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

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 77,-
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 only a few daYs 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:measure .proposed loy the lion. Ba•
wllen it Was proposed and
ronet, than. there was.
rejected, in the last Parliament. It appeared
meetingtlibns a rl.d. S
in,
mbuotitnal.ryirinardrsayo.f
from- the evidence
,thaf . not only hundreils and
men
1 Niv marchedas
ilot
~fut:, cl:!;5
had been ass .Fu that a charge w-.. 1 thade 11
the cav?o,l7 upon- the defenceless people, but the
nlP..asure resorted to was merel
that y a repetition of
which hAI. been StCcessfully taken at the
meeting in
„London, namely, the arrest of 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 that _sticks were thrown, but
not
till after. the attack of the cavalry.
also admitted that 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 the.
basis of his ,arguments, co?' he conceived it te.