the house did not venture to continue: they had only the power of expulsion left, and that power they did not chuse to exercise. The letter was also in itself consistent with all his former conduct; it contained not a word expressive of anarchical or democratical principles. It did indeed contain a point-blank attack upon the house, as at present constituted; but was there any thing new in that? Had he not called the house a room, and said that he would never call it the House of Commons more? He had been condemned for the conduct of the populace; but was he to blame because the people shewed their respect for him and their dislike to his enemies? Was he to blame because they made every one who passed his house pull off their hats in honour to him? Many persons had been killed and wounded by the soldiers, many persons had been cut and hacked, many parents, children, relations, friends, and neighbours had been filled with grief; but was it Sir Francis who had occasioned all the cuttings, and hackings, and bruisings, and killings? Was it he who ordered out the Horse-guards? Was it he who caused them to shoot people, and to chop them? "I," said one of these demagogues, "shall not point out any person or persons as having the blood of the killed upon their head. I shall leave that matter to the good sense and the justice of the people."

The same conduct which some of these agitators pursued, in furtherance of their deliberate system, was followed by a few other journalists from pure profligacy,-because it seemed to serve their immediate interest. A curious instance of this was proved in a court of justice. One of the daily papers was convicted of a flagrant and most inflammatory libel

upon the Horse-guards, for their conduct during the disturbances which Sir Francis had occasioned; it appeared in evidence, that the paper in question had declined in sale by taking the side of the Covent-Garda managers in the O. P. war; that a meeting of the proprietors, who were a committee of auctioneers, was held upon the present business, to determine what line of politics would be most likely to recover the popularity which they had lost; that upon this ground they resolved to espouse the part of Sir Francis; gave especial directions not to spare the soldiers; and because the ostensible editor, happening to think otherwise, did not write with sufficient spirit upon the occasion, an unlucky assistant stept in to infuse gall into his columns; the effect of which was, that the printer and publisher were sent to Newgate.

Even such wretches as these influ enced in no inconsiderable degree the mind of the public,-at all times easily excited when their passions are appealed to, and still more so when the appeal is made in the polluted names of humanity and freedom, and the constitution of their country. The coroner's inquest brought in verdicts of wilful murder upon two of the men who were shot; the verdict upon the third was justifiable homicide. One of the many melancholy consequences of popular agitation is, that it renders hu man testimony of so little worth. We happen to know the real facts of the two former cases, by accidental evidence so clear, so positive, so circumstantial, so remote from every possible cause of suspicion, that we could not but give full credit to it; that evidence enables us to state, that in both cases the unhappy sufferers had committed the same act of aggression, more no doubt in sport

iveness than with any evil design, but it was precisely the very act which of all others rendered the consequences most certain: they had each seized the bridle of a Life-guardsman's horse. Upon the grave of one of these unfortunate men, the manner of his death and the verdict were recorded, and a text from Scripture followed: "Thus saith the Lord God; my right hand shall not spare the sinners, and my sword shall not cease over them that shed innocent blood upon the earth." Every allowance is to be made for the feelings of friends and relatives on such an occasion; no blame, therefore, is imputed to them, because the natural resentment of their grief cooperated with the views of a mischievous and designing faction. The opportunity was too favourable for that faction to lose, though it interfered with a system which they had long been evidently pursuing, of gaining over the soldiers by arguing against the character and severity of our martial laws. Those laws are indeed impolitic, cruel, and inconsistent with the British character: we shall see them amended; the disposition of the government insures this, as well as the improved and improving humanity of the age. But the highly culpable manner in which this party have uniformly treated the subject, while it betrays their motives, tends to delay 80 desirable a reformation.

The mob, being deluded by the agitators, and betrayed by their own feelings, took every opportunity of displaying their indignation against the Life-guardsmen, though it is certain that no soldiers had ever, on any occasion, behaved with more exemplary patience. Wherever they appeared, they were assailed with the most insolent reproaches; frequent frays took place, and it was not till

