Freeholder has to perform. That duty he owes to his country; and, if he does not perform it for the good of his country, he is guilty, at the very least, of neglect of a sacred duty. He is called upon to give his voice for the men whom, in his conscience, he believes to be most likely to be faithful representatives of the people; and, if he obey the dictates of his interest rather than the dictates of his conscience, he is, at once, a corrupt and a perjured man. He is guilty of wilful corruption and wilful perjury, if he give his vote for a man whom he does not believe will be a faithful representative of the people, a resolute guardian of their liberty and their property. while your landlord is guilty of corruption and of subornation of perjury; so that the transaction leaves you, a couple of wretches meriting the execration of all honest men, In resuming my address to you, the freeholders in general, I should endeavour to lay before you a true picture of the state of our country, and to show you, that, unless we make immediate exertions to put down corruption, the total ruin of England is certain and at hand; but, lest I should not have room, I must begin with calling your attention to the points in dispute between MR. GEORGE ROSE and myself, and to the other important topic noticed at the beginning of this letter. I told you, in the presence of Mr. Rose, that he and his sons had received 300,000 pounds of the public money. This Mr. Rose positively denied. But, Gentlemen, I re-asserted the fact, and I am now about to give you the proof in detail. Mr. Rose himself has, with the exception of about three years, been in some office or other, at the rate of not less than £4,000 a year for the last 26 or 28 years; he has had a sinecure office worth £4,946 a year ever since the month of February, 1783. The date of the grant is stated in a report laid before the House of Commons in February, 1802, and the amount is stated in a similar report of June, 1810. From the last-mentioned report, it appears, that the Right Honourable Gentleman has possessed, for fortytwo years, another sinecure place, worth £400 a year. His son, William Stewart Rose, has a sinecure place worth £2,137 a year, according to a report laid before the House of Commons in June, 1808. In 1795, the active sturdy Old Gentleman obtained a grant in reversion of his great sinecure, to his son, G. Henry Rose, for the life of the latter. The date of the grant to W. S. Rose is not stated. Now, then, let us see how the account stands. 1st. Sinecure since 1783, at Tenants, I now address myself particularly to you; and, I beg you to consider the real character in which you appear, if you give your votes at the dictation of your landlords, and not according to your own consciences. You are as ready as any body to talk about rotten boroughs, and to rail against the corrupt wretches who inhabit them, and who notoriously sell their votes. But, softly with your railing! Examine into your own conduct, and see in what it differs from the conduct of those despicable men. I, for my part, have no hesitation to say, that, if any one of you give your vote at the request of your landlord, or with a view of continuing his tenant, or with that of securing any indulgence from him, you are more blamable, and more despicable, and more perfidious towards your neighbours and your country than any caitiff voter in a rotten borough. He acts a much more manly part than you; he boldly takes the bribe into his hand; you take it slyly, in the shape of abated rent, or in some other shape. No, you will say, "I take nothing; I merely oblige my landlord." Ah! you would fain cheat the world with this paltry juggle; but you will not succeed. You vote to oblige your landlord; yes, but why do you wish to oblige him? The reason is, and the reason must be, that you, by obliging him, hope to continue his tenant, or to receive some sort of indulgence from him: in plain English, you give your vote for the sake of GAIN; and, what does the bribed scoundrel of the rotten borough do more than this? The difference is, that his gain consists of money counted down, while your's comes to you in the profits of the house or land that you rent. You, therefore are bribed as well as he; you are not of wilful and corrupt perjury to all his sins you add the loathsome sin of hypocrisy, 4,9461. a year, 29 years. Sinecures 3d. Salary for 26 years, at £. 