it was well known that it was the duty of parliament to inquire and direct prosecu tions in cases in which the courts of law were open. Committees of the House of Commons were often instituted for inquiry into offences, and on their recommendation prosecutions were ordered. He would state a case by way of illustration. Suppose a set of ministers, acting on a violent and unconstitutional system of police, should publish a proclamation, imposing a tax, of ship-money for instance, and that magistrates were found disposed to issue warrants for levying the tax by distress, this would be a case in which any person would have a right to bring an action for redress: the courts of law would be open; but would it on that account be less the duty of parliament to inquire? Would it be reasonable to say, that parliament ought not to institute an inquiry into so unconstitutional a proceeding, because the individual who had suffered injury could resort for redress to the ordinary tribunals of the country? But he would ask, how long it had been considered, that inquiries into proceedings of this nature were extra-judicial?-that inquiries into matters which might become the topics of discussion in courts of law, were inconsistent with the principles of public justice? They had heard of inquiries and reports, declaring evidence and stating facts; and not only declaring evidence and stating facts, but pronouncing opinions upon the authority of both Houses of Parliament; not upon subjects of trifling import, but in cases where the lives of individuals were at stake, and at the moment when those individuals were taking their trials upon charges of high treason. If in quiries were permitted on occasions of this nature, he would ask, upon what ground could they be denied on the recent occurrences? Such a denial he could not help thinking shocking to common sense, a violation of all feeling, and in direct contravention of public justice. What would be the consequence of this mode of proceeding, if the people were told that when offences were committed against the crown, inquiries should take place, reports should be made, and their lives endangered by such extra-judicial proceedings, while, if they were themselves injured by offences committed against them, their rights should not be protected by the same ⚫ means? Such a course of conduct, in his opinion, would not only aggravate the nature of their complaints, but would be

Then,

contrary to all former practices. in this instance, they were shut out from obtaining redress in another way by the rejection of grand jurymen, and by a refusal of the magistrates to attend to their complaints. In this view of the case, how were they to obtain redress but through the medium of parliament? Was it possible, in such a state of things, by such a character of proceeding, that the discontents which now prevailed, could be allayed?

He had alluded to the address of the city of London. It was not necessary to say more on that subject; the feeling of those who voted that address was perfectly understood: all they desired was inquiry. He would now advert to the manner in which a noble friend of his (earl Fitzwilliam) had been treated, because he had thought it his duty to concur, or, if they would, to give his approbation to a requisition which was directed to the sheriff of the county of York, requesting him to call a meeting of the inhabitants of that highly respectable and independent county, to consider of the transactions which had taken place at Manchester, with a view to address the Prince Regent, and to call upon him to exercise his legal privilege in assembling parliament at as early a period as possible, for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into those transactions. Could there be an application of a more constitutional nature? Could there be an application to the Crown better suited to the circumstances of the country, or better calculated at that moment to allay the ferment and discontent to which the inelancholy transactions at Manchester had given rise? It was impossible, in his apprehension, to have instituted a proceeding more admirably adapted to allay discontent. But what was the character of the proceeding itself? A meeting assembled, as large, as numerous, and as respectable in composition, as had ever assembled in that county. Were their proceedings tumultuous or disorderly? Were the speeches which were delivered by the individuals who attended the meeting calculated to inflame or to excite angry feelings? Were the resolutions in any degree such as would afford a construction or inference favourable to the designs of those who might be supposed enemies to the country, or in any way hostile to the laws and to the constitution? The fact was notoriously the reverse. The meet

mand the exercise of new powers, till by degrees they would depart from all the principles of the constitution. This was the uniform course and progress of such measures; and all the evils which were to be apprehended from their adoption must be expected, unless the preventive wisdom of parliament was called in to correct and to restrain the views of ministers.

