The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-16 00:00:00

MANCHESTER MASSACRE.

Mr. HUNT stated that before he proceeded with his
motion respecting the Maachester massacre, of which he
had given Notice, he would take the liberty of present-
ing a few petitions which he held in his hand, relating
to the subject of his motion. The first petition was
from the Paisley New Town Reading Rooms, praying
for an inquiry into the conduct of the Magistrates in re-
spect of what took place at Manchester in 1819. Another
was from the inhabitants of Halifax, in the county of
York, to the same effect. Another was from the inhabi-
tants of Hull to the same effect ; and several others of a
similar nature from places in that neighbourhood.
The petitions were read and ordered to he printed.
Mr. HUNT, in bringing forward his motion, did not
think it was necessary to apologise for what he was about
to submit to the consideration of the House, notwith-
standing he felt it to be incumbent to claim the indul-
gence of Hon. Members, while he submitted the statements
of his motion to the House. He regarded it as having
been a great misfortune to the country, that at the time
the extraordinary circumstances occurred at Manchester to
which he was about to advert, no Member of the then
House of Commons was present in Manchester. He had a
personal knowledge of the whole of the transactions; and
all that had taken place in the House of Commons sub-
sequently, he could assure the House, arose from gross, infa-
mous, and false statements, sent up from the neighbourhood
of Manchester to individual Members, and to the House.
The Noble Lord on the Treasury Bench undoubtedly took
a very active part in endeavouring to get an inquiry insti-
tuted soon after the melancholy occasion, It was his
(Mr. Hunt's) misfortune to have been present in Man-
chester in the year 1819., and to have witnessed suck
a seene of horror and disgust as was never witnessed
in this country before. The statements he was about to
make he would very much confine to what hsl coin; within
his owu personal knowledge, and he would make no
statement, nor any insinuation that lie was not pre-
Pared, seen at this late hour, to prove, should tit*

House, with the consent of his Majesty's Ministers, consent
to tie appointment of a Committee to inquire into tl e
transactions. He was aware in a measure of the argu-
ments that would be raised against his motion, became
he had had a short specimen of them since he had come
into the House of Commons. It was utterly itnpossihle
to have expected that at any time while the last Go-
vernment were in office, (who had ;n point of fact sane.
tioned the proceedings), they would have consented to such
an enquiry as was now soueht. Since the formation
of the present Parliament however, and the appointment
of the present Members of his Majesty's Government,
great and sincere hopes were entertained, that Govern-
ment and the House would not resist the appointment
of this Committee. He believed his constituents never
would hare sent him into Parliament had it not beer
under a firm conviction that he would make the motion
he was now about to submit, and that from time to time
be would continue to agitate the questions session after ses-
sion, until something like an inquiry seas instituted. The
transactions he was about to advert to were so intimately
eonnected with himself, that it would be impossible fer
him to enter into the details he felt called upon to
make, and lay before the House the documents
had to submit, without mixing himself up with its de-
tails. However unpleasant and painful such &circumstance
would be to himself ; still he hoped the Hon. Secretary for
the Home Department would not, therefore, get up and
satisfy himself in saying, as he had done before,
that he (Mr. Hunt) had been making a long statement of
the history of transactions in which he himself was con-
cerned. It would be recollected that this was a question
of Reform, and that for some time previous to the year
1819, throughout England, and particularly in the north,
there was great discontent, breaking of machinery, and
severe distress among the labouring and manufacturing
classes—this more particularly in 1816, 1817, and 1818.
It would be recollected that at that time extreme distress
prevailed, and the people were led to believe their sufferings
were brought on them by the farmers, butchers, bakers, and
others who supplied the necessities of life at enormous
prices. The inhabitants of Spitalhelds suffered great dis-
tress, all of which was attributed by the Press to
the high price of provisions. At that period a meeting
was called in Spafields to petition the House of Commons
for relief by means of a Reform in Parliament, at which
meeting he presided. An address to his Royal Highness
the Prince Regent was agreed upon, stating the extreme
distress which prevailed in Spital-fields, which they at•
tributed to the want of Reform in Parliament. The
day after that address was presented, the Regent sent an
order for 10001. to the silk-weaver's committee in
Spitalfielde. A very short time afterwards, a large
meeting was held in Smithfield, at which he was
also called on to preside. And a similar resolu-
tion was there agreed to to that which had lately been
proposed at the Birmiegham Meeting, namely, that unless
the people obtained redress by a repeal of the Corn Laws,
and a Reform in Parliament, they would not voluntarily
pay any taxes. A few weeks afterwards he was
invited to attend a large public meeting to be
held on the 9th of August, 1819. He should, however,
state that immediately previous to that date, there had
been a large meeting at Birmingham, at which they had
elected a legislatorial attorney, Sir Charles Wolseley.
