Regent, that Noble Lord himself informed your petitioner,
that the Government were fully apprized before-hand of
the propositions _intended_ to be brought forward at the
meeting. So that your petitioner humbly begs leave to
express his confidence that your Honourable House will
clearly perceive, that if any insurrection had taken place
on the day of the first Spafields meeting, it would have
been entirely owing to the neglect, if not connivance, of
those persons who possessed a previous knowledge of the
principles and views of the parties with whom that meeting
originated.

"With regard to the SECOND assertion, namely, that
'_care_ was taken to adjourn the meeting to the 2d of December,'
your petitioner begs leave to state, that it will
appear upon the face of the proceedings of that day, that
there was nothing like previous _concert_ or _care_ in this
matter; for, that a resolution first proposed to adjourn
the meeting to the day of the meeting of Parliament, and
then to meet in _Palace-yard_, of course _not so much in the
vicinity of the Bank and the Tower_; and that when this
resolution was awarded so as to provide for a meeting on
the 2d of December on the same spot, it was merely
grounded on the _uncertainty_ as to the time when the
Parliament might meet. Your petitioner further begs
leave to state here, as being, in a most interested manner,
connected with this adjournment of the meeting, that,
when your petitioner waited on Lord Sidmouth with the
petition to the Prince Regent, _he informed his Lordship
that the meeting was to re-assemble on the 2d of December_,