220,302 377,502 I need go no further. There is no doubt in my mind, that the other sinecure would amount to, at least, 50,000 pounds more; | your supposed ignorance and servility but, I pass it over, as well as the value of The hootings and hissings which saluted the reversion to the member for Southamp- his ears on the 13th of October will be reton, which is not worth less than about membered by him to his last breath. I £50,000, in addition to the former sums. counted the hats that were raised for him I told you, that I included the interest on when he retired, and I would willingly the sinecures; and certainly upon the fair- make oath, that, out of the eight or nine est possible ground; because Mr. Rose has thousand persons present, only seven raised had the use of the money for the average of their hats to express their approbation of the 29 years, for instance, instead of its him, one of whom was a person whom I being used by the people who have paid it have since discovered to be COX (Greenhim in taxes, and in whose hands it would wood's Cox) the army agent! This dishave been productive, if it had not gone approbation of Mr Rose was perfectly vointo his hands. Suppose, for instance, luntary. I had collected no persons. I had that a hundred of you have paid taxes, out requested nobody to be present. The peoof which the amount of this sinecure has ple came, as far as they were for me, of been taken. In that case, he has, in this their own accord. It was impossible that one sinecure, received from each of you any undue influence should prevail on my £30 a year during the last 29 years; and, side. Therefore, the hootings, the hissings, if the said £30 had remained with you, I the scoffings, all the marks of hatred and need not tell you to what it would have of contempt, with which the Right Hoamounted by this time. Therefore, in es- nourable Gentleman was received, were the timating his gains, you must take into view, pure effect of the feelings of the county. the accumulating interest of the money he Reserving some further observations on has received. I have, however, not done the conduct of Mr. Rose for a future letter, this in the case of his salary; for, though II now beg leave to call your attention to do not see any reason for his having received a quarter part so much, it was as a salary that he received it; and, at any rate, I wish always to keep within the bounds of truth in the statements that I make to the public. In the point in dispute between SIR FRANCIS In the letter, to which I referred you, there is, however, an assertion respecting the Chief Judge above-mentioned, which has been flatly and even solemnly contradicted by a Mr. JONES (of whose rise and progress more hereafter), who calls himself, and who, doubtless, is, "Marshal of "the Prison of the King's Bench." Now, Gentlemen, you will be able to judge between "the Right Honourable "George Rose" and me; you will be able to judge which of us is most entitled to credit. I told you, that, in principal and interest, he and his sons had received £300,000 of the public money; and, I have shown you, that, notwithstanding his positive denial of the fact, he himself, leaving out of sight his patronage, has received £377,502, upwards of two-thirds of which sum he has received from sinecure offices. And yet, he had the assurance, the matchless impudence, to put it to you, whether he had not as good a title to what he had thus received as I had to the profits of my writings! Aye, and I dare say, Gentlemen, this is a matter deeply intethat he thinks he has as good a title to his resting to you and to the whole nation. All £273,502 pounds, the profit of his sine- men should, when they speak seriously, cures, as any of you have to the profits of speak truth, and especially when they are your farms or your shops. This is, how-preferring accusations; and, though I must ever, all in character; and, indeed, when confess, that it would be extremely mortia man has, for so many years, been huzzaedfying to me to be obliged to show that Sir by the people of a county, while his pockets have been crammed in this way, he may well entertain a contempt for their understandings. Upon this occasion, however, he seems to have presumed too much upon Francis Burdett's zeal had, in such a case, carried him beyond the limits of truth yet, I am quite sure, that even my respect for him would not induce me to shrink from my duty. In his reputation we are alt deeply interested; and, therefore, we should neglect nothing