Star. — London, England, 1810-04-10 00:00:00

- 1::!e SPEAKER, in continuation, mentioned that s e : j.•ant, on his return from the Office of the Secre v Stale to him, saidthatthe Magistrates had some of the legality of breaking open the doors, and ani siiel to him for directions, to this he replied, it was r : ot his duty to give either orders or directions, but s iid that he did not know but the Magis trates wouid execut, the process for contempt in .the 4 , 1 n? way as that of au inferior Court ; he likewise intli tioned, that if force was requisite, he would have i t by applying at the Secretary of State's Office. Sir J• ANSTIWTHEIt proceeded— Who first suggested tile doubt of executing the Speaker's warrant by force ?—I do not recollect. \Vas it at the Secretary of State's Office ?----I believe .ut am not positive. \\ hen executing the warrant this morning, did the , r ieant know who was in the house ?—No ; I only si r Francis and another Gentleman. Ea.amit;:d 1 . 1 , Arr. S 11:1(61::.; BCURNP. is it not sutTe;iied to the Magistrates, that before cciald be used, it would be necessary to prove 7 ..•,tarice ?—Yes. Mr. Read say to the Serjeant, there was a ne v of making an affidavit (6f the resistance ? v e , I tuld him I had no objection to swear to any that I had said. Di not Mr. Read send out the civil force, both on t and Sunday :—Yes. tae 1 4 .Ingistrate state it was necessary to au a aidavit to obtain assistance ?—Yes. Ex.;mined by the ArronsEv GENERAL. wit on Friday evening that the Serjeant ap. assistance ?-1 - Ls. v..is he not told that he should have both civil and ralitary assistance ?—Most certainly. Iv a . ; not the Serjeant referred to the Magistrates r the Civil force ; and to learn from them if they it insufficient :—No doubt of it. Did not the Serjeant wish to have the military to Gocu.e the warrant in the first instance, after he had s.en the Magistrates ?—As soon as I saw the mob, I wi 4,1 to have it. Did not the JLtgistrates express their disinclination t employ military force, unless they found the Civil —Yes. .Itariliard by Lord Os SU L STON. DA not the. Serj,;ant conceive that though he was f;i:.nished w.th a force from the Secretary of State's Oilicc, woald be liable to every respomibility ; and ;loath shoald efwae, and the wai rant afterwards f,70V0 illegal, did he nut conceive he would be subject c. an indicuncia tor murdef ?--I Lun,idered myself z . :1; only re:yousiblc poi in the execution of the warrant. Did not the Sericaw.thilik from what fell Jim the 5 1 1.11;.:r and the Attotney General, that the responsi bility was of a se:ions n,ture I EX,TI.;IeI 1 : y .11Tr. ADAM. In any time of the proceedings did the Serjeant make an applicalicn to the Sheriffs of Middlesex ? i did. wt d:.! they say on the production of the war and the request for assistance ?—They said they vuuld afford any assistance in their power ; and this ()a tUe supposition that Sir Francis Burdett had c.me out of his house. Examined ly Mr. H. SUMNER. not the Serjeant apply for a Captain's guard, ir:ci;.• t c.ipture, for an escort ? I never thought v.:Ca ..ivrce would be sufficient. P not the Serjcant pass Mr. Read on horseback, by a guard ? I have already stated I was ,ed at meeting Mr. Read opposite Sir Francis o.,:,Lit's house. i);.1 t the I ruder Secretary of State, in the course ff conversation Ivith you on Friday evening, remark, th.it, in 'adore of executing your duty, you would be L--pithUe for all the consequences which might en vie know he did ; and 1 observed to him in reply 'Ht I could bear myself out, for that I had done my to .pprchcnd Sir Francis Burdett. Examined I T Mr. S ri:rii llen you first saw Sir Francis Burdett, you say kii.t net intimate his inteltion to resist the audio ; :y of the warrant ; nor did he ohj, ct to die le. !y of the war rant : he only said, I shall write to 1 - .!:% , caker on the subject, and observed to me that !ii)iiltl he glad to icc,.:ive me the next morning at ei,:v•.n o'clock. IC.ts not thit in answer t an application which lud made to know when he would be ready to go e ?—Yes. D;(1 you not understand from him that he did not .; the least resistance, but that he meant read :.; to 4 ..':ornpany you --No doubt of it. Hid you any expectation that when you went nt t . .‘e lour of eleven next morning you should meet auy resistance not, from what Sir ILl:cis sail ; 1 thought there might be a mob round '.V•ts it not the expeantion of Si: Francis's so corn •-..• wall the warrant that you did not then take custosly S.r PET Ett 111. - 1, HAY . li.tve you a copy or Sir l'rancis's letter to you ? Ibve I believe a cony at home. I‘Lat was do,: precise force or number dint you necesary for carrying your warrant into exe t.;ak -----That depended on the state in which the w. 31. \Y!Lft were t!:e numbers which at any time you ac ' di demand ?—Last night, I stated that I must infantry find 50J cavalry.