Memoirs of Henry Hunt, Esq. Volume 2 by Henry Hunt (page 4)

them.

The disaffection which distress and misgovernment had already excited in those districts was naturally increased by this contemptuous neglect of their petitions. At Manchester there were some serious riots. At Rochdale there had been some disturbances, and some of the rioters were seized and thrown into prison; but the people rose in great force, burned down the prison, and released their associates. These misguided men had not then been taught to look for redress by obtaining a reform in the representation. Those who had urged the people on to commit depredations upon the friends of Liberty, during the early part of the French revolution, the aiders and abettors of Church and King mobs, now began to taste the bitter fruits of their dastardly and cowardly conduct. The time was not yet come, though it was rapidly advancing, when the people were to see their error, and to recover from the dreadful state of political ignorance and delusion in which they had been intentionally kept by the authorities; and the consequence was, that those who had kept them in such ignorance, and trained them to violence, found their own weapons turned against them, and reaped the reward of their own folly and baseness. The weavers at Manchester and the neighbourhood created great disturbances, on account of their wages; they endeavoured to accomplish that by force, which could only be legally obtained by an alteration of those laws, and that system, which had brought them into the dilemma. During the period of Church and King mobs, they had been taught to carry into effect the wishes of their employers by force, and they at length thought it time to set up for themselves in that trade which they had been taught by their masters and employers. Having had no one to instruct them in political economy; or advise them how to obtain, by legal means, their political rights, was it wonderful that they should resort to acts of riot to obtain their domestic rights–a rise in the price of their wages, in proportion to the rise in the price of provisions, and all the necessaries of life, which had been caused by the excessive increase in taxation?

Let it be observed here, that the maxim will always hold good, that those who are careless of their political rights will always be sure to suffer and be imposed upon in their domestic rights. Those who have robbed the people of their political liberty, will not fail to rob them of that proportion of their earnings, to enjoy which, can alone make life worth preserving. The people who do not endeavour to possess and enforce the power of appointing those who are to make the laws, by which they are to be governed, have but little right to complain, if laws are made to enrich the few at the expense of the many. They must not be surprised at combination acts, corn laws, and banishment acts. They must not be surprised, if a _select few_ have the privilege of choosing those who are to make laws; and if the laws that are made by persons so appointed tend to benefit those select few to the injury of the whole community. The mechanics and artizans, if they have no voice in electing Members of Parliament, must not be surprised if, under the title of combination laws, they see laws made to prevent them from obtaining the fair market price for their labour, while their masters are permitted, nay, encouraged, to combine and conspire together to keep down the price of their wages. Again let me impress on the mind of the reader, that a people who are careless and negligent of their political rights, are always sure of being plundered of a great portion of what they earn by the sweat of their brows; they imperceptibly become slaves of the basest cast; and, like slaves, when they become infuriated with their oppressions, they commit the most wanton and brutal acts of cruelty, in their fits of desperation.

Britain had, as I have already stated, made peace with the Spanish Patriots, whose devotion to the cause of their country excited the most lively interest in the bosom of every friend of freedom throughout the civilised world; and the people of England, as well as the English Government, felt a sincere desire to render them every assistance in their power. I am induced to notice the affairs of Spain particularly, because it is delightful to behold a bigotted and enslaved people struggling to free themselves from the galling yoke of religious as well as political slavery. In pursuance of the resolution of the Government to give vigorous assistance, an army was sent by England, to attack the French in Portugal. This army was placed under the command of Sir Hugh Dalrymple. On the 21st of August 1808, the French troops under General Junot were routed by the English, at the battle of _Vimiera_. So complete was this victory that it was expected the French general must have surrendered the remains of his army as prisoners of war; but, while the people of England were looking with anxiety for this event, their hopes were suddenly blasted, with the news of the _Convention of Cintra_; by which Junot had prevailed upon the English Commander, Sir Arthur Wellesley, who negociated the terms of the Convention, not only to permit the French troops to retire from Portugal with all the honours of war, but actually to engage to provide a passage for them in _English ships_. This news caused a universal expression of disapprobation of the conduct of the English Commander, and meetings were held to petition the King, for an inquiry into this disgraceful transaction.

The disgrace of General Whitlocke, which had been inflicted upon him so recently, by the following sentence, it was hoped would have so operated upon British military officers as to have prevented the recurrence of such infamous conduct. His sentence was delivered on the 18th of March, in the following terms: “The Court adjudge that the said Lieutenant General Whitlocke be cashiered, and declared totally unfit and unworthy to serve his Majesty in any military capacity whatever.” The principle upon which the law inflicts punishments is an example to deter others from committing the same offences. But it is a melancholy fact, that even capital punishments will not deter the hardened thief. As it is frequently the case that pickpockets are detected in the act of robbing at the very moment that one of their own fraternity is being launched into eternity, at the Old Bailey; so it appears that the punishment of General Whitlocke had very little effect upon the conduct of these heroes of Cintra.

The Lord Mayor and Common Council met and petitioned the King for an immediate and rigid inquiry into the conduct of those who made what was generally considered a disgraceful treaty; a compromise of the honour and character of the country. The King returned an equivocal answer. A public county meeting of the freeholders of Hampshire was also held, at Winchester, called by the High Sheriff, in consequence of a requisition signed by the aristocratical Whigs of that county, to address the King, upon the same subject. Mr. Cobbett, who had bought an estate and lived at Botley, attended this meeting, and in an address, replete with good sense, sound argument, and correct principles, moved an amendment to the resolutions proposed by Lord Northesk, and seconded by Mr. Portal, of Frifolk, two of the old Whig faction. The address to the King, which Mr. Cobbett moved, was seconded by the _Reverend Mr. Baker_, (quere, is this the Parson Baker of Botley?) A Parson Poulter, one of the Winchester “_cormorants_,” moved an adjournment; arguing that the address was not necessary, as the King had given an answer to the Corporation of London. This amendment was scouted by an immense majority, not above ten hands being held up in its support. Upon a show of hands upon Mr. Cobbett’s amendment to Lord Northesk’s resolution, the Sheriff declared it to be so equally balanced that he could not decide which had the majority, and a shuffle was resorted to; Mr. Cobbett, being a young hand at these meetings, was not aware of the tricks of the Whigs. The Sheriff proposed that all parties should proceed into the open Hall _for a division_; but, as soon as a considerable number of those who had voted for Mr. Cobbett’s amendment had retired into the open Hall, the cunning Sheriff caused another division in the Court, and declared the question to be carried by a majority in favour of Lord Northesk’s address, which was accordingly presented to the King. This appears to have been the first effort of Mr. Cobbett at a public county meeting, and a very successful effort it was, as far as it consisted in ascertaining the real opinion of the freeholders of the county of Hants. At this meeting Mr. Cobbett proved that he was not only a good writer, but that he was also a very eloquent speaker; and a great majority of those who listened to him were evidently in favour of his address, which was much more to the purpose than that proposed by Lord Northesk. I had read the Weekly Political Register from its commencement with great pleasure, but the account of this meeting caused me to feel an increased desire to become better acquainted with the author. No occasion, however, of that sort offered for some time to come.

Previously to this period I had been living alternately at Bath and Sans Souci Cottage, in Wiltshire. When I was at the latter place I enjoyed incessantly the sports of the field. When at Bath, I frequently met and encouraged the young freemen of Bristol, to take up their freedom by means of weekly subscriptions, a considerable number having already procured their copies as certificates, in this way. The authorities, as they are called, or, in more intelligible terms, the leaders of both factions in the Corporation, the Whigs and the Tories, had their eye constantly upon me. I was regarded as a very suspicious personage, for meddling at all in their affairs; but I kept quite clear of both sides, and only mixed occasionally with the people; for I had promised the young freemen that, whenever there was a dissolution of Parliament, or a vacancy, I would offer myself as a Candidate for the representation of their city, unless some more eligible person could be found, who would honestly oppose the intrigues of both the juggling parties–the White Lion and Talbot clubs, the former of which supported the ministerial, and the latter the opposition faction.

Some time in the month of September the Emperors Napoleon and Alexander met at Erfurth, where they jointly offered to treat for peace with England; but these pacific overtures were, as usual, rejected by the British ministers. The whole force of Great Britain appeared to be directed to assist the Spaniards for the purpose of driving the French troops out of Spain, to accomplish which object a British army, under Generals Moore and Baird, was sent to that country, which now began to be devastated by a war between the partizans of England and France. On one side, that of the English, were ranged the pride of the old grandees, the arts and prejudices of a cunning and intelligent priesthood, and the intolerable stupid superstition of the most ignorant and priest-ridden part of the people. On the other side, there was a small party of the more liberal minded, who supported the French, because they had abolished the Inquisition, and all the old monastic humbug with which the country had been cursed for so many ages. Joseph Buonaparte, who had been made King of Spain, but who had been obliged to retreat from Madrid, was now restored by Napoleon, who entered Spain at the head of the French army, defeated the Spaniards in many engagements, and finally became once more master of the Spanish capital, where he reinstated his brother Joseph as Sovereign, that monarch having transferred to Murat, his brother-in-law, the throne of Naples. The Parliament of England had voted an army of 200,000 men for the land service, besides 30,000 for the marine; and _fifty-four millions_ were voted out of John Bull’s pocket for the supplies; and a subscription to the amount of 50,000_1_. to assist the Spaniards, was raised in London, in addition to the formidable regular force. The militia consisted of upwards of 100,000 men.

In the midst of this mad career and profligate expenditure, trade continued to decline, and the manufacturers were in the greatest distress. To appease the enraged nation, a sham court of inquiry was ordered by the King to assemble at Chelsea, under the pretence of an investigation into the Convention of Cintra; but this was so barefaced a job that it deceived nobody.

I have given a brief outline of the political state of the country, in the year 1808, before I enter more immediately upon my own domestic history, which, at this period, was become considerably mingled with politics and public affairs. I had quitted the large farm which I occupied at Chisenbury, and had built myself a sporting cottage upon my own estate at Littlecot, in the parish of Enford, which I called _Sans Souci Cottage_, from its situation resembling the description given of _Sans Souci_, the retreat of Frederick the Great, King of Prussia. Here, as I have already hinted, I devoted the summer and autumn to the sports of the field, particularly shooting, of which I was passionately fond, and which this country afforded in the greatest perfection. Having a house at Bath, which was occupied, I furnished it from the house which I had quitted at Clifton, and at Bath I spent the winter months. The liberal principles which I at all times evinced, were by this time too notorious to escape the attention and hatred of the Tory gentlemen of that part of the county of Wilts in which I resided. There had, in fact, always been amongst them a conspiracy against me, ever since I had quitted the Wiltshire regiment of yeomanry cavalry, and challenged Lord Bruce, the Colonel. But my calling on the county members to explain their parliamentary conduct; and my doing this publicly, when, on the dissolution of Parliament, they offered themselves for the representation, had greatly added to the antipathy which the Tories had before evinced against me; and it was determined that I should be _put down,_ by the lords of the soil, who surrounded my property at Enford.

My old friend Astley, of Everly, was at the head of this worthy band, and he was the first to commence operations, by bringing an action of trespass against me in the name of one of his tenants. This was, in truth, his second trick of the kind; he having, soon after I quitted his troop, brought a similar action against me, in the name of one of his tenants, who keeps the Crown Inn at Everly, and who rented a farm of him. I defended that action, and pleaded in justification a _licence_; meaning, that I had leave of his tenant to sport over his land; but his attorney, who was a _flat_, carried this suit into Court, under the idea, that I justified upon the ground of having taken out a game licence. The fact was, that this was a _quibbling plea_, suggested by my attorney, and it succeeded; the bait took. When we came into Court they easily proved the trespass; and when they had gravely done this, I called two witnesses, who proved that the tenant had not only given me leave to go over his land, but had even invited me to do so, as his adjoining neighbour. Upon this the plaintiff, my worthy neighbour Astley, was nonsuited. I believe that I employed Mr. Pell, the present Mr. Sergeant Pell, and I believe, too, this was the first single brief he ever had upon the western circuit.

To beat my rich and powerful neighbour Astley, in a court of justice, although he had got a rare packed jury for the occasion, I considered as a great victory. On the next occasion, however, his attorney took care to be safe; for he brought the action in the name of one of the squire’s mere vassals, a farmer of the name of Simpkins, who at that time was obliged to say or do any thing and every thing that he was ordered. I suffered judgment to go by default, and a writ of inquiry was executed at Warminster, to assess the damages. One witness was called, merely to prove the trespass; and he swore that I had been six yards off my own open down land, upon that of his master, Simpkins, which adjoined it.

