THE NATI l N —• • - Jones Burdett, and others of the family of Sir Francis; all'of whom proved the breaking and entering the dwelling, and the capture of Sir Francis, and his conveyance to the Tower. These witnesses were severally cross-examined by The Atssrneg-General, who then addl.' ssed the Court and Jury on the part of the defendant. He said, they had only one plsin unmixed fact to try, namely, whether the Serjeant at Arms atiending the House of Commons bad wantonly and im properly carried a large military force to the house of Sir Fran cis Burdett, and whether, inthe execution of the warrant issued by the Speaker, by order of the House, his object was to secure the preservation 'of the public peace with that force, and whe ther that force was necessary and proper for the purpose of exc.- outing the warrant . cotnmitted to his charge. He contended, that it was necessary and proper, because it was no answer to show, that he might have carried that warrant into execution with a less force; but because the public peace was to be pre served, the public peace was not to be risked, and because every Officer going to execute a legal process where he expects resist ance, ought to have the peace of his Majesty's subjects always in his view. There was no doubt he was bound to execute the warrant of the House of Commons, and all persons were justi fied in rendering him assistanco. The Jury would hear from their Lordships that the duty of the Serjeant did not consist merely in laying his hands upon the prisoner ; no, that duty con tinued until his prisoner is safely lodged in that custody to which he had been consigned by the order of the Howe of Commons, and it was as much his duty to provide a safe conveyance fur his prisoner as it was to arrest hint. The Atiorney-General then stated, that it was not the outcry of boys and old women that induced him to seek for military aid ; it was no more than a well-founded opinion of the existing danger, that convinced him that a considerable force would be necessary to repel that danger. On the Friday night, all the houses of the Niumbers who were supposed to have taken an adverse part against Sir Francis were attacked, and almost pulled down by the mob, protecting what they called the rights of Sir Francis Burdett ; a pretty strong proof of what they would du, if he had not the assistance of a military escort. On the Saturday, nothing but tumult acid disorder prevailed, and those whom he should call would say, that it was not till there was an absolute necesdty that the military were called upon, and when they did appear they were attacked in all quarters, t.ll sorts of miisile weapons were flung at them, which they patiently bore, waiting the commands of their Officers, and it was not until they were compelled by repeated insults, that they took any hostile step : they were not only pelted and thrown from their horses,, but were fired upon, and some of them fell under that fire. Under these circumstances an over powering force became necessary; without calling in such force to his aid, he could not answer for the safety of the public. If any unnecessary violence had been used, then, indeed, there might be some foundation for this action, but upon the evidence it appeared that nothing but the utmost civility and accommo dattpn prevailed. When they considered all these circumstances —when they bore in mind the force,that was collected in the streets to resist the execution of the warrant, he had no doubt they would, with the utmost satisfaction, find their verdict fur the defendant. --- - The Attorgicy-General then ca'led several witnesses to show the resistance made by Sir Francis to the warrant of Ow Speaker, and the consequent obligation that the defendant was under to introduce the soldiery. Each of these witnesses was also cross-examined by Mr. Ser jeant Shepherd, as to the point, whether or not the military were at all necessary on the occasion, and they universally an swered in the atlirm.itive. Mr. Serjcant p . ri, replied. Lord Eeerratortouoli, on summing up, observed, the ques tion the Jury had to try laid in the narrowest compass, and was as simple as could well be imagined. The privilege of the House of Commons had nothing to do with the question ; that bad already been decidA. The legality and necessity of em ploying military force had been allowed hy the plaritin '., plea ; Al he had intended to contest it, he should have den u - red. He . now, however, says, tl.e force employed was excessive, impro per, and unnecessary. That assertion was denied by the de fendant ; and that was the question for the Jury to try. What had the plaintiff to complain of ? There was no doubt whatever expressed of the necessity of the military escort to the Tqwer, The window was forced, and the house already entered by the civil power, when the soldiers who were to be the instruir.euls of