question he considered to be of extreme | by the communication of another, and the importance, and it was of such a nature, duties of an office must be discharged by that when he heard of the fact, he could the last patentee, even after his resignascarcely believe it to be possible. He had tion, till such time as his successor was apheard, that notwithstanding the tender of pointed. his resignation by lord Chatham, and its acceptance by his Majesty, of which they had been assured by the right hon. gent. opposite, that noble lord still continued to fulfil the duties of master-general of the ordnance, and to draw the salary, and exercise the patronage appertaining thereto. He wished to be informed by the right hon. gent., if this was true or not? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that, in point of fact and of law, lord Chatham continued to transact the business of mastergeneral of the ordnance, from day to day, till his successor should be appointed. This was necessarily done in all patent places. But he had merely fulfilled the duties of his office, and had abstained from advising in the cabinet, carrying in the reports, &c. to his Majesty, or doing any other official act connected with his situation, which had devolved, in the interim, on the lieutenant-general of the ordnance. Mr. Whitbread rose to speak, when he was called to order by a member, who stated, that there was no question on this subject before the House. Mr. Whitbread then said, he would raise a question in a moment. He wished to be informed whether in point of fact, lord Chatham still received the salary of his office? The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that whilst he performed the duties he was entitled to receive it, but did not know whether he actually did so or not. Mr. A. Cooper, in answer to the question, stated, that lord Chatham had received the salary as master-general of the ordnance, till the end of the last quarter. Mr. Whitbread expressed a hope, that he would do so no more, to prevent the disa greeable necessity of his bringing a question on any subject affecting the noble lord, under the discussion of the House. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, April 18. [DISPUTE WITH AMERICA.] Mr. Can Mr. Whitbread conceived this to be a gross and scandalous delusion, practised on the House and the country by his Majesty's ministers. They had informed the House that the noble lord's resignation had been tendered and accepted; butning, seeing an hon. member in his place, he could not understand how that was done, if he still continued to fulfil the duties of the office. He had of late given the right hon. gent. several opportunities of explaining this matter, by urging the inexpediency of having so important an office as master-general of the ordnance vacant, and had once directly asked him if it was filled up? But still the delusion had been carried on. They were now met by the form of patents; but how would that have been, had the noble lord been deprived of his office in consequence of a vote of the House? Would he then still have been allowed to do the duties of that important office, and manage those military affairs, for which they thought him so unfit? The right hon. gent., he fancied, was aware that a motion to this effect was only not made, because the noble lord resigned his situation. It was not whether he attended cabinet councils, advised ministers, or performed other acts, but whether he actually remained in office, after the House and country understood he had retired? The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained. By law, one patent could only be revoked rose to put a question to that hon. gent. Mr. Whitbread stated, that in consequence of the pressure of public business for some time back, he had not yet been able to read the papers alluded to by the right hon. gent. But he would take care to examine them in the course of the re cess, and if they did not serve to dislodge the impression he had been induced to entertain upon this subject, he should certainly feel it his duty to submit a motion to the House respecting it. Mr. Canning expressed a hope that the hon. gent would either bring the matter under discussion, or state his reasons for declining it, so that the intimation, of which he had reason to complain, should not remain uncontradicted. Mr. Whitbread replied, "undoubtedly" and adding, that he felt himself bound to apologize to the right hon. gent. for the delay which had already taken place. [THE LATE DISTURBANCES IN THE METROPOLIS.] Lord Ossulston rose to put a question to the secretary of state for the home department, (Mr. Ryder) with respect to a subject which considerably agitated the public mind. He saw in the newspapers a proclamation, offering a reward for the discovery and apprehension of persons alleged to have fired at some of the military in the course of the late Disturbances; and he saw also the report of a coroner's inquest upon the body of a man who had been unfortunately killed in Piccadilly on the 7th instant, who had found a verdict of" wilful murder against a life-guardsman unknown." Now he wished to know whether it was intended by his Majesty's ministers to issue a proclamation, and whether it was in the contemplation of government to take any steps towards discovering the offender, whom he understood, it could not be difficult to find out, as he was one of a rear guard, consisting of only six persons. Mr. Secretary Ryder admitted, that if the concluding statement of the noble lord were correct, there could of course be little difficulty in discovering the offender alluded to, if offender there were. His Majesty's