Star.
London, England, 1819-11-25 00:00:00

night the illegality of the Matot-IMlPT:Meeting bad-
bEen tdmitthd by situ Gentlemen opposite but the
inter:l4l''Nutof's:night hid mate them limit the general
asseitibn. ''Nut he had thought, that the able and
elotpfetn. t of the Right Housitable Gentleman
opposite had removed all doubts on that head. That
speechtiad been termed special pleading. though
nothing'could be further removed from the descrip-
tion of special pleading, than such a speech. A few
days before the Meeting at Manchester, a letter had
heenient limit Coventry by Hunt, stating the neces-
sitr of making a demonstration of physical force. It
had been proposed, in the first instance, that a Re.
Presentative for Manchester should be returned to
Parliament, in imitation of what had taken place at
Birmingham. 'The idea had, however, been after-
wards abandoned--(Hear, hear, the Opposi-
tion)—Many thousands had marchedl Manchester
in military movement, with Hunt at their head. One
of the banners had a bloody dagger, and another
" Equal Representation or Death.' The conduct of
the Magistrates had not only been legal, but com-
mendable, as facts had proved the Meeting to be
illegal. If the Magistrates had acted wrong, they
were liable to an information, and the result of any
inquiry at the Bar of the House, would be to send
the parties to the ordinary tribunals. Had the Ma-
gistrates been guilty, the Bills preferred by Hunt
would have been found. It had been asserted by an
Honourable Gentleman, that the Houie did not pos-
sess the confidence of the People, and yet he wished
that the House should. take cognizance of the case.
Mr. PHILLIPS contended that his Honourable.
Friend had not even discussed the question, whether.
the Meeting of the 16th of August Warlegal or ille-
gal ? But supposing it to have been illegal, there still
was a great difference between that and being riotous.'
He was aware of the situation of the County of Lan-
caster, and of the faits preceding that .Meeting,
which had created alarm: It was therefore the morn
necessary that the Magistrates should proceed in their
interference in a manner calculated to command the
approbation of all reasonable menu—(Hear, hear).—
He had hitherto carefully avoided every thing that
could unfairly bias his opinion on the subject, but he
must own that there appeared to be such a difference
between 'the statement of facts, as, itt his opinion,
rendered an inquiry necessary.
Thi SOLICITOR-GENERAL then rose, and be-
gan by, saying, that from what he had already heard,l
lie was more than ever convinced of the inconve-
niency of trying this question before the House—
(Cries of Hear).—'l"here was at this moment an
inquiry on foot -before a Coroner—(Hear, hear)--
which might affect the lives of several individuals
against whom the charge had been laid—(Hear, hear).
It was yet in a certain stage—(Hear, hear)—one
side had been already heard, but the other only par-
tially, in consequence of the unjustifiable proceedings'
taken to 'interrupt the course of justice—(Loud cries
of Hear, hear).—Yet, whilst this grave charge wasl
pending, an Honourable Member had thought fit fa
call the attention of the House to an inquiry into a
part of the evidence, accompanied with most inflam-
matory observations—(Hear, hear)—so to interrupt
the course of Justice, and commit the greatest breach
of it, that *e'er ytt was-attempted in any Court—
(Hear, hear).—Allusion, he added, had last night-
been made to the Meeting at Manchester) upon which
nothing was heard -for the lasCtbree months, but that
it was perfectly peaceable, and that the Magistrates
were unwarranted in dispersing it. The Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman who opened the debate, if he
understood him rightly, avoided the question of its
loyalty, and did not earit was loyal.
Mr. TIERNEY distinctly doled having ever said
the Meeting was illegal.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL could not be posi-
tive to the words spoken, for be argued more from
the impression made on his mind at themoment, and
the tontext of the Right Honourable Gentleman's
other observations, that he himself (Mr. Tierney-) was
internally convinced, it was not legal—(Heer).—
His successor in the debate, he observed,-did•not ven-
ture to say the Meeting was legal, but an Honourable
dud Learned Friend of his (Mr. Scarlett) who fol-
lowed after, wad' less guarded, for he admitted its
illegality in the plainest terms.
Mr. SCARLETT rose en the instant, to explain,
amid cries of " Cteir, chair." He appealed to the
Chair, if it was candid or Parliamentary to make
use of what fell from him involuntarily, but which
he explained away, as hetrustell, satisfactorily, last
sigilt—( Hear, hear). He subnsitted-, that when thus
directly misrepresented, it, was a duty is him to.
explain. • • • .
Mr. BA/ORES rose to Order. He observed, that it
was not competent to a Member to interfere when
another was speaking, but he was et liberty to explain
afterwards.
