interfered with by ministers; and that they were not aware of their occurrence until they had been informed of them by Mr. Hay. It was then that they advised the thanks of the sovereign, of which he should say more presently. As to saying that they had applauded the spilling of blood, he was certain there was not a member of that house who believed it; for it could not be supposed that any men in their situation would be base and cruel enough to approve the shedding of the blood of his majesty's subjects. He would state that it was not because blood had been shed, and that the transactions were of a most painful nature, in consequence of the shedding of blood, that ministers were to shrink from their duty in thanking those whom they conceived to have conscientiously discharged arduous and important functions, leaving their conduct open to the visitation of the laws, if it should be afterwards found that those laws had been violated. It had been said that ministers were culpable in not having waited for an inquiry before they gave the thanks of the crown; but he maintained that they owed it to the magistrates to give an immediate opinion as to whether they had been considered to have acted in a fair point of view or not, without waiting for an inquiry into the minutiae of the transaction. Why had not the same objections been made with respect to what had occurred relative to the riots in Cambridgeshire? The satisfaction which his majesty's government had expressed at the conduct of the magistrates and yeomanry, was not that blood had been shed;

but that amidst those painful transactions, the most painful of which was the shedding of blood, the magistrates and the yeomanry had been found intrepid enough to discharge their duty on that day. In bringing this question before the house, the honourable baronet had thought fit to argue it as a transaction which should only be viewed as far as it respected Manchester itself. But was that the fair view of the question? Ought not the proceedings on that occasion to have been, as they were very properly, viewed with reference to the general state of the country. The spirit which was known long before this period to have existed at Manchester, was also known to prevail in many other parts of the country? It had extended to the metropolis itself, where they saw that an illegal meeting had been held in Smithfield under the same individual who afterwards presided at Manchester. He had said that the Smithfield meeting was illegal, and he asked, could there be a doubt of the illegality of that meeting, where it was resolved that the national debt was not a lawful debt, and ought not to be paid, and that the people ought to pay no taxes, after a certain time, if parliament were not reformed. The same individual who had presided at this illegal meeting in Smithfield, was subsequently found going down to Manchester to preside at another meeting to be held there. Was not that of itself sufficient to create alarm in the minds of the authorities at Manchester? The spirit which had assembled the crowds at Manchester had afterwards exploded into positive

rebellion,

rebellion, and had brought many under the lash of the law for that crime, and nothing but mercy could have saved more than 100 persons from forfeiting their lives as traitors, in Scotland and in Yorkshire. It had not therefore been correctly stated that the meeting at Manchester had consisted of moderate reformers, assembled for temperate discussion; but they were a great mass assembled for intimidation and bringing on a revolutionary movement; and if the design had not been repressed there, it would have broken out into rebellion, and instead of the blood that had been shed there, torrents of blood would have burst forth. The facts were fully established, that there had been a meeting of from 70,000 to 80,000 persons, assembled in circumstances infinitely formidable in themselves; that the men had come in military array; and that they met for any object but sober reform. The magistrates had been, he did not say justified, but called on as honest Englishmen to be at their post and to take care to be supported by a proper military force. The magistrates had not intended to interfere with the meeting. They had taken their post for the purpose of watching the meeting, not of breaking it up. After a variety of depositions had been made, which gave a character of terror to the meeting in the minds of the people of Manchester, and which gave the meeting that ille gal character which the law asserts, then they had granted a warrant. The house had the ver dict of a jury, as far as the arrests, in justification of the magistrates. Mr. Hunt's conviction proved that