addition to the regular army without the sanction of parliament; but he did not mean to say much on this part of the subject; neither was it his intention to dwell much on the state of distress in which the country was at present placed, or on the prudence of adding to their burdens an expense of at least from 200,000l. to 300,000. He would simply observe, that this was another of that series of measures which had marked the progress of the existing government, and which was unaccompanied by a single measure of concession to keep down the spirit of discontent which so unhappily prevailed. He now wished their lordships to consider, to what end the conduct to which he had been alluding was likely to lead. Their lordships had some experience in that House two years ago, when restrictive laws were passed, and when the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, of the effect which such measures were likely to produce. The same complaints were then made of the existence of disaffection and discontent, and the same means of resorting to force were suggested. Did those measures produce the effects which were promised? He would ask their lordships, if they at all recollected the history of that time, or examined the situation of the country which resulted from those proceedings, whether the effect was not directly the reverse of that whieh was anticipated? Where discontent prevailed, was it not infinitely aggravated? The grounds for those measures on coming to be enforced-he meant the march of spies and informers, who were employed by the executive ministers of the Crown —were themselves the instigators of mischief, were themselves the originators of plans of treason, and were themselves the primary cause of an unconstitutional attack upon the liberties of the people. The effect of these measures was," in his opinion, the cause of a great portion of the discontent which now prevailed. Af ter all the experience which they had had, however, there was no attempt at conciliation, no concession to the people; nothing was alluded to but a resort to coercion, as the only remedy which could be adopted. He had seen, and seen with regret, the progress of this system. The natural consequence of such a system, when once begun, was, that it could not be stopped: discontents begot the neces sity of force; the employment of force increased discontents: these would de(VOL. XLI.)

The noble earl next alluded to the military force which was raising in different parts of the country, and the attempts which were making to arm one part of the people against the other. It had been said, that a malignant spirit was abroad, but he did not believe that there was any foundation for the charge. If the inhabitants of Manchester exhibited a disposition to disaffection, he verily believed that that disposition might fairly be traced, on the one side to those Orange societies, which were patronized by government; and, on the other, by the party feelings of those who were suffering distress, for the relief of whose complaints no attempt was made, and who, in consequence, assumed all the violence of radical reformers, and felt anxious to destroy all those distinctions of rank by which the existence of society was supported. Such was the order of things which prevailed in Ireland previous to the rebellion, and which ended in the destruction of the independent legislature of that country. He knew not whether it was intended to adopt the same measures with regard to this country as had been adopted in Ireland, where the sword had been substituted for persuasion. situation of the two countries was extremely different. In Ireland the state of distress was such, that it produced universal confusion: the danger was imminent; but it was suppressed by the power and interference of this country. If the discontents in this country existed to the same extent, and upon the same disparity of resistance, the consequences would be far different. Ireland had derived assistance from this country; but from Ireland we could expect no such advantage: on the contrary, it was to be apprehended that Ireland herself would be placed in a situation of danger. They had been told two years ago that Ireland was perfectly quiet. He remembered well an observation which was made on that occasion; it sunk deep in his recollection. He remembered the answer which was made by a noble marquis (Wellesley) to (C)

The

that statement. The noble earl then quoted a passage from the speech to which he alluded, which, in substance, stated, that the quiet of Ireland was to be attributed to her endeavours to obtain a relief from her religious disabilities; but that if an opportunity offered, she would not hesitate to assert her independence, and to take advantage of any difficulties to which this country might be exposed. To obviate such an attempt, they could only look with confidence to a system of policy founded upon liberality and justice. He would put a case in the reverse: suppose the adoption of coercive laws-an addition to the army, and in fact the establishment of the reign of force and terror. Could this be depended upon? Could government rest with confidence upon the sword for security? It was impossible that a government of such a nature could exist in England. What would become of their manufactures? What would become of their credits; of their commerce; in fact, on what could they rest the stability of their resources without their constitution? Without that spirit which the knowledge of the advantages which they enjoyed under their constitution infused, all their energies would flag, and all their feelings by which their glory as a nation had been established would be utterly dissipated. He would put it to the test of the military experience of the noble duke who sat opposite (the duke of Wellington). He would ask him whether, in the moment of peril, any thing excited the superior qualities of the British soldier to the glorious feats by which he had been distinguished, but the sacred spirit of liberty which he derived from the constitution under which he had lived, and from the consciousness of the rights which that constitution preserved to him? If this principle, which was the great source of our prosperity, was destroyed, what would become of the boasted security of those laws and those measures of coercion which the language of ministers throughout had taught us to expect? Not alone would the various ranks of society be endangered, but the throne itself would be placed in jeopardy. The example of history had sufficiently proved, that there was no comparison between the security of a monarch who lived among a free people, enthroned in their affections, and him who, like the great emperor of Russia, looked alone for protection from the troops by which he was surrounded. It was with a view to esta

blish this liberal principle, that he should move the amendment by which he should conclude. He was of opinion that the powers which existed under the law as it was constituted were sufficient for the preservation of the public peace; but if it could be shown that any new dangers, that any new circumstances, had arisen for which no provision had been made, and that notwithstanding all the diligence and active management of a good government, that government was in imminent peril, he was not prepared to say that, upon receiving such proof, he would not give his sanction to measures calculated to meet those unusual exigencies. But he must say, that his majesty's present ministers were the last persons to whom he would intrust the general interests of the state. He should grant them new powers, such as those to which he had alluded, with a degree of caution amounting to repugnance. It should, however, be their duty in the first instance, to institute a solemn inquiry into the circumstances which had attended the unfortunate transactions at Manchester on the 16th of August, and thereby convince the people of England that they were their true guardians, and sensibly alive to every thing in which their interests were involved. The noble earl concluded by moving an Amendment to the Address by adding at the end thereof the words,

