laws, or the dignity of parliament? Such a proceeding, he must say, appeared to him wild, unprecedented, and impracti cable. His hon. and learned friend had adverted to three cases, as precedents to warrant such a course as that now recommended. The first was a case in the year 1714, in which the House of Lords, for the purpose of procuring the removal of magistrates who were supposed to entertain Jacobitical principles, had addressed the throne for a list of the magistrates, and entered into a strict inquiry; in consequence of which, several of those magistrates were dismissed. Was there any trial then depending in a court of law? Was there any specific fact that could be inquired into in a court of law? Or, was it any thing more than a proceeding to enable parliament to advise the Crown, with respect to the wholesome exercise of it's prerogative?-The second was the case of the murder of Porteus, by the mob of Edinburgh (which had derived much celebrity from a late popular work). Was that a proceeding affecting any trial depending, or with a view to any individual punishment? It was, as fairly stated by the hon. and learned member, an inquiry, in order to ground a bill of pains and penalties against the town of Edinburgh, and which was accordingly passed. The third instance alluded to, was the inquiry instituted before the secret committee in 1794. That was an inquiry for the purpose of grounding measures for the public safety; and was with reference to the general state of the country, not into the conduct of local magistrates, and on a particular occasion. Again the danger of its incidentally affecting the rights of individuals, who were liable to be tried in the courts of law, was so strongly felt, that the inquiry was a secret one; when published, the names of individuals were suppressed; and even under all these circumstances, the possibility of an impression unfavourable to these individuals having been made by the report, was so strongly felt, that Mr. Erskine relied on it, and successfully, and in some instances, as he (Mr. P.) believed, acquittals were obtained on that ground. When his hon. and learned friend, with his extensive knowledge and research, could produce no other instances than these, he felt himself justified in repeating the assertion, that the measure was unprecedented.-But there was a case not alluded to by his hon. and learned friend, as he recollected, about the year 1715, in which a parliamentary inquiry having been directed, into the nature of a certain meeting at Oxford, which was alleged to be riotous, a number of affidavits were produced on one side, and after an unavailing demand of examination on the other, the inquiry was found so impracticable that it was dropped, and no further proceeding founded on it.* The reference appears to have been made from memory, and, though substantially true, was certainly inaccurate in expression. The facts were these:-A tumult having arisen at Oxford, on the prince's birth-day, and the loyalty of the mayor and of the heads of the university being called in question, the lords of the council examined into the case on affidavits, not with reference to the riot, but with respect to their conduct as to rejoicing on the prince's birth-day,-a matter which could not be the subject of any legal inquiry. The council came to the following resolution: "Resolved, that the heads of the university and mayor of the city neglected to make any public rejoicing on the prince's birth-day; but some of the collegiates, with the officers, being met to celebrate the day, the house where they were was assaulted, and the windows were broken by the rabble, which was the beginning and occasion of the riots that ensued, as well from the soldiers as the scholars and the townsmen; and that the conduct of the mayor seems well justified by the affidavits on his part." On the 25th March, 1717, the Lords addressed the Crown, that the proper officer should lay before the House the complaints and depositions relative to the riots and disorders complained of at the city of Oxford, and the proceedings which had been had thereon. In consequence of this address, the documents, consisting among others of fifty-six affidavits by the officers and soldiers, and fifty-five affidavitз on the part of the mayor and city, were laid before the House of Lords, and referred to a committee of the whole House. On the 3rd of April, 1717, the committee repealed two resolutions: viz. an approbation of the resolutions of the lords of the council, already stated; and, secondly, that the publication of depositions, while the matter was depending in council, was disrespectful to the prince, and tending to sedition. A petition against this re The case for inquiry, he therefore contended, was unsupported by precedent, and was not bottomed on any ascertained fact, or even on any statement made by any member in his place, of any case which, if true, would warrant its adoption. Indeed, he had not heard any member assert the legality of the Manchester meeting. He was confident that no man, acquainted with the laws and constitution of the country, would venture to do so. The House, he trusted, would excuse him, if he trespassed a little further on their patience, by stating his opinion, as to these public meetings. The right of the people of this country to meet, for the purpose of expressing their opinions on any subject connected with their own individual interest, or with the public welfare, was beyond all question; it was a sacred privilege, belonging to the most humble, as fully as to the highest subject in the community: they had a right to the full expression, and to the free communication, of such