The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-14 00:00:00

Mr. MA CLEO D addressed the House at considerable length,
but in such a manner as only to be heard at intervals in the
gallery. From what we could glean, the Hon. Member said that
he had not the benefit of much Parliamentary experience, but
from the little he knew he should infer that it was not at all
the practice of the House to receive such petitions as the one
under dik.ussion. If the House countenanced the reception
of a petition from jurors, complaining that their verdict had
been set aside by a superior Court, it might next expect to
be addressed by the Master of the Rolls, complaining that
a decree of his Court had been reversed by the decision of a
superior court upon appeal. It had been argued that there
was nothing to identify the parties assembled in Calthorpe-
street, with those who issued the placard calling the meeting
together; but he was of opinion that the Government was
bound to believe that the intentions of the meeting, and the
feeling of the meeting, were to be found in that placard.
What was Government to do then, knowing as it did that the
meeting would take place? It would be said Government
could have taken one of several courses, and one course was to
do nothing at all.—(Laughter, and cries of " Hear" from Mr.
Roebuck and others.) He asked, was he to understand
by those cheers that Government should have done nothing?
But then, supposing that no notice had been taken of the
meeting—supposing an immense multitude of people had as-
sembled—supposing it had then been found necessary to call
out a large military force—and supposing the military had
come into contact with the people, and that much blood had
been shed and many lives lost—who would have been so loud
in condemning the inactivity of Government as the Hon; Gen-
tlemen on the other side of the House ? It was said the meet.
ing was contemptible, so was the conspiracy of Thistlewood
contemptible—(Hear, hear)—but it was not the less just that
such men should be punished. If Government had taken no
steps to prevent or disperse the meeting, one of two opinions
would have been adopted by the people, either that the meeting
was legal, or that the Government was too weak to prevent
the meeting from taking place ; either of which would have
had a lamentable effect, and might have imbued Europe with an
idea that this country was actually on the eve of a national
Convention. If the ground had been pre.occupied by the po-
lice, what would have prevented the advanced guard of the
meeting from taking another position, for choosing another open
piece of ground ? It was, h e contended, not only the duty of
the Government to disperse the meeting, but to take the ring.
leaders into custody; and he was convinced, from all he
had heard, that the interference of the policemen had pre-
vented much mischief. (Hear, hear, hear.) The blow
was struck with a deadly weapon, when Cully was dis-
charging his duty. He did not mean to say that there might
not be circumstances in the discharge of duty that might justly
provoke things indignant, but thatwas not this case. He lamented
that the eloquence of the Hon. Member for Dublin had been
exercised in justifying the verdict of justifiable homicide which
had been given by the jury. It was clear to him, from the
evidence before the jury, that Cully had not exercised
any unbecoming violence in the discharge of his duty.
Being of that opinion, he concurred entirely with the line of
conduct adopted by his Majesty's Ministers in taking proceed-
ings to set aside the verdict.
Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY said the greater part of the jury
were personally known to him, and he felt confident they were
men who would act conscientiously upon their oath, and that
on coming to the verdict they had they considered it their
duty to do so from the evidence before them. If, how-
ever, it was possible for him to bring his mind to believe
that the verdict was against evidence, it still appeared
to him that Government ought to act with caution in any at.
tempt to set that verdict aside, after the deliberation that had
been given to the subject by the jury. He thought no defence
could be set up for the course Government had pursued, and
therefore thought himself justified in impugning it. He was as
anxious as any man could be to preserve the institutions and
peace of the country; but in his opinion the conduct of Minis.
ters was more calculated to increase disquiet than insure peace.
The meeting was contemptible in every point of view, and was
convened by only a very few individuals, and therefore the
Government was not, in his opinion, justified in taking alarm,
and calling out the military and police. It was really giving a
greater importance to the proceedings than they deserved ;
for sure he was that the people, now that they
had a House of Commons over which they could exercise
some control, would never think of having recourse to the
establishment of a national convention. He could not believe,
looking at the placard by which the meeting was called, that
the parties had the objects in view which some persons attri-
buted to them. As to that part which stated that the
meeting was for the purpose of considering the propriety
of having a national convention, they all knew that a
national convention had been formed in one country, from
whose proceedings he would say, God forbid he should
ever see it established in this country. A society had also
been formed in the sister country for the same object, but its
proceedings were not only most peaceable but beneficial ;
therefore the meaning of the words National Convention, was
in fact very dubious, and it ought not to have created so
much alarm. The placard also stated as another object, that
they should endeavour to secure the rights of the people, and
those were words that had often been repeated without objec-
tion at various public meetings, but he had never heard
that they implied a subversion of the Government. He thought
his Majesty's Government had acted very prejudicially; they
should have treated the meeting with contempt, or at most to
have provided a force which would have prevented any persons
assembling.—(Hear, hear.) Sometime ago he presented a peti.
tion from an individual who was wholly unconnected with
the proceedings, but who, in returning home from his
labour, was knocked down and his head cut open.
