subject, all loudly demanding inquiry, he was astonished they should think such a statement from such a source, would prove satisfactory. There was hardly a person whom he had seen, who did not think inquiry was necessary. This was the opinion of many persons who never attended public meetings, and it was not fair to infer that those only who attended public meetings were in favour of inquiry-for, from what he knew, he would say there were still more who had not attended public meetings, than of those who had attended public meetings, who thought inquiry necessary. The hon. member for Yorkshire for instance, with his friends, the loyal declarators of that county had in fact admitted as much. This was itself an admission of the necessity of inquiry. If any thing proved more than another the necessity of inquiry, it was what had followed his noble friend's statement. He had not heard a single person who had expressed an opinion that the magistrates were to blame. But what had the right hon. gentleman who just sat down said? Why, that after the declaration of his noble friend there was a prima facie case, unless there could be shown something to the contrary, which proved the innocence of the magistrates. What was wanted was an opportunity to show these facts to the country. If the House did not enter into this inquiry, could the country remain quiet? In denying inquiry, his majesty's ministers were not only guilty of a great want of feeling towards the country at large, but of injustice to the parties themselves, in holding them up in an invidious light to the country. He trusted the magistrates and yeomanry would be able to clear themselves from the charge of cruelty, but that was a reason why the inquiry should be gone into. However they might clear themselves of cruelty, he did not think they would be able to clear themselves of the imputation of gross neglect.-One thing was admitted on all sides

Till something to the contrary, therefore, was produced against him, he must take the statement of the noble lord and hon. gentleman as a primâ facie case in favour of that gentleman and of the magistrates. The yeomanry it appeared went through the opening which at first led from the house to the meeting; but, by the alteration caused by the persons round the hustings, who removed the waggon to a distance from where it originally stood, and who placed a cordon of not less than 15 feet of persons, known to be selected from the most determined part of the meeting, the troops with the civil power were not able to approach close to the hustings. It was to be considered that the magistrates had behind them the loyal population of that great town; and with all these loyal people (and when the people were talked of it was too much the fashion to include only under that description disturbers of the peace) more in number, perhaps, than that of the people assembled at the meeting, the magistrates were called on to execute the powers of the law to rescue them from the perilous situation in which they were placed. It was well known at the moment the fury of the loyal people was so great against the mob, that the moment it was dispersed, had it not been for the intervention of the magistrates it would have been impossible to save many individuals from the resentment of those who felt themselves rescued from their outrages. Mr. Baring said, he should not have spoken had it not been for what had occurred within the last half hour. If any thing could show the necessity of an inquiry, and the duty of that House to institute it, it was the course just adopted on the other side. The noble lord had declared that his noble friend had brought forward such information as ought to satisfy the country. And what had his noble friend stated? He had stated to the House information derived by him from the very persons who were implicated in these transactions. He was ready to believe the magistrates and yeomanry might be able to justify themselves; but he would ask the House whether that description of evidence which they had just heard would satisfy any part of the country. It was too much to hear such a supposition trumpeted forth by the noble lord. When his majesty's ministers knew that in all parts of the country so many meetings had taken place on this

it was admitted that the magistrates were aware the day before that it was an illegal meeting. At all events when they saw the fellows coming in the manner they did, they could have no doubt that it was an illegal meeting. But though they saw them so coming in, what did they do? They waited till 50 or 60,000 persons were assembled together to make the case more difficult. Thus from their own statements there was a great want of pru

dence on the part of the magistrates. Supposing the magistrates and yeomanry how ever could acquit themselves of the severe charges against them, the noble lord was guilty of great injustice towards them, in holding them up to the country in so invidious a light. If it had not been for what fell from the noble lord he should not have troubled the House on this occasion. He was one of those who were convinced the present state of things must somehow or other be got rid of. He meant the state of things in the manufacturing districts-The manufacturers of those districts were a body of individuals on whom a great part of the prosperity of the country depended. All the manufacturers were in a state of derangement while this disposition prevailed. It was impossible that rich capitalists would remain in a country exposed to tumultuary meetings. Great numbers of manufacturers had been brought here from other countries, some from civil and some from religious persecution. But no persecution could be so fatal as a mob persecution. Every other persecution there was some means of softening, but this was unrelenting and implacable. Despotism itself was not so bad. Every man at all conversant with business must know that if this state of things lasted another twelve months it would be attended with the destruction of the manufactures of that part of the country, and would reduce to utter misery that part of the people of this country. He did not pretend to say what means would be successful for putting it down. Whether strong means or means of conciliation but this he would say, that if such a state of things continued the manufacturers could not possibly go on. He really could not conceive what interest could be served by preventing the inquiry proposed from being carried on in that House. Every person possessed of capital was very much interested in the inquiry. He had only one more observation to make. He should say an inquiry ought to take place, not so much an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether the magistrates and yeomanry were guilty or not guilty, as an inquiry on general principles, to let us see whether there had been any interference of government with the ordinary administration of justicewhether there had been any interference with the coroner, the magistrates or lord lieutenants, for the purpose of preventing the ordinary course of justice. On this