—(Here there • c• of « With& ! withdraw !) ‘ , ll ever demand an audience of Mr. Ryder • •:.Iyf,i l was at t h e °Ace. :It the Secretary for the •' - r 1 'ortment —No, I never did. Exxrinni the. y FACI:EQUER. Or hid Ay Light, when you asked for a military was it not that Mr. Read, the Magistrate, you whether you had made airy arrangement ull'a the Lord Mayer, for the safe concluct of the es cort through the City, when the Westminster Magis trates had done their duty believe it was. .Did Ile not then state, that without some City Ma gistratei Were appointed for that purpose, the military might object to go, for that the other Magistrates not act in that character in the City, but that aut! otity would end when he had conducted .the escort to the confines of his.jurisdiction ?---Yes, I did understand M r . R ead to state, that he could not at tend Sir Francis beyond the confines of his own juris diction. Examined ly Sir CHARLES BURRYLL. W. 15 there any difference or distinction in the line of conduct which the two Shetiffs had in contempla tion, when you stated that they were disposed to af ford you assistance, what I mean is, was one more ready than the other?—The conversation was at din net about the best manner of carrying my warrant into effect. [Sir Charles here said to the Witness, " I must beg a distinct answer to my question."] Certainly there was no difference in point of disposition, for I asked for nothing particularly ; they both expressed. themselves ready to afford me assistance. Examined 4y Sir CHARLES PRICE. The Witness has before stated that he had some communications with the Lord Mayor. What an swer did you get from his Lordship certainly re ceived every attention from him; he told me his ju risdiction should be perfectly quiet. Every disposi tion was shewn to render me assistance. Examined by ADMIRAL MARKHAM. Did you consider that it was your business, or that it was the duty of the Government to make arrange ments with the Lord Mayor, for securing you safe passage through the City ?—I believe the Under-Se cretary of State did communicate with the Lord Mayor on the subject. I think he communicated with somebody on the necessity of the City Magis trates being in attendance. What I wish to know is, was you left to make it —I either rout myself or sent my Deputy. [The SERJEANT was here ordered to withdraw.] Mr. Witrrtial: In then proposed to put a question or two to the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Was there any consultation at any time between you and the rest of his Majesty's Government pre. viJus to the answer which you have given to the case submitted for your opinion, on the part of the Ser jeant at Arms, touching the Speaker's warrant to arrest Sir Francis Burdett? The ATTORNEY.GENERAL replied, "I should have no objection to answer the ques tion of the Honourable Gentleman if the House thinks that I ought so to do. I was sent for on Sa turday morning to advise his Majesty's Ministers, as Attorney-General, which advice I gave to the best of my knowledge and abilities. If the House think I am bound to disclose that advice, 1 shall abide by their decision." Mr. WHITBREAD—" I certainly can feel no difficulty as an individual Mend'er in pressing an an swer to that question, but whether the House will agree with me, is what I at present can't determine. Thus much I am prepared to contend that it is per fectly proper for me to extract front the Learned Gentleman, if I can, what that advice was." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was disposed to think that the Honourable Gentle man was not justified in demanding an answer to the question. He much doubted whether on principle the House would do right to put it to a question. It appeared to the House, that the Attorney General in his legal capacity had been called before the Privy Council to give an opinion. Now, it would certainly be improper for the House to request that what was going on at the Council Board should be disclosed. If, indeed, the present was a grave inquiry, leading to impeachment, then the Honourable Gentleman might have sufficient excuse for desiring an answer ; but when the inquiry was merely incidental, arising out of the Serjeant's report, the excuse would not I hold. On the general interests of the public ser vice, he trusted the House would pause before they i consented to admit a practice, which, if admitted, would go the length of affecting the manner and confidence with which' on future occasions adVice might be given. Much as he regretted that the Ho nourable Gentleman should be deprived of his learned Friend's testimony, yet he was bound, on public prin. ciples, to object to it. Mr. WHITBREAD was disposed to ndmit that the general rule laid down by the Right Hon. Gen tleman was perfectly correct, but the question here was, whether the warrant of the Speaker was of that value which on all sides it had on a former occasion been admitted ? The Right Hon. Gentleman had talked of not disclosing the advice. Why he would • put it to the House, whether after the city of West minstzr had been the scene of tumults and disorders almost unparalleled Ibr four days, nay even perhaps remains so at the moment he was speaking—(Hear, ivar)—that many persons in consequence had been slain, he did not know how many, it was too much