sentiments; to interchange them with their fellow subjects; to animate and catch fire, each from the other. He trusted that to such rights he never should be found an enemy. But he must say, that these rights, like all others, to be exercised in civil society, must be subject to such modification and restriction as to render them compatible with other rights, equally acknowledged, and equally sacred. Every subject of this realm had an undoubted right to the pro solution was offered on behalf of the vice chancellor, the mayor and magistrates, who desired to be heard in reply. Their application was refused, and the resolutions already stated were adopted by the House, and no further proceed ings were taken. And even from this mere adoption of the resolution in council twenty-eight peers dissented, assigning this among other reasons, namely, that the matters of fact were not sufficiently inquired into, from want of opportunity of replying to the affidavits; and because, by such proceedings, the magistrates may be discouraged from doing their duty on such occasions. These facts appear on the Journals of the Lords; and it is conceived they substantially warrant the statement of this case, as one tending to show the futility of such inquiries, although they do not confirm the exact words of the statement. (VOL. XLI.) tection of the laws, to the security of his person and his property, and still more, to the full assurance of such safety; and he had no hesitation in asserting, that any assembly of the people, held under such circumstances as to excite in the minds of the king's peaceable and loyal subjects reasonable grounds of alarm, in this respect, were illegal assemblies, and liable to be dispersed as such. He thought it important that it should be understood, that these rights were restricted, not merely to this extent; namely, that they must not assemble for an illegal purpose; that they must not assemble with force and arms; that they must not use seditious language; that they must not revile the laws or public functionaries; but, beyond all this, that they must not assemble under such circumstances, whether of numbers or otherwise, as to excite wellgrounded terror in the minds of their fellow subjects, or to disturb their tranquil and assured enjoyment of the protection of the laws, free from all reasonable apprehension of force or violence. A vulgar notion may have prevailed, that if the avowed and immediate purpose of such meetings were not illegal, or if they had not arms in their hands, or if no force was actually used, or immediately threatened, the assembly was legal :-no opinion could be more unfounded. And he did not fear contradiction from any constitutional lawyer, when he asserted, that any assembly of the people, whether armed or unarmed; whether using or threatening to use force, or not doing so; and whether the avowed object was illegal or legal, if held in such numbers, or with such language, or emblems, or deportment, as to create well-grounded terror in the king's liege subjects for their lives, their persons, or their property, was an illegal assembly, and might be dispersed as such. Such had been the law, as laid down by the ablest of our lawyers, and of our judges, from the earliest period of our jurisprudence, and in the best times of our history and constitution, before the revolution, and since the revolution, independent of the Riot act, or of any statutable enactment, by the principles of our common law, which was always founded on the principles of common sense. application of this principle to each particular case must always be a matter of discretion; but, in cases like the present, it could not admit of doubt or difficulty. When meetings became too strong for the (K) The civil power to deal with them, the laws personally. He should certainly be most must prohibit them; if not, recourse must unwilling to see them judged by the exnecessarily be had to military force. aggerated and distorted statements that When the citizen became too strong for had been laid before the public. It was the law, the magistrate of necessity be- not, however, because he thought them came a soldier; and those who justified guilty, that he wished for an inquiry, but these unrestricted meetings were the in order that circumstances might appear worst enemies to the liberties of their that would destroy the delusion which had country, and laid the foundation of a mi- taken hold of the public mind. His litary despotism. If bodies of the people, hon. and learned friend coming from a not convened by any public functionary, distant part-distant, he meant, from the but called together by mountebanks, scene of these proceedings-did not whose only title was their impudence and appear to be informed so intimately of folly, were entitled to assemble, not in the facts of the case as to warrant the thousands, but in tens of thousands; to decided manner in which he had spoken march, with banners displayed, in mili- of them. There was one recommendatary array, into the hearts of populous tion of his hon. and learned friend which cities; and if the laws were not competent he certainly never expected to hear on to assure the people of this country this side of the channel, and that was, against the panic and dismay excited by" that they should decide on the facts such proceedings, there was an end to the constitution. He implored the House to protect the country from the effect of these desolating plans which were now in operation. Even though they should not break out in actual rebellion, their mischiefs were beyond calculation. The principles of respect for the laws and orders of the state, the reverence that was due to the