The Sun. — London, England, 1822-03-01 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, TJWRSDAY, FEB. 28. Mr. Vernon, from the Treasury, presented the Annual Report of the Commissioners of the Her ring Fishery ; also an Account of the- number of Vessels from the Ports of Scotland. engaged in the Whale 'Fishery. Mr. Mason, from the East India House, presented an Account of the Re gulations made by the different Governments of India. _ TYTHES IN CANADA. •-. Earl WATHURST adverted to an Act passed in late.Majesty's reign, which provides that-all 'Jilts passed, by, colonial Legislative Assemblies, which interfere with the Ecclesiastical Establish ments, shall be . -:laid before, Parliament during thirty days, in order,that the same• may receive. the sanction Of' the Legislature.. The •Noble Earl then stated, that the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada having -passed .an Act to make one-seventh of the produce:of all lands applicable to the maintenance• of the Protestant Clergy, doubts had since arisen, whether the remainder of` the produce was not•subject. to tithes. To remove those doubts, - ..the Assembly had lately Passed a Bill, which the _Noble Earl, on this -oc casion, held in his hand, and laid upon the table, purstiant,to , the -provisions of the aforesaid Act. • The Assize :Regulation Bill was reported to the House, and ordered. to he read a third - time On 14.14onday. CORN LAWS. , . Lord, KINC r ; a desire to hear .from :the. .Noble or :anothe r Noble Earl (Liver pool),'not .then in - his place, what was to be crone in the Citherlroirse-of Parliament with 're spect to the Corn Laws. Earl BATIWIIST said it was impossible to ex plain what the,other House'of Pdrlianient would do. Ills Majesty'S advisers r ltowever, would not object to state any proposition they intended .to submit, to the- other branch of the Legislature. Lord KING, after a few observations in reply, said he should mention the subject again to morrow, when a- Noble Earl (Liverpool) appear ed in his. place.--Adjourned. • HOUSt' OF COMMONS. WINDOW TAX—IRELAND. Sir R. SHAW presented a Petition from the Bankers, Mer chants and Traders of the City Of Dublin, praying for a repeal of the Window Duty. The Hon. Member said as he intended to-morrow to call the attention of the House to the subject, he should say no snore then, .than move that the Petition be read and laid on the table. • ELECTION PETITION. • Lord DUNGANNON presented a Petition from. Mr. Ste phenson; against theretum-of Mr. Goulburn for the Borough of West Looe.—Ordered to be taken into consideratum on Thursday, the 18th of April. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. _ Lard EBRINGTON presented a Petition signed' by up wards of 4,600 respectable persons of the Phoenix Friendly Society in the County of Devon, complaining of the injury they had sustained by the operation of the Act of the 59ttr Geo. 111. sect. 34, clause 19, which made it necessary that two sure-- ties to the ,amount of OE each should be given on the esta blishment of a Friendli , Society, and that the same was required for those in existence at the time of passing the Bill. Mr. COURTENAY said, he. was, extremely sorry to hear that a Bill introduced by him should have been misunderstood or felt as grievous-in its effects. He could assure the NOble Lord that he did not think the Bill of the 59th Geo 111. had a retrospective operation with regard to Friendly Societies. He had received many communications from. the Counties of York, Gloucester, Kent. Devon, and Middlesex, in proof of the gciod effects of the Bill. If /his respectable body of Petitioners, however, thought oihet•i'fie, he had no Objection' whatever to its beifig referred to a Committee.—,Laid on the table. EDINBURGH POLICE. ABERCROMBY presented a Petition from the Gene ral Commissaries of .Police of the City of Edinburgh, against the Edinburgh Police Bill. The Petitioners prayed that the said Bill might not pass into a law, and that they might be heard by . Counsel against it.—Laid on the table. PENSIONS. Mr. HUME moved for a return of the amount of Pensions and Salaries in the United Kingdom, charged At four shillings in the pound, and also all salaries under 5001. not charged.— Ordered. AGRICULTURISTS. Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE presented a Petition from certain Landholders, Farmers, &c. in the neighbourhood of a Somerset, -complaininc , of agriculturil distress, and praying for a further reduction of taxes than had been announced by his Majesty's Ministers. He ex - I:tressed his regret at being obliged to dissent In this question with the highly talented persons who composed his Majesty's Government. The Petitioners ex pressed themselves in the most respectful manner, and threw th - emselves, on the wisdonr and consideration of Parliament for relief. Mr. Alderman C. SMITH szizl he entirely concurred in the sentiments of the Petition ; and he was satisfied that the coun try in general was rot satisfied with what had been done by his Majesty's Ministers towards the relief of the a a ctrieultural classes. Mr. CURWEN said, that if nothing further were done by Government, lie shOuld after Easter bring forward a motion for the equaliotion of the diity on RUssian tallow, with the tax on soap and candles. . • Mr. SYKES soicf, lie rose. to congratulate the public on the cheering prospect which was how dawning on the louse in the 'sentbrients , which - had' fallen from the Hon. 'Member for Somerset (Sir Lethbridge); anti the lion. Alderman. They! .had hound themselves by their sentiments not to support the. present Administration unless they carried economy to a greater extent than they seemed disposed MAD", arid he was sure that. She House would not only have the benefit 'of . their speeches, but of, their votes also. lie wassure the country could not go on without fOrther relizf, from a reduction of taxation. The Petition was then read, andordered to be printed. . Mr. HEATIICOTE presented a petition from certain Landholders in the neighbourhood of Louth, Lincolnshire, com plaining of agricultural dist ".Ss. lie begged to state, that. many proofs had. come under his own observation of The dis appointment of tile country at the small relief from taxation which Government intended to give, and surprise at the over Aorming majorities of that house, which StiprOrted Ministers in reftisiug further relief.