for him to desire to ascertain whether Ministers had done their duty ? Had not the legality of the war rant been the subject et some very warm debates, and had it not been determined that no doubts on its lega lity remained, would the House then for the first time understand that Ministers were not certain whether it was legal—that the Serjeant appointed to carry it into effect had been for four days waiting for the ad vice or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the validity of the warrant. (No, N, from al: s:de.) Gentlemen opposite might deny it, but ; the fact was so, for had not the Attorney-General stated that the case was seat to him on the Saturday cvehing and he returned it with his opinion on the Sun dae evenim. Now what he wished to know was Nvip:a Ministers appFed to the Attorney-General for that opinion, and it remained for the House to determine whether that opinion should be disclosed. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCI-lEOUER in explanation observed, that he ihwer had doubted the legality of the warrant. The Hon. Gentleman had not correctly stated the fact. The Scrjeanf en tertained doubts whether the warrant authoi iced him to employ force in case of resistance to break open the house, and that was the true state of the matter.— (Zhu-, hear.) Every Gentleman knew that warrants to certain extents '.lerc valid, but that tinder certain circumstances even persons hawing authority to exe cute them were not justified in I.reaking outer doors. —The House could see that there was no necessity for pressing the question as to the general legality of the ‘varrant. WHITBREAD, in ex wlanation, said, that Mr. __ pt. sal% when speaking of the warrant he had used the word 46 value," and never had doubted its legality. The CHANCELLOR of. the EXCHEQUER conceived the Hon. Gentleman to have argued as to its legality. Mr. DUNDAS denied that the doubts of the Ser jeant had been infused into his inind by any Member of the Government, as an Hon. Gentleman supposed. His Majesty's Ministers had no other object than a wish arising from a sense of duty to give every assist ance to the officer of the House. To controtal the officer on whom tl responsibility alone could attach was a doctrine which he did not expect to hear. The Hon. Gentleman had failed of extracting an answer from the Attorney-General. He wished, as a point of order, to know from the Chair whether the Hon. Gentleman was justified in that sort of proceeding ? The SPEAKER observed, that as the point of order was put to him, he must declare, that if as it • appeared, the House was proceeding in an inquiry, rather taken upon a sudden, it was competent for any Hon. Gentleman to put any questions to any Mem ber of the House. If, however, it was determined not to enter into the inquiry then it was not compe tent. Mr. DUNDAS observed, that it did not appear the House were resolved to go into a wide field of enquiry. The . CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER rose and intimated to the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) that upon consideration, conceiving that the present is a case in which it was not necessary that a Privy Councillor should withhold his opinion, he would withdraw his objection to the Hon. Gentle man's question. Mr: WHITBREAD then prep-sea his question, as before stated, viz.—With respect to any commu nication having been made from the Learned Gen tleman to the Privy Council, touching the Speaker's warrant ? The ATTORNEY GENERAL answered :—" I hope the House will excuse me for having stated my objectical to allswerinq the question of the Honourable Gentleman before iiear )—I was never con sulted by the Privy Council on the legality of the warrant, but on titQ question which had arisen as to the legality of wing fbrce in breaking the outer door of Sir nancis Burdett's house." When, and by whom ?—After the debate on Thurs day night I was desired to attend. Upon recol lection it was on Saturday morning, to give my opi mon on a question which would be put to me, as to whether the Speaker's warrant would justify th e using force in case of resistance to break the outer door of Sir Francis Bnrdett's house ? This I think was about one or two o'clock of that day. It was a new question to me, as it arose upon the execution a warrant which, in point of practice, I. was perfectly unacquainted with. I could therefore, in giving my opinion, only reason with analogy to other cases which had been decided in law, and which my recol lection at the time furnished me with. The ten dency of my opinion was, that the Speaker's warrant, with reference to those cases to which I had referred, might be so executed viii safety to the person having it to execute. I observed that under those cases he, in my opinion, would have been justified in breaking the door, but I also stated that it was a question which I had never seen decided, and consequently could not give a decided opinion upon it, but that I thought it might be so executed. Was that all which passed ?