reduced to practice? When was there a more golden, a more glorious, opportunity for acting upon them than that afforded by the Yorkshire Meeting? and how had it been employed? Had any attempt been made at that meeting to argue with the Radical Reformers, and to convert them from their heretical tenets? If due advantage had been taken of that happy moment, what a signal service would the Aristocracy of the York Meeting have rendered to their contemporaries and to posterity! If they had sacrificed much in feeling, much in dignity, by the mortifying condition in which they had placed themselves; all these sacrifices, and more, if more could be, would have been wisely made and well recompensed, had they seized the opportunity of rendering new laws unnecessary, by the allpowerful effect of reason and eloquence in converting or putting down the misleaders of the people. But they did no such thing. They rebuke, indeed, and lecture the Radical Reformers! No, no. They knew better than to risk such a liberty. They met under a contract (whether written or tacit he would not affirm), that the great question on which they fundamentally differed from the Radical Reformers should not be brought into discussion; and there being but two questions for deliberation, the one, Parliamentary Reform, and the other, the calling of Parliament together for the purpose of inquiring into the proceedings at Manchester, the first they consented entirely to slur over; and with a most whimsical waste of time, proceeded to debate the second, although the newspapers of the day must have apprized them that Parliament was already called. Surely many of those who supported the resolutions at York, must now in their consciences believe that the effect of that meeting had been to give encouragement to those very schemes which the amendment under consideration now rebuked with so wholesome a severity.

MR. LYTTLETON rose to order, and said "That the imputation of a motive, such as that stated by the right honourable gentleman, was disorderly."

THE SPEAKER observed, "That to impute a motive was certainly disorderly; but, in his apprehension, the right honourable gentleman did not put his argument with that intention."

MR. CANNING resumed. "Most certainly, Sir, you have taken the just view of the purport of my observation. I said distinctly, the effect of the York Meeting, not the intention. I say further, or rather I repeat, that I equally believe, that the effect, not the intention, of qualifying the Address to the Throne with the proposed Amendment, would be to encourage the hopes of the Radical Reformers, not to damp them; notwithstanding the wholesome rebuke which I have admitted one passage of the amendment to convey."

The great point of difference, between the Address and the Amendment, was, the notice bestowed by the Amendment upon the late transactions at Manchester. Mr. Canning entreated the House, before they suffered themselves to be led away by all the declamation upon this question, to review the course which it had taken before it was brought under the consideration of Parliament. Let every honourable member reflect on his own previous feelings on that question, even up to yesterday; and ask himself whether the legality of the meeting of the 16th of August were not the point on which he expected the discussion to turn; and by the decision of which was to be determined-whether or no there were any grounds, either for a parliamentary inquiry, or for any, and what, further proceedings on the subject?

And what was now the state of that question of legality? Was it not settled in the mind of every impartial man, in

the way directly contrary to that which, before the meeting of Parliament, had been so confidently presumed? As his honourable and learned friend (Mr. Scarlett) had this night qualified the opinion which he, (Mr. C.) in common with, he believed, a great majority of the House, understood him to declare in the preceding night's debate, he would not be so discourteous as to dwell on the impression which the first statement of that opinion had produced upon his mind. Undoubtedly, he (Mr. C.) had understood his honourable and learned friend to subscribe to the opinion that the meeting of the 16th of August was illegal; and he had congratulated himself on the accession of an authority which, if second, was only second, to that of the right honourable and learned gentleman over the way (Mr. Plunkett), who had with such clearness and force argued and established that opinion. But if his honourable and learned friend had not thought fit to give a positive opinion that the meeting was illegal, at least, he had not ventured to state an opinion to the contrary. His honourable and learned friend desired to withhold the expression of any opinion at all; and he (Mr. C.) had no right to disturb the tranquil state of neutrality in which his honourable and learned friend had placed himself. But what was to be thought of that neutrality-what inference but one could be drawn from it-when, after such an argument as that of the right honourable and learned gentleman (Mr. Plunkett), corroborated by the opinions of his (Mr. C.'s) honourable and learned friends (the Attorney and Solicitor General) who sat near him, and not yet denied by any lawyer who had spoken, his honourable and learned friend was satisfied to be silent, and to leave the question without the benefit of his authority either way? The right honourable and learned gentleman (Mr. Plunkett) himself a host, had pledged his authority and his reputation as a lawyer,

(pledges of which the House and the United Kingdom know, and posterity will acknowledge the value,) that the meeting of the 16th of August was an illegal meeting. The honourable and learned gentlemen (the Attorney and Solicitor General) who sat near him (of whose talents he (Mr. C.) would not speak in the language which they deserved, only because sitting where they did, it might be considered as the language of partiality,) they too had pledged their reputation as lawyers to the same opinion. On the opposite side, not one learned gentleman had staked his reputation on the opinion that the meeting was legal; not one learned gentleman had hinted that he held such an opinion; no not one. If then there were value in authorities, that value, whether taken by weight, or by tale, was on the side of the illegality of the meeting; while in the opposite scale would be found only a negative quantity, the unexplained hesitation of his honourable and learned friend (Mr. Scarlett). If there were any lawyer in the House who yet lingered, and would not, with the frankness of his learned friends, stake his reputation on his opinion, Mr. C. could only say that such learned gentleman (whoever he might be) took as little advantage of the opportunity afforded by the Meeting of Parliament, for correcting erroneous doctrines, as the whigs had taken of the Meeting at York.

Such then was the state of the Manchester question, as it stood now, after two evenings' discussion, compared with that in which it stood ten, nay, two days ago.

But the necessity of a Parliamentary Inquiry into that matter had been rested on two grounds; first, on the violation of the Constitution, by an illegal dispersion of a legal meeting; and secondly, on the demands of the country. The first ground the House would, perhaps, think pretty well disposed of; at least until some sage of

the law should gather courage to dispute the doctrine, yet unquestioned in this debate, that the meeting was not a legal but an illegal meeting. And what if it should turn out upon examination, that the second ground was in fact identical with the first? Let the House take a view of the Resolutions of some of the principal meetings which had been holden in different parts of the country; and let it be seen on what grounds they had rested this call for Parliamentary Inquiry. He would, with permission, mention a few of them briefly to the House.

First came the Westminster Meeting, resolving, that "the late meeting at Manchester was a legal meeting," that "the people were lawfully assembled;" next, the Common Council of London-" a meeting legally assembled ;" Halifax, "illegal dispersion of a meeting convened according to law;" Lewes," the meeting at Manchester, on the 16th of August, was strictly legal and constitutional;"-Southwark, St. John's Parish,-" perfectly legal and constitutional;" Richmond, "legal."-Carlisle; "our countrymen legally assembled at Manchester.”—Cumberland; the right of assembling" in a legal manner" appears to have been violated.-York, county," a meeting legally assembled." Reading; "a perfectly legal and constitutional meeting. London, St. Leonard's Parish; "legally assembled."— London, St. Clement's Parish; "peaceably assembled for a legal and constitutional purpose."-Durham, county; "legally assembled."-Durham, city; (more cautiously) "a meeting legally, as it seems, assembled."-Devon County Club; (more cautiously still) "we have not yet learnt by what act the people assembled at Manchester had placed themselves out of the pale of the law." Sheffield; (in the like strain)" as far as appears to us, conducted legally." Norfolk; (with similar reserve) "a meeting not proved to be illegal." There were abundance of other Resolutions