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 3000l., 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 Hausard 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 inprisonment 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 mouths corfinement 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 500l. and two sureties in 2501. each. The King v. Peter Finnerty.— Mr. Curwood 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, Ꮓ Ꮞ humbly humbly applied to their lordships that the recognizance might be respited till the next terni. The affidavit 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 imprisoned, or be disseized of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be out lawed, 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 er defer to any man, either justice or right."-Magna Charta, chap. xxxix. "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 laud, 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 together 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, without 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 resist the doctrine, upon which Mr. Jones has been sent to Newgate; 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 workmanship; 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, aud 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 birthright 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, nolumus leges Angliæ mutari; or, in our own more clear and not less forcible language, the laws of England shall not be changed. 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 condemnation, and the execution, of that illadvised king. The self-same principle 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 exercised. 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 jil 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 compli ment 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 as an outrage upon public feeling, what security have we, unless this power of imprisonment be given up, that we shall not see other men sent to jail for stating their opinion respecting rotton boroughs, respecting placemen and pensioners sitting in the house; or, in short, for making any declaration, giving any opinion, stating any fact, betraying any feeling, whether by writing, by word of mouth, or by gesture, which may displease any of the gentlemen assembled in St. Stephen's Chapel? "Then, again, as to the kind of punishment; why should they stop at sending persons to jail? If they can send whom they please to jail; if they can keep the person so sent in jail as long as they please; if they can set their prisoners free at the end of the first hour, or keep them contined for seven years; if, in short, their absolute will is to have the force of law, what security can you have that they will stop at imprisonment? If they have the absolute power of imprisoning and releasing, why may they not send their prisoners to York jail, as well as to a jail in London? Why not confine men in solitary cells, or load them with chains and bolts? They have not gone these lengths yet; but what is there to restrain them, if they are to be the sole judges of the extent of their own powers, and if they are to exercise those powers without any controul, and without leaving the parties whom they chuse to punish, any mode of appeal, any means of redress? "That a power such as this should exist in any country it is lamentable to be obliged to believe; but that it should be suffered to exist, and that its existence should be openly and even boastfully avowed in a country whose chief glory has been its free constitution of government, is something too monstrous to be believed, if the proof were not before our eyes. Had the least doubt hung upon my mind of the illegality of the proceedings in the present case, it would have been altogether removed by the answers given to the references made by me to the great luminaries of our law, and to the laws themselves. The arguments, by which I endeavoured to convince the gentlemen of the House of Commons that their acts, in the case of Mr. Jones, were illegal, I shall now lay before you, in a more full and connected way than it could possiby be done by the parliamentary reporters: and, in doing this, I shall do all that now remains in my power towards the correction of this, as I deem it, most enormous abuse of power, and most dangerous of all encroachments upon the rights and liberties of Englishmen. "I remain, gentlemen, "FRANCIS BURDETT. "Piccadilly, March 23, 1810.” April 6. Narrative of Sir F. Burdett's commitment to the Tower. At half past seven o'clock in the morning, as soon as the division in the House of Commons was known, Mr. Jones Burdett, accompanied by Mr. O'Connor, who had remained all night at the House of Commons, set off in a post-chaise to Wimbledon, and informed Sir Francis Burdett of the result. Sir Francis immediately mounted his horse, and rode to town; the other two returned in the chaise. Sir Francis found a letter on his table from |