714. 



BRITAIN. 



Britain. 



1810. 



Sir Francis 

 Burdett 

 seized by 

 force, and 

 carried to 

 vhc Tower. 



Tumults in 

 l.cnden. 



sengers, went again to the house of Sir Francis, and 

 were again turned out. Soon after this, a troop of 

 the life guards arrived in the street opposite to Sir 

 Francis's house, and used means for disperoing the 

 people, who continued to assemble in great numbers. 

 Sir Francis, upon the appearance of the military, sent 

 for the aid of the civil power, and the sheriffs and 

 their constables came. Meanwhile the mob expressed 

 their attachment to Sir Francis, and their indignation 

 at the warrant, by breaking the windows of the houses 

 of several unpopular characters, among which was 

 Mr JLethbridge's, the mover of the business. Their 

 tumultuary proceedings continued through Saturday 

 night, and on Sunday an immense assemblage in Picca- 

 dilly pelted with mud every passenger who refused to 

 pull off his hat in honour of Sir Francis. In the 

 mean time, Sir Francis's declaration, that he would 

 not submit unless to superior force, was thought suf- 

 ficient cause for assembling the cabinet, and an order 

 was transmitted from the war office to summon every 

 regiment within three days march of the capital. A 

 little before 1 1 o'clock on Monday morning, the 

 Serjeant at arms (accompanied by messengers, police 

 officers, and a large military force,) broke by force 

 into the baronet's house. He was sitting with his 

 family, and on the appearance of the Serjeant, asked 

 by what authority he entered his dwelling. The 

 Serjeant produced the speaker's warrant, which the 

 other persisted in refusing to obey. He commanded 

 them to desist in the king's name, and called upon 

 the sheriff for his aid. It was answered, that the 

 .sheriff was not there. Sir Francis then said, that 

 they should not take him, but by force ; he was ac- 

 cordingly taken with a shew of force to a glass coach 

 which was in waiting for the purpose. He was con- 

 veyed to the Tower, guarded by an immense military 

 force. The capture having been made at an earlier 

 hour than the crowd had expected, he had passed 

 from his house in Piccadilly up Albemarle street, be- 

 fore a cry was set up " they have taken him, they 

 have dragged him out of his house !" The cry soon 

 spread far and wide ; and before the carriage had 

 reached the Tower, the mob had blocked up the 

 Minories and all the streets in its vicinity, so that it 

 was necessary for cavalry to clear the way for his re 

 ception. This was effected with much tumult, but 

 happily with no bloodshed. At the entrance to the 

 Tower, some of the mob rushed within the paling, 

 and even pelted the cavalry, who, in their turn, cut 

 at them with their swords ; but still without the loss 

 of lives. On the return of the military, however, the 

 insults of the mob provoked them to fire some shots, 

 and several lives were lost among the populace. 

 Some of the sufferers, as is usual in such cases, were 

 not among the actual rioters, and the coroners, who 

 made an inquest, returned a verdict of, wilful murder 

 against a life-guardsman unknown. Every part of 

 the town was, on Monday night, paraded by troops, 

 cannon were planted in several of the squares and 

 streets, all the barracks and depots were filled with 

 soldiers, and guards were mounted in private houses. 

 The important subject which now agitated the 



1810. 



public mind, obviously contained two questions, the Britain. 



particular right of the house over its own members, \i 



and their general right to commit a subject. But GE ". R , G ,'' 

 these questions had a connection which identified 

 them in actual discussion ; and as Sir Francis Bur- 

 den opposed the speaker's warrant on the broadest 

 supposition of its illegality, his case needed no dis- 

 tinction from that of Gale Jones, except in the ag- 

 gravation of his house having been entered by force. 



While the extreme parties in politics recriminated 

 on each other the blame of the bloodshed which it 

 had occasioned, they respectively congratulated them- 

 selves on its issue. Ministers, that they had establish- 

 ed the privilege ; and the party of Burdett, that he had 

 so boldly, however unsuccessfully, resisted an act 

 which they deemed tyrannical. 



But the extreme parties gained a temporary advan- 

 tage by the dispute, which was of more importance 

 to them than the settlement of a point in the consti- 

 tution. The popularity of such a politician as Sir 

 Francis Burdett, was not calculated to ride on calm 

 water it was kept alive by the passions of the mul- 

 titude, which were now excited most tempestuously 

 to his advantage. Ministers had also the double ad- 

 vantage of the public attention being recalled from 

 the late Walcheren expedition, and of seeing the con- 

 stitutional Whigs divided on this occasion. Many 

 of their most respectable opponents, disgusted at the 

 insults which were offered to the popular branch of 

 the government, thought themselves called upon to 

 support the dignity of parliament, and spoke of ral- 

 lying round the constitution. Others entertaining 

 different notions of the real rights of parliament, took 

 the popular side ; and, in point of legal authority, it 

 appears that the Whigs, who opposed the unlimited 

 committing privilege, were the highest. Respecting 

 the commitment of Jones, Sir Samuel Romilly expres- Opinion of 

 sed the strongest doubts of the right of the house to Sir Samuel 

 interfere in such an instance, f " He doubted whether Roi ""lly or 



they had a right to commit for a breach of privilege . com * , 



<? ... , v r ,. mitment ol 



in the case or a libel, on the conduct of one or their Ga j e j olies 



own members. He thought the house had a right 

 to commit in a great many cases ; such as where their 

 proceedings were interrupted ; where the people, by 

 hissing or otherwise, insulted members coming to the 

 house ; where they threatened members, if they voted 

 on'a particular side ; aud in many cases of the like na- 

 ture. But he made a distinction between libels pub- 

 lished on the past conduct of members, and proceed- 

 ings still going on in the house. In the latter case, 

 he had great doubts as to the right of committing ; 

 because the house acted as their own counsel, jury, 

 and judge ; because they were the accusers and the 

 pumshers. They began by reading the paper, and 

 they concluded by ordering the party away without 

 hearing him. Would any court of law act in that 

 way ? The house were the judges of the law and the 

 fact, and the party was committed during their plea- 

 sure without any appeal. But all this was only from 

 necessity ; and when the necessity ceased, the power 

 also ceased with it. This was the doctrine held and 

 started by Lord Chief Justice De Grey, in the case of 



t Sir Samuel RomilJy's speech, 5th of April 1810. 

 4 



