The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-11-27 00:00:00

not believe he had done so without furs
,hertnqNothing short of the utmost extre-
ointe could justify the advance of cavalry into such
r•it enseuotolsge. It wan impossible in such a case
fir 'tor two rider to manage a horse with safety to
Oiso people about him—his head may be turned
• sii•iole, hot then the movement of liin flanks must
thou s• down thaw who were behind the rider's back,
and ,1e iron hoofs of the animal must unavoidably
16.noile on those who fall. The very confusion
los .0...0at to such a proceeding must expose the
to danger, mid palace them to lase their
awords for their protection. Nation himself 54)0,
that an rapid was the attack. he mull nut withdraw
the rusetabfra in time, and that our of them was
killed in the advance of the cavalry to the hustings.
Really these evenly required a full and serious ill.
(rivy. The very variance between the accounts
which, had gone forth furnished a sufficient vomit'
few the ore essity of collecting and comparing them.
With respect to the numbers who lord received in-
jot, on the 16th August, lie toad see,' the fins
of a person who had visited one hundred and fifty
of those sufferers. and who believed he had not seen
ono-half the actual number. It was said that the
Grand Jury had thrown out the bills preferred
against certain individualn; hut it might also to he
',collected, that in a particular case they had acted
ones a misconstruction of their own powers. Impu-
tations were also cast upon some of the parties
in-
iicted, because they had traversed their trial.. He
saw 110 yroond for these imputations, because there
was nothing singular in men traversing their trials
:it a time when there wan an unfavourable ferment
against them in the particular jollier. The Hon.
Member then alluded to the circumstances which
hail occurred in Robert Owen's case, which had
been dwelt upon erroneously by an Ilan. NA
Lrltaard Gentleman near him (Mr. Plunkett) nu a
tanner night, and proceeded to lament the hasty
solmouval winch Ministers, give of the particular
sdf.ilri, and on the authority of the documents now
he tore the House. This a nitro!) aim, In thought
'nos, unwarrantable, for the correspoodeirce skewed,
that much of what had occurred wall unknown
lt; tit- parties, who were in 1•0111111t11/Illitioli
with the Government, and most certainly to the
latter. With reference to the state of the coun-
try, he feared that Al:Hinters hail, 'ere now,
she wit to the people a determinatino to act
noon a system very incongenial with the spirit
lit this country. This determination had been
ton plainly avowed In be mistaken by the people.
When his Royal Highness the Prioce Rrgent
r-tarred an answer to the Address of the
C:ly of London. his Minister, thought proper
mit to suffer, in the woly, a tangle word of
sietnirathy for the softertaign of the country. He
d.ri not wean to accuse Aliointeis personally of
a want of humanity fur their fellow countrymen,
but lie dill seellse them of being connected with
a •yotein which had fur its basis c..iercion, instead of
cooociliati ll ; they unfortsmately and mistakenly
refused the latter, perhaps front an ro'fonlided
preltession that concession would, in their situation,
be attributed to weakness, rather than to a learning
foe generosity or justice. It perhaps hail entered
Pito their view that the king of France might have
held loin throne, had he firmly and vigorously ad-
t.ered to coercion, when he was placed in a
critic-41 situation. But thin view was most mid-
taken, for from the best infoimation he had
vs,r tweit able to collect from the parties most
wh'e to give it, in vain at that period would
ti •e Marquis de Bouillie hare resorted to severe
see:votes with any hope of, by such a couise, avert-
itvg the impending danger. Why was it that the
people of England were pronounced disaffected,
and therefore to be coerced ?—Could the Ministers
t;t•ti no other cause for the discontent that prevailed
eticept artlition and disaffection ?—Could they find
sin ensile in the system of their taxes, and the mini-
ver in which the public money was applied ? It
woos cot a year since they applied a very large
sum of money for building churches—and yet
ti e people were put down its prone to habits of
s•religion. Could the Government forget. when
t!!•y charged the people with immorality, the
raincoat practices they thenowlves upheld by the
Norovisl continuance of the system of Lotteries ?
Could they. who boasted of such a pure adherence
to the principles of Christianity, act as they had
dare ill contempt of its purity, by continuing in a
priiiical proscription from sapid civil rights so
soon•!y millions of their fellow-subjects, oil a mere
p'•:i.t of difference of religious profession ? He
v.. 11 aware that some disaffection existed in parts
of the country, but he implored of the House whe-
-11:er they could not assign a better cause for it than
1-st declared by his Majesty's Ministers. The peo-
ple. did Mot deserve this treatment, after shewiog, as
ti:ey had done under the most scale distress, an
vo:o.sralleled example of patience and forbearance—
t i•ey frit vs men. and as Englishmen, and with their
patience, conquered some of their most inveterate
I obits. lie therefore implored the House to pause
liefere they drove a suffering people to despair—let
Own; peon before they passed the Rubicon, and
committed themselves iii hostility with their country
''•••••en stop before they shall have incurred the
tined upon :mother State—that
deceived, its Ministers without
pious of people without Judges.
to see laws of iron established
:itled to be free. There was
goverisiog this country, and that
• of the sword, but by the power
meant to restore peace to the
adopt a system of couciliation,
these establishments where coy.
to prevail, and feature some de.
between the people and their
Then, and then mimic could they
the iisticti.
its said, that it was in vain for
Ile people could be satisfied with
in toe shape in o loch it now
juestiotiably they would. if they
principles to which it hail refers
(1 impartially applied among all
Ifs subjects. Why. he would
subjects be 'figment/id iti this
c vhiaages of disloyalty. and the
ferqueurly besieged with Loyal
• snootier that thaw who did not
rosiourced disloyal. as if the
for ever remit:daft' of that which
fixed principle in every English
would ask, Itai every opportu-

1, COM ROOM I.IIeMICOM
I —let them stop befor
I
*t•itlna which was fix
p.; Government was d
liws. and fifteen milli
Ile could not bear In
1 s.,nutag a people enti
..;.;r une mode of got
ill *a-, not by the force
(Jr the law. If they
reople. they Mint a;
, t ••ey should reform ti
; i;lptton was known to
wee of confidence I
t Itepresentatives. 11'11
relator e hat mony to th
Lam`
Mr. GEORGE Lam
Aliol•terie to hope the
1 I i.e Address. if left i
* loth. though tioquei
Ruud the general poi
ti;' rote universally and i
I i 11114114.11 of his Majtst3
a*k. should British I
general 01111111Vf with i
s Throne itself so Ire
Addrewier. in such a I
111 , pegs) them were pro'
'('Crone was to be Am
1, i ' he thought was a fix
brawl ? Why, he w
•
14L