The Sun. — London, England, 1821-05-17 00:00:00

PARI•IAMENT, DOUSE OF LORDS, MAY - 16.• The Marquess cf LANSDOWN moved for a Re turn of all Wines imported into this Country, and exported from it, from the year 1786 to 1820. Ordered. Several Private Bills were brought up from the Commons, and read the first time. On the motion of Lord MELVILLE the Scotch Court of Sessions and Court of Admiralty Bills 'vent • through the- Committees.—Adjourned till to- morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS. LIMERICK.' The House .having failed yesterday to accom plish the Ballot for a Committee to try the merits of the Petition complaining - of an undue return for the city of Limerick, proceeded at rour o'clock this day to ballot for the said Commit tee. At a subsequent part of the evening Mr. Dyson, the Clerk, appeared at the Bar, with the Reduced List, the names on which were as follow L. V. Palk, Beet .1. 11. Penrucidock, Esq. Hon. Sir G. L. Cole. C. Duncombe, Esq. Goulburri, Esq: Lord Walpole. Ern P. Musgrave, Bart. S. Graham, Esq.' Dr. Phillimore. Abel Smith, Esq. C. Chaplin, Esq. and., T. 31acqueen, Esq. G. Lucy, Esq. The Members named were then directed by the Speaker to withdr.w and choose. two Nominees. On their return they stated, that the Hon. Gentlemen whom they had, chosen were-.. S. Ponene, Esq. and N. Calvert, Esq. • CRIMINAL LAW. [sir J. MACKINTOSH; adverting to the second reading of ;he three Bills, for the mitigation of the Criinial Law, which stood for that night, and on the impracticability of consider:ng them, under the circumstance of the important discussion, the -debate of which bad been adjourned that morning, threw him self on the candour and kiridness- Of his Hon. Friend the Mem ber for'Shrewsbury to postpone his motion, - which stood for tu mmy*, in order•to enable - him (Sir J.: Mackintosh) to fii the stieond reading of his Bills for to-morrow. - • Mr: BEN NET acquiesced in his Hon. and Learned Friend's request. At the same time he begged it to be distinctly under snood, tat .to no propositions except such as thaseof his Hon. .a Learned Friend, which related to the amelioration of our Criminal Code, would he allow that the question whichh - e (Mr. Bennet) wished to bring forward, namely, whether that House should be free from placemen and pensioners, ought to yield in importance. Under the peculiar circumstances. of the' case, however, he would withdraw his notice on that strbject which stood for to-morrow, and fix it for the 3lst inst. Op the motion of Sir .1; MACKINTOSH, the second read ing of the- rorgery Punishment Mitigation Bill, the Dwelling House Robbery Bill, and the Navigable Rivers Robbery,Bill was postponed to to-morrow.. At the suggestion of Mr. Bennet, and after a few word* front Me. Barham, the second reading of the Audit Bill -was post poned from to-morrow to Friday se'nr.ight.. NEWINGTO,N SELECT VESTRY- • The SPEAKER having 'called on Mr. H. Sitmner, that Gentleman rose, as did Mr. Denison and Sir Robert the latter two wit:lr Petitions in their hands against the Newing ton Select Vestry Bill. - . 'Pile SPEAKER observeij, that it was his duty to read the names on his paper as they occurred. If any Hon. Member, whose name he read-, chose to give way, it was entirely ter of courtesy. Any other practice would he attended with great inconvenience both to himself and the house. Mr. DENISON requested of his - Hanoi - treble Colleague, its a matter of courtesy, to . allow hiin to present his Petition be fore he (Mr. N. Sumner) made the motion of which he had given notice. - Mr. 11. SUMNER declined doing this, observing, that his Honourable Colleague could not know what course it was his intention to pursue until he had made his motion, and that therefore he had' Vetter wait until then. The Hon. Member then entered into a detailed history of the Newington Select - fires try -Bill ' • on the conduct of the Committ ee a pp o i nte d to consider which he now, for the, third time, addressed the House. The Committee had sat for eight days, but had made no pro gress in - the Bill, andhad in' no respect complied with the in structions of the House. The petition presented yesterday, which contained an Accurate statement of what had passed in the Committee, would save him from the painful necessity of narrating it. After having, for the third time, referred the subject to the Committe e in va i n , b e now considered it hopeless to expect that the Committee would execute the Orders of the House. There were precedents of cast*, in which a Committee, having twice omitted to execute the Orders of the House, were discharged from further proceedings. He was.not aware, how ever, that that had taken place with respect to a Committee on a private Bill. As he could not 'expect that if this were done in the-present cwie, the House would not content, for the first to go into a Committee of the whole House on the Bill, it being a prisate Bill, he was led to consider the propriety of appointing another Select Committee.