rose and observed, that if he had thought the hon. bart. had intended altogether to have denied the authority of that House to imprison, he would not have voted on a former occasion as he had done. The language of the Letter, before complained of in that House, he had imagined, might have proceeded from a warmth of feeling without any disrespect being intended; but after what had passed since, he could hardly doubt what the principles of the hon. bart. Were. No man felt more strongly than he had done, the propriety of a moderate reform of that House, in order to secure that confidence from the people upon which its strength and its utility so materially depended. But he could not agree that this would be best effected by the endeavour to bring the whole House of Commons into contempt. Whatever might be his opinion of ministers, however much he might think they had erred in the course of the events that had taken place within these four days, he must, in justice to them, say, that the circumstances were unlooked for, and that here, at least, they had some excuse for their conduct. He was now compelled to think, that the Letter which had been the subject of the late discussions in that House, was part of a system determined on by the hon. bart.; and if the House had not taken notice of it in the manner it had done by committing him, that it would have been dragged into something else, and have had to meet other and further attacks. Under such circumstances, it was the duty of the country to endeavour to strengthen his Majesty's government, and such, he trust ed, would be the feeling of the House. With regard to the immediate question, if the hon. bart. had not intended any thing wrong in the late proceedings, the course of his conduct proved how little dependance was to be placed upon his judgment; but he hoped the House would be unanimous in consigning the present letter to the oblivion which it deserved. If any proceeding should be had upon it, the consequence would be the expulsion of the hon. bart. by which a licence for tumult would be given during the fourteen days of a new election, the military must be withdrawn, and the consequences might prove still more serious. He thought this letter a trap for the House. He even deprecated for the present any violent discussion on the conduct of ministers. Whatever might be his opinion of the administration, he must support the government. The times were altered, and till these changed again, he would not moot any thing that had a tendency to diminish the authority of government in general. When the effects of ferment were gone by, he should then think himself at liberty to blame any part of the conduct of the administration in this business that appeared to him to deserve censure—though he must, for the present, upon the paramount ground support it. Thinking therefore, that the course most becoming the dignity of the House would be to take no further notice of this letter, he moved, that the further consideration of it be adjourned to this day six months.

having voted against the motion for the commitment of sir F. Burdett to the Tower, thought himself called upon in this instance to say a few words. He voted on the former occasion, not as questioning the offence, but as thinking it better not to have recourse to this severity in the first instance, being satisfied, that, if the offence was the result of bad intention, a future occasion would most probably be given for the exercise of the ultimate power of the House. Conscious of rectitude of intention in his own mind, he was slow in ascribing improper motives to others. But he was sorry that he could not now give sir F. Burdett credit even for rectitude of intention. As to the letter under consideration, he did not well know what epithet to apply to it—that scurrilous letter if he might be allowed to apply one epithet to it, he thought it would be most becoming the dignity of the House to pass over without notice. He therefore seconded the motion, or rather the amendment of the last speaker.

, on this occasion, said the motion respecting the letter was not the cause of his rising; but the consideration which induced him to present himself so early to the notice of the House was, that he might state in the most unqualified manner, that he could not agree with his hon. friend behind him (Mr. Curwen) that the events which had lately occurred were such as could not have been foreseen, or that the ministers were not highly culpable for the part which they had acted. By their negligence a state of things had been produced which greatly alarmed this metropolis; which must reflect great blame upon those, who by vigilance and wisdom might have prevented it. The question had been in the contemplation of ministers a full fortnight. They had every opportunity of knowing the law and the precedents on the subject. The adjournment which had taken place had given them full opportunity for, deliberation, before they came to the consideration of what ought to be done in consequence of the decision, to which they themselves, as members of parliament or weight and influence, had so mainly contributed. He asked, who were the guardians of the public peace? Was not the secretary of state to be considered in that light? Was he not bound to know the situation of things; the transactions that were passing; the state of public feeling; the transactions of public men—and to be prepared accordingly? As members of parliament, too, the ministers were bound to look after the privileges of the House. Not only as the servants of the King, but as magistrates, &c. they were bound to take care that means should be provided, they were bound to enforce the warrant, to call the civil power to its assistance, and as members of parliament, to know how it was to be enforced before they voted it. In the earliest stage of the business, it was their duty to have taken steps to increase the civil power; to add to the posse comitatus, so as to have secured against resistance or rescue—either of which it was natural to apprehend. On that apprehension, in wisdom they should have acted and secured the object of the warrant, by the mere effort of the civil power alone.—Mr. Adam next stated the delay which they had occasioned by their negligence, and want of foresight—that delay which had made the difficulty of executing the warrant greater, and which caused the necessity of employing, for that purpose, a force of a different description from that which would otherwise have been sufficient. Those who had to advise the Serjeant on the subject, it appeared, did not know the effect of the warrant! How then was it possible to exculpate them when they had not before considered what was the law upon this point, notwithstanding the ample opportunities afforded them? Were they not bound to suppose, under all the circumstances, that it was possible the person to be apprehended might be found only in his house, from which he could not be taken without an act of force? an act which did at last become necessary, and which, though not greater than the occasion then required, was greater than would have been required, if proper steps had been previously taken.—Persons combining all the characters to which he had adverted ought surely to have known the effect of the warrant. But their ignorance of that effect had, besides other unfortunate consequences, occasioned a doubt of the validity of the warrant. These doubts could not but have generally existed, when it was observed that persons high in the law, and in other departments, did not know how it was to be executed. As to the effect of the warrant, he himself had no doubt whatever. It was not an afterthought. This was a warrant in execution, not in mean process (a term inapplicable to a parliamentary warrant), issued for an offence which that House declared to have been committed. They were not to go to courts of law for their information. They stood on the law of parliament, which was part of the law of the land, and founded on reason; They were entitled to every assistance that might be requisite—to that of sheriffs, magistrates, police officers, not only in Middlesex, but in Surrey, nay to the whole posse comitatus of the whole kingdom, to enforce obedience to a warrant of apprehension, for an act which the House of Commons had pronounced to be a crime. He blamed those whose official duty bound them to protect the public peace, for not being sufficiently informed upon the steps which might become necessary in consequence of a decision which they themselves, as members of parliament, intended to induce the House to adopt. Instead of any such vigilance, the House had on its minutes an account, from which it appeared, that down to twenty-four hours before the warrant was executed, they did not know whether they were entitled to break open the door! He asked, then, what confidence was to be placed in their industry, their judgment, their knowledge, or their determination? It was for the purpose of making these observations on the conduct of ministers in this transaction, that he rose. He had no personal animosity against any of the gentlemen on the other side, and he trusted there was no part of his conduct which indicated any such feeling. With several of them he had lived for a long time on terms of friendship. But in the discharge of a public duty, these things were to be forgotten. He was bound to declare that he had no doubt of the effect of the warrant, and that the delay in the execution was imputable to the ignorance of the individuals, and not to the defect of the power. He was bound to say, that the privileges of the House were as undisputed as if the warrant had been executed in the manner prescribed by a just view of these privileges, and trusted the ignorance of those who had taken upon themselves to promote a judgment of imprisonment would only affect themselves, and not the rights of the House, which had existed, for the purpose of enabling the House to maintain its station in the constitution, and to protect the liberty of the subject, of which that House was the guardian.

next rose to state; what he conceived to be the duty of the members of that House, merely as such, without looking either to the one side or to the other. He never had any doubt as to the privilege of the House, and the mode in which the warrant ought to have been executed; and he could not but blame the ministers, who had not before-hand made up their minds on that subject. But was he to give up the government of the country altogether because it happened to be in the hands of incapable or bad ministers? Those Who had marked his conduct through life could not, he thought, imagine that he would, for a moment, entertain the idea of betraying the government in a period of such difficulty, whatever might be his opinion of those by whom it was conducted. Whether the administrators were fit for their duties or not, they still formed the government, and must be supported. Whatever therefore might be his opinion of the ministers, he could not hesitate about the part he ought to take when the question came to be, whether the country was to have a government or not. Whenever matters came to that pass, it was the highest privilege of a member of parliament to support the government. The constitution was not to be sacrificed for the sake of getting the ministers into a difficulty with a view to turn them out of office. Even if they had an hereditary title to their seats in the cabinet, he would support them in such a crisis, rather than suffer the constitution to be subverted. He had never disguised his opinion, that his Majesty had been advised to place the government in the hands of men unfit to conduct it in times of difficulty and danger. For the ministers, individually, he had a great respect. They had competent talents to a certain extent; but, as a body, they were not the men who ought to have the administration of the government in these times. But though they were not the best qualified for the discharge of these duties, he could not agree to give up the constitution either to the crown or to a mob. As to the letter, under the circumstances in which it had been written, and considering the motives which dictated it, he thought the best way of dealing with it would be to pass it over in silent contempt.

