regiment he belonged? and finding that was it possible that those revered and he belonged to his own regiment, he ex-learned persons could have known whether pressed his regret that he should have the gaol of Ilchester was well or ill regu placed himself in such a situation. He lated; or whether the gaoler was base or might also have felt regret that the indi- cruel? The very magistrates of the county vidual had engaged in such proceedings; were astonished (himself amongst the but if it was intended to be conveyed that number) at the statements that had been he had laughed or sneered at the suffer- lately made with respect to the state of ings of this or any other individual, he Ilchester gaol: if it should turn out to be begged most distinctly to contradict the true, that the gaol was badly regulatedassertion. The petitioner had offered to that prisoners were harshly and cruelly show his wounds, but he, as foreman of treated, most certainly the magistrates the grand jury, told him it was unneces- were ignorant of those things. Was it to sary, as his statement was sufficient; and be believed, then, that the judges could here the matter ended. be better acquainted with the internal reSir R. Wilson said, that the next peti-gulations of that gaol than the magistrates tion was from a person who had been considered as the leader of the Manchester meeting; it was from Mr. Henry Hunt, whose conviction at York was, in his opinion, produced by a violent straining The Marquis of Londonderry said, he of the law, and whose purishment was would leave it to every impartial man to most oppressive, vindictive and unjust, say whether the petition was intended to in a country where justice was administer-inflame the public mind, or to seek for ed in mercy. Lord Milton said, that the case of Mr. Hunt was totally different from that of the other petitioners. Mr. Scarlett felt that it was but an act of justice, on his part, to state that the subject of the petition had been before the court of King's-bench, and that the charges had been answered upon affidavit; that the counsel of Mr. Hunt, after having heard the affidavit read, consented to have the conditional rule obtained by Mr. Hunt, discharged with costs. Ordered to lie on the table. Sir R. Wilson presented another petition from Mr. Hunt complaining of the conduct of the gaoler at Ilchester. The petitioner stated, that the cold and noxious vapours of the gaol were aggravated by the inhuman, cold-blooded, and remorseless keeper's conduct: that the judges had deliberately and intentionally selected the most unwholesome, the worst regulated, and the most immoral gaol in the kingdom; and that one of the judges, who had been born in the neighbourhood of this bastile, had not been able to conceal his joy, when he saw the petitioner sentenced to imprisonment in it for two years and six months. On the question, That the petition do lie on the table,., Mr. Bright said, he felt himself called upon indignantly to notice the vile, base, and atrocious imputations which the petitioner had thrown upon the judges. How of the county? The imputations which the petitioner had cast upon those learned persons, he was convinced, were false, unprincipled, and atrocious. justice and redress of injuries. In his opinion, it was impossible that the House could suffer to lie upon the table a petition full of such monstrous aspersions upon the venerable judges of the land. The Attorney General said, he had been present when the sentence of the court of King's-bench was pronounced upon the petitioner; and he could assert, that upon that occasion no expression in words or by gesture was made by any of the learned judges such as described by the petitioner. He believed in his conscience that the gaol of Ilchester had been selected because it was supposed to have been the best regulated. Mr. Scarlett said, that the petition, as it related to the judges of the King'sbench, he looked upon as base, false, and slanderous. The terms of the petition were scandalous and base in the extreme; if such language as the petition contained was to be tolerated in that House, then it would be better to give up all respect for the administration of justice. The learned judges, throughout the whole case of the petitioner, had conducted themselves with a cautious and fearful anxiety. They were anxious throughout to do what was equitable and just. They gave to the defendant advantages and opportunities which few parties had ever possessed before; they gave him their assistance when he had no counsel, and bore, with the utmost patience language and conduct from the petitioner which courts of justice were not accustomed to hear. He agreed with the noble lord that the petition ought not to be permitted to lie upon the table. in our own island, which had only just been concluded by the extermination of the friends of liberty and justice, it was one of those triumphs to which glory had yet been attributed in no country of the world. The subject was so important in all points of view, whether it were considered as affecting the happiness and freedom of the people, the dignity and he would say the security of the king himself, or the laws and constitution of the realm, that in endeavouring to draw the attention of the House and of the public to it, he felt that he was likely to gain much more credit for zeal than for discretion; but galeatum serò duelli Dr. Lushington said, that he would vote that the petition be rejected, because, instead of facts, it stated the mere opinion of the petitioner. It was now five weeks since a motion had been made for a commission to inquire into the state of Ilchester gaol, yet no inquiries had been made under it. If it were true that the keeper conducted himself in a cruel and barbarous manner, the sooner he was removed the better: it was not fit that 150 of his majesty's subjects should be under the care of a