—( Hear !) The Petition was read, and ordered to be printed. . ADMIRALTY. • Sir M. RIDLE Y, with reference to a notice of motion he bad given. for thelth of March, relative to the Lords of the.' Admiralty; begged to state, that in consequence of the Navy Estimates coming on to-morrow, which was earlier than he expected, he should take that opportunity of making his motion. . . APPOINTMENT OF SHERIFFS—SCOTLAND. An Hon. MEMBER (whose name' could not be learned), said he had a question to put to any of his Majesty's Ministers, which was of some inmortance in the part of the kingdom from which he came. He begged to refer to the Act for abolishing Heritable Jurisdiction in Scotland, which enacted that the Sheriff should reside four months in Ins shrievalty in the year. There was, hoirever, a report, that it was the intention of Go. Ternment to enforce a longer residence on the Sheriff in his .county. He hoped it was not so. The report had been raised with reference to a late appointment in the county of Lanark. _ ' Mr. PEEL said, that the subject alluded to by the Honour 'able Meinbet had lately attracted the attention of his Majesty's Gekvernment, and received the fullest consideration from them. illeSteong Report which had been made on that point by the Commissioners of Inquiry, together with the circumstances which had occurred in the neighbourhood Of Glasgow and Pais ley on.the occasion of some late disturbances of the public peace; and the opinions expressed by Gentlemen • on the other side of the House on the subject, hld contributed to direct the often -don cf Government to it, and he had no hesitation in saying, that after the fullest attention it was their impression that the Sheriff of a County shoUld'he - a resident Officer. The Act al lowed to fixed four months as theminiimim, and' he apprehend .ed that should Goyernment annexe the ; condition of residence to the appointment of Sheriff, thercotild beno objection to it.— (Hear, hear.)" SINKINWFUND. , • •. Mr. ZANKES gave no4c,e-of a motion on the subject of the Sinking Irun(l, at an early period, but from the low tone of voice in which he spoke, the exact day could not be heard. SCOTCH BURGHS. _ _ The LORD ADVOCATE, pursuant to notice, moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the regulation of the accounts and of the expenditure of the Royal Burghs of Scotland. His Lordship said that the Bill he proposed to introduce would be founded, in its provision, uppu the recommendation of the Com mittees which had sat for-three successive yearsAs investigate the nature of the abuses alleged to exist in the management of the funds, and other grievanees complained of in the mode of Election in the Royal Burghs of Scotland. rn obedience to these recommendations, contained, as he had stated a few nights ago, in the Reports of the Committees in question, the Bill would first provide that the accounts of the Burghs should be public, so that those who managed the fundywell, would receive the approbation dtie to their discretion and inte grity, whilst it would operate as a check upon any undue administration of them. The Bill would also oblige the :Ma gistrates to reside in the Burghs, and prevent all illegal con tra-CIS relatiie to elections to' offices in the • boroughs.—Such being the :objects of the Bill, he felt persuaded that the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Hamilton) would not object to its intro - Auction, and he therefore should refrain from' troubling the House at greater length on the subject,- and move fur leave to bring in the Bill. . . Lord A. HAMILTON said, that his objections on 6e pre sent occasion were not to what the . Bill enacted, but to what it left untouched;, and he must here express his surprise that after theyhad had three Reports from, Committees, on the sub ject, when there were so many Petitions, and such' a weight of grievances, the Lord Advocate of Scolland• should stand up with such a scanty Bill, and so short a speech. The _ Bill did not touch - one-twentieth part of the abuses requiring to be remedied; Ile appealed' to the Members of the Commit 'tee, who had subscribed to the existence of these abuses, if what he stated was not correct. He was sorry the House was so little acquainted with the subject, on which account those, on behalf he stood wp, would suffer. But if it it had been :the case of England instead of Scotland, it would have been differently treated. He no more believed that the Learned 'Lord viewed this Bill as an effectual relief than he. did that he could pay off the National Debt. And it was for this reason he introduced it to the attention of the House, as he would do in the case of a Road Bill. . . _ . The LORD ADVOCATE said the Noble Lord-was mis taken as to the provisions of the Bill he moved foe leave to bring in, and had better. defer his objection. till it .was- before the House.—Leave was then given. ' . DISTURBANCE AT KNIGHTSBRIDGE. Mr.-Aldeunan WOOD called the attention of the House to the notice of a- motion he had given 'relative to the Pe tition of the City of London- He had .presented that Petition on aforMerday at the request of many of his Constituents-, and he had now to. engage the consideration of the House to the facts contained init, to which he would endeavour to confine himself. In the motion he had to make he-understood he was to expect the support of an Hon. Colleague of his,with whom, as he'did not Often agree in that House he presumed that he was actuated by different motives 'for desiring an inquiry into the statement of the Petitioners, than those by which he (Mr. Ald. Wood) was influenced. de fully concurred in the sentiments expresSed- by the Committee upon Which the Petition was founded,- and - notwithstanding what had been said of the, evidence on , which they were formed, on a late occasion, he Would contend that it was entitled to full credit. The inquiry had not been confined amongst one particular class pf- persons. On the Resolution of the Common Council the matter was referred for investigation to a Committee of three or four years- standing, • composed of Meanbers Who en tertained very different politics - amongst each other. It was not to the statement of facts he was about to make, that the attention of the House alone was (hie ; but he called . upon them to consider whether those who had been, or were hereafter to be, Sheriffs of Counties, when called out in their official capacity for the preservation of the peace, were to be subject to violent attacks on their persons. It appeared in the present case, that the sheriff of Middlesex, in the discharge of his public duty, had been so attacked. The Hon. Alderman then went on to relate, that in consequence of its appearing that the funeral of the two men who had been killed on the 14th