otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass
upon him nor condemn him, but by lawful
judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
We will sell to no man, we will not deny or
defer to any man either justice or right."

"Lawful judgment of his peers"? That was
a blow at ministers, who at the smallest caprice
were then suspending the Habeas Corpus.
"Defer to any man"? Evidently a malicious sneer at
the wise but not very prompt lord chancellor.

Sir Francis contended, with passionate
fervour, that unless this limitless privilege of
parliament was at once resisted, it was high time to
withdraw all pretensions to those liberties which
were won by our forefathers. Was this liberty
henceforward to lay at the absolute mercy of a
part of our fellow-subjects, collected together by
means which it was not necessary for him to
describe. " Of what avail," he cried, " were
right and franchises, if any citizen was liable
at any time to be seized and thrown into prison,
and without trial and without oath made, at
the will of a certain set of persons, beyond
whom there was no appeal, and who had the
power of prolonging that imprisonment even
to the very limits of life. If we abandon the
Charta, the bright days of England's glory will
set in the night of her disgrace."

As this denunciatory letter was the direct
cause of the subsequent riot, it is here necessary
to fully enter into the arguments of Sir Francis.
The following were his chief syllogisms:

"That proceedings upon bare suggestions
were contrary to Magna Charta.

"That Mr. Jones had been called upon to
criminate himself, contrary to common sense and
every principle and law.

"That the House of Commons had
ascertained the facts without evidence, being
incapable of administering an oath.

"That they had previously determined the
guilt without appealing to any law.

"That they had delivered judgment without
trial.

"That they had passed a sentence of
indefinite imprisonment contrary to law.

"That the Speaker had issued a warrant of
commitment, illegal in the gross and in all its
details; no lawful authority, no lawful cause,
no lawful conclusion, and, above all, wanting
that essential stamp of law — a seal of office."

These logical deductions Sir Francis
strengthened by a learned epitome of almost all
the claims of privilege ever made, justly or
unjustly, by the House of Commons.

In another part, of his letter, this bold and
generous-hearted man erected another battery
of the following incontrovertible syllogisms:

According to Lord Coke, no court that
cannot hold plea of debt or damage to the amount
of forty shillings is a court of record.

The House of Commons can hold no such
plea.

Therefore it is not a court of record, and
can neither fine nor imprison.

The letter concluded by quoting some sound
remarks, full of vigorous common sense, by that
brave old Whig, Sir Robert Walpole, when
Steele (honest Richard) had been brought up for
a pamphlet denouncing the Tory ministers of
Queen Anne; but Sir Robert said, with the
full-blown audacity of his nature :

"Why should the author be answerable in
parliament for the things which he writes in his
private capacity? And if he be punishable by
law, why is he not left to the law? By this
mode of proceeding, parliament, which used to
be the scourge of evil ministers, is made by
ministers the scourge of the subject. The
liberty of the press is unrestrained; how then
shall a part of the legislature dare to punish
that as a crime which is not declared to be so by
any law framed by the whole?"

Mr. Sheridan and Sir Francis had in vain
moved for the release of Gale Jones, on the
plea of his contrition, but only thirteen members
roted with them, while one hundred and fifty-
three voted against them.

The letter in Cobbett's paper fell on the
House of Parliament like a bomb-shell; it seemed
all but to blow the Speaker and the
woolsack into the air. To be called borough-
mongers, and told the privileges of the House
were against Magna Charta, was sacrilege. The
greater the truth, the greater the libel, every one
knows. Mr. Lethbridge at once brought the letter
under the notice of the enraged House. Burdett
declared that he never contemplated any breach
of privilege; and that he would stand the issue.
"He withdrew; and Mr. Lethbridge moved two
resolutions, declaring the letter a scandalous
libel, and that Sir Francis Burdett, in
authorising its publication, had been guilty of a
violation of the privileges of the House. After
discussion and adjournments, the resolutions
were agreed to at half-past seven in the morning
of Friday, the 6th of April, 1810; and a vote
was taken on the question, whether Sir Francis
Burdett should be reprimanded in his place or
committed to the Tower. His committal to
the Tower was decided on by a majority of
thirty-eight in a house of three hundred and
forty-two members. The Speaker signed the
warrant at half-past eight that spring morning,
and ordered its execution before ten o'clock.
The serjeant-at-arms, however, was polite, and
thought it desirable to give notice to the
culprit."

As soon as the division was known, Mr.
Jones Burdett and Mr. Roger O'Connor set
off in a post-chaise to Wimbledon to inform Sir
Francis. The undaunted champion of popular
right instantly mounted his horse and rode back
to his house in Piccadilly, rather proud of the
fight that he had begun. On his hall table he
found the first missile from the enemy — a quiet
letter from Mr. Colman, the serjeant-at-arms,
announcing the Speaker's warrant, begging to
know when he might wait on Sir Francis, and
assuring him that he wished to show the utmost
respect. P.S. — If Sir Francis preferred to take
his horse and ride alone to the Tower he would
meet him there quietly. Days of red axes and
butts of Malmsey! here was a way of treating