and intended to send him to that House to represent
Birmingham.—(Hear.) He should state also, that at
Spa-fields it was proposeil to sleet a legislatorial attorney
to represent the Metropolis. But he resisted it, thinking
be might be the person elected, and if so, he should cer-
tainly have come to the door of that House, when he
most probably would have got, what he did afterwards
get, for his audacity. However, the meeting at
Manchester was called for the 9th day of August, for
the purpose of taking into consideration the necessity of
Radical Reform, and the propriety of the unrepresented
inhabitants of . Manchester electing a legislatorial
attorney to represent them in Parliament. He then
wrote to Manchester declining to take the chair,
if any such person were to be elected. The
Magistrates put forth a placard, cautioning all persons
against attending that meeting. He set off towards Man-
chester, and was met on the road by a deputation of
gentlemen, who told him they had taken Counsel's
opinion, and found it was illegal to elect a
Legislatorial • attorney, and that they had issued
placards, stating, that the meeting was post-
poned. Adding, however, that a requisition would be irn •
medietely prepared to calla meeting for the 16th August. A
requisition was prepared, calling a meeting for that day.
When he had got to Manchester he found the public mind
in a state of great irritation, in consequence of the
meeting being put off, and having business requiring
his attention elsewhere, be proposed to return home,
when he was surrounded by men of property and influence
in Manchester, requesting him to remain there for a week, to
superintend the public meeeting to be held on the following
Monday. He yielded to that request with great reluctance
being aware that if the Magistrates who had put down
one meeting attempted to put down the other, it might he
attended with most serious consequences. During the week
he remained in Manchester the then Government thought
proper to send down one Mr. Oliver.—(Laughter.)—
No doubt, with the intention of preserving the peace
of the country, but instead of doing so, he got ac-
quainted with several of the most violent men in
that part of the country and travelled to the
surrounding districts, exciting the people to commit
acts of violence. In confirmation of this, he (Mr. lent)
day alter day, received communications that these spies
were getting the people to commit acts of violence.
In this state of things common prudence suggested to him
the awkward situation in which he was placed, as
he, as Chairman of the Meeting, if any acts
of violence were committed, must be accountable,
(Hear, hear.) He therefore wrote a public letter, urging
the people who intended to attend that meeting to come
there in the most peaceful manner, and cautioning them
against any thing that had been said to them by Government
spies. When the Saturday previous to the meeting arrived,
some of the very gentlemen who had urged him to remain
in Manchester, cone to kim and stated that they had been
given to understand that it certainly was the intention
of the Magistrates to pot a stop to the meeting,
and to issue a warrant against him (Mr. Hunt).
Being determined to know whether this report
was true or not, he immediately went to the New Bailey
at Manchester, where the Magistrates were sitting in con-
clave, and desired to know from them whether the ru-
mours were true ? It was immediately stated to him
that the whole report was a falsehood, and that no warrant
whatever was intended to he issued against him.
The Monday arrived—a very large body of persons
from all parts of the country, to the amount of about
140,000 or 130,000 attended the meeting. They came
in the most peaceable manner, and, as he (Mr. Hunt)
firmly believed, with the sincere intention of doing
their duty towards their country, and for the purpose of
obtaining a Reform in the Commons House of Parliament.
The Honourable Member then proceeded to detail the
circumstances of the meeting, which he affirmed was
perfectly peaceable, when a yeomanry force rode through
the unarmed and unoffending multitude, and cut them
down right and left with their sabres, which he should be
able to prove had been ground and sharpened within th
week, Amongst other instances of the excesses committed
by the yeomanry, he stated that about thirty or forty per-
sona, men, women, and children, having fled for refuge
into a court, from which there was but one egress, two
yeomen stationed themselves at that point, and compelled
the poor people to come out, the one holding in his hand a
pistol, with which he threatened to blow their brains out
if they did not obey, and the other with his drawn
sword, cutting at every one of them as they passed out.