Of August, was to be a public one, his Majesty's Govern ment took the precaution to write to the Lord Mayor of the City of London, to advise him of a large meeting to be held in Smithfield, - at which he was to take steps to keep the peace. They had also sent a letter to a Gentleman in- his. ward, saying, thatas it wassunderstood to be the intention to take the funeral through Hyde Park, the writer gaVe notice that he should not permit- it to go through. Not one Word of all this, however, had bCen communicated to the Sheriff; the proper officer for the -preservation of the peace of. the county. And as the .processiou was to assemble iii the neighbourhood of Red Lion-square, there was as much ground for apprelienSion- for the peace of Middlesex as-.of the City of London. On hearing of this, however, the Sheriff; considering the irritation exist ing in consequence of the misunderstanding between the people and the soldiers; and knowing that the procession was to pass by the Horse Guards, was- fearful' that some disturbances might occur, and therefore took the precaution of summoning all the officers and constables of the Hundreds of the County of Middlesex, and placed them in a situation where they were most likely to be available for the public service. On Mr. Sheriff Waithman observing that the funeral was to take place at Hammersmith, he took measures to prevent it. The letter which appeared in the Sunday Newspapers of. the day on which it took place, sheaved his anxious desire to prevent it. The Honourable Alderman then read the letter in queS tion, as follows :—" Seeing a paragrapk in your paper, that a procession is to assemble to-morrow in Smithfield for the pur pose of accompanying the funeral of the men who were shot on the 14th August at Cumberland-gate ; as I was appointed by their relations to attend at the investigation into the cir cumstances of their death, I feel myself called upon to depre cate such a proceeding,. and particularly as the matter is now under a course of judipial inquiry, and I earnestly hope the public will refrain from attending this meeting.' -Now what could be thine more than that ? No one after that could charge that Hon. Gentleman with an intention to create a disturbance, as some had done. The Sheriff's colleague was abient froin town, but he had the assistance of his Under Sheriff, with whom he arranged all the officers he had been able to get together in a proper place, and attended himself in the neighboUrliOod of Knightsbridge. placed himself opposite Sloane street, where he saw the procession pass, but he never went near it, further than to station his officers. The procession went quietly past the barracks, and nothing occurred till a briek 'was thrown from the barracks among the people. They their felt indignant, and began hissing at the soldiers. But the moment Sheriff Weidman went up the hissing ceased—he begged them to pass on quietly, and according to the testimony of all, he was constantly employed during the whole day in endeavoin _ing to keep the people quiet. He went on in the rear of the procession, and, remained at some distance from the barracks, when lie heard that something demanded his attendance at the barracks. He went back, and at 'the gates he saw soldiers contending with the people, some with swords, and others with sticks, in their full dress and undress. He remonstrated with the soldiers on their conduct, and they were unwilling to listen . to authority, but he at length succeeded in making them shut the gates. At another period of the day, when he wasnear Hyde Park Corner, he was inforrned that a breaCh of the peace was committed near the Barracks, and upon returning to the spot, the first thing - that he witnessed was, soldiers jumping over the wall, and the gates were • shortly after thrown open, and fifty or sixty soldiers rushed out.. As he perceived the Right Hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel) • had got the evidence in his hand, lie would take up his time by . detailing what then took place. 111 r. Sheriff Waithman perceived that there was a great contention amongst the people and the Military--44everat were knocked down, and the swords were flourishing about. The Sheriff rode up on the path-way, and endeavoured to persuade the soldiers to go away. Whilst thus engaged his horse was seized, hold of, and - several attempts were made to strike him. In : the violence which was used towards him; he and his horse Were shoved off' the pavement. During this time a soldier_ was observed presenting his carbine, not immediately at the Sheriff, but in that direction. Several persons who gave evidenCe be fcre the Committee gave their - opinions that if -the people had not been in the way, from the position of the carbine, it.might have shot Mr. Sheriff Waithinan, if it had been- fired off: Such was the state in which the Sheriff was placed according to the evidence; and, during the whole of that time the Sheriff was represented as conducting himself in a most conciliatory and proper manner. This was stated by all the witnesses but one, and, that one was a reporter to the Morning Post Newspaper, (Mr. Derbishire) and 'even he stated, at the close of his exa mination, that be was not quite sure that the words he at tributed to the Sheriff were used by him. No one but that Gentleman spoke of his conducting himself in -a af ferent way. The Sheriff tried his utmost to get,to speak to an Officer, and during the whole time, 'according to Mr. Derbishire's account,' the conduct of the military was most violent. In answer to a message from the Sheriff, one of the. Officers said " : ,The Sheriff may be d—__d !" He had one remark to make. The persons examined on this occasion were not the same as'had been examined in the former -proceeding. He believed it would- be found that not one among them all had given evidence before the Coroner. Most of them were persons who had happened to be on the Coroner., at tending to their business. The first person he 'should mention was a most respectable individual, who was high in the office to which he was attached. Mr. Mortimer had been in attendance :on Mr. Sheriff Waithman during the whole of the day, had given evidence which,-if it could not be shaken, and as yet it had 'not been, made very strongly in favour of the Sheriff: Se veral Sheriff's officers who were likewise on the spot had con_ - curred in representing the conduct of Mr. Waithman to have been most proper. These persons were all respectable men, men who were obliged to give security to the amount of some thousands when entering on the