yes; they merit a double-tailed cat. Base dogs! What, mutiny for the sake of the price of a knapsack! Lash them! flog them! Base rascals! Mutiny for the price of a goat's skin!-And then, upon the appearance of the German soldiers, they take a flogging as quietly as so many trunks of trees!-I do not know what sort of a place Ely is; but I really should like to know how the inhabitants looked one another in the face, while this scene was exhibiting in their town. I should like to have been able to see their faces, and to hear their observations to each other at the time. This occurrence at home will, one would hope, teach the loyal a little caution in speaking of the means which Napoleon employs (or rather, which they say he employs) in order to get together and to discipline his conscripts. There is scarcely any one of these loyal persons, who has not, at various times, cited the hand-cuffings, and other means of force, said to be used in drawing out the young men of France; there is scarcely one of the loyal, who has not cited these means as a proof, a complete proof, that the people of France hate Napoleon and his government, assist with reluctance in his wars, and would fain see another revolution. I hope, I say, that the loyal will, hereafter, be more cautious in drawing such conclusions, now that they see that our gallant defenders' not only require physical restraints, in certain cases, but even a little blood drawn from their backs, and that, too, with the aid and assistance of German troops. Yes; I hope the loyal will be a little more upon their guard in drawing conclusions against Napoleon's popularity.-At any rate,

every time they do, in future, burst out in execrations against the French for suffering themselves to bechained together and forced, at the point of the bayonet, to do military duty,' I shall just re-publish the passage which I have taken for the motto to the present sheet. I have heard of some other pretty little things of the same sort; but I rather choose to take my instance (and a very complete one it is) from a public print notoriously under the sway of the ministry."

The jury would observe with how much reproach Mr. Cobbett mentioned the word "loval." He would not suffer it to be believed that Napoleon would use such means to raise an army. He not only rendered it a vehicle of attack on this country, but as a defence of the Emperor of France; he would not permit the country to believe the tyranny of Buonaparte. So that the author meant to represent that the treatment of ministers was as tyrannical as the chaining together the conscripts of France. The object of the libel was to give to all men a distaste to the German legion, into which some must enter, and to persuade people, that the tyranny of the measure of the local militia was greater than that of Buonaparte. For these reasons be felt himself called upon to bring the publication before a jury. Whatever the author had to alledge, he would be patiently heard. He had attentively considered the paper in question, and could give it no character, but that which he had de scribed it to be.

Mr. Cobbett defended himself, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty.

On the 9th of July following,

the

the Attorney-General prayed judgment against Mr. Cobbett, T. C. Hansard (the printer) and John Budd and Richard Bagshaw (the publishers) which was as follows: "That you, William Cobbett, do pay a fine to the king of 1000l.; that you be imprisoned in his majesty's gaol of Newgate for the space of two years; that, at the expiration of that time, you enter into a recognizance to keep the peace for seven years, yourself in the sum of 30001., and two sureties in the sum of 1000l. each. And, further, that you be imprisoned till that recognizance be entered into, and that fine paid."

The judge then pronounced the sentence of the court on T. C. Hansard, the printer. He observed, that the case of the other three defendants differed from that of the defendant Cobbett, inasmuch as they had no share in the profits of the libel; but, as Hansard had seen the copy before it was printed, he ought not to have suffered it to have been printed. He was, therefore, sentenced to three months imprisonment in the King's Bench prison, and at the expiration of that term to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace: himself in 400l. and two surities in 2001. each; and to be further imprisoned until such security be given. Messrs. Budd and Bagshaw, the publishers, were each sentenced to two months confinement in the same prison.