one man had lost his life, that the heat of the popular temper abated. The discussions which took place in parliament tended to keep it up. A proclamation had been issued, offering a reward for the discovery and apprehension of the persons who had fired upon the military during the disturbances. Lord Óssulston asked the secretary of state, whether government, in like manner, meant to offer a re- April 18. ward for the discovery of the Life-guardsman, against whom the first verdict of wilful murder was returned. He was told, that, under all the circumstances of the case, it was not to be expected. Upon this, Mr Whitbread, being prevented by the custom of parliament from carrying on the discussion when there was no motion before the house, moved, without the customary notice, for the verdict of the coroner's inquest. "What," he said, "was it meant to be asserted that the verdict of a coroner's inquest was not deserving of any investigation? that it formed no ground for additional inquiry,-that no step should be taken in consequence of it? Was it not due to the cause of justice, to the feelings of the public, to the character of the soldiery, one of whom was accused of murder by this verdict, that an inquiry should take place? Would any minister pretend to disre gard such a verdict, to assume the right of a grand jury, or to prevent that case, which a coroner's inquest pronounced to be wilful murder, from being referred to a jury for trial?” Mr William Smith supported the mo tion, arguing, as Mr Whitbread had done, that though the soldiery in general behaved well, it did not follow that one of them might not be guilty of murder. The home secretary had made inquiry into the matter : he was

a justice of peace; had he, in making that inquiry, taken the depositions on oath?—The home secretary made answer, that a strict inquiry had been instituted into the conduct of the populace on one hand, and of the troops on the other; witnesses had been examined on oath; the inquiry was still proceeding: but from every thing which had yet appeared, the privy council had resolved to advise his majesty not to issue a proclamation upon the subject. Mr Perceval said, "the motion ought to be resisted, because of the manner in which it had been brought forward: Mr Whitbread had made the motion, only because he had been interrupted in irregularity, and was desirous of making a speech. Where was the urgency of the case, that he had thus taken the house by surprise? On that ground alone it ought to be negatived, for there was no excuse for departing from the accustomed usage. But, independently of that consideration, were the house to take into their own hands the administration of justice while in its progress? Were they to be inspectors of coroner's verdicts, and indictments for murder? Were they to stand in the situation of grand jurors?" Captain Agar, who had been on duty in Piccadilly, stated, that from ten to twenty shots were fired by the people before he heard one fired by the soldiers; and as several were fired about the same time, it was very likely that the soldier who fired the unfortunate one did not know it himself. Mr Lascelles very sensibly remarked, that the end of such a discussion as this, if Mr Whitbread and Lord Ossulston should obtain what they required, might be to send an individual before a jury to be tried for his life, under circumstances very partial and oppressive. This feeling, and the obvious impropriety of

VOL. III. PART. I.

the proceeding, weighed with the house so effectually, that Mr Whitbread's motion was negatived without a division.

During the Easter recess, the freeholders of Middlesex had a public meeting at Hackney, where they voted an address of thanks to Sir Francis, and the following petition to the House of Commons:

"We have observed with concern, that in the cases of Mr John Gale Jones and Sir Francis Burdett, bart. your house assumed and exercised a power unknown to the law, and unwarranted by the constitution.

"Your speaker's warrant has been executed by military force; an Englishman's house, his sanctuary, has been violated; and the blood of unoffending citizens has been shed in the streets.

"Against the existence, as well as the exercise of this power, we solemnly protest-a protest the more necessary, because your votes in its support are entered on your journals; not so the letter of Sir Francis Burdett to your speaker, denying you such jurisdiction.

"In the early part of this reign, in the case of Mr Wilkes, the rights of this country, and of the nation, were repeatedly and grossly violated by the House of Commons. At length the law triumphed. After a struggle of nearly twenty years, the house abandoned the pretensions they had arrogated, and expunged from their journals all their declarations, orders, and resolutions, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom.'

"You have, during your pleasure, deprived the citizens of Westminster of their share in the representation, and the public at large of the exertions. of a faithful servant, in whose ability,

ተ

H

firmness, and integrity, they pre-eminently confide.

"We view with jealousy and sus picion the shutting up of Sir Francis Burdett in prison, when the attention of the nation is directed with anxiety to his intended motion for a reform in the representation of the people in your honourable house; that house in which the traffic of seats has been avowed, in the case of Mr Perceval and Lord Castlereagh, to be as notorious as the sun at noon day;' a practice, at the mention of which, in the emphatic language of your speaker, our ancestors would have started with indignation.'

"We therefore pray you to follow the example of your predecessors, to expunge all your declarations, orders, and resolutions on the subject, as tending to the subversion of our li berties,' and to the introduction of a military despotism, and to recal Sir Francis Burdett to the service of the country in parliament, that he may there enforce that plan of reform which last session he so powerfully recommended, and which, in our opínion, is absolutely necessary for the stability and honour of the throne, and the safety and well-being of the people."