—(Hear, hear !)—The Fosse having recognised the interest of the Bill so-far as to agree to the second reading, ought certainly not to allow the ineeresti of the parties to it to be altogether abandoned. Under the circumstances he had stated, some remedy certainly ought to he: applied ; but he was desirous rather to throw himself on the (goose, and to entreat that they would point out the par tietelar remedy. He would now, however, move that the Se lect Committee on the Ne w in g t on S e l ec t Vestry Bill be dis charged from further, -proceedings . , with a view, if h e f oun d the House dispose& to acquiesce in that proposition, to follow it . up by moving for th e a pp o i ntme n t o f another Select Corn mace.. Mr. DENISON considered the proposition made by his Ho nourable Colleague to be one of a most extraordinary nature. His Honourable Colleague was so accustomed to Carry every thing by a triumphant majority, that when he found himself beat in numbers as well a.senargument, he immediately came to the House to complain. He hoped his Honourable Colleague would some day or other occupy a seat on the Opposition, side of the House, and then he would become more accustomed to be in Si minority, and beteer able to bear it.--;A laugh.)—The Ho nourable Gentleman (Mr. Denison) proceeded at considerable length to show the inexpediency of the Bill: - He entered into a history of the Newington Vestries, and contended that they. had not geeerally been the tumultuous and noi s y mee ti ngs w hi c h they had been Unjustly described to be. Ono scene of some :collusion, he allowed, had taken plate •at A meeting of the • vestry ;._but that he attributed e to the Rector'l .abruptly leaving the chair without having adjourned the vestry. - He proceeded • to contrast the 10.5 individuals who had petitioned in favour of the Bill, with the 1940 who-had-pctitiohea against-it. After ad vesting to the doubtful charaCter of some of tae former number, he compared the two bodies in point of property.' The rental of tha parish-was £84,000. That of the .106 petitioners was £l,4oo,butbe couldbringlo6ofthe 1940,whoserentaiamounted to .4.1,508: The object of the Bill was to place the superintendance of taxes, bOth parochial an!' King's, in the hands of a Select Vestry, the members of which ware to hold theiroffices for life, and to appoint their su ccessors.—(H ear !)--If evee there was tax aton without represenmtion, the proposed plan would exhibit.: it, arel he need not remind the House of the dreadful mischief's whieh taxation without representation- had occasion e d i n thi s country. The Newington Junta had also declared that no man should be appointed even a Cherchwarden in' the Paris'n, unless he was a Member of the Church of England thereby exclud ing the ponscientio ua Dissenter and --the conscientious Quaker ; both eminent for their charity and other good qualities. Ad vertingfo the discussions- which had taken - place in the Cohi-, Inittee,.heAdmitted and lamented that some of those debates had been rather-of a strong character, and detailed several of the circumstances that had produced that effect. He was de termined to oppose to the last, a measure so unjust, so unjusti fiable, and se unconstitutional as -that proposed. In thus put ting himself in opposition to the Bill he felt that he had merely done his duty, and he hoped the House would never allow it to pas% into a law. . - Mr. BYNG. expressed a hope that the.Honourable Mem ber for Surrey (Mr. Holme Sitinner) would withdraw his mo ,-tion, and allosi the Committee to proceed upon its inqui ( 'fear.) Mr. TULk said, that he had in the Committee observed that they were tie servants or the House, b u t h e assure d t h e Hononrable Members oppoiite that he meant nothing of fensive by the expression. He thought it no disgrace to have any• set of Gentlemen considered the servants of that House. If, however, the tern) was considered offensive, .he would apologise for it, but not before he heard from authority that it was so. Mr. DENISON explained. • Mr. Alderman WOOD observed, that the first disturbance in the Committee arose. from th e Honourable'Chairman•(Mr. Ir. Sumner) having refused to receive letters from certain per sons who had, under a false impression; signed the Petition in favour of the Bill, hut who afterwards wished to withdraw their names. Much had been said about delay, but he could assure the House that the principal delay was caused by the Honour- Ale Chairman and his friends. So convinced was he (Alder.. man Wood) on the subject, that he would watch at his post from ten o'clock in themorning . until tenon the followingmom ing, for the purpose of opposing the measure now proposed, should the Honourable Member for Surrey persist in it.