Nov. 26. Court of King's Bench. -The King, v. John Gale Jones, for a libel.-Mr. Jones was brought up to receive sentence; when Mr. Justice Grose, after a few prefatory observations, said, that "the libel had already been commented on too ably from the bench and the bar to

require any thing further to be said of its nature. It was flagrant and atrocious: it went to charge a public character with having abused his authority to the oppression of an individual. The manner in which Mr. Jones attempted to extenuate the offence was an aggravation. He had talked of his being an advocate for the liberty of the press; but the truest friend to that liberty was the most resolute opposer of its licentiousness. The law was, however, strong and ready to protect the individual, otherwise every good man's character would be at the mercy of those who had none; miscreants who, for base lucre or for other motives equally degrading, set themselves to the work of calumny. It was one thing to judge of a man's character, and another to drag him before the public and calumniate him. The mode of disseminating the calumny in question made it peculiarly malignant. The court would now order and adjudge Mr. John Gale Jones to be imprisoned in the house of correction in Cold-Bath Fields for twelve months; and to find securities to keep the peace for three years, himself in 5001. and two sureties in 2501. each.

The King v. Peter Finnerty.Mr. Carwood stated that he was instructed to apply to the court in this case, the defendant having had notice to appear to receive the judgement of the court to-day. He observed that he had an affidavit, which he had handed to the Attorney-General, stating that Mr. Finnerty was confined to his bed by illness, labouring under a fever, and that it would be attended with hazard to his life to appear here. The learned counsel, therefore,

Z4

humbly

humbly applied to their lordships that the recognizance might be respited till the next term.

The affi tavit of John Stanton, of the Strand, surgeon, was read; stating that he had attended Mr. Finnerty yesterday and this morning, when he laboured under a very severe fever, and that if he left his chamber his life would be endangered.

Mr.

Attorney-General.-" My lord, I leave this entirely to the discretion of the court."

Lord Ellenborough.-"Then we must respite the recognizance; it is sworn that he cannot be brought up now without peril to his life.'

Mr. Curwood. "Your lordships respite the recognizance till next term?"

Lord Ellenborough" If the Attorney-General wished it, we would give you only a rule to show cause why it should not be respited if not take your rule. Mr. Attorney-General, would you wish that they should take only a rule to show cause?"

Mr. Attorney-General.-" No, my lord, I think not; in short I would not interpose any difficulty." Lord Ellenborough. "Then let the recognizance be respited."

-

3. Liberty of the Subject-Papers, &c. relative to the affair of

Sir Francis Burdett.

SIR F. BURDETT'S LETTER TO HIS

CONSTITUENTS.

"No freeman shall be taken, or impris ned, or be disseized of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or

defer to any man, either justice or right."-Magna Charta, chap. xxxx.

"Gentlemen,The House of Commons having passed a vote which amounts to a declaration, that an order of theirs is to be of more weight than Magna Charta and the laws of the land, I think it my duty to lay my sentiment thereon before my constituents, whose characters as freemen, and even whose personal safety, depend in so great a degree upon the decision of this question-a question of no less importance than this: Whether our liberty be still to be secured by the laws of our forefathers, or be to lie at the absolute mercy of a part of our fellow-subjects collected toge ther by means which it is not necessary for me to describe.

"In order to give this subject all the attention to which it is entitled, and to avoid the danger to be apprehended from partial views and personal feeling, it will be adviseable to argue the question on its own merits, putting the individual (however we may deplore his present sufferings) out of view; though, at the same time, every man ought to consider the case his own; because, should the principle upon which the gentlemen of the House of Commons have thought proper to act in this instance be once admitted, it is impossible for any one to conjecture how soon he himself may be summoned from his dwelling, and be hurried, with. out trial, and without oath made against him, from the bosom of his family into the clutches of a jailor, It is therefore now the time to Jones has been sent to Newgate; resist the doctrine, upon which Mr. or it is high time to cease all pre

tensions

tensions to those liberties which were acquired by our forefathers, after so many struggles and so many sacrifices.

"Either the House of Commons is authorized to dispense with the laws of the land, or it is not. If the constitution be of so delicate a texture, so weak a frame, so fragile a substance, that it is to be only spoken of in terms of admiration, and to be viewed merely as a piece of curious but unprofitable work manship; if Magna Charta and ail the wholesome laws of England be a dead letter; in that case, the affirmative of the proposition may be admitted: but if the constitution lives, and is applicable to its ends; namely, the happiness of the community, the perfect security of the life, liberty, and property of each member, and all the members of the society; then, the affirmative of the proposition can never be admitted; then must we be freemen; for we need no better security, no more powerful protection for our. rights and liberties, than the laws and constitution,

"We seek for, and we need seek for, nothing new; we ask for no more than what our forefathers insisted upon as their own; we ask for no more than what they bequeathed unto us; we ask for no more than what they, in the testament which some of them had sealed, and which the rest of them, were ready to seal, with their blood, expressly declared to be the birth right of the people of England: namely, the laws of England. To these laws we have a right to look, with confidence, for security; to these laws, the individual now imprisoned has, through me, applied for redress in vain. Those who

have imprisoned him have refused to listen to my voice, weakly expressing the strong principles of the law, the undeniable claims of this Englishman's birthright.

