guarded and cautious manner, that as the greater power of a warrant in this case arises from "the greater importance of enforcing the process of the crown for the public benefit, than that of individuals for the support of their private rights; so the warrants issued by the speaker, being in support of those privileges which are given to the house of commons for the benefit of the pub. lic only, ought to possess the same means of execution." The attorneygeneral however expresses no doubts about the defensibility of the act, if it were done; though, with perplexity and unaccountable inconsistency, he gives no decided opinion whether it could be legally done. He advises the sergeant-at-arms to take a military force with him, under the direction of a civil magistrate; but not to execute the warrant in the night. It it evident that an opinion so expressed was by no means calcu. Jated to remove the doubts of the sergeant-at-arms respecting the legality of executing the warrant by force. On this opinion, however, he was obliged to act. Accordingly a little before 11 o'clock on the morning of Monday the 9th of April, the sergeant-at-arms, accompanied by messengers, police officers, and a large military force, broke into the house of sir Francis Burdett in Piccadilly. The baronet had the day before called upon the sheriffs of Middlesex in their official capacity to free his house from the armed force which paraded before it, and to secure him against the violent execution of the speaker's warrant, which he apprehended. They had accordingly obliged the military to remove further from his house; and one of them had assured him that on the Monday he would collect the posse comitatus, dismiss the sol diers, and take upon himself to protect the city from the violence of the populace, for which purpose the armed force had been ostensibly called out; and the house and person of sir Francis Burdett from the execution of any illegal warrant. But before the sheriff arrived toperform his promise, the sergeant-atarms had served the warrant on the baronet. He made merely a show of resistance; professed his willingness to obey the warrant, if it were executed in the name of the king; but positively denied the legality of it, as proceeding from the house of commons. He was then put into a coach, which, preceded and guarded by a large body of cavalry, went by such a route to the Tower as was least public, and did not lead them at all within the limits of the city. At the time when the sergeant-atarms broke into the house of sir Francis very few people were collected in Piccadilly; but the report of his seizure spread rapidly : the streets through which it was supposed he would pass were crowded with people, who, as they learnt or suspected that he had been conveyed by a different route, proceeded forward to Tower-hill. Hence, before he could arrive there, the multitude was immense. As soon as they perceived the carriage in which he was conveyed, their heads were uncovered, and the air rang with acclamations in favour of the man whom they regarded as about to become a prisoner for his defence of their rights. The populace refrained from attacking the military till they began to return; but scarce. ly had they entered East-Cheap, when their rear was attacked with a shower of stones and mud. For a considerable time the military bore the assault with coolness and patier ce, but at last, finding the mob grew grew more daring, they fired several shot, by which unfortunately two or three lives were lost. We shall not pretend to assign or to scrutinize into the motives by which the baronet was actuated throughout this transaction; nor shall we enter at length into the inquiry whether his conduct marked the patriot or the incendiary. One or two remarks, however, we deem it necessary to make. It has been triumphantly urged by those who totally condemn the conduct of sir Francis Burdett on this occasion, that if proof were wanting of the badness of his views and principles, it was abundantly to be found in his exposing the tranquillity of the metropolis, and hazarding a repetition of the dreadful scenes of 1780, by his resistance to the speaker's warrant. Unless the legality of the warrant is here not only taken for granted, but considered as beyond a doubt, and resting as plainly and firmly on the known and acknow. ledged law of the land as the warrant of a magistrate or the king, this mode of arguing will strike at the foundation of resistance to the most despotic and unlawful autho, rity; and will involve in condemnation not only sir Francis Burdett, but Hampden when he resisted the payment of the ship-money, and those who opposed the tyranny of James the Second. It becomes every man to examine impartially, deliberately, and fully, before he decides on the legality or illegality of any measure in which he is concerned; but if he is convinced it is illegal, neither justice to himself nor his country leaves him at libertyto yield to it, without endeavouring to set it aside, or at least putting his countrymen in possession of the opinion he has formed respecting its illegality, and of the grounds on which that opinion rests. But it is contended, sir Francis Burdett might have brought the legality of the speaker's warrant to a trial, without having offered so vio-' lent and protracted a resistance. The reply to this remark is simple, obvious, and conclusive. It was of the utmost importance to try not only the general legality of the warrant, but the extent of that legality; whether it justified the breaking open the doors of a house, so that no doubt might remain on any point of this most important question. But it is self-evident that the extent of the power and legality of the warrant could not be tried, unless sir Francis Burdett had closed his doors against the sergeant-at-arms. That a few days elapsed before he was actually apprehended, did not originate with him, but with those to whom the execution of the warrant was committed. The same force which took him on the Monday, might have taken him a few hours after the speaker issued his warrant.