When the writ of inquiry was executed, I attended at Warminster in person, and this I did in consequence of having discovered, that there was a conspiracy against me amongst the neighbouring aristocrats, who, as I had ascertained, had made a _common stock purse_, in order to defray whatever expenses might be incurred in carrying on actions or prosecutions against me. I became acquainted with this fact in a very curious way. This junto of conspirators against the quiet and fortune of an individual had given a general retainer to Mr. Burrough, the counsel, the present Judge Burrough, who had, _over the bottle_, to an acquaintance of mine, who had been dining with him, slipped out this curious secret, intimating that his clients were so rich that they were sure to ruin me with expenses, even if I gained two out of three of the causes against me. My acquaintance having communicated to me this detestable plot, I made a solemn resolution to become my own advocate, let whatever actions might be brought against me. And now, for the first time in my life, I began to cross-examine a witness. That witness was Simpkins’s shepherd, the only witness called by Astley’s attorney. Upon his being asked by me, whether there was any boundary between Simpkins’s down and mine? he answered, _no;_ that there might be some old _bound-balls_ at the distance of half a mile apart, bound-balls that might have been thrown up many hundred years back. He admitted that, at the time when the trespass to which he swore was committed by me, from two to three hundred of his master’s sheep were grazing over the mark upon _my down;_ that this was frequently the case either way between neighbours’ sheep on the open downs in Wiltshire, and that it could not be well avoided. Upon my asking him what damage I had committed upon his master’s land, the fellow grinned, and replied, “damage, Sir! why, none at all, to be sure:” being still further examined, he said that I had not done sixpenny worth of damage, that I had not done a farthing’s worth, nor the _thousandth part of a farthing’s worth_ of damage, for it was impossible to do any damage if I had walked there for a month. This the fellow stuck to in his re-examination; and he being the only witness, and that witness called by the plaintiff, it struck me that it would be impossible for honest jurymen to give _any damage_, they being bound upon their oaths to assess the damages agreeable to the evidence. It was an intelligent jury, and in my address to them, I appealed to their honour, as men of character, whether they could conscientiously give a verdict of any damage, when the only witness called swore that there was not a _thousandth part_ of a farthing damage done? I told them, that I believed a verdict of _no damages_ would bring an additional expense upon me, as the Courts might set it aside; yet I would on no account wish them to violate their oaths to save me an expense; and I called upon them to discharge their duty conscientiously and manfully, let the expense fall on whom it would. The Under Sheriff, before whom the inquest was held, did every thing that man could do to prevail upon the jury to return a verdict of a _farthing damages_, contending that they must return a verdict of some damage. The foreman very sensibly remarked, “if you have called a witness who has sworn that there was not the _smallest particle_ of damage done, how can we, upon our oath, say there was some damage?” The jury retired for half an hour, and returned a special verdict of “_no damages_.”

This verdict I considered as another victory over the leader of the stock purse subscription. A motion was, however, made in the Court of King’s Bench, for a rule to shew cause why this verdict should not be set aside, and a new writ of inquiry held to assess the damages. This rule was instantly granted by Lord Ellenborough. Upon my receiving notice to shew cause, as it was a mere point of law to be argued, I gave instructions to my attorney to employ my friend Henry Clifford, to oppose the rule. The motion came on in the Court, and Mr. Clifford argued that unless they had violated their oath, the jurors could not possibly come to any other conclusion. As they were sworn to assess the damages agreeable to the evidence, and as the only witness called had sworn that there was not the _thousandth part of a farthing_ damage done, how could a conscientious jury give any damage? It was merely contended, on the other side, that I had admitted the trespass, by suffering judgment to go by default; and therefore the jury were bound to give some damage. In this wise and just doctrine Lord Ellenborough, and his brethren upon the bench, fully and unequivocally concurred; and his lordship was quite severe upon Mr. Clifford, and wondered how, as a lawyer, he could have the face to argue to the contrary. The Court consequently ruled, that a new writ of inquiry should be issued to assess the damages; the plaintiff first paying the costs of the former writ of inquiry, and this application to the Court.

I was now served with a notice, that the writ would be executed at Devizes, at seven o’clock in the evening, on the third day of the sessions, and that counsel would attend. I merely said to the attorney, who served me with the notice, “well! if the Court of King’s Bench has so ruled it, so it must be.” The sessions arrived; the third day came; and, as I did not appear in the town, it was generally understood, amongst the barristers and attorneys, that there would be no sport, as I should make no attempt to obtain another verdict, in opposition to the opinion of the Court of King’s Bench.

The magistrates, counsel, and attornies had all taken their dinner and were sitting very snugly enjoying their wine, when the Under-Sheriff, with an attorney of the name of Tinney, of Salisbury, whom he had employed to preside for him, retired to the Court, to hold the inquiry, intimating at the same time to their guzzling companions, whom they left enjoying their good cheer, that they should very soon rejoin them, as they should dispatch the affair in about half an hour. They sent word to Mr. Casberd, their counsel, that they would send for him as soon as their jury were sworn; Mr. Tinney informing him that his attendance would be required only for a few minutes, as it would be a matter of form, merely to prove the fact, and direct the jury to give a shilling nominal damages.

This was the Michaelmas sessions, 1807. I was residing at Bath at that period, and having taken an early dinner I got into my carriage, at half past four o’clock, with my son, then about seven years of age, and desired the post boy to drive to Devizes. When he came to the turnpike, at the entrance of the town, he inquired if he should drive to the Bear? I told him to drive me to the Town Hall. When I reached that building, I stepped out of the carriage, and, with my son in my hand, I walked into the Court, to the great astonishment of as snug a little band as ever assembled to perform such a little job, to assess damages upon a writ of inquiry. The Sheriffs deputy’s deputy, Mr. Tinney, had taken his seat upon the bench; the jury were in the box, and the last man of the jury was just about to kiss the book, when I begged the officer to repeat the oath once more, deliberately, before the juryman was sworn. He did so, as follows–“You shall well and truly try, &c. &c. and a true verdict give _according to the evidence_.” Mr. Casberd, the counsel, had arrived in the interim, and was adjusting his wig. These, together with the plaintiff’s attorney, and about a score of the inhabitants who lived in the immediate vicinity of the Hall, formed as pretty a select party for such a job, as ever was assembled upon any occasion.

The execution of this new writ of inquiry had created a considerable sensation in the town, and the rehearing of the famous cause, which had produced a discussion in the Court above, had excited a considerable interest amongst the gentry of the profession; but as it was understood that I should not attend, and that it would go off, as a matter of course, undefended, or at least unresisted by me, the interest that it had at first excited had completely subsided, and if I had not come it would have been, as Mr. Tinney had anticipated, over in ten minutes. But the news of my arrival spread like wildfire, and the bench was instantly crowded with magistrates, the green table with counsel and attorneys, and the whole Court was crammed as full as it could hold.

Instead of the usual course being followed, by the counsel for the plaintiff opening his case, the Jury and the Court were favoured with an address from the chair, by Mr. Tinney, who acted as sheriff. In the most unfair and unjustifiable manner he informed them, that the same writ of inquiry had been executed once before, and that the defendant had prevailed upon the jury to give a verdict which was not warranted by law; that the Court of King’s Bench had set that verdict aside, and Lord Ellenborough had ruled, that, as the defendant had suffered judgment to go by default, he had admitted the trespass, and therefore the jury were bound to give some damage; and he cautioned them not to listen to any thing I might say to the contrary, and told them that when they had heard Mr. Casberd, they would give nominal damages.

I listened to this pretty prelude with great unconcern, and without offering the least interruption to the speaker. Mr. Casberd now began to address them, and very properly said, that the sheriff had _left him but little to do,_ as he had explained to them the nature of the duty they had to perform. He, however, went over the same ground, and strongly urged them not to be warped from their duty, by any thing I might say. At this period I strongly suspected I should have no defence to make, that they had been advised not to call any witnesses, that they meant to rely upon my having suffered judgment to pass by default, and, on that ground, to call on the jury to give merely nominal damages. But my suspicions were soon removed by the learned counsel saying, that he should call one witness, merely to prove the fact of the trespass, and that he should then claim a verdict of some damages from their hands, as it had been ruled by the Court above, that the jury must give some damages, the defendant having suffered judgment to go by default, and by so doing admitted the trespass.

My old friend, the shepherd, was now called, and sworn; and having deposed to the fact, that on such a day of the month, he saw me six yards upon the down of his master, Mr. Simpkins, he was told that he might withdraw. This he was hastily doing, when I hailed him, and desired him to honour us with his company a few minutes longer, as I wished just to ask him a question or two. The impartial judge, Mr. Tinney, said he should protect the witness from answering any improper questions. In reply to this very acute remark, I observed, that it would be quite in good time to do that when any improper question was put. After a great deal of squabbling with the worthy judge upon this occasion, I got the worthy witness, although he had been well drilled, to admit that he had sworn at Warminster, that there was not the _thousandth part of a farthing damage_ done by me in walking six yards over his master’s down. This, he at length admitted to be the fact, and that no damage whatever was done.

In a speech, which took up about an hour, I now addressed the jury, all the individuals of which were perfect strangers to me; and I strongly urged them to give a conscientious verdict, agreeable to the oath they had taken, and to assess the damages _according to the evidence which they had heard_. During this address, I was repeatedly interrupted by Mr. Tinney, who presided; but when I concluded, after having made a forcible appeal to their honour as men and as Englishmen, there was, on my sitting down, an universal burst of applause, upon which, Mr. Deputy’s deputy ordered the officers to take all the offenders into custody. This impotent threat caused an universal laugh, and the enraged and mortified judge proceeded to sum up, as he called it, in a fruitless and weak, though laboured attempt, to refute what I had said in my address In fact, he acted as a zealous advocate for the plaintiff, or rather as a stickler for the absurd rule of court, to make the jury give a verdict of damages, notwithstanding the only witness produced, swore, that there was not the thousandth part of a farthing damage done.

The jury turned round, and were about to consider their verdict, but Mr. Deputy’s deputy peremptorily ordered them to withdraw, to consider their verdict. I expostulated against this; and while the discussion was going on, the foreman of the jury said, they were unanimous in their verdict, which was that of “NO DAMAGES.” This enraged Mr. Deputy to such a degree, that he exposed himself to the ridicule of the whole Court; he insisted upon their withdrawing to reconsider their verdict, said that he would not accept any such verdict, neither would he record it, and he peremptorily ordered the officer to take them out, that they might reconsider it. Several of the jury had got out of the door, and all of them were removing but one old gentleman, who sat very firmly upon the front seat, and never offered to rise. The officer with his white wand tapped him several times upon the shoulder, and desired him to withdraw. The old man, whose name was DAVID WADWORTH, a baker of the town of Devizes, answered each tap with “I sha’nt.” Mr. Deputy’s deputy now rose, and with an affected solemnity, ordered the old man to withdraw, and reconsider his verdict. He replied, “I sha’nt reconsider my verdict! I have given one verdict, and I sha’nt give any other!” _Deputy_.–“You have given a verdict of NO DAMAGES, which is contrary to law, and which I will not receive; therefore go and reconsider your verdict, for I insist upon your giving some damage.” The reader will easily conceive that I did not hear this in silence; I exclaimed, “For shame! what a mockery of justice!” Mr. Deputy threatened; I smiled a look of contempt and defiance. Mr. Deputy turned round to the officer, and peremptorily ordered him to turn the old man out; and he began to follow his instructions, by taking him by the collar. The old gentleman, however, was not to be trifled with, for he sent the officer with his elbow to the other end of the jury-box, and exclaimed, “I won’t go out; I won’t reconsider my verdict.” _Deputy_.–“I _will_ have some damage, if it be ever so small.” Old man.–“I won’t give any damage. Why, did not the shepherd swear there wa’n’t a mite of grass for a sheep to gnaw? Then how could there be any damage? T’other’em may do what they like, but I won’t stir a peg, nor alter my verdict. I won’t break my oath for you, nor Squire Astley; nor all the Squires in the kingdom.”