T

Mr Byng, one of the May 2. county members, presented the petition, and moved that it should lie on the table. His colleague, Mr Mellish, seconded the motion; but declared that he did not support the petition. Mr Perceval, that nothing might have the appearance of haste or intemperance, desired that it might be read a second time. When this was done he said, "It was impossible to consider this petition in any other light than that of a deliberate and unparalleled insult to the house, and an experiment to try how

far they would go in forbearance ; considering, therefore, the style and temper of the Westminster petition, the reception of which sufficiently proved that he was willing to receive any petition, couched in terms at all consistent with the respect due to the house; considering also the language held out of doors, and seeing in this paper a proof that the forbearance of the house from time to time served but to encourage new insult, he thought it time that a line should be drawn somewhere, and the present was a fit occasion for that purpose." The discussion, however, on the suggestion of Mr Barham, was adjourned till the next day. Mr Barham then opened it himself. "Any decision," he said, "which the house May 3. might now come to, would carry with it greater weight. Desirous as he was of throwing open the doors of the house as wide as possible to the complaints and applications of the people, this was a paper which he felt it his duty to reject, because it was not a petition, but a protest against the authority of the house, not an application, but a menace. Greatly, therefore, was it to be lamented, that there were members of that house, who lent themselves to the clamours of popular faction, and joined in this species of insult; such men were little aware of the consequences to which their conduct directly tended; for if once those factions, of which they were the tools, should succeed in their real object, which was the complete subversion of all existing authorities, these very men would be the first victims of the storm which they had helped to raise, and would be swept away like chaff before the wind. The parties with whom they combi ned, and for whom they acted, knew much better than they did the true

purpose which all these proceedings were intended to bring on. But," continued Mr Barham, "while I feel myself justified in speaking thus of the framers and supporters of this petition, I do not think that all the blame is theirs; much is to be ascribed to ministers themselves. Their conduct, in all its parts, has been calculated to produce the dissatisfaction which unhappily prevails; they have disregarded the voice of the people; they have mocked them with sham inquiries; they have resisted every proposition for the reform of public abuses, and even when they have conceded to an inquiry, delinquency, when discovered, has been protected rather than punished. Even upon a recent occasion, whena member of this house, either deservedly or undeservedly, rendered himself obnoxious to the popular feeling, how did ministers mark their regard to public opinion? Why, by instantly covering that member with honours and rewards. Not content, however, with incurring for themselves the popular odium, they have also endeavoured, by their language, to transfer that odium to those who have constantly opposed their obnoxious measures, and never ceased to cry out against the ruinous tendency of such measures. They have given to the demagogues the example for that language by which the house is now continually reviled and insulted. Their constant reply to those who resisted their measures, or arraigned their misconduct, has been, that their only motive for opposition was a wish to get into their places. Could they suppose the people would not catch at such language? Their very phrases were adopted in every popular discussion, and made the general ground of abuse of both sides of the house."

Having thus delivered his opinion, Mr Barham moved, as an explanatory resolution, "that the house was at all times willing to receive the petitions of the people; but that it could not receive that, which, under the name of a petition, was a protest against the proceedings of the house."

The Honourable J. W. Ward, who had voted against the Westminster petition, declared that he should vote for this; for though his abhorrence of the principles of those who sent this petition remained unaltered, the house ought not to receive one, because its offensive nature could be explained away by a quibble, and reject another of the same kind, because a similar quibble could not be found. Their practice ought not to change from week to week, and day to day, merely because a Chancellor of the Exchequer had more political courage on one day than he had on another. Mr Alderman Combe said, that the petition came from a very numerous body of freeholders, and he should vote for it, because he did not know to what consequences its rejection might lead. To this Mr Grenfell replied, that though he did not know what might be the consequences of its rejection, he knew very well what the consequences of its reception would be; and if it were received, the table would soon be covered with insults and indignities, offered by those whose object it was to degrade, vilify, and insult the House of Commons. Mr W. Smith declared, that he had never felt more difficulty upon any subject. For six-and-twenty years he had been a representative of the people in that house, and had never voted against any popular or constitutional measure; but against this petition he must vote, because it was impossible to read it without feeling that it was