argument taken by Gentlemen on the other side, after that declaration of the Learned Judge. It was asked, why employ the Yeomanry, and why so large a force of Cavalry ? To this it might be answered, that the Magistrates exercised a very judicious discretion under the existing circum etances, in exhibiting an imposing . force, to strike the people with a conviction that resistance was vain.— With regard to the second charge of the Cavalry, as it was called, when the Magistrates witnessed the upbraiding cheer, followed by the tumultous rush to hem in the Cavalry, by a Meeting so numerous, so organized, and so resolved on the attainment of their object, as their declaration to brave death in the at tempt shewed them to be, he thought they would have forsaken their duty not to have so acted. Had they not taken that step they might have been open to that Anions accusation ; whilst, on the other hand, they could only have been guilty of eseeeding their juris diction, and saving thew country--(Hear, hear, hear). He could not consent to put men on their trials as criminals who had performed this signal service, in circumstances of so much difficulty and danger. The game argument which went to justify the populace in yeasting an illegal attack, would also justify the Ca valry, regally assembled, in turning to defend, not themselves only, but their country. It was clear that if the Yeomanry had been guilty of any flagrant acts of injustice, they had committed them in excess, and aot in obedience to instructions. The Magistrates, therefore, are exonerated from the odium of any such acts. Still less were his Majesty's Government charge able with a participation in such acts, although it was as broadly asserted that Government had noted ritself up with the whole of the transactions, because they had expressed an opinion on what was past, upon the best information they could obtain. It was said they expressed their satisfactio at the blood which was shed. It was not for the brood which un fortunately had been shed that they were thanked ; but for that blood which the Magistrates had re deemed them from the fatal necessity of shedding.— The Honourable Gentleman then alluded to the letter of Mr. Hay, written on the evening of the 16th of August, which stood unimpeached, and which was the authority on which the Ministers proceeded. If Ministers had not believed the statements of this let ter, and acted upon them immediately, what would have been the consequence, ar:d what would have been the arguments against them? The reproaches of the Gentlemen opposite reminded him of the Jester, who once said to the Priest, " What a fool you ate to be busying yourself in this manner, if all your tidings turn out to be false!"—" Aye," replied the Priest, " but what is your situation if these tidings turn out to be true?" In the opinion of the Gentlemen oppo site, the Ministers should have turned to those Ma gistrates, and taunted them as rash, ndiscerning men; and have resolved, because there were some dissatis fied men in that county which was spatedthe miseries of great and extensive bloodshed by their seasonable activity, to put them upon their trial. Such conduct, indeed, might have been expected from a weak, self ish Administration. But it was the characteristic of a firm set of Ministers boldly to step forward and charge themselves with the responsibility of an act that appeared to them, however to be lamented, to have Leen a commendable exercise of discretion.— The Honourable Member then- alluded to a speech of the Honourable Baronet, addressed to a Meeting held at Palace-yard, after the events at Manchester, and read a passage from that speech, in which the Honourable Baronet declared that they wanted no inquiry, because the facts were broad and undeni able. Ile then referred to the attempts which were made on the part of the alleged sufferers to procure remedies in Courts of Law, and noticed and justified the conduct of the Grand Jury of Lancaster.— The Courts of Law having been open to all applica tions, what would have been the result if Ministers had interposed in the first instance a Parliamentary inquiry ?—would it not have been said that they wanted to crush all legal redress, and to have sub stituted a tyrannical majority of that House, for the Constitutional means of arguing afforded in a Court of Law? Did the Hon. Baronet mean to impugn the decision of the Lancaster Jury ? Did he mean to cast odium on that tribunal, which had been re- Tarded as the great bulwark of our liberties—the rial by Jury—the privilege of being tried by our friends and neighbours—those who know us • those, in short, in the emphatic words of the law, ;le vici 'tato? He did not see what possible advantage could result from this motion. He considered that it was calculated to do great injury by reviving those irri tations, and disturbing those-angry elements, which were looked upon as