There were fourteen persons killed on that day, and
424 wounded, of whom one hundred and eight were
females. (Hear.) The Honourable Member produced frorn
his waistcoat pocket, and exhibited to the House, a piece
of bone, which had been completely cut out from a man's
forehead by a sabre stroke. He also mentioned that one
young woman, who was rode over, fell down a hill in
such a position that her person was exposed, and a yeo-
man, whose attention was called to the circumstance by
some persons who had witnessed it from a window, went
to her, and, instead of rendering her any assistance, cut
her across both thighs to the hone. And vet into all the
dreadful events that happened on that day, there had as
yet been no inquiry. The recollections of that bloody ( ay
were rankling in the hearts of thousands, and they would
continue to fester there until an investigation was insti-
toted by the House of Commons into the atrocities which
were committed. The Hon. Member then referred to the
evidence which was called in vindication of the conduct of
the yeomanry, and alluded partieu!arly to that oft as
(Mr. Hulton), who was repreaentpd to have stand that
the multitude were armed with sticks as later,
as muskets, though, added the Hon. Member, las

that time male were correct,—namely, that the House
of Commons did not represent the people, but only a
corrupt portion of placeholders and boreughniongere. He
repeated that, if he had been vindictive, Le had alieady
witnessed enough of the diecomfirure of his adversaries,
to sate even the keenest appe•ite of rsvenee. Who was
the Prime Minister of that day? Lord Liv-t reed—where
was he? Who were the twoSeeretaries cf S.ate ? Mr.
Canning and Lord Castlereagh—where were they ? Mr,
Canning had fallen a victim to the fictions art icks of the
very party which at that time he supported with ell the
power of his versatile talents ; and on the morning of the
anniversary of the 16th of August, two years, afterwards,
the first thing that greeted h.s eyes in his cell at Letiestee
on reading the papers, was the intelligence that Lord
Castlereagh had committed suicide. Kink George IV.—he
who had thanked the Magistrates with such breathleee
haste—where now was he ?---(A slight laugh.) Where,
too, were the yeomanry ? Two of them had committed
suicide on the anniversary of the day on which trey hail
been guilty of these cold-blooded murders. Thee, though
the House of Commons had refused to do justice be-
tween the people and their oppreosors on this melan-
choly occasion, the hand of Providence had already in-
flicted justice, where justice was due. Old as he was,
he yet trusted to live to see the day in which that tidesil
personage would he brought to justice who had sent a
Castles, an Edwards, and an Oliver, into the country to
instigate the people to acts of violence, in order to throw
discredit upon Reform. He had lived to see the members
of that Government which had gone to war with Fiance
to stifle the cause of Reform, compelled to sit night after
night in weak and ineffectual struggles against the pros
e.erres of a measure which in itself was nothing but the
commencement of Reform. He might even now say, " the
Lord's will he done; I have lived long enough, fur 1
have lived to see the boroughtuongere brought upon their
knees before the people whom they have so bag insulted;"
but he trusted to live still longer, and if he did live a few
years more, he should live to see justice inflicted on all who
committed and abetted the murder at Manchester. in vain
had that arrogant and insolent party sent Reformer after
Reformer to prison—in vain had they gagged the Press by
acts as alien to the practice as novel to the theory of the
British Constitution—in vain bad they passed Bills to
prevent public meetings, and to put down the right of petis
tious ; for in spite of the menaces of the law, and the
terrors of the dungeon, the cause of Reform hail proved
a giant too powerful for them to cope with. Traces of
their defeat were visible in all parts of the country. If
the people did not now display that toad feeling heir Re-
form which they had displayed souse months ago, it must.
not be supposed that they were on that account indifferent
either to its progress or its success. They were now
silent, and sullen, and suffering ; but if they had not a re-
form—ay, and a better reform than that which the .Noble
Lord was now offering to them,—England would ere lung
be one of the worst places for any lover of peace and com-
fort to live in. After some further observations to the
same effect, the Hon. Member proceeded to express, his
hopes that Ministers would not oppose this inquiry. He
hoped that they would grant the prayer of the petition
which he had that night presented. If they refused it, he
should feel it to be his duty, if he Lad a seat in the Re-
formed Parliament, to bring this question annually oefore
it, until he obtained the Committee of Inquiry for which he
was now going to move. His motion was, " that a Select
Committee be appointed to inquire into the military execution
infl cted on a peaceable and unarmed multitude assembled
at Manchester on the 16th of August, 1819, to petition
for Parliamentary Reform." On this question be stood
by himself ; he had not communicated his reeolutiou to
any member, and he did not know whether any Member
would second it. He, therefore, called upon the Chane
cellor of the Exchequer to second his motion. That
Noble Lord had distinguished himself at the time by the
zeal with which he demanded inquiry. If inquiry wets.
necessary in 1819, it was not less necessary now ; for, if
he understood any thing of the laws of England, no lap e
of years could extinguish the crime of murder. He
charged the parties in this else with the commission t f
deliberate and cold-blooded murd-r. It was nothing less,
and he would not employ a milder term to convey his opi-
nion of the crime which was then committed. The Hon.
