was not a member of that fociety, but he had the highest esteem for it, on account of its uniform endea vours to procure a reform in parliament upon the principle of univerfal fuffrage and annual parliaments. There was nothing in that advertifement to which any honeft man could hesitate to fign his name. After this advertisement had been publifhed, a hand-bill from the magiftrates of Bow-ftreet was posted up, declaring fuch intended meeting to be illegal; but he apprehended fuch a declaration had not the power of making it illegal, if the meeting in itfelf was not fo. The executive committee of the correfponding fociety, who were anxious in every refpect to conform to the law, fent to the police-office, in Bow-street, to know upon what ground this meeting was declared to be illegal, but they were not informed. The meeting was held upon the 31st of July, and he would prove to the fatisfaction of the jury, that fo far from having faid or done any thing at that meeting which could be conftrued into fedition, there was not a fingle part of his conduct which would not convince them that his whole object was to make the people act peaceably, and difperfe when they were called upon fo to do. To prove that this was the tenor of his conduct, he would call a Mr. Law, a man as refpectable as any who then heard him. Mr. Ferguson then proceeded to ftate what Mr. Law would prove, but as Mr. Law. was afterwards examined, we think it unneceffary to detail the whole of it twice. During the time he was in the field, there was a rumour that the proclamation had been read in another part of the field: he made inquiry into this fact, and being in formed that it was fo, he then advifed the people to difperfe, and faid there could be no good in having thousands of good citizens butchered. Much ftrefs might be laid on the word butchered, but certainly without juftice; for he ufed it as a strong argument to induce the people to difperfe quietly. But even if, in the warmth of public fpeaking, or from the feelings that animated him at that moment, he had used a strong expreffion, it would not be fufficient to inculpate him, because the act required that they fhould be fpoken wilfully. When he ufed that expreffion, no notice of it was taken by the defendant; on the contrary, he faid, "that is right, fir, that is right, fir ; you fpeak like a man." But af terwards, when he faid, "We fhall "foon fee, citizens, whether the "magiftrates of Bow-ftreet are the "interpreters of the law of Eng. "land," the defendant immediately called out, "feize that fellow !" and his orders were obeyed. In confidering how his conduct fell within the meaning of the fedition bill, in which, for the first time, were ufed the words government and conftitution, it would be neceffary to confider the meaning of those two words. If the government and conftitution were to be feparated, and the former was to be taken to mean the king's minifters, then, indeed, there would be an end to all our liberty. Mr. F. was proceeding to put cafes in which men might find fault with minifters, when he was interrupted by Lord Kenyon, who faid, the plaintiff ought not to make his own defence the means of unneceffarily abufing others. Mr. Ferguson contended, that he was only fhewing what the confe quence quence of this act would be, if fo large an interpretation were given to it. With regard to the conftitution, which, though mentioned in this act of parliament, had never before been referred to in any fta tute, it was not so easy to defcribe it. The only thing like an act of parliament, in which the conftitution was mentioned, was the declaration of king William at the glorious period of the revolution.He fhould therefore endeavour to fhew what the conftitution was, by reading what our ancestors thought were infringements of it. [Mr. Ferguton here proceeded to read the preamble of the Bill of Rights.] "Whereas the late king James the Second, by the affiftance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and minifters, by him did endeavour to fubject and extirpate the proteftant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom: by affuming and exercising a power of difpenfing with and fufpending of laws, and the execution of the laws, without confent of a parliament: by committing and profecuting divers worthy prelates, for humbly petitioning to be excufed from concurring to the faid affumed power; by iffuing, and caufing to be executed, a commiffion under the great feal, for erecting a court, called the court of commiffion for ecclefiaftical affairs: by levying money for and to the ufe of the crown, by pretence of prerogative, for other time, and other manner, than the fame was granted by parliament: by raifing and keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, without confent of parliament; and quartering foldiers, contrary to law: by causing feveral good fubjects, being proteftants, to be difarmed, at the fame time when pa pifts were both armed and employed, contrary to law by violating the freedom of elections of members to ferve in parliament: by profecution in the court of king's bench, for matters and caufes only cognizable in parliament; and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courfes. "And whereas, of late years, partial, corrupt, and unqualified perfons have been returned and ferved on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treafon which were not freeholders and exceffive bail bath been required of perfons committed in criminal cafes, to elude the Denefit of the laws made for the liberty of the fubject: and exceffive fines have been impofed and illegal and cruel punishments inflicted: and feveral grants and promifes made of fines and forfeitures, before any conviction or judgment against the perfons upon whom the fame were to be levied.