that may tend to give us correct notions with regard to every part of his public conduct. There is, Gentlemen, an assértion by Sir Francis Burdett, with regard to Lord Ellenborough; and a denial by Mr. Jones, in defence of that Judge. But, the better to umderstand the whole matter, we will first take the entire paragraph of Sir Francis's letter, containing the assertion; and, after having made the necessary remarks, in the way of explanation, we will take the entire letter of Mr. Jones, and then see, from authentic documents, which is true, the assertion, or the denial. The paragraph, in Sir Francis's letter, is as follows: "Gentlemen, it is often "affirmed that the savings in our power to "make from sinecures and pensions would "afford no relief to the people; let us take "a few out of the numerous instances. The "House of Commons itself, in sheer places "and pensions, swallows as much as would "give fifty shillings a year to 71,224 fa"milies; would this be nothing? would it "not be felt by the people? Lord Arden, "brother to the late Minister, with rever❝sion to the late Minister himself, receives "from his sinecures £38,574 a year; this "is the exact sum stated; but, it is said, "that he has besides, immense sums aris"ing from interest. Here is support all "the year round, at 12 shillings a week, "for more than a thousand families. The "same may be said for the family of Gren"ville. The Duke of Grafton's sinecures "and pensious would maintain half as "many; and, in short, it is in this way the "nation is impoverished and reduced to "misery. THE LORD CHIEF JUS"TICE ELLENBOROUGH, besides "HIS SALARY, RECEIVES IN SINE"CURES £8,993 A YEAR, BESIDES "HAVING OFFICES TO SELL, AND "PARTICIPATING IN THE EMOLU. "MENTS OF HIS OWN JAILER. "The sinecures of the Chief Justice would "keep three hundred families. Mr. Gar"nier, the Apothecary General, has a clear "£12,000 a year, according to his own acknowledgment. Besides the sums given "to the Princes out of the Droits of the "Admiralty. The King's private pro"perty in the funds exempted from the In66 come Tax and Mr. Addington (the "maker and the breaker of the Treaty of "Amiens), in 1801, misapplying upwards "of £50,000 (voted for the Civil List), as a Loan to the Duke of York, only a Now, Gentlemen, suffer not yourselves to be heated by this statement; but, bring your minds cool and impartial to the great point relative to the Chief Judge, Ellenborough. Upon this point I shall make no assertion of my own; nor will I offer any opinion touching it. I will simply lay before you such facts as I happen to be in possession of; and I will take no facts which I do not draw from authentic records. Sir Francis says, that the Chief Judge of the King's Bench, Ellenborough, besides his salary, receives in sinecures, £8,993 a year. We will inquire into this before we proceed any further. The salary is £5,500 a year; but Sir Francis talks of sinecures; and, Gentlemen, upon this point, Sir Francis is not quite correct; for he has stated the amount of these sinecures to be LESS than what it really is; that is to say, if the official documents that I am about to quote are not erroneous; for, according to them, the proceeds of Lord Ellenborough's sinecures are as follows: | tice may sell the office of Custos Brevium. pates in the emoluments of his own Jailer £. s. d. 6,280 18 6 2,019 7 5,104 16 9 4 £13,405 2 7 But, the persons filling these offices APPOINT TO OTHER OFFICES. Mind that ! The appointments and the yearly receipt are, in the said report, stated as follows: Custos Brevi um appoints Clerk of the Declarations Clerk of the Papers on the Clerk of inner Treasury £. s. d. 194 0 0 } 3,383 11 7 1,580 0 11 325 15 5 158 19 6 1,750 15 9 85 10 0 Well, then, Gentlemen, you are now very competent to judge of the assertions of Sir Francis, as to the salary, the sinecures, and the saleable offices, of the Lord. Chief Justice. There now remains only the JAILER'S EMOLUMENTS, in which Sir Francis is represented as having said that Lord Ellenborough participates. The words are; that Lord Ellenborough, "besides his salary, receives in sinecures, "£8,990 a year, besides having offices "to sell, and PARTICIPATING IN "THE EMOLUMENTS OF HIS OWN "JAILER." To this last assertion it is, that Mr. WILLIAM JONES, Marshal of the King's Bench, has given a flat denial, in a Letter, which has been published, apparently, in all the London news-papers, and of which the following is a copy, as published