then rose. After the severe observations which had been made on the conduct of the ministers, he trusted the House would think that he was called upon and bound to advert to this most unjust attack which had been made upon them—an attack not only unjust but most impolitic, even in the view which even the gentlemen themselves entertained of the proceedings which had taken place within the last four days. That they should so far shut their eyes to what had passed as to ascribe the unfortunate effects which had resulted from the delay in the execution of the warrant, to the conduct of ministers, was he maintained as impolitic, upon their own views, as it was unjust to the real merits of the case. They laid to the charge of ministers the hesitation which had been evinced in acting upon a warrant, the execution of which depended not on them, but rested upon the discretion of the proper officer, whose duty it was to have executed it at his peril! What would have been the opinion of these gentlemen, if, at a time when one of the sheriffs was proclaiming that the interference of the military was unconstitutional, the ministers had taken the warrant out of the hands of the proper officer, who hesitated, and executed it themselves? If they had done this, and blood had been, shed and murder had ensued, before there was any proof that the proper officers had been unable to execute the warrant, and consequently before there was any evidence of the necessity of their interference—what then would have been the opinion of the gentlemen on the other side—what would have been the just judgment of that House upon such conduct? But, whatever they might say about the imbecility of ministers in the execution of a plain duty, he was conscious that the imputation was not justly cast upon him. He was sensible that no man was fit for the office he had the honour to fill, or any public situation who, seeing the line of his duty clear could be deterred from its execution by any personal consideration. He had at first taken the line which he thought his duty prescribed. He had seen that that had already happened, which the gentlemen opposite only saw approaching. He had seen in the former letter every thing which appeared in that now under consideration—he had seen that the object of the writer was to revile the House of Commons, and to bring it, if possible, into universal contempt. He did not blame the hon. gent. (Mr. Curwen) who had thought his proceeding on the former occasion, in the construction he put upon the hon. bart.'s letter, uncandid. He trusted, however, he would now confess, that the event had proved that his former judgment was not uncandid—and he had at last the satisfaction to find that he and the hon. gent. agreed on this point, at least, in principle. He trusted, that it would always be the unaltered principle of the government of this country to leave the law to its course, taking care, however, that the public security should not be endangered (hear! hear.) Gentlemen cheered at the expressions "public security." Did any one say, considering the degree of liberty enjoyed by the subjects in this country, that by any preparations that could have been made, disturbances of this kind could at all times be entirely prevented? It was utterly impossible that individual assassination and tumults of this description could be altogether prevented. The utmost that could be done was to be pre- pared to suppress them before they arrived at an extent dangerous to the public security. He maintained therefore that there had been no culpable negligence on the part of ministers, but that they had on the contrary been perfectly ready to suppress disturbances as soon as the circumstances called their power into action.

For his own part he had never, from these tumults, entertained any apprehension about the safety of the government. The government was now as safe and as firm as it had ever been. The ministers had always been ready to suppress the first appearance of violence. He trusted, therefore, that the House would pause before it pronounced that the ministers had been to blame, for not interfering with the duties of the proper officer—one not removeable at their pleasure, before the circumstances called upon them to do so. If the question had been put to him, when this matter was before under discussion, he Would have at once stated his opinion, that the serjeant would have been justified in breaking open the door. But when the person whose duty it was to execute the warrant, hesitated and doubted, whether he might not be acting illegally, in a case where the most serious consequences might have taken place, was it imbecility in him to tell what his own conduct Would have been under similar circumstances, without presuming to controul, or even to advise the officer in the discharge of his duty in such a critical case? The gentlemen on the other side, he contended, had taken a most unjust view of the conduct of ministers. If that conduct had been different, their judgment would have been directly the reverse. They ought to consider that they were giving their opinions under different circumstances from those on which the ministers had to decide. They now gave their judgment as if it had been on a point of science, free from all responsibility. Their argument was, that the ministers had abstained from using a force beyond the law—for if they had controuled an independent officer in the execution of his duty, it would have been an illegal act. What would they have said if ministers had, before the necessity was proved, taken this upon themselves?—Having stated thus much, in answer to the observations that had been made upon the conduct of ministers, he would now come to the letter. He agreed with the gentlemen on the other side, that any ul- terior severity was unnecessary, and would be inexpedient. But he thought a middle course would be better suited to the dignity of the House. When such a letter as this was received, he thought the passing it over without notice, upon the ground of contempt, was and would appear very equivocal. Although the House would not suffer itself to be entrapped, yet it would take care not to shrink from its duty. Under all the circumstances however he did not think it necessary to propose any further punishment. The punishment he had before proposed was for a defiance of the authority of that House, and the present letter was but a continuation of the same defiance and a proof of the same offence. It was, however, no doubt a great aggravation to repeat it. What he would therefore submit was, that a resolution should be adopted to the following effect—"That the letter which sir Francis Burdett had written to the Speaker, was a high aggravation of his offence; but it appearing, from the report of the serjeant, that the warrant for his commitment to the Tower had been executed, this House did not think it necessary to proceed any farther on the said letter." The consideration of that letter might be important at a future opportunity; for instance, if an application should be made for the discharge of the writer. As they were agreed as to the principle, he would, however, readily come into the ideas of the gentlemen opposite, if they could convince him that their mode of proceeding was the best, but he thought the course he proposed to follow, the best—most consistent with the dignity of the House, and at the same time best calculated to avoid those consequences, which the hon. gentlemen opposite, apprehended from any further proceeding.