—That is the sub stance of all that passed. I think I stated the conse quences which might arise to the Serjeant, if it should turn out that he was not justified in law. I mean, if any conflict should take place in the execution of the warrant, su that death ensued (that was pretty much the terms of my opinion in the case sent to me.) I think I stated likewise, that it any thing fatal oc curred to him, and it should be afterwards held that the warrant was illegal, that no person resisting him in so executing it, could be held criminally answerable. Mr. NVHITBREAD having finished his questions to the Learned Gentleman, stated, that he should move the printing of the Serjeant's Report, and the Minutes of Evidence. An Honourable Member moved, That the Mes seng whom the Serjeant stated he left at the House of Sir Francis Burdett with the missing warrant, should be examined.—On the question being put, Mr. JACOB suggested that it was necessary to ex ' amine other evidence on the subject before the papers were printed. He had seen in the newspapers an account of some persons having been at Sir Francis Burdett's house. If it should turn out that Sir Francis Burdett had taken secret advice as to the line of con duct which he should pursue with respect to the war rant, it would be desirable for the House to know his prompters, in order that they might equally partici pate in the criminality. He was glad to find that a Learned Gentleman had disowned being at the House, but there were others—Loud cries of Name, Name.— The Hon. Gentleman observed, that he did sot mean to state that the Hon. Baronet had realli had secret and bad advisers—he was merely supposing such a case—(Here the call :iron the flop. Gentleman to nuns:, cka: reiterated), when Lord GEORGE CAVENDISH rose to order ; he thought the Honourable Gentleman was wander ing into extraneous matter. If the inquiry went for . ward, then if the Honourable Gentleman had any thing to bring forward he might, but at present he conceived he was quite out of order—( Cry of Chair ! • chair !) The SPEAKER, on the appeal being made, de • clared, that it apreared to that the Honourable Gentleman was not stating any thing out of order. hear.) ; Mr. JACOB then proceeded, and again suggested what he had before thrown out—contending, that there was nothing inconsistent in the inquiry, if di rected to Ivhat he suggested. Mr. WHITBREAD rose, with some warmth, to make some observations to the dark suggestions of the Honourable Gentleman, who bad, no doubt, hided to him (Mr. Whitbread', when he talked of secret and bad advisers, terrnc not very liberal or just —( hear.) —The Honourable Gentleman had, however, misquoted the paragraph in the news paper which he had been reading ; for, if he referred to it again, he ‘vou!d find that the persons described as being at the li:mse of fir Francis, were not there as advisers, but as visitors—(Mar, hear.) In that number, he (Mr. W lit bread) was certainly included, and he trusted, ulna he explained his motive for being there, the How e would he disposed to think as fa vourably of him as of his Learned Friend (Sir S. Romilly). Mr. Whitbread then stated that on the suggestion of another Member whom he met by chance, he had be !n induced to call upon the Hon. Baronet to give not bad but good advice, which he received very politely, and if it had beeu attended to, might have saved perhaps the ill consequences that the House deplored. He requested the Honourable Gentleman therefore for the future not to couple his name unguardedly with what he called secret and bad advisers—(Hear, Hear.) Mr. JACOB assured the Honourable Gentleman that he was not one of those whom he supposed had given bad advice— C rier repeated - of Name I lame !) —The Honourable Gentleman then declared that no Member to his knowledge was a secret adviser, (Hear, hear.) Mr. PONSONBY observed how extremety unfor tunate the Honourable Gentleman was in his insi dious assertions. Was there any man in the House who had witnessed the deportment and had heard the expressions of the Honourable Gentleman, could lay his hand on his breast and say, that upon his honour he did not understand the Member to insinaate that in this House there were Members who had given secret and bad advice to the Hon. Baronet !—(Lcial cries of hear, hear.)—When the Honourable Gentle man talked of bad advisers, it was his duty, if he knew them, to name theru.—(Hear, Hear.)—lt was not either fitting or just for him to utter expressions against persons whom he could not name.