The SPEAKER said, that by the usages of the
Hove; when any thing which fell-from one Member
Was tssiiinterpreted or inisioldersfetsdby another, an
eitillitteation was given at the instant, to save time,
and oftn"vacionsly and thankfully received by the
Memberrn eieseessioa. Bat he could Claim no right
to interrupt the Member speaking, and could only
explain when the alter Honourable Member had dime
speaking. •
The SOLICITOR -GENERAL resuming said,
'that if his'•Learned Friend had only waited a. few
moments, he *bald have'explained the grounds -upon
whith -he made use of the words drat fell from him.
The opinion' e'en by his Honourable and Learned
Friend was upon the promises of the facts stated by
the Noble Lord (Castlereagh) on his right, being
true. In truth, the Noble 'Lord had stated no facts'
at all, except what took place after the Meeting,
which could not of Course affect the question of its
legality, and therefore his Learned Friend in' the
honest candour of his heart, was obliged to pro-,
naunce upon it—(Hear, hear). He proceeded to ob-
serve, that there existed nothing to warrant the
charge that the Legal Advisers of the Crown had re-
tottonended to stifle inquiry. The principles of the
'Refbtmets, as they were called, were, Annual Par-
%dine* Election by Ballot, and Uniierral Suffrage;
or, in ether words, the overthrow of the Constitn-
tien—(lleae; steer)—and their, language was; that the
fate of Charles and James awaited the
of' the kingdom. Hunt, who had no
Manchester, had been sent for to
Meetih.g, Who 'on the 25th of Jolly
'at a similar Meeting at' Smithfield,
load' asittted,• that the Acts of

1800 were not binding on the country

, 4
ret6 ..
the hiatie' sal Debt ought not to be td—Weeitfree:
In fact, gears hid been ' to : prosecute him en-
minally till the proceed .et Smithfield had been
I
sunk in the: superior iT ance a those at M'ae-
chester. Harrison, who lag held similar language
at Stockport, had been traced to London, and beets
arrested there. To she same party belonged John-
son and Cathie, who had inscribed over his shop--;
" Office for Republican and' Deistical Writings."
Hunt had stated that Meetings had been held for the
purpose of playing at soldiers, and • that many .at
those Meetings had formerly belonged to the Army
and the Mditia—(Hear, hear). A Meeting of such
a nature as to occasion alarm, had been defined by
the Lord Chief Justice to be a riotous Meeting,
though no overt act of riot had been committed.—
The standards bore mottoes inconsistent with the
principles of the Constitution, and the Magistrates
had acted with the utmost caution and prudence.—
The only question was, whether the proceedings
were, or were not, of a treasonable character ? His
Majesty's Ministers had had no previous knowledge
of what was intended tUbe done, nor had they given
any directions whatever to the Magistrates is to the
line of conduct they were to pursue. Whatever the
Magistrates did, was doue by their own authority,
with a view to guard against the mischiefs which
were apprehended from the Meeting—(Gieers
,from
different parts of the House).
Sir FRANCIS BURPETT said, it was not his. in-
tention to trespass long on the patience of the House,
but he should conceive himself guilty of a dereliction
of his duty to his country if he did not accept the in-
vitation which had been thrown out from the oppo-
site side of the House, and speak his mind fully and
intelligibly on the critical circumstances in which the
country was now placed. Our present, difficulties and
dangers arose, not from any external force, but from
the internal situation of the country, which was too
obvious:to every eye and to every ear, and was too
fully impressed on every mind to require any descrip-
tion. There was not a disinterested man in the coun-
try who did not feel that our thief difficulties arose
from a systeah of taxation, which the Country was no
longer able to bear, and which was the principal
cause of the disaffection so loudly complained-of ;
but that disaffection, if it existedto the extent that
had been stated, could never be removed except by
means very different from those-fecommended in the
Speech from the Throne. The advocates of violent
measures would never look at the comes of dame
evils they complained of ; and others, whO were ignci
rant of those causes, recommended nethieg but pal-
liatives. In the course of this debate, he had heard
a:variety of most extraordinary positions ; and indeed
he had heard language, which, in former times,
would have been most unconstitutional. Such doc-
trines would net have been hazarded by any Merle=
tier when he first had a seat in that House. In-
4ed there were, on the part of the advocates •
Mbristers, so many contradictory opinions and ar-
guments, that they all led to one conclusion, which
was, to shew the absolute necessity for inquiry.—
The Learned Gentleman who had Just sat‘down, had
made a speech which furnished the best argureeet
that could be urged in favour of an inquiry;. as
much so, indeed, as any speech that had been deli-
vered in the course of the debate. But if any thing
could surprise him more than another,. it was the
speech of another Learned Gentleilan,- whom he
Might still call his friend, and who had formerly
agreed with him in most political questions. These
two Learned Gentlemen had advanced arguments
aed assertions which were directly contrary to those
of the Noble Lord (Castlereagh); a circumstance
which he could account for in no calier way except
that of their being in the profession of the law. In-
deed, there were no persons to whose authority he
would listen with so little conviction on'all constitu-
tional questions as the Gentlemen of the long robe:
and with respect to the two Learned Gentlemen, he
'must say of them, 'that in their defence 9f the GO-
vernment they had strewn nothing of the great skill
evinced by the. NOble Lord in the defence be. had
made. That Noble Lord had adopted the best line
of defence Which could have been made; for without
adyerting.to the conduct or character of the Meeting
at Manchester, he took the question np at the mordent
of the arrest offifr. Hunt ; and said at once, that up
to that time the Magistrates had no right to interfere.