could not upon principle assent to the right hon. gent.'s motion, who now, he observed, professed to be influenced by considerations of expediency. He was glad to find that the right hon. gent. was at length willing to attend to the dictates of expediency; that he and his friends were disposed to consider consequences; that they were come to their senses, and that they were now of opinion that the sooner the matter could be laid at rest the better. Though he approved the motion of the hon. gent. for an adjournment of the debate to this day six months, he could by no means agree with him in what he had said relative to rallying round his Majesty's government in consequence of the unfortunate events which had so lately taken place. The sudden change in the hon. gent.'s opinion was rather matter of surprise to him; but he was much more surprised at that, which had taken place in those of the right hon. gent. opposite to him. From the warmth with which the right hon. gent. who had just sat down, and his colleague who sat by him, had expressed themselves on the former occasion, the House might very naturally have been led to suppose that they had done their duty; but he thought quite otherwise, and with the leave of the House he would endeavour to shew that they had most grossly failed in doing their duty. The right hon. gent. had just told the House, that he foresaw all that conduct of sir F. Burdett which had since taken place, from the very first introduction of this business before the House; and yet when the Speaker's warrant came to be issued, he was not, nor were any of his colleagues, prepared with the proper means of carrying it into execution.—Really, he thought, that from the beginning the right hon. gent. ought to have seen reason to apprehend that the execution of the warrant would have been resisted. sir F. Burdett's declared opinion of the character of the warrant was calculated to excite that apprehension, and yet it appeared that the right hon. gent. was quite unprepared for the event. This formed a serious ground of complaint against him; but there was another and a still stronger ground of complaint.—It would he recollected, that when the hon. baronet actually resisted the warrant, the case was referred to the consideration of the right hon. gent., and his answer was, that he knew not what advice to give, as there was no precedent whatever in which this warrant had been resisted. Now, he put it to the right hon. gent. personally, professionally and officially, whether upon abandoning the law to pursue politics, it did not become his duty to study parliamentary history with somewhat more attention. In point of fact, there was a precedent of the Speaker's warrant having been resisted long before that issued against sir F. Burdett, whose manner of acting he was by no means disposed to justify, and that resistance was accompanied by contempt. But in this precedent how had the House proceeded? why, they voted that the party so resisting was sick. Such was the mode by which the House averted any conflict upon that occasion. But yet, as to the privileges of the House, he was as ready as any to maintain them, and that the warrant of the Speaker was complete—and of all others ought to be omnipotent—that if good for any thing it was good for every thing, and that it authorized the breaking open of doors if necessary in order to enforce its execution. If it were not invested with that authority, what, he would ask, was to become of the most important functions of that House? How were witnesses to be brought to the bar, as in the recent investigation respecting the duke of York—how was the House to come at various points of information material to the performance of its first duties—in a word, if the Speaker's warrant were not omnipotent, what was to become of the inquisitorial character of that House? It was impossible that the people could be so insensible to their own best interests—could be so besotted as to entertain a wish of wrenching from the House a power so essential to all the good purposes of its institution. Let it be recollected, that although the House of Commons had erred from its duty in many instances, it ought not to be deprived of those privileges which were indispensible to its utility and power, whenever it should become in its constitution and conduct more conformable to the opinion and the interest of the people. That it must become so conformable he could entertain little doubt. Indeed, he would Venture to say, that the cause of reform was making rapid progress—that within the last month many, very many converts had been made to that cause. Let it then be asked, in what state the House would be placed in the event of a reform, if stripped of the power under discussion—if the Speaker's warrant were not omnipotent? The crown was known to have a considerable influence in that House and elsewhere; and what must the people expect to be the inclination of that influence in the event of reform. Must they not calculate upon its hostility, and what power could a reformed House of Commons have of counteracting that hostility if its warrant were not effective? Upon this ground therefore most particularly, he thought the Speaker s warrant ought to be omnipotent.—But although he maintained the power of this warrant, it did not follow that he would vindicate an improper application of that power, as in the instance of sit Francis Burdett. At the same time, as it was deemed proper to issue the warrant against that hon. baronet, why should it be conceived necessary, so long after its issue, to consult the attorney general as to the mode of its execution? One should suppose that an opinion upon this subject should have been previously obtained, and that the city of Westminster should not so long have been suffered to remain in a state of tumult. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his right hon. friend the secretary of state, took credit, it appeared, for the assistance they offered and the exertions they made upon this occasion. But what said the Serjeant at arms? Did he not state at the bar, that he could not get a sight of the secretary of state? and also, that until Monday morning he could not obtain adequate assistance? (No, no, on the ministerial benches). He was in the recollection of the House, and the minutes, when printed, would serve to shew how far he was correct. The right hon. (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) attempted to excuse himself by stating that he had no right to interpose with the execution of the Speaker's warrant, unless specially applied to for aid and where the circumstances of the case called for such interposition. But what did the right hon. gent. do when so applied to? why, the Serjeant at arms was referred to the Bow-street officers. He begged the House to remember the deposition of this officer, enfeebled as he was by so many sleepless nights, and to consider the circumstances of an individual so situated without any decisive advice, or adequate aid to in-force the warrant with the execution of which he was entrusted. The right hon. gent. claimed credit for not calling in the military prematurely. But why not call in the civil power? That, in fact, did not at all make its appearance until Monday, in conjunction with the military. He was happy to hear it admitted by the right hon. gent., that the tumult which gave rise to this discussion was not the result of any deep laid plan, that there was nothing more than an ordinary mob which could be quieted by the ordinary means.—(No, no, on the ministerial benches.) The hon. member deprecated these unparliamentary interruptions, and repeated his conception of the right hon. gentleman's admission, that there was no apprehension of any extended plot or conspiracy in the recent disturbance. Such, indeed, was the general conviction, and that those disturbances would never have occurred, if the discreet advice of these gentlemen had been taken who voted for the reprimand on a former evening, there could not now exist a doubt.—But while he deplored the indiscretion and imbecility of ministers, and complained of their manner of providing for the execution of the Speaker's warrant, he begged it to be understood, that he meant not to make any apology for the conduct of sir F. Burdett. On the contrary, he thought that the honourable baronet, even upon his own principles, ought not to have persisted in his resistance. After five days opposition he did yield to force, and he might as well have so yielded, for his own view of trying the question within the first five minutes after the warrant was presented to him. He was, therefore, no apologist for the conduct of sir F. Burdett in his protracted resistance. A noble lord had interpreted the hon. baronet's letter to mean a resolution to resist the execution of the warrant. Then it was matter of just and serious complaint that arrangements were not promptly taken to enforce its execution. Why, in fact, was not the warrant executed, as it might have been, by two or three constables within an hour or two after it was signed (hear! hear! on the ministerial benches)? Gentlemen on the opposite side meant no doubt, as indeed they had obviously enough endeavoured, to throw the blame upon the Serjeant at arms, but in that they could not succeed. The House could never conceive blame fairly imputable to an unlearned man, with a mere military education, for doubt and ignorance upon a subject with regard to which the learned lawyer, the first lord of the treasury, professed his inability to decide. Could the House be in the least degree surprised at the Serjeant's hesitating to execute a warrant that he knew would be resisted; in the doing which, if a death ensued, he rendered himself liable to an indictment for murder? when the learned late attorney general now first lord of the treasury, and the other learned gentleman near him, who had quitted the law for political pursuits, as well as the learned secretary of state, were all so unprepared as to the law of the subject, that the learned late attorney general, on the Saturday evening, advised the Serjeant to take the opinion of the present attorney general, which was not given till Sunday night; and yet they expected the serjeant to know more law than all of them put together. They might, however throw all the blame on the serjeant; might say he should have been prepared with precedents; that he should be a judge both of law and gospel; yet, he thought, that except themselves, no one, either in that House or out of it, would be of the same opinion. If any of his friends were to resort to such an expedient to palliate the neglect of official duty, if they could attempt to cover themselves in such a manner by casting blame upon such an officer, he would really be ashamed of them. But ministers upon this question seemed to call forth the compassion of the House. What claim, however, had they to that consideration?—Westminster was suddenly thrown into a state of alarming commotion, and leaving that commotion to extend they took time to consult lawyers. It would be remembered, that when in 1780 it was proposed to take the opinion of the judges, as to the mode of repressing the riots, a great man exclaimed—"What, wait for the opinion of the judges, when all London may be in flames in a few hours? No;" said he, "let us act immediately, and take the responsibility upon ourselves." But ministers were not in this instance so courageous. No; the right hon. gentleman pusillanimously shrunk from the occasion, and now endeavoured to shelter himself by the censure of a subordinate officer.

It had been stated that some difference of opinion prevailed between the sheriffs and the magistrates on Sunday, and that this difference occasioned a delay in the execution of the warrant. No proof, however, of such a difference appeared. But in fact the execution of the warrant ought to have taken place before the period at which that difference was said to arise. Now, with regard to the effect which the cause of this discussion appeared to have upon the mind of an hon. friend behind him (Mr. Curwen), he was certainly surprised at it. His hon. friend said that he would stand by the government—that ministers ought to be supported in such a crisis. But he would seriously ask his hon. friend, whether he could call upon any gentleman connected with him to rally round a rush—to rely upon weakness? Was it possible, after the proofs of imbecility and vacillation which these ministers had so recently afforded, that his hon. friend could considerately press such a proposition? If he meant to rally round the law and the constitution—round the Speaker's warrant, when properly issued—he (Mr. W.) would cheerfully join him; but if his rallying point was to be the present ministers, he might set off as soon as he pleased. He (Mr. W.) would stay where he was, and beg leave to decline any such connection.

