HC Deb 28 January 1817 vol 35 cc32-7

The messengers were admitted, and delivered the following Message: "That the Lords do desire a present conference with this House in the painted chamber upon a subject materially affecting the safety of his royal highness the Prince Regent and the honour and dignity of parliament; and also that the Lords had directed them to inform this House, that from the absence of their usual messengers, and the urgent importance of the case, their lordships had been induced to send this message by their clerk assistant and reading clerk;"—and then the messengers withdrew.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

moved, that the House do send an answer to their lordships message, by messengers of its own.

The Speaker

observed, that the unusual manner in which the communication from their lordships had been made, required that it should be marked by the way in which that House noticed it.

The messengers from the Lords were then called in, when the Speaker said, that he was commanded to acquaint them, that to the message from their lordships, requiring a present conference with that House, in the painted chamber, they would send an answer by messengers of their own.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

then moved, "That this House doth acquiesce in the reasons assigned by the Lords, for sending the said message by their clerk assistant and reading clerk, instead of the usual messengers, trusting that the same will not be drawn into precedent for the future." The motion was agreed to. He next moved, "That the House do agree to a conference with the Lords, and that a message be sent to the Lords acquainting-them therewith." This motion was also carried, and lord Binning was sent to communicate it to their lordships. Upon his return. The Speaker observed, that the next step was, to appoint the managers of the conference, when the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Canning, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Brand, lord A. Hamilton, Mr. Fremantle, lord Lascelles, sir S. Romiily, Mr. Rose, Mr. Wynn, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Bathurst, and others were named. At the expiration of about ten minutes they returned, and the chancellor of the exchequer informed the House, "That the managers had met the Lords at the conference, which was managed on the part of the Lords by the lord president of the council; and that the conference was, to acquaint this House, that the Lords having been informed of several daring outrages offered to the person of his royal highness the Prince Regent this day, in his passage from the parliament, had agreed upon an address to his royal highness thereupon; to which address the Lords desire the concurrence of this House; and that the Lords had also communicated to the managers at the Conference, the name of the witness whom they had examined touching the said daring outrages; viz. the right hon. James Murray, commonly called lord James Murray."

Mr. Wynn

said, that before the House proceeded to take into consideration their lordships communication, it would be proper to settle what course was to be taken as to the other business before them. For his own part, he thought that it would be difficult for the House to return to the consideration of the question respecting the Prince Regent's speech, and he should suggest that the debate on it be adjourned.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

was of opinion that the House would best consult its dignity, if it proceeded that afternoon to no other business, after the consideration of the attack on his royal highness.

The Speaker

said, in whatever manner it was settled, it was convenient it should be decided then.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

thereupon moved, that the debate on the Prince Regent's speech be adjourned till to-morrow, which was agreed to. The House then proceeded to take into consideration the Address communicated by the Lords at the conference; and the same was read as follows:

"We his Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords spiritual and temporal, in parliament assembled beg leave to approach your royal highness humbly to express to your royal highness our abhorrence of the outrage offered this day to your royal highness, in your royal highness's passage from parliament. We cannot reflect without the deepest concern and indignation, that there should be found within his majesty's dominions, any persons capable of an attack so daring and flagitious upon your royal highness's person; and we beg leave humbly to lay before your royal highness the earnest wishes of his majesty's faithful Lords, in which we are confident we shall be joined by all descriptions of his majesty's subjects, that your royal highness will be graciously pleased to direct the most effectual measures to be taken without delay to discover the authors and abettors of this criminal proceeding."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

then moved, that lord James Murray do attend this House immediately, which was agreed to; and it having been shortly after reported to the House, that lord James Murray was in attendance, it was ordered, ort the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, that his lordship be called in. Lord James Murray then appeared at the bar, and was examined, the questions being, addressed to the Speaker, and by him to the witness.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer.