Member, after apologizing to the House for the length of
time which he had intruded himself upon its notice, con-
cluded by formally moving his resolution.
_ _

li
rlaltkor
in
er,,n,
the
een‘h‘rn*
maild,:ltetrh xb.ecailidrpeaUdt ME seconded the motion. He recollected the
feengs of
rohuefeessemetnivootesnnt. t
Memberslen oenf. t
;tst ae
in,
oeldf6
hhrtheha
edroef
cG:Ae)
01
recently
Govern-
ment egcnrtutenisd;
h
htr ihneeehd
splt
heard from them that their feelings were not altered, and
that their refusal to grant a Parliamentary inquiry into
the matter was founded on motives of policy, he must con-
fess he did not coincide in their notions of policy, tor be
was yet to learn that the guilt of murder was expiable
from the circumstance that years had elapsed since it was
incurred. He could not, from any personal knowledge,
say any thing as to the correctness of the statement of facts
by the Hon. Member for Preston ; but, if this were a case
in which there had been gross injustice and vvanten
cruelty inflicted upon the King's peaceable subjects—in
which, too, many bad been wounded and 15 killed in cold
blood—how could the House answer it to themselves tt
ti) their constituents that a motion like this, even at this
late period, should be successfully resisted, arid all inquiry
refused? It was true, as the Hon. Member for Preston
had said, that, as he himself had been tried fur the shame
he had then taken in the Manchester affair, they who tried,
or caused him to be tried, should also be put upon their
trial upon the charges brought against them of having
wantonly taken away the lives of several of his Majeaty-e
subjects by the interposition of the military. He
had felt equal indignation with the Hon. INl.mber for
Preston against that base character, Oliver, and had done
all in his power to bring him to justice. He had gone
even so far as to assist in seizing him, and personally hit:d-
ing him over to the Plome.office; but Lord Siduiuth,
who was at the bead of it, he was sorry to say, permitted
him to escape, and be was never heard of after, except as
a pensioner of Government in one of the colonies. In every
other country he had visited, this transaction had been
spoken of with indignation proportionate to the reandalotie
and shameful misconduct of the Ministry of that day. He
hoped the motion would be successful, herons:: it would
put the fact on record that the House of Commons of Eng-
land would never, although late the inquiry might be in.
stituted, allow such misconduct on the part of even the
highest and most confidential Minister of the Crown to
pass uncensured, or at least unexamined. It was fit that.
Minister should be put on hie guard, and told, as he would
be wets this inquiry granted, that however he might.
abuse his authority whilst in office, by the olipte,.,„i„,
the Rink's subjects, or sacrificing by military force the
lives of defenceless men, rather than allow them peaceably
to meet on their grievances, with t view to address the
the King or the House of Parliament, the day wool i
arrive, when stripped of his brief authority, he would
be brought before the bar of his country, and caned
to a strict account for his excesses of authority, and
every art of injustice committed under colour of his
office. It was the bounden duty of all Governinentet
to attend to alleged cases of grievance on the part of
Close committed to their care, instead of obstructing
the subjects of the realm in the of a high
constitutional privilege of Euglislimen.—c Hear.) He
Loped, if the motion Were unferunate t 5 ntlht, that the
House would hear of it, year after year, mini sons Go-
vernment should be Nits! which` Vutild rtfitlCsiraleit
in-
ililiry felt wss in lcrtelly cttilc 1e for.
have pref.ricd thoositre; itnette-r tin*C.of
hanging on this itiOtton, as almost day ether would have

hien more convinEnt to the House, occupied ea ic *al on
roost important subjects; but, as the non. Member had
brotrzht on 'he subject, he ebnuid have his support in it;
and he trusted l:c would I ave the support of his Mi,esty's
Government also, most of whom had, vlin in opposi-
tion, expressed themselves in 30 praiseworthy a manner
on the subject, that it was quite inconsistent to imazine
they would, now they had the power, refuse to grant that
inquiry they had severally so energetically' called for in
vain at the time.