ministers had undoubtedly instituted an inquiry, into all the circumstances connected with the conduct of the soldiery and the populace during the late unhappy tumults, and he was enabled to state as the result of that inquiry, that there was no instance in our history where it was found necessary to collect and employ the troops, in which the forbearance and moderation of the soldiery were so remarkable, while they were not only pelted by the populace with stones and mud, but actually fired upon. This moderation was, indeed, not only manifested during the period in which the army were engaged in Piccadilly, but upon the Monday when VOL. XVI. the prisoner was conveyed to the Tower. Such was the result of the inquiry which his Majesty's ministers had instituted. As to the particular event adverted to, he was assured that no shot was fired by a soldier, until several shots were fired at the troops from the same place to which the fatal shot was directed. Under these circumstances it could not be expected that government should issue a proclamation such as that required by the noble lord; nor did he think, unless a different result should appear from farther inquiry, it would be consistent with its duty to issue any proclamation whatever. Mr. Whitbread agreed with the right hon. gent., that the conduct of the soldiery throughout had been very exemplary; but did that right hon gent., mean to say, standing in that House as a minister The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to order, observing, that as there was no question before the House, the hon. member was not warranted in proceeding farther. He had no objection whatever to a discussion of the case referred to, but he felt the impropriety of allowing a speech to be made under the present circum stances upon the subject, and to go forth without any answer. The Speaker remarked upon the point of order, that it was deemed generally inconvenient to the House to extend a con versation of this nature; beyond the mere answer to the question proposed. If it were desired to carry the subject farther, the practice was according to the custom of the House to give notice of a motion. He begged pardon for interrupting the hon. member, but being appealed to on the score of order, he felt it his duty to state his opinion. Mr. Whitbread expressed his resolution to avail himself of his right to make a motion, without giving any notice; and that motion would be, That the verdict of the coroner's inquest should be laid before the House. He was really much astonished at the very extraordinary doctrine laid down by the right hon. gent. What! did the right hon. gent. mean to assert that the verdict of a coroner's inquest was not deserving of any investigation that it formed no ground for additional inquirythat 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? Such 3 B. Mr. Canning, as the hon. gent. had alluded to the motion which he (Mr. Can ning) had conceived it necessary to make during the last session, in justification of the Speaker's conduct; felt it incumbent upon him to explain that that motion arose out of events which had taken place in the course of the same evening; and which had created in him a reluctance to suffer the separation of the House without bring ing the subject distinctly before them for their opinion. That was a case, therefore, of so particular a nature, that it could scarcely be adduced as a precedent, and had no analogy to the manner in which the hon. gent. had brought forward the motion under discussion. At the same time, he readily admitted that the hon. gent. had exercised an undoubted right; he should, however, vote against him, on the single ground that the House were taken by sur. prise. an inquiry, indeed, seemed peculiarly due | session, made a motion in that House, at a' to the vindication of the troops; for until late hour of the night, without any prethe guilty individual was discovered, the, vious notice, at which he would himself whole body was liable to be implicated in have attended, if he had been aware of the imputation that verdict conveyed; and the intention to bring it forward. why should not a proclamation be issued in order to facilitate that discovery? But it appeared from the statement of his noble friend, that there was an obvious facility towards that discovery, within the reach of ministers, without any proclamation whatever? Why should not such a facility then be immediately resorted to? Surely no minister would pretend to disregard the verdict of a coroner's inquest, 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. It was clearly necessary that the inquiry should be followed up on this business, for the satisfaction of the public and in vindication of the soldiery. If it turned out, from that inquiry, that the statement of the right hon. secretary was well founded, that the conduct of the troops was in all instances marked by forbearance and moderatión, and that several shots were fired from the place where this murder was alledged to have occurred, then the inquiry would be most satisfactory; but yet it could not be argued, that because the soldiery in general behaved wel!, the murder of an innocent man by one of those soldiers, ought to be overlooked. Such an inference alone could warrant the disposition betrayed by the doctrine of the right hon. Secretary, and therefore he felt himself irresistibly impelled at once to oppose it. Therefore indeed he was urged to the assertion of his right to make a motion without notice, which he should be otherwise indisposed to do, if he was not so pressed. The hon. gent. concluded by moving that a copy of the verdict of the coroner's inquest be