—(l-rear, hear !)-_The Committee were willing to go on examining the evidence in support of the Bill, and then to hear that adduced by its opponents. .. - Mr. DAWSON hoped the House would seriously consider whether this Bill was necessary or not. If the House was to decide that the Committee was to be re-appointed, then, in his opinion, no private Bill could be brought in at all. He had re peatedly attended the Committee, but he had never known them to come to any other decision than that of an adjournment —(Hear, hear!)--:He could not help obs erv i ng , th a t muc h p a i ns were taken to oppose the Bill, - "and, as a - proof of it, he would instance what had been just said by an Honourable Alderman opposite expressive of his determination to oppose it. For him self he was ready to vote for any thing which was likely to bring the question to a fair conclusion. Mr. Alderman WOOD and Mr. DAWSON mutually ex plained. Sir F. BUR.DETT hoped, that as there was a motion of hn portance about to come on, the further discussion of this ques tion would be postponed. He therefore moved that the fur ther debate upon the Newington Vestry Bill be adjourned to Friday next. • The Marquess of LONDONDERRY said, that Friday being a Supply day, he should oppose the fixing of this question for that day. • Sir F. BURDETT then proposed that the discussion should be postponed to Monday next. Mr. H. SUMNER hoped that the House would now proceed in the discussion. Honourable Gentlemen on the other side had done every thing which the ingenuity of man could .devise to obstruct the proceedings in Committee. If this course was not put a stop to, it would be impossible for any Memb er t o conduct a -Private Bill u p stairs. Mr. MABERLY denied that he had used any,efforts to cause delay in the proceedings of the Committee upon this Bill. lie had gone to the Committee with a fall determination to do jus;- tiee to all parties, but at the same time determined to oppose certain clauses of the Bill. There was certainly _a determina tion on one side to create delay, but, he mustsay, that the Ho nourable Member fele Surrey. (Mr. H. Sumner) had prOciuced much delay, and he would tell him how. He (Mr. S.), instead of sitting still as Chairman, and hearing all parties, had acted throughout as a complete defender of the measure—(Hear, hear !) —and did not allow its opponents time to proceed.— (Hear, hear !).—lf 'the Honourable Member had presided as Chairman usually do, much of the -disturbance which occur red would have been spared. He hoped the House would not accede to the Honourable Member's (Mr. Sumner's) mo tion, as, if carried, it would go to do away with all the Commit --1 tees on private business. After a few words from Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW and Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY, . . Mr. G. BENNET could call this nothing. else than the Honourable Member's own job—(Order,!). The Marquess of LONDONDERY said, that this discus sion was likely to impede the veluile public business of the even ing.—(Hear, hear !) Mr. BENNET was not surprised that the word job should have alarmed Gentlemen on the other side. .He would how ever repeat his words, this - Bill was a rank job, and deserved to be.called by no other name. It was a job brought forward in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the Parish, and this job was now attempted to. be supported by calling into alliance Gentlemen on the other side, who did not attend the Commit- Itee, and who had no oth e r indu cement to supp O rt i t than party feeling, and their attachment to the question at - issue, namely a job.---(Hear !)—He saw no proposition againSt which coin mon sense revolted more than that of taking a private Bill out of the hands of a Committee for the purpose of placing it, where ?-a.in the hands of a packed Committee, selected by the Mover of the job. Gentlemen - opposite would in this way have an advantage on private Committees, for when they failed above stairs, they could come down secure of the support of Minis ters, and of that majority of which they themselves formed a part. This would be placing the private busine ss in t h e h ands of the majority again s t the minority, and this principle, if act ed upon, they would owe to the Honourable Member for Sur rey (Mr.. Sumner), and he hoped the time was coming when they would be able to express to him their sense of the obliga tion.L-(Hear, hear!) After a few words from Mr. S. Cox, Mr. PRICE, and Mr. SUMNER, Mr. CREEVEY said, it appeared to him that the Honour able Member (Mr. Sumner) must consent to adjourn the dis cussion to Monday. His (Mr. Sumner's) first motion was, that the 'Committee on the Newington Select V es t r y b e dis charged, and then he intended to propose that the subject should be referred to a Select Committee. Now, without attaching a word of blame to either side, it was clear that that would pro duce a total change in the law of Parliament, and surely it was not too much to ask that a question of such great importance should stand over for Monday next.