This speech caused a burst of laughter and universal approbation. Mr. Deputy’s deputy now ordered him into custody, and said he would commit him. Against this I loudly protested, declaring it false and arbitrary imprisonment. “False imprisonment” resounded through the Court, and great confusion arose; the candles were put out by the audience, and such indignation was levelled at the mock judge, this jack-in-office, that Mr. Deputy and his companions took the prudent course of making a precipitate retreat, proving to a demonstration that a light pair of heels, upon such an emergency, is a very valuable appendage even to a deputy’s deputy. The cry was to chair me to the Inn; I with a stentorian voice exclaimed “_NO!_” chair David Wadworth to his home; and taking advantage of the general confusion, I and my son stepped into my carriage, which I had ordered to be in waiting, and we arrived at my own door, in Bath, just as the clock struck twelve. On the first day of Term, the sixth day of November, Mr. Casberd, after stating a most pitiful case to the Court of King’s Bench, moved for a rule to shew cause why this second verdict of “_no Damages_” should not be set aside, and a new writ executed. This rule was instantly granted; but the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the inquiry held at Devizes, and of the present motion, as a punishment, I suppose, for not having managed matters better. As soon as I received the notice, I repaired to London, to consult Mr. Clifford upon opposing the motion; and, as I thought, with additional grounds of success. But, upon hearing the case, my friend Clifford absolutely refused to shew cause against the rule; declaring that it was useless, and that he would not a second time encounter, upon the same subject, the sarcasms of Lord Ellenborough. “Well then!” said I, “I will myself attend and shew cause against the rule.” I shall never forget poor Clifford! I shall never forget his look of astonishment. He seemed to be absolutely struck speechless. After a considerable pause, however, he exclaimed. What! will you go into the Court of King’s Bench, to argue a point of law with the four Judges, against their own decision? “Yes,” said I, “I will, even should there be four hundred judges; and I will state that I have done so, in consequence of your refusing to do it.” “By G–d,” said he, “if you do so, they will commit you.” I smiled, and told him I thought he knew me better than to suppose that I should be deterred from doing what I conceived to be my duty, by the dread of being committed, or of having any other punishment inflicted upon me. “Well,” said he, “you may do as you please, but, by G–d, Lord Ellenborough will surely commit you.” I replied, that I supposed he would not eat me; and even if I thought he would attempt it, I would go and see if he would not choke himself. Clifford then asked if I had studied the law upon the subject; upon which I begged him to turn to some act of parliament, to shew that a jury were bound to give a verdict directly in the teeth of the evidence. Clifford admitted that there was no law upon the point; but argued, in the language of Lord Ellenborough, that it was a rule of court, and that the Judges would not listen to me for a moment.

The day arrived, I attended the Court; at length it carne to Mr. Casberd’s turn, to say, (in answer to the inquiry of the Chief Justice, whether he had any motion to make,) “My Lord, I move for the rule to be made absolute, which I obtained the other day, in the case of Simpkins and Hunt; and I call upon the defendant’s counsel, my learned friend, Mr. Clifford, to shew cause why the second verdict, ‘No Damages,” should not be set aside, and why a fresh writ of inquiry should not be executed before a judge at the assizes for the county of Wilts.

Mr. Clifford now got up, and said, that he had no instructions; but that the defendant himself was in Court, and, as he understood, meant personally to offer something for their Lordships’ consideration. When he had concluded, I rose immediately; my Lord Ellenborough, and his brothers upon the bench, darted their eyes at me, as if they meant at once to abash and deter me from saying any thing. I, however, was not to be put down in this manner; and I began, in my homely strain, to address them. But, before five words were out of my mouth, Lord Ellenborough interrupted me, and in one of his stern tones, demanded, if I came there to argue a point of law, upon which they had already decided? I answered firmly, “I am summoned here to shew cause why a second verdict, given in my favour, in the cause of Simpkins against Hunt, should not be set aside, and why a third writ of inquiry, in the same cause, should not be executed; and if your Lordships choose to hear me I will do so to the best of my ability.” “Well, go on,” was the answer, in a very rough uncouth voice, and with a frown, and a roll upon the bench, which set all the learned friends in a titter.

I was proceeding to say something, and, I suppose, in rather an awkward and confused manner, when with a sneer on his face, the bear of a judge bellowed out, “Mr. Casberd told us, that the jury at Devizes were influenced by your _persuasive eloquence_! I see nothing of it here!” This insult roused me; I began now to speak as loud as his lordship, and demanded to be heard without interruption. The amiable judge next inquired, whether I had any affidavits in answer to those filed against me on the part of the plaintiff? I answered “Yes, I had many; but I wished to proceed in my own way.” But this was refused to me. The judge demanded to see the affidavits, and I consequently produced one made by myself, as well as one from nearly every one of the jurors who had sat upon the two former writs of inquiry. These affidavits, one and all, declared, that the jurymen had given a verdict agreeable to the oath which they had taken, and to the only evidence produced by the plaintiff; and they added, that they could not conscientiously give any other verdict. The jurors who sat upon both the inquests hearing of the rule that was obtained to set aside the second verdict, had voluntarily sent me up these affidavits in the most handsome manner. I had, however, no sooner read one of them half through, than Lord Ellenborough, who had been whispering with one of his worthy brothers, endeavoured to stop me, notwithstanding which I proceeded, till he jumped up in a violent passion, and in a stentorian voice declared, that I should not read those affidavits; that they were not admissible, and he would not hear them. I began coolly to argue the point with him, and contended that they were not only applicable but material to the justice of the case; and without the Court would hear them it would be deciding in the dark. The affidavits were, I said, couched in respectful and even humble language, and I maintained that the Court was bound in justice to listen to them. I had by this time overcome the awkward feeling which I first experienced at being placed in such a situation as that of the floor of the King’s Bench, which is, as it were, between a cross fire of gowns and wigs; and I said this in a firm and deliberate manner.

Stung by my coolness and perseverance, Ellenborough jumped up once more, and, with the most furious language and gestures, began to browbeat me, actually foaming with rage, some of his spittle literally falling on Masters Lushington and another, who sat under him. I own that I could scarcely forbear laughing in his face, to see a Judge, a Chief Justice, in such a ridiculous passion. In a broad north country accent, he exclaimed, “Sir, are you come here to teach us our duty?” He was about to proceed, when I stopped him short, and in a tone of voice, a note or two higher than his own, I replied, “No, my Lord, I am not come here with any such purpose or hope; but, as an Englishman, I come here, into the King’s Court, to claim justice of his Judges; and I _demand_ a hearing; therefore, sit down, my Lord, and shew me that you understand your duty, by giving me your patient attention.” I said this in such a determined way, that he instantly sat down, and folding his arms, he threw himself back in his seat, where, for a considerable time, he sat sulkily listening to what I had to say; in fact, till I had almost finished.

I now went on to argue that there was no law to compel a jury to give a verdict contrary to evidence, and I dared them to find twelve honest men in the county of Wilts who would do so. “Nay,” said I, “if there be but one honest man upon the jury, I will pledge my life that that jury will give a similar verdict–your lordships may decide what the verdict shall be, and what damages I ought to pay; but you will never get a jury, if there be but only one honest man upon it, who will give any damages. If you have hampered yourselves by a ridiculous rule of your own Court, the sooner you do away with such a rule the better for the character of the Court. I will abide by any decision that you will please to give; but, for God’s sake, never grant a rule, never make a rule absolute, expressly for the purpose of trying the experiment, whether you cannot compel twelve honest men to perjure themselves, merely to comply with an absurd rule of Court.”

The Chief Justice had been biting his lips during the whole of my address; but this was too much, it was the truth in plain language; and accordingly he rose up once more, and having recovered himself, he, in rather a more dignified tone, called upon me to forbear, and not insult the Court, or he should be obliged to stop me, which he was unwilling to do, he being anxious to promote the ends of justice, and hear what I had to say. Thus, after having, for nearly an hour, done every thing in his power to browbeat me, to put me down, and to prevent my being heard at all, _now,_ forsooth, _now_ that he found I was not to be intimidated, he was anxious to promote the cause of justice, and to hear what I had to say! After going over the tender ground again and again, I declared, in conclusion, that if they did make the rule absolute and send it before a judge and another jury, that I should feel it incumbent on me to attend, and exhort that jury to do their duty, and not to perjure themselves. They might, I told them, send it down to the assizes, but, as they could not have a _special jury_, I would pledge my life that they could not pick out twelve common jurymen in the whole county, who would give a verdict which would in effect say that the twenty-four of their countrymen, who composed the two former juries, had been guilty of perjury. I implored the judges to settle the verdict themselves, in which case I would abide by it; but not to try the experiment upon another jury, who would be sure to give a similar verdict of “No Damages.”

Lord Ellenborough made a long palavering speech, urging the necessity of not departing from their former practice, and he expressed his opinion that the rule ought to be made absolute, in which, as a matter of course, his three brethren upon the bench agreed. The rule was therefore made absolute, and a new writ of inquiry ordered to be executed, before the judge of assize for the county of Wilts; the plaintiff first paying the expense of the former writ of inquiry, and of this application to the Court.

My argument and the decision were published in all the newspapers, and created a considerable sensation throughout the country, amongst the practitioners of the law; and although there were a variety of opinions held as to the legality of the verdict, it was the universal opinion in the county of Wilts, that if I attended, and took the same ground as I did upon the two former occasions, any other jury would give the same verdict. As I did not disguise my intention of attending for that purpose, a question arose amongst the attorneys, the friends of the plaintiff, whether it was not possible to prevent my being present when the writ was executed; but, as I was determined, this was considered to be impracticable; and I own, whenever I heard such a proposition discussed, I treated it with contempt, being convinced that such a plan could never be executed. I knew, indeed, that all sorts of schemes were openly canvassed at the time, but I paid no attention to them, little dreaming of any plot being formed for carrying them into effect. It will, however, be seen hereafter, that I was much too confident, and that I was ultimately defeated, by means of a most infamous conspiracy. Relying upon my own straight-forward and upright conduct, I was totally neglectful of the machinations against me of the _stock purse_ conspirators, who, I have since learned, never let an opportunity slip to draw me into a scrape; and, as they spared no pains or expense, and as they employed a host of emissaries, it was not at all surprising if they succeeded in some of their attempts, as I was a sanguine sportsman, and devoted to the pleasures of the chace, and was likewise an excellent shot; and it was in my zeal in following these field sports that they placed their greatest reliance of catching me upon the hop, they being ever on the watch to take the meanest advantage of the slightest trespass or other occurrence, upon which they could find an action, regardless whether it was tenable or not.

I was riding out one morning, shooting with a friend, and as we were passing along a lane, a public high road, I suddenly felt a smart blow on the side, and at the same moment some one seized me by the flap of my shooting jacket, and nearly pulled me off my horse. When I recovered myself, and turned round, my friend, the late Mr. John Oakes, of Bath, who had seen the attack made upon me, was demanding of a ruffian the reason for such outrageous conduct. This ruffian was a fellow of the name of Stone, a game-keeper to Mr. John Benett, of Pyt-House, of Corn-Bill notoriety, one of the present members for the county of Wilts. Stone stood grinning defiance, with a double-barrelled gun, cocked, in his hand. Indignant at the atrocity of the assault which, without the slightest provocation, had been committed upon me, I sprung from my horse, and laid down my own gun on the bank, and walking deliberately up to the scoundrel, I first seized his gun with one hand, and with the other I struck him three or four blows; upon which he let go the gun and fell. This fellow was a notorious fighter, and, as he has since confessed, was hired to commit this assault upon me, with the expectation that I should resent it, which would afford him an opportunity to give me a severe drubbing. His goodly scheme was, however, frustrated; for my first blow, after I came in contact with him, was planted so effectually, and followed up so rapidly, that the hireling bruiser was defeated, before he could make any successful attempt to retaliate.

Having discharged his gun, I returned it to him, and the gentleman walked off, or rather sneaked away, not only having himself received a sound hiding, such as he had intended and undertaken to give to me, but apparently perfectly ashamed and sensible of his folly. It appears, however, that after he had gone home, about a quarter of a mile, and washed himself and taken his dinner, he, on the same afternoon, walked to Pyt-House, a distance of thirty miles, to inform his master of the awkward and unexpected result of the experiment which he had been making. After due deliberation, he was advised to return, and to prefer at the sessions a bill of indictment against me for the assault. If he could procure any witness to confirm his story, so much the better; but, as no other person was present but myself and my friend, this was no easy matter to be accomplished. The bill was, however, found at the quarter sessions, and the indictment was removed by _certiorari_ into the Court of King’s Bench, to be tried at the assizes.

This was considered as a great point gained by my enemies; and the members of the stockpurse association were greatly rejoiced, that they had got me into what was considered by some of them as being a serious scrape. Others openly expressed themselves in this way, “That they would much rather have paid their money to Stone, if he had given me a good thrashing, than to have me punished by legal proceedings.” And one of them, a parson prig, had the insolence and the folly to tell me, that they would get a _better man_ for me next time, for that they were determined to bring down one of the _prize-fighters_ to give me a drubbing. This fellow was then, and still is, an insufferable cockscomb, and I remember very well my answer to him. I told him, that I knew all the prize-fighters of any note, and they knew me; and that, with the exception of GULLEY and CRIBB, who I was certain would not undertake any such office, I was sure that if any one of them made the attempt, I should serve him in the same way that I had served Stone.