the greatest calamities to which the country could be subjected. For these reasons he felt it his duty to oppose the motion—(Cheers). Mr. HOBHOUSE was unable to recognize in the speeches on the other side, and more especially in the last, anything like a sympathy with the spirit of that law which had been held up to their admiration, and under which the country, for so long a period, was represented to have lived so happy. He owned he could not see anything in these speeches but an at tempt to excuse the infraction and gross violation of that law. The Hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House, recommended to their admiration the system which was recognized by our law, that every man had the benefit of being tried by his neighbours— by their de vicinato. He (Mr. Hobhouse) only wished that that Government which the Hon. Gentleman ad mired so much, and which, no doubt, would in time reward his early talents, would hive followed his ad vice in the case of his Hon. Friend and Colleague— that they would have given him the benefit of being tried by his neighbours—their-de vicinato—(Hear). The Learned Gentleman had adverted to the evi dence, but had not looked to the result of the trial. The depositions were of no value, as they had not been brought forward at the trial. The Learned Gentleman had begged the case, as he could not prove that the soldiers had been attacked till they had advanced in a menacing attitude. He would repeat, that there was no proof that the soldiers had been assailed. What .the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Scarlett), who conducted the prosecution could not discover, had been -found out ly the L earned Gentlenjan—that the Yeomanry hall been attacked by the People. The whole of the evidence tended t* shevrthat the Meeting was peaceable—{The Honour able Gentleman was proceeding to state - what had fallen from the Chief Justice of Chester, as to a fe male figure being borne in the procession, when Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW rose to Order, as it was irregular to notice what bad taken place on a former debate.] —The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) begged to say that the Learned Serjeant was rather mistaken in the ground of his interruption. He had not alluded to what had been stated on a former debate, but to what had taken place in theold Parliament I—(Hear, hear.) An observation of his Honourable Colleague had been passed over unnoticed—how it came to happen that the Yeomanry had received the thanks of the Sove reign—the greatest honour that could be conferred, next to the applause of the People !—(Hear, hear).— It was no argument to say the Yiomanry oeEngland were in general a body most respectable, and not likely to commit such atrocities as those imputed to the Yeomanry of Manchester. It was true, the Yeo manry did bear, and deservedly, the character given to them by the Hon. Gentleman; but it should be recollected under what circumstances the Manches- tee Yeomanry acted. The Honourable 'Member Id s a id, it was a matter of admiration to those mi te w i z . nessed it, that so vast a multitude should have te e% dispersed, and so little mischief done to indisi so ittmischiefl He would not again revert to th e bloody catalogue he held in his hand; but he would state what he had heard from a Special Constable, most respectable man, who was present, and who had told him (Mr. Hobhouse), that he himself saw full two thousand men, women, and children, as the ground at one time—(Hear, and some Janda** He did not see that it was subject for mirth. If he said anything ridiculous on so solemn a subject, lie was sorry for it. But if one only, and not 2,000, was wounded, the subject still would merit inquiry. tr w Hon. Colleague had received no less than 119 ara. davits from persons who were wounded on that me.; morableday—(Hear, hear, hear)—The Hon. Me e . her then adverted to the speech of the Hon. Meru* (Mr. Wilmot) who had declared the Magistrates worthy of approbation, and had tailed of clubs and staves, and, said the Hon. Gentleman, they had i 9 flags; and, 0 horrible ! they had five caps of liberty with them !—(A laugh).—Why was the Hon.. Gentle. man afraid of a cap of liberty ? Had the H es . Member never seen an old halfpenny, which bore that symbol of a free King ruling over a free P ee . ple? The lion. Gentleman had alluded to his (11r. lloblrouse's) Hon. Colleague, and said something about imbecility of conduct ! He thciaght that charge would not at present apply to his Hon. Colleague and he hoped it never would ; for as Dryden said, 6, To die for treason was a common evil, But to be hang'd for nonsense is the devil!" He hoped his Hon. Colleague would lose no time is repelling this imputation---(//ear).—lle would n ow advert to the speech of the Solicitor-General, who asked why this subject was not brought forward at an earlier period of the Session ? W hat a queuitn was this ! Was any one ignoi ant whe: e his Hem Colleague Had been for the last three months?