subject there was a prima facie evidence of some interference. He did not allude to the bills thrown out by the grand jury-whether the grand jury were right or wrong in throwing out these. bills, this was in the ordinary course of the administration of justice. But when he saw one set of magistrates refuse to listen to the applications made to them in the ordinary form, because they were themselves concerned in the transactions complained of; and another set of magis. trates refuse to interfere, because their neighbours were concerned when he saw the approbation of his majesty's government given, at a time when it was impossible they could be acquainted with the case of which they approved-and what was most extraordinary, and what in his opinion too little stress had been laid on when he saw the inquest of the coroner at Oldham stopped for six weeks, he could not help saying that this was a prima facie case, that the ordinary course of justice was not going on-this was a state of things which had never existed before. It had been said that an inquiry was prejudging men who might afterwards be put on their trial. He said that this was not the sort of investigation, which he wanted, but that higher and far more important investigation, to ascertain whether the wheels of government were going on in the ordinary way. These were the rea sons on which he grounded the vote he had given, and which would have induced him to oppose any address which after the extraordinary circumstances which had occurred, should not contain a pledge to inquire into them.

Lord Compton said, that the reasons which induced him to support the address were these:-Though it might happen. that the House should vote in favour of inquiry, yet a majority might vote against any of the three modes of inquiry which were open to them. The first mode of inquiry was by an examination of witnesses at the bar. This mode of inquiry was open to many inconveniences, and they had been well exposed by the hon. member for Yorkshire. The second mode was by a committee up stairs; but in the present state of feeling in the country it would be difficult to make a selection of members which would satisfy those whom it was proposed to conciliate. The third mode was to order the Crown lawyers to prosecute the magistrates, &c. in a court of law. But he could not consent, nor

would the House consent, to act as the accuser of persons who were in its opinion not only guiltless, but meritorious. A great deal had been said of the thanks given by the ministers to the magistrates, because it was alleged that time had not been taken to inquire into the circumstances. But the magistrates were public functionaries, and surely, when they said that under such and such circumstances they had acted so and so, his majesty's ministers were bound to receive their statement as true, until it was proved to be false. If the statement of the magistrates had been found to be false, so far from being bound by their declaration, the ministers would have been justified in proceeding against them with the greater severity. The hon. member for Shrewsbury had said, that captain Birley's character had not been attacked in or out of the House. As to the House, the statement was correct, but in Manchester captain Birley's character was attacked in the most mischievous manner by a placard in a shop window. As to the dismissal of lord Fitzwilliam, he believed that nobleman to be as honourable a man, and as loyal a subject, as ever existed; but he thought, that if it was only that he differed from the ministers, not only in the mode of quelling the disturbances in his district, but even as to the nature of those disturbances-this alone would have been a sufficient reason for his removal. Besides this, the lord lieutenant was not merely the servant of the Crown, but of the ministers, and though lord Fitzwilliam would have been called upon by duty (entertaining such sentiments as he did), to demand an audience from the Prince Regent, to lay before him his opinion as to the conduct of the ministers; yet he was not justified in attending a meeting, to throw blame on the ministers for their conduct in the very department in which he had to obey their commands. But he followed the dictates of his conscience, and there was no disgrace in his dismissal. It was not more a disgrace for lord F. to differ from the ministers, than for the ministers to differ from him. As to parliamentary reform, before he (lord Compton) consented to enter into the consideration of that subject, he must be satisfied of two things; first, that the alteration of the constitution of parliament would be in a beneficial direction; and, second, that it would not go farther than he wished. What appeared to him an almost insuperable (VOL. XLI.)

objection to an attempt to reform the House, was, that if any interest was already too strong in it, the result of the change in its constitution by the same body, would be to make that interest stronger. He was extremely surprised at the language held by one hon. member, who seemed to consider that the Manchester magistrates had shown an unbecoming eagerness for shedding human blood. For his part, he thought they had proved themselves anxious to avoid shedding blood, and that they had, by their judicious measures, saved perhaps the town of Manchester-saved the lives of a large portion of the multitude that had been dispersed, and vindicated the majesty of the laws.