—(Hear, hear !) After a few observations from Sir James Graham, Dr.- Lush ington, Sir Robert Wilson, and Mr. John Smith, the Gallery was then cleared. It was understood, that after strangers were ordered to retire, the terms of the Amendment were altered to Friday instead of Monday next. The House di v id e d — For the original Motion - - • - - 67 For the Amendment - - 74 Majority for adjourning the question to Friday-7. Lord LONDONDERRY brought up a Copy of the Con vention between his Britannic Majesty and the Emperor of Austria; dated 4th May, 1795, relative to the Austrian.Loao...... Ordered to lie on the table. - Lord J. RUSSELL presented a Petition fro m Weston Hat field, of Cambridge, printer, praying a repeal of th e Bth and 9th chap. of the 60th of the late King.—Ordered toile on the Table. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. A Message was sent from the Lords, with several Private Bills. Mr. W. SMITH presented a Petition from the Merchants and Manufacturers concerned in the Woollen Trade of the City of Norwich, praying for a Repeal on the Tax on F ore i gn Wool.—Ordered to be printed. IRISH WINDOW TAX. Mr. SHAW said, that he brought forward his important motion at the pressing desire of his Constituents, who felt the severe pressure of the Window TaX, and who still remained in the opinion that the Tax was continued in violation of the pledge given .to the Irish Parliament by the Government o: t :a: day.' The Hon. Member then referred to the 40th of the late King, which stated, that the tax was intended as a war tax. —Since the tax was originally laid on, the Act of Union was passed, an Act which was ,a calamity to the City of . DL:bli 1, which deprived Ireland of . a res id ent N o bili ty, .and all the ad vanta7;es of a domestic Legislature.- Such wag the distress to which the City of .Dublin 'Was reduced, that for the last seven years there was an increase of 4000 insolvent houses. The Window. Tax, far from being productive, had* fallen off for se veral years; and if continued in its unmitigated state, he had little dOubt but thatin no remote time the.tax would become totally unproductive. The Hon. Member concluded by mov ing Air a Select Committee to take into consideration the Re peal of the Window Tax. ' General HART seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he could not consent to the repeal of.the Tax ; it could not be re waled without doing injustice to other parts of the Empire. He could not see wh a t t ax could be proposed a s a substitute that would not he more disagreeahie to the City of Dublin. . Sir J. NEWPORT said that , it.was not his intention to go into the merits of the case. One thing was clear a ith respect to the people of Ireland, they groaned under heaVy burthens and yet. there was a diminish: d revenue. lie foresaw that ths..t would have been the case in 1803, since that year to the pre sent there was a diminution of the fruits of taxation of from 6 to £BOO,OOO ayear. - *Mr. HUME said that the question_ was not whether there could be found a substitute for the tax, but whether, if con:. tinned, the tax was not likely to become unprOductive, as it was confessedly odious to the citizens of Dublin ? hoped that a Committee would be granted to the Honourable-Member ; in that Committee he had no doubt valuable information might be. obtained, not only with respect to the tax in question, but as to many taxes which pressed upon the peOple of this country, and did not afford any material increase to the revenue. If the mo tion were pressed to a division, he certainly would support the • original motion. - General HART said a few words in support of the motion. Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY sa id, that it - was a just and ge neral complaint, .that taxes which pressed upon the country were yet unproductive in point of revenue. The cause of this was in a great measure to be attributed to the expmccs attene'inj • the collection of the revenue. . After a few words from Mr. MoNom and Lord LONDON DERRY, • ' Mr. SHAW replied, and said, he should not press the mat.. ter to a division, but he gave notice that he should bring on the subject again in the next Session. lONIAN ISLANDS. Mr. HUME wished to ask a question of the Hon. Gentle , man opposite. Two persons natives- of the lonian Isles, had been arrested for signing an address, which was intended to be sent to - this country, a nd th r ow n ' into prison, They had escap ed, and proceeded to England with the address, an d h a d sent a petition to the Colonial' Department. •He wished. to know whether that petition had been received. He wished also to know, whether by the Alien Act, as it now s t o ad, persons coming from the lonian' Isles, being natives, would : be consi dered as aliens in this count r y, and were liable as.such to. be sent out:of the country ? . . Mr. GOULBURN said that the! petition alluded to by the 'ffon. Gentleman was received. With respect to the question, was whether an lonian island e r an alien or not in this country, he confessed he was not lawyer enough to answer it, and could give no opinion updn the subject. Mr. HUME expresSed his hOpe that the Hon. Gentletnan would ascertain that point. ADJOURNED DETUTE,---MANCHESTER. Sir ROBERT TV'LsON . nigied the Order of the Day on the- motion of Sir'Francis Burdett, rela=- tive to the Transactions at 'Manchester, on the 16th of August, 1819. The question on the - original motion being put from the Chair, Sir R. WILSON, in reply to the observations which had been made on the preceding night by the Solicitor-General, said, that though - the Learned Gentleman had, according to his duty, endeavoured to .shew that the ,Government and constituted authorities had been in every instance temperate, regular, and judicious, and the people always irregular and criminal, or actuated by criminal intentions ; .he was not able to put the business at Manchester in such a light that they could gaze on it with diminished feelings of shame and horror. - It was not necessary for him (Sir R. Wilson) and those who took the same view of the question, to . refute all the statements which had been made on the other side. _lt was enough to shew that there were counter-statements of a strictly :contrary description, and the existence of the conflicting statements was in itself the strongest argument for inquiry—(Hear, hear !)—But some had been made to introduce evidence which it was necessary to reduce to its proper value. The Solicitor General had referred to the Bills thrown out by the Lancashlr6 Giand Jury, and had ask ed triumphantly, would they impeach the honour of the Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, especially when the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) who usual ly sat on . the Opposition side of .the House, was Foreman ? Now, it was too much to throw the 'responsibility on the Noble Lord, who,. though Foreman, might, for aught they knew,. have dif fered from his Colleagues--..--(Hear, hear !)—But he took a more enlarged view of the case. It was very probable that the Lancashire Jury threw out the bills from an erroneous view of the law, conceiving that the Yeomato'y could not be the ob jects of pro3ecutiop, acting under what they consi dered proper authority, -thus blending political considerations with. their view of the case. This conjecture was corroborated, by what fell from the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) last night on a Petition ; for when the Petitioner had offered to shew his wounds, the Noble Lord had told him that was not necessary, as the-grounds 'on which' the Grand Jury acted were not connected with that_ fact. It was asked, too, - why there was no verdict of murder' by a Coroner's -Jury ? It was not necessary to go into the history of the Inquest at, Oldham, but it was enough to say, that a ma jority of the Jury had declared that they should have brought in a verdict - of murder if the. Coro ner had not taken Means to prevent any verdict from being given. He had notthe faith necessary to remove the mountain- of common sense 'which stood in the way of the -belief that the Coro ner was acting in that illegal way -merely on his own authority.- He must have had hope's of supports and indemnity ; but at any rate it was too much, after such a proceeding, to ask why no verdict of_ murder had been returned ? They were asked also; why civil actions had not been brought, and the Solicitor General had ob served, that there was a sum of money in the hands of Mr. 'C. Pearson. lit was singular to hear men, and lawyers too, talking of law as i was, a cheap and unexpensive commodity.- _ - ,Hear, hear !)—For-the legal expences, and the relief of the sufferers, 3,408/. had been collected. The laiw expences on the Oldham Inquest and at Manchester amounted to 10774 those of the trials at YOrk to 'lO/..though one of the Attor nies, Mr. Harmer, most liberally gave his ser vices to the public without , remuneration. — (Hear, hear !)