The Learned Solicitor-General, however, said, that
all the proceedings that took place before that Meet-
ing were illegal, and even treasonable. The unfor-
tunate men, however, who attended that Meeting had
t. idea that they were committing treason ; for by
.. r own acts it was evident they conceived they had
re right, according to law, to do what they did. For
the last fifty years the people of this country were
loudly calling for Parliamentary Refoim ; all the
Meetiags that were lately held professed to have the
lime object ; and surely that *as no reason why they
should be put to death by military execution ? The
'Learned. Gentlenian talked a great deal about the
• . ners that had been displayed at the Meeting, and
particularly of grit one on.which the words " Liberty
• Death" were inscribed. Was it, he.would ask, a
crime to use these words? Why the words had al-
waysheen inscribed on the heart of every English-
man, and there could be no offence in placing them
on a banner—(Hear ). Whether it was desirable for
any gond purpose that such a Meeting as that of
Manchester should have been held was a question
which the House had nothing to 'do with, and
into the merits of which he was not bound to enter;
but he would saj, that the people who had met there
had committed no act of high treason, nor any other
offence for which they deserved to be given- up to
military,, execution. There might have been some
cause for legal proceedings against some of the per-
:sons attending that Meeting ; but nothing which oc-
curred there could furnish a• justifiable reason for al-
tering the laws of the country. He defied the Learn-
ed Gentlemen opposite to shew that there was any
such cause; a and On that point (said the Hon. Ha-
rene„t) I am ready to meet them here, or anywhere
9fpoilliasearh,eh.sehooru yd.
never-On rael-lq titill'ee
neat C(oL°nsikitteiorienals
any legal elticidation ; he wanted nothing. else but
common sense and common honesty. - Indeed he did
thin - ' Learned -

tohfes:thcical
g)
:, his
treason, the
pressing their satisfaction at the sheddina a Fe mood.
let their countrymen. Such an expresesiont *
*tee to the Prince Regent; but it was not. 7
ing esshi
had
dn,
actually for his heart
eem mui
.tatse din
ptient.• If, however, the people composing the Me
had no right to use military force in the thei
did. *The Riot Act, which was a disgrace to
Statute Book, it seemed, was too ler' for-r
this
cstsion ; that law, severe and unjust as it was, es,„r
said, if people did not disperse, after being warted to
do so, that soldiers should be sent to kill them, The'
and if they did not disperse'
intent and meaning of the Act was simply this, that
'were guilty of felony. Butthro
if the people who composed the Meeting sere' 44.
Vitally riotous, or likely to do mischief;
ould
have notice
snuocthicenototicdei,sperthes;
bare circumstance of a number of people meeting, war
no more a riot than it was treason, if there were no::
some overt acts manifesting a disposition to
The declaration of any number of persons expressin-
their womanish fears, that some mischief might en.
sue from the Meeting, was not sufficient to make it
illegal ; nor was it sufficient for any foolish fellow to
go and make oath that great danger was to be ap.
prehended ; that a city was to be set on fire, and that
the inhabitants were to be murdered ! At •11 events,
supposing the Meeting to have been ever so illegal,
the only thing that should have been done was, to
take up the ringleaders ; and not to shoot, cut down,
and massacre the people indiscriminately. At the
time when the Riot Aot•aeas passed, no military were
thought.of;. and even-ttle lawyers, who afterwards
defended -the employment of military for suppress.
ing riots, did so on the ground that soldiers wen
a part of the people, enjoying civil rights equally
with the other subjects of the country. On that
principle it was, that Lord Mansfield had said,
that British citizens should not be excluded from
the right of assisting in putting down riots, merely
because they wore red coats and carried arms....
But surely men, who were secluded from the rest
of society, were not to be called citizens; nor were
the lives of the subjects to be at the mercy of
men, who could only be considered as mercenaries.
