Star.
London, England, 1821-05-17 00:00:00

could only have been guilty of eseeeding their juris-
diction, and saving thew country--(Hear, hear, hear).
He could not consent to put men on their trials as
criminals who had performed this signal service, in
circumstances of so much difficulty and danger. The
game argument which went to justify the populace in
yeasting an illegal attack, would also justify the Ca-
valry, regally assembled, in turning to defend, not
themselves only, but their country. It was clear that
if the Yeomanry had been guilty of any flagrant acts
of injustice, they had committed them in excess, and
aot in obedience to instructions. The Magistrates,
therefore, are exonerated from the odium of any such
acts. Still less were his Majesty's Government charge-
able with a participation in such acts, although it
was as broadly asserted that Government had noted
ritself up with the whole of the transactions, because
they had expressed an opinion on what was past,
upon the best information they could obtain. It was
said they expressed their satisfactio at the blood
which was shed. It was not for the brood which un-
fortunately had been shed that they were thanked ;
but for that blood which the Magistrates had re-
deemed them from the fatal necessity of shedding.—
The Honourable Gentleman then alluded to the letter
of Mr. Hay, written on the evening of the 16th of
August, which stood unimpeached, and which was
the authority on which the Ministers proceeded. If
Ministers had not believed the statements of this let-
ter, and acted upon them immediately, what would
have been the consequence, ar:d what would have
been the arguments against them? The reproaches
of the Gentlemen opposite reminded him of the Jester,
who once said to the Priest, " What a fool you ate to
be busying yourself in this manner, if all your tidings
turn out to be false!"—" Aye," replied the Priest,
" but what is your situation if these tidings turn out
to be true?" In the opinion of the Gentlemen oppo-
site, the Ministers should have turned to those Ma-
gistrates, and taunted them as rash, ndiscerning men;
and have resolved, because there were some dissatis-
fied men in that county which was spatedthe miseries
of great and extensive bloodshed by their seasonable
activity, to put them upon their trial. Such conduct,
indeed, might have been expected from a weak, self-
ish Administration. But it was the characteristic of
a firm set of Ministers boldly to step forward and
charge themselves with the responsibility of an act
that appeared to them, however to be lamented, to
have Leen a commendable exercise of discretion.—
The Honourable Member then- alluded to a speech
of the Honourable Baronet, addressed to a Meeting
held at Palace-yard, after the events at Manchester,
and read a passage from that speech, in which the
Honourable Baronet declared that they wanted no
inquiry, because the facts were broad and undeni-
able. Ile then referred to the attempts which were
made on the part of the alleged sufferers to procure
remedies in Courts of Law, and noticed and justified
the conduct of the Grand Jury of Lancaster.—
The Courts of Law having been open to all applica-
tions, what would have been the result if Ministers
had interposed in the first instance a Parliamentary
inquiry ?—would it not have been said that they
wanted to crush all legal redress, and to have sub-
stituted a tyrannical majority of that House, for the
Constitutional means of arguing afforded in a Court
of Law? Did the Hon. Baronet mean to impugn
the decision of the Lancaster Jury ? Did he mean
to cast odium on that tribunal, which had been re-
Tarded as the great bulwark of our liberties—the
rial by Jury—the privilege of being tried by our
friends and neighbours—those who know us • those,
in short, in the emphatic words of the law, ;le vici-
'tato? He did not see what possible advantage could
result from this motion. He considered that it was
calculated to do great injury by reviving those irri-
tations, and disturbing those-angry elements, which
were looked upon as the greatest calamities to which
the country could be subjected. For these reasons he
felt it his duty to oppose the motion—(Cheers).
Mr. HOBHOUSE was unable to recognize in the
speeches on the other side, and more especially in the
last, anything like a sympathy with the spirit of that
law which had been held up to their admiration, and
under which the country, for so long a period, was
represented to have lived so happy. He owned he
could not see anything in these speeches but an at-
tempt to excuse the infraction and gross violation of
that law. The Hon. Gentleman who last addressed
the House, recommended to their admiration the
system which was recognized by our law, that every
man had the benefit of being tried by his neighbours—
by their de vicinato. He (Mr. Hobhouse) only wished
that that Government which the Hon. Gentleman ad-
mired so much, and which, no doubt, would in time
reward his early talents, would hive followed his ad-
vice in the case of his Hon. Friend and Colleague—
that they would have given him the benefit of being
tried by his neighbours—their-de vicinato—(Hear).
The Learned Gentleman had adverted to the evi-
dence, but had not looked to the result of the trial.
The depositions were of no value, as they had not
been brought forward at the trial. The Learned
Gentleman had begged the case, as he could not
prove that the soldiers had been attacked till they
had advanced in a menacing attitude. He would
repeat, that there was no proof that the soldiers had
been assailed. What .the Member for Peterborough
(Mr. Scarlett), who conducted the prosecution could
not discover, had been -found out ly the Learned
Gentlenjan—that the Yeomanry hall been attacked
by the People. The whole of the evidence tended t*
shevrthat the Meeting was peaceable—{The Honour-
able Gentleman was proceeding to state- what had
fallen from the Chief Justice of Chester, as to a fe-
male figure being borne in the procession, when Mr.
Serjeant ONSLOW rose to Order, as it was irregular
to notice what bad taken place on a former debate.]
—The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) begged to
say that the Learned Serjeant was rather mistaken in
the ground of his interruption. He had not alluded to
what had been stated on a former debate, but to what
had taken place in theold Parliament I—(Hear, hear.)
An observation of his Honourable Colleague had been
passed over unnoticed—how it came to happen that
the Yeomanry had received the thanks of the Sove-
reign—the greatest honour that could be conferred,
next to the applause of the People !—(Hear, hear).—
It was no argument to say the Yiomanry oeEngland
were in general a body most respectable, and not
likely to commit such atrocities as those imputed to
the Yeomanry of Manchester. It was true, the Yeo-
manry did bear, and deservedly, the character given
to them by the Hon. Gentleman; but it should be
recollected under what circumstances the Manches-