-All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and ftatutes, and freedom of this realm.” He hoped that the word conflitution had not been inferted in the act of parliament to which he had referred, in order to deceive the people. The rights and liberties of the people were a part of the constitution; and he who faid any thing against them was guilty of bringing them into contempt, and was liable to punishment by this act. He affured the jury, that he felt himself unconcerned as to the event of this cafe, except in as much as upon it depended, in a very effential degree, the liberty of the fubject. The jury were infinitely more concerned than he was; and whatever the event of it might be, he fhould have the fatisfaction of thinking that he had done his du ty. Mr. Law, who premifed his evidence by faying, he did not belong to the London correfponding fociety, nor was he acquainted with the plaintiff. He was prefent in the field on the 31st of July. He faw the defendant getting upon the ftand, or tribune, and taking out his watch. At one o'clock they began bufinefs: there were fignals difplayed from the three ftands, or tribunes, by a handkerchief. The bufinefs began by reading the advertisement, and the address to the nation having gone on for about ten minutes, there was a noife among the people, that the proclamation had been read in another part of the field. The first expreffion he (witnefs) heard the plaintiff ufe to the defendant was, "has the "proclamation been read?" The anfwer was, "that is your bufinefs, "fir, not mine." After a fhort period had elapfed, fome people call ed out that it had been read. The plaintiff then addreffed himself to the furrounding crowd, and faid, "Citizens, I recommend it to you "to difperfe, and return peaceably "home; it will be a pity that ho"neft inotfenfive men fhould be "butchered." The defendant faid, 66 you are right, fir." The plaintiff faid, "Citizens, be aflured that "we shall foon know, whether the "Bow-ftreet magiftrates are to be "the interpreters of the law of "England." The defendant then called out, "take that fellow into "cuftody!" The plaintiff was taken out of the tribune, and by accident got a hurt in the eye. Arch. Ruthin was at the Brown Bear when the plaintiff was in cuftody: the witnefs received an order to take a letter from the plaintiff, but defired him previoully to feal it: the plaintiff faid it was of a private nature. The witnefs delivered the letter to the magiftrates at Bow-ftreet, Mr. Ford and the defendant; the letter was opened by the defendant. Upon his crofs-examination he faid the plaintiff had aflented to the letter being opened. The plaintiff then called Mr. L. Kyd, the barrifter, who faid the plaintiff had fent for him to attend him at Bow-street. He remembered a private letter having been taken up by the defendant, who addreffed the plaintiff, and put fome queftion to him refpecting the nature of the letter; the plaintiff faid it was of a private nature.— Some converfation then paffed, which the witnefs did not recollect, and at laft the letter was opened by the authority of the defendant, who took upon himself that if it was of a private nature it should be returned. The plaintiff gave no authority for its being opened; it was opened and returned; it was a French one. On his cross-examination by Mr. Law, he faid that he faw the plaintiff did not object to its being opened, and it was under-, flood, that if it was of a private nature nature it should not go further than the magiftrates. Mr. Clarkfon, attorney for the plaintiff, then proved the notice ferved on the defendant. The attorney general faid, he was not furprised that this caufe was not tried in the ufual way. The act of parliament, however, required that it fhould contain the ground of the action, and no evidence fhould be received that did not apply to the charge contained in the notice; therefore, it was clear that the notice ought to have been proved firft. Lord Kenyon faid, he was forry the attorney-general bad not referred him to the words of the act before, for he was now convinced he had acted wrong in fuffering the other evidence to be given firit. The attorney-general then fiated, that the act required that the name and refidence of the attorney for the plaintiff fhould be ftated on the back of the notice, which was not done in the prefent inftance. Mr. Fergufon faid, the notice complied with the spirit of the act. Lord Kenyon faid, the words of the act were exprefs, and he could not deviate from them. He ought to erafe the notes which he had taken. He was aware, when he took them, that he was doing that which he should hardly have done if the plaintiff had employed counfel. He fhould always be glad to grant indulgence to any perfon who came to complain of an injury, but in the prefent cafe, the potitive words of the act of parliament must be complied with. His lordfhip faid he recollected that Mr. juftice Yates ufed to fay that this act ought to be complied with in the ftricteft manner, because it was the only rule the magiftrates had for their conduct. Upon the whole, he was clearly of opinion that this objection could not be got over, and therefore the plaintiff muft be nonfuited. 