—There thus remained 1,2061. to be divided among 600 sufferers, - and twenty un fortunate persons who had been apprehended unjustly, , and released' without any bill being found againSt them, for in such case. alone the CoMmittee granted. ,relief. But if one action had been brought for, instance,the Gentleman who now told them to proceed at law, would h ave turned round and s a id, " you have your redress," The dispersion of the meeting had been Justified. He knew that const a bl es were justified in dis persing an illegal meeting—that; even if they disperSed an illegal meeting, acting Under error, and with a good' intention, they might be pro tected from punishment ; but,. in either case, force was not justified beyond the necessity of the case, and CaPtain Porteus, w h o , was con viCted of murder, Was ,so convicted, not cause he had at first, acted illegally against the rioters, but because he , had fired when necessity no longer existed. bi answer to the assertion of an 'Honourable Member (Mr, B. Wilbraham) that some persons sent down from the Conunittee for the relief of the Manchester sufferers had inflamed the people's mind, he Ob served, that . the . strictest instructions had been ,given (which he read) to the person sent down not to give any' bpinion:as - tc; — the conduct of the persons by whose acts the individuals to be re lieved might have suffered. This instruction had been strictly adhered to. , Am)ng the depo nents'whose testimony was brought before them, he observed the name of " Birley.", Now what value could be legally attached to the deposition, , however respectable he mi g ht be, w h en M r. Birley s one of.the persons accused ? This deposition affirmed that' stones were thrown. There was with reference to this fact of the case a testimony of immense importance, - that of the _Reverend Mr. Stanley, who went to the Magis trates on business, and was at a window in a.room over them. He stated, that there were lines* of constables which kept ,- an uninter rupted communication to the hustings, which Mr. Hay also 'mentioned in his dispatch ; that ,after Mr. Hunt had spoken.a few minutes, there was a cry of " the Soldiers . are coming," whi c h created great . confusion, and some b egan t o jump down from the Hustings ; that the yeomanry advanced a few paces, not rapidly, and with some appearance of following their officers in files of si*; but that theypresently increased theirspeed with the natural ardour of men " advancing," as he expressed it, " against a foe (not against their fellow-titizens), by whom they had been long taunted with cowardice, and they seethed at last to vie With one another who should be first."— Mr. Stanley further stated, that they rode over the body of a female ; that the dispersion was like magic ; that he saw nothing like resistance, except in 'a few places, when the bearers shelved oalisinclination to give up, thi,iir banners. He believed that the people were peaceably dis posed. Ile.bad fallen in with a body of them as he was i;idind from A.,shton. As to the stones ) Mr. Stanley .spoke in __this manner :—" I have heard it said, that the cavalry were assaulted by st_mvs during the few minutes that they halted before they charged. What a person says he saw must be true ; but I saw nothing of the kind,' though my eyes were , steadily fixed tipon that quarter, and I must have seen any stone larger than a pebble.. Indeed, I saw no missiles used during the day." This testimony alone made a Sirdng ground for inquiry. If the cavalry were attacked after they had made their attack, the people -were perfectly justified. Indeed, in not making resistance, the people scarcely did their duty ag Lritisfi subjects, though every allowance was to be, made for them, unarmed, and crowded together with their women and children. Not only the people of England, but the voice of Europe demanded inquiry into these transactions. The Solicitor-General had said, that they should draW a veil of oblivion over ,these transactions ; that the Ministers were willing to forget and, for-, give. The Solicitor-General was willing' to for. give the 620 persons killed and wounded in the course of the outrages, and this might be a wonderful stretch of humanity 'and magnanimity., He could not think the Noble Lord opposite (Londonderry).serious, when he supposed it pos sible that they could heal the feelings occasioned by such transactions without inquiry, by throw ing over them the veil of oblivion. - The Honour able Baronet, who had brought forward the 'mo tion, and those who supported it, did not wish to enforce the law of Moses-.." an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ;" they did not ask blood for blood, but merely for such an inquiry as would prevent the establishment of a most dreadful pre cedent, and be vindicatory of the outraged laws of the country—(Hear, hear !)