Another of the stock-purse gang, MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, of Netheravon, one of the M. P.’s for Cirencester, had brought an action of trespass against me, which was also to be tried at the same assizes; so that, with this, and the writ of inquiry in the case of Simpkins and Hunt, which was for the third time to be executed before one of the judges, my hands were pretty full of law business. This circumstance, however, did not deter me from doing my duty to the public, when occasion offered. I was very well aware that I had drawn down the indignation and the hatred of the aristocratical upholders of a corrupt system of government, by the open and avowed hostility that I had always expressed, in public and in private, against the supporters and abettors of the system; and I will now proceed to shew the reader, which, perhaps, I ought to have done before, the main cause of this inveterate hostility against me, and of the stock-purse conspiracy being formed, for the declared purpose of putting me down, and, if possible, driving me out of the county.

It will be recollected that I stood forward publicly at the county meeting, that was held relative to Lord Melville’s peculations, and that I had afterwards called the county members to account for their conduct, in not opposing the two shillings a bushel additional duty that was imposed upon malt. These were mighty offences, not easily to be forgiven; but the grand offence, that which was so unpardonable, that it was never to be expiated, was, that I had caused a requisition to be signed, and procured a county meeting, in order to censure the Duke of York, and to send up a vote of thanks to Colonel Wardle, for his having detected and exposed the infamous transactions practised by the famous Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke, and the Commander in Chief, with regard to promotions and exchanges in the army.

The Parliament of Great Britain assembled on the 19th January this year, 1809. The King’s speech, which was delivered by commission, announced the offer of peace made by the Emperors of France and Russia, and the reason for rejecting it, which was, that his Majesty had entered into a treaty of friendship with the Spanish government. In this speech he relies on his faithful Commons to grant him the supplies for pursuing the war with vigour, congratulates them upon the complete success of the plan for establishing a local militia, and urges them to take steps for maintaining the war in Spain, by increasing the regular army as much as possible, without weakening the means of defence at home. The ministers carried every measure with a high hand, and the _faithful Commons_, by very large majorities, granted the supplies for 120,000 seamen and 400,000 soldiers. Thus the ministers, aided by the faithful representatives of the people, were plucking John Gull, and emptying his pockets, by almost turning them inside outwards, while they were tickling John’s brains with promises of glory, and a number of other fine things.

Charges were now made, and supported by authentic reports, as to the misconduct and peculation of the commissioners of Dutch property. These charges were brought forward by the regular marshalled opposition, the Whigs, as well as various other charges, as to the abuses existing in the military and naval departments; but, as these were mere regular opposition sham fights, the ministers put them down, by a negative to all their motions, and they even caused a bill to pass, to allow the army to recruit from the militia.

While, however, they were going on in this way _ding dong_, a real opponent to their measures started up in the House, a man who was not one of the regular gang of the Whig opposition. On the 27th January, Colonel WARDLE, in pursuance of a notice which he had given, rose up in the House, and, after having in a clear and straight-forward speech, detailed a series of the most nefarious and disgraceful practices, between the Duke of York, the Commander in Chief, and his mistress, Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke, as to the disposal of patronage in the army, by Mrs. Clarke, for large pecuniary douceurs, which she received while living with his Royal Highness, &c. &c. he concluded by moving for the appointment of a Committee, to inquire into the conduct of the Commander in Chief, with regard to promotions and exchanges in the army, and other points. Sir Francis Burdett seconded the motion. The Ministers, as well as the regular old stagers of the opposition, appeared to be in the greatest consternation; yet they all professed to be rejoiced that his Royal Highness would now have an opportunity of clearing away these insinuations, which had been so basely levelled at him, for some time past, by the jacobinical part of the public press; which attacks Mr. York, Mr. Canning, and Lord Castlereagh asserted to be the effect of a _conspiracy_ against the Royal Family.

The Ministers argued strenuously for the appointment of a parliamentary commission, in which they were joined by the artful and cunning suggestions and canting palaver of Mr. Wilberforce. The cry of a jacobinical conspiracy was loudly raised, and Colonel Wardle was reviled, taunted, and menacingly reminded of the great responsibility which he incurred, by making such charges against the illustrious Commander in Chief. The cunning, hypocritical Whigs all joined in this cry, and disclaimed any connection with the brave and manly Colonel Wardle. Mr. Sheridan went so far as to declare in the House, that, as soon as Colonel Wardle had given notice of this motion, he had sent to him, and urged him not to persevere in so dangerous a course!–The famous Mr. Charles Yorke, after threatening the honourable mover with the _heavy responsibility_ that he had brought upon himself, congratulated the House that they had at last got some charges made against his Royal Highness, the Commander in Chief, in a _tangible form_; and he hoped the House would do its duty to itself, the country, and the Royal House of Brunswick. Mr. Yorke declared that he believed there existed a _conspiracy_, of the most atrocious and diabolical kind against his Royal Highness, (loud cries of _hear! hear! hear!_) founded on the _jacobinical_ spirit which appeared at the commencement of the French revolution. Mr. Canning, in a flaming speech, declared, that _infamy_ must attach either upon the _accuser_ or the _accused_. The whole of the ministerial side of the House attacked the brave Colonel, and most of the sly Whigs joined in the clamour. Little Perceval, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Vicary Gibbs, the Attorney General, flew at the honourable member like two terriers at a badger; but Colonel Wardle never shifted his ground. Nothing daunted in a good and honest cause, he relied upon his own courage and integrity, and coolly set all their threats at defiance. Sir Francis Burdett certainly seconded his motion, but he said but little, very, very little, upon the occasion. The only one who, in the first instance, appeared at all to stand honestly and boldly by the honourable member, was Lord Folkestone. In answer to Mr. Perceval’s threats and insinuations, the Colonel very deliberately made fresh charges, instead of retracting any of those that he had preferred; in addition to these charges against the Duke, he stated, that there was a regular office in the city, held under the firm of Pollman and Heylock, in Threadneedle-street, for effecting transactions of a similar nature, and these were effected by Mrs. Carey, the present favourite mistress of the Duke of York; and that two of the members of the cabinet, the Lord Chancellor Eldon, and the Duke of Portland, were implicated in such negociations.

This motion created in the public mind such a sensation as an earthquake would have created; and the country rung with it from one end of the land to the other, from north to south, and from east to west. This is an ample demonstration, as we shall by and by see, of what can be done by _one_ member in that House, however corrupt it may be, provided that the member possess _courage, industry,_ and _perseverance._ The Honourable House was now fairly fixed, and it was compelled to come to a vote, that the whole inquiry should be had in public, and the witnesses should be examined at the bar, before the whole House. Bravo, Honourable House! Bravo, Colonel Wardle! Mrs. Clarke was called to give her testimony at the bar of the Honourable House, and her evidence, which exhibited such a scene as was never before brought before the public, was inserted in every newspaper in the two islands; it was published and read in every village, in every pot-house, and, in fact, in every house in the united kingdom, from the palace to the shepherd’s hut. And yet Sir Francis Burdett is constantly asking, “what can _one man_ do in the Honourable House.” I ask, “What is there that one honest, courageous, and persevering man could not do in the House of Commons?” Colonel Wardle, it is true, had at the outset the support of but very few members of the Honourable House, perhaps, honestly and fairly, of not one, except Lord Folkestone; for, very soon after this inquiry began, Sir Francis Burdett was laid up with the _gout_. Whether it was a _political gout_ or not, the honourable Baronet is alone able to say; nor is it here worth my while to inquire. Colonel Wardle, however, found that he could do without even his support, upon which he certainly calculated when he commenced the inquiry. But if Sir Francis Burdett had the gout, the whole nation had not; Colonel Wardle found himself supported and backed by the whole nation, and this support carried him through with his task, as it always will any man and every man who takes the same honest, upright, straight-forward cause that he did.

It came out in evidence that this said Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke lived in the most luxurious and extravagant manner, during the time that she was what is called “kept” by the Duke; she said that she had never received more than a thousand a year from his Royal Highness, which was barely sufficient to pay servants’ wages and liveries, but that the Duke told her,–“if she _was clever_, she need never want money.” Twenty thousand a year was not more than enough to defray all the expenses of this extravagant lady, and of the Gloucester-place establishment where she lived.

The whole of this sum must have been obtained in the way described by the evidence produced; that is to say, must have been got by her from persons who procured promotion in the army, through her influence over the Commander in Chief. As an instance of her extravagance, it was proved, that her wine glasses, out of which she and the Duke drank, cost a guinea a piece!

After all, as might have been expected, a majority of the House of Commons acquitted the Duke of York, upon the following motion of Colonel Wardle, for an address to the King, which address expressed the opinion of the House, “_That the Duke of York knew of the abuses, which had been proved to have existed, and that he ought to be deprived of the command of the army_.” A hundred and twenty-five members voted for this motion, and three hundred and sixty-three against it; Colonel Wardle and Lord Folkestone were the tellers. Sir Francis Burdett, being ill in the gout, was not present, and therefore did not vote at all. Upon Mr. Bankes’s motion, which stated _that the Duke of York must at least have had a suspicion of the existence of the corrupt practices, and a doubt whether the chief command of the army could with propriety, or ought with prudence to remain in his hands_; upon this motion there were a hundred and ninety-nine for, and two hundred and ninety-four against it. On the 17th March, Mr. Perceval, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought forward a motion, “_That it was the opinion of the House, that there was no ground to charge his Royal Highness with personal corruption, or with any connivance at the corrupt and infamous practices disclosed in the evidence_.” For this, the minister’s motion, there were two hundred and seventy-eight ayes, and a hundred and ninety-six noes; giving to the King’s servants a majority of eighty-two, out of nearly five hundred members who were present.

With this decision the country was not at all satisfied, and public meetings were called all over the kingdom, for the purpose of voting thanks to Colonel Wardle, and expressing their opinion upon the foregoing proceedings of the honourable and faithful representatives of the people. Such was the unequivocal and unanimous manifestation of public feeling upon this extraordinary decision of the Honourable House, and such was its effect, that, on the 20th of March, the said Mr. Perceval informed the House,–_”That the Duke of York had that morning waited on his Majesty, and resigned the office of Commander in Chief.”_

Thus did the united voice of the nation produce the dismissal, or, in other words, cause the resignation of the Duke of York from the situation of Commander in Chief, in spite of a corrupt ministerial majority in the House of Commons. The Ministers advised this measure, in the hope of silencing the public clamour against their barefaced corrupt proceedings in the House; but this rather confirmed the public in the opinion as to the necessity of the people’s meeting to express their opinions. I sincerely believe that Mr. Cobbett, by his able and luminous weekly publication, the Political Register, which was now very generally read, did more than all the public writers in the kingdom to keep this feeling alive, and to draw the attention of the public to just and proper conclusions, as to the evidence, as well as to the views and objects of those who cut a prominent figure in conducting the proceedings in the House; and he most successfully and most triumphantly defended Colonel Wardle, Lord Folkestone, and Sir Francis Burdett, from all the malignant attacks that were made upon them by the venal and hireling press of the metropolis; his ability, industry, and zeal in this affair, were above all praise; and, next to Colonel Wardle, he merited the thanks of his countrymen. By these irresistible productions of his pen, however, he drew down upon himself the implacable hatred and mortal enmity of the Ministers and the Government; and I have no doubt that Sir Vicary Gibbs, the Attorney-General, received instructions to keep a most vigilant look-out after him, as the Ministers had marked him for the victim of their vengeance.

It is worthy of notice that Lord Stanley and Samuel Horrocks, Esq., the members for Preston, voted for the motion of Colonel Wardle, and they were the only members from the county of Lancaster who voted on that side of the question. There were only two or three lawyers who voted in the minority, namely, Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. C. W. Wynne, and Mr. Horner; one military officer, General Fergusson; and one naval officer, Admiral Markham.

I have been thus particular in describing this transaction, because many of my young readers must have but a very faint recollection of the circumstance; a circumstance that created full as powerful a sensation in the country, at that day, in 1809, as did the persecutions of Queen Caroline, in 1820. Every friend of justice, every lover of freedom, and every man and woman of spirit in the country, wished to render a tribute of praise to Colonel Wardle, for his manly and patriotic exertions in the House. It was not to be expected that the House of Commons, which was composed of such faithful representatives of the people, who voted, by a considerable majority, against Colonel Wardle’s motion, would agree to a vote of thanks to him, although it was talked of by some of the honourable members. Mr. Canning, as the organ of the ministers, put a negative upon such a measure, by saying that, if it were proposed, he should feel it his duty to resist it; in which opposition Mr. Whitbread, the organ of the Whigs, concurred. But the people were actuated by a more honest and more generous feeling, and the brave men of GLASGOW and its vicinity set the noble example. The authorities there refused to comply with an application to call a public meeting; the friends of liberty then proposed an address to be signed; but the venal editors of the newspapers refused to advertise it. This, nevertheless, did not deter those who wished to promote so praiseworthy a measure; they printed hand-bills, and posted them, announcing “a just tribute to Colonel Wardle,” and calling upon the inhabitants to come forward and sign an address to the honourable member, as follows:

“That Colonel Wardle, by first stepping forward, and by his conduct throughout the whole of the investigation now pending in the honourable the House of Commons, relative to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, has proved himself to the world, to be one of the most magnanimous, patriotic, firm, and candid men in his Majesty’s dominions.”