person, against whom such heavy charges had been brought, without the government proceeding to an immediate inquiry as to the truth of those charges. The motion, That the petition do lie on the table, was then put and negatived. MOTION RESPECTING THE TRANSACTIONS AT THE MANCHESTER MEET ING.] Sir Francis Burdett rose. He said, that after the various petitions which had been presented to the House, stating, in terms as simple as they were incontrovertible, and as affecting as they were unaffected, the injuries which had been inflicted on the people whilst peaceably assembled for a purpose of the highest importance to the country, namely, the expression of their feelings upon the necessity of reform of that House-he rose, not knowing to whom the blame of the transaction ought to attach, but with the intention of discovering that point by his motion: for, whether it was to the ministers, or whether it was to the magistrates, or whether it was to the yeomanry, who so particularly distinguished themselves on that occasion, that the great share of blame ought to attach, or whether it was to attach to them all collectively, was more than he could tell at present, and was, therefore, a proof that some inquiry into the subject was necessary, It had fallen to the lot of others to celebrate the triumphs of our arms abroad: to him belonged the unpleasant task of repeating to the House one of the sad events of domestic war-celebrare domestica facta; and if, as the noble secretary at war had not long since said, the nation was now only in the first year of domestic peace; if, after war had so long ceased on the continent, a strife had been still kept up Pœnitet." His object was to procure an inquiry into a subject, regarding which, to the disgrace of the government, no investigation had yet been instituted. In order fitly to introduce it, it would be necessary to recur to what had passed upon a former occasion, and to animadvert on what had fallen from different gentlemen in parliament, who had endeavoured to show that there was no ground of complaint; that all the statements made, of violence committed on the people, were without foundation; or that that violence was justified by the circumstances of the case. He recollected particularly that the noble lord, the member for Lancashire (lord Stanley) asserted, that it was not until the yeomanry had been attacked with bludgeons, stones, and brickbats, that they "turned round upon the mob, and some wounds were inflicted." His respect for that noble lord induced him to believe, that he would be glad to embrace this opportunity of confessing that the representation he then made was not founded in fact. In commencing a subject of so delicate and extraordinary a nature, it might be necessary for him in the onset to guard himself by protesting that in the language he should employ he meant nothing personally offensive to any honourable member. He was called upon to say this, because he really knew not of what terms to avail himself, unless he used those that most strongly expressed his meaning; and if he introduced the word "falsehood," as he must unavoidably do over and over again, he hoped it would be taken by those to whom it was applied, only in the sense of a statement contrary to the fact. The next honourable gentleman, whose language he bore strongly in memory, was the member for Dover (Mr. Bootle Wilbraham). He had said, thes from the very same place that the day be fore had been cleared " wagon-loads" of stones were removed. He should like to know whence those stones had been obtained. The noble lord had stated, that the people brought them in their pockets; yet it was admitted that they were so densely wedged and jammed together, that they could not even lift their arms from their sides. From whence, then, had the stones come, unless the noble lord, with certain philosophers, held that they fell from the moon; and assuredly that it was not until the yeomanry had been most violently assailed by sticks, stones, and missiles, collected for the purpose on the ground, that they lifted an arm against the people. After him, rising in a just climax of-he knew not what word to use, -in a just climax of statement, since proved to be groundless and untrue, followed the solicitor-general for the Crown. He asserted, not only that attacks were made by the people, but that some of the yeomanry were literally unhorsed. He begged leave to observe, that he did not impute to the learned gentleman any wil-was a much more probable conjecture ful intention to mislead by falsehood; and he should be especially sorry to charge improper motives in this instance, because he confessed that particular circumstances, of which the solicitor-general might think nothing, had produced a feeling in his mind, which he should never forget, and which made him anxious not to animadvert on the conduct of that learned gentleman in terms more harsh than were absolutely necessary. The learned gentleman belonged to a profession, the business of which was to make the best of a case: dolus an virtus was the peculiar motto of every lawyer; and if the learned gentleman would candidly admit that the case had been put into his hands, he should think the plea a perfectly just one. - Having thus noted, in the order they occurred, the different statements as they were made, he next came, in the due course of the climax, to the speech of the noble marquis opposite, who in the regions of fancy and imagination soared far above his compeers. The noble lord had stated to the House matters, not only since proved to be totally groundless, but proved not to have the slightest verisimilitudeto have no distant resemblance to the fact, but to be utterly and absolutely false and fabricated. The noble lord had maintained, that there had been no interference on the part of the magistrates until the meeting assumed the character of tumult and treason. He