situations which they held, and these were not at all likely to be under the influence of the late Sheriff'. Then with respect to the persons connected with the public press, what interest •could. they be supposed to have in disguising the truth ? ',lt could not be contended that they were at all under the influence - of the individual to whose con duct they had spoken, yet of these Mr. Woods and Mr. Tyas had given very strong evidence in favour of the Sheriff. These individuals had come forward merely because they happened to be on the spot ; they had not been selected for the occasion, and there was nothing, in their situation to make it probable that they were under any improper bias. After the inquiry was known to be going on, letters had been received from in dividuals who offered to come forward with much stronger evi dence than any that appeared on those minutes which had been printed, but the evidence actually appended to the re. port was, in his judgment, strong enough to justify the House in acceding to the present motion, which would be for. the ap . - pointment of a Select Committee. He expected to hear it stated that the Sheriff had no business at Knightsbridge.— His Honourable Colleague (Sir William Curtis) would itro bably get up and state this to be his opinion. He, how ever, would contend that it was his dxity to go there, and had he not done so, he •doubted not the Hon. Baronet would have been sufficiently ready xo say, " p,• Mr. Sheriff' Waith man could be busy enough attending the Coroner's Inquest, but here, where the public peace was broken, he was not to be found.' Even Lord Bathurst went almost as far. In a letter, not of a very compliment.ary character, which he had • written to, Mr. Sheriff Waithman, he had made a sort of com plaint, that he had not remained at' - Knightsbridge till' after eight o'clock when the Riot Act was read. He could state that it had long been the practice for the Sheriffs of Lon don to attend on all extraordinary calls when the peace of the county was endangered. In 1810, when an Honourable Bart. was committed by that , House -to the Tower, his Col-, league at that time (Mr. Alderman Atkins), though differ ing widely from 'him in the view which he took of- the proceeding he had alluded to, had attended with him, where the public peace was thought to be endangered, from seven in the morning until eleven at night. He wished.to ask, from the view which seemed to be taken of Mr. Sheriff Waithman's con duct by Ministers, how it happened that he 'had received no communication-from Government on the occasion ? From them he had received no instructions ; but when a communication was made from him to Lord Bathurst, it was answered by that which amounted almost to a reprimand. In that letter, how ever, it svAs promised that an inquiry should take place. What inquiry, he wished to ask, had since taken place ? If any had been instituted, it might be well that they should know what the resnit had been ; if none had been set on foot, it was desir able that one should be concerted now. Having heard nothing of the promised inquiry, the Corporation of the City of Lon- • don had judged it right to call on the House to institute one, with a view of doing them justice, and of affording them some reparation for the outrage which had been offered to them, by allowing the military, to assault their Sheriff. If the evidence which had been obtained was at all to be depended Aton, a more violent attack could not have been made on that officer thisn that which had actually taken place. If Mi nisters were satisfied that the military were all right and the Sheriff all wrong, he was confident that they would be willing to sanction the inquiry now called for. To him it was clear that the Sheriff had a right to act as he had done. The pUblic peace was•in danger, and- in cases of riot, the Sheriff had, a right to call on all persons above the age of fifteen to assisthim, and when he had legally a right to exercise in the case sup posed such' power, was it fitting that he should be assaulted by a body of military, not under the controul of their Comman ders, with impunity ? The riotous manner in which they rushed from the barracks had been fully established. It had been stated by Mr. Derbishire, in his eiridence, that some of the soldiers acted very manfully, coming forward to attack those opposed to them with , their fists ; but he had described others to have acted a very different part, and to have rushed out with carbines and swords in their hands, and attacking the people in the most violent manner. Mr. D. he believed. al said that he had never seen any thing more violent. He had represented them as rushing out with carbines, swords, and sticks, and' to have struck several of the crowd. In the eVidence which had been given, a very remarkable coincidence would be found.— This was the more extraordinary, as the parties by whom it had been furnished had not had opportunities of seeing each other on the subject, with the exception of the Gentlemen con nected with the Press, who might very naturally communicate with each other on: what had come under their observation. — From the whole mass of evidence it appeared, that in no in stance had the slightest offence been offered on the part of the Sheriff towards the Military, but wherever he went he was found constantly addressing the crowd on the necessity of their conducting themselves peaceably towards the soldiers. If the Sheriff might be attacked as he had been on this occasion, while watching a funeral procession, which had been arranged as a mark of respect to certain individuala who had lost their lives on a former melancholy- occasion—if the highest officer in the City of London was thus to be put down by the Military, there must be an end of all civil government. He should now con tent himself with making his inotion, which he should expect would not be opposed by the. Right Hon. Gentleman, as he considered that he had so excellent a case in his hands He should rather expect, such being the case, that he would be happy - to go into the proposed inquiry, for the purpose of re pelling the charges brought against the soldiers. He concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to in quire into the facts stated in a Petition presented to the House on the Bth inst., from the Corporation of the City of London, complaining of an outrage offered to them in the person of Mr. Sheriff Waithman on the 26th of August, 1821, while engaged in the execution of his official duty for the preservation of the public peace. • Sir W. CURTIS rose to