The hon. gent. (Mr. W.) feeling the consequences likely to follow any attempt to proceed, in this instance, to the extreme alluded to by some gentlemen, particularly recollecting and recommending to the attention of the House the case of Wilkes, expressed his preference for the more moderate course. If an expulsion were to take place, the House was aware what must follow. All must know what an election for Westminster was, and all must calculate upon the consequence of sir F. Burdett's re-election. An expulsion, therefore, was a proposition not to be entertained even upon this ground. But he disclaimed all sense of fear as among the causes of this his opinion. No, he was not afraid of the consequences of conspiracy among any set of persons whatever. This he thought proper to state, as some gentlemen had alluded to conspiracies. But at the same time he would not be understood to believe in the existence of any conspiracies whatever, nor did he mean to cast any censure upon sir F. Burdett, although he must say, that had the hon. bart. confined himself to a proper shew of resistance, instead of proceeding to extremities, he would have placed his popularity upon a throne from which it could never be dislodged—(Hear, hear, on the ministerial benches.) What, did gentlemen really imagine that their manner of viewing things was general; that the country was filled with lawyers and attornies like themselves, likely and competent to make distinction between the validity and value of a warrant? He could assure the right hon. gent. that numerous converts had been made to the doctrine of sir F. Burdett, not merely by his own arguments, but by the conduct of the right hon. gentlemen themselves. Let the recollection then, of this conduct, urge the House wisely to attend to considerations of expediency in due time. Let the House beware of doing things whereof they could not clearly foresee the consequences. He really believed there were few who would not have been willing to revoke the vote they were induced to give, upon the proposition of the right hon. gent. or at least what he proposed through another, that sir F. Burdett should, be committed instead of being reprimanded. He would ask the hon. gent. himself, who brought the subject before the House, but whom he did not then see in his place, whether he did not now regret the proposition? Sure he was, that a feeling of regret upon the decision of the House in this case, was general (No, no, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.) Why, the right hon. gent. could not pretend to know every body, although every body knew him from the situation which he happened to hold. He was persuaded that there was now scarcely any difference of sentiment throughout the country as to the intemperate conduct of ministers upon the question alluded to; and that the wiser course would have been to vote for the reprimand of sir F. Burdett. It was argued however that if the hon. baronet had been reprimanded, he would have forced the House to go farther; but to that it was satisfactorily answered, that then the hon. baronet would have been palpably wrong. Of course, if the House had proceeded to committal, it would have stood acquitted in the eye of the country—Here the hon. gent. took occasion to submit a few words to the consideration of the House, as to what he thought should be its future conduct. He hoped, that recent experience would teach the House the propriety of cautiously abstaining from passionate decisions—that it would not allow itself to be provoked into rage by such a miserable production as that of Gale Jones, which led to so much evil; that it would not enable such a man to occasion trouble, by putting a sword into the weak hands of an angry minister; that it would not be forward to take notice of frivolous libels, and thus bring those privileges into question among the people for whose benefit alone they did or ought to exist.—As to the consequences which arose out of the recent disturbances, he hoped and trusted they would be minutely inquired into, and those minutes reported to that House. The people ought to see, that where serious outrages were committed, where lives were actually lost, nothing was left undone by that House to procure information, and to administer all the redress in its power. Of the two propositions before the House, he confessed that he should prefer that for an adjournment. To the Chancellor of the Exchequer's observation that the letter of sir F. Burdett should be inserted upon the Journals, with the opinion of the House upon it, in order to be referred to in the event of any application from the hon. baronet for his release from the Tower, he should only say, that in the first place such an application did not appear to be at all likely. But, if it were made; if the hon. baronet manifested any disposition to make a proper concession to the authority of the House, he should be willing to have this letter forgotten altogether. Indeed, upon every consideration of policy and experience, the House should decline to put this letter on the Journals. He would therefore oppose the right hon. gentleman's motion, for which, however, upon a general principle, he could never consent to vote.

complained of the impotent vacillation evinced in the whole conduct of ministers throughout this business. The Serjeant at arms had applied to the secretary of state for the home department, and by him had been referred to his deputy, Mr. Becket; Mr. Becket refers him to the secretary of state, and the secretary of state refers him back to Mr. Becket. Assistance was not to say promised, but proffered by ministers—assistance both civil and military, and yet the assistance that was declared to be necessary in the first instance, was not granted till the fourth day after the issuing of the warrant—till Monday morning. Either the assistance afforded, was proper or it was not; if justifiable, why was it delayed so long to the imminent hazard of the peace, of the security of the metropolis? The secretary of state for the home department was, ex officio, one of the magistrates, and as such, answerable for the maintenance of the public peace, and more especially so at a period when that peace was endangered by measures sanctioned by the ministers of the day, at least, in furtherance of carrying into effect, measures adopted by that House, under the influence of their advice; and yet, such had been the hesitating imbecility of ministers, that they could not bring themselves to act with resolution, even in prosecution of their own measures. The serjeant was referred to Mr. Becket, who referred him to Mr. Read, who referred him to Mr. Becket. Was this a line of conduct, characteristic either of wisdom or of energy? He conceived ministers, therefore, entirely to blame, and looked upon them as answerable for all the blood that had been shed, and all the lives that had been lost on the occasion. As to the motions before the House, he should prefer that of the right. hon. gent. because it took notice of sir F. Burdett's Letter to the Speaker as an aggravation of the offence, and might be produced in bar to any petition or other application to the House for his release from confinement.

observed, that the House, When sitting on Friday, Ought to have been apprized, before its rising, of the apprehensions entertained as to the resistance to the execution of the Speaker's warrant, in order that measures might have been taken by the House accordingly.

took occasion upon this to address the House, conceiving, that by this observation it was meant to impute to him a neglect of duty. The right hon. member's charge, he observed, involved two points; the one as to a matter of fact, and the other as to a matter of opinion. It was stated, that while the House was sitting on Friday night, he was informed of sir F. Burdett's intention to resist the execution of his warrant, and that he ought to have notified that circumstance to the House.

again rose and stated, in explanation, that not knowing the contrary When the House met, namely, that no resistance Would be made, the House ought to have been apprized of the circumstance.

resumed, and assured the House, that so far from having any doubt on the subject, the Serjeant at Arms told him, that sir F. Burdett would accompany him to the Tower on Saturday morning, and that he had so arranged it with him. But his instructions upon receiving that intelligence from the Serjeant was, that he should proceed forthwith to execute the warrant. At that time, however, and until a late hour that night, he had no apprehension whatever, that any resistance was in view. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member upon the subject of the advice proper to be given to the Serjeant at Arms, when the intention to resist was known, he certainly gave the best advice in his power. When the Serjeant told him that civil aid was required to execute the warrant, in consequence of the mob assembled about sir F. Burdett's house, he thought it his duty to refer him to the secretary of state. Throughout the progress of the business, he had had frequent Communications with the Serjeant at Arms both night and day. In fact, for 48 hours, it so engrossed his time and atten- tion, as to deprive him of any repose whatever. But it might be supposed by some gentlemen, that he had failed in his duty, in not giving that advice to the Serjeant, Which he had since received from a grave opinion as to the breaking open an outer door for the purpose of executing his warrant. Upon the Serjeant's expression of his doubt on the point of breaking open he outer door, he certainly did not feel himself justified in advising him to do so. There being no case whatever of a similar instance upon record, he had no authority to guide his judgment as to the legality of such a proceeding, and thought proper to refer the Serjeant to the law officers of the crown, as the best judges of the law. He hoped the House would not find any fault with him for not advising the Serjeant to put his life in jeopardy. He felt that he ought not to urge any man to risk his life in a proceeding which such person did not think right to undertake himself. Such was his opinion at the time, and such, was his opinion still. The Serjeant had been referred to all the sources, from, which he was most likely to obtain competent information, to those officers who were accustomed to the execution of warrants of contempt. But as to the breaking open of the outer door of a house to execute his warrant, having, as he before observed, no precedent of authority whatever to direct his judgment, he could not advise the officer to risk his life upon analogies and reasoning. Such being his conception, he took that course which he thought best, by referring the Serjeant at Arms to those who were most competent to decide and direct that officer's operation.

