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

Lancaster, who had for its Foreman a Nobleman
who usually sat at that side of the House. He (Sir
Robert Wilson) was quite ready to bear every testi-
mony to the integrity of that Noble Lord (Stanley),
but assuredly the Noble Foreman was not respon-,
sible for the decision of the Jurors—(Hear, ilteer).-7
Besides, it was fair to presume thatthe Grand Jury,
in throwing out the bills, was actuated in some mea-
sure by political feelings. He did not use the expres-
sion in its offensive meaning.. He did not therefore
consider that decision as putting an end to die lma-
lity of the question. The Solicitor-General talked of
law proceedings as if law4was a cheap article. Now
.what was the fact? A subscription had been set on
foot for the purpose of affording relief to the persons
who suffered in consequence of the transactions at
-Mancfsster, and the total amount which.was col-
lected-ill over England was £3,418. Out of that
sum £1,077 was applied to meet the expenses of the
inquiry at Oldham, and £7lO to the charges of the
trials at York ; so that, after other incidental expenses,
no more thbn £1,206 remained to be distributed
among the persons who had been sufferers; and all
this without any remuneration to Mr. Harmer, who
had given his services gratuitously to the Public on
the occasion. The gallant General then went into
an argument to prove the illegality of the dispersion
of the Meeting at Manchester. He read the deposi-
tion of the Rev. Mr. Stanley, which detailed the
whole of the circumstances of the Meeting. This de-
position contradicted the charge that the people came
to the Meeting in military order; stated that no re-
sistance was given by them, except in one or two in-
stances; that before the dispersion occurred he had
observed no disposition to riot ; that he heard no
sentiment of a revengeful nature uttered by the
People, until after the violent dispersion had taken
place; that though his eyes were fixed steadily on the
soldiery, he had seen no stones thrown by the people
daring any part of the transaction. He (Sir Robert
Wilson) then contended, that if the People had re-
sisted the aggression, they would not only have been
justifiable, but it was their duty, as British citizens,
to have resisted it by every means in their reach.—
All Europe was surprised that in a country so jealous
of its liberties as this, no inquiry had been instituted
into a transaction which had so grossly violated those
liberties—(Hear, hear).—The Solicitor-General, in-
deed, wished that all the circumstances of this affair
should be buried in oblivion. He presumed that his
Majesty's Ministers would be very glad to consign
the matter to oblivion, but the country could not do
so without forfeiting its best character. The House
had now an opportunity of restoring confidence in
the laws, and although they might obtain submission
for a while, it would be the submission of prudence,
and not of allegiance—(Hear.)
Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY read a letter from a
Gentleman of strict honour and integrity, who was
present at the Meeting. The letter gave a full de-
s.:ri2tion of the Meeting, which, he said, was
collected, and evinced no disposition to disorder
until the attack. was made won it. if the Riot Act
had been properly read, the writer expressed his con-
viction that the Meeting would have quietly sepa-
rated. 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 absence of any disposition to violence on the part
of the 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 Yeomanry had not interfered.
The Hon. Baronet said the name of the writer was
_ the Rev. Robert Ilimbush, a clergyman, residing in
Manchester; and he concluded with expressing his
determination to support this motion.
Mr. TINDALE lamented the transactions at Man-
chester; but, in his opinion, the Meeting, the Ma-
gistrates, and the Government, were all culpable.
Mr. BEECHER said he was anxious to express his
sentiments' upon this subject. He deprecated the
principles of Reform.which were entertained by the
people who met at Manchester, and nobody 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 con-
senting to this motion the House would be opening
the door to discussions which they ought not to en-
twain, by saying that it was right they should shew
at least a disposition to redress the people's wrongs.
He had observed the House to be.always jealous of
its privileges. Why not then exercise at least the
same jealousy towards British subjects, with respect
to their privileges ? Why not exercise the same jea-
lousy for the rights, liberties, and persons of those
fiom whom they derived their authority ? Upon the
whole then, he considered this a fit subject for in-
quiry. 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 House to know, that such being the case, and' no
redress being afforded, in order to induce them to in-
vestigate the whole matter he exhorted the House
to enter upon it now, and to give a practical refuta-
tion of the reproaches of those who charged that
House with a want of sympathy with the people.
With these feelings lie should give his cordial support
to the present motion.
Mr. EGERTON defended the conduct of the Ma-
gistrates, observing, that the duty they had to per-
form was a very delicate and difficult one, and if
they erred, it was for those who complained of their
conduct to seek redress in a Court of Law.
Mr. GRENFELL was anxious to offer himself to
the attention of the House, having differed from
those with whom he was in the habit of politically
thinking with respect to this subject. He now begged
to declare, that the sentiments which he held upon
the former occasion, with respect to this transaction,
and the measures which were founded upon it, re-
mained the same ; and he could Ochre that here
was no act of his life to which he looked back with a

more approving conscience.
Mr. BERNAL contended, in contradiction to the
Law Officers of the Crown, that the verdict at York
did not establish the illegality of the Meeting at
Manchester. The fact was, that the defendants on
that trial were found guilty on the fourth count of
the indictment; and it would appear, by a reference
to the document, that that count charged them with
conspiring to bri;►g his Majesty's Govesument into