Star.
London, England, 1822-02-14 00:00:00

___.__.,..
a

drawing off the soldiers, hut reminded him that the
Iptopriety of the movement was so obvious, that it'
was only what must have suggested itself to hint;
but, at to saying that he regretted that the firing
took place.. or that he had exchanged any civilities
with the Magistrate, on 'being introduced to him—
he had no recollection whatever that such was the
ease ; at the same time be stated all this took place
amidst great confusion. This was Major Oakes's
reply ; and the House would see that he admitted'
that he gave no order for the firing, and that he (Sir
Robert) had suggested the flank movement for the
ivithdrawing•of the soldiers. He admitted that the
Magistrate was presented to him. He said he did
hot remember expressing any regret that the firing
took place ; hut it was natural enough that he should
not have remembered adding that he regretted it had
taken place, particularly as there was great cont.'s-
i tcm at the moment. At all events, his not remem-
"ng the circumstance was no contradiction of his
'Sir R. Wilson's) assertion. The next step which he
rsad occasion to notice, though at some distance of
time, was his addressing a letter to Mr.Whyte, on the
16th of October, asking him, did he not, during the
Ileri
interview which he had with him on the day of the
funeral, express frequently the strongest wish for the
restoration of peace ? and also, whether or not his
conduct was such as to shew hat he really had the
reititn of tranquillity at heart? He added in his let-
ter, that it was his intention to make use of his an-
swer in Patliament if be should think fit. Mr. Whyte,
in reply, stated, that in consequence of the candid
declaration that his answer might be produced in
Parliament, and as he did not wish that his name
should be drawn into the business, he declined
giving any answer to the questions put to him.—
He again wrote to Mr. Whyte, informing him of his
intention to lay before Parliament, in the course of
his statement, the correspondence which had first
taken place. He (Sir Robert) would challenge the.
production of Mr. Whyte as a witness at the Bar.-
11e had heard that Mr. Whyte was a man of honour
and strictly religious principles, and would be glad
of an opportunity to put the question to him, whe-
t!.er he did not own to him, that he (Sir Robert Wil-
son) shewed the utmost anxiety for the restoration of
peace and order? If he had a conscience he could
not deny that he did. Such were the facts on which
:'e rested his justification, and which he WAS prepared
to make good. He would then ask, was it the of-
f:2llce for being at all present at the funeral that he
was stigmatised, so far as Ministerial resentment
could fix degradation upon him—was it for paying
the last tribute of respect to the memory of her
ssLoni, when living, he had thought it his duty to
uphold ? Or was it for the offence of having acted
steadily in the course in which he had set out, and
which was pointed out by his feelings and his judg-
ment, and sanctioned by the approval of his consti-
tuents ? Was it because he had paid to the obsequies
of her late Majesty that respect which was refused
her whilst living—which was due to her rank—nay,
which was due to her sex ? This could not be a
charge, for his Majesty's Ministers had permitted a
Guard of Honour to accompany her remains. What
then was his offence? Was it—but he could not sup-
pose it was—that his timely and successful inter-
ference to prevent the effusion of blood constituted
his crime?—(Hear, hear)—But whatever opinion
might be formed of that interference, he did not look
back to it with regret. He rejoiced that he had inter-
fered to put a stop to the further progress of proceed-
ings which, whatever might have been the original
cause of the affray, had assumed a most intemperate
character when he came up ; and which, if they were
suffered to be persevered in, would have produced
consequences fatal equally to the soldiery and the
people. He referred to his conversations with Major
Oakes and the Magistrates, to prove that his object
was not to turn the procession from the route pre-
scribed, but to spare the military themselves the la-
mentable consequences of persevering in that line of
proceeding. And if, under the influence of anxious
feelings—if, in order to save the effusion of blood,
he had addressed some observations to a Military
Officer, whose conduct was intemperate, were those
observations too minutely to be criticised ? Did
they make widows and orphans?—(Hear, hear.)—
In the steps which he took he was governed by a
re and to the feelings of the soldiers, who, when the
effervescence of the moment was over, he was sure
would be themselves the first to deplore the conse-
quences of their conduct. But who could say that in
doing so he wished to throw the military off their
guard, or to expose them to the attack of the popu-
lace ? He disregard the safety of a soldier !—he de-
precated the charge. He appealed to every military
man in the country—he appealed to every military
man in that House with whom he had ever been pro-
fessionally connected—he appealed to every soldier
who had fought with him or served under him—he
challenged them to say that upon any occasion he had
been inattentive not only to their safety, but to their
comforts, still less that he had been unmindful of
their honour. He called upon any military men who
now heard him, if they could, to say that in all his
dealings with them he had not blended his duty with
mildness, and the exercise of his professional obliga-
tions with military and professional kindness. His
object was humane, but the manner in which he
sought to obtain that object was not incompatible
with his regard for the law. True it was, that the
law required every one present to assist in putting
it in force, and so strong was that obligation, that
it looked upon all as accomplices in its violation
who did not give such assistance—s(Hear, hear).—
But the administration of the law was best adminis-
tered when tempered with mercy—it was not neces-
sary that its march should be traced in blood ; and
he, therefore, supposed that (possessing, as he did,
some little influence) he should be criminally inert, if
he sat upon his horse at a distance, at the same time,
feeling that his presence would tend to restore the
peace—(Hear, hear).— Would this House give their
sanction to a distinction being-made between the duty
which a civil and a military man owed to good order
and society? Would they admit a difference in the
obligations 14- the two men ? or that that which would
be humane and commendable in one of them, was to
be viewed as criminal, and treated as punishable, be-
cause done by a registered member of the Army ?
He called upon the House to extend to him its shelter
and pi tection. He called upon diem to shew a true
attachment to the Crown, not by a subserviency to
power, but by maintaining justice, and throwing
itscli between the oppressors and the oppressed.—