went on to relate, that the people assailed the yeomanry with sticks, stones,brickbats, and even with fire-arms. Yes! the noble lord bad asserted, that fire-arms were used by the people against the military, not by the military against the people that though great care was taken to clear the ground of stones, brickbats, and missiles, on the day previous to the meeting, yet that a violent attack was made on the cavalry, that showers of stones were poured upon their heads, and that VOL. V. than that the people should have brought them in their pockets. This flight to the moon, however, was not high enough for the noble lord: he mounted with a bolder pinion, and ventured to add, not only that the magistrates did not and would not interfere with the meeting until it assumed the formidable shape of tumult and treason; but that even then they were determined to act according to the strictness of the law: that one magistrate read the Riot act from a window in the first instance, but as that was not held to come up to what was required, another magistrate, notwithstanding the tumult and formidable appearance of the meeting, like another Decius, devoted himself to his country, plunged into the midst of danger to read the Riot act, and was trampled down by the people. That was not all: the selfdevoting magistrates multiplied like Falstaff's men in buckram, and a third actually made his way to the hustings, and there read the Riot act ; so that no person present could have the pretence of saying, that he was ignorant of the fact. Now, if all this had been truth, he could have had nothing to say; but it was proved to be utterly and completely false it had been proved so in a court of law, which observed great strictness in evidence, and did not, as the House of Commons too often did, receive implicitly the loose assertion of one of his majesty's ministers. A court of law looked into facts; it sifted them and tried them by many severe tests; and the statement of the noble lord had there been disproved by numerous and respectable witnesses, who had no connexion with the parties accused, and no political feelings in common with them. Still more: if gentlemen would take the trouble to read the evidence taken on the trials at York, they would find that, with the exception of Mr. Hulton, there was not a witness for the Crown who did not bear 3 A testimony to the peaceable and orderly | the table* showed that ministers had been conduct of the people. Mr. Hulton was the only person who had seen the showers of stones, which the noble lord had added were afterwards collected in wagons. He hoped the noble lord would take care of these precious stones-that he would cause them to be preserved in the British Museum, or some other public depository, as a memento to the House to beware how it allowed itself in future to be misled by statements intended to be followed by new and violent encroachments on the rights and laws, and liberties of the country. [Much cheering.] But even Mr. Hulton, who took the chair among the magistrates because no other man could be found to fill it, did not state how the attack commenced-whether it was by order to the troops, or whether, without authority, they had fallen upon the unoffending multitude, excited by animosity or inflamed by intoxication. Surely, if there were nothing else, this alone demanded inquiry. Surely it ought to be ascertained, at least, by whom the shedding of blood upon that day was authorised. Mr. Hulton took upon himself to say that he saw the yeomanry beaten; and accordingly ordered colonel L'Estrange, with a party of the 15th dragoons, to support them; yet it was as notorious as the sun at noon, that not a single witness had corroborated this assertion: even Nadin, the runner, who said, but only said, that he could not serve a warrant without the aid of the military, did not confirm it; even the Rev. Mr. Hay, who before and since the Manchester massacre had been in constant communication with his majesty's ministers, did not confirm it; only Mr. Hulton had been gifted with senses differently formed from those of all the rest of mankind. long before acquainted with the intended banners, mottos, and all the other circum stances! yet they had never given a hint that the civil power had a right to interfere. It was evident, from a letter dated the 1st of July, 1819, signed by Mr. Norris and four other magistrates, and addressed to lord Sidmouth, who filled an office known to the old tyrannical govern ment of France and to the new military government of England, that of lieutenant de police, that they had no power to prevent the meeting. The next letter was from Mr. Spooner, of Birmingham, dated the 5th of July, in which he spoke of the apprehensions which he entertained of the approaching meeting, which had been called for a specific purpose, the election of a legislatorial attorney, which had been declared illegal, though he (sir F.) could not consider it illegal any more than the election of a mayor of Garrat. However, there was another letter from Mr. Spooner of the 13th of July, in which he stated that the meeting which had been held the day before went off quietly, and that the language used was different from that which had been held to the northward, "which appears," says Mr. Spooner, "sufficiently to prove the knowledge of the speakers, that their audience were not prepared to bear that language, or to support those who might make use of it." Here they had evidence of the good con duct and orderly disposition of the people, which shewed that they were not likely to be intoxicated by speeches, or to be incited to any acts of violence. It was to be remembered, that this meeting at Birmingham had been deemed the most objectionable of any that had been held throughout the kingdom. Long before this, too, the great Smithfield meeting He took it for granted that it would not had been held in the