of humanity;" and an order was, at the same time, issued, that he should not be permitted to visit any prison in the kingdom. In his place in parliament, he, shortly afterwards, severely animadverted upon this unjustifiable mandate; and Pitt was at length compelled to admit, that many of the magistrates, whose conduct Burdett had most severely reprobated, had shewn a great want of feeling and circumspection.

In 1800, he repeatedly protested against the suspension of the habeas corpus act, and the renewal of the sedition bill. He, also, during the same year, reprobated the conduct of ministers with regard to Ireland; and resisted a measure brought forward by government, to prevent persons in holy orders from sitting in the house of commons. In July, 1802, after a contest of fifteen days, he was returned to parliament, on the popular interest, for the county of Middlesex, by a majority of two hundred and seventy-one votes; but the election was, subsequently, declared void, on account of some misconduct on the part of the sheriffs, for which they were committed to Newgate. A new writ being issued, after another severe contest, he was again placed at the head of the poll. He had, about the same time, declined an invitation to become candidate for Westminster, in favour of Mr. Paull, towards the prosecution of whose charge against Lord Wellesley, as governor-general of India, he is said to have liberally contributed. Shortly afterwards he subscribed £1,000 to the Westminster hospital, and the like amount to the society for the relief of persons imprisoned for small debts; and, in the month of October, he embraced an opportunity of testifying his respect for Dr. Parr, by presenting him to the then vacant living of Graffham, in the diocese of Lincoln.

He continued in active opposition to ministers, especially during the premiership of Addington, whom he declared to be altogether incapable of directing public affairs, until the accession to power of Fox and Lord Grenville, whose policy he warmly supported. In 1806, he published his celebrated address to the freeholders of Middlesex, and was again elected for that county, which he continued to represent until the close of

the short parliament that ensued, when he was returned, by an immense majority, for Westminster. At the commencement of the election, a misunderstanding occurred between him and Mr. Paull, (who had again offered himself as a candidate), which terminated in a hostile meeting, at Combe wood, on the 5th of May, 1807, at which, the second shots of both parties took effect; Sir Francis Burdett being wounded, severely, in the knee, and Mr. Paull, slightly, in the leg.

In June, 1809, he brought forward a motion, which proved unsuccessful, relative to parliamentary reform, and early in the next year, delivered an animated address to the house on the same subject. He next attempted, but without effect, to procure an inquiry as to the conduct of ministers, respecting the expedition to Flushing, and the military operations in Spain and Portugal. On the 9th of February, (1810,) he presented, and eloquently supported, a petition from his constituents for a radical amendment in the representation of the people; and, on the 3rd of April, moved for a committee, which was granted, to investigate the proceedings of a courtmartial, by which Captain Lake had been acquitted of a charge of having left a man, named Jeffery, on the uninhabited island of Sombrero; where, as it was asserted, he had been devoured by birds of prey.

On the 6th of the same month, the house, after a warm debate, adjudged a letter which he had addressed to his constituents, respecting the committal of Gale Jones for a breach of privilege, to be a libellous and scandalous paper; whereupon, a motion was made and carried for his own apprehension. On the following day, he was visited by the sergeant-at-arms; to whom, however, he refused to surrender; maintaining that the speaker's warrant was illegal, and declaring that he would resist its execution by force. A great number of persons soon collected in the neighbourhood of his house, and committed many disgraceful excesses; on the following day they re-assembled, and pelted all passengers who would not take off their hats and cry "Burdett for ever!" About one o'clock, Mr. Reid, the magistrate, with a body of constables, and a troop of guards, endeavoured to

disperse them: the riot act was read, and the soldiers, irritated by repeated attacks, at length fired upon the people, many of whom were severely wounded. In the evening, Sir Francis Burdett claimed the protection of the sheriffs, Atkins and Wood, who, the next day, proceeded to his residence with a number of followers; but their interference, as might have been anticipated, proved ineffectual. By this time, additional troops had been marched into London, howitzers had been placed in all the principal squares, and sixteen pieces of artillery, from Woolwich, in St. James's park. The riot act was again read, and the mob being dispersed, the serjeantat-arms, with his assistants, broke into the house of Sir Francis Burdett, who now surrendered. He was conveyed to the Tower under a strong escort, civil and military; which, on its return, being resolutely assailed by the multitude, the soldiers discharged their carbines in all directions, wounding many, and killing one man, named Pledge, upon whom a coroner's inquest was afterwards held, which found a verdict of wilful murder against some life-guardsman unknown.