--To assert that he made a protracted resistance, implies that he ultimately surrendered himself; whereas he neither made more resistance, nor yielded himself up more easily, on the day he was taken, than he would have done at any time after he had determined to try the extent of the power and legality of the warrant. СНАР. CHAPTER XI. Public Attention and Interest engrossed by the Imprisonment of Sir Francis Burdett -Opinions respecting it by his political Friends-ly more impartial People— Observations on the Privileges of the House of Commons-Difference between a despotic and free Government: the latter sometimes obliged to adopt the Forms of the former-These Cases should be well defined, and supported by absolute Necessity-These Remarks applied to the present Question-Inquiry into the Difference of the Case of Sir Francis Burdett from that of Mr. Gal: Jones-Petitions to the House of Commons-their Language reprobatedCounter-Meetings-ill managed-Addresses to Sir Francis Burd tt-His Reply to the Livery-His Liberation from the Tower-Nature and State of the Actions he has commenced. HE publication of sir Francis Burdet's letter to his constituents, and the proceedings and consequences to which this gave rise, which terminated, as we have seen, in the committal of the baronet to the Tower, took place exactly as the evidence respecting the expedition to Walcheren was finished, and the decision of the house on the conduct of ministers was about to be pronounced. On this point the attention and interest of the nation were fixed, though, from the operation of Mr. Yorke's enforcement of the standing order, not so powerfully or generally as might have been expected. The inhabitants of the metropolis, who from obvious causes always take a more lively interest in the proceedings of parliament than people at a distance from it, had watched the progress and tendency of the evidence, and the conduct and votes of the different members, on the preliminary and intermediate points; and were steadily directing their thoughts to the approaching issue, when the circumstance of sir Fran'cis Burdett's arrest and imprisonment called off their attention from it; and the acquittal of ministers was received as if it had been a matter of no moment or interest.— For what it had done and was doing in the case of sir Francis Burdett, the house of commons was branded with every epithet of contempt: they were no longer, now, merely represented as under the influence of ministers, but the nation was called to protect themselves against them, as a body of men who wished to set themselves up above all law, and on whose will and pleasure, unknown till it was pronounced and proceeded to punishment, the liberty of the subject depended. There were several causes which operated to call off the attention of the nation at large, and particularly of the inhabitants of the metropolis, from the proceedings relative to the expedition to Walcheren, and to fix it exclusively and more deeply on the imprisonment of sir Francis Burdett. In the first place the bas ronet was a great favourite with a vast number of people, both in the metropolis and throughout the nation at large in the city which he represented in parliament, he Was was almost adored, principally indeed by the lower orders of men, but also, though not in a manner so likely to call them forth in his defence, by the more wealthy and respectable classes. It is no wonder, therefore, that the imprisonment of such a popular character should call off the attention of the people even from the acquittal of the authors of the most extensive and disgraceful disaster which had tarnished the annals of the country. The man, whom his constituents had chosen because they believed him uncorruptible, and that he would watch over their interests and the interests of the whole nation, in the house of commons, with unremitting jealousy and zeal; to whom they looked up as the main spring of a reform in parliament, a more rigorous œconomy, and the removal of all the evils under which they suffered; was deprived of his seat, and thus rendered for a time incapable of performing his duty; and not merely deprived of his seat, but committed to prison. Their indignation on this account was greatly increased when they considered the men by whom these things had been done, and the eagerness with which many of the leading members of opposition had stepped forward to support ministers on this occasion. But, in the second place, the interest of the people in behalf of sir Francis Burdett was increased, by the reflection that he had thus been deprived of his seat and committed to the Tower, solely because he had spoken out in defence