4] 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



Manchester, at Derby, and in 

 Scotland With respect to Man- 

 chester, it might be remembered 

 that a large portion of the last 

 report of the secret committee 

 went to establish the opinion 

 that a treasonable conspiracy 

 of the most atrocious kind had 

 existed in that town. It was 

 stated in the reports, that some 

 of the culprits were in custody ; 

 but these persons, for the intent 

 that they should not be brought 

 up for trial, were removed by 

 certiorari to the court of King's- 

 bench ; and at the next assizes in 

 Lancaster, Mr. Topping, who 

 acted for the Attorney-general, 

 stated that no evidence was to be 

 produced against them. It was 

 then declared, that the prosecu- 

 tions were discontinued, because 

 every thing was tranquil, and the 

 ministers were willing to show 

 their clemency. But if there had 

 been any truth in the statements 

 of the atrocious crimes which 

 these men meditated, were they 

 persons to whom clemency ought 

 to be shown ? Were men con- 

 spiring to burn factories, to attack 

 barracks, and create a revolution, 

 to be discharged without a trial 

 and without punishment ? But 

 though the country was so tran- 

 quil at this time that it was deem- 

 ed unnecessary to resort to the 

 ordinary modes of legal trial, and 

 the alleged offenders were dis- 

 charged ; yet the persons against 

 whom there had never been sup- 

 posed to be evidence sufficient to 

 put them upon their trials, those 

 who had been arrested under the 

 suspension of the Habeas Corpus, 

 were kept in prison ; so that while 

 those against whom the strongest 

 case was made out, were dis- 



charged, those agaiiist whom the 

 case was the weakest, were kept 

 in confinement. 



With respect to the proceed- 

 ings in Scotland, he would not 

 now enter upon them, as they 

 would be made the subject of a 

 noble lord behind him ; but he 

 should beg the House to bear in 

 mind how much the effect pro- 

 duced on the House had been 

 occasioned by an oath which the 

 lord advocate had read in his 

 place. The person who had been 

 said to have administered it had 

 been three times proceeded against 

 on three different indictments, yet 

 at last he had been acquitted. 



The hon. member next alluded 

 to the transactions at Derby. 

 There could be no doubt, he said, 

 that the persons who suffered, 

 whether guilty of treason or not, 

 were guilty of a capital crime ; 

 but the proceedings on that trial, 

 more than any other, pronounced 

 a full condemnation on the sus- 

 pension of the Habeas Corpus. 

 No evidence of any proceeding 

 prior to the 8th of June was suf- 

 lered to transpire ; although the 

 Attorney-general, in his opening 

 speech, had said that he could 

 prove that Brandreth had meet- 

 ings with the conspirators pre- 

 vious to that day, and it was his 

 duty to have given evidence re- 

 specting them. From this cir- 

 cumstance there was a strong 

 presumption that the whole of 

 that insurrection was the work of 

 the persons sent by government ; 

 not indeed for the specific purpose 

 of fomenting disaffection, but as 

 emissaries of sedition from clubs 

 that had never existed. The 

 crown la\vyers, in making out 

 their case, took care that it should 



not 