laid before the House. Mr. W. Smith, while he cheerfully admitted that the Speaker exercised the discretion reposed in him by the House in a manner that must afford general satisfaction, yet contended, that the doctrine maintained by the right hon. secretary of state was of such a nature, that the country at large would be much dissatisfied were it to pass without immediate animadversion. Wil ling, as he was, from his own personal observation, and from the reports of others, to bear testimony to the general good conduct of the soldiery, yet when a coroner's inquest had brought in a verdict of wilful murder, it was most extraor dinary to hear a secretary of state say that he was making such and such inquiries; thus putting himself in the place of a jury of the country. He did hope that the The Speaker hoped the House would right hon. gent. had made this declaration feel that he had done no more than his duty rashly, and without being aware of its in stating the usual order of the House upon tendency and extent. As had been well a case of this nature; and on any future oc- argued by his hon friend, if ten thousand casion he should content himself with mere- men behaved well, it did not follow that ly a similar statement, leaving any hon. one might not be guilty of murder.-When member to use his own discretion after- a coroner's inquest brought in a verdict of wards, and to the judgment of the House." wilful murder against a person unknown” Mr. Whitbread disclaimed the slightest intention of finding fault with the conduct of the chair. But he hoped it would be remembered that his conduct was not without precedent; for a right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) had in the course of last it was only by a jury that the case could be tried. The secretary of state was a justice of peace; did he, in making the inquiry which he had described, take the depositions on oath? On such a trial as his, the right and wrong of the case could never be permitted to stand. He repeated his persuasion, that the right hon. gent. would have been more guarded had he been aware of the tendency and extent of his observations. would have acted erroneously, had they, on the evidence before them, advised his Majesty to issue his royal proclamation. was no atonement for that crime. Mr. Alderman Combe stated, that there was an inquiry in the city to-day, in consequence of an unhappy event similar to that under consideration. The firing of the soldiery had been productive of very unfortunate results in that quarter; but. in stating this he wished it to be understood, that something must be allowed for provocations. There were undoubtedly some attacks made upon the soldiery in the city, but neither those attacks, nor their general moderation, could plead for such a crime as that to which the motion before the House referred; and therefore he would support it. Lord Ossulston admitted the general good conduct of the soldiery, but he - Mr. Secretary Ryder was grateful for begged the House to recollect, that one the opportunity afforded him of explaining inoffending individual had been murderhimself. He was perfectly ready to re-ed; and the good conduct of thousands assert, that in his view of the case the line taken by his Majesty's government was the only line which, consistently with their duty, it was possible for them to adopt. The hon. gent. opposite must have strangely misunderstood him when he represented that no inquiry had taken place. He (Mr. R.) bad distinctly stated to the House in the course of his former observations, that as soon as the facts were known to his Majesty's government, they instituted a strict inquiry into the conduct of the populace on one hand, and of the troops on the other; and the result was, that they had resolved to advise his Majesty not to issue any proclamation on the subject. Another hon. gent. had The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought asked whether the inquiry had taken place this motion ought to be resisted, from the on oath? It was necessary that the nature irregular manner in which it was brought of the evidence to be given before the forward; and particularly because there privy council should be previously ex- was no urgency in the case that called for amined. Some witnesses had been examin- any departure from the usual forms of the ed before the privycouncil on oath: others House. There was in fact no object in had been examined by other persons, in view which could not be answered, withorder to ascertain whether or not their out resorting to the irregularity comevidence ought to be given before the plained of, to which irregularity the hon. privy council on one side of the question mover seemed to have been prompted or on the other. He said on one side or solely from a desire to make a speech. on the other, although it did not appear But, if the conduct of the hon. member that in any case the troops had acted in a were sanctioned, any other member might manner which could call for disapproba- take the same course, and the House must tion. The inquiry was still proceeding. be aware of the inconvenience to which Hitherto, certainly, he for one had not such a practice would lead. He would thought it expedient to advise his Majesty submit it therefore to the good sense of to issue his proclamation upon this subject. the House, whether, if they had any reThe hon. gent. opposite seemed to think gard to their established course of prothat it was indispensible to issue a royal ceeding they could countenance the irreproclamation whenever a coroner's inquest gularity of the hon. gent. who, in the first brought in a verdict of wilful' murder.place, had made