observing, that it had been stated in pretty strong terms that if ministers had foreseen the consequences of executing the warrant, they never would have advised it, declared, that he for his part, agreed entirely with some of his hon. friends, that even if the consequences could have been foreseen, the House Would have been still bound to assert their privileges in the manner they had done. He regretted as much any man whatever calamities had taken place; but still this consideration would have had no weight in determining his vote. When it had been decided that the hon. baronet's publication was an offence which came properly under the cognizance of the House, he then only looked to the quality of the offence, and the mischief it was calculated to produce. It was clear that no greater insult could be offered to the House of Commons, than that which the hon. baronet intended to convey in that paper upon which the House had decided; and he thought that an offence of such a nature ought not to be punished merely by a reprimand. In case of a reprimand being conceived a sufficient punishment, there were always two parties considered, namely, the person who was to give the reprimand, and the person who was to receive it. Now, when the person who was to receive the reprimand stated such an utter contempt of the authority of those who gave it, as the hon. baronet had professed to feel, the reprimand would be no punishment. It would be like ordering him to receive a reprimand from his own servants, in his servants hall (Murmurs of disapprobation). He meant that this was the light in which the hon. baronet might feel a reprimand from the House. It appeared to him that be set no more value upon the authority of that House than a right hon. and, learned gent. who had filled that chair formerly professed, alluding to sir Fletcher Norton, who said, that he would pay no more attention to the resolutions of that House than to those of a set of drunken porters. He knew no punishment adequate to such an offence except imprisonment. However he regretted the calamities which had happened, if the House had ordered any punishment slighter than that of imprisonment, it would have been supposed that they were afraid of consequences; and if it were once supposed that this House was governed by considerations of that nature, its character would be entirely lost. If it were said that ministers were deserving of serious blame, for not foreseeing all the possible consequences which might follow from the execution of the warrant, he would answer, that it was as much the duty of the gentlemen who spoke from the other side of the House upon that question to have foreseen those consequences; and if they had foreseen them, it was their duty to have stated them. Ministers certainly did not expect that sort of resistance which had led to the present discussion. When the House had voted for the committal of sir F. Burdett, he took it for granted generally that the warrant would have been executed, and he did consider the particular circumstances which might take place. He would ask, did any one of those who voted against the majority foresee or anticipate the sort of resistance which was made? It certainly occurred to him, and to many others, that some resistance was expected from abroad. It never occurred to him that the resistance would have come from the hon. baronet himself, who had so recently declared under his own hand that the House had a right to commit its own members. If he had been then asked his opinion, he would have said confidently that he did not be believe the hon. baronet would have personally resisted the execution of the warrant. But it had been imputed as criminal in his Majesty's ministers not to have made up their minds sooner on the legality of breaking open an outer door. It must, however, be recollected that the Serjeant at arms had twice been admitted into the presence of sir F. Burdett, and had opportunities of executing his warrant each time, in which case that question of doubt would never have arisen. Sir Francis might have been arrested either on Friday, or Saturday, without the necessity of breaking open a door. He hoped that he should not be blamed for not being able to give an immediate opinion on a case which was not governed by precedent, and where he had only to form an opinion from analogy. If the case had not been a doubtful one, or if it had been within the general custom of parliament, the Speaker would have been able to have given the Serjeant a decided opinion; but it was because it was a doubtful case that it was submitted to legal opinions. Had he been in the place of the serjeant at arms, he would have broken open the door in the first instance; but he could not expect the serjeant to have taken upon himself such responsibility, without the authority of legal advice. If the serjeant at arms had had recourse to military aid in the first instance, without trying the civil power, and lives had been lost, he would have justly exposed himself to severe attacks from gentlemen on the other side. He thought that it was evident that ministers had no right to give him directions in the mode of executing his warrant, and that the case was a doubtful one, which arose from the manner in which the hon. baronet chose to resist the execution of the warrant.

said, that if he could have formed any conception that the hon. baronet could have been capable of proceeding so far, he would have been the last man in that House to have compromised its authority, by acceding to the adoption of any other than the most rigorous proceedings. If ever there had been conduct more disgraceful than any other that had yet come under the cognizance of the House, it was that of the hon. baronet. If that hon. baronet wanted to try the simple question of right in the present instance, was it not in his power to have done so without disturbing the public peace for four successive days? Was this his love of civil liberty, stirring up an infuriated mob to aid him in the grave solution of a great constitutional question? Was it an instance of his zeal for civil liberty, that a tyrannical mob should line the front of his house, and compel every passenger to uncover, while passing the house of Sir Francis Burdett. He (Sir John) was not one of those disposed to pay that servile testimony of compulsory homage to the house of the hon. baronet, and in consequence neither he nor his carriage passed that way. He agreed in every thing that had fallen from his hon. and esteemed friend, who had opened the debate, and thought the House bound, for the sake of their own dignity, to support his majesty's ministers in the present critical emergency. Before he sat down, he would say one word in behalf of a person whom he thought had not been done sufficient justice to, he meant the Serjeant at arms, whom he described as a man of great activity and tried personal courage. He thought that the conduct of the serjeant throughout was wholly free from blame.

said, that it was not his intention, at present, to go into the grounds of the vote he had already given, even if it was thought necessary, in consequence of late occurrences, to restate those grounds. His principal object in now rising, was to mark to the House, in Vindication of the vote he intended to give, the difference between the resolution proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the original amendment; he was one of those who thought that the first Letter and Argument of the hon. baronet was not an offence cognizable by that House, and being of that opinion, he could not now agree to a vote, calling his subsequent Letter to the Speaker, an aggravation of that original offence. At the same time, he had no hesitation in stating his sense of the gross impropriety of that Letter, and with respect to the whole con- duct of Sir F. Burdett, since, the vote of commitment, he confessed that it was to him a matter of astonishment that that hon. baronet could have been prevailed upon to adopt the counsel he had acted upon in furtherance of an object that was attainable in a way so obviously preferable to the one so injudiciously resolved upon. Had the hon. bart. had a mind to try a legal right, he might as well have chosen to try it on a motion for an habeas corpus, or an action for false imprisonment, as put it to the chance of an indictment for murder. If he had submitted upon the warrant being first exhibited to him, there was no lawyer who could say, that he would thereby have given up any of his legal rights, or deprived himself of' any remedy which the law could give him. He did, however, feel some surprize when he heard hon. members in that House say, that if they had foreseen all the consequences, they would have voted as they did. Not to say any thing of the calamities which had taken place, he would ask, was it nothing that the character of the House should have suffered so seriously by having that power now called in question, which was before supposed unquestionable? As to supporting the dignity of the House upon this occasion, those who talked most of its dignity opposed the expulsion of sir F. Burdett; from the idea that not only the rabble or mere boys, but that the householders of the great city of Westminster conceived that House to be so much in the wrong that they would undoubtedly re-elect him, if he were expelled. What kind of dignity, then, was that, which had no reference to character, or to the opinion of the country? When it was asked from the other side, did those who sat on his side of the House, foresee the consequences of the vote, he would say for one, that he did, and warned the House of the consequences; but if he had foreseen more clearly what would have taken place, he could not have spoken more explicitly, without being liable at the time to the charge of suggesting things that otherwise would possibly not have taken place. He certainly thought the conduct of ministers blameable (an expression of disapprobation from the ministerial Benches.) He did not know how to reply to those inarticulate arguments, but would wish to hear what was to be said on the other side.

, in a tone of great ani- mation, animadverted upon the alledged impropriety of the learned gentleman's' aiding, by his counsels, the efforts of the honourable baronet to exalt in the country a standard of sedition and tumult. (Cries of order, order!)

rose to order, and was proceeding to comment upon the highly unparliamentary language that had been resorted to by the hon. gentleman, when

readily acknowledged, that he bad been inadvertently hurried into an expression that could not at all apply to the learned gentleman, and apologized to that gentleman and the House for the error he had been momentarily betrayed into. He could not, however help expressing his wish, that the House would adopt the proper course at once, and expel sir F, Burdett. The objection to that seemed to be, that sir Francis would be returned again; but he had too good an opinion of the good sense of the electors of Westminster to believe that possible. He was satisfied, that when once they knew all the particulars of his late conduct, they would never return him to represent them again in that House.