Mr. GEORGE LAMB thvoght that as the Hon.
Member birncelf had admitted that so rn toy of the poiiri-

cal actors in this unfortunate affair had gone to their ac-
count, and removed from this mortal stage.) it ivas a case
which rather called for the exercise eh one of the higher
feelings of Christianity—forgisseness of injuries—than fur
the gratification of a spirit anxious for vengeance. There
was no doubt that the Courts of Law were open to the
petitioners, if they could substantia'e the statement now
made to the House ; and in those Courts it was certain
that the question would he more easily sifted to the bottom,
and more satisfactorily decided than it would be by any
Committee of that House. I❑ rising to resist the motion
for an inquiry, which on a former eecgsion he had
supported, he must say he did so because he felt
that an inquiry, which was then desirable, would
now be inconvenient, and Fol. the most part fruitless, end
without aim or ithject. Nor, from the tone of the Hon.
Member, and his pronouncing this to be t case of wanton
oppression and cold-blooded murder on the part of the
troops engaged, ;cis it at ail probable that the alleged ohiect
the Hon. Member had in view would be ausweredsiss
namely, that the Committee should proceed to etamine
into this ease calmly and impartially, If the House
granted the motion of the Hen. Member, then, the terms
of that motion, which was not less than the appointment
..f a Select Committee to inquire into the military execu-
tion indicted upon the peaceable and unarmed multitude
assemlied at Manchester to petition fur Re!otin in Par:ia•
must, un the 16th of August, 1919, decided the question
at once as to the conduct of the multitude being pesceat.le,
and the guilt of the military and the Nlagistraty. if the
nouse telt the propriety of sanctioning so sweeping a
motion as this, what bad they is do but to summon the
parties before them, and apportion the punishment due to
the offences which the House by the motion svainned they
had committed.—(Hear.) The language of the motion, it
should be remarked, was in dirisot contradiction to two
verdicts relative to this affair given at the time; and the
lion. Member himself would recollect that all the evidence
which had been rejected at the examinstion at Manchester
was ruled to he admissible in the case of Radford and
Tlirley, tried afterwards at Lancaster, and yet the accused
was acquitted? How then could the House now in.

tetfere? lie certainly had never ceased to regre
that an inquiry had not been granted at the time
though he must say that, in the present state of the
I. ountry, he theught it wotild not be the precise time when
any question pregnant with so much fruitteee excitement
ebould be brought on by a discreet adeotsate of the people
in that House. An inquiry at the time would have been
desirahle in another point of view, as it would, to tete the
lion. Member's own phrase, have prevented the tipping up
of old grievances, and have afforded no opportunity to the
Hon. Member, or any other person in that House, to at-
tempt, by vehement invectives to arouse feelings which he
had hoped bad been put to sleep by the softening hand of
time. He should oppose the motion, especially because it
was a motion which went to prejnilge the case to be con-
sidered in the Committee; because it was a motion in con-
tradiction to two verdicts of Juries at the time ; and
lastly, because 'it left no option to the House, if they
agreed to it, but the bare duty of calling these pirties to
is bar, and meting out punishment to the effenders. He
felt it was altogether inexpedient, upon an all; gatio❑ that
violent animosities existed at the time, which rendered the
attainment of justice difficult, that the case should be again
opened to Patliament, when the Common LAP, Courts
were still open to all parties aegrieved, and AV I en, from the
length of time which had transpired, it was not probable
'bat the Grand Jury shonld be effected by any personal
or improper motives, if any such ever existed in that
quarter, in deciding upon an indictment presented to them
by parties so aggrieved. He felt, therefore, under these
circumstances, that he had a duty enforced on him, which
was to meet the motion by moving the previous question.
ihe pi evious question being put from the Chair,
Lord MILTON said he cou►d have wished that, under
the circumstances, the Christian duty of forgiveness cf in-
urries bed not escaped the attention of the petitioners.
more especially as personal feelings of resentment had had
so many years to cool and subside. He did not mean to
say the Hon. Member for Preston could well avoid doing
what he had done ; nor could he charge the petitioners
Tent, any extraordinary inconsistency, in these coming,
though so late, to that House, to inquire into grievances of
so serious a kind. It was too much to task human nature
so severely, and attempt to stifle the voice of complaint.
