HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Tuesday, November 30.

Mr. Stuart Wortley said, he was extremely unwilling to occupy the attention of the House by any thing that respected himself personally, and he felt that, on the preceding evening, he had put an entire end to a misrepresentation that had taken place with reference to what he had said a few days ago. He had since been charged with saying, that at some meeting in the West Riding of Yorkshire, resolutions had been passed on the part of the Radical Reformers, in which the property of earl Fitzwilliam had been pointed at for partition. He explained to the House yesterday, that he never said that such resolutions had been passed; but that, in the course of a meeting held within the West Riding of the county of York, the property of the noble earl was directly pointed at for partition. There was a material difference between the two statements; because, if the Reformers had come to resolutions of such a nature, the persons concurring in them would have been implicated in their adoption, as much as the persons by whom they were proposed. What he ori

ginally said was, if gentlemen wished to know the object of the Reformers, let them look to the resolutions agreed to at Leeds; and he added, that at a meeting held somewhere in the West Riding, the property of earl Fitzwilliam was "pointed at for partition. He did not say that resolutions were passed having that object in view; but that, in the course of the meeting, the property was so pointed at. He was unwilling to believe that there was any intention to misrepresent the words made use of by the members of that House, but these were critical times, and if any accusation were thrown out against any party, it was most material that it should be precisely stated, and that words should not be placed in the mouths of gentlemen which they had not made use of. He would leave the matter here, being unwilling to As in all those vehicles press it farther. by which parliamentary intelligence was conveyed to the public, he appeared to have been equally misrepresented on this occasion, he could only attribute the circumstance either to the terms in which he delivered his explanation not being sufficiently clear, or else to some defect in the hearing of those who noticed it. He was most anxious, and he earnestly hoped, that the misrepresentation which had taken place would now be effectually done away.

-

MANCHESTER MEETING PETITION FROM READING.] Mr. Fysche Palmer presented a petition from the inhabitants of the town of Reading. It was numerously and respectably signed, he said, and related chiefly to the affair of Manchester on the 16th of August last. In consequence of information obtained by the petitioners, of the particulars of that day's transactions, not only furnished by the newspapers, but also by several respectable men in their neighbourhood, who had subsequently visited the scene, the petitioners were led to believe that the meeting was perfectly legal and constitutional, and that the conduct of the persons assembled was exemplary for good order and propriety; that an indiscriminate attack was made on this legal and orderly meeting, whereby not only the leaders and audience part of the meeting, but those who had been attracted by mere curiosity, suffered extreme cruelty and outrage. The petitioners were convinced that this attack was a violent infraction

of the right of meeting, to discuss and petition for redress of public grievances, which right was fully warranted, and the exercise of it protected by the constitution. The petitioners thought that those who advised the Prince Regent to thank the magistrates and yeomanry for their conduct on that occasion were guilty of great harshness and injustice, and showed a disposition to stifle inquiry into the most calamitous events which could befal a free people.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow did not rise to oppose the bringing up of the petition; but the declaration of the petitioners, that the Manchester meeting was perfectly legal and constitutional, was one which he felt it to be his duty to protest against. The pretence of exercising the right of petitioning, could not, in his opinion warrant the military parade and banners used on that occasion. He thought, indeed, that the meeting was directly illegal, seditious, and dangerous to the public peace. The demand for "annual parliaments, universal suffrage, and vote by ballot," inscribed on one of the flags, was utterly unconstitutional. "Liberty or Death," on another of the flags, proved the intention entertained of maintaining the first-mentioned claim at the hazard of life. This was riotous and treasonable; it was nonsense to confound such proceedings with the legal right of petitioning.

Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

MANCHESTER MEETING-PETITION OF SAMUEL BAMFORD]. Mr. Bennet said, he held in his hand a petition from a person of the name of Samuel Bamford, of Middleton, in the county palatine of Lancaster. It was drawn up in a manner extremely decorous in every point of view, and furnished one of the most singular specimens of the talents and good sense which were to be found among persons in the petitioner's rank of society. The petitioner set forth that he was one of those who conducted a large body of individuals to the meeting at Manchester of the 16th of August. He stated that he was intimately acquainted with the motives which induced individuals to attend that meeting, that he was perfectly cognizant of the propriety of the means which they intended to use to accomplish their objects, and that he was most solicitous to appear at the bar of that House to

be examined. As he (Mr. Bennet) had had two long conversations with the petitioner, he had no hesitation in saying that the information which it was in his power to give was of the highest importance, and he should like nothing better than to have the petitioner examined at the bar in order to demonstrate what he thought the petitioner capable of demonstrating, that many of the accusations brought forward against the people were very highly coloured, if not altogether unfounded. As the petition would be read, it was not his intention to enter into any detail of its contents. The petitioner, as far as he had been able to learn, bore the reputation of being an honest, moral, wellmeaning man. As to his political opinions, they certainly were dissimilar from those which he held; but he was yet to learn that there was any thing treasonable or seditious in his entertaining sentiments which had, at different times, been upheld and avowed by the great and powerful in this country, and, amongst others, by the duke of Richmond. Under these circumstances, he begged leave to offer his petition to the consideration of the House and he sincerely hoped the House would grant the prayer of the petitioner, and hear what he had to say on the different points which the petition embraced.

The petition was then read, setting forth,

"That the petitioner having read the papers relative to the internal state of the country, presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of the Prince Regent, and printed at the London Gazette Office, and which papers, the petitioner is informed, have been delivered to the members of the House as the foundation of certain legislative measures, tending to alter the laws and constitution of this realm, and abridge the rights and liberties of the people, and knowing that many of the allegations contained in those papers are untrue, and many of the circumstances described as facts are grossly misrepresented, while the proceedings and intentions of the people are unfairly discoloured and distorted in many of the documents contained in the said papers: the petitioner humby requests, that, for the purpose of disproving the allegations and representations contained in the said papers, he may be examined at the bar of the House, and confronted in person, or, by evidence, with the persons who have thus traduced a large body of his majesty's

loyal subjects, whose sole design, as must be well known to the petitioner, was to address his Royal Highness, humbly to represent their various grievances, and petition for such reforms as might have a tendency to remove them; that the petitioner, from an honest conviction that the greater part of the grievances under which the people labour might be removed by such a reform as would restore to the people their right of suffrage, and diminish the amount of taxation, by lessening the expenses of the state, and conceiving that he was amply protected by the laws in exercising all those rights of a freeman which the constitution has conferred upon him, has never hesitated to unite with is neighbours in furthering every measure which tended in a legal manner to bring about the said reforms, and nothing further has ever been in the contemplation of the petitioner, nor, he believes, in that of his neighbours, although the petitioner freely acknowledges that he has been a willing and active participator, from a sense of public duty, in most of the measures which are so grossly misconstrued and perverted, in the papers which have been so presented to the House; that, in regard to the system of pretended training for military purposes, to the preparation of flags, to the marching in a body from Middleton to Manchester, and to all the legitimate and justifiable objects of such measures the petitioner is prepared to speak at large, and to demonstrate by his own, and various evidence, that, so far from their involving any design to break the public peace, they were instituted for the very purpose of its preservation, and of giving that unity of action and feeling to every individual as should most effectually secure the harmony and good order of the great meeting of the friends of reform then meditated at Manchester; all which explanations of the petitioner would, if made at the bar of the House, fully satisfy its members, and the nation at large, that the friends of reform in Lancashire have been basely traduced and calumniated in the papers so presented as aforesaid: that the petitioner humbly trespasses further on the time of the House, to state, that he attended, with great numbers of his fellow townsmen and inhabitants of the adjacent villages, at the meeting held at Manchester on the 16th of August, for the sole and lawful purpose of giving their personal vote and countenance to an