What situation does the noble lord hold in the household of his royal highness the Prince Regent? A. That of lord of the bedchamber.—Was the noble lord in attendance on his royal highness on his coming to open the parliament this day? Yes.—Was the noble lord in the carriage with his royal highness when he returned from the parliament? Yes.—What happened in the noble lord's own sight on that occasion. On his royal highness's return from the House, between Carleton-house gardens and St. James's gardens, the glass of the carriage on the left side of his royal highness was broken.—In what manner did the fracture appear to the noble lord to have been produced? It seemed to have been produced by two bullets of a small size; about a quarter of an inch apart.— Was the noble lord confident that the fractures must have been produced by bullets or some other substances thrown with great violence? I have not the slightest doubt that they were produced by bullets.—Did the noble lord make any other observation respecting this proceeding? About a minute after the glass was broken in the manner I have described, a large stone was thrown against the glass of the carriage which broke it, and three or four other stones were thrown, which struck the glass and the other parts of the carriage.— Was the glass which was broken by the large stone the same which had been perforated by the bullets? It was the same glass.—Had the noble lord time to observe the manner in which the glass was perforated, in the interval between the first fracture and the glass being finally broken? In that interval I observed the part which was first broken minutely.— Did the noble lord observe whether such a number of persons surrounded the carriage, that a pistol might be discharged, and the person by whom it was fired not immediately recognized? The crowd not being excessive near the carriage, I conceive that if a pistol had been fired with gunpowder, the person must have been observed.—Does the noble lord conclude that the first fracture was produced by a bullet discharged from some other instrument than a pistol, such as an air gun? I suppose, as I heard no report, that the bullets must have been discharged from an air gun or an air pistol, without the aid of gunpowder.

The Speaker

then asked whether any other hon. member wished to put any questions to the witness?

Sir B. Hobhouse

asked whether any bullets had been found in the carriage [Hear, hear!]? I have not heard that any bullets have been found in the carriage. I should observe, that I conceived, from the manner of the fracture, that the bullets must have come from some height, perhaps from one of the trees, of which there are many in that part of the park, in which there were several persons.

Mr. Curwen.

Did the noble lord hear any noise, which induced him to suppose that the bullets had passed through the carriage? I heard no noise but that produced by the fracture of the glass.

Mr. W. Wynn.

Will the noble lord be pleased to answer, whether the opposite glass was up or down?—A. It was up.

Mr. Brougham.

Will the noble lord state, whether he observed two similar holes in the opposite glass? The opposite glass was not broken at all. The reason I supposed the bullets to have come from a height was, that splinters of the glass were thrown violently to the lower part of the opposite side of the carriage.

Mr. Brougham.

The noble lord will be pleased to say, whether any bullets, or similar substances, were found at the bottom of the carriage? I had no opportunity of ascertaining this, as I left the carriage immediately after the Prince Regent.

A Member.

Did his royal highness the Prince Regent give any instructions afterwards to search the carriage? Not to my own knowledge.

Mr. Brougham.

Will the noble lord state who were the other persons in the carriage besides the Prince Regent and himself? The duke of Montrose, who is master of the horse; he sat on the same side of the carriage on which the window was broken.

Mr. Brougham.

Did the noble lord observe at the bottom of the carriage any thing but the splinters of glass? I only observed the splinters of glass at the bottom of the opposite door of the carriage.

Mr. Brougham.

Will the noble lord say, whether the stone or stones which broke the window did enter the carriage? No, it did not; the glass being very thick it rebounded.

Lord Cochrane.

Will the noble lord state, whether the window that was broken was next to his royal highness? His royal highness sat in the middle of the carriage.

Lord Milton.

The noble lord is requested to say, whether the stone or stones that were thrown after the bullets, actually smashed the window, or only starred the glass? It not only smashed the window, but also pounded the glass.

Mr. W. Wynn.

Will the noble lord say, whether the glass was not of an unusual thickness? The glass was remarkably thick.

Sir Robert Heron.

Will the noble lord state, who were the persons on the outside of the carriage nearest to the window that was struck? Were they soldiers or others? There was one footman by the door, and a life-guard immediately behind. No one was opposite.

A Member.

Will the noble lord say, whether he supposes the bullets perforated any part of the carriage at all? I suppose they did.

Here the examination closed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

then said, that the House having heard from the mouth of the noble lord the particulars of this daring outrage on the person of the Prince Regent, would require, he presumed, no other reasons to induce them to adopt the address which the Lords had communicated, especially when it was considered that this flagitious attempt took place while his royal highness was returning from the exercise of the royal prerogative in opening the Session. He then moved, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said address."

Mr. Ponsonby

suggested that the address should be read a second time. The address having been again read, he said, that he believed he only expressed the unanimous opinion of the House, when he cordially expressed his conviction of the propriety of the address [Hear, hear!]. That the fracture in the glass of the carriage of his royal highness had been produced by bullets did not, bethought, clearly appear from the evidence of his lordship. Whether it was or was not thus produced, it was of little consequence at that time to consider; for though it might be of some importance with regard to the guilt of the person by whom the crime was committed, is could not have the smallest influence on the decision of the House.

The Address communicated by the Lords was agreed to nem. con. It was then ordered that the members of the House who were of the privy council should wait on his royal highness to know when he would be pleased to receive the address.