second the motion of the Worthy - Alderman for sending the Petition to a Committee, but he did this on very different grounds from those on which it had been brought forward. He wished the Petition sent to a Committee that it might be proved the allegations contained in the same rested on no authority whatever. The two Sheriffs must be to gether to act for the county; and Mr. Sheriff Waithman, as he could not act in the absence of his colleague, who was not then in town, would have been better at home. It had been said that the Court Or Common Council had fairly taken the evidence offered to them, and that all the witnesses .came voluntarily forward. Now he would shew the House, if they would allow him to refer to the,evidence, that this could not be the case. Ile had no doubt that questions had been put in order to draw forth answers that suited the views of certain Members of the Common Council, and the evidence taken al together, led him to a conclusion very different from that at which the Worthy Alderman (Mr. Alderman Wood) had ar rived. He, therefore, wished the present motion to be carried, that the • whole of the circumstances of the case might be seen in a proper light, and he thought it would not be wrong to give the Common Council a hint, that in this instance they had over-acted their part. To shew what sort of evidence had been procured, as well as in what way it had been obtained, he would read the statement of one of the wit nesses, that it might be seen what description of information was thought worthy Of being received by that enlightened and venerable body the Court of Common Council. The evidence of Mr. Thomas Oliff ran as follows: Where do you livo ? —At No. 90, Fore-street. What are you ?—I superintend the business for Mr. Smith, a corn-chandler. vV You were at Knightsbridge at the time the affray - happened with the soldiers and the populace ?—No, I was not there.— (A laugh.) Then what do you know about it ?—I got a note about it. All that I know was, that I was in company with a friend of mine on the Monday or Tuesday evening, and he said, that he bad been into the shop of a person of the name of Crabb—(A laugh)—and heard a man of the name of Properjohn—(A laugh) —or his man—(excessive laughter)—tell Mr. Crabb, that he heard a corporal of the Life Guardsmen say—(increased laugh ter)—" D—n Alderman Waithman ;we are prepared for him, and have got a ball ieady for him."—(Loud laughter.) He stated this, but to show of what folly the Court of Com mon Council were, capable, and would now leave the House to determine for themselves how far they would be justified in ' acting on the report of that Committee. Colonel LYGON begged the indulgence of . the House while he was,saying a few words on the motion before them, as he was an eye-witness to the greater part of what happened on that day at the barracks. He, would confine himself to that part of the petition which regarded the Commanding Officer. It stated that a brickbat had been thrown by the soldiers from the para. pet wall, That was very doubtful, and he believed incorrect, and those who lived in the neighbourhood denied that they saw any thing of the sort thrown. He denied that he received any communication from Mr. Sheriff Waithman. He was at the barrack all that day, and never left it from the 25th till the 27th. lie d saw groups people about the gates, which had been shut,at first. There was a w..y through the barracks from the road into the park, where the people were in the habit of passing. He declared, upon his honour that the gates were opened for the accomModation of the peo ple. There was no disturbance until after ten o'clock. ' After that he thought the soldiers, so far from being the aggressors, shewed the greatest forbearance. There were not less than 282 windows broken in the barricks, although it was stated that constables were stationed in front with orders to apprehend any persons who were found committing any breach of the peace. Soon after six o'clock he heard dies of " murder," and on going out he fotind the trumpeter knocked down—(Hear, hear !)—by the people who were assaulting the soldiers. The conduct of the soldiers was most forbearing. At his orders thly 'returned within their barrack, which was a proof of their for bearance—(Hear, hear !)—and good order.—(Hear, hear !) ' He shortly 'after sent for a Magistrate (Sir N. Conant); who read the Riot Act, and dispersed the populace. He wished as much as any one for an inquiry, because then it would appear that the soldiers conducted themselves in the most forbearing and orderly manner.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. FIOBHOUSE contended that as a Committee had been granted to inquire into any thing that furnished a pretext for taking away the liberties of the people, that now when the people complained of outrage, and that through a body so re speetable as the'Corporation of the City of London, an inquiry ought to be institutedvithout delay. He anticipated that it would be objected that the evidence given before the Common Council was forgiven On oath. But whose fault was it that evidence on this subject had not been obtained, on oath ? The fault rested with the Government, who had neglected to set on foot that inquiry which had been promised. Having examined the evidence, he did not think the subject so laughable as it had seemed to the Honourable Baronet. The evidence which he had read merely proved that the parties were were not much in the habit of examining witnesses, and had therefore not stopped the examination so soon as it ought to have been stop ped, but the publication of this, with the rest, shewed in a' striking point of view the fairness of the Committee. It appeared on the whole, that stones had been thrown from the crowd-to the Barracks, but it also appeared that stones had been thrown from' the Barracks at the crowd. This appeared from the evidence of several witnesses, and from that of one who could not be suspected of any political bias in fa vour of Mr. Sheriff Waithman—the Reporter of the Morning Post. That witness had used an expression which he (Mr. Hobhouse) would hot repeat after him—he had said that some of them came forward in a cowardly monner. This was a strong expression to be applied to British soldiers, and one that he would not repeat. He'controvertedthe assertion of the Hon. Baronet, that the Sheriff for London, unless atended by his Colleague, could do nothing towards preserving the peace of the County of Middlesex ; and maintained, on the authority of Blackstone, whose oriinion he quoted, that the Sheriff had