— (Hear, hear).—Suc h remark , : wet e really trifling nil the House! The Hon. and Learned Gentleman he said, the speech and motion of the lion. Baronet was a proof of the liberty which existed in this country. True, it was so. We did enjoy the liberty of speech in the House. He felt the value of that liberty, and so long as he could enjoy it he would not fail tomer cise his privilege—(Hear, hear).—The Hon. Gentle man concluded his speech with the following quota tion froni Cicero to Atticus, 20th Letter, 2d Book: " Num guide,* moo gualant marl* ciatas moritur t of c owes: dt gum mat ado, isprobest, parental-, &lewd, varitssam re nu& fit, apertegue loguantur et jam dare gamut, Lamm ad. cina usilla afferatur, segue mina resisti wii infersecion e pane arias: etur ; nee ride Sans gui finis cedeudi prefer tritium Alums it." The Hon. Gentleman sat down amid loud cheering. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, after tiek extent to which this discussion had gone during two nights, upon a queition not new either to Parliament or to the country, he certainly was not disposed to occupy much of the -time of the House, yet he was sure Gentlemen would feel, after the many allusion made to him, in the course of the debate, that inde pendent of the responsible situation which he held, he would not stand justified if he withheld some ex-- planation. In the first view of the subject he col lected from the Hon. Baronet, that it was not simply the Manchester business that .was brought undercon sideration, but the conduct of the Executive Go- vernment. The Noble Marquis was prepared to de • - fend the course the Magistrates took in that transac. tion, and he expressed a hope that the House would allow him to state the course they did take. He first wished to recal to the recollection of the House who share the Government had in this question. He was bound to oppose the accuracy of the statemar made by the Hon. Baronet, who had asserted, that the melancholy transactions at Manchester were coo certed by his Majesty's Ministers. He should not shrink from those transactions, yet he could declue that Government was entirely clear of all that hair pened, and that none of the circumstances could be ccntrouled by his Majesty's Government. It was not until the transaction was reported and received ia letters from Mr. Hay, that they had any cognizance of it. Certainly it was with pain and feelings of dik tress that the Government heard of the blood shd that day. No honourable man could believe—ad even the enemies of Government could be bag enough to believe that Ministers took measures to shed the blood of his Majesty's subjects—(Hear, hear, from both sides of the House).—The Noble Marais repeated that he should never shrink from giving the Magistracy of Manchester that support he thought their conduct required ; but whilst he gave them thu support, heleft them liable to the laws of there'll' try. The Hon. Baronet said Government had trod' led out of its course in affording the parties rem tion, and the Hon. Baronet did not know, perhaps,tig they never presumed to try those serving under them. —They left them to the laws of the country. Tiff declined giving any opinion on their conduct. 1W did not say whether persons acted bona fide is !II; charge. of public duty or not. That principle 1✓ been uniformly adopted by Government. The OP nourable Baronet might just as well say that Og conduct of Government brought on the riots inCael bridgeshire. Satisfaction with respect to the nogg of the Magistrates had been expressed, but it was' that blood had been shed. His Noble Friend ea happy to find upon a public calamity, as. the Ma e chester Meeting was, that Magistrates and Yore* the constitutional bulwark of the country, were fooe intrepid to face difficulties, and daring moue g have their conduct reviewed by the country. it W. Circular of Lord Sidmouth could have had the el' fect of saving them from trial, it might have sem' sioned the indignation of the country; but it wags' thing more than an expression of approbatioo,! finding the Public bad received that protection WI" the law provided. It was unjust to say it gas bloody interposition. With respect to what the H°' nourable Baronet had said of the share he (the Mg_ quis of Londonderry) took in the transaction, tt l House would allow him to offer a few observa tig° Although he had not the honour to address the salt Parliament before which he endeavoured to jui! himself and colleagues in the Manchester transa ctg t yet still he was before the Parliament. Hensctt state to Gentlemen, that the proposition against was rejected by .he largest majority ever kaini within those walls. The numbers were 581 bi tg ch votes. If ever there was a question on n public feeling was wound up, it was on that gtclr r i I