Sir Francis Burdett soon afterwards commenced actions, against the speaker of the house of commons, for having ordered a forcible entry into his house, &c.; against the sergeant-at-arms for having executed the speaker's warrant; and against the lieutenant of the Tower, for holding him in custody; in all of which he was defeated. On the 17th of April, Lord Cochrane presented a remonstrance to the house, from the electors of Westminster, in which they stated, that they most sensibly felt the indignity offered to them, by the committal of their representative; against whose detention, petitions were subsequently brought up from London, Coventry, and Abingdon. On the prorogation of parliament, in June, when his imprisonment, as a matter of course, terminated, extensive preparations were made for conducting him to his residence; but, fearful that the intended procession might lead to a serious breach of the peace, he privately left the Tower by water. On the 31st of the following month, his liberation was celebrated, by a public dinner, at the Crown and Anchor tavern; on quitting

which, the populace took the horses from his carriage, and dragged it to his house themselves.

Resuming his seat, at the opening of the next session of parliament, in January, 1811, he denied, in a speech of great animation, that the house of commons, as then constituted, legally represented the people; and, during the debates on the regency bill, he strenuously contended for investing the Prince of Wales with the full powers of sovereignty. In the following year, he opposed, with considerable warmth, Lord Stanhope's bill, for making bank notes a legal tender; which, if passed into a law, would, he said, have the effect of sending all the gold out of the country. On the 26th of February, 1816, he resisted the continuance of the property-tax; and, on the 19th of March, 1819, strenuously contended against the abolition of trial by battle. On the 1st of July, in the same year, he moved, but without success, that the house should take the subject of parliamentary reform into consideration; observing, "that the people had no right to be taxed without their own consent, expressed by a full, free, and fair representation;-a principle he stood upon, as upon a rock from which he thought it impossible to be moved."

He next distinguished himself by repeated but fruitless efforts to call the attention of the house to the conduct of the magistrates and yeomanry, at the celebrated meeting of the people, on the 10th of August, 1819, in the neighbourhood of Manchester. He had previously written an energetic letter to his constituents on the subject, for the publication of which, proceedings were commenced against him by the attorney-general; and, at the ensuing Leicester spring assizes, he was found guilty of having published a seditious libel in that county. Some legal objections were made to the verdict; these, however, after having been solemnly argued, were pronounced by the court to be groundless; and, in Hilary term, 1821, he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment in the king's bench, and to pay a fine of £2,000.

Immediately after his liberation, he supported a motion for granting the queen an allowance of £50,000 per annum, and for restoring her name to

the liturgy. On this occasion, he said "that the attorney-general, in his official capacity, unrestrained by her majesty's rank or misfortunes, had endeavoured, on her trial, by a statement of seeming facts, highly coloured, to excite the utmost prejudice against her, and then called no evidence to support the most infamous parts of his accusation."

On the 6th of February, 1822, he moved for delay in answering the king's speech, on account of the nature of its contents; observing, "that it was the practice of our forefathers, to deliberate before they resolved,-to understand before they voted; and that, not having the powers of divination, or the faculty of conjuring with any certainty, he could not be prepared with an amendment ready cut and dried." Shortly afterwards, he vehemently opposed the motion of Lord Castlereagh, for continuing the insurrection act in Ireland; contending, "that a greater military force, well directed, would effectually preserve the peace of that country." On the 29th of April, in the same year, he supported Lord John Russell's motion for reform; and on the 17th of July, he spoke against the assumption of arbitrary power, in matters of privilege, by the house of commons. On the 4th of February, 1823, he condemned the armed interference of France with Spain; and on the 24th of the same month, carried a motion for an inquiry into the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin, in certain proceedings connected with trials which had then recently taken place in Ireland.

Although, on the 17th of April, in this year, he stated that it was his intention to take no share in the debates relative to the catholic claims, on the ground, that the annual discussion of the subject was a mere farce, from which the friends of emancipation ought to withdraw, yet, on the 1st of March, 1825, he thought proper to present the general petition of the catholics, and to move for a committee of the whole house, to take their claims into consideration. His motion being agreed to, he proposed, in the committee, a series of resolutions, which being adopted, he brought in

bill, founded upon them, on the 23rd

of the same month. The bill was triumphantly carried through all its stages in the commons; but the lords rejected it, by a majority of fortyeight. On the 7th of June, in the same year, he moved that the evidence taken by the commissioners for inquiring into the abuses of the court of chancery, should be printed. On the 29th of March, 1826, he opposed Mr. Huskisson's bill, for repealing Mr. Hume's act in favour of combinations by workmen, because the measure had not been allowed a sufficient trial; and, on the 18th of the following month, he supported Mr. Whitmore's motion in favour of a revision of the corn laws.