He trusted that English soldiers would never be
so employed ; he trusted that no Minister would
dare to emplotthern.tn, -and that if he did, the soh.
Biers would refuse to obey him—(Hear, hear, hear:),
lam not, (said-the worthy Baronet) so apprehensive
of the' conduct of British soldiers as the Roman Nis
description of a mercenary soldier would induce-.
Peetore is hurls stadium juriampre Parentis
" Condere the ju!leas, vavidnie In itseera -Petri
" Conjugis, invita riongsm tamest on dextra."
tam satisfied that- the feeling and principle of my
military countrymen would be of a different descrip.
tion..-Irwas said that all the proceedings at the Meet.
ing if so, Mr. Hunt was the person mat
culpable of: an others, as he was the author of the
proceedings ; and why was he not taken away ? By
doing so, the head would be temoved from the body,
and the body wouldobe impotent. If treasonable
proceedings had been going forward, the Magistrates
never dreamed of them; for Mr. Hunt called ups
them to announce his intention -el being proem a
the Meeting ; and if they thought he was carryings
treasonable. practices; why did they not take him up?
Why did they not prevent the anischief? Why wait
for that precise time when the people were all assem.
bled, and then give them up to military executions
the very moment when the warrant was on the point
of being put in force ? But, instead of this, they ac-
tually prevented the people from dispersing when
the military Were sent to attack theta ; for the prin-
cipal outlet through which they might have made
their escape, Was blocked up by a line of ondiers, so
that the multitude were cooped in without the possi-
bility of getting away. Gentlemen then might
talk of a conspiracy on the -part of the populace
and their leaders ; but he would maintain, that
what he now described .was a foul consOracy
against the lives of the people—(Hear, hear, hear).
If some individuals were now seeking for redress is
Courts of Law, that would give no redress to the
People of England for the violation of their Liberties,
The People felt that their Constitution had been via
hated-by the military execution to which an unarmed
multitude had been subjected; they looked.upon Mi-
nisters as being at the bottom of the whole; and they
called for that satisfaction which no proceedings is•
stituted by individuals in Courts of Law could give
them. Alt these things originated in that system of
Police which was now under the management of
Lord Sidmouth, and which bore a great resemblance
to that Police which existed under the old Govern-
men of France—(Hear, hear).—The Learned Gen-
tleman talked of an Inquest-going•forward, and of
prosecution carried on by an Attorney in London:.
but this .was not the way to satisfy the People of
England for the violation of their rights. No Inquest
would satisfy the People—no; nor any thing which
tould be done by that respectable and meritorious
Gentleman, to whose exertions the whole country
was indebted : he meant Mr. Harmer—(Neer, hear?.
'No proceeding that was now going forw.mi would
rbe sufficient ; fin a verdict must be obtained before
' that House for the whole People of England. Surely
it was not prejudging a question, when persons only
spoke of what they knew to be the facts connected
with that question. Here was ample evidence of a
great crime having been committed ; and when .
spoke of that crime, and the parties concerned in it,
he did no more than accuse them—but not prejudge
them. If he* had seen a man commit murder, !le
certainly should have no right to knock his brii..os
out, but he would have a right to accuse him of tee
murder, and require that he be brought to trial.--
Then when he found that men had been massacred at
Manchester, he had a right to make a charge agailoo
and call ler the trial of the persons who commioed
that massacre. If the House then should shut their
eyes and their ears to those acts, and refuse inquiet',
the Country would* judge -of them. The Horse
might vote against but t?Qt vote would not
satisfy the Public. if itosluaulcae said that there
were dangerous ItefOrmert.inahe Country, let thrill
be answered, not by atise,- bur by acts. 'the Re-.
'furnaces said, that nothing could be more absurd thm
a Parliantentothe majority of whose Members came
from rotten; boroughs. In opposition to this, many
.Gentlemen maintained, that the House of Commons
'Was practically good, and constituted an efficient
Be-
presentation. of the;. People. Let the House then
'prove this to be the case, -by • doing. soineshing that
should appear to the Nation to be practically gcc.i.

-••• --••••••••••• •••••••••xj • auuccy SIC UM
the present Ruler not think it was quite correct in one Learned Gentle-
no connection with man (Mr. Warren) to speak in the manner he did on
to preside at the certain points, on the discussion of which he might
Fey had_ presided hareaftkv bane occasion to sit as Judge. Su thus
aid, at which he Sfanr... Meetlng had been,illegal, as was asserted
Pirliament sinee4y iied tentlemiti,- then he would say; chit
:ountry, and that the conduct of Ministers was illegal in publicly ex-