right hon. gentleman. With regard to the general state of the country, he believed it to be critical in every point of view. He was far indeed from thinking that all who attended at these popular meetings, belonged to the number of the disaffected, or entertained sentiments in unison with those publicly professed. He should regret extremely to despair of the mass of the population; and there was, he apprehended, no ground for such a feeling. The best hopes might be entertained from the adoption of such measures as should protect them against the arts employed to delude them. He had lived long enough in Ireland, during a disastrous period of its history, to know how far delusion might be carried by popular agitators; and he had seen those who had been so deluded afterwards become faithful subjects, and zealous sup. porters of the laws. He had also the proud conviction that a great portion of this country was utterly exempt from the taint, and was animated by a spirit of attachment and zeal for the constitution, that required only the fostering assistance of parliament to render it effectual for our defence. But, at the same time, it was not to be concealed that a deliberate conspiracy did exist for overturning the government, and that there prevailed in many places a disposition to second this design. In such circumstances it would be impossible without the assistance of parliament, that any administration should answer for the public safety. Without it there could be no security against those scenes of bloodshed and confusion by which other countries had been desolated. On the other hand, by pursuing a course of policy adapted to our present exigencies, and firmly meeting the danger which threatened us, we might fairly expect to find ourselves, at no distant period, in a situation of perfect domestic tranquil lity. The constitution, borne triumphant through the perils to which it was now exposed, might then continue to extend its blessings to the latest posterity. With all these views, and more especially with reference to the great and fundamental principles of justice, which would be compromised by that House taking into its own hands the subject matter of a judicial inquiry.before other tribunals, he felt it his duty to support the original address.

Mr. Bootle Wilbraham said, that as a member of the grand jury whose conduct

had been impugned, and being connected with the county of Lancaster, he was anxious to state the views by which the magistrates had been directed, and was sure that, whenever an inquiry should take place, they would come out of it not only with the credit of having acted properly, but with the general admission that they would not have discharged their duty had they acted otherwise. There would be many future opportunities of entering fully into these explanations. He was at present merely desirous of removing any unfavourable impression that might be entertained previous to those explanations being made. It had been asked, why the magistrates had not attempted, long since, to offer some defence to the charges which had been so generally brought against them. To this he replied, that they had not been called on in a manner that afforded them a fit occasion for so doing. Were they to enter into a controversy with writers in public journals, and sit down to refute the calumnies that had been daily circulated against them? Had they appeared at any public meeting, did any man believe that they would have been able to procure for themselves a patient or dispassionate hearing? The magistrates would hereafter show, that they had proceeded on a just conviction that the meeting of the 16th of August was illegal. The ostensible object was undoubtedly reform; but the real object, at least as far as the minds of the lower orders were affected, was ascertained to have been plunder, and the destruction of property. There were depositions which clearly manifested this fact. Their purpose, indeed, had been openly declared; threats had been used, and many of the most respectable inhabitants had been intimidated. It was also ascertained, that those who threw out these menaces, were not distressed or unemployed persons, but spinners and others who were by no means in want. Application was made to the magistrates for protection, on the part of twenty or thirty individuals, who considered themselves and their property in danger. These were some of the most considerable inhabitants of Manchester, who had distinguished themselves by their energy and exertion on former occasions in preserving the public peace. It was not denied that the meeting assembled in large bodies, or that they marched in military array. When they arrived at

the hustings, they erected their standards; and as they filed off, left a guard six deep to surround and defend them. As they marched through the streets, many were heard to exclaim, that a new order of things was at hand. Were the magistrates under such circumstances to remain silent and inactive? To what reproaches would they have subjected themselves, had they not taken precautions against the mischief that was likely to arise! Many, perhaps, recollected-he was old enough for one-the riots of 1780, when the lord mayor was prosecuted, whether civilly or criminally he forgot, for neglecting to take such measures as the occasion called for. The constables in this instance declared their inability to execute their office, and this might readily be believed when it was considered that there were but 300 in a crowd amounting to 50,000. The assistance of the military power was then granted; it advanced, accompanied by the peace-officers on foot, nor was a blow struck till they were assailed with stones, brick-bats, and other missiles, [brought to the spot for that express purpose. The ground had the day before been cleared of all such substances. One man was knocked off his horse, and his companions apprehended for a moment that he was killed. There was, in fact, more forbearance displayed by the yeomanry than could have been under all the circumstances expected. They at length attacked the multitude in order to effect their dispersion. He did not know with which side of their swords they struck the people; but it was a subject of admiration to many who witnessed the scene, that so large a multitude should be dispersed with so few injuries. He had in his possession authentic returns from the infirmary, by which it appeared that the whole number wounded or hurt was twenty-six. Some of these had received their hurts from being thrown down in the confusion. He did not mean to deny that there might have been some other instances of bodily harm, or that individuals amongst the yeomanry might not have given too great a loose to their resentments. Every exertion, however, had been made to restrain them, and to put a stop to such proceedings. The cause of the yeomanry being employed in this service, was quite accidental, the regulars happening to have taken a wrong route, and arrived last upon the ground. They came,