conveying Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower, were admitted. They were then stationed in the hall, and did not go up stairs o, interrupt the family. What bad - they, he would a- k, to do with forcing the house ? Nothing. Though he wished it to 1 e understood, that if they had been so emOoyed, the, •Serjeant at Arms might employ any force he thought neces-iry. And, his Lordship observed, he defied the ingenuity of man to devise any employment of military less offensive to the feelings Of the indi- ASTER. victual than What had been in this ease. -- II Mr. Coleman was at all blameable, and that he was his Lordship did not hesitate to say, it was not for severity but for a contrary conduct. Had the writ been delivered to any common officer, even though it had been executed with humanity,, y e t, woul d he havemllowed four hours to intervene between his receiving it and the incar. ceration of Sir Francis Burdett ? With respect to the force employed, look to the evidence of the state of the capital at the time, and then say if Mr. Coleman would not have been highly blameable in taking a less force than he did / It was a proof of his prudence, and he was fully justified in having taken such au ovc rbearing force as prevented any attempt at resistance. The Jury without a moment's hesitation found a verdict for the defendant. The record of the cause Burdett v. Lord Moira, was theta called on, and disnaissed for want of a Jury. •' 4 , THURSDAY, JUNE 20.. ftt JUDGMENTS. • • THE KING V. TILE REV. ItORERT BLACOW. •• The d( 4, _!ndant was this day brought up for judgment, per suant to order of the Court, for a gross and scandalous libel ots Mr. Fairclough and wife, of Liverpool, the particulars of which we have reported in a former Number. After a severe repri mand from Mr. Justice Gxoss, he was sentenced to six mouths* imprisonment in the King's Bench Prison. TIIE KING V. lIUNGERFIELD. This defendant was also brought up for judgment, having been convicted of aiding and abetting four French prisoners of war to effect their escape irom this country, also fully reported in a for mer Paper. He was svntenced to two years imprisonment in his Majesty's jail of Newgate. At one o clock Lord ELLEN nortovoit sat at Nisi Fritts, when some undefended and other causes of no public interest were disposed of. I=ll.lol. SATURDAY, JUNI 22. TILE KING V. AO-All. This was an Appeal against an Order of Sessions made by the Magistrates of the City of York, for fixing a rate upon a Me thodist Meeting-house in that City. This Meeting-house, it appeared, was built by voluntary contribution in the year 1804, and Ltd not been rated until very lately. The Learned Coun sel for the Appellants contended, that under the authority of the case of the King v. Woodward, and several other ca s es of the same description, that this wasivot a profitable occupation, and therefore not rateably under the Statute. it appeared, however, thit although this Meeting-hpuse was built by voluntary con tribution, yet the Trustees let out the pews and seats at the rate of about 2.)01. per annutv ; out of this they paid 1801. a year to two Oifi , iating Ministers of the Gospel,• and the remainder went to discharge the expences of repairs, cleansing, Sexton, &c. so that upon this fact again it was contentlei that no profit arose to the 1 rustees, and therefore the Meeting-house was not rateable. • • Mr. PARK and Mr. RICHARDSON on the other hand con tended, that the case came completely within the provisions 'of the Statute of Elizabeth, as rateable occupation. Lord ELL ENaOROUGH held, that it was perfect!) , within the meaning of that Statute. In the several cases 'cited, it happened, that although those Meeting-houses were built by voluntary contribution,yet . the public were admitted gratuitously; but in this case there was positive proof of a profitable occupation, sufficient to bring ft . within the Act of Parliament ; and there fore (the other Judd, acquiescing in that opinion) -the Order of 6essioli was 4: • fumed. CIRCUIT'S. I.Ord ELLENBorsoucit and Lord Chief - Baron NIACDONATA —Hume. Lord Chief Justice AIANSFIr.LI) and Mr. Justice HEAD 11-- • •• •• • Norfolk. Mr. Justice GaosE and Mr. Baron Tlit , MPSON—Midland. Mr. Justice LAWRENCE and %Ir. Justice LE BLAbsc---Ottora. Mr. Justice Cunsa BRE and Mr. baron Woou—Northern, Mr. Baron GRAHAM and Mr. Justice EA 11. E it A few day. ago, as some men were employed in breaking • ground, for the purpose of opening a stone-quarry, on threstate of Mr. A. Large, of.Freegrove, at Lyneham, Wilts, they discn veredthe skeletons of two men, not two Itet below the surface. The frames were perfectly entire; but the bones were become somewhat soft, and easily broken. The one had a complete set of teeth; the other was defective. By the side of one was found a large case or butcher's knife, much consumed by rust; from which it was conjectured that ey were murdered.