—lf this were re fused, it would be only an additional .proof of the indifference with which Parliament looked upon the unsullied majesty of the laws; a proof also of the contempt which they had for public opinion, and a most melancholy evidence of the debased and degraded state to which the country had been reduced, as well as a gloomy prognostic of its further degradation---(C,heers !)---But he hoped that the motion would not be rejected, and that the House would not involve itself in the infamy of the last Parliament by refusing inquiry. But if it was refused, they might indeed a little longer have the submission of the people ) but it would be the submission of a sullen prudence,•not . of al legiance and affection—(Cheers!) Sir W. Da UaESPIGNY said,' he felt for the sufferers, • and he felt also for .Parliament, lest its name should go down to ,history with the' re proach of having allowed such 'a transaction to pass sub silentio. 'He held in his baud a letter from a gentleman of " strict honour and integrity," who was present at the meeting. The letter gave a full description Of the meeting, which, 'he said, was peaceably collected, and evinced no disposition of disorder until the attack was made upon it. If the Riot Act had been'properly'read, the writer expressed his conviction' that the meet ing would have ,quietly separated. 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 ab sence of any disposition to violence on the part ofthe 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 Yeothanry had not interfered. The - Hon. Baro net said the name of the Writer was the Rev. Robert Himbush, a clergyman, residing - in. Man chester; and he concluded with expressing his determination to support this motion. Mr. TINDAL • said a few words, the purport of which was to exculpate the yeomanry, who, he said, were not responsible for the orders under which they had acted. He eulogised the yeo manry as . a most valuable and peculiarly consti tutional force. He said that he was himself a plomanry officer, and in the - county in which he resided, there having been, some time, ago, an apprehension of popular tumults, he received an order from the Secretary of State's office' to put himself under the orders of the Magistracy. ,lie believed the yeomanry, therefore, to have acted under a sense of duty which was imperative on them, and he believed them to be the only party that could he exculpated.' It was his opinion that the Mob, the Magistrates, and even the Govern ment had .been Mr. BECUER said he was anxious to d'xpress his sentiments upon this subject. He depreeated the principles of Reform which were entertained by the people who met at Manchester, and no body 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 consenting to this motion the House would be opening the door to discussions which they ought not to entertain, by saying tha,', it was right they should show at least a. dispo sition to redress the people's wrongs. Ile had observed the House to be always jealous of its privileges. Why not then exercise at least the same jealousy with respect to their privileges on British subjects ? Why not exercise the same jealousy of the rights, liberties, and persons of those from whom, they derived their authority ,? Upon the whole, then, he considered this a fit subject for inquiry. 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 Hoose to know that such being the case, and no redress being afforded,. in order to induce them to inves:igate the whole matter ; he exhorted the House to enter upon it then and to give a practical refutation of thel'e proaches of those who, charged that House with a I want of sympathy with the people. With these feelings he should give his cordial support to the motion. Mr. EGERTON said, the conduct of the Magis trates had saved Manchester from riot and dis turbance. He 'contended that it was impossible to execute the warrants for -the arrest of the leaders without the aid of the military. The- Magistrates had a great and difficult duty to per form, and they had done it to the best of their power. 