however, early enough to act upon the orders they had received; and in the execution of this duty, it became very difficult to say whether the blows received were inflicted by them or by the yeomanry. Still, he believed, that neither had any intention to commit deliberate or unnecessary wrong. Many exaggerated statements had gone abroad upon this subject, which tended very considerably to increase the general irritation. It had been asserted by an hon. member of that House at a public meeting in Norfolk, that a woman had been attacked and severely cut, and that she and others would have shared a worse fate, but for the interposition of a gallant officer. This statement continued in circulation for a fortnight, when there appeared a letter from the gallant officer, major Cochrane, denying the truth of the matter, and adding that no such circumstance had occurred. As to the bills which were thrown out, he should say, that he happened not to have taken any part in them, and he had done so, on the ground that an objection had been made to him at first as being a near relative of one of the magistrates whose conduct was attacked. This, however, he could state with the most perfect conviction, that never were bills found where a grand jury had acted with more strict impartiality.

Mr. Coke observed, that it was he who had made the statement respecting the alleged attack on the woman, in which major Cochrane was said to have interfered. He had found afterwards that the whole was a mistake, and he would most willingly have given the contradiction to it, if it had not been made by major Cochrane.

Lord Milton had not intended to take any share in the present discussion, and was only induced to alter his intention, by having heard that something had been said during his absence from the House, respecting a communication between himself and those who acted with him at the York meeting, and some of those gentlemen who had signed the declaration in that county. It had been said, as he was informed, that the gentlemen who signed the requisition, had, in their communication with those who signed the declaration, refused an offer made which would unite all parties. The circumstances of that case he would state to the House, and he appealed to his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Stuart Wortley) for his recol

lection of the transaction. On his application to him, his hon. friend's words were to this effect: "If you and your friends agree to add the declaration to your resolutions, I will endeavour to persuade my friends to adopt those resolutions, and I think they will adopt them." To this he (lord Milton) objected, conceiving it impossible that such an agreement could well be made. How could they define and distinguish in the case they wished to state? For the House would perceive that those declarations of loyalty on one side seemed to imply disloyalty on the other. The proposition was one, which, under all the circumstances, they could not agree to; yet there was no indisposition to act with them. Indeed, in the declaration, which had been signed, not by the hon. gentleman, but by a noble lord (Lascelles), there was an admission of the necessity of inquiry.

Mr. Stuart Wortley said, that after the appeal which had been made to him by his noble friend, he felt it his duty to offer a few observations. He admitted that he had offered to him, that if they (the requisitionists) would agree to the declaration, he would endeavour to persuade his friends to assent to the resolutions. In this he had done nothing more than merely say, he would endeavour to persuade them, which was all he could promise. This was done at Wakefield; and on the next day, to prevent any misapprehension, he put the proposition down in writing. He asked him in effectWill you throw off the support of those who have thus agreed to this offer? Will ⚫ you, without forfeiting any principle which you have ever avowed, throw us off, and only support those who have really no other object than the injury of the constitution? With respect to the address which had been moved, he was glad to perceive that there was no opposition to it. The object of the right hon. gentleman seemed to be, to assent to this address, on the ground that an inquiry should take place into the proceedings at Manchester. Now, he had no objection to inquiry; but he conceived that of all the places where it could take place, the bar of that House would be the worst. He did not, and would not shrink from the avowal of this opinion; and he believed that but for the shuffling of some of those persons who were concerned in the transactions, an inquiry would have taken place