He would ask the legal gentlemen on the opposite (the Minis.
terial) side of the House, what would have been the verdict if
that man had been killed under such circumstances ? The Jury
could have returned no other verdict than murder—(Hear,
hear)—then was it prudent, was it right, was it sensible of the
Government to place themselves in that position when their
acts were liable to that misinterpretation.—(Hear.) He could
not allow the privileges of Englishmen, the rights of the people
to be so interfered with, so that not only was the coroner's
inquisition set aside, but the Government took upon themselves
to impugn the verdict of the jury. The courts of law were
certainly open to them, and if they choose to set aside the in-
quisition. they should take measures to have another
inquest, so that, at all events, the cause of the death
of the policeman should not be left in abeyance, whether
it was murder or manslaughter.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He
believed that upon the occasion the Coroner had not acted
in the manner in which a Coroner ought to act. His duty
was to have pointed out to the Jury the law of the case. In
place of doing so, he throughout showed a strong party
feeling in suppressing part of the evidence that was brought
before him.—(Hear.) Even Colonel de Roos said the people
were very quiet, with the exception of a few stones being
thrown, and in his opinion there would have been no disturb-
ance had the police not made the attack they did. Now, if the
coroner had acted properly, he would have explained to the
jury the difference of the law, as applied to the various degrees
of guilt, in the case, and the verdict which the evidence would
bear out. So far from attempting that, he wished to throw out
a part of the verdict. He might have drawn it up in such a way as
would have defied the Court of King's Bench to have tet it
aside. He had considered it his duty to say so much in vin-
dication of the Jury, the persons on which, whom he knew, to
have been most honourable men, had acted most consci.
entiously.

Mr. PRYME said he did not consider that the question
now was, whether the Coroner had done his duty or nspt ;
and, even though he was to admit that Government had not
taken the proper steps to prevent the meeting, still he
thought it was their duty to disabuse the public mind
of the idea that a policeman, acting in the discharge of his
duty, might be slain with impunity, even though he
had exceeded the line of that duty. It at all events
amounted to manslaughter, as was proved by the judg-
ment of Chief Justice Best, in a case at Hertford
where a police officer had a warrant against an individual for
a misdemeanor, and mistaking his duty, broke open a door and
was shot. There Mr. Justice Best said though a charge of
murder could not be supported, it was a clear case of man-
slaughter. Under those circumstances it was clearly the duty
of Government to have acted as they had done, and by apply-
ing to the Court of King's Bench have the verdict set aside,
and as the matter had already had so much publicity, he did
not see any reason for the summoning of a new jury.
If so, where was the injustice, and where was the necessity
of calling for a fresh verdict ? It was perfectly unnecessary.
With regard to the finding of the inquisition, every body
knew that a person guilty of such an offence as this never
was tried upon that inquisition. (Here some Hon. Member
on the opposite side of the House drawled out "Hear, hear,"
in such a ludicrous and comical a tone as to set almost the
whole House into a roar of laughter, which interrupted, and
evidently somewhat chagrined, the Honourable Speaker.]
As to the propriety of the Government endeavouring
in the way they did to put down this meeting, perhaps some
doubts might be raised. It might have been a more prudent
course to have treated the meeting as contemptible, and simply
to have had a Wiceinin or two at it to have watched its pro.

ceodings ; but Government were the best judges of that, and
from all he had seen or known of their condnct he gave them
full credit for not having adopted the course they took without
having sufficient reason for so doing.