thought no language could be too strong to reproach the conduct of the hon. baronet, from beginning to end. He felt himself obliged, therefore, upon this occasion, to rally round the House, and the authority of the Speaker and of his warrant; but at the same time he thought the calamities which had taken place proceeded as much from the backwardness of ministers as from the intemperate passions of misguided individuals. He could not avoid condemning the opinion given by the attorney-general, that a reprimand from that House to Sir F. Burdett, would be like a reprimand in the servants' hall from his own servants. He could not see the justice of this comparison, or how it could be adduced as an argument for imprisonment instead of reprimand. It had been asked whether gentlemen on that side of the House had apprehended any opposition to it, from that which had been stated in the very paper, in which the gentlemen on the other side said that he had acknowledged the right of the House to commit its members. In that very paper, however, he found fault with a warrant similar to that, under which he had been arrested, and, therefore, there was reason to suppose that he would not submit to it. The serjeant at arms was placed in a most awkward situation. When he asked for military aid, he was told, that he should have it, but that he must act at his own peril: and that if any lives were lost, and his conduct should turn out to be illegal, he might be hanged for it. It really appeared as if ministers, upon this occasion, as upon a former one (the Walcheren Expedition) first resolved upon a coup-de-main: But afterwards when they heard that the hon. baronet had actually locked his door and put up the chain, this appeared to them a combination of circumstances which was not to be foreseen, Their coup-de-main had then failed; they began to consider Piccadilly as a fortress, and it required many meetings of the cabinet council to determine how it was to be attacked.

was a little surprised at the opinion of his right hon. friend (sir S. Romilly), that as there was no original offence, this Letter could not properly be called an aggravation. His right hon. and learned friend appeared to go the whole length of arguing, that sir F. Burdett ought not to be in any manner punished for the insults offered to the House in this Letter. The amendment which declared it an aggravation of his former offence, would go so far in punishment, that if the hon. baronet or any body for him, should petition for his, discharge, this paper would then be taken into consideration in assigning the proper measure of punishment. As to the conduct of the hon. baronet in the mode of resistance he resolved on, he was glad to find that no hon. member in that House approved of it; and this was a circumstance upon which he might congratulate the House and the country. The hon. baronet might have tried the legality of the warrant satisfactorily without adopting the mode of resistance he had chosen. It appeared to the other side of the House, that a warrant which did not allow an outer door to be broken was absolutely nothing. They however seemed to have forgotten that there were many writs for debt in civil action, which could not be enforced by breaking doors. These writs were nevertheless not reckoned as nugatory, nor did he see that it would be any impeachment of the dignity or authority of the House, if their warrant was of the same footing as many of the king's writs, which do not justify the breaking into a house to enforce them. Sums hon. gentlemen had said, that they had foreseen the consequences which had followed from the vote for the commitment of the hon. baronet. But for his own part, he never could anticipate any resistance to the execution of the warrant, because the whole of the argument against that vote went to shew that it would be a triumph, to the hon. baronet to go to the Tower, from which he could issue his libels in abundance. It had been charged upon his majesty's ministers, that they had not taken sufficient measures for the security of the metropolis, as well as that they had not given to the serjeant at arms a sufficient force to enable him to execute the warrant. As to the first point, he contended, that all proper measures had been taken to insure the peace of the metropolis. It was not to be expected, that the government, in the expectation of riots, should have stationed a military force in every street. If they had so done their conduct would have been most loudly condemned by the hon. gentlemen opposite, for having endeavoured to put down the civil by resorting to the military power—Great credit on the contrary, was due to the government for their precautions, as well as to the military for the moderation which they had displayed, in the course of the painful duty they had to perform. As to the charge that no adequate force was placed at the disposal of the serjeant, that had been so often answered, that it was strange it should still be repeated. The warrant might unquestionably have been executed either on Friday or Saturday, without any necessity for forcing the outer door; and in the end the warrant had fortunately been put in execution without any recourse to military force, or any effusion of blood. Whilst it was to be apprehended that lives might be lost on both sides in case of executing the warrant by force, what would have been the opinion of gentlemen respecting the conduct of government, if ministers had ordered the serjeant to execute his warrant? If it turned out to be illegal to force the outer door, and that lives had been lost in a conflict, would it have been a justification of the serjeant on an indictment for murder, to plead the directions of his Majesty's ministers? When a doubt therefore, existed in the mind of any of his right hon. friends, it was perfectly right to suspend the execution of the warrant, till that doubt was removed by referring to the highest legal authority. From all the attention then which he had been able to bestow upon the subject, it was his opinion that his Majesty's ministers, so far front deserving reprobation, were, on the contrary, for the whole of their conduct, entitled to praise. But it had been tauntingly asked, on a former night, whether they call this standing by the King? To this, he should answer, yes.—To stand by the privileges of that House, was to maintain the authority of parliament; and to stand by the parliament, was to stand by the constitution, and consequently by the King. Upon the whole, he was convinced that the ministers had done their duty; and if the hon. gentlemen opposite should bring forward any motion for a direct censure against them for their conduct they would find themselves opposed by an unusually large majority.

stated in explanation that he had imputed it as matter of blame to his Majesty's ministers that they had not till Monday placed such a force at the disposal of the serjeant, as he deemed necessary to enable him to execute the warrant.

explained, that he had never said that he had foreseen the consequences which had resulted actually from the vote of commitment, but that he had foreseen consequences from that vote which he did not deem it proper to state at the time.

denied that it had been stated as a matter of charge against his Majesty's ministers, that they had not employed the military in the first instance. The charge was, that the secretary of state being at the head of the civil power, had, not employed it so soon as he should have, done, and was responsible for all the dangerous consequences that might have resulted from the time lost. It would not be said that his Majesty's ministers were unacquainted with the scenes that took place, as they might have learned them from one of their own body.—[Lord Westmoreland, who had been assailed With some mud by the mob.] Ministers were culpable for having left Piccadilly during the whole of Friday, in the possession of a riotous collection, who obliged all that passed through that street to take off their hats to the majesty of the mob. A few constables, employed in time, would have dispersed the assemblage of boys, scarcely fifteen, engaged in that riotous proceeding. The mob that attacked the house of his hon. friend (sir J. Anstruther) might have been dispersed in the same way; as well as that which had assailed the house of the noble lord (Castlereagh). None but boys were at first concerned in the disturbances; but when it was found that they were left so to act with impunity, others bent upon more serious mischief joined, and then their first march was to Downing-street. The military were resorted to upon that occasion, but not until the riot had come under the very noses of his Majesty's ministers. The Serjeant at arms had a right to expect that those who supported the issue of the warrant, should have pointed out to him how it was to be executed. If the serjeant had gone to consult his learned friend (Mr. Adam), he was convinced he would have received much better advice than it appeared he had received. His hon. and learned friend had very properly not considered the question on narrow grounds of legal analogy, but rested it upon much higher grounds. The House must have every power necessary to give effect to its warrant. What other court had the same power to send its officer to search the house of a witness for papers, as that House had done last year in the case of captain Sandon? The House unquestionably possessed all the powers necessary to enforce its warrant, and it was with regret he found these powers weakened by being placed upon lower grounds than those upon which they actually rested. The warrant was an attachment of a criminal nature, as having issued upon a conviction declared by a vote of that House. With respect to the question before them, he could not help agreeing to the amendment of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though with a view to unanimity, he should throw out the propriety of substituting for "a high aggravation of his previous offence," the words, "that the House had received the paper with great indignation." If his hon. friends should agree to a resolution so worded, they might pass it with unanimity, but at the same time, he must add, that he had himself no objection to the words of the amendment as it then stood.

observed, that however indecorous or disorderly it might be for gentlemen to interrupt others when speaking, by expressing the words "yes," or "no," the House would excuse him when he admitted that he was one of those who had so interrupted an hon. and learned gent. (sir S. Romilly.) If that hon. member were then present, he should gladly make an apology to him. The ground of his interruption was, that to a question put the hon. and learned member, he was anxious to answer that he did not regret the vote which he had given in the former instance; for however enigmatical it might appear to others, it was his opinion, that except the shedding a little blood, much good had resulted to the constitution and the country from the whole proceeding. He had voted for sending sir F. Burdett to the Tower, because he thought his object was to overturn the constitution, and revolutionize the country. When he had used the words. "No, no," therefore, it was to shew that he was not afraid that, in case of his expulsion, the electors of Westminster would re-elect this sanguinary man; he could use no other term, because if he were not sanguinary, he might have maintained his principles without hazarding the effusion of blood. He was not to be intimidated; nor did he think the House would be intimidated by any apprehension from a mob. If he was not aware that he should not carry the feeling of the House with him, he would move for the expulsion of that hon. baronet. He should, therefore, vote for the amendment of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