a right to command the soldiers to keep the peace—to follow them into their bairacks, and more than that to raise the posse commitatus, and take every soldier into custody in. he barracks, who had been guilty of a breach of the peace. He might be told that one of the witnesses, the Reporter to the Morn ing Post, thought the Sheriff had endangered the peace. But the Sheriff was the only judge when the peace was broken, and that which he did' was done in pursuance of his duty. He vindicated the importance and respectability of the Com mon Council, and then proceeded to argue that all the mea sures of Ministers were calculated to introduce a military Go vernment. It had been said that the witnesses on one of the late inquiries were perjured. He would wish to ask the Hon. Officer who had made that assertion, what means he had of knowing such to be the fact? He might believe (and he doubted not he did) that the parties in question had acted the part he described, but could he take upon himself to say that it actu ally was so ? The present case for an inqiiiry was most im portant. If a fortress was established, in what he might call the heart of the metropolis, it was fit that the people should know whether they might cut their throats or not with im punity—(Hear, hear !)—He did not say they would do so, but it was proper to know if they might be so employed. in quiry was now called for—inquiry had been promised on the part of Ministers, and the pledge which they had given ought now to be repealed. Mr. PEEL said the vote he should give, and the view whch he took of this question, must be regulated by the general pfin ciples on which the House had been accustomed to act when similar propositions came before them. The course he took, he could assure the Hon. •Alderman, would be quite distinct from that which a wish to criminate Mr. Waithman might suggest. Respecting 4 as lie did, the feelings of the Hon. Officer who had taken part in the debate, he could easily comprehend that anx iety for the reputation' of his Regiment would make him desire that an inquiry should be promptly instituted. But honour able as these feelings were to that Honourable Officer, he could not yield to his wishes in the present call, neither could he ad. mit, as a good ground for an inquiry,the wish avowed by the Hon. Bart. near him—that of exposing the Court of Common Council. The proper course for them to take was, as he conceived, to inquire had any event occurred—had any document been laid before the House, or referred to by its 'M embers, that could lay a ground for their deviating from their usual course, to institute an in quiryinto the circumstances of the case to which their attention had beencalled? That there were allegations of outrages said to haste:been committed he would admit. These appeared in the letter written by Mr. Waithman to the Secretary of State, and in the Petition from the Corporation of the City of London. But the evidence to which they were referred, ex parte as it was, proved to him that -these allegations were not founded urfact.— The inquiry which Earl -.Bathurst had intimated would take place, had been made. Depositions had been given on oath, but to these, on the present occasion, he did not mean to refer. Nor would he raise the technical objection which had been anticipated, on the ground that the evidence taken before the Court of Common Council had not been on oath ; but sup posing it to have been given on oath, and making no use of the counter evidence which had been obtained, he would repeat, that the evidence to which' their attention had been called, and that alone; carried conviction to his mind, that the alle gations of the letter and Petitions were not" founded in fact.— It was important that it should be understood, he did not mean to say that no outrage had been committed. But from the evi dence, he would say that such outrages as had been described did not appear to have been committed. They had been re ferred to the evidence of Thomas Oliff, and he would direct the attention of the - House to it again. This person stated that he was not at Knightsbridge on the day of the funeral, and all that he knew of it was, that he (the witness), in company with a friend, had gone on the Monday or the Tuesday after wards, he conkl not say which—(A laugh)—into the shop of a, person of the name of Crabb, and heard a man of the name of Propeijohn, or his man—(A laugh)—tell Mr. Crabb that he heard a Corporal• of the Life Guardsmen say,—" D—n I Alderman Waithman." Why, instead of bringing forward this person, who did not know whether it was on the Mon day or the Tuesday that he went into a shop kept by a man of the name of Crabb, and heard another man, or that other man's man, say he had heard a man D—n Alderman Waithinan—(A laugh.) —why, instead of bringing forward this person, did they not call Mr. Praperjohn or his man to prove what had been said ? When such evidence was resorted to, it might fairly be inferred that they found some difficulty in getting that sort of testimony which was wanted. He wished the House to divest themselves of any feeling growing out of the particular character of the evidence, and to see how far it supported the allegations which had been advanced. In the letter of Mr. Waithman he found it stated that a public funeral had been determined on, and that the funeral was to be per formed at Hammersmith. • The House would bear in mind that this was the funeral of two unfortunate men who had lost their lives on the occasion of the Queen's funeral.- - Now, as Mr. Waithman was anxious to preserve the peace, he eMr. Peel) could not but lament, as the procession was to- pass to Hammersmith, with which parish neither of the parties had any connection, that he did not use his influence over those who conducted it, to make them under •stand that the worst thing they could do was to proceed to Hammersmith by that particular road. He would now proceed to notice the statements put forth in the letter from Mr. Wraith man to Lord Bathurst. The first allegation of importance was contained in these ` words :—" The funeral, in consequence of these precautions, passed the barracks in an orderly and quiet manner, marked by no other peculiar circumstance than that of a' brick being throWn from the barracks, which fell near my horse, and wounded, as I am informed, a young girl."