"To assure his Royal Highness, that, called together at a season when unexampled distress and extraordinary agitation prevail in some of the most populous districts of the kingdom, we will immediately proceed to take into our most serious consideration the various matters contained in his Royal Highness's gracious speech from the throne.

"Humbly to express to his Royal Highness our reprobation of the attempts which have been made to persuade the suffering classes of the people to seek relief from their distress in schemes injurious to themselves, dangerous to the public quiet, and inconsistent with the security of the constitution, which it is our duty and determination to maintain against every species of encroachment and attack.

"To represent to his Royal Highness, that while we thus declare our determined resolution firmly to uphold the just autho rity of the laws, we feel that we are called upon by a sense of duty to conduct ourselves so as to satisfy the people that their

complaints will at all times receive from us that just attention, and their rights that ready protection, that is indispensable to their safety and freedom.

"That this seems to us more particularly necessary, in order to maintain that competence in the public institutions of the country, which constitutes the best safeguard of all law and government.

"That we have seen with deep regret the events which took place at Manchester on the 16th of August, and that, without pronouncing any opinion on the circumstances that occurred on that melancholy occasion, we feel that they will demand our earliest attention, in order to dissipate the alarm to which they have given birth; and by the result of a diligent and impartial inquiry, which may show that the measures then resorted to were the result of an urgent necessity, or that an important constitutional privilege cannot be violated, and the lives of his majesty's subjects sacrificed, with impunity."

Lord Sidmouth said, he was induced to solicit their lordships attention in consequence of the manner in which the noble earl who had just sat down had thought fit to allude to events involving great official responsibility-a responsibility which attached principally, if not exclusively, to himself. The noble earl had commenced his speech with an admission of the existence of present danger. Indeed, he did not believe there was an individual either in this or the other House of Parliament, or in the kingdom, who was not prepared to make the same concession. The noble earl had attributed those dangers to the neglect of parliament in the performance of its duties. How far that proposition was well founded, their lordships were perfectly competent to judge. It was within their lordships' recollection, that in the course of the last session of parliament military retrenchment had taken place to an extent which appeared to satisfy every individual calling for retrenchment. Another call which had been made on the House was for the abolition of sinecure places. In this, too, government had conceded to the supposed wishes of the country: whether those concessions had or had not been carried too far, was a question which events would probably demonstrate. With regard to the military retrenchment, those noble lords who had experience of the present state of the country, and who felt the insufficiency of the means which were af

forded to support the civil magistrates, could best satisfy the House. It was not his intention to travel through all the parts of the noble earl's speech. The primary object was the internal state of the country; and to that, for the present, he should confine his observations. The internal state of the country it was that had determined the Prince Regent, by the advice of his ministers, to assemble parliament, for the purpose of laying before the two Houses such information as would present to them at one view a clear exposition of the state in which the country was placed. It would be for parliament to consider, upon reading this statement, and to say, whether some additional powers were not necessary for the preservation of the constitution, and whether the present laws were not too weak for that purpose. But the manner in which the noble earl had referred to the circumstances to which he had alluded, which he (lord Sidmouth) felt in his own mind to be immediately connected with his official character, induced him at once to apply himself to that subject. The transactions at Manchester on the 16th of August formed a prominent point of the noble lord's speech; and he would take upon himself to say, that there never was a transaction in which the public were interested, or respecting which they were solicitous, in which there had been so much misrepresentation, falschood, and exaggeration as respecting the proceedings of that day. They had heard of the magistrates of Manchester as if they were merely magistrates of the town of Manchester, and as if they were the stipendiary magistrates of government. This was not a true representation of facts; the magistrates in question were appointed by the county, and commenced their duties in the beginning of July last. There were of them twelve in number, and their attentions were unremitting to preserve the public peace. They were none of them Manchester magistrates; they were men of the highest respectability in the county, who had associated themselves for the purpose of watching over the conduct of persons whose designs were but too evident to be mistaken. Two of them only were stipendiary magistrates; he alluded to Mr. Hay, who had been appointed by the quarter sessions; and to Mr. Norris, who had been appointed by the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, to whom he was only known by character. These individuals had been the objects