meant to confine himself in what he should say to the subject actually before the House. They had two propositions before them, one for passing over the Letter without any notice; the other a resolution, that it was a high aggravation of the former offence. To the first he could not give his concurrence, and still less upon the arguments employed by the hon. gent., its author, in recommending it to the House, because, if good for any thing, these arguments would be good against taking any steps whatever against the hon. baronet. He agreed that it would be unworthy of the magnanimity or the dignity of the House, to be intimidated by any fear of the mob, or by the terrors of a Westminster election. But as he could not support the motion, so neither could he agree in the amendment, because whilst it agreed that the Letter was a high aggravation of the previous offence, it still stated that it was not necessary to take further notice of it at present. The Letter either was or was not an aggravation of the former offence. If it was an aggravation, the House should notice it. In evading any notice of the Letter, the amendment would have the same effect as the motion. If it was not an aggravation, it was better not to take any notice of it. But as all were agreed that the Letter was an aggravation, the resolution should be worded in another manner. The House was bound to take some further steps, which it was not for him to point out. And here they had experience of the embarrassment resulting from their vote for commitment. Had they stopped short at reprimand, they might have still something in their hands. But they had expended all their ammunition, and had inflicted the greatest punishment at once. If they had stopped short, they might, in this instance, send the honourable baronet to the Tower. As he could not agree in either the motion or the amendment, he should not feel himself at liberty to vote for either, and should consequently vote against both.

thought, that if ever there had been a question that called for unanimity, it was the one under consideration. He should not, however, travel into the extraneous topics which had been introduced into the discussion, and by none more than by the hon. and learned gent. (Mr. Stephen), whose compliments to the gentlemen on his side of the House, he looked upon as insults, and upon whose observations, considering his age and learning, he should not animadvert, if he had not heard them with a degree of indignation. Notwithstanding the defence of his Majesty's ministers, which had been made by that hon. member, he was convinced that much of the guilt would fall upon them. Whatever opinion might have been entertained of the propriety of censuring the former Letter of sir F. Burdett, there could be but one opinion as to the latter. No hon. member could doubt that it was an insult to the Speaker, and through him to the House. To tell the Speaker of that House that he knew the warrant he had signed to be an illegal warrant, was a gross insult, was language which no one gentleman could be permitted to use towards another, far less to the Speaker of that House. The House was therefore bound to express its resentment at the proceeding; and so strongly did he feel on the subject, that he was bound to declare that he felt himself called on, and was determined to resent it. This sentiment he could not utter but with regret. Those gentlemen who were acquainted with the engaging and amiable manners of that hon. baronet would give him credit for the reluctance he felt on this occasion. Whatever he found himself bound to say was wrung from him by the strongest conviction, and a conscientious sense of public duty. However painful the task, whatever sacrifice it might cost him on the score of private feelings, he was still compelled, upon considerations of a higher public nature, to perform his duty. It was an imperious obligation upon him, which he was bound unanswerably and unalterably to discharge, by declaring that in his mind the case under consideration was one, which was not to be justified. He could not reconcile it to any principle of patriotism, or public spirit, that one, who professed to be the friend of liberty, and the advocate of the laws, should for four days have continued a fruitless resistance to the Speaker's warrant, at the hazard of incurring the loss of several lives. It was the opinion of a great statesman, now unfortunately no more (Mr. Fox), that nothing could justify resistance but the certain prospect of ultimate success. The hon. baronet could certainly have entertained no hope or prospect of being able, by means of a riotous mob, successfully to resist the whole military force at the disposal of the government; and yet he had, to the great disturbance of the quiet of the metropolis, persevered in a fruitless resistance for four days.

Amongst the various grounds of complaint which he had against the hon. baronet, he could not pass over his implied promise to the Serjeant at Arms, to accompany him to the Tower. He had lived on terms of friendship with that hon. baronet: but this was an act so wholly unworthy of him, that he must for ever abjure him either as a private or a political friend. Another ground of complaint on his part against sir F. Burdett was, that from the first to the last moment of his obstinate and unconstitutional resistance, he had been attended in his house by the brother of a notorious and avowed traitor. This he could not easily forgive him. He was far, indeed, from inferring the treason of one brother from the treason of another. He did not therefore mean, by any means, to say, that Mr. Roger O'Connor was a traitor. But if, what was impossible, he had been in the situation of sir F. Burdett, he should not have associated with any man to whom even a shadow of suspicion could attach; he should not have been attended by the brother of Arthur O'Connor, that vile traitor, who employed himself in writing, in a paper published in the English lan- guage at Paris, the most foul, false, and scandalous libels upon the British government and nation: a paper printed in the English language no doubt with a view to be circulated for the dissemination of his sedition and treasons, in these realms. Was this the manner, by the introduction of foreign libels and treasons, that the liberty or public spirit of the country was to be asserted and animated? All such proceedings of the hon. baronet he should from the bottom of his heart disclaim, and was determined to oppose him in every instance. He had but one word more to add. He had thought that the former Letter ought not to have been noticed, because he had a doubt as to the propriety of the proceeding proposed. The House, however, was the best judge of its parliamentary privileges. He had never a doubt that it was an offence that might be punished by a reprimand or a prosecution. But on this occasion he should vote for the amendment, as the stronger measure.

supported the amendment.

trusted that his public conduct would protect him from the imputation of speaking disrespectfully of the Commons of the united kingdom. Neither could he be supposed capable of giving his sanction to any attempt at disturbing the tranquillity of the metropolis, or of any part of the empire. Having thought it necessary to make these preliminary observations, he could not acquiesce in either of the motions now proposed, to be founded upon the Letter of the hon. baronet. Since first the discussion upon these unfortunate transactions was originated, he uniformly took a totally opposite course to that of the right hon. gentlemen who were in administration. The first opportunity that he had, he declared his opinion against the committal of Mr. Gale Jones. He was not in the House When that question was first brought forward; but on a subsequent occasion he deprecated the course pursued, and was one of a minority of 14 who voted for his liberation. Without entering into any discussion upon the exercise of the privilege which the House had assumed, he did conceive that the imputed offence of Mr. Jones was the most venial, and that the exclusion of the public from the debates of that House at that particular moment, was a considerable provocation popular discontent. If it did not amount to an outrage upon public feeling, it was to say the least of it a great unkindness towards the country. When he had read the arguments of the hon. baronet upon that committal, however he did regret the introduction of intemperate language, still he was fully decided that through the whole of that argument, and in every inference the hon. baronet had made, he was correct. With such impressions upon his mind, there was nothing in the conduct or in the arguments of the right hon. gentlemen opposite to induce him to alter his original conviction. He would not directly say, that the resolutions against the hon. baronet were first introduced at the will of the ministers, however strongly he felt the great interest and impatience expressed by them to press and precipitate a hasty decision upon that very serious subject. Believing then, the House chargeable with an exercise of hardship against Mr. Jones, and acquiescing in the correctness of the arguments of the hon. baronet, it was impossible for him to vote for either the motion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Curwen) or the amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The former gentleman had that night called upon the House to rally at that crisis around the government. In answer to such an appeal, he must say, that whilst he trusted upon every occasion to prove his attachment to his Sovereign and country, he still must contend that no body of men in that House could or ought to place their confidence in any ministry who did not unequivocally make to the country specific declarations in favour of that reform which every sound mind now saw was absolutely necessary, and without which it was hopeless to look for the support and confidence of the people of these realms.

trusted, that, after some things which had been said in the course of the debate, he should obtain a hearing. He was charged with being afraid of the mob. Now, he could assure the hon. member who made that charge, that in submitting his motion to the House, he was influenced by no feeling of the kind. His object was to obtain unanimity. Considering the transactions of the last few days, he felt it to be his duty, and the duty of every man who revered the constitution, to support the government. He regretted the debate had taken the turn it did, and that, instead of confining the discussion to the specific matter of complaint before the House, hours should have been passed in endeavouring to fix upon ministers the charge of negligence. In suggesting the course expressed in his motion, he also had it in view to prevent that disgraceful Letter from appearing on the Journals of the House. He thought the motives of ministers were well directed in so speedily preparing so large a force, to ensure the peace of the metropolis, and enforcing the orders of the House. He did not know that he should have acted differently from them, considering the heavy responsibility attached to their conduct. This was not a moment to pass a censure on their conduct. In a short time he trusted the electors of Westminster would see the conduct of the hon. baronet in its true light. If it was the wish of the House, he had no objection to withdraw his amendment.

