it appears to be again in a course of progressive improvement. "Some depression still continues to exist in certain branches of our manufactures, and I deeply lament the distress which is in consequence felt by those who more immediately depend upon them; but this depression is in a great measure to be ascribed to the embarrassed situation of other countries; and I earnestly hope that it will be found to be of a temporary nature. My Lords and Gentlemen ; "I continue to receive from foreign powers the strongest assurances of their friendly disposition towards this country. "It is my most anxious wish, that advantage should be taken of this season of peace to secure and advance our internal prosperity; but the successful prosecution of this object must essentially depend on the preservation of domestic tranquillity. "Upon the loyalty of the great body of the people I have the most confident reliance; but it will require your utmost vigilance and exertion, collectively and individually, to check the dissemination of the doctrines of treason and impiety, and to impress upon the minds of all classes of his Majesty's subjects, that it is from the cultivation of the principles of religion, and from a just subordination to lawful authority, that we can alone expect the continuance of that Divine favour and protection which have hitherto been so signally experienced in this kingdom." After an address in correspondence with the speech had been moved in the House of Lords by earl Manvers, and seconded by lord Churchill, Earl Grey rose to address the House. He said, that had he not been aware of the state of the country, the speech from the throne, the address moved in reply, and the language of the noble mover and seconder, would be sufficient to convince him that parliament had never assembled at a more important crisis, or when greater difficulties and dangers were to be overcome. He did not however think the line of policy pointed out in the speech such as ought to be adopted in the present state of the country, to which he had attended with the greatest care. He had heard strong observations on the progress of se dition and treason, and the necessity of adopting measures of coercion, but no recommendation to avert the danger by relieving the people from the heavy burthens that pressed upon them. It was by a timely system of economy and reform that the threatened dangers would most effectually be met. His lordship fully allowed the necessity of resisting plans of innovation described as destructive of the laws and constitution; but while opposing one danger, let care be taken not to incur another. The noble mover of the address had warned the House not to let an anxiety for the security of liberty lead to a compromise of the safety of the state. He, for his part, could not separate those things. The safety of the state could only be found in the protection of the liberties of the people; whatever was destructive of the latter, de stroyed stroyed also the former. He warned their lordships, in supporting the authority of government, not to sanction any precedent hostile to public liberty, and therefore to the safety of the state. Where discontent generally prevailed, there must be much distress, and it was an axiom no less true, that there never was an extensive discontent without misgovernment. Two years ago, when a similar subject was under their lordships' consideration, a noble friend of his (marquis Wellesley) had quoted the opinion of lord Bacon, that the surest way to prevent seditions is, to take away the matter of them, and in the spirit of this -maxim had recommended the reduction of public expenditure, and especially of our great and unnecessary military establishment. Had this recommendation been attended to? No; profusion was obstinately maintained, as if the continuance of every abuse were necessary to the safety of the state. Not only was no efficient measure of reduction adopted, but additions were made to the expenditure, which no public principle justified. He had in vain opposed some of those measures which had proved most injurious to the character of parliament, and to that of the family on the throne. After this denial of justice-for to refuse a relief so necessary to the country was a denial of justice-the session was closed, in a manner most insulting to the distresses of the country, by the imposition of 8,000,000. of new taxes. When no attention was paid to the calls of the people for relief, when their peti tions were rejected, and their sufferings aggravated, was it wonderful that at last public discontent should assume a menacing aspect? The noble lord then adverted to the transactions at Manchester; he was willing, he said, to suspend his judgment on the conduct of the magistrates till further information should be laid before parliament, but he condemned severely the precipitation with which their behaviour had been approved by those very persons who deprecated the prejudging of the question in the dippant and impertinent answer which had been given to the city of London. He next adverted to the removal of earl Fitzwilliam, a man who had been distin guished by his public and constant support of the crown on every trying difficulty-a man of high rank, extensive influence, and princely possessions-a man beloved and esteemed a man so properly described in resolutions which had lately been passed, from his particular situation, as affording security to the govern ment and firmness and confidence to the people; when such a man was peculiarly marked out and devoted, in a season of such difficulty as the present, what confidence could exist in the ministers by whom such conduct could be sanctioned, and what hope remained for the deluded people of this country? He would now call the attention of their lordships to that part of the speech from the throne which referred to the addition of from 10,000 to 11,000 men to the regular troops. He certainly had great great doubts of the legality of this step without the sanction of parliament; but he would neither dwell on this nor on the prudence of adding to the national burthens an expense of from 2 to 300,000l.: 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 with a single measure of concession to keep down the spirit of discontent that unfortunately prevailed. After a variety of other remarks, the noble lord moved an amendment, which was in substance as follows: "To assure his royal highness the Prince Regent, that while we deeply lament the unexampled distress which exists, we shall take into our most serious consideration the various matters contained in his Royal Highness's most gracious speech. That it is impossible to express approbation of the attempts which were made to persuade the people to seek relief from the distresses under which they labour by means dangerous to the public tranquillity, and inconsistent with the security of the community; and that it is our duty, as well as our determination, to adopt measures for the prevention of those attempts. "That we humbly represent to