20. This gazette contains an account of the capture of Le Jafon privateer, of Nantes, 12 guns and 108 men, by capt. Durham, of the Anfon; alfo of La Branche d'Olive, French merchant brig, and Le Cultivateur de Rochelle brig, and an armed chaffe-merce, by capt. Herbert of the Amelia. 23. Some labourers digging for limestone on the fummit of a cliff near Penarth Point, in the county of Gramorgan, difcovered the remains of four human bodies, lying about five feet beneath the furface of the earth: two large ftones were placed edge-ways, one on each fide, and a third on the top, forming fomething like a cotiin. How long they have lain there, no conjecture can be formed; feveral teeth were perfect, but the bones mouldering into duft; the appearance of four skulls certified that fo many bodies were placed as it were in one coin. In the courfe of the two following days the remains of three more bodies were found nearly on the fame fpot. By the direction of Thomas Bridges, efq. of Kymmin cottage, the bones were all carefully collected, depofited in a wooden cafe, and decently interred in the church-yard at Penarth. This day came on, to be heard before fir W. Scott, a caufe that much attracted the attention of the court, inatmuch as it was connected with the new law of divorce in France. This fuit was inftituted by Mr. Woodmafon against his wife, to obtain a divorce a menfa et thoro, on a charge of an adulterous intercourfe with a perfon of the name of Freeborn. The plaintiff and and his wife were both natives of France, but left that country at an early period of their lives, and came to England. In 1771, the plaintiff paid his addreffes to the defendant, and they intermarried in the fubfequent month of February. This marriage was proved by a person who was a witness to the ceremony, and alfo by the confeffion of the defendant herfelf: it was folemnized in England. Mr. Woodmafon was much older than his wife: for fome time after the marriage, they refided at Batterfea, and from thence removed to Leadenhall-ftreet. In 1789, the defendant left England, and went, accompanied by a relation, to Paris, where the refided with her father and mother for fome years; during all this period he had a feparate maintenance allowed by the plaintiff, who continued to refide in London. In 1795 fhe returned to London, for the purpose of procuring from the plaintiff an additional allowance. On this occafion fhe continued in London for about feven weeks; but during this period fhe did not cohabit with the plaintiff. She then returned to Paris, and in a fhort time afterwards fent a letter to a relation in Eng. land, ftating, among other things, that he was going to be divorced from the plaintiff by the law of France, and to marry a Mr. Freeborn. Proceedings for a decree of divorce were foon afterwards had in the marriage court in Paris, and a fentence of feparation pronounced according to the French law. Evidence was alfo adduced to prove that the defendant and Mr. Freeborn cohabited together; and that, in confequence of the before-mentioned fentence, the conftantly acknowledged him to be her hufband. After the civilians were heard on both fides, the learned judge obferved, that the evidence adduced in this cafe had fatisfactorily proved that Mrs. Woodmafon had lived in France with Mr. Freeborn on the footing of a matrimonial connexion, and that a divorce had actually taken place by the exifting laws of that country. Under thefe circumftances, fir William was clearly of opinion, that the plaintiff had established a cafe that entitled him to a fentence of divorce from bed and board, which the learned judge accordingly pronounced in the ufual form. MARCH. 1. This day, about half past three o'clock, the following perfons were brought to town from Margate, where they had been apprehended on fufpicion of holding a treafonable correfpondence with the French government: Arthur O'Connor, efq. proprietor of a Dublin newspaper, called the Prefs; John Binns, one of the members of the correfponding fociety, a fecretary to a divifion, and the fame who was tried at Warwick in Auguft laft [fee our last vol. p. (130)] for fedition; James Fevey, alias Quigley, alias captain Jones, alias col. Morris; John Allen, a native of Ireland; and Jeremiah or Patrick Leary, fervant to Mr. O'Connor.-See March 8. Admiralty Office, March 3. The following letter was received at this office, through the hands of Capt. M'Douall, commanding at Yarmouth, from Lieutenant Treble. His Majefty's armed cutter Cobourg, I have the honour to inform you, that yesterday morning, at seven o'clock, having Cromer bearing S. 67 W. diftant 16 leagues, we fell in with, and, after nine hours chase, (during which we ran one hundred |