— Now before Mr. Waithman gave 'publicity to that statement, which he had no doubt he believed, before he set forth that a " wanton act," like this, had been committed, which he must have known was most likely to inflame the populace, he ought to have ascertained beyond all doubt that the brick came from the barracks, and had actually injured a girl. Had the pro cession been moving along in a peaceable manner, and been interrupted in the manner described, such an incident, he ad mitted, though it could not have justified, would in some degree have palliated, the outrage which followed. But when they looked at the evidence, what proof was there that the brick bad been thrown from the barracks, or that it had wounded a " young girl ?"—ln the letter of Mr. Mortimer, what did they find to confirm it : All that that Gentleman stated on the subject was this :—" The only provocation given to tumult on its passage thither was a brick-bat being thrown, as it was said, from the barracks at Knightsbridge, by the individual who produced it to you, and who appeared to have been cut by the same." He said nothing stroner than this, and here it Would be seen nothing was said of the girl reported to have been wounded. He, however, found that a woman bad been wounded by a stone, and it was attempted to show that this woman and the girl were the same. But the woman was hit on the return of the funeral from Hammersmith ; she was a widow, and the injury she received was not from a brickbat but from a stone. He mentioned this as a specimen of the manner in which questions had been put to gay' particular answers. He would now refer to the evidence given by Mrs. Brooks, the friend of the woman who was wounded. The House should hear her account of the person who had been sup posed to be the young girl. The examination ran thus : Is she a married woman ?—She is a widow.' " Was she a small sized woman ?—She is about the size that I am, rather slight." This was the person who had been attempted to be passed off for a.young girl. The unfortunate woman who had been wounded, and who was in the Hospital on another account, was then called. The following questions and answers then occurred : " Were you at the funeral before the procession went by ? I was,_ I went by with it. " Did any thing happen at the time /—Not as the funeral was going on ; nothing that I could observe, but a soldier shook his fist at the windows, and one of the men hallooed out some outrageous words, such as, you coward stay there,' or some thing of that kind. " Be good enough to stare what happened to you, and about what time. You received a blow ?—Yes, 1 did'; I was cut be tween the two shoulders. " Describe hew it happened ?-1 was going home towards the Park-gate, and in gong on a lad hallooed out, Take care ma'am, take care.' I thought I was taking care. I saw no thing when the Slow seized me : it threw me as far as from this to that seat (abut three yards). I did not fall but I felt my self in that state that I cannot describe at present. I went into a gateway, and some female looked at the back of my neck and saw I was cut,and I went on as fast as I could home. " It struck rou behind ?—Yes. " Therefordyou could not see where it came from ? —No. " Which way was your face ?••Coming up towards Oxford street : they did say that the stone came over the barrack wall, but I did not ice it myself. " Did you hear the people about you say that at the time ? Yes. • " Were yon in that position that it might .come from the barrack wall '—Yes, it might come from the barrack wall, for I was not very far from it at the time ; I did not see the stone, but it must hive been a large one." This, the Right Hon. Gentleman contended, proved that the woman who was wounded could not be the girl who was said to have been struck with a brickbat ; and no proof was afford ed of that which was called a wanton act having occurred at all in the course of the funeral. The next specific statement in Mr. Waithman's latter that demanded attention was the for. lowing :—" Several of the soldiers rushed at me with their swords drawn, and one actually loaded his carbine, and di rected it towards me ; but it was, as I have been informed, knocked davn by one of the constables."—This was an alle gation of meat imFortance for if a soldier on duty, or off duty, had directed a loaded carbine against the Shenff, till it was knocked down, the moral guilt of such conduct was as great as if he had fired. But from reading the evidence, and that, too, on which Mr. Waithman most relied, he came to this conclusion, that whether the conduct of the man were pro per or not, he had no design on the Sheriff's life. He should have thought the officer who knocked down the carbine, would have been the best person to prove what was charged. He had spoken to the conduct of 111 r. Waithman having been most conciliatory throughout the day, and could have no bias against the Sheriff) bttt-what said this person ? He stated that he had seen a man level his piece, that he had knocked it down with his staff. He went on— " I then laid hold of him, and said, you villain, has there not been bloodshed sufficient without your spilling more ?" The examination proceeded— " What was your idea of his presenting, was it that he was singling Gut the Sheriff?"—l cannot say that, I was so irritated with seeing him with the piece, and the people squalling on the opposite side ; but he had it in different directions. " Was it in that position that it appeared to be presented at Mr. Sheriff Waithman ?—lf I were upon my oath, I could not state that." This was the eridence of the man who had knocked the piece down, and this he thought conclusive, that there had been no attempt on the Sheriff's life ; and was the further confirmed by what afterwards fell from the same witness. " If I wanted to shoot a person directly opposite to me, I should not elevate my piece ; but this was held up in this man ner," (describing it.) Mr. Waithman's letter contained one other allegation of great importance. It was this :—" When I desired some of the constables to represent to the Officers, in the most respectful terms, my desire that the soldiers should be kept within the barracks, the message returned was, " that the Sheriff might be d—cf; they would not make their men prisoners for him." God forbid that he should contend that such an answer, if returned, was other than most improper, whoever might send it. But what proof, he would ask, was there of the fact ? The officer had stated that the message he had . taken was not by desire of the Sheriff, but was deli vered of his men accord, because he saw danger from what was then going on. The man might possibly exercise a good discretion in acting such a part, but there was a material diffe rence between his carrying a message from the Sheriff