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

hatred and contempt, and notfor being necessaries in
an illegal Meeting. But whether it was illegal or
not, it was a doubt if all those who attended the
Meeting were there for illegal objects—and so MI.
Justiceßayley declared—(Hear). It did not appear
that any effort was made to execute the warrant br
fore the assistance of the military was called in ; and
the Learned Judge told the Jury that no evidence
had been tendered to sheer that the warrant could
not have been executed without military aid. The
Hon. Member then noticed what he said was stated
by the Hon. Member for Dover—namely, 'hat a cog-
stable (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 Co-
roner who sat op the body of this man, that he had
fired a pistol loided with balls on the populace—and
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 state-
ment—" libentur homines id quod relunt crediolt."—
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 Ln the countenances of some Gentlemen op- ,
posite—he believed there was nothing absurd in the
suggestion: it was only a few days ago that a com-
mission was consented to, to"visit Ilchester Jail. He
would admit, indeed, that a Parliamentary investi-
gation would be no longer useful, for Ministers had
so mixed themselves up with the transaction that
they would naturally employ all their influence to
defeat the objects of the inquiry. But he exhorted
the House to institute an inquiry by some means,
and he considered that the House would not do its
duty if they did not support the motion of the Ho-.
nourable Baronet.
Mr. B. WILBRAHAM, in explanation, denied
having stated the particulars which he was repre-
sented to have stated, with respect to Campbell, the,
constable.
Mr. HORACE TWISS contended that the an-
swers of the witnesses for the defence on the trial of
Mr. Hunt, so much alluded to in this debate, would
alone justify the, House in rejecting the motion of the
Hon. Baronet. The statements of the same transactions
were so various on both sides, and so little was ad-
mitted as matter of fact, that there was no possibility
of corning at the real truth. He thought the best
way of dealing with the case of the Honourable Gen-
tleman opposite would be to rest all his arguments
on the evidence of the witnesses for the defence on
the trial of Mr. Hunt, in which the whole question,
was laid open to proof. Fioni their statement the
state of the neighbourhood of Manchester, prior to
the 16th of August, would be collected ; and from it
would be seen that not only hundreds and thousands,
but myriads were everywhere seen marching in a
well-organised, connected, and imposing manner.
Mr. Tyas, a Gentleman connected with The Times
newspaper, and who, as a witness for the defence,
was the most important, the most intelligent, and,
setting aside his political bias, was perhaps the most
accurate, estimated the number of persons collected
together on the field near Manchester, at 80,000. He
stated that they were for the most part armed withl
walking sticks, although they were denominated by
other witnesses, bludgeons and staves. As to the in-
tention or use of these sticks, it might, perhaps, be
best ascertained by a regard to their declarations, as
borne un the banners under which they ranged them-
selves, the general nature of which were—" Equal
Representation or Death r—and " Let us die like
Men, rather than live like Slaves r This, then, was
the character of the Meeting, and under those circum-
stances, what was done ? Not as was stated, a charge
of cavalry to disperse it, but a repetition of what had
been found successful at similar Meetings at London
and Leeds, viz. the apprehension on the spot of the
ringleader. The principal witness for the defence,
Mr. Tyas, said that it was not till after the apprehen-
sion of Mr. Hunt thlat any assault on the military was
made, and it was not till after that period that any
assault was charged upon the military. This wit-
ness did not deny that the multitude set up a shout
on the approach of the military, which Mr. Tyas
called after the mitigated name of a cheer, for the
purpose of shewing that the populace was not daunted
by their unwelcome appearance. This was answered
by the Yeomanry Cavalry brandishing their swords
over their heads, so that, up to that period, not a
head was broken on either side—(llcar, hear).—
They were now to look at the situation of the Ma-
gistrates, who, witnessing the rush of the multitude
upon the Cavalry as they passed, their deafening
cheers, and also their struggle upon the seizing of the
standards, could not but apprehend danger to the
military, and accordingly felt themselves called on
to send in the troops under Cohooel L'Estrange, to
the assistance and protection of their companions.
This statement of the case, derived from the defence
on the trial at York, was the basis of his argumenii.
From the tone assumed in speaking of that trial, it
might almost be supposed that an acquittal had
taken place, instead of a conviction. It should be
remembered, that the Learned Judge who presided
had informed the Jury, that a Meeting which had a
tendency to create terror and alarm in the minds of
his Majesty's peaceful subjects, was an illegal Meet-'
ing. And as there could be no question that this
Meeting had that tendency, he was surprised to hear
the course of argument taken by Gentlemen on the
other side, after that declaration of the Learned
Judge. It was asked, why employ the Yeomanry,
and why so large a force of Cavalry ? To this it
might be answered, that the Magistrates exercised a
very judicious discretion under the existing circum-
etances, in exhibiting an imposing. force, to strike the
people with a conviction that resistance was vain.—
With regard to the second charge of the Cavalry, as
it was called, when the Magistrates witnessed the
upbraiding cheer, followed by the tumultous rush to
hem in the Cavalry, by a Meeting so numerous, so
organized, and so resolved on the attainment of their
object, as their declaration to brave death in the at-
tempt shewed them to be, he thought they would
have forsaken their duty not to have so acted. Had
they not taken that step they might have been open to
that Anions accusation ; whilst, on the other hand, they