These placards were posted on the 14th of March, and at the end of four days the address was forwarded to Colonel Wardle, with four thousand signatures. The city of Canterbury followed the example by a public meeting, at which they passed a vote of thanks, and presented him with the freedom of their city. London, Westminster, and ten or fifteen other cities did the same; Middlesex and ten other counties also met, and unanimously passed the highest tributes of praise to Col. Wardle. A requisition was signed and sent to the sheriff of the county of Hants, at the head of which was the name of Mr. Cobbett, who addressed a letter to the independent people of that county, calling upon them to attend the meeting, and emulate the example set them by the people of Middlesex and other counties.

The meeting was held at Winchester, by the appointment of the High Sheriff, on the 25th of April; John Blackburn, Esq. sheriff, in the chair. Before the meeting commenced, Mr. Cobbett made an unsuccessful effort to unite with the Whigs, that their proceedings might be carried unanimously. But Lord Northesk and Mr. Poulett would not agree to support his resolutions. The publicity which, in Mr. Cobbett’s Register, as well as in the London and country papers, was given to the holding of this meeting at Winchester, excited a considerable sensation and great interest all over that part of the kingdom. As I had made up my mind to get a requisition signed in the county of Wilts, I made a point of attending the meeting at Winchester; first, because it was the adjoining county; second, because I wished to make myself well acquainted with the form of proceedings for holding a county meeting; and, third, because I was anxious to become better acquainted with the celebrated Mr. Cobbett, who I expected would be the hero of the day. I was then residing at Bath; but I took my horse on the evening before, and went to Sans Souci Cottage, a distance of thirty miles; and the next morning I rode on to Winchester, thirty miles further, and got there in time to attend the opening of the meeting. As, at that period, I had no property in the county of Hants, I did not go upon the hustings, or rather into the grand-jury-room, out of the windows of which the speakers addressed the multitude, who stood in the large area below; amongst whom I took a convenient position, to hear what passed.

A soon as the sheriff had opened the meeting, Mr. Poulett Poulett addressed the assembly, and proposed a string of resolutions, which were seconded by the Honourable William Herbert, brother of Lord Carnarvon. These two gentlemen were known to be supporters of the regular Whig faction, and, although their resolutions breathed a more liberal spirit than usual, yet the _cloven foot_ of the party peeped out, as they contained more of an attack upon the ministers than an abhorrence of the system. Mr. Cobbett then came forward, and, in a speech at once clear, argumentative, and eloquent, which was received with raptures of applause, and appeared to carry conviction to the breast of every one present, with the exception of two or three parsons, who were in the crowd, and who sometimes expressed a sort of disapprobation, by talking and endeavoring to interrupt the business of the day; moved a series of resolutions, as an amendment to those proposed by Mr. Poulett. These resolutions were seconded by Mr. Chamberlayne, of Weston, and supported by Mr. Jones, of Sway. Such speaking as this I had never before heard, and I sincerely believe that the speech of Mr. Chamberlayne was never surpassed by Pitt, Fox, Sheridan, or Burke; it was truly beautiful, and was received from beginning to end with the most unbounded applause.

While these speeches were making it was very evident which side would have the majority. During the whole of the time the three parson prigs continued their interruptions at intervals; although they had been repeatedly admonished to conduct themselves in a more decent manner, one of them a little short squat fellow, in boots and leather breeches, made himself particularly obnoxious by his noise. At length I made my way through the dense crowd, and got alongside of them, and by a very determined remonstrance I kept the others quiet, while, by dint of placing my elbow in the little reverend’s side, when he began to open his mouth, the pressure of which made his ribs bend again; I at the same time exclaiming, “for shame, Sir, be quiet,” he was ultimately reduced to silence, and made to conduct himself something like a rational being; although I could see that he gnashed his teeth with rage every time of the application of my elbow to his ribs; a discipline which, in spite of his remonstrance, I never failed to inflict upon him, whenever he offered any interruption to the proceedings. I had the repeated thanks of those around me for thus keeping this little buck in order; but whenever he had an opportunity he was disposed to be scurrilous.

A division being called for, in which those who were in favour of Mr. Cobbett’s amendment were to hold up their hats, the three black-coated gentry were the only persons who kept their hats on in that part of the meeting where we were standing. The thought now struck me, that I would punish the little chattering hero; and having my own hat in my left hand, I whipped his off with my right, and continued to hold it so high, that with all his efforts he could not reach it to pull it down. He was in a most outrageous passion, which he exhibited to the great amusement of all those who surrounded him. Mr. Cobbett’s amendment was carried almost unanimously, at least two thousand hats being held up for it, and not twenty against it.

This was a great victory obtained over the Whigs of that county, who retired to their inn in great dudgeon, while the successful party, the friends of Mr. Cobbett, flocked in great multitudes to his inn, where a dinner had been provided, and I should think about a hundred and fifty persons sat down to one table in the great room. This party I joined, and once more came in contact with Mr. Cobbett. Though it was a public meeting, yet I contrived to have some private conversation with him; during which I informed him, that I intended to get a requisition signed for a public meeting, in the county of Wilts, and I requested him to attend it, to assist me in arranging the proceedings. Of my procuring the meeting, he very much approved, but he declined to give his attendance, or to interfere; his reason was, that he was neither a freeholder nor a resident in the county. He concluded by saying, “I will publish your proceedings, and if I were a freeholder I would cheerfully come forward; but, as I am not, you must not expect me.”

The day was passed with great conviviality, and the bottle went so freely round, that I was mortified and shocked to hear some of those who, in the morning, had delivered the most eloquent, the most brilliant speeches, now, in attempting to speak, utter such trash and balderdash, as would almost have disgraced an idiot: it made such an impression upon me as will never be eradicated. I had formerly been in the habit of taking my glass occasionally (although not to excess), but this specimen which I had before my eyes, sunk so deep into my heart, that from that time forward I resolved within myself to refrain from taking any intoxicating, deleterious liquors. I cannot, even at this distant moment, banish the recollection of the scene from my mind. To behold and to contemplate the dreadful ravages that wine had made upon the most brilliant and enlightened human intellect, was sickening to the very soul. I had then a relation living at Winchester, and I remained there till the next day. In the morning I became acquainted with one of the most staunch and steady friends of Liberty that I ever knew–Mr. Budd, of Newbury, an attorney, and, I believe, clerk of the peace for the county of Berks. He is a freeholder of the county of Hants, and in consequence attended the meeting at Winchester. I returned to Salisbury that evening, drew up a requisition to the sheriff of the county of Wilts, and, having signed it myself, I got it signed, before I went to-bed, by upwards of twenty freeholders; at the head of whom was that excellent, honest, and public-spirited gentleman, William Collins, Esq. I started the next morning, and took Warminster in my road, and, ere I reached Bath, I had got a hundred signatures to the requisition. From Bath I wrote to Sir Charles Ware Malet, the sheriff of the county, who lived at Wilbury-House, near Amesbury; stating that such a requisition was signed, and requesting that he would appoint a day on which he would be at home, that I might wait upon him with it, to know his pleasure as to when and where he would call the meeting. By return of post I received a public answer, which fixed an early day; and on that day, accompanied by a friend, I attended with the requisition at Wilbury-House.

Sir Charles Malet had lived for many years in India, and had returned with a princely fortune; he lived like a nabob, in a beautiful place at Wilbury, and he received us in the most polite manner possible. Having briefly premised the object of our visit, I handed him the requisition, which he read over; and then, casting his eye over the number of signatures, he said, “Really, Mr. Hunt, I know of no other course to pursue but to comply with the request of yourself and your brother freeholders, who have signed the requisition. Without pledging myself to any opinion upon the subject, I consider it my duty to attend to the legitimate request, made by such a respectable number of freeholders of the county of which I am the sheriff. But,” added he, “before we consult together where will be the most convenient place, and what will be the most convenient time, to hold the meeting, both for you and me, I have one request to make to you; which is, that after your ride you and your friend will take some refreshment, which I have ordered to be laid for you in the next room. If you will follow me, I shall be happy to partake of it with you, and we will then talk the matter over.” He now led us into a magnificent saloon, where there was a cold collation spread before us, fit for a prince and his suite. It consisted of every delicacy of the season, and some most beautiful fruit, the production of his extensive hot-houses. The butler drew the corks of some sparkling Champaigne and fine old hock; but my friend, who was a worthy farmer, requested a draught of ale, in preference to these delicious wines, neither of which did he relish equal to some home-brewed old stingo. This was instantly produced, and in it the Baronet heartily pledged my companion. When we had regaled ourselves, he proposed that we should take a walk round his domain and gardens, and return to an early dinner, so that we might get home in good time in the evening. The first part of the invitation we accepted; but as we had already fared so sumptuously, I declined the invitation to dinner. After he had shown us round the gardens and park of Wilbury, we agreed that Salisbury would be the most proper place to hold the meeting; and, at my request, he fixed the day for Wednesday, the 17th of May; a distance of time which would allow the notice of the meeting to be advertised twice in the Salisbury Journal. Thus, to a perfect stranger, did Sir Charles Malet conduct himself; seeking only to do his duty openly, honestly, and conscientiously, without being guided or warped by party feelings, or factious views or motives. There was no high-sounding title among the requisitionists, but they were men, and they were freeholders; and, as he justly observed, it was not his business to inquire whether they were Lords or Commoners, his only study was to do his duty; which he would endeavour to perform conscientiously.

The next day I sent for my attorney, and instructed him to prepare a conveyance, a deed of gift of a freehold tenement and garden, which I wished to be delivered immediately to Mr. Cobbett; which he promised to do at Salisbury, on the morning of the 17th of May, if Mr. Cobbett would meet him there. I directed him to write to that gentleman, to request him to meet us there for that purpose, and I also wrote to him to say, that I begged his acceptance of a freehold in the county of Wilts, that he might no longer have the same excuse for not attending our county meeting, which he gave to me when I met him at Winchester, and invited him to meet me on the appointed day. I received an answer from him, to say, that he would attend; and, in consequence of this, before we went into the Hall in the morning, I met him at the Antelope, where my attorney was waiting with the deeds, which I signed, and made a present of to Mr. Cobbett; thus conferring upon him, for his patriotism, a freehold estate, which, although a small one, made him, nevertheless, a freeholder of the county, and entitled him not only to be present as such at our meetings, but also to a vote for the members of the county.

I had prepared the resolutions, which were similar in effect to those which were passed at the Hampshire meeting; but Mr. Madocks having, in the intermediate time, on the 11th of May, made his famous motion in the House of Commons, distinctly charging Mr. Perceval and Lord Castlereagh with having actually sold a seat in Parliament to Mr. Quinten Dick, and with having endeavoured to prevail upon Mr. Dick to vote against Colonel Wardle’s motion, in the case of the Duke of York; and the Honourable House having declined to inquire into it, Mr. Cobbett proposed to notice this circumstance in the resolutions. This was immediately done, and we proceeded to the Council-House, where Sir Charles Malet opened the business, in the most crowded assembly that was ever witnessed in that city. As soon as he had done this, I addressed the meeting, which address was received in the most flattering manner, and I closed it by proposing the following resolutions. They were seconded, in an able speech, by the late William Collins, Esq. of Salisbury, and supported by Mr. Bleek, of Warminster, and were carried by an immense majority, many thousand hats being held up for them, and not above a dozen against them. They were inserted in the 15th volume of Cobbett’s Register, page 855; but it may be necessary, perhaps, to insert them here, as all my readers may not have access to that work.

“COUNTY OF WILTS.

“At a meeting of the Freeholders, Landholders, and other Inhabitants of the County of Wilts, convened by the High Sheriff, and holden in the Council-Chamber in the City of New Sarum, on Wednesday, the 17th of May, 1809, Sir Charles Warre Malet, in the chair;

“It was Resolved,

“That the thanks of this meeting be given to Gwillim Lloyd Wardle, Esq. for having instituted the recent inquiry in the House of Commons, relative to the conduct of His Royal Highness the Duke of York, as Commander in Chief: for having, unconnected with, and unsupported by, any party or faction, prosecuted that laudable undertaking with unexampled magnanimity, talent, zeal, temper, and perseverance; and especially for having had the resolution to discharge his duty, in defiance of threats and prejudices excited against him by the King’s Ministers, and many of the leaders of the opposite party.

“That the thanks of this meeting be given to Sir F. Burdett, Bart. who seconded Mr. Wardle’s motion; and also to Lord Viscount Folkestone, for the active and able assistance he afforded to Mr. Wardle during the whole of the inquiry.