Though he regretted the agitation of the subject now, he
certainly should support the motion of the Hon. Member
for Preston.
Sir JOHN BYNG deprecated the use of the term
murder, which had occurred in the speech of the Hon-
Member, as applicable to the military, which were under
his command, as commanding officer of the district. He
bad been sent for, and arrived the night after the affair at
Manchester, and though he sought and obtained the most
authentic information on the spot and at the time, he
found no reason afterwards to be dissatisfied with the re-
sults of the inquiries instituted at Manchester, or those
instituted abeut a year after, or again in the year 1822.
For these reasons he should support the arnennment of his
Hon. Friend.
Mr. STRICKLAND, in a strain of high compliment,
alluded to the patriotic and praiseworthy conduct of the
venerable father of the Noble Lord (Lord Milton), who
took so energetic a part on the memorable occasion alluded
e, Though twelve years had elapsed, and, front ;he cir-
cumstance of many of the parties connected with this
transaction having gone to their list account, little could
be ; xpected to flow as a result from the motion being
granted, but the tendency of the inquiry being to jet the
history of that period right, he should support the motion.
Lord ALTHORP, in reply to the invitation given him
to second the motion by the Henourable Mover• observed,
that, he was far from convinced by the statement, that he
should even support the motion for an inquiry, of which
he did not see the practical utility. It was said, in no
very measured language, that no time could blot out the
recollection of such crimes as those charged against the
parties concerned in this melancholy transaction. Yet, he
would answer, that if any outrage or any murder could be
substantiated against parties concerned, there were the
laws of the country open to the petitioners who were in-
terested in avenging those crimes. It was not the prac-
tice of that House to inquire info cases of individual
offence. Its duty was rarely ever to interfere except in
cues of political crime, which operated as a bar to justice.
It was true he had taken a decided part at the time these
transactions took place, in order to bring about an inquiry
into the whole of that melancholy transaction. But why
bad he, and others who acted with him, done so? not so
much to bring the offinders to justice, but to examine on
what grounds the Government at that day had presumed
to notice publicly the conauct of the magistracy and the
troops engaged, and award tbew, before investigation, the
sanction of the thanks of :Lis Majesty's Government.
That was the• ground, and the principal ground of his
anxiety for an immediate inquiry then, because he consi-
dered the Ministers by this conduct were, in fact, partici-
pators in the crime. .
Sir HENRY HARDINGE remonstrated against the
rc of language so improper—it was assuming that a crime
had been committed, which all inquiries as yet went to
disprove.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER regretted
he should have fallen into the error complained of by the
Hon. and Gallant Officer. Ile ought not in fairness to have
inferred the fact, and he was glad the Hon. and Gallant
4)fficer had interrupted him, so as to afford bite an oppor-
tunity to explain himself. He should haste said that he
end his fiends thought Government by its instant approval
had intended to throw ever the parties the shield of its
protection. He remarked that since then inquiries at
Manchester and on the two trials had very materially
affected the features of the case. They were riot called en
by the practice of Parliament to interfere in cases which'
were cognizable, and could he reached and redressed by
Courts of Common Law. II re, he presumed, no politically
food result would follow from granting the motion now.
Court! of Law had decided, and there was, happily, no ne-
cessity fur them to try individuals concerned in these
transactions. Finally, be should support the amendment,
because he was net disposed to agree with the Hon. Mem•
her, that the inquiry he demanded would satisfy the feeling
of those whose relatives were either hurt or killed on that
occasion.

Sir HENRY FIARDINGE said that, as allu,,ion had
been made to an individual whom he was proud to call his
friend, he must say that if his Majesty's Government
meant to stifle inquiry because Lord Castlereagh, to whom
be supposed allusi“n had been made, had gone to his ac-
count, he, as a friend of Lord Castlereagh, begged it
aiight take phee. It was impossible that Lord Castlereagh,
being a Minister of Foreign Affairs, should have partici-
pated in any crime connected with this transaction. He
a_3 .0 thve.if,this inquiry was to be stopped merely on
t igatitl•Nohle Friend of his,—viz., bird Cas-
t, • 7 o his account, he was the last man
ip tWA. • • 041, Ai
•, •-• v '\t Id consent, and if his Majesty's

~~~`~~-
~~ z,-~ ~

Guvernment put it o❑ that.footing be abould feel bound to

vote for the lion. Member for Prelton.