address to the Prince Regent for redress of grievances, and for certain reforms tending thereto; that the petitioner, and his neighbours as aforesaid, walked in procession to the said meeting, after the manner in which the procession of benefit clubs and other associations take place in Lancashire and other parts of England, and, to enable the said parties to move with due decorum, a couple of flags were provided, in accordance with the manners and customs of the people of England from time immemorial for purposes of the like nature, whether for elections or any other peaceable and lawful object, which flags were provided with such inscriptions or mottoes as, in the humble judgment of the persons who directed their construction, were suitable, and as are to be found in the works of the best moral and political writers; a band of music being also provided to aid in the purposes of the flags, and to confer cheerfulness and hilarity on the people; all which appurte nances usually characterise similar processions for every variety of peaceable or social design in that country, and are in like maner believed by the petitioner to be characteristic of the peaceable manners and customs of the entire population of these realms; which several circumstances have been unfairly and unjustly described in the papers alluded to as aforesaid; that the petitioner and his neighbours arrived at the proposed place of general meeting at Manchester, for the purpose aforesaid, in the greatest hilarity and good order, intending mischief to none, and suspecting none towards themselves, therefore wholly unprepared with means of offence or defence, and many of them affording an indubitable plege of their sincerity and sense of security, by taking in their com pany their wives and female relatives; and that after they had been on the ground half an hour, and within ten minutes after the chairman had taken his station on the hustings, without any previous notice, riot, tumult, or disturbance, the assembly, consisting as is supposed of above a hundred thousand men, women, and children, who, as the petitioner believes, had been collected under similar circumstances, with similar views, to those which directed the petitioner and his neighbours, found themselves suddenly assaulted by a charge of the Manchester yeomanry cavalry, who sabred, rode down, and trampled upon every individual who could not escape them; by which, as the petitioner be

lieves, several hundred unoffending persons were severely wounded, and some killed on the spot, while, owing to the endeavour of so many thousand persons to escape from this continued, persevering, and unrelenting outrage, they were driven one upon another, so as, in some cases, to press each other to death, break the limbs of others, and occasion many to be trampled upon, thereby producing a scene of complicated horrors, of which no powers of language possessed by the petitioner can convey to the House an adequate notion; that the petitioner beheld the whole of this frightful scene with feelings which can never be erased from his mind, and the impression of which would render it highly criminal if he forbore to do his duty to the unhappy sufferers, to his country, to the cause of justice, and to the House, by thus solemnly impeaching the veracity of the various statements made by parties implicated, and criminal in those unparalleled atrocities; that the petitioner, for the reasons above stated, and that the House may not be taken by surprise, by ex parte statements, and may not be led to adopt measures derogatory of its honour and dignity, but may, on the other hand, be induced to institute such rigorous and solemn inquiries as may, through the means of its power, bring the criminal authors who appear to be above the reach of the ordinary tribunals, and above the humble means of the sufferers, to condign punishment, humbly prays, that he may be permitted to prove all and every of the allegations contained herein at the bar of the House."

Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

CAMELFORD ELECTION.] The Resolution of the 7th of July last [see vol. 40, p. 1537] being read,

Mr. D. W. Harvey said, the House had, in the last session, agreed to two resolutions relative to the borough of Camelford. One of these was, that the House would, shortly after its meeting, take into consideration the two reports which had been -drawn up relative to the last election for Camelford; the other was, that the warrant of the Speaker should not be issued, for a new writ, for members to serve for that borough, until ten days after parliament had met. He wished that the period for issuing the warrant should be farther postponed till the 6th of January next; and also, that the House should enter (VOL. XLI.)

into a committee to consider of these reports. He should therefore move, "That Mr. Speaker do not issue his warrant to make out a new writ for the electing of two burgesses to serve in this present parliament for the borough of Camelford, in the room of John Stewart, esq., and Lewis Allsop, esq., whose election has been determined to be void, before 6th January next." The resolution was agreed to; after which Mr. Harvey gave notice, that he would on Wednesday se'nnight move, "That the House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the two reports of the committee on the Camelford election."