“That the thanks of this meeting be given to Lords Viscount Milton and Althorpe, Lord Stanley, the Hon. T. Brand, Sir Samuel Romilly, Knight, Major-General Fergusson, S. Whitbread, T. Curwen, T. W. Coke, H. Martin, T. Calcraft, and C. W. Wynne, Esqrs. who, during such inquiry, stood forward the advocates of impartial justice; and also to the whole of the minority of 125, who divided in favour of Mr. Wardle’s motion; amongst whom, we, as Wiltshire men, observe with pleasure the name of that venerable and truly independent senator, William Hussey, Esq. who, for nine successive Parliaments, has represented the city of New Sarum with ability and perseverance, and with undeviating integrity and independence: of Thomas Goddard, Esq. Member for Cricklade; and of Benjamin Walsh, Esq. Member for Wootton Basset, in this county: while we observe with indignation and regret, that the name of neither of the Members for this county does appear in that honourable list: and we also lament that, with the exception of Lord Folkestone, William Hussey, Thomas Goddard, and Benjamin Walsh, Esquires, we do not recognise in that list the names of any of the THIRTY-FOUR Members who are sent to Parliament by the various boroughs in this county.

“That, in reverting to the cause of the disgraceful acts revealed and demonstrated during this inquiry, this meeting cannot help observing, that in the Act of Parliament, commonly called the Act of Settlement, in virtue of which Act only His Majesty’s family were raised to the throne of this kingdom, it is declared, ‘That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a Member of the Commons’ House of Parliament: but that, notwithstanding the wise precautions of this Act, which is one of our great constitutional laws, and which, as its preamble expresses, was made for the further limitation of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject, it appears from a report laid before the House of Commons, in the month of June last; in consequence of a motion made by Lord Cochrane, that there are in that House EIGHTEEN placemen and pensioners, who, though part of what they receive was not stated, are in the said report stated to receive 178,994_l._ a year, out of the taxes paid by the people, and out of that money, to watch over the expenditure of which they themselves are appointed.

“That we observe the names of all those Placemen and Pensioners voting against Mr. Wardle’s motion.

“That, in the Act called the Bill of Rights, it is declared, ‘That the election of Members of Parliament ought to be free:’ and in the same Act it is declared, ‘That the violating the freedom of election of Members to serve in Parliament, was one of the crimes of King James the Second, and one of the grounds upon which he was driven from the throne of this kingdom;’ but that, notwithstanding that law, this meeting have observed, that on the 14th instant, Mr. Madocks did distinctly charge Mr. Perceval and Lord Castlereagh with having sold a seat in Parliament to Mr. Dick, and with having endeavoured to prevail upon the said Mr. Dick to vote against Mr. Wardle on the case of the Duke of York; and that Mr. Madocks having made a motion for an inquiry into the said transactions, the House, by a very large majority, decided that there should be no such inquiry. “That, from these facts, as well as numerous others, notorious to us and the whole nation, this meeting have a firm conviction, that in the House of Commons, as at present constituted, exists the great and efficient cause of all such scandalous abuses, in various departments of the state, as have in other countries alienated the subject from the sovereign, and ultimately proved the downfall of the state.

“That, therefore, this meeting, anxious alike for the preservation of His Majesty’s throne and legitimate authority; for the restoration of the rights and liberties bequeathed them by the wisdom, the fortitude, and the valour of their forefathers, hold it a duty which they owe to their sovereign and his successors, to themselves and to their children, and to the safety, happiness, and renown of their country, to declare their decided opinion and conviction, that no change for the better can be reasonably expected without such a Reform in the Commons’ House of Parliament, as shall make that house in reality, as well as in name, the representative of the people, and not an instrument in the hands of a minister. And we further declare, that, from the proof we have always had of His Majesty’s love for his people, we have full confidence in his Royal support and protection in our constitutional efforts against a faction, not less hostile to the true dignity and just prerogatives of His Majesty’s throne, than they are to the interest and feelings of his faithful, suffering, and insulted people.

“That Henry Penruddock Wyndham and Richard Long, Esquires, the representatives of this county, have, by their late conduct in Parliament, proved themselves undeserving the confidence of their constituents, and of the future support of this county.

“Resolved unanimously, That the thanks of this meeting be given to the High Sheriff, for calling the same, and for his impartial conduct in the chair.”

This being the first public meeting which, within the memory of man, was ever held in this county for any other purpose but that of an election; and this meeting being called by a requisition of the yeomanry of the county, without the names or influence of either of the factions of Whigs or Tories; and these resolutions being also proposed by me, and carried most triumphantly, by an immense majority, I have thought proper to record them, at full length, in the pages of my Memoirs. Mr. Cobbett, who attended the meeting, expressed himself in language of very high approbation, as to the manner in which the proceedings were conducted. This might truly be called the triumph of the people over faction, and we celebrated it by dining together at the Three Swans Inn. An excellent short-hand writer, of the name of Willett, attended our meeting, and he also had attended all the county meetings held at that time, upon this very important question, an account of which proceedings was given exclusively in the Statesman newspaper, of which he was the proprietor, and by whose means that paper was established.

From this period I may date the commencement of my political intimacy with Mr. Cobbett, who, in his next Register, spoke in very exulting terms of the respectability and good order of our meeting, and the great unanimity with which the Resolutions were passed. This was on the 17th May, 1809–eleven years after, on the 17th May, 1820, I passed by Salisbury on my road to this Bastile. I had long been a staunch advocate for a Reform in the representation of the Commons’ House of Parliament; but the infamous practices which had been developed by Mr. Madocks, and the rejection, by a large majority, of his motion for an inquiry into those disgraceful practices, so thoroughly rooted in me a conviction of the absolute necessity of such a Reform, that I came to a determination within myself, never to cease from my endeavours to obtain it; being perfectly satisfied that, without an effectual and Radical Reform in the House of Commons, the boasted Constitution of England would soon become a mere mockery, and the scoff instead of the envy and admiration of surrounding States.

For the same reason that I insert the foregoing Resolutions, passed at the County Meeting for Wiltshire, I will now insert the charge made by Mr. Madocks, in the Honourable House, on the 11th of May, 1809. Mr. Cobbett observed, in his Register of the 20th of May following, that “It ought to be printed “in all shapes and sizes; and be perpetuated in all the ways in which any act can be perpetuated. A concise statement of the _charge_ and the _decision_ should have a place in all the Almanacks; all the printed Memorandum Books; in Court Calendars; Books of Roads; and I see no harm in its having a place upon a spare leaf in the Books of Common Prayer. It should be framed and glazed; and hung up in Inns, Town Halls, Courts of Justice, Market Places, and, in short, the eye of every human creature should be, if possible, constantly fixed upon it.” I will, therefore, as far as I have the means, hand down the charge and the decision, by recording it in my Memoirs, for the benefit of my young readers, who are not old enough to remember the sensation which it excited at the time, as well as for the information of those who shall come hereafter. The charge, in Mr. Madocks’s own words, was this: “I affirm that Mr. Dick purchased a seat in the House of Commons, for the Borough of Cashel, through the agency of the Honourable Henry Wellesley, who acted for and on behalf of the Treasury; that, upon a recent question, of the last importance, when Mr. Dick had determined to vote according to his conscience, the Noble “LORD CASTLEREAGH did intimate to that Gentleman, the necessity of _his either voting with the Government, or resigning his seat in that House;_ and that Mr. Dick, sooner than vote against principle, did make choice of the latter alternative, and vacate his seat accordingly. To this transaction I charge the Right Honourable Gentleman, MR. PERCEVAL, _as being privy, and having connived at it._ THIS I WILL ENGAGE TO PROVE BY WITNESSES AT YOUR BAR, if the House will give me leave to call them.” The Honourable Member, after making an eloquent and forcible appeal to the House, _moved for an inquiry._ The Chancellor of the Exchequer, (Mr. Perceval) addressed the House, and humbly declared that, “whether at _such a time,_ it would be well to warrant such a species of charges, as merely introductory to the agitation of the great question of Reform, he left to the House to determine:” he then made his bow and retired. Lord Castlereagh did the same. Mr. Madocks then explicitly moved, that the said charge against the Right Honourable Spencer Perceval, and Lord Viscount Castlereagh, should be heard at the bar on Monday next. LORD MILTON said, “he would oppose the motion, if he thought it would tend to promote the question of Parliamentary Reform. But, although he would vote for the motion in part, still in whatever way it was decided, _he would not think one jot the worse of either of the Right Honourable Gentlemen accused, or that they were in any degree more criminal than all former Governments.”_ Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, in supporting the motion, said, “if the House refused to inquire into the transaction, or if any Gentleman within its walls contended these practices formed part of the Constitution, then he must say that Buonaparte had a “better ally within their walls than he had any where else.” MR. TIERNEY opposed the motion, and said, _”it would be great injustice to render a few individuals the victims of a system which did not commence with them.”_ MR. WHITBREAD manfully supported the motion, and said, _”if such a case as this were overlooked, the House might as well, in his opinion, expunge its Journals, burn its Statutes, and blot out the Constitution.”_ MR. PONSONBY, in opposing the motion, said, _”he would appeal to all who heard him, whether many seats were not sold, and that being NOTORIOUS, he never could persuade himself to take advantage of such a circumstance in a political adversary, for the purpose of running him down.”_ LORD FOLKESTONE warmly supported the motion, and said, _”that resisting inquiry only served to strengthen the influence and extend the limits of suspicion, by comprehending all those who connected themselves with such resistance.”_ MR. WINDHAM Opposed the motion, and in the following words impudently justified the practice. He affirmed that _”these things were, in fact, so interwoven with the Constitution, and that Constitution itself was such a complicated system, that no wise statesman would venture to tear them out, lest he should take out something very valuable along with them.”_ MR. CANNING called upon the House _”to make a stand THAT NIGHT, against the encroachments of the factious. To-night it was summoned to make an immolation of TWO upon his side of the House, and perhaps, if successful now, it would on the morrow be summoned to sacrifice two stately victims from the other side.”_ Sing Tantararara, Rogues all!!! The House divided, and the question was taken upon Mr. Madocks’s motion FOR AN INQUIRY into the matter, when EIGHTY-FIVE members voted for the motion, and THREE HUNDRED AND TEN members voted against all inquiry–Majority against inquiry, TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE. Such was the _charge,_ and such was the _result._

After having read the above, will any honest man say, that a Reform in the House of Commons is not necessary? It was this memorable transaction to which I alluded, in the resolutions that I proposed, and which were unanimously adopted at the County Meeting at Salisbury; and, by being the principal, or, I may say, the sole cause of such meeting being called, I rendered myself so completely obnoxious to the Government, that every means were put in practice by their agents and underlings, to annoy, perplex, and harrass me; amongst which number the _stock purse_ combination took the most prominent part.

At the Michaelmas Sessions 1809, as I have before stated, a Bill of Indictment was found against me, for an assault upon Stone, the ruffian gamekeeper of John Benett, Esq. of Pyt House, which indictment was moved by a writ of _Certiorari,_ into the Court of King’s Bench. Michael Hicks Beach had also commenced an action against me, in the name of Mr. Jenner, one of his tenants, for a trespass, in following Colonel Thornton’s stag hounds over a portion of his property, after I had received a notice, warning me off. Both the indictment and the action were to be tried at the ensuing Spring Assizes, to be holden at Salisbury, in March, 1810.

The Attorney-General had, in the mean time, moved for, and obtained a Criminal Information against Mr. Cobbett, for an article which he inserted in his Register, on the 1st of July, 1809, upon the subject of flogging the Local Militia in the Isle of Ely. The account of this flogging was published in the Courier newspaper, on the 24th of June, which account, as follows, was taken by Mr. Cobbett as his motto: “The mutiny amongst the LOCAL MILITIA, which broke out at Ely, was fortunately suppressed on Wednesday, by the arrival of four squadrons of the GERMAN LEGION CAVALRY from Bury, under the command of General Auckland. Five of the ring-leaders were tried by a Court Martial, and sentenced to receive five hundred lashes each; part of which punishment they received on Wednesday, and a part was remitted. A stoppage for their knapsacks was the ground of complaint which excited the mutinous spirit, which occasioned the men to surround their officers and demand what they deem their arrears. The first division of the German Legion halted yesterday at Newmarket, on their return to Bury.” This transaction of German soldiers superintending the flogging of English Local Militia-men, who were scarcely to be called soldiers, and who were, indeed, only one remove from the volunteers, caused a considerable sensation throughout the country, and Mr. Cobbett wrote a spirited article in his Register, in which he indignantly expressed the natural feeling of an Englishman, upon hearing that German troops were employed for such a purpose. This publication was seized with avidity by the Attorney-General, Sir Vicary Gibbs, who not only moved for a Criminal Information against Mr. Cobbett, the author, but also against his printer and publisher.