Mr. Hume thought some of the remarks which had been made were founded on a misrepresentation of what had fallen from him, which misrepresentation, however, he had not seen.

Mr. Valentine Blake said:-I beg to assure the House, that, after the ample discussion which this subject has received, I shall feel it to be my duty to say but a very few words. I am not vain enough to imagine, that it can be in my power to alter the opinion of any hon. member, whose view of this subject is different from my own; but when I consider the vast importance of the question before the House, its consequence not only with regard to the rights of the people, but also to the rights, independence, and character of the parliament, and even the very existence of the constitution, and when, to my very great amazement, I find a course adopted by the hon. gentlemen on the other side, equally new, unnecessary, and pernicious, supported by arguments futile and dangerous too, no consciousness of my own inability to do the subject that justice which it has received from others, shall deter me from recording my sentiments in justification to my constituents of the vote which I have given, in the discharge of the most solemn duty which I may ever be called upon to perform towards them. In the first place, I think it right to observe upon a part of what fell last night from an hon. and learned gentleman. That hon. and learned gentleman recommended conciliation and clemency; and I admit the principle, as I am sure every man does who votes on this side of the House, if applied at the proper season. But it is not when sedition and blasphemy and avowed treason go hand (2)

in hand with such alarming strides, that I would have recourse to measures which would be misrepresented by the disaffected, and called weakness. I would, in such circumstances, put on a firm resolution to suppress open rebellion, even if it went to that (as I sincerely hope it will not), and after having done so, I would then turn round and put on that air of clemency and conciliation so recommended by the hon. and learned gentleman. In taking this course I do not think that I could be charged with inconsistency; and therefore the imputation upon this identical point with respect to the inconsistency of the right hon. and learned gentleman, whose speech brought conviction to every unprejudiced mind, and whose life has been one uniform instance of political consistency and sacrifice appears to me to be wholly unfounded. The hon. baronet was not more happy than the hon. and learned gentleman in his attack upon the same quarter, and the ridicule which he attempted to throw upon the speech of the right hon. and learned gentleman must revert upon himself; for, surely, the hon. baronet cannot be so ignorant as not to know that the civil force of a parish or a district is not vested in the parish constables only, but in the magistracy of the county, with powers ample enough to warrant them in putting down a meeting so numerous as must be dangerous to the public peace, and the more especially so, when the temper and spirit of the persons who compose that meeting have been previously manifested by a training to military exercise, for the purpose, avowedly, of revolution. How such a meeting can be termed legal is astonishing, and only shows how far prejudice and party will cloud the best mind and the honestest judgment. The hon. and learned gentleman, who spoke this night on the other side, rose, as he said, for the particular purpose of giving a legal opinion in favour of the meeting; and having listened to him with anxiety, I never was more astonished than when that hon. and learned gentleman sat down, forgetting the express purpose for which he rose. I am perfectly sure that if a client went to that hon. and learned gentleman in his professional capacity, he would never think of giving his opinion without his reasons, because such an opinion would be looked upon as nothing; and from this it is fair to infer, that the hon. and learned gentleman has no reason