his Royal Highness, while we thus declare our determination to give full vigour to the law, we feel called on by a sense of duty to satisfy the people that their complaints shall at all times receive that just attention which is indispensable to their safety. "That this seems to us pecu liarly necessary at this period, in "That we have seen with deep Lord Sidmouth regarded himself as peculiarly called upon to advert to the manner in which the noble earl had alluded to late events involving the responsibility which chiefly attached to himself. Respecting the transactions at Manchester, he said, that never was there an event publicly interesting respecting which so much misrepresentation, falsehood, and exaggeration had gone forth. He contended that all sumptions ought to be in favour both of the magistrates and yeomanry. The meeting, he would boldly take upon him to assert, was not only illegal, but treasonable. pre The magistrates would have acted not only unwisely, but unjustly and basely, had they done otherwise than they did; the letter of approbation was sanctioned by a cabinet council, and and he, for his part, did not shrink from any part of the responsibility incurred. He entered shortly into the transactions of the 16th, and described the hostile conduct of the populace towards the constables and authorities both before and after. Campbell a constable had been stoned to death in open day in the streets of Manchester, and the constable of the town thought his life in danger. This system of hostility was not confined to Manchester; it appeared at Newcastle and in other places. He affirmed that not a single life was lost in consequence of the blows of the military. On this subject he would dwell no longer at present the danger with which we were threatened from the discontented state of the public mind was generally admitted, and its magnitude should induce their lordships to unite in vigorous measures to avert it. If, in the character of that danger, there was any feature more alarming than another, it was the conduct of some persons who encouraged and emboldened the disaffected, by standing between the government they assailed and the party assailing. Respecting the dismissal of earl Fitzwilliam, his lordship remarked, that the different view taken by that noble lord, and his majesty's ministers of the state of the country, and the public declaration which he signed in opposition to their wishes, showed that all confidence between them and him had ceased, and that a separation had become indispensable. Several other lords delivered their opinions. Lord Erskine strongly urged the necessity of conciliation on the part of government, and of parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the magistrates of Manchester; and he firmly maintained the legality of the meeting, and the opposite character of the means taken to disperse it. He was ready, he said, to admit, that there might be meetings whose avowed object, being the destruction of property or the execution of some other illegal purpose, rendered every man a magistrate for its dispersion. But the meeting at Manchester was not of this complexion. It had met to petition; and to show that it had no intention of violence, those who attended it brought their wives and children along with them, which they would not have done, had they conceived any danger, or imagined they were exposing themselves to punishment, by a breach of the laws. The assembly might have become tumultuous; what then? why the magistrates might have read the Riot Act, and dispersed it. The Riot Act might have been read, but the House had not heard so; nor had their lordships heard that the hour had elapsed before the military were employed. If such had been the case, every man that remained on the field would have been a felon; but even then he was not to be cut down by the military, or condemned to death without a trial. Had even military execution been justified on the refractory, ought women and children to have been trampled upon, wounded, or killed? The House, after such transactions, ought to grant inquiry to convince the the country that their lordships were determined to support the rights and privileges of the people. This was the object of the amendment. Government might use force to restrain the discontents which they did not try to remove, but such an employment of the military against the people would only render it unpopular, and less efficient for the purposes for which it was intended. Instead of being supported in the public affections, and enjoying that strength which arose from a well regulated liberty, we should soon see nothing around us but force and military despotism. To destroy any necessity for such extreme measures Parliament should convince the people that it did not overlook their distresses and grievances. Would the House do its duty by refraining from inquiry, on the mere declaration of ministers that they possessed particular information hitherto undisclosed? His noble friend (lord Grey) had shown, that inquiry was not a prejudging of the guilt or innocence of any individuals; but he remembered a time when parliament was less scrupulous on this subject of prejudging. He alluded to the State Trials in 1794, when the very case against the prisoners was made out of the reports of the two Houses of Parliament. Now, therefore, it could not be said that we had no authority for inquiry. But it might be said, that there was danger in making any concessions to the demands of the people. The very reverse would happen in this case-inquiry would remove danger by leading to conciliation. The Lord Chancellor opposed any parliamentary inquiry respecting the late affairs, as inconsistent with the spirit of the laws. When he read in his law books that numbers constituted force, and force terror, and terror illegality, he felt that no man could say that the Manchester meeting was not an illegal one. It was complained, he said, that not only had the grand jury rejected bills, but that the magistrates had refused to receive information on oath. This latter conduct was either right or wrong. If right, why complain about it? if wrong, why interfere with meaeures already under consideration in the court of King's-bench? Another ground of complaint was the conduct of the coroner in adjourning an inquest. But what was the fact? The coroner alleges that the jury have been tampered with, and that there is a fear that the jury might give their verdict on evidence not before them on oath. He, therefore, adjourned in order to have the opinion of the court of King'sbench in a matter of such high importance. What was there wrong in this? The Marquis of Lansdown earnestly pleaded for an inquiry, for which, he said, he should move, if no such motion should emanate from government; in the mean time he should support the present amendment. Lord Liverpool replied to the noble marquis. The Marquis of Buckingham supported the original motion. On a division, the numbers Not-contents-Present, 121; Proxies, 38-159. Contents, were: |