long ago. He had seen inquiries take place at the bar, and he had not witnessed one in which the parties had not covered themselves with disgrace. [Cries of" No, no."] He alluded not to the House, but to the parties examined. Here was a court, consisting of 658 judges, all of them examining and deciding upon, but few of them agreeing as to the same particular points. In a court of law there were certain rules by which to determine, and certain practices to observe; but in this House the members were under no such restraint, and each followed that line which he conceived best. Could an inquiry so conducted be considered as the best mode of eliciting truth? Cases had occurred of alleged violence on the part of some of the authorities, where applications had not been sought in the House of Commons. The case of the dispersion of the meeting at Coventry was one in point. Distress there did exist, but it was not from the really distressed that the loudest complaints were heard; and here he conceived the right hon. mover of the amendment was mistaken in his view of the case. They who were loudest in their cry were those who had other objects in view besides a relief to the country. It was now he would agree with the right hon. gentleman, time to speak out, and every honest man ought to declare his opinion. And as his opinion, he would state, that the spirit which was abroad, and which already so much disturbed the country, was a republican spirit-one which sought the overthrow of the constitution, and the destruction of all property. There were, he would admit, many, and among them some of those whom he loved best, who conceived that a moderate reform was necessary; but they sought not that reform by acts of violence and were to be distinguished from those who, under the mask of reform, sought only the destruction of property. He would refer the House to the consideration of the resolutions of a meeting which took place in Halifax, he believed in

October last, where the property of the earl Fitzwilliam, was in so many words. pointed at, as if for partition. He would not deny the clear right of the people to petition the crown or the parliament, but he maintained that those itinerant preachers of sedition who went about inflaming the lower orders ought to be put down. Such persons as Wooler or Hunt might

without disgracing itself or the object of the inquiry. He could not conceive a more seditious libel than was contained in this elaborate argument; or, he should rather say, this animated invective on the inquisitorial powers of the House of Commons. But this was not the only novelty in the hon. gentleman's speech. There were some others equally curious. The hon. gentleman had admitted at York the necessity of the very inquiry which he now deprecated as a disgrace to the House. He had agreed to a declaration which, as it were, pledged the parties signing it to inquiry, and upon that very ground he might call upon the hon. member for his vote in favour of the amendment.

be tempted to their present courses by avarice or ambition, but they should be put down. The hon. member next adverted to the two-penny publications which were circulated so widely, and observed, that they ought to be repressed. He would not say that they ought to pay a tax equal to newspapers, but they ought to pay some tax, and he would most willingly assent to any measure of that kind. He agreed with the noble marquis as to the necessity of some measure by which poorer classes would be relieved from their present burthens, and for many of those burthens a fair tax on property should, he thought be substituted. He had conversed on this subject with men of all parties and they almost all seemed to be of opinion that such a tax would be the best under the present circum

the

stances.

Sir James Mackintosh said, that among the many extraordinary novelties which he had heard that night, there were none which gave him more surprise than part of the speech of the hon. member who had just concluded. That hon. gentleman had stated, that no inquiry which he had seen conducted at the bar of that House had ever ended but with disgrace; that one of the greatest functions of an important branch of the legislature could not be exercised but with disgrace.

Mr. Stuart Wortley here observed, that his remarks referred not to the House but to the party.

Sir J. Mackintosh continued-The explanation of the hon. gentleman did not alter the view which he had taken of this extraordinary assertion. What could the hon. gentleman have meant but that the disgrace would attach to the House? The very assertion itself was used to show that no inquiry ought to take place in the House. And why? Because, forsooth, no inquiry had been conducted by that House without disgrace. What was it whether the disgrace of an inquiry fell upon A, B, or C; it was still, according to the argument of the hon. gentleman a disgrace, caused by an inquiry at the bar of the House. Now, he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that a more gross attack on the constitution was not contained in any of those seditious libels which had been alluded to, and in disgust for which he fully participated. What did it amount to? Why to this-that the House could not engage in one of its most important functions, that of inquiry,

Mr. Stuart Wortley here interrupted the learned gentleman and said, that the declaration was drawn up in such a way as not to pledge the persons signing it to a particular vote for inquiry.

Did he mean at that

Sir J. Mackintosh resumed.-He protested that every thing of judicial knowledge which he possessed was still more confounded by the explanation of the hon. gentleman. It was hardly possible to imagine any thing more strange than this conduct of the hon. gentleman. He, according to his own admission, stated, that he seemed to agree in York to a principle which he at the same time intended to defeat in London. time that the inquiry to which he should give his assent should be a judicial one? If he did, was it that the House of Commons should prosecute the inquiry in a court of law? a proposition which, when considered as made at a county meeting, was almost too absurd to be supposed to have existed in the mind of any. But, if the hon. gentleman had meant by inquiry an investigation by parliament, that was clear and intelligible. Yet, how did he now strive to get rid of it? It had been objected to his right hon. friend that he was not decisive in his amendment. (sir J. Mackintosh) conceived him decisive and explicit. His right hon. friend was at all times so clear in his reasoning, that it was impossible to mistake him. He denied also that the amendment or the observations which accompanied it, were of a vague character. They spoke a disposition to conciliate, and by that conciliation to render coercive measures unnecessary. If the noble lord (Castlereagh) was not satisfied with the observations of his right hon. friend, would he attend to

He