BANK OF ENGLAND.] Mr. Grenfell wished to know from the right hon. gentleman opposite, whether any and what arrangements had been made for paying to the Bank of England part of the sum of 5,000,000l., which, under the recommendation of the parliamentary committee that sat in the last session on the affairs of the Bank, was to be put in an immediate train of payment. According to his recollection, the arrangement agreed to on that occasion was, that a sum amounting to 5,000,000l. should be paid between the months of July last and April; but as some misunderstanding had taken place on this subject, he should be obliged to the right hon. gentleman if he would favour him with correct information.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the House would do him the justice to recollect, that, when the discussion of the affairs of the Bank took place, be stated, that the necessary arrangement for raising a sum of money for the service of the year rendered it unlikely that any very early payment could be made to the Bank, unless that body chose to afford the usual accommodation with respect to the loan, by which they would be enabled to repay themselves a very large sum. They had, however, declined that accommodation, and the benefits they would have derived from it. He had, notwithstanding, to state, that a very considerable sum had been paid, to the Bank of England; and arrangements had been formed, by the operation of which, the directors of the Bank were satisfied, that the sum of 5,000,000. would be paid by the time pointed out by parliament. He therefore saw no reason for altering or encroaching on the system of arrangement which parliament had (2 L)

deemed it advisable to adopt with respect to the Bank.

THE NEW PENAL BILLS.] Mr. Brougham wished to ask the noble lord opposite, whether he meant to persist in the notice he had given last night, to move the order of the day on Thursday next, for the second reading of one of the bills which he had introduced? The reason why he asked this question was obvious; because, whichever of those bills came first to be discussed, the debate consequent on it would involve the discussion of the whole system to which that bill had reference. He would ask the noble lord, whether it was a decorous proceeding towards the country, after three days notice, and occupied as they would be that evening, in an important discussion, to call on them to consider a measure which went to effect a most extensive change in the constitution of the country-an alteration greater than ever was contemplated in the memory of man, by any one act of the legislature? Lord Castlereagh said, he saw no reason for altering the proposition which the House had adopted last night, namely, to read the bill (which had been printed and handed round in connexion with the others) a second time on Thursday next. The learned gentleman had, in his opinion pushed the connexion between the bills too far. The sooner they came to the discussion of the principle, the sooner they would separate the bill from all the misrepresentation with which the learned gentleman seemed so anxious to surround it, during his short speech of last night. That speech made him extremely desirous to come to close quarters on the measure, in order that the country might understand what the bill really was to which the learned gentleman and those around him attributed such fearful qualities, and that it should be completely freed from the misrepresentations that had been thrown upon it.

Mr. Brougham said, as there was no question before the House, he certainly had not a right to answer the noble lord, but he might be permitted to observe, that his having studiously endeavoured to surround the measure with misrepresentation, as had been alleged, so far from being a reason for rapid and immature decision, afforded the best possible ground for a short delay. The bill itself could not be affected by his misrepresentations: it might be laid in its own natural "features"

as the noble lord would call them, before the public; and its provisions might then be argued by the country and the House, with that deliberation and calmness for the exercise of which the delay of a few days was absolutely necessary. If the noble lord would not listen to him-if he would not consent to that delay-then he would say to the speaker and to the House, that, in common decency, some little time ought to be allowed for them to communicate with their constituents, whose most valuable and sacred, and until now, he would have said, inalienable rights and privileges, were about to be overturned by the system recommended by his majesty's ministers.

Lord Folkstone said, he had gone to the proper office and got a copy of the bill; and he defied any individual who had procured it, and who had turned over one or two of its pages, to say, that he could be at all prepared, considering the labour gentlemen were likely to go through that night, and the important discussion which was fixed for to-morrow, to decide on so important a measure on Thursday. It was impossible for any gentleman who examined the bill, and saw the numerous and compli cated provisions which it contained, to be prepared to discuss it on Thursday, so as to justify his conduct to his constituents, for the vote he might give. Why should a bill of such importance be hurried through the House in this manner? Was it that the people should know nothing of it until it was passed? Were they so anxious to get rid of those meetings, that the bill, which restricted the assembling of the people, was to be hastened forward, so as to prevent the people from assembling to state their opinion with respect to the measure itself? If it were hurried forward with such precipitation, it could neither be understood in the country nor in that House. He hoped the noble lord would agree to the proposition of his learned friend, and postpone the second reading of the bill for a few days.

Mr. Bennet earnestly wished the noble lord to put off for a short time the discussion of a measure which he deliberately and advisedly considered to be subversive of the constitution. He was most anxious, as the bill would effect such a change in the constitution, that the House of Commons should be assembled together to meet it; and he now gave notice, that he would to-morrow move that the House be called over.