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

lion. It was not an assembly of moderate Re-
formers which took place at Manchester, but le
mob who met for the purpose of prothiCing a
revolution in the country, , which :would • have
broken out in a systematic form, had it' not
been prevented. by the Magistracy ; . and, in-
stead of the blood of that day, torrents of
blood would have been shed in various parts of
the country. The Baronet had- stated that
he (Lord Londonderry) on a former day pledged
himself for the truth of all he advanced ; he
wOtild however, say, that nothing .had occurred
to lead him to believe ally facts he had stated
were incorrect. The Magistrates had to con-
template a meeting of seven or "eight thousand
men, assembled with military array ;' they were
called on as Englishmen to suppress riot, and to
be prepared with a military force ; their purpose
was to watch the. meeting, and it was not until
it a3sumed, a character of terror that they is-
sued their warrant. The House would recol-
lect that the verdict of a. Jury pronounced it
an illegal meeting, a circumstance which proved
the Magistrates were right in issuing their
warrants. Upon the face of the evidence, it
appeared that the Magistrates did, not employ
,military force until they found their warrants
could not be executed by the •civil pOwer.—
(Hear, hear, hear!)--Gentlemen on the other
side of the [louse, who exclaimed " hear," per-
haps knew the fact better than the officer on duty
at the time of the disturbance.- The blood shed
was not occasioned by the Magistrates, but by
those who excited the people to, lumult ; by
those who, under the mask of Reform, had no
Other object than rebellion. On such • persons
the charge of blood ought to fall, and not on, the
Magistrates who were performing a painful and
difficult duty, and who had the manliness to do
that duty with firmness. He would not 'con-
descend to comment on the assertion that justice
could not be obtained.---I)id they mean to say
that the Grand Jury of Man Chester had failed
to do their duty ? Did they mean to say that
it was a question of blood, and that if it was,
the misconduct 'of any Grand Jury could shut
up a case of murder from investigation and punish-
ment. It would have been better if the Hon.
Baronet had left the question of murder, suppos-
ing_ it to be such,•to the decision of a jury, for
which upon other occasions he professed to have
so much respect, than to let it lie upon The Jour-
nals of Parliament' until it suited his convenience
to hring it forward. Did the lion. Baronet mean
to say that the House of Commons wasa more compe-
tent tribunal insuch cases than aJuryof the country?
Did he, after all his attacks upon that House,which
he .did not even treat with ordinary respect,
which he took all opportunities to traduce and
vilify in other places, did he now come to that
House as the only place in the country where
justice could be obtained ?—(Hear, hear !)—lt
was an insult to their understandings to assert
that the Hon. Baronet had no other means of
proceeding than by such an application, or that
those who suffered had no other opportunity of
redress than by putting their case into the hands
of the Hon. Baronet to be dealt with at his con-
venience, and according to the new view he
had taken of the justice and competency of the
House of Commons. Would not the sufferers
have ,their • civil action against the. officers con-
cerned, and against the yeomanry, in which
the whole question might be brought under
the view of the Court ? But it had been asked
why certain individuals were not examined on
the trial of Mr. Hunt ? The reason was ob-
vious--'-because• the question before the Court
was merely whether the meeting was legally or
illegally convened. Why,he would ask again, did
they not bring their actions against the Manches-
ter Yeomanry, who had been most unjustly vili-
fied through the whole of those transactions, as
all men were sure to be who stood forward boldly
to discharge their duty to the country ? It was a
proof that they had not a foot of ground to stand
upon, when_ they (lid not dare to arpear before a
Jury. But then, it was urged, on the other hand,
that the poor people could not afford to go to tria
--that they had not the means. It appeared
however, that their case had attracted the atten

Lion of the Honourable Baronet, whose name ap-
peared at the head of a large collection for the
sufferers, amounting, he believed, to two thousand
pounds. Was .there a farthing of that money
applied to the prosecution of those who were
charged with such atrocities against them ?
lie knew it had been said, that some portion
was.texpended at Oldham, but never was there a
proceeding more unjustly instituted than that, or
more unlikely to answer the ends of justice in
any respect—it was a mode of getting up a case
to influence the public mind and mislead the
public opinion, and not.to try the merits of the
question. But how was the money applied ?
in advertising for the persons who had been
wounded. It was impossible not to feel one's
heart bleed for those who suffered, whether
through their own infatuation, or innocently, as
was often the case in tumults, but still he would
maintain, that those funds had been better em-
ployed in a country like this, where no sufferer,
where no wounded man could be left to perish,
in prosecuting the offenders, if there was a case
against them, than in advertising for wounds and
bruises, and for every thing that could exasperate
the feelings of the people, already sufficiently ex-
cited. The lion. Baronet came with the worst
possible grace before Parliament, after they had
already pronounced a solemn decision on the sub-
ject ; not that they were_ indifferent to.the suf-
ferings endured, but that they thought them bet-
ter trusted to the ordinary tribunals of the
country. There was no case laid before them
now which would justify them in changing
that opinion, with regard to transactions of so
complicated a nature, and to individuals excited
and irritated by. the transactions. An honour-
ab le and learned Gentleman hail said, on a
former night, that the question was. of so lofty
and sublimated a kind, as to be unfit for the
jurisdiction of the King's Bench ; that, the Con-
duct imputed to the Magistracy and YeoManry
constituted an offence not known to the' law,
and therefore that a Anal judgment ought to
be pronounced upon it by decision of that

_ .
House. The Honourable and Learned .Gentie,
man, hoWever) would find it difficult con-