The Sun.
London, England, 1810-04-11 00:00:00

to. the Sneaker, and stated that it was the duty of
+ha:Alight/Honourable Gentleman 1-0 have informed'
the 'Rouse that, Sir -Francis Burdett meant to make a
resistance. •
• - The SPEAKER tru-ted the House would not be
surprised it- he stated somethine injustification of
himself atier the Right Hon. 1\ ember had imputed
to him failure, of his duty. The Right Hon. Mem-
ber had, as. he comprehended ltm,•asserted that be
(the Speaker) .knowing resistance was intended, and
the House being sitting when it carne to his know-
' ledge, had not notified-it to the House.—" If I
mistake the Right Hon.- Member; it may be conve-
nient for him to set roe right."
Ile MEMBER arose and said—" The words
used wet e, that you, Sir, not knowing the contrary,
but haVing reason to apprehend resistance would be
• offered, ,did .not inform the House." -
The Sessxne--s"-The Honourable Member now
says, that I not knowing the contrary,' It.ia in
the recollection of the House that I expressly stated
I did know the contrary, for that the Serjeant told.
me that-he had arranged with Sir Y. Bindett, and
that he was to go the next day to his house,when he
would accompany him to the Tower without force.
With respea to the other insinuation as to my ap-
prehending resistance, when 1 was told that Sir
Francis Burdett did not objeEt to go,- how could I
apprehend resistance ? The- Right Hon. Member
also made a remark that I must have apprehended
resistance because I referred the Serjeant for . aid
-both to civil and military power. It is true the . Ser.
aeant said there was a mob, and that they might give
resistance. My apprehension, thereftre, if I had any,
was applied to that mob, and it was on that account
I referred bun to the Secretary of State. Web re-
.sped to the other points of the Right Hon. Mem-
ber's eech, those refer to grave Matter whish was
mere matte, of opinion, and cannot be. imputed to
me as failure of duty. .• When the Serjeant doubted
his power to enforce the execution of the warrant by
breaking oven the outer door, I had no' information
to give him, for in truth no such case had occurred
within my knowledge, and I belies e that no such
information existed. For we then to order the Ser-
jeant to resort to that expedient, sWas more than I
dare.do, but-- I might give him advice, and I was
bouud to take care that the advice so given should
not 'briag in jeopardy the life of the officer, and I not
being the person to undergo that risk. I referred..
• him, therefore, to the chief . Law Authority.—
I hope the House vt ill concur with me in opinion
under these circtaanstances that I am not highly..
to'blame in not having.commanch-d the officer to go
and break open the outer door,, and fOr not having
given hint precedebts for his guide, which I never
could-find in practical existence."
- Earl TEMPLE contended, that the copduti of Mis
eisters was highly reprehensible ; for its now ap-
peared,. from the speech tof the Speaker, that so late
as Friday night the Serjeant had list.m.referred for
aid and assistance to the .Secreiary of 'State, from
an. expectatitsa on his (the- Serjeant's) part that re
sistance might Made by the tnoh. The Serjeant
applied, and what was the result of that applira-
tion ?—Why, that assistance was not afforded him
till Monday morning—That it was not sufficieetly
afforded Sill that time was' evident. The warrant
was directed to all Magiatratei, &c. to assist. Why
W. Ryder was not only :Secretary of State, but. ex' '
officio a magistrates having the whole of the Policel
under his controel, The! Bight Hon. Secretary
therefore in delaying to afford assistatice immediate-
ly was guilty of a violation of duty, ander; his head,
and that. of his colleagues, rested, in the opinion of
'the Noble;Lord,'every drop of blood t hat had been
spilt on the occasion. With respect to the letter et
Sir Francis. Burdett, he thought the FIQUSC ought to
give an opinion on the subject.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL agreed with his Right
Hon. Friend,. that the House were to take into their
consideration:the offence which Sir Francis Burdett
had beten guilty of, when the • House, contrary to
the opinion' of .some Gentlemen, bad determined
that the case was within reach ofits jurisdiaion.—
He did not at the moment look at the manner in
which the warrant was to be executed. He saw
such mischief in the paper, that it was calculated to
set at nought the authority of the House, and to deny
the privileges of Pailiament, which were granted, not
merely for the support of the safety of the House,'
but of the people at large. It had been said that a
reprimand would have been the better punishment,
but the House would see what value the author of
the letter set upon the reprimand of this House.
It was that sort of- contempt which he exhibited,
which a man of rank mightsbe, supposed to expe-
rience when reprimanded by hie servants in 'the ses_
vents' hall of his mansion. There' was no ade-
quate puhishmeot for :the -offence short of the one
resorted to. Much as lie deplored the calarifitouS'
events whichfollowed the executton.of the warrant,
'be stilt did not regret- that the House had vOied 'the
. punishment, because in so doing they iupported-
• their own digity. It had been said, that it was the
duty- of his Majesty's Government tO-have looked at
the ccinseghence before they proposed the vote; blit
those Gentlemen holding that doctrine would do well
• to recollect, that they; in wishing,a repiimand, should
have to look at consequences. It was impessible that
-it could enter. into' the contemplation of him or
• - his friends; that- resistance to The -dutherity Of this-
. House would. be made by the' Hoth,f Baronet ss--
. tor,: when he saw under the hand of the Hon.
Baronet au avowal that he did not diipuie the right
of the .Hoosesol..Commoris to commit. its • Members,
lie could nut have any expectation of resistance.--,-
It he (the Attorney General) had been asked,
whether lie' Ma Igined the Hon. -Baroliet would.
resist, he certainly should have confidently stated,
! that personally he thought the Hon. Baronet would
not resist. The Learned: Gent. observed,..that
I the Serjeant had been twice, at the of the
Him. Baronet.' Why then did he not promptly*
execute his duty ? The neglect was 'imputable
to- him, and not to his Majesty's. Government
, The Learned Gentleman then defended the opinion
which-lie had given on the case submitted to him,
which opinion be could not. have given without,the
'aid of analogy, he-hoped thetefore it would not be
-imputed to him that he might have arrived at that-
opinion without resorting to the-.aid of analogy. He
could not reason from any other source, because
there was no instance (asshad been stated by the
Speaker) in which the execution -of a ~Warrant
! of this House had been attended with such kind
-of force as:that of facing open a door.: It bad
. been said that his Majesty's Ministers ought to have