the magistrates had been justified in issuing a warrant against Mr. Hunt and those who had been acting with him. There was, therefore, not merely the depositions made previously to the issuing of the warrants, but the verdict of a jury since, to prove that the warrants were properly issued. The jury, acting under the instruction of the learned judge, Mr. justice Bayley, who had felt no doubt so far as the persons convicted had been concerned, had confirmed the previous depositions laid before the magistrates. Who would venture to say that the meeting had not become illegal from the moment that the peace had been broken, and resistance had been made? From that moment that resistance had been made and tumult had arisen, the assembly had become generally and universally illegal. If that was the case, the question then was, were the measures which the magistrates had adopted reasonable, or were they measures of cruelty and oppression, which would always be reprobated by British law? (and officers in the performance of their duty, if they were guilty of cruelty or oppression, found the proper corrective in the law.) He (the marquis of Londonderry) still said that military force had not been called in till the person employed had said that he was not able to execute the warrant. He said that the magistrates had not employed a greater force than was necessary, and had not called assistance in till the danger of the yeomanry required it. Honourable gentlemen might think that they knew better than the magistrates who had been present; but Mr. Hulton had seen the

danger

1

danger of the yeomanry. Now he would not attempt to go into the circumstances which characterized that day. Injuries had happened to many innocent persons. The servants of the magistrates, the constables, had suffered; they had been struck, injured, and trodden down. But it was those who had brought such an assemblage together-it was those who invited multitudes to assemble, under the mask of reform, prepared for nothing but violence and rebellion-it was on their heads that all the blood would fall, and not on the magistrates who had the true manliness to perform a painful duty. He must be permitted here to comment on the course pursued by those who sought justice in this house, and to allude to their conduct elsewhere. Did they mean that if murder had been committed, that the laws were not capable of affording redress? If they charged the necessity to the grand jury of Lancashire, did they mean that the conduct of any grand jury could shut the door of justice? It would have been more becoming the honourable baronet not to have let any grand jury shut the door against a question of blood, than to have kept a notice hanging there so long. If it could not be tried as a question of blood, were there not other questions which would bring all the circumstances of this transac. tion under the consideration of the juries of the constitution? Did the honourable baronet mean to say that this complicated ques tion could be tried only by the jury whom he was daily traducing?-before an assembly which he could hardly bring himself to

treat as the orders of the house enforced upon every member, and whom, if he was obliged to treat decently in that house, he took every opportunity elsewhere of degrading and vilifying? Was this the assembly to whom he wished to submit this most complicated transaction? This was an insult to their understandings. Was the honourable baronet driven to this house? Were those who suffered driven by the laws of this free and happy land to have no resource? He put it to the honourable baronet, whether any person removed by force from that place- Peterloo, he believed it was called-had not his action, and whether such an action would not bring the whole merits distinctly upon evidence into view? The honourable baronet endeavoured to show that all ought to have been sifted on the very important trial of Mr. Hunt. Why had not all the evidence connected with the transaction been brought forward at that trial? For a most obvious reason-because the question there had been, not, whether the meeting had been improperly dispersed, but whether it had been properly and legally assembled. The judge had repeatedly stated that the question was, the legality or illegality of the meeting. It would have been impossible to delay, or rather to dally with such an inquiry, by bringing all the evidence forward. Mr. Hunt's trial had nothing to do with what had been called the cruelty of the dispersion. Actions might have been brought against Mr. Hulton, against col. L'Estrange, against the Manchester yeomanry, who had been improperly traduced,

and

and every man would be traduced who would fearlessly do his duty. It had struck him (the marquis of Londonderry) as whimsically amusing, when an honourable gentleman on his side of the house was stating facts as they had been given to him, to see the honourable member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Bennet) constantly interrupting with the question, "Is that deposition on oath?" meaning, if it was not on oath, that it was unworthy of attention. All the reformers of Manchester who sent statements to that house were to be believed on their honor and conscience! and the house was called on to place entire confidence in their honor and conscience. This was a proof that the advocates of this motion had not an inch of ground to stand upon, when that which was brought forward by them they dared not to suffer to be sifted to the bottom. But how could the -poor sufferers, without one farthing of money in their pockets, go to a jury for that justice which the honourable baronet applied for to that house? He (lord Londonderry) had seen in a list of subscriptions, amounting, he believed to 20001.-the name of the honourable baronet with a large sum after it. Was one farthing of that money laid out for the purpose of obtaining justice? Yes; he understood for the agents at the inquest, in Oldham. A more base transaction than that before the coroner at Oldham he had never heard of. It had been an attempt not to get evidence of the circumstances of the sufferings of any person, of the manner and of the circumstances of the proceeding; but it was an attempt to