To make the young reader completely acquainted with the subject, it is necessary here to observe, that some time previous to this, a large body of German troops, called the German Legion, had been introduced into the country, by a vote of the faithful guardians of the people’s rights and liberties, contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and in direct violation of the Act of Settlement. The admitting of these German troops excited strong suspicions in the breast of every friend to freedom, and every lover of the Constitution; and their being employed in such a service as that of superintending the flogging of Englishmen, was a most disgusting and revolting sight, which was contemplated with feelings of the utmost abhorrence by every man who had the least regard for the honour of his country or the character of his countrymen.

The fact was, that the Government had placed arms in the hands of so many volunteers and local militia-men, that they became alarmed at the power which they had themselves created; and these whiskered German troops were, therefore, called in for the purpose of keeping them in subjection. So that the Ministers took care to have plenty of German troops, who, in conjunction with the Irish regiments of militia, were to watch over the movements of the English, particularly those newly raised volunteers and local militia, who, in many instances, manifested rather a turbulent disposition, and an impatience of being bilked in the same manner as some of the regulars were, by their officers. An instance of this I witnessed in Bath, where the Somerset local militia were quartered. Great dissatisfaction had for a day or two been strongly expressed by the men, in consequence of a stoppage of some portion of their pay having been made for gaiters. What was the sum stopped, I forget; but I recollect that as I was walking of which the prison stood. I hastened to the spot with a friend, and we got there just in time to see the soldiers come out of the prison with their comrade, whom they had rescued, mounted upon their shoulders; and in this manner they bore him in triumph to his quarters. Some of the officers arrived, and one of them drew his sword; but he was instantly disarmed, and pelted with mud, so that, while he escaped with some difficulty, he looked more like a person just released from the pillory than like an officer who had the command of troops. During the whole evening the streets swarmed with crowds of people, and the injustice of the extortion for the men’s gaiters was the universal topic of converse amongst them. As almost every one was expressing his indignation at the conduct of the officers, and swearing that the men should not be punished, affairs bore such an alarming appearance, that dispatches were sent off, in all directions, for more troops to come to the assistance of the officers. Very prudently, there was no attempt made that night to take into custody the man who had been rescued, or those who had rescued him. As all the men concerned in the transaction were known, it was reported that they would be brought to a drum-head court-martial ear up the street, I heard some of the men inquiring at a shop the price of a pair of gaiters, which they were told by the tradesman was about half as much as had been stopped out of each man’s pay. The men had complained loudly to the non- commissioned officers, without obtaining any redress. The next day they made a stand upon parade, which was called a mutiny. The ring-leader was seized, and conveyed immediately, under a military escort, to the town prison. This circumstance ran like wildfire all over the city, and when the troops were dismissed from the parade, which was incautiously done soon after, the militia-men proceeded in a body to the gaol, and demanded their comrade; and compliance with the demand being refused, they seized a long piece of timber that lay in the street, near the prison, and this they used as a battering-ram against the door of the gaol, which they soon forced off its hinges. I was sitting in the back dining-room at my house, No. 1, Lady Mead, and I witnessed the transaction myself. About the third effort with the battering-ram, each of which was cheered by the populace, I saw the prison doors fly open, and the soldiers enter. By this time an immense multitude, consisting of many thousand persons, had assembled in Grove-street, at the bottom, early the next morning, and punished. Orders were given for their being upon the parade the next morning at four o’clock; and all attended, together with about four or five thousand of the Bath populace, resolutely swearing that the man should not be punished. There was no _German Legion_ at Bath, or blood would have been spilt. Happily the whole passed off without any bad consequences. After the offenders had been admonished, one of the officers informed the populace that they were forgiven, upon which they peaceably departed to their homes. I believe that a proper abatement was made in the price of the gaiters, and thus this affair was settled before the arrival of any other troops, many of which (Somersetshire Yeomanry) came galloping into the city in the course of the day. This year, the arms of Great Britain were, to say the least of it, very unsuccessful. The army in Spain, under Sir John Moore, made a very inglorious retreat, or rather flight, before the French troops, which, after being continued for two hundred and fifty miles, ended in the battle of Corunna. In that battle the English Commander fell, and the remains of the army, after having sustained immense loss, were compelled to embark on board their fleet; not less than six thousand troops having been sacrificed upon the occasion. On the 27th of January, the French entered Ferrol, and took seven sail of the line; Saragossa also surrendered to their arms. In May there was a revolution in Sweden, and Gustavus the Fourth, one of the legitimate race of old kings, was deposed. War was again declared by Austria against France. In April, the English fleet, under Lord Cochrane, destroyed four sail of the line in Basque Roads. On the 13th of May, the French entered Vienna. Russia also declared war against Austria. Buonaparte beat the Austrians in various battles, and effected the passage of the Danube in July, and finished the campaign by a total defeat of the Austrian army at the battle of Wagram; upon which the Emperor Francis was obliged to sue for an armistice. It was granted by Napoleon, although the prostrate legitimate was, with his whole dominions, completely in the power of the French Emperor. Thus did Napoleon show him that mercy which the deadly Austrian had not the magnanimity or the honour to return when Napoleon had fallen into misfortune. This was one of Napoleon’s greatest faults; he appeared to delight in conquering and subduing tyrants, and then reinstating them on their thrones, that he might conquer them again. This is one of the greatest stains upon his character. He had it in his power to exterminate the tyrants of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, and by that means to bring the English Government to a sense of its duty to the people of England. This he failed to do, and his reward was perpetual imprisonment, lingering torture, and a premature death, inflicted upon him by the very same sovereigns that he had spared from annihilation. The old proverb, of “Save a thief from the gallows and he will cut your throat,” was never more truly verified than in this instance.

On the 27th of July, the Battle of Talavera was fought between the English and the French, in which Sir Arthur Wellesley pompously claimed a victory, although he and his whole army retreated before day-break the next morning, _leaving the whole of the sick and wounded behind them_. Such was the rapidity of this retreat, that they scarcely ever stopped to refresh themselves, till they had passed the boundaries of the Spanish dominions, and entered into Portugal.–Notwithstanding all this, it was trumpeted forth in all the ministerial papers that Sir Arthur Wellesley had gained a GREAT VICTORY; and, to complete the humbug, the Ministers carried the hoax so far as to create the said Sir Arthur Wellesley either Baron or Viscount TALAVERA! This was the way in which the English Ministry gulled John Bull; and as John swallowed this title so readily, from that time I have designated, and I shall always designate him, by the title of JOHN GULL, instead of John Bull; GULL being a most appropriate title, with a very significant and truly characteristic meaning.

Blake’s army from Valentia was also at this period completely dispersed. The English Ministry likewise sent out two expeditions this year, both of which ended in defeat and disgrace. One was dispatched from Sicily to the South of Italy, and the other was the memorable and fatal expedition to Walcheren, commanded by the renowned Lord Chatham, the elder brother of Pitt, who, from his fondness for lying in bed, had obtained the nick name of the _late_ Lord Chatham. This was a most calamitous undertaking, and reflected the highest disgrace upon the characters of those who planned it, as well as of those who were selected to carry it into execution. I recollect that at the time it was confidently asserted that the redoubtable Commander, Lord Chatham, spent three parts of his time in bed; at all events, he proved to be a most unsuccessful, if not a sleepy commander. The famous city-gormandizer, Sir William Curtis, accompanied this expedition, thus making one, as it were, of a party of pleasure, while, from exhaustion and disease, the troops were perishing in the pestilential swamps of the country. In fact, this proved a mere wanton sacrifice of British treasure and British blood.

In consequence of these disasters, there arose such great dissentions and heart-burnings in the British Cabinet, that at length it produced a duel between two of its most conspicuous members, Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning, in which Mr. Canning was badly wounded. In better times, the dispute possibly would perhaps have been settled much more conformably with the principles of justice, by both of them being impeached for their mal-administration, and their wanton and lavish waste of the best blood and treasure of their country.

In September the new theatre at Covent-Garden was opened; and, in consequence of the managers having increased the prices, a riot commenced, which continued night after night for nearly three months. It was universally known by the name of “the O. P. row;” that was, a contention for _old prices_, by the audience, and a determined struggle on the part of the managers, to enforce and continue the new and increased prices. I may be asked by some, “what has this to do with your Memoirs, or with the political history of the times”? I answer, it has nothing to do with my Memoirs, as I was not in London during the whole of the row; but I shall by and by show, that it had a great deal more to do with political matters, or rather with a _political party,_ than was at the time imagined, or than is even now suspected. I believe that, in the first instance, the spontaneous expression of public opinion was the cause of the row which took place; but I _know_ that it was afterwards taken under the special protection of that August body, the WESTMINSTER RUMP, by whom the regular, well-organised plan for the interruption of the performance, was framed and constantly kept up. It will be remembered that my worthy friend, Henry Clifford, took an active and conspicuous part in these proceedings. Mr. Clifford was a warm partizan of Sir Francis Burdett, and, although he possessed too noble a soul to belong regularly to such an illiberal faction as that of the Rump, yet, as they had not then discovered the _cloven-foot_ so unblushingly as they have since done, he was one of the number who frequently joined in their deliberations. This may, in some measure, account for their endeavoring to keep up the semblance of impartiality and fair-play, while he had any thing to do with them. Those who can recollect the circumstances, will also recollect, that Mr. Cowlam took a very prominent part in the row; and poor Sam Miller, the shoemaker, in Skinner-street, was another staunch attend ant at all the O. P. deliberations. Cowlam was the man who seconded the nomination of Sir Francis Burdett, when the baronet was first proposed for Westminster; at the time that Currier Adams, of Drury-lane, slunk from the office of seconder, after having previously pledged himself to undertake it. Like Falstaff, however, in this point, though not in wit, Adams has, ever since poor Cowlam’s death, had the meanness to claim the honour which belongs to another. Cowlam also rode the white horse, as the 11 emblem of purity,” at the epoch of the first chairing; which unlucky animal _Mister Cleary_ has since mounted! These, together with others of the Rump, held their meetings regularly every day, as well as every night after the performance was over. At length, when their resources were nearly exhausted (which, by the bye, I understood were furnished by a certain Baronet), and they were upon the point of retiring from the contest, poor Miller hit upon the expedient of the O.P. dinner, which was held at the Crown and Anchor; at which dinner Mr. John Kemble attended, and an arrangement and compromise was made between him and Henry Clifford; the one on the part of the theatre, and the other on the part of the public. Thus ended this mighty struggle, which, at times, bore a very alarming appearance, and was the subject of universal interest throughout the country. I have no doubt but that, under the rose, the managers of the theatre encouraged the proceeding, as it filled their coffers, there being a bumper, that is to say, a full house, almost every night. The cockneys enjoyed the fun, and every stranger who came to London must go to Covent-Garden, one night at least, to “see the row,” and to carry an account of it into the country.

On the 25th of October a Jubilee was held, to celebrate His Majesty’s entering the fiftieth year of his reign. Upon this occasion a pardon was issued to all deserters, and a great number of Crown debtors were discharged from prison.

The year 1810 commenced, by the Citizens of London, in Common-Hall assembled, having voted a petition to be presented to the King. The Sheriffs and City Remembrancer had waited upon the Secretary of State (Marquis Wellesley), to ascertain when it would be His Majesty’s pleasure to receive it. Upon which the Noble Secretary informed them, that he would take His Majesty’s pleasure upon the subject; and at the following levee he let them know, that it was His Majesty’s pleasure that it should be presented through the Secretary of State.

Since the BRUNSWICKS came to the throne of England, this was the first instance of a petition agreed to at a Common-Hall being refused to be received in person by the King.

Alderman Wood, who was one of the Sheriffs, requested that he might be admitted to a private audience of the King. This was refused; and the Sheriffs having called another Common-Hall, they laid the report of the affair before the assembled livery, who passed a series of spirited resolutions, asserting their right to deliver their petitions to the King on the throne, and instructing their representatives to move an address in Parliament, to be presented to the King, to inquire into the violation of the right of petitioning. Mr. Sheriff Wood received an unanimous vote of thanks from the Common-Hall; while the conduct of his colleague, Atkins, evinced his character, and was a pretty faithful index of his future subserviency to the “powers that be.” Petitions were now presented to the King, not only from the city of London, but from Berkshire, and other parts, calling for an inquiry into the disgraceful Walcheren expedition. When Parliament met, the war in Spain and the expedition to Flushing were warmly canvassed; but, of course, the Ministers carried every question with a high hand and large majorities, and the business ended in a vote approving of the conduct of Ministers, in planning and executing that disgraceful and costly expedition.