In the next session, having again been intrusted with the general petition of the catholics, he moved a resolution in their favour, on presenting it; which, however, after an adjourned debate, was negatived, by a majority of four. On the elevation of Canning to the premiership, he took his seat on the treasury benches, and, for some time, continued to support ministers, whose views, on many important subjects, were completely in accordance with his own. On the 8th of May, 1828, he again appeared as the advocate of the catholics; and, after a debate which was continued to the 10th, obtained the appointment of a committee to consider their claims. bill for their relief was again carried through the commons, and rejected by the peers. On the opening of parliament, in 1829, he concurred, with Mr. Brougham, in recommending that, as ministers appeared willing to bring forward emancipation as a government measure, the catholic association should dissolve itself: and during the subsequent debates on the question, he supported, with great fervour, those concessions, which he had so materially contributed to obtain.

A

The character of Sir Francis Burdett demands no nicety of delineation; its features are bold and obvious. Few men have displayed more unity of purpose; none have ever been less diverted from a conscientious course. An aristocrat by birth and fortune, he has voluntarily exerted the whole of his abilities, acquirements, and influence, in behalf of the people. Unambitious of office, impregnable to corruption, undismayed

by powerful antagonists, and careless of persecution, he has, perhaps, as much as any man of his day, merited the reputation of a patriot. No liberal, tolerant, or humane opinion, has been publicly broached, during his parliamentary career, of which he has not been an advocate. Stedfastly attached to the constitution, and a zealous, yet enlightened, adherent to the established church, he has ever been inimical to any encroachment on the rights of the

people; and an unchangeable supporter, upon principle, of extensive toleration. His talents and acquirements are equally respectable; and his eloquence is bold, glowing, and forcible. In private life, he is urbane, beneficent, and, amiable. From his youth upwards, he appears to have stood aloof from dissipation; preferring, in his hours of relaxation, the old English sport of fox-hunting, to all the frivolities of fashionable amusement.

ROBERT BANKS, the only son of Charles Jenkinson, afterwards Earl of Liverpool, was born on the 7th of June, 1770. He commenced his education at a school on Parsons' Green, near Fulham; continued it at the Charter house; and completed it at Christchurch college, Oxford. A few months before he had attained his majority, he was returned to parliament for Rye; and, on the 27th of February, 1792, he delivered a most promising maiden speech, in which he skilfully supported the armed interference of England between Russia and the Porte. Soon afterwards, having witnessed the horrors of the early part of the French revolution, he opposed, with great earnestness, an unsuccessful motion, brought forward by Fox, for an address to the king, praying his majesty to treat with the executive government of France.

" On

this very day," he exclaimed, "while we are here debating about sending an ambassador to the French republic,on this very day is the King of France to receive sentence; and, in all probability, it is the day of his murder! What is it, then, that gentlemen would propose to their sovereign? To bow his neck to a band of sanguinary ruffians, and address an ambassador to a set of murderous regicides, whose hands would be still reeking with the blood of a slaughtered monarch! No, sir; the British character is too noble to run a race for infamy; nor will we be the first to compliment a set of monsters, who, while we are agitating this subject, are probably bearing through the

streets of Paris-horrid spectacle !-the bloody victim of their fury."

He defended the conduct of ministers in declaring war against France; and, on one occasion, observed, "that he had no difficulty in saying, that a march to Paris was practicable and attainable; and that he, for one, would recommend such an expedition." In the month of April, 1793, he was appointed a commissioner of the India board; and, in May, 1796, he became Lord Hawkesbury, on the elevation of his father to the earldom of Liverpool. He now supported, among other ministerial measures, the union between Great Britain and Ireland. He subsequently became secretary of state for foreign affairs, during the Addington administration, and conducted the negotiation which terminated in the treaty of Amiens. He also recommended a suspension of the habeas corpus act; defended a grant of £300,000 which had been made to Portugal; strenuously advocated the liberties of Switzerland; and contended, firmly, but unsuccessfully, against a virulent opposition, to which, at length, was added the formidable hostility of Pitt; under whom, on the fall of the Addington cabinet, he took office as secretary of state for the home department.

The additional force bill engaged the earliest attention of the new government, and it was carried, principally by Lord Hawkesbury's exertions, through the upper house; to which he had, some time before, been raised, by writ, as a peer's eldest son, for the