prove the circumstances which had taken place at various points calculated not to bear on the transaction, but for the getting up of a case to inflame the public mind, and to pour a torrent of disaffection on the country, and not calculated to obtain justice on the guilty, if guilty they were. Unfortunately there were too many who had suffered on that occasion. It was impossible to read the proceedings of that day without one's heart bleeding for the injuries inflicted. But they had been brought on by themselves; and with them some innocent persons had suffered as would always happen in all such cases. Never had there been a more absurd endeavour than to send down persons with a purpose of this nature-than, in this country, where charity was always liberal for cases of distress, and where none could want relief, to send and to advertise for grievances and wounds and bruises. This had been thought better than bringing the criminal parties to justice, if there were any criminal. This had been done to rouse the indignation and to pervert the public mind. The honourable baronet now came forward on worse ground, because parliament had formerly and solemnly decided that they would not interfere, not because they felt not for the injuries suffered, but because they could be better inquired into elsewhere, and in courts the vices of which the parliament would correct when properly arraigned. No case had been laid for parliament examining a case of a complicated and extended nature, and calling to their bar hundreds of individuals still excited and

irritated,

irritated. If parliament were to go into the inquiry, what practical end could it have? Did the honourable baronet move the inquiry with the view of impeaching his majesty's ministers, or the magis trates of Manchester? He (the marquis of Londonderry) did not apprehend that the honourable baronet had opened a case of that nature. He did not think the house would go into such an inquiry on such loose grounds as had been laid.

An honourable and learned gentleman opposite, had said that the proceeding had been of so highly sublimated a character, that no other tribunal was fit for it: it was beyond the court of King's Bench; it was beyond any assizes; it was beyond all sessions. It was one of the most extraordinary cases in which constitutional principles were offended against, though there was no offence known to the law. The house, however, with the extent of business before them, and at this time of the session, would not, he thought, be persuaded, even by the eloquence of the honourable and learned gentleman, to enter into examinations of the evidences of the intrepid witnesses of the Oldham inquest. As to the appeal of the honourable baronet, it would be disposed of to-night. The honourable and learned gentleman might renew his proposition. If he (lord Londonderry) knew any thing of the British house of commons, they would not give a judicial opinion on points on which the parties had declined to go to the regular courts. The manliness and good sense of parliament would regard this as a feeble attempt--for feeble, thank God, the attempt was to revive tumults and delu

sions which had been suppressed by the strength and wisdom of parliament, who had saved the country from what had nearly become treason and rebellion. Whatever attempts were made, in or out of parliament, to make people believe that they were not the representatives of the people, as their representatives they had a magical influence. The danger of treason had disappeared before the thunder of parliament; delusions on another subject had disappeared before the voice of parliament; and those delusions could never be renewed against their strong and decisive vote this night.、

Several other honourable members on either side gave their opinions. Sir F. Burdett replied, and the house at length divided at half past two o'clock, when the numbers were,

For the motion Against it

Majority against it.

124

23.-Sir James Macintosh moved the order of the day for the house resolving itself into a committee of the whole house on the bill for mitigating the punishment in cases of forgery.

The Solicitor General said, he felt himself somewhat reluctantly compelled to give his opposition to the motion of his honourable and learned friend. This motion arose out of the recommendation of a committee, consisting of men of talent and experience. He did not impute the partiality of the report to any neglect of the committee; but every one knew there were a number of persons anxious to do away all capital punishment whatsoever, and that those persons so influenced would press forward

to