Star.
London, England, 1810-06-30 00:00:00

LA, INTELLIGENCE.

COURT' OF ICING'S BENCH. AIR rt.
SIR SRANCIS 111.711DETT V. THR SPEAKIR OF THE MUSS
OF COSMO/43p &C.
• _

The ATTORNTiIt GIENERAL had motions to make in
two cases, which, as they were exactly similar, and
took their origin from the same cause, he hoped the
Court would indulge him in making together. He
had to move for a Rule to shew cause why in two
cases of Sir Francis Burdett v. the Earl of Moira, and
Sir Francis Burdett v. Colman, Serjeant at Arms to
the House of Commons, the trials should not take
place at Bar ? or rather, he presumed to think, that,
in such a case, he might have his Rule absolute in the
first instance.

Lord Euxxsouotyou said, No. He had better take
a Rule to show cause.

The ATTORNEY GiNERAL proceeded. Sir Francis
Burdett had advised himself to bring three actions !
for what he chose to consider an assault and false im- I
prisonment. One of these was against Mr. Abbot,
the Speaker of the House of Commons, for issuing
against Sit Francis what he chose to consider an ille-
gal warrant, in consequence of which he was carried
to the Tower. The second action was against Mr.
Colman, the Serjeant, for executing that warrant ;
and the third was against Earl Moira, Constable of
the Tower, for receiving Sir Francis into the Tower,
and detaining him there a prisoner. The Speaker,
in answer to the first action, put in a plea in justifica-
tion, in which he stated, that Sir Francis Burdett
_having issued a publication against the House of
Damns. which the House had voted to be a gross
and scandalous violation of its privileges, and for
which it had ordered that Sir Francis Burdett should
stand committed to the Tower, he (the Speaker) had
in consequence, issued his warrant for Sir Francis's
apprehension and committal to the Tower accord- 1
ingly ; and that Mr. Colman had executed that war-
rant. To this plea Sir Francis Burdett demurred.—
Mr. Colman's answer was much to the same effect, '
with this addition, that he having had reason to ex.
pfect that Sir Francis Burdett would yield obedience
to the warrant, had gone to his house in this belief, '
when, finding that Sir Francis had withdrawn him-
self into the house, and refused to allow the door to
be opened, be was under the necessity, in execution 1,
of the warrant, to break into -the Baronet's house.—
Earl Moira's answer was pretty similar, resting his '
own defence for receiving and detaining the person
of Sir Francis, on the authority of the Speaker's war-
rant, to this Sir Francis had replied, De injuria sua
proisria absque tali cerium To Mr. Colman's answer
Sir Francis replied, that the warrant had been execu-
ted in an injurious and outrageous mode, by which
his family had been thrown into a state of terror, and
that an unnecessary degree of violence had been used
in calling in an armed military force to carry him to
the Tower. From this statement the Court would
• perceive that the present was a question of the very
greatest importance, involving as it did the rights and
privileges of the House of Commons ; that it was
also a question in which the public was greatly inter-
ested, and which, it was of importance to the coun-
try, should receive the most solemn and deliberate
decision. He presumed, therefore, that it was a fit
case in which a Trial at Bar should be allowed.
Lord ILLENBOROMiI said, it would be necessary in
that case, that the Attorney General should draw up
his Rule for a Trial at Bar, in Michaelmas Term.—
In the advanced stage of the present term it would
i hardly be possible that the Court should appoint a
1 Trial at Bar to take place this Term.
The Arrortmtv GENERAL acquiesced in this. He
would have made the present motion sooner, but it
was not till last night that Sir Francis Burdett had
given notice of trial against Earl Moira. He had not
1 wished to hurry the Honourable Baronet, and there-
; fora-had given him all the time he could desire ; nor
was it till he thought Sir Francis would not have re-
; plied at all that he had ruled him.
Lord ELia.m.:otovon desired that the Attorney-
General would take his Rule to 'chew cause, for
Michaelmas Term. _ _

The question, in the Cause against the Speaker,
will be argued on the Demurrer.

COURT OF EXCHEQJJER, JUNE 29.
TITS PRINCR OF WALES V. Slit J. Sr. MAIN AND
OTHERS.

The further hearing of the case having been adjour-
ned until this day, Mr. HARGRAVE was heard at great
length in support of the claims of his Royal Highness,
as Duke of Cornwall, to the soil in question. He
went over the same grounds in support of the right
Contended for by his Royal Highness against the de-
murrer which had been entered against that right, the
defendants contending that the Attorney General of
the Duchy of Cornwall was not justified in law,
on the part of his Royal Highness, to institute the
suit. He cited a variety of testimony from the ear-
liest reigns, and amongst the rest a manuscript do-
climent to show that Henry Prince of Waler, son of
James the First, had exercised the right uncontrouled.
The further hearing was adjourned till next Tuesday.