of what he conceived to be the rights of British subjects, and against the violation of those rights by what he deemed an illegal and usurped power. They regarded him as a martyr in their cause; they therefore felt themselves bound by every-tie of gratitude, îndependent 1810. ly of their previous esteem for his character and attachment to his person, to let no other public thought enter their mind; they had no room for it, no desire to cherish or admit it, till they had expressed' their sense of his merits and used their endeavours to procure his liberation. It is evident that these two causes were very considerably composed of personal considerations for sir Francis Burdett, and they accordingly operated principally, though not exclusively, with those who admired his general principles and conduct, and were of opinion that throughout the whole of this transaction he had conducted himself not only properly, but in strict conformity to those general principles and that conduct. But there was a very large class of well-informed and impartial people, who, though they did not admire the avowed principles and established character of sir Francis Burdett, and thought him highly and particularly blameable for the whole of his conduct on this occasion, yet felt themselves deeply interested in the case on general grounds. It brought before them, more fully and openly than had ever been done before, the privileges claimed by the house of commons; and led them to reflect deeply and seriously on a question which, though of the greatest moment and closely connected with their constitutional liberties, had never before engaged their attention. In comparison with the inquiry thus, forced on their attention, they deemed the guilt or innocence of ministers in the Walcheren expedition as of very temporary and limited importance. The utmost that could be proved against them was, that in the planning and execution of the expedition they had displayed most P culpable culpable mismanagement, and a total want of the requisite ability: but even though they escaped uncensured, yet, allowing them the common feelings and policy of men, there was not much reason to dread that they would again engage in an enterprise of such serious magnitude and consequence in such a rash and incapable manner. Besides, if the consequences of a repetition of the disgrace and loss experienced at Walcheren are compared with the consequences which must re. sult from the frequent and uncheck ed exercise of an unknown, undefined, and unlimited power, claimed by inen who contend that they are the sole judges of its legality and extent, they must be deemed as dust in the balance. On some or all of these grounds, the admirers of sir Francis Burdett, and the inhabitants of the metropolis in particular, and those who were jealous of any invasion of the rights of Englishmen, or any infringement of the principles of the constitution, throughout the king dom in general, found themselves impelled, or deemed themselves called upon, to turn their attention from the Walcheren expedition to the recent conduct of the house of commons. The question respecting the legality of the proceedings, so far as it rested on precedent, authority and usage, was argued in the house itself with considerable ability and learning-but, as too often happens where an appeal on disputed points is made to this mode of decision, no regular and established uniformity was found in the precedents, authorities and usages, brought forward on this occasion. Those succeeded better who opposed the proceedings of the house of commons on the ground that they were directly and unequivocally at variance not only with the spirit of the British con. stitution, but with many express acts of the legislature; acts which, of course, had received the assent and sanction of that very branch which now claimed an authority to dispense with them. But even on this ground the defenders of the privi leges of the house of commons made a firm stand; they contended, that as by the constitution the house formed part of the legislature, to which certain important duties: belonged, every thing necessary for the due, faithful and undisturbed performance of those duties was virtually given it; and as the full security of such performance was not only paramount to any particular law, but absolutely necessary for all the purposes of government, to maintain that these privileges were contrary to any act of the le gislature, was to maintain the absurdity, that the constitution had empowered the house of commons to act as a deliberative and legislative body, while particular acts of parliament declared it unlawful for them to take those measures which were absolutely necessary for the due discharge of their high and important duty. Another absurdity, it was alleged, also followed, still greater if possible than the one just stated; namely, that the house of commons itself had given its assent to, and been assisting in passing, acts, the object of which was in fact to injure themselves. This mode of arguing evidently had a tendency to bring the question to another and a different test, by which several of the most intelligent of those who questioned or denied the right of the house of commons to act, as they had done in the cases of Mr. Gale Jones and sir Francis Burdett, thought that it ought alone to be determined.-As the consider |