Mr. CHARLES LAMB certerhly did not mean at all
to put it on that groom!, 'ciecause the most responsible in-
dividual wet -still alive. He most decidedly declared his
intentl'On never to put it at all on that ground.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE had so often read the most
nnwnrthy, illiberal, disgraceful attacks npon tood Castle-
reagh, that it could not lea a matter o surprise if his
friendship inducsol !lino to desire an opportunity of meeting
the sharp.
Dr, LCSHINGTON said that, according to all an
established maxims of the laws investlg ition might take
place after a lapse of yeera. ate wished it to be ascer-
tained, as a wartalng to future generations, whether or no
spies wore employed by the Gov. rnment—whether these
spies did not instigate the people to acts of insubordina-
tion or not, and whether it could be pros-ed by evidence
before the Committee that the•teahsaction lola been caused
by them ; not that punishment might fall upon any man
now living, but that this House might assert the doctrine
that the employment of spies was a practice 'at be abhorred
by every Englishman. That spies might be faithful to
the Government tn betray the people, but, as a necessary
concomitant of the fulfilment of that duty, they had ever
been found most foremost to encourage the men whom they
considired it a merit to denounce, and for denouncing
whom they procured their great raward. It was to pre-
vent the recurrence of 'this detestable practice, and that
Englisionett Might have a beacon to guide them, that he
should support this motion. If this nnitiain were defeated,
aa the last act of an unrefoomed Parliament, it would
conic again en aoethe: day when the people were properly
representael, and then the House would have to enter into
tte investigation with further and greater difficulties in
ascertaining the truth. It was not to punish A. B. or
C. D. that Hon. Members would go into this Committee.
They w ould go into the Committee to sae whether spies
were employed, and whether the military or yeomanry
had conducted themselves with due foresight or not. If
at a political meeting three or four lives were lost, and
1.300 persons wounded, it was the bounden duty of the
Hug re to institute an inquiry into the transaction, to in-
vestigate all the circumstances, and then, if they conceived
the authorities had conducted themselves with forbear-
ance, to give them that praise which they had justly
earned ; or, it they had neglected their duty, to award
them that degree of punishment which would he suited to
their offence.
Sir R. PEEL could not avoid expressing his opinion on
the question, after the language which he had just heard
from the Learned Gentleman opposite. He hoped that
he should never be found to shrink front the statement of
those opinions, however unpopular they might he, if be
found them essential to the administration of justice and
the right constitution of society. He protested, therefore,
against, the doctrines of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Ilehester (Dr. Lushington). That Hon. and Learned
Member said, that the House was bound at all times, and
tinder all circumstances, to institute an inquiry into any
enforcement of the laws in which blood was shed and lives
lost—no matter what period of time might have
elapsed...--(Hear.) Now he ready did not comprehend
how the Learned Gentlem-.n could defend his consistency
inthis instance. Why had the Learned Gentleman, according
to his own principle, allowed the cases of Merthyr-Tydvil
and Knocktopher to pass by without Parliamentary M-
r-pity ?—(Cheers.) And on what principle could he, as
a Member, justify his conduct in having abstained from
bringing these cases mailer the notice of the House?—
(Cheers.) Did the Learned Gentleman, himself a Judge,
mean to contend gravely before that House, that the force
of the laws, and the decision of the ordinary tribunals,
were, after a lapse of thirteen years, to he suspended or
superseded by the commencement of inquiries in that
House ?—(Hear.) He (Sir R. Peel) was unconnected with
Government; but he felt, he hoped justly, on the subject
of the course which, in such a case, should be pursued by
any Government, and I.e would tell the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman (Luahington) that there was no vindication of
his feelings in language such as he had used, when he had
abstained from insisting on an inquiry into the eases he (Sir
R. Peel) had mentioned. The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man bad observed that the employment of spies and in-
former. was in no case justifiable, and that the Govern-
ment which made use of them should be held up to public
execration. He (Sir Robert Peel) agreed with the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman in a portion of his opinion,
for lie was ready to admit, that if any Government,
to attain any object, selected persons to entrap those who
were afterwards to be signalled out for the vengeance of
that Government, no punishment, nor no public execra-
tiou would he too much for them; but to say that on no
occasion, nor under no circumstances, the Government
were to avail themselves of the information which spies
and informers were•found willing to offer, would be tiG
abandonment of the duties required by their station; which
he certainly was not prepared to sanction.—(Hear, hear.)