a motion without having This was to him a new principle. Whenever this question came to be agitated which he trusted it would not to night, although the hon. gent. had thought proper to make his motion without any notice, in contradiction to the uninterrupted usage of the House, for which alone he should oppose it--but whenever the hon. gent. might choose to bring it for ward, according to the recognized practice of the House, he had no doubt of being fully able to vindicate the conduct of government, and to prove that they given any notice, and, in the second place, had made that motion although there were several notices on the paper which were entitled to priority. But, he would ask, what was the urgency of the case which demanded that the motion should be made on that day? Was, then, any thing to be immediately proposed in consequence of it? What was the hon. gent.'s object? He had only made the motion because he had been interrupted in irregularity. He had not risen to make the motion, but he had made the motion to protect himself. tary force. He lamented that he had to rise on such a serious and melancholy occasion, but he begged leave to state the circumstances which he had witnessed, as from his own situation on the spot (near St. James's Church), from his own knowledge, and from the knowledge of others (he having as an officer particularly investigated the transaction), he was persuaded that he could give information which it was out of the power of any other hon. member to afford or procure. He would take upon himself positively to assert, that before any firing on the part of the troops, the populace fired upon the soldiers. One man near him was shot with a ball through the jaw. (Hear, hear, hear!) Even after this occurrence, the soldiers were not allowed to load their pistols, but the magistrates exerted their authority to repress further outrage. Both the civil and mili tary power were, however, pelted by the populace, and from ten to twenty shots were fired by the people before he heard one fired by the soldiers. (Hear, hear, hear!) He did not state this as hearsay, but as matter of fact, he being on duty at the place where there was a considerable detachment of from 60 to 100 men, and not merely a rear guard, as a noble lord had mistakenly conceived. Should this subject be discussed at any future period he would go into greater lengths upon it, but at that time he did not think it was necessary to add any thing to that, which he had already stated. He had taken the House by surprise, and unprepared. On that ground alone, therefore, the motion ought to be negatived; for there was no excuse for departing from the established 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 the inspectors of verdicts of coroners' inquests and indictments for murder? Were they to stand in the situation of grand jurors? If any abuse had occurred, that certainly would be a sufficient ground for a parliamentary proceeding. But what answer had his right hon. friend made to the question, whether or not his Majesty had been advised to issue a proclamation offering a reward for the apprehension of the offender? His right hon. friend had replied in the negative, and had added, that, as far as he could judge from the inquiry which had been instituted into the circumstances of the case, he did not think he should be disposed to recommend such a proceeding; the inquiry, however, still pending, the result of which might alter his opinion. If the House had instituted the same inquiry as his Majesty's government, they would have arrived at the same conclusion. It evidently appeared that the soldiers bad behaved with marked abstinence generally; but that on the particular spot which was the scene of the unfortunate event in which the discussion originated, the people assembled in an alley, which prevented the horses from approaching Mr. Lascelles did not approve of this them, and assailed the soldiers with brick- sort of discussion, as it might send an inbats and even fired at them with ball. He dividual before a jury to be tried for his saw an hon. officer in his place, who hav-life under circumstances very partial and. ing been on duty in that part of the town, on that occasion, could, if he were so disposed, afford every satisfactory information on the subject. If the House entertained the motion before them, they would depart from the practice which had been found convenient for such a length of time, and would soon have cause to repent that departure. Captain Agar felt himself called upon, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. the secretary of state, and from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, to state to the House what he knew upon the subject, having on Saturday the 7th inst. been on duty in that part of Piccadilly where the unfortunate event which was now under discussion had occurred an event deeply painful to the feelings both of the civil and of the mili oppressive. Mr. Whitbread rose, but scarcely begun to speak when Mr. Croker spoke to order; if the hon. gent. had a right to make a motion without observing the usual forms of the House he had no right to speak a second time. The Speaker decided, that it was perfectly in order for the member, who originated any question, to deliver his sentiments a second time in his reply after other gentlemen had offered their observations upon his motion. Mr. Whitbread then rose again and said. that if it was the object of the hon. gent. to impede his speaking, the means resorted to would not have answered that end, as it would be in the power of any gentleman to move the previous question, which would open the debate to him and |