sacred obligations of religion, these were not the results of momentary feelings, which might be thrown aside and resumed at pleasure; they were habits which, if once removed, could not easily be restored. If those sacred sources, from which were the issues of public happiness and virtue, were once tainted, how was their purity to be restored? He had reason to believe, that the blasphemies, which had excited the horror of all good men, had been fashioned by these miscreants into primers for the education of children, that these helpless beings, in receiving the first elements of knowledge, might be inoculated with this pestilence. He again implored the House to act with decision and energy, while yet it was in their power. If the great foundations of public safety were once shaken, the united exertion of all the honest men of every party might come too late. On these grounds he deprecated the amendment, as calculated to give encouragement to the worst enemies of the state; and cordially concurred in the original address. Mr. Scarlett began by observing, that with many of the magistrates of Manchester he had long been in habits of intimacy, and every one of them he knew first, and then inquire." [A laugh]. Without saying, that he imputed to his majesty's ministers the intention of governing the people by force, he might remark, that such an inference had been drawn by part of the public from the proceedings in question; and since it was so alleged, it was necessary that an inquiry should take place, in order to remove that dangerous delusion; and if, on inquiry, it should appear (which he could not suppose) that government had entertained such an intention, that government should meet the censure which it deserved. He was sorry to observe the manner in which his hon. and learned friend who spoke last had argued on this subject. He (Mr. Scarlett) did not mean to treat this as a legal question; he conceived it to be paramount to all special pleading, of which his hon. and learned friend's speech had too much the air. He should not enter at large into the character of the meeting at Manchester, but from what he had heard he thought it likely that the motives of the persons who called it were criminal, and that many of the persons attending it had criminal intentions. But many such meetings had been held before and since; and he was surprised that the persons attending these meetings had never been punished. In July last, a few days after the prorogation of parliament, a meeting was held in Smithfield, at which it was resolved that the laws were not to be obeyed after January, 1820, and that no taxes were to be paid after that date; and having never yet heard of any proceedings to punish the persons who had passed these resolutions, he was surprised Where, but in that place which was the professed sanctuary of the rights of the people-the House of Commons; where but before the grand inquest of the nation, the guardians of the constitution, and the liberties it conferred? The noble lord had talked much about the law which he did not seem to understand; but was it meant to be said, that the right of the people to meet and petition was to be left to a private action, commenced by some starving weaver, or some old woman who might take upon herself to be the championess of the nation? A great constitutional right was at stake, and the House of Commons was the only proper forum for inquiry. After some further remarks upon the point whether the Court of King's Bench would grant a criminal in. formation against a magistrate, unless malice or corruption were proved, the hon. and learned gentleman proceeded to notice the dismissal of earl Fitzwilliam. It was known that there was not a man in the country more opposed to the visionary and absurd schemes of the radicals, yet ministers had removed him; and, what was the inference from this fact, but that, as they intended to substitute a military for a civil force, they did not think that he would be an instrument in their hands sufficiently complying? They feared that his ardent love for the constitution would oppose a barrier to their plans in Yorkshire, and that he would support the resolutions of the House of Commons in 1680, when it was declared that those who misrepresented the objects of the people, when they met for redress of grievances, betrayed the liberty of the subject. If it were quite clear that the magistrates would come out of the inquiry pure and unsullied, they would not thank the Prince Regent's ministers for their injudicious friendship in refusing to allow them to justify themselves to the world. But, notwithstanding their refusal, it became the House of Commons to act for itself, to consult the wishes of its constituents, and he never should think the worse of it for sympathising with the people. that a meeting should be put down by | force, at which no such resolutions had been passed. The first meeting advertised would undoubtedly have been illegal, and on this account the object was changed, and the second Manchester meeting, of the 16th August, took place. What followed? Hunt and his associates were arrested, and after the warrant of the magistrates had thus been executed, the people assembled were cut and trampled down by the yeomanry. The noble lord had asserted that the magistrates never contemplated the dispersion of the mob by the military. Would the public give the noble lord credit for this important fact? Would they not require that it should be proved at the bar? As a lawyer he agreed that the Riot act need not be read before the dispersion of an illegal meeting, and he also agreed that if in a contest with constables in dispersing an illegal