and tak ing one from himself. These allegations then he contended were not made out. He passed over those of a more general character, such as speaking of the soldiers being " left to their own exasperated feelings" and " manifesting a lawless spirit;" but when the soldiers were described to have rushed out with carbines and swords, to commence an attack upon the people, without distirction of age or sex, he must beg to ask, was it possible that such an attack could have been made with out producing more mischief ? To such a general asser tion he would oppose the fact, that but one single case had been furnished on that day to the Middlesex Hospital. There might have been one or two more accidents, but only one patient had been given to the Middlesex Hospital that day, nor was there any proof that a serious wound had been inflicted in any instance. He then must contend that no case for inquiry had been made out., If the affair had been such as they had heard, it was singular that no action had been brought in any of the Courts below. When he reflected on this, and remembered how the military had been attacked—when he recalled the fact, that at the Barracks 282 windows had been broken, he must say the soldiers hadacted with great forbearance. He must add, that as Mr. Waithman stated an adequate force to have been in at tendance to preserve the peace, it was a most remarkable fact that not a single rioter had been taken. Not wishing to accuse Mr. Waithman of misrepresentation, or to criminate him in any way, he thought that he had taken a more active part than was pre scribed to him by his duty, and considered the speech which he had addressed to the crowd, calling on them not to hiss, as the soldiers would be more annoyed by their remaining quiet, was well calculated to increase the popular feeling, be fore sufficiently inflamed against the military. He re gretted the violences that had occurred, but when he remem bered that the soldiers had heard tne cry of murder, and had seen two of their companions overpowered, he 'was not sur prised that under the 'impression that their comrades were about to be murdered, they had rushed to their rescue provided with such arms as they could find ; and that with out having all that regard for the public peace that might be desirable. Considering these things, and bearing in mind the fact that one Life Guardsman had been struck by the Sheriff, without being provoked to any act of violence, he must come to the honest and conscientious conclusion, from that very evi dence on which the petition was founded, that the soldiers had acted with as much forbearance as could be expected ; and he therefore saw no grounds for acceding to the present motion. Mr. DENMAN contended the evidence had been tnost un fairly dealt with, defended the conduct of Mr. Waithman, and insisted on the propriety of going into the inquiry proposed by the present motion. He was of opinion that it was by no means proved that the female known to have, been wounded, was not the same that had been described to have been struck with a brick. The Right Hon. Secretary had was no neetof that the brick had been thrown from the barracks ; but it he turneA to pag 54, he would find in the evidence given by Charles Cootes it was stated—" 1 saw a brick thrown from behind the barrack wall on that day. Just at the head of the procession, it went in amongst some females close against a lamp post ; the brick was picked up and shown to Mr. Sheriff Waithman. I can't say whether it hurt any body, there was such a quan tity of people by at the time, but I heard afterwards that it did hurt a person. I saw the person throw it ; he was in his shirt sleeves." He would ask whether Lord Bathurst, with all his de positions, had ordered the prosecution of any of the individuals concerned in the alleged riot ?—a riot which was described to be of such a nature as to render it necessary for the soldierS to come out of the barracks to defend the life of the trumpeter who had been attacked. The fact was, that only one person had been tried at the Quarter Sessions upon a charge arising out of the occurrence of that day, and he was acquitted. Mr. Sheriff Waithman had endeavoured to obtain investigation, and he, hid been rebuked for not preventing the, riotous conduct of the people, when it turned out that he had left the place before those riots occurred. He was rebuked because he only did his tually did save the effusion of blood ; that he saved the duty; and he (Mr. Denman) had tio doubt that the Sheriff Offi cersac- and the gallant soldiers from the painful feeling of having shed the blood of their countrymen, which feeling must be to them most afflicting, whether they had done so in the ne cessary discharge of their duty, or from the irritation of the moment. Of a similar character with the treatment of the Sheriff had been that of his Gallant Friend near him (Sir Robert Wilson) and the late Chief Magistrate, Sir R. Baker. The latter public officer did not attend the Queen's funeral. as a mere undertaker's man, but in the exercise of due autho rity, for the preserVation of the public peace. He thought that peace could only be kept by changing the route of the pro cession ; and with that object in view, he was fully justified in changing it.. The Hon. and Learned Member then alluded to the notorious Manchester proceedings, and contrasted the conduct of Government on the two occasions. Here, he said, a Magistrate had been removed from his office, and the Sheriff' rebuked for doing their duty, while in the other case the Magistrates had been thanked for slaughtering the people. He was sorry to hear the proceedings of Coroners' Liquests re flected upon as they had been. It was one of the most neces sary and valuable institutions of the country ; and if the pro ceedings of their own Committees were reported with such searching accuracy, they would sometimes stand much in the same light. It was not justifiable to stigmatize the evidence as perjured, because a Noble Lord opposite had stated, u pon his own ascertained knowledge, that ten persons were ready to swear that he shot the man who was killed. The Hon. and . Learned Member concluded by saying, that respect for the, Constitution and Laws, and justice to the people, demanded that the House should go into the inquiry. Mr. PEEL explained. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated, that he admitted the conciliatory conduct of Mr. the e S vi he d ri en ff c l e i. w 'a ii ith ch m il an ir .. s N heri ow ff , lwvhaaitht m he an sa h i a d d w br a o s u ' g tha ht ftourwPain, it