to give. Another hon. and learned gentleman, who just sat down, gave a like opinion, and threw the weight of his authority into a scale opposed to that of the right hon. and learned gentleman, whose opinion, not only as to the illegality of the Manchester meeting, but of other meetings, was authenticated by the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke on the first night's debate from the floor, and who used the fact as a means of accusation against the law officers of the Crown, for not having prosecuted the offenders. But who, I will ask, ever heard of a prosecution against a multitude? That hon. and learned gentleman declared that he would, out of respect for the right hon. and learned gentleman who preceded him, consume a reasonable time in his reply, but although the time which he did consume was certainly very unreasonable, considering the matter of his speech, he did not consume one particle of the sound reasoning and unanswerable argument of the right hon. and learned gentleman. The hon. and learned gentleman by a long course of extensive employment, has raised himself in the estimation of every man (and in none more than in mine) to the head of his profession; but I hope it will not be deemed improper of me to say, that he ought as much as possible to refrain from legal device as a legislator. It must have happened to the hon. and learned gentleman, that when he was concerned on the wrong side, and found himself unable to meet the facts and the arguments of his adversary, as in the present instance, he found it for the benefit of his client to make a hash of those facts, and so to mix them up as to make them unintelligible, and thus to mislead the jury; but, surely, that course which would be advisable and proper for him to take as a pleader, ought to be repudiated by him as a judge; yet the contrary has taken place. Besides which, the hon. and learned gentleman had the candor to impute special pleading to a speech, which can only be justly appreciated, when its effects are considered after the display of talent and legal knowledge and eloquence to which it was a reply. The hon. and learned gentleman, I am astonished to say, also thought that it was necessary at this time of day, to go about to prove that the right of the subject to petition was a right which could not be taken away without annihilation of the constitution-but this was an extraordi

narily unnecessary course. Who is it that does not admit the right? Yet if it was disputed, the record to which the hon. and learned gentleman adverted would have been but poor authority, when the circumstances of the times which it referred to are considered, especially when it is known that then in reality the king disputed the right, and went to such lengths as to induce the hon. members of that day to go to the House armed, prepared to fight, and not to deliberate. This right is not, nor ever shall be, with my aid, disputed, but I look upon an abuse of the right as most dangerous, even to its own existence, and therefore I will resist it. The liberty of the press is a valuable right; but what does libel consist of but in an abuse of that liberty. The right to petition is also a most valuable right; but is a flagitious and flagrant abuse of it to be tolerated to an extent which would, by its explosion, produce revolution, with all its attendant horrors, as lately exemplified in France? while the guilty libeller is punished for a crime certainly much less dangerous, because less rapid in its effect. I have but one word more to offer; hon. gentlemen on the other side have often thrown out against us who support the government, charges of the most abominable corruption; but it is time to retaliate, and I will not shrink from the undertaking; individually, I confess, I respect and admire those hon. gentlemen denominated the Whigs of this day, but as a party I must point at the fallen image which they have so long worshipped. In the infancy of that party perhaps I would have admired its principles; in its growth I would have feared them; in its manhood I opposed them; and now, in the hour of its final dissolution, I despise them. Power, power, power (no matter by what means acquired) was their constant object; blinded by this passion, and goaded on by continual disappointment, they have at length delivered themselves over (with out intending it) to the projects of disaffection and treason. It is in vain that they have laboured and tortured this fair inference, in order to separate themselves from their new allies; the impression has gone abroad, and will never be effaced. The substantial principles of this party have long since vanished; even the name, to which they would still fondly cling, is gone, and nothing remains to them but political distrust, insignificance, and ruin.

The report was then agreed to; and the Address was ordered to be printed by the whole House.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The Lord

Monday, November 29. MISDEMEANORS BILL.] Chancellor rose to introduce a bill. He begged leave to assure their lordships, that it did not arise out of the circumstances of the times. It was well known that it had been his intention to introduce this bill, whether the circumstances which at present called for their consideration had occurred or not. He then proceeded to describe the object of the bill. He stated, that it was the practice of the courts to allow defendants, in cases of information or indictments to imparle or traverse. The effect of which was, to gain time till the next or sessions. The effect of this practice had been, in several instances, that the trials of individuals against whom informations had been filed, or indictments found, had been so delayed that the prosecution failed to answer any of the purposes for which it was commenced. His object, therefore, in the present bill, was, to take away the right of imparling or traversing, by compelling the parties to plead in the term or at the sessions in which the information should be filed or the indictment found, unless, upon any special grounds urged, the court should think proper to allow the parties to imparle or traverse. This would prevent those unnecessary delays to which he had already adverted, without in any way interfering with substantial justice. lordship presented the bill, which was read a first time.

He

Lord Holland wished to understand distinctly the object of the bill. He had not caught sufficiently the expressions of the noble and learned lord to understand whether the bill was intended equally to apply to imparling and traversing, to prevent both, or in what particular way it was in that respect to operate. wished, therefore, for further information upon those points. There was another point also respecting which he wished to know whether any provision was introduced into the bill-he alluded to informations filed ex officio by the attorneygeneral. He wished to know whether there was any provision by which that