Mr. HARDY rose rather to put it to the House than for any
other purpose whether it could be useful and profitable to
proceed with the discussion. The proceeding principally com-
plained of was not a proceeding that tended to destroy trial by
jury—it was merely the setting aside of an illegal verdict,
which the Court of King's Bench was bound to do upon
its being brought before it.—(Hear, hear.) The petitioners
stated that the proceeding was calculated to bring trial by
jury into discredit, and they prayed that steps might be taken
to prevent that. He knew not what steps could be taken,
even if the petitioners' premises were right. The
House had now been discussing this subject for
nearly two days, and he was quite sure that after
all it could only lead to a most fruitless result. If the conduct
of Government on this occasion was to be called into question,
that ought to be done upon a specific motion, of which due no-
tice ought to be given. It would not do at all! times to treat
such a meeting as this with contempt. Every one must know that
the meeting of 1780 was too long treated with contempt. If the
conduct of the Coroner was to be impugned, it ought also to be
by a specific motion. The jury had committed an error,
in consequence of which the verdict had been set aside.
—(Loud cries of " No, no; it was the Coroner's error.")
He could not allow it to be said it was the Coroner's error.
The jury had subscribed to the verdict, that the policeman
was in the peace of God, that no breach of the peace
had been committed, and that no offence had taken
place, and the jury were intelligent enough to
have seen the discrepency of this if they had chosen to look,
and having made a trip, the Government were perfectly right
in taking advantage of it, and he hoped the regular business of
the House would now be suffered to proceed.
Mr. FINN—The last speaker had said that there was no
imputation cast upon the Jury; how, he asked, could such a
statement be made, when it was notorious that the Right Hon.
the Secretary of State had issued a proclamation offering a
reward for the conviction of the murderer of Cully—stamping
the name of murderer on a man whom the Jury had declared
to have been justified in what Its had donot The Hon. Member
condemned the conduct of the Coroner throughout the whole
transaction; declaring that the first part of the verdict was—
the introductory part—and the latter only belonged to the
Jury. The Coroner had attempted to influence the decision
of the Jury, and during the inquest he had done all in his
power to promote the selection of such evidence as would be
likely to lead to a verdict of murder. In fact it was, he said,
evident the man was grossly partial—(Hear, hear)—and no
doubt in preparing the verdict he had kept back the first part
from the Jury. The House should remember that it had been
called upon to enact despotism in Ireland, upon the verdict of
the Jury at Carrickshock.—(Hear, hear.) And yet an Hon.
Friend of his, who was present at that inquest, declared that,
upon the same evidence, he should have brought in the same
verdict.—(Hear.) He admitted the general praiseworthy
conduct of the police, and regretted that they should have been
brought into disrepute by the Government. It seemed as if the
Government set their faces against popular verdicts, and
mould only maintain such as were in accordance with their own
views ; but he implored Ministers to take a different course,
and at least not fall into the errors and vices which had been
committed in Ireland for the mere purpose of upholding their
subordinates in the false steps they had taken.
Colonel EVANS quite agreed with the Hon. Member for
Bradford in the impolicy of the House entering into a legal or
judicial discussion on the subject at the present moment : but
with respect to the conduct of the Executive Government, he
must confess he thought it a fair subject for discussion. There
was a disposition on the other side of the House to throw
blame on the Jury, for the purpose of removing it from the
Coroner; now, in his opinion, if any blame was to be attached
to either party, it was most decidedly upon the Co-
roner, and not upon the Jury. Whatever the results of the
of the trial might be against the different parties who had
taken part in the meeting, he thought the House ought to
take the conduct of the executive government into considera-
tion, and give its opinion upon it.
Mr. ROTCH deprecated the attack that had been made
upon the Confiner, without any notice whatever to that indi-
vidual. With regard to Ministers, the thing stood upon a different
footing, the present discussion having been brought forward
upon an understanding with them. With respect to the
Coroner, he never could believe that the charges which
had been made against him were true.—(Hear, hear.)
He had the honour of knowing him personally, and
he would take upon himself to assert that a more honest, con.
scientious, and upright man did not exist. He could not for
his life see any thing more in his conduct than that
he was astounded at the illegal conduct of the jury,
and had endeavoured, if possible, to prevail upon them
to record a legal verdict. Honourable Members, instead of
making these side wind sort of charges against the Coroner,
should come with a specific charge against him, as that
would put the Coroner upon his defence, and he (Mr.
Rotch) could assure the House that he would be the last man
to defend him if he thought he had acted improperly. In
conclusion, the Hon. Member deprecated such a discussion
at the present moment, however much some Hon. Members
might feel gratified in making long speeches on the subject.