To put a case but too famili ir to every one—would the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in the times of the conspi-
racy of Thistlewood anti his associates, have rejected the
evidence which some of his associates tendered to the Go-
vernment ?—(Hear.) Although not in office, or connected
with those in office, he would not join in the clamour
which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman—a staunch sup-
porter of the Government—was disposed to raise against it
on this occasion. " But," said the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman (Lushington), " if the House did
not now consent to the motion of the Honourable
Member for Preston, the very first act of a Reformed
Parliament will be to institute an inquiry into these

transactions." He (Sir R. Peel) wanted no arguments
;,gainst the meditated Reforms of that House—(llear)
hut if, according to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the
crowning act of the wisdom and justice of a Reformed
Parliament would be, to institute inquiries into an affair of
this hind, after a lapse of fifteen years, and when the grave
bad dosed over many of those who were parties to it, then
he would say, that no stronger argument could be adduced
against Reform.—(Hear, hear.) Atter observing, that he
believed the Secretary of State of that day, and his esti-
mable friend, Mr. Hobhouse, the Under Secretary. abstained
as religiously as any men could, from the employment of
either spies or informers, the Right Hon. Baronet proceeded
to say, that he opposed the motion of the Member for Preston
on many grounds ; but he opposed its principle, because
he did not think the Magistrates and the Authorities ac-
cused of misconduct, were open to tl e censure bestowed
on them—(Cheers)—and he would add. moreover, that if
the same motio❑ had been made a month after the affair
took place, lie would have opposed it on grounds precisely
similar. —(Cheers.) Surely the question had been suffi-
ciently sifted before the ordinary tribunals.—(" Hear I."
from Mr. Hunt.) The Hon. Member for Preston cried
" Hear !" That Hon. Member had himself been tried for
a participation in the transactions of the day; and, ufter a
patient and laborious investigation, found guilty, and sen-
tenced to imprisonment by an impartial Judge, Mr. Jus-
tice Bayley. But that was not the only trial on the sub-
ject. A person named Redford brought an action to re-
cover damages for injuries sustained on that ocaaaiou, and,
after a trial of five days, the Jury decided against him.—
His Couusel (Mr. Evans) thereupon demanded a new
trial ; and, after an argument l efore the Judges of the
King's Bench, they unanimously over-ruled the whole of
the objections, and refused a new trial. Lord Chief
Justice Abbott, in pronouncing his judgment, need
the remarkable words, that it appeared to him the Ma-
gistrates had on that occasion acted legally, justi-
fiably, and tightly, and with a promptitude which en-
titled them to the gratitude of the country.—(Hear.)
The other judges concurred, in nearly similar language.
It could not, therefore, be said trfat the question had not
been fully inquired into; and the plain question now was
—whkber the House would consent to do that which
the Member for Preston thought deairable and the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman considered just—namely, to
agrie to an inquiry which would supersede the adminis-
tration of the criminal justice of England. For his part,
after the opinions of the Judges expressed on the question,
he would not, for the sake of any popular feeling, be
guilty of any thing so shabby and disgraceful as to aban-
don those whose conduct had been pronounced free from
blame; and Le should therefore at once join in meeting
the motion with a direct negative, on the plain merits of
the question. (Hear, hear.) If they were to adopt any
other course, the consequence would be, that mer, in
troublesome times, wonld be wanting in the necessary
energy for the just performance of their duties ; and he on
that ground, as well as others, should at once give his
vote against going into a Committee. (Hear, hear !)
Mr. P. HOWARD expressed his determination to vat'
with Ministers on this question, because he was satisfied
that an inquiry would not now forward the ends of justice.
4r. GILLON thought the conduct of the yeomanry, in
the affair of 1819, had been so unconstitutional, that it
'should be inquired into, in order to forward the ends c f
justice.
Colonel SIBTHORP contended that the conduct of the
yeotnanry had been perfectly constitutional. He was en
service at Huddersfield' at the time, and every one who
Witnessed the discretion with which the yeomanry con-
ducted themselves was ready to bear witness to it.
Mr. PETRE, as one of those who at the time peti-
tioned for inquiry, felt it necessary to say, that much as
he wished for it then, he did not think it could now be
prosecuted with advantage.
Mr. HEYWOOD was ronvineed that no good could
dow from inquiry.
Mi. M. O'CONNELL contended for inquiry, although
he did not think that the punishment of the guilty should