—(Near, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER suggested, that rather than examine the Messenger, as proposed by an Hon. Member, it would be better that the Serjcant should add to his report. Mr. Secretary RYDER defended the conduct of his Majesty's Government with respect to the execu tion of the Warrant. As to his own situation, the Right Hon. Gentleman observed it had been painful in the extreme from the laborious exertions he had used. He should be happy that the whole of the con duct of Ministers in the busine-s shield be examined into. It would then be found that they used the most active exertions to secure the peace of the metropolis. Every step had been taken to afford the Serjeant fa cility in executing his warrant, both in point of civil and military aid, it he chose to use them. He might however complain of the tendency which the speeches of Gentlemen opposite gave for encouraging of the disaffected towards the Government--( Crier of Order, order ! Chair, chair ) The SPEAKER said, that in his view of the de. bate, the Right Hon. Secretary was not out of order. Certainly it was fair in argument to say that the ten. dency of some Gentlemen's speeches would have the effect described. Mr. Secretary RYDER then repeated the asser tion, and was again called to order, when the SPEA KER again decided in the Right Honourable Gentle man's favour, who declared that lie did not impute such motives to those Gentlemen, but had merely said that the tendency of their arguments would excite the spirit of disaffection. He was sorry they were so ex tremely sore, but the House would know how to ap preciate the value of the language. The Right Hon. Gentleman contended, that having done every thing for securing the peace of the metropolis, and the Ser jeant having effectual aid afforded him, being the agent of the House, was alone responsible for tint consequences. Sir JOHN ANSTRUTHER declared, that his wife and family had been nearly murdered, owing to the criminal negligence of his Majesty's Ministers. Was such a declaration to be considered as a proof of disaffection ? Ministers wished to shelter them selves from responsibility on the subject ; but had they not used all the influence of their talents and their situation, to induce the House to agree to daf commitment of Sir Francis Burdett ? The Right Honourable Secretary of State was one of the first Civil Officers in the nation, and before he had ad vised the House to take the step which had been taken, it was his duty to ascertain what were the legal means to enforce it. He was bound to support the execution of the warrant. Was he ignorant with an Attorney-General at his elbow, and another not a hundred yards off, to what extent that warrant might be legally enforced. The charge which he had to make against his Majesty's Ministers was, that they might easily have foreseen the resistance which had taken place, and that, taking the opinion of the At torney-General on Thursday night instead of on Sun day night, Sir Francis Burdett mighthave been lodged in the Tower on Friday morning, instead of this morning, and all the evils which had ensued have been prevented. Mr. ROBERT DUNDAS said, that if his Ma. jesty's Government had done what the H onoura bl e Gentleman opposite declared they ought to have done the House and the country would have resounded with the loudest cries of censure on their unconstitu- tional interference. The Honourable Baronet had conceived that it was the duty of his Majesty's Mini sters to have foreseen all the consequences resulting from the vote of the House. Could they foresee that the warrant would have been resisted, not having been ever before resisted ? He confessed that he had not thought so ill of the Honourable Baronet as to imagine that he would have resisted it. Could it have been foreseen that he would have shut his door against the execution of the warrant ? This he did not do at first. The Serjeant at Arms had twice had access to him, and had it in his power to make his arrest in such a way as to leave no doubt with respect to the subsequent legality of breaking the door. Mr. C. W. WYNNE, after so many days of alarm and confusion, did not think it should be tolerated that they should be stopped in the first moment of di:- cussion; or told, when adverting to the consequences, that they were encouraging disaffection. The Gen tlemen of his side of the House had never stated a. doubt of the legality of the Speaker's warrant; that doubt originated with the Right Hon. Gentleman op. posite. 1-iis Majesty's Ministers having stood in a situation where they were liable to be called on to af ford assistance for the execution of the warrant, were bound, before they induced the House to agree to the issue of that warrant, to know how far it could be executed to any good purpose. If any doubts had heen known to exist upon the subject, it should never Helve been issued till they were dissolved. It had been said that Sir Francis Burdett had not argued against the power to commit Members ; but whoever read his weak and frivolous production, must know that the principle applied equally to the case of Members as to that of strangers. He thought it highly crimi. nal in Ministers to have left a whole street during Friday in the possession of a mob of about 150 boy s , when '2O Constables employed at two o'clock might have dispersed them and restored tranquillity. inquiry ought to be prosecuted, and he was persuaded that the conduct of his Majesty's Government was deservi.mg of censure. The ATTORNEY GENERAL regretted the ca lamitous consequences that had ensued, but certainly did not think the House had occasion to lamenthaving voted for the commitment of Sir Francis Burdett; be. x t ;~ t