metropolis under be denied that the evidence produced at the eye of the government, on which oc York completely disproved all those in-casion the then lord mayor, who was as flamed, exaggerated, and false statements with regard to the conduct of the people on the 16th of August, 1819. Without looking at any other part of the question, that alone demanded the fullest inquiry. He took it to be so clear that the interference of the military could not be justified, that he confidently trusted the House would adopt measures to ascertain where the blame ought to lie. It appeared that the magistrates were not the least aware *This Correspondence will be found that there was any illegality in the meet- in Vol. 41 of the First Series of this Work, ing. The imperfect Correspondence on at p. 230. much alarmed as the magistrates of Manchester, applied to the noble lieutenant of police, to know whether he could not prevent it; but lord Sidmouth, however well disposed to do so, had told him that there was no room for him to interfere. When that meeting took place, the ill-judged and every way improper arrest of Mr. Harrison took place. Mr. Harrison was taken away under a warrant by a few | constables, from the chair of that immense meeting, and not the least show of resistance had been made. Though the whole circumstance was most likely to create irritation, the good sense of the people defeated the intention of its authors, and left no excuse for the interference of the magistrates. He would not pretend to the candour of believing that ministers did not wish to excite the people, when that excitement favoured their views. Some handbills, at least the most inflammatory one, which, by the coarseness of its language, was perhaps reckoned upon to produce the greatest effect, and which ended with the words, "Go it, my boys," had been seen by lord Sidmouth before the meeting, and was traced, he believed, to Edwards, or some other of those persons who were to be found wherever acts of violence were committed, to the destruction of the deluded people who joined in them, and to the general mischief of the state. The next letter in the correspondence was the dispatch of the rev. Mr. Hay, after the memorable event of the 16th of August. In this dispatch Mr. Hay states, that it was the determination of the magistrates not to have stopped the meeting; he states the numbers which had assembled, but he states, that a line of communication was kept up by constables between the hustings and the House where the magistrates were. This proved, that nothing could have been so easy as to have executed a warrant; and, indeed, it was proved at York, that Nadin was continually walking up and down through these rows of constables, though it was on this pretence, that he could not execute a warrant, that the yeomanry were ordered to advance; which assertion, however, he shrunk from swearing to at York, as he and so many other fabricators had shrunk from their flagitious falsehoods when put to the test in a court of justice. Mr. Hay went on to say, that there was "no appearance of arms or pikes" (a noble lord, by-the-by, had said in another place that there were pikes), but great plenty of sticks and staves." Mr. Hay then stated, that Nadin went up to the hustings, followed by the yeomanry cavalry. Here this dispatch, which his majesty's ministers had relied upon as evidence, was totally false; for it was proved by Nadin himself, that he followed the yeomanry, instead of having preceded them, which made all the difference. Among the persons on the hustings, whom Mr. Hay particularized, was Mr. Saxton, whom he characterized as "the writer to the Manchester Observer." It so happened that Mr. Saxton was not the writer to the Manchester Observer, but there was a cir cumstance connected with him which showed the spirit of the transaction. One of the yeomanry cavalry near the hustings said to another, "There is that villain Saxton; run him through!" On which his comrade replied, “No, I had rather leave it to you." Upon this the man actually made a thrust at Mr. Saxton, whose coat and waistcoat were cut through, and who only avoided fatal injury by shrinking away. Now, this" villain Saxton was an innocent man, against whom there was so entire an absence of evidence, that the Crown abandoned the prosecution. Yet this person standing there thus innocently might have lost his life by the brutal fury of his assailants. The law of England said, that even in taking a delinquent, it should not be justifiable to take his life, unless he made such resistance that he could not otherwise be apprehended; nor even then unless the offence he had committed had forfeited his life. What said the law of England to this? Even in apprehending a criminal, more violence than was necessary was not to be used; and his life was not to be assailed unless he made the most desperate resistance, and unless the crime with which he was charged rendered his life forfeit. Such was the law of England, founded on the law of God, handed down to us in that sacred book which we professed to believe. After the deluge, which had swept from the earth the race of violence and blood which had defiled the face of it, the first precept given by God to the surviving ancestor of mankind was, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." The crime of blood was so enormous that there was no satisfaction for it except in severe retaliation. Even if the blood had been shed by accident, the shedder was not, according to the Divine law, free from guilt; and this was wisely ordained, that no negligence might prevail in a matter so important to the welfare of mankind. Until the blood was expiated, the land was defiled, and he who had slied it through misfortune, was obliged to fly to a city of refuge, whence he could not depart until purified by the high priest. In the same spirit, the English law attributed a certain |