meeting, the civil power destroyed life, it was justifiable homicide; but he denied most firmly that, if persons continued on the ground after the arrest of the ringleaders, the yeomanry, by any law of this country, were authorized in cutting them down. Those who remained were guilty of a misdemeanor, but only of a misdemeanor; and it was quite too much to say, that to prevent a misdemeanor life might be destroyed with impunity, though it was otherwise in cases of felony. It might be said that the yeomanry only endeavoured to arrest; but did they se. cure one individual, or did they take a single man to the New Bailey? Čertainly not; and, in this view of the question, supposing the meeting to have been illegal, the military had been guilty of a high offence in the deaths they had occasioned, and the wounds they had inflicted. What complexion, then, did the transaction take? The people meet to petition. The magistrates issue a warrant to arrest certain individuals; and that being executed, the yeomanry disperse the crowd at the edge of the sabre: three days afterwards, the thanks of the Prince Regent were given, both to the civil and military authorities; and what was the unavoidable inference, but that opinions, however absurd or preposterous, were to be put down by the bayonet, and that ministers in tended to act on a system of military coercion? Did not this demand inquiry? Did not this call upon the whole nation to insist that inquiry should be instituted? Where, then, ought it to be conducted? The Attorney-General rose, amid loud cries for the question, and for an adjournment. He congratulated the House on the general admission that the meeting at Manchester, on the 16th of August, was illegal; and he imagined that the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last must have forgotten that the efforts of the yeomanry were not directed, in the first that could be devised. He admitted that there was considerable distress in the country, and if, in our present situation, it could be done without detriment to the state, he would be willing to take off some of those taxes that bore on the lower classes. But gentlemen should recollect, that the exigencies of the government must be provided for, and that it was easier to remove a tax than to propose a substitute. instance, to disperse the meeting, but to Sir W. De Crespigny now moved an adjournment of the debate. The motion being seconded by sir Robert Wilson, and supported by Mr. M. A. Taylor, a division took place: Ayes, 65. Noes, 453. Majority against an adjournment, 388-When the gallery was re-opened, Mr. Wilberforce was in possession of the House. He objected to its yielding to the clamour out of doors by concurring in the amendment. He insisted that the great body of the nation, at least the great body of the thinking part of it, approved of the steps the magistrates of Manchester had taken, and would be dissatisfied if inquiry at the bar were instituted. He knew that the House of Commons acted, in many instances, as the grand inquest of the nation; yet when gentlemen considered that they would be called on to investigate the conduct of the magistrates in their official capacity, and that in so doing they would be obliged to examine men, not on oath at the bar-men too, it should be observed, who professed the new system of morality, who defied the laws of God and manperhaps they would pause before they determined to exercise those functions, by agreeing to the amendment. respect to the transactions at Manchester on the 16th of August, he felt as deeply concerned at the circumstances of that unfortunate day as any gentleman possibly could; but, if he asked himself how the peace of the country was to be preserved, the answer must be, that if they assented to any such motion as the present, and thus sanctioned the proceedings of those bad men, who wished to produce anarchy and confusion, it would be the means of creating more discord and bloodshed than any other measure With Mr. Hume rose amidst loud cries of Question, question." He said, that, in order to give every member an opportunity of stating his opinion on this question, which, at that late hour, it was impossible to do, he would move an adjournment of the debate. The Speaker. What does the hon. member move? Mr. Hume. That this debate be adjourned to this day. The Speaker.-1 beg leave to submit the difficulty that arises on this question. The House has already decided that this debate should not be adjourned. Mr. Hume. Then I beg leave to move that the House do now adjourn. The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took place. While stran. gers were excluded, the question was debated, whether it was consistent with the rules of the House for a gentleman to persist in moving the adjournment, minute after minute, in order to prevent the consideration of a question, as was done by the party in opposition when Mr. Fox was last in power. After Mr. Hume, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Bennet, lord Castlereagh, Mr. Scarlett, Mr. Bankes, and Mr. W. Wynn, had delivered their sentiments, it was agreed that the debate should be adjourned till to-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, November 24. ADDRESS ON THE PRINCE REGENT'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION.] The adjourned debate on the Address having been resumed, Mr. V. Blake said, he rose to order, for the purpose of protesting against the vote of last night on the question of adjourn ment. The Speaker observed, that if in the impression he had taken of the hon. gentleman's object, he was incorrect, the hon. gentleman had risen on the point of order, with the view of altering and |