observed, that could not be done without the consent of the seconder.

consented.

would not agree to the amendment not being put.

was sorry that the amendment was not adopted. He must at the same time take an opportunity of declaring, that no resolutions of that House would be strong enough to express his abhorrence of the hon. baronet's conduct. What opinion would any man of honour entertain of that baronet's conduct after having forfeited his word to the serjeant at arms. He never had but one opinion of him. He was persuaded that it had always been his wish to produce such a crisis as this.

felt conscious that he could not be charged with any desire to throw the country into a state of intestine commotion, however he might feel it his duty to disapprove of some part of the conduct of that House. The question immediately before the House could not be fully considered without reverting to others of a nature to call forth the most serious deliberation. For his own part, he was free to state, that in his judgment, the House of Commons was not warranted in committing Mr. John Gale Jones for an offence cognizable by the laws of the country, and that its officer in the execution of a warrant issued by its order was not justified in breaking into the house of any of his Majesty's subjects. The crown enjoyed its prerogative, as well as that House its privileges; yet the crown never was the judge of any violation of that prerogative, such an attack was canvassed by parliament. It was no new doctrine with him, inasmuch as he had opposed the principle seven or eight years ago in the case of courts of inquiry, where decisions were made and judgments pronounced, by those who were not sworn themselves, nor had the power of administering oaths to witnesses. Where the law was settled or entertaining certain defined offences, such as libels, he was persuaded, the only just, and, of course, constitutional course, was to refer them to the disposal of the competent jurisdictions, and not risk the violation of a positive charter, by a summary punishment inflicted without a due trial. He did not think that it was legal n that House to employ a military force for the execution of its warrant—a measure which, he understood, was adopted in he case of the hon. bart., many soldiers having entered the house of sir Francis Burdett, with the serjeant at arms. But above all, he was convinced that the House would more efficaciously uphold its dignity, by proving to the people that their actions were strictly correct and patriotic, than by any attempt to restrain the popular discussion upon such actions, under the shallow pretext of a disputed and undefined privilege.

said that it appeared from the evidence of the serjeant at arms, that it was the civil power that first entered sir F. Burdett's house. It was possible, however, that their officer was mistaken. The noble lord might have been in the house, and known better. He wished that it should be made part of the motion, that the object of the House having been gained by the imprisonment of the honourable baronet, it did not think proper to proceed further.

was astonished to hear any imputations thrown upon the military, whose conduct had been most exemplary. Their forbearance on the disgraceful insults offered to them by a rascally mob deserved the highest commendation.—There was not one decent man to be found among those who engaged in these scandalous scenes. There was, however, it would Seem, no want of assassins among that vile crew. Last night an officer was fired at in the purlieus of the House by a scoundrel; the ball passed through his hat, and had well nigh annihilated him. He condemned the conduct of sir. F. Burdett from first to last. Had he been in the situation of that person, he would have gone quietly to the Tower, sooner than endanger the shedding of one drop of blood.

was still impressed with the propriety of the course he pursued on the former occasion, in voting for the reprimand. He believed it would, have made a far different impression upon the hon. baronet than was made by the committal to the Tower. He had seen an elevated character approach to that bar in order to be reprimanded, with great apparent levity; but he soon saw him so humbled by the commanding and impressive censure of the chair, that he departed lowered, depressed, and penitent. He did think that the amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be so modified, as to remove the objections which were entertained, to the term "aggravation."

defended ministers from the aspersion of their opponents. It was most mischievous, in his opinion, to attribute all the calamities, as they were called, of the late riotous proceedings to their misconduct, rather than to the jacobinical spirit which had so recently manifested itself.

The question was loudly called for, and strangers were excluded.

After strangers had been excluded from the gallery, the question of adjournment was not pressed to a division. Before we were re-admitted, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed his resolution of censure upon the Letter of sir F. Burdett to the Speaker of the House of Commons, which stated the said letter to be an aggravation of the former offence committed by the hon. baronet. The right hon. gent. then added that if he could thereby insure unanimity, he would withdraw the words of reference to former proceedings.

, on this, declared that he could not agree to the resolution with those words, because, having contended, that no offence had been committed by the Letter and Argument laid upon the table by the member for Somersetshire he could not say that that offence had been aggravated, which, in his opinion had never existed. He was ready to admit, that the Letter to the Speaker was a high breach of the privileges of the House. Whatever doubt might be entertained of the legality of the commitment of Mr. Gale Jones, or of the warrant against sir F. Burdett, or of the expediency of resorting to either of those measures, there could be no doubt that this was a case in which the House was aggrieved; and where redress could not be sought elsewhere. The House must, therefore, of necessity, take cognizance of it itself. It had been objected to him and others, in the course of the night's debate, that they had grown confident respecting the mode of executing the warrant, from their knowledge of the event: to this he would answer for one, that he had expressed his opinion upon the force of the Speaker's warrant, if issued upon proper grounds, in a conversation he had held with the Serjeant at arms, whom he accidentally met, before that officer had ever been at the house of sir F. Burdett. Upon the question having been then proposed to him, how be would act in such a case? he had said he would immediately wait upon sir F. Burdett, and ask him how he intended to conduct himself? If he intended to go voluntarily, that the utmost courtesy as to the mode should be used. If he wished for a nominal force, for the purpose of establishing his principle and maintaining, his action, it might be instantly applied without difficulty or molestation; if he would not yield except to actual force, that the Serjeant should forthwith collect such a force as would overpower him, and render resistance hopeless. The honour of sir F. Burdett had misled the serjeant into a supposition, that he would accompany him to the Tower the next morning; nor was the serjeant to blame for having so conceived of the intentions of sir F. Burdett, but it was too much to say that sir F. Burdett had broke his word with the serjeant. Upon the whole, Mr. Whitbread said that he was willing to adopt any parliamentary phrase, however strong, to characterize the Letter addressed to the Speaker, provided no term of reference to any former proceeding was inserted; for the Letter itself he thought exceedingly ill composed, and highly offensive.

for Scotland was desirous of retaining the original words.

could not consent to the word aggravation, and proposed "flagrant," as a parliamentary word, and at the same time a word sufficiently strong; and that the expression should be, "flagrant breach of the privileges of the House."

wished for an unanimous decision, which he thought might be obtained if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make interest with the solicitor- general for Scotland to give up the word "aggravation."

thought the mode proposed by the hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread) would be a more marked expression of the sense of the House than the retaining the words of reference proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

was of the same opinion.

expressed a similar opinion.

thought the House should pass a substantive condemnation of the Letter without the words of reference.

for Scotland, disclaimed any wish pertinaciously to insist upon his opinion.

was extremely desirous of unanimity upon this occasion, and wished therefore to adopt the suggestion of the hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread). In order however that it might not appear on the Journals that the original words relative to aggravation had been left out, he requested he might be allowed to propose the words suggested by the hon. gent. as a part of the original motion.

consented.

requested to be informed of the wish of the House, as to whether the Letter of sir Francis Burdett should be entered upon the Journals, observing, that there were precedents both ways, and that it was entirely optional with the House.

It appearing to be the general sentiment that the Letter should not be inserted on the Journals, the Speaker said he would give directions accordingly.—It being also understood that the Amendments moved should not appear on the Journals, the Speaker said he would give directions accordingly, and the question was put as an original motion, "That it is the opinion of this House, that the said Letter is a high and flagrant breach of the privileges of the House; but it appearing from the report of the Serjeant at arms attending this House, that the warrant of the Speaker for the commitment of sir Francis Burdett to the Tower has been executed, this House will not, at this time, proceed further on the said Letter." Agreed nem con.

said, that a statement had been handed to him, from which it appeared, that on the day appointed for the holders of Exchequer Bills to attend at the Exchequer Bill office, for the purpose of delivering them to be funded, persons were admitted by a private door before the public door was opened, and that great partiality was shown in making up the list. He therefore, thought an inquiry was necessary.

was convinced it would be found, that there was no foundation for the statement which had been handed to the hon. gent. He agreed however, in the necessity of inquiry, and moved for the appointment of a select Committee for that purpose, which was agreed to.