Mr. COBBETT said, with respect to impugning theconduct
of the Coroner, he begged to remark that it was not the fault
of the Hon. Member for Bath that that gentleman's conducr
had come before the House; the jury had petitioned the House
in their own defence, and' in the defence of their own
character, and they prayed the House not to suffer a
precedent to bo laid down which would be injurious to the
trial by jury.—(Hear, hear.) In defence of the Government
and of his own conduct in applying to quash the inquisition, the
Learned Solicitor. General had produced the inquisition of the
Coroner to justify the steps he had taken. If he had not done
that, the coroner's conduct would never have been brought
in question.—(Hear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Rotch) who was a friend of the Coroner's, wished to take his part
he must throw the blame on the Solicitor-General, and not on
the Hon. Member for Bath. If the Hon. Member for Cam.
bridge (Mr. Pryme) had been in the House yesterday he would
have heard the clear and satisfactory statement of the Hon.
Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Godson), whose argument was
the most convincing that the conduct of the Jury and their
verdict were proper, and that it was the fault of the Coroner, in
not drawing the inquisition in a proper form; therefore it was
that the Court of King's Bench had been called on to quash
it. He (Mr. Cobbett) confessed that he did not perfectly un-
stand the subject until he heard that Hon. Member's
speech.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He wished now to ob.
serve upon what the Learned Solicitor-General said about
the people, and he regretted that that Gentleman was not pre-
sent. He had the greatest respect for that Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, because he believed him to be a humane
and just man. He had yesterday stated that the mischief of
that verdict was, that it would fill the people's minds with notions
destructive of the peace of society, that it would tend to
make the people ferocious, and make them believe that they
might, whenever they chose, kill a policeman with perfect im-
punity ; and he also said the consequences had been seen al-
ready, for he had observed it stated in the public papers, that
when the people went to attend public meetings they should
go armed with knives in their pockets—the description of
knife being what he (Mr. Cobbett) understood a stiletto
to be, and lie observed also that this was the first time
such things had been ever heard of in England.--(Hear.)
Certainly it was the first time they were ever heard of in
England, and, indeed, never till now had they heard of police
officers in Englfnd with daggers to their thighs, and pistols in
their belts.—(" No, no," from Mr. LAMB.) Perhaps not on
the present occasion, but they had certainly been armed with
pistols and swords once within the last twelve months.
—(" Not pistols," from Mr. LAMB.) He believed it was
so, although the Right Honourable Gentleman might
not have been aware of the circumstance. However, it
was something new in England to see peace-officers in uniform,
embodied in companies and battalions, marching in rank and
file, commanded by sergeants and colonels—under the mock
name of superintendents.—(A laugh.) It was once the boast
of Englishmen that we had no Bens d'armes and no mon-
chards ; get rid of the gendarmerie, and let us have peace-
officers of our own choosing, as formerly : if not, the people
must arm themselves : if not, they would not be surprised if
there was something extraordinary done by the people.
They might say that that would be destroying part of the insti-
tutions of the country, but were these policemen any part of
the Constitution of England ? Why he was a grown up and
a married man before ever the word " Police" was applied to
a body of men ; even the Attorney-General might well
recollect the time when there were a few—a very few police,
magistrates with their 3004 a year, and their few Bow-street
Runners, as they were called in those days ; but now there was
a host of magistrates, with salaries of 3001., and whole regi.
ments at their beck. Yes, whole regiments of policemen were
supported by the parishes of London—there was the parish of
Marylebone, which was taxed to the amount of 27,0001. a
year for the support of these troops, and yet they were
taken away from the parish and sent down to guard the gentry
at Epsom Races. Oh, in fact as he had often said, it was al-
together an abuse from beginning to end. He had told the
Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lamb) that he knew it was
the intention of Government to introduce the system in every
village in England, and he would now say that he was very
much mistaken if a plan of that kind was not now
before them.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The fact was, and the
intention was, that it allowed the Government to levy more
taxes than they otherwise. could do. Then, as to the illegality
of the meeting—he did not yet know that it was illegal—he
had not yet heard one single proof to convince him that the
people had not a perfect right to have met on that occasion.
These police troops had been complimented, and compli-
tmented too, as it appeared to him, in fear. He would allow
hat there was cause for terror, for in fact they were now like
the mouchards—the mouchards of Paris—half a dozen men, or
even half a dozen of the Members of that House could scarcely
stand in the street now, but one of them reared his
VHS blue body over them, peering into their faces,