"Your voice may come with more force; may command greater respect; and I am not without hope that it may prove irresistible, if it proclaim to this House of Commons, in the same tone as the tongues of our ancestors proclaimed to the kings of old, nolu mus leges Angliæ mutari; or, in Our own more clear and not less forcible language, the laws of England shall not be changed.

46

The principle, fellow-citizens, for which we are now contending, is the same principle for which the people of England have contended: from the earliest ages, and their glorious success in which contests is down upon record in the great charter of our rights and liberties, and in divers other subsequent statutes, of scarcely less importance, It was this same great principle which was again attacked by Charles the First, in the measure of shipmoney, when again the people of England and an uncorrupted House of Commons, renewed the contest; a contest which ended in the imprisonment, the trial, the condemna» tion, and the execution, of that illadvised king. The self-same prins ciple it was, that was so daringly. violated by his son James the Second; for which violation he was compelled to flee from the just indignation of the people, who not only stripped him of his crown, but who prevented that crown from descending to his family. In all these contests, the courage, perseverance, and fortitude of our ancestors, conspicuous as they were, were not

more

more so than their wisdom; for, talk as long as we will about rights, liberties, franchises, privileges, and immunities, of what avail are any or all of these together, if our persons can, at the sole will and command of any man, or set of men, be seized on, thrown into prison, and there kept during the pleasure of that man, or set of men? If every one of you be liable, at any time, to be sent to jail without trial, and without oath made against you, and there to be detained as long as it pleases the parties sending you there (perhaps to the end of your life) without any court to appeal to, without any means of redress; if this be the case, shall we still boast of the laws and of the liberties of England? Volumes have been written by foreigners, as well as by our own countrymen, in praise of that part of our law which, in so admirable a manner, provides for our personal safety against any attacks of men in power. This has, indeed, been in all ages the pride of our country; and it is the maintenance of this principle which enabled us to escape that bondage,' in which all the states and kingdoms in Europe were enthralled by abandoning and yielding it up; and we may be assured, that if we now abandon it, the bright day of England's glory will set in the night of her disgrace.

"But I would' fain believe that such is not to be our fate. Our forefathers made stern grim-visaged prerogative hide his head: they broke in pieces his sharp and massy sword. And shall we, their sons, be afraid to enter the lists with undefined privilege, assuming the powers of prerogative?

"I shall be told, perhaps, that

there is not much danger of this power being very frequently exer cised. The same apology may be made for the exercise of any power whatever. I do not suppose that the gentlemen of the House of Commons will send any of you to jail when you do not displease them. Mr. Yorke did not move for the sending of Mr. Jones to jail, until Mr. Jones displeased him; but it is not a very great compliment to pay to any constitution, to say, that it does not permit a man to be imprisoned unless he has done something to displease persons in power. It would be difficult, I should suppose, to find any man upon earth, however despotic his disposition, who would not be contented with the power of sending to prison, during his pleasure, every one who should dare to do any thing to displease him. Besides, when I am told that there is little danger that the gentlemen in the House of Commons will often exercise this power, I cannot help observing, that, though the examples may be few, their effect will naturally be great and general. At this moment, it is true, we see but one man actually in jail, for having displeased those gentlemen; but the fate of this one man (as the effect of all punishments) will deter others from expressing their opinions of the conduct of those who have had the power to punish him. And, moreover, it is in the nature of all power, and especially of assumed and undefined power, to increase as it advances in age: and, as Magna Charta and the law of the land have not been sufficient to protect Mr. Jones; as we have seen him sent to jail for having described the conduct of one of the members

as