Mr. Perceval, an insignificant lawyer, now suddenly became First Lord of the Treasury, and Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the astonishment of the whole nation. During the Walcheren inquiry the debates ran very high in the House of Commons, and a member, Mr. Charles Yorke, cleared the gallery of the strangers. This act being discussed in a debating society, Mr. John Gale Jones, who was acting as the president, was committed to Newgate, by a Speaker’s warrant, for having been guilty of a breach of privilege. This proceeding drew from Sir Francis Burdett an address to his constituents, which was a very able and spirited composition. It was also voted to be a breach of privilege, and a libel upon the House, and the Speaker’s warrant was issued for the apprehension and committal of the Honourable Baronet to the Tower. Great riots took place in London, which lasted two days, in consequence of Sir Francis Burdett resisting the execution of this warrant, and barricading the doors and windows of his house in Piccadilly. At length, however, he was taken to the Tower under military escort: on their return from the Tower the military were hissed and pelted, upon which they fired on the people, and three men were killed. The coroner’s inquest sat upon the bodies, and in two of the cases brought in a verdict of wilful murder, and in the third, a verdict of _justifiable homicide_. As in a late instance, however, the murderers were allowed to remain not only unpunished but untried.

Sir Francis Burdett was at this time the most popular man in England, and he was idolized by every lover of freedom in the united kingdom. In his resistance to the illegal warrant, he had barricadoed his house, into which the Serjeant at Arms had made several unsuccessful attempts to gain admission; and it was expected that the latter would attempt a forcible entry, as he had received positive orders from the House to execute his warrant by force. I shall here relate an anecdote on the subject, which came to my knowledge soon afterwards. A Noble Lord, a gallant naval officer, and M.P. called upon the Baronet one morning, attended by a friend, in a coach, out of which a cask was handed into the Baronet’s house; and, as a friend, he was admitted of course by old John, the porter. Upon his Lordship’s entering the Baronet’s room, he communicated his plan for the defence of the castle, in case any attempt should be made to effect a violent entry. He very deliberately proposed to undermine the foundation of the front wall, and deposit there a cask of gun-powder, which he had brought with him for the purpose, so that he might blow the invaders to the devil, in case they should attempt anything like a forcible entry. At this proposal, which was made with every appearance of sincerity, Sir Francis Burdett started, and answered that he had not any intention of resistance any farther than trying the question, to see whether they would break open the house or not. The gallant tar then retired, apparently very much disconcerted, and he was particularly requested to take away with him the cask of gun-powder, which he did immediately. The next morning the Serjeant at Arms and his attendants broke open a window-shutter in the front area, entered without the least resistance, and conveyed their prisoner to the Tower. While these things were going on in London, I had been busily engaged in the country, defending myself in the Courts of Law at the assizes for the county of Wilts, which were held at Salisbury. As the indictment preferred against me by John Benett, Esq. on the part of his gamekeeper, Stone, was intended to be made a serious charge against me, I was prevailed upon to confide the conducting of my defence to counsel. Much against my own inclination and judgment, did I give up this point, to oblige my friends, who were most earnest in their solicitations upon the subject. Mr. Burroughs (the present Judge) and Mr. Casberd, were employed for the prosecution; and I at length suffered my attorney to give a brief to Mr. Sergeant Pell. The cause was called on, and Stone positively swore to the assault, which he declared had deprived him of his senses, and that he had not been well since. Another person, who never saw one atom of the transaction, and who was never near the place till it was all over, swore to the same facts, and confirmed Stone’s evidence; and although I knew this fellow was swearing falsely, and though I pointed the fact out to Sergeant Pell, that the witness was not near the place, yet he was so alarmed, or pretended to be so alarmed at the case, that I could not prevail upon him to cross-examine the witness. The next witness who was called swore that he was a surgeon, that he lived at Amesbury, the adjoining town; that he had attended Stone, whose life had been in danger; that Stone had been greatly and seriously injured in his health; and that, in his opinion, he would never recover it. This appeared to stagger and confound my counsel more than ever, and I could not get him to ask the man a single question; although it struck me that this witness was grossly perjured. Well! Mr. Sergeant Pell made what he called a speech, which, in my opinion, admitted a great deal more than was necessary. My friend, Mr. John Oaks, was then called, who positively swore that the ruffian, Stone, had assaulted me first, by striking me and nearly pulling me off my horse, without any provocation whatever. My friend, however, who had never given evidence in a court of justice before, was a very awkward, hesitating witness, and he received a very severe cross-examination from Mr. Burroughs. Baron Graham summed up, and charged the Jury that I had, by my own showing, been guilty of an assault. He had, he said, no doubt but the man Stone had struck me first, as sworn by Mr. Oaks; but he thought that I had given the man more than a sufficient quantum of beating in retaliation, as I had struck him three times: if it had been proved that I had only struck him once, in return for the blow he gave me, he should have charged the Jury to acquit me; but, as it was, they must find me guilty of the assault. He, however, totally acquitted me of that with which I was charged by the counsel against me, namely, of having acted with inhumanity and cruelty. The Jury, of course, gave a verdict of guilty; and the Baron took my word that I would attend in the Court of King’s Bench, in the next term, to receive judgment.

The next day was fixed for trying the action which Michael Hicks Beach had commenced against me, for a trespass. A similar attempt was made, by my attorney and my friends, to induce me to leave the conducting of any cause to counsel. Little Frederick Williams, the barrister, was employed, or he volunteered his services, to prevail upon my family to persuade me to leave my defence to Mr. Sergeant Pell. I heard all that they had to say, but I resolutely resisted all their intreaties; and declared that I would not only defend myself, but that, as long as I lived, I would never employ a counsel. I would, I told them, endeavour to manage my own affairs in the Courts, let what would happen. To this resolution I have ever since most inflexibly adhered; and I am sure that I shall continue to do so as long as I have strength and power of utterance. I believe that Mr. Erskine once observed, that “a man who pleaded his own cause, had a fool for an advocate.” This was reported to me; and my answer was, “that it might be very true, but I had a great consolation in knowing that I had not a rogue for a counsel.”

The cause was at length called on; and as it was known that I intended to plead my own cause, it excited great interest, and the Court was crowded to excess. Mr. Burroughs opened the case against me, in a very vindictive speech, in which he travelled widely out of the course to find matter to attack me. The Judge ought, in strictness, to have stopped him; but I believe the worthy Baron (Graham) who presided, gave me credit for being quite a match for Mr. Counsellor Burroughs, and therefore it was that he suffered him to proceed. After having proved that notice not to go upon the lands of the said Hicks Beach had been served upon me, Burroughs called as his first witness a fox-hunting parson, of the name of Williams, who was the Curate of Netheravon, and dubbed chaplain to the squire. The clerical witness proved the trespass, that I had, in following Colonel Thornton’s fox-hounds, in company with the rest of the sportsmen who were out, ridden over a part of the land belonging to Beach, and in the occupation of Farmer Jenner; which land I had received notice not to trespass upon. This toad-eating parson I knew well, and I was well acquainted with his occupation; which was literally that of whipper-in to the squire’s hounds. He was as much at the squire’s beck and command as one of his menial servants in fact, I had often seen him obey such orders as no servant would have obeyed. I have heard Mr. Beach, when a hound skirted, halloo out, “d— my blood, Williams, don’t you see that bound! flog him in, or cut his liver out,” &c. &c. Then his reverence would ride like the very devil; and this was such a common thing, that I have heard the huntsman order him about in the same way. I have heard the latter say, “d— it, Sir, why do you not ride and head the hounds?” and he has frequently observed to me, and other sportsmen, “By G-d, that d—-d Parson stuffs himself so at master’s table, that he is got as lazy as a cur.” I therefore did not fail to give this reverend sporting witness a pretty severe cross- examination, although the Baron tried hard to protect him. I made him confess, upon oath, that he was the time-serving tool which I have above described; and all that I wanted I drew out of _him_, in order to save myself the inconvenience of calling any witness of my own; by which means I prevented any rejoinder to my reply to the famous speech of Counsellor Burroughs. He, the witness, admitted, that the hind that was named “Mrs. Clark,” was turned out several miles from the land of Mr. Beach, and that she accidentally ran that way; that Mr. Beach himself was one of the horsemen who joined in the chace; that he never complained of my riding over his tenant’s farm; and that, during the chace, the said Squire Beach had actually _rode nearly a mile over one of my farms_, without any interruption from me.

Upon these facts I grounded my defence, and in a speech which occupied about an hour, to which great attention was paid by the Judge, I urged the Jury to consider their oath, and acquit me of any wilful trespass. In the course of this speech I replied to the observations which fell from the learned counsel, and took occasion to retort upon him with some severity, with respect to those points which he had so unfairly introduced in his speech. He rose and claimed the protection of the Court, and trusted that his Lordship would not sit there and hear him attacked in such a way. Baron Graham smiled, and very coolly replied, “Brother Burroughs, I am very sorry that _you_ travelled so much out of the record; although I was loath to interrupt you, yet I assure you it was very painful for me to hear it; but, as _you_ did so, I should ill perform my duty if I were to attempt to prevent the gentleman who is the defendant from repelling those assertions which you made, of which you offered no proof, and for which, by the shewing of your own witness, there was no foundation; therefore, Brother Burroughs, I must beg that you will not interrupt Mr. Hunt, but suffer him to proceed–Go on, Mr. Hunt.” Mr. Burroughs jumped up in a passion, and said, in a peevish, angry tone, “Well, my Lord, if you do not choose to protect me, you will not, at any rate, compel me to stay in Court to hear myself abused;” and then, tucking his gown under his arm, he made a hasty retreat out of the Court, foaming and muttering all the way to his lodgings.

The worthy Baron summed up strongly for a verdict for the defendant, broadly stating that there was no pretension to say that it was a wilful trespass; and adding, after having recapitulated most of the arguments which I had urged in my speech, that he was much more inclined to believe it to be a malicious and frivolous action, than he was to say that it was a wilful trespass. I gave the said Michael Hicks Beach a pretty sound dressing, which the Baron not only recapitulated and concurred in, but he also gave him some very wholesome advice, and a very severe admonition.

It was an “especial jury” of brother magistrates and brother game- preservers; and it is, therefore, not wonderful that they returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with a shilling damages; which, in a wilful trespass, was always held to carry costs, provided the Judge would _certify_. Mr. Sergeant Lens now rose, and informed the Judge, that his Brother Burroughs, before he left the Court, had requested him to apply to his Lordship to “certify.” The Baron pretended not to hear him; the Sergeant repeated the application in a louder voice; and Baron Graham then replied, “it is not necessary for me to certify in Court, I believe, Brother Lens?” “Yes, my Lord,” said Lens, “I never knew a Judge refuse to do so, upon a verdict of trespass after notice.” “Brother Lens! Brother Lens!” retorted the Baron, “I do not feel justified in my own mind to certify, upon my oath, that this was a wilful trespass, although the Jury have returned a verdict, upon their oath, that it is so; at all events I shall not certify in Court; I shall take time to consider of it.”

Baron Graham never certified to this hour, and my vindictive opponent had to pay his own costs, which, I understand, amounted to upwards of eighty pounds. This is an instance of the upright inflexible honesty of Baron Graham; and this is the Judge, I understand, who, together with Baron Wood, are about to be laid upon the shelf–and a precious pair of tools we shall have in their place, I’ll warrant you!

On the next day, I enclosed a shilling in a letter to Squire Beach, admonishing him, in the language of the worthy Judge, and advising him to prepare for war, for I was determined upon retaliation. Unfortunately for me, my attorney was a most artful, plausible, cunning fellow; and at the same time that he openly professed to advise me not to go to law, he insidiously held out the most luring baits to draw me into the meshes of his net, in which he was too successful. I was a rare pidgeon, and he never failed to pluck me well.

I kept my word with Mr. Beach, and in a few days I had an information laid against his whipper-in Parson, and one of his tenants, Thomas Horne, for sporting, they not being qualified; and as soon as they were convicted in the penalties, I followed it up by commencing an action against each of them for a similar offence. I also served in the same way another fellow, who was a friend of Beach’s, one Edmond Stegg, of Chisenbury; in all of which suits I got a verdict; and, to be even with him, I brought his second son, William Beach, before a bench of Magistrates, to make him prove his qualification; which he at length did, with considerable difficulty and expense. The famous Richard Messiter, an attorney, of Wincanton, came all the way from that place in a chaise as a witness; and John Ward, an attorney, of Marlborough, attended as another witness; so that this chap got out of the scrape at an expense to his father of about fifty pounds. Messiter, who was called at that time _honest Dick Messiter_, swore that he had advised his father to make a conveyance of an estate to him, to qualify him, the deed of which was executed only the day before the action was commenced against him. The Squire was also obliged to qualify his whipper-in Parson, which he did by procuring for him a living; so that it is an ill