'they were called upOn to decide in a mor4nt upon circumstances affecting the tran quillity of the country; acrd if they had erred, their conduct was open to animadversion- in a Court of Law. He would, therefore, resist the 7.77 7 7 ,- rnotion. - Mr. GIcENFELL observed, that on ILIS .question he differed in opinion from most of tho - se with nhom It: usually acted, and from whoin he•neVer differed. Lut with pain and regret. He took that opeortueity of stating his opinion in regard to the measures which the, Legislature had adopted in consequence of the events at Manchester in August, 1819. It would be _unbecoming in him to enter into the discussion of the general sub ject ; for even hi the hands of those who had greater claims on the attention of the House than he could pretend -to, that. subject no longer ex cited interest and attention. The reasons which had influenced him in giving his .vote on former occasions with reference - to this subject remained unshaken, and there was no act of his public life to which he looked hack with greater satisfac tion or a more self-approving consciencee Mr. BERNAL contended, in cootradiction to the Law Officers of the Crown, that the verdict at York did not establish the illegality of the meet ing at Manchester.. The fact war, that the de fendants on that trial were found guilty on the fourth count of the indictment ; .and-it would ap pear, by a reference to the docutneet, that that count charged them with conspiringeto bring his Majesty's Government into hatred and contempt, and not-for being accessaries in an illegal meet ing. But whether it was illegal or not, it was a doubt if all those who attended the meeting were there for illegal objects—rnd • so Mr. Justice Bayley declared.—(licat !)—Tt did not appear that any effort was made to execute the warrant before the assistance .of the military was called in ; and. the Learned Judge told the Jury that no evidence had been tendered to show that thn warrant could not have been executed withour military aid. The Hon. Member - then noticed what he said was stated by the lion. Member for Dover,—namely, -that a constable (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 Coroner who sat on the body of this man, that he bad fired a pistol loaded with balls on the populace —arid 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 statement, " libentar homines id quoit volunt credunt." 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 on the countenances of Some Gentlemen opposite —he believed there was nothing absurd in the suggestion : it *as on ly a fe w d a Y s ago that a commission was consented to, to visit llchester gaol. He would admit, indeed that a Parlia. mentary investigation would be no longer useful, for Ministers had so mixed themselves up with the transaction that 'they would naturally ene plOy all their influence to defeat the objects of the inquiry. But he exhorted the_ House to StitUte an inquiry by some means, and he con sidered that the llortse would not do its duty if !. they .did not support the _motion of the Hon. Baronet. WILBRAIIAIIIand Mr. BERNAL tiiutually explained.. Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. H. Twiss rose at the same mon - lent, bat the Speaker declared that Mr,- Twiss . .was in possession of the House. Mr. H. Twiss began by observing, that he took the Latin adage to which the Honourable and Learned Member (Mr. Bernal) had just alluded, to mean that men readily believe what they wish to' be true: However undeniable that adage might be, it was not, he conceived', applicable on the present occasion. The. numerous depositions which had been read by the Hon. Member for Dover, were all made upon bath, and they had been met IT three or' four statements on the other side, which were not . fortified -by any such sanction. He' apprehended, therefore; that the balance was not at all in fay.olir - of his Hon. and Learned Friend;, He contended , that therewas.no better pretext now for the : m easure .proposed l o y th e li on. B a• wllen it Was propo se d a nd ronet, than . th ere was. rejected, in the last Parliament. It app ea red meetingtlibns a rl . d . S in, mbuotitnal.ryirinardrsayo.f from- the evidence ,thaf . not only hundreils and men 1 Niv marchedas ilot ~fut :, c l:!; 5 had been ass .Fu that a charge w - .. 1 thade 11 the cav?o,l7 upon- the defenceless people, but the n l P..asure resorted to was merel that y a rep e titi on of which hAI. been StCcessfully taken a t the meeting in „London, namely, the arrest o f the ringleaders. Even the evidence of the witnesses on the part of the defendants - in the trial at' roric' went to shew the dangerous character of the meeting. Mr. Tyas admitted 'that there was ti rush of the populace, but saki that it Was iwt voluntary rush, but occasioned by the" pressure'' Mr. Nicholson, another of Mr; Hunt's witness": acknowledged t h at _ sticks were thrown, but not till after. the attack of the cavalry. also ad m itt e d t h at an assault was made a on th'O cavalry .with brickbats, but •not till after the seizure of Hunt. lie stated also that the..poP" lace set up a shout, thotigh he described it by the mitigated, name of a cheer, and added, that he believed the Object of it' to be to' - show th ' it they were, not daunted by the unwelcome pre sence of the military.- He would take 'th6 ad missions of the. witnesses on the other side as th e . basis of his ,arguments, co?' he conceived it te.