in the TIMES news-paper. remptorily accuses the Lord Chief Jus"tice of the King's Bench, of unduly par"ticipating in my official emoluments, as "Marshal of the Prison of that Court. I "accordingly declare, with all the solem"nily suited to a public asseveration of this "serious nature, that no one does participate, or ever has participated, with me, Thus, then, the offices, which Lord El-" in any way whatever, in the advantages -lenborough (in a letter inserted in the re- "or benefits which I derive from my siluaport before mentioned) states to be directly" tion; and that, consequently, the charge saleable, amount in their yearly receipt to the sum of £13,405, and odd, and then" the holders of those offices appoint others to offices, worth the rest of the £21,964. Lord Ellenborough does not, it appears, sell the office of Chief Clerk: he keeps that in the trust of others for his own appoint- whereby the power of granting the office ment; and, of course, he, as holding the "of the Marshal of the King's Bench is office of Chief Clerk by the means of Trus- "vested in the Crown; and, in the lan tees, appoints the second set of offices, guage of the instrument by which I have which, as we see, bring in £6,237 and "been nominated to it, with all its prosome odd a year; and, as the Chief Jus-"fits, perquisites, privileges, and ad 66 vantages; in which, I re-assert, no one "Under what authority do you pay over The" these fees to the Lord Chief Justice of "the King's Bench ?Because I con"ceive the Lord Chief Justice entitled to "them." WHY do you conceive the "Lord Chief Justice is ENTITLED TO "THE FEES OF AN OFFICE NOT "HELD BY HIMSELF?-He has the "WM. JONES, Marshal. "King's Bench, Oct. 10, 1812." When you have well attended to the meaning of this Letter, Gentlemen, you will be so good as to attend to what I am now about to lay before you. Mr. Jones says, that Sir Francis accused Lord Ellenborough of UNDULY participating. This, as you will have observed, is not true. 66 appointment of the office, and if he "chooses to appoint A RELATION to it, "who receives the fees, he accounts for it "TO HIS SON; his son was NOT OF "AGE at the time it was executed in "Ewan Law's name; his son was under but HE RECEIVED IT FOR HIS age, "SON; his son now being of age, I execute it in the NAME OF HIS SON; 66 Sir Francis talks merely of his partici- and my office requires a great deal of atpaling, without expressing any opinion as to the nature of the act. Therefore, here, at any rate, Mr. Jones is wrong. But, How to the real, substantial merits of the In a report, laid before the House of Commons, on the 18th of June, 1811, I find the following passage, containing minutes of Evidence, given before a Committee of the House, by this very Mr. William Jones, Maishal of the King's case. Bench. "WILLIAM JONES, Esq., Marshal to the Chief Justice of the King's Bench; "called in; and examined.Are you "not Marshal to the Chief Justice of the "King's Bench ?-I executed the office in the name of Mr. EWAN LAW at "first, and afterwards in the name of Mr. "WILLIAM LAW. (The witness "delivered in the following paper, which was read.). The office of Marshal to "the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of "King's Bench, has been executed by W. "Jones ever since Lord Ellenborough's "appointment to the office of Chief Jus"tice; part of the time in the name of "Ewan Law, Esq., and the remainder in "the name of William Law, Esq. Wil"liam Jones has been allowed a salary of "£200 a year for executing the office, and "has received and ACCOUNTED FOR "ALL THE FEES TO THE LORD "CHIEF JUSTICE, which for five years have amounted yearly, (exclusive of W. "Jones's salary,) as follows, viz. £. s. d. 839 8 7 725 14 2 "tendance and a great deal of labour. "All the records are entered by me, and "abstracted for the Judge against the "Cause comes on. I attend him too upon "the circuit, and it is necessary he should "have a person to assist him upon that "occasion. I execute the office FOR "THE SON, now he is of age, and have an order to execute the office for him as "his 66 his deputy.Do you receive that or"der from the son himself, or from Lord "Ellenborough ?—FROM LORD ELLENBOROUGH; the son is ABROAD now, or I should have it from himself. AND YOU CONSIDER THE "SON TO BE THE MARSHAL OF "THE KING'S BENCH?—YES, I "DO; I hold myself ANSWERABLE "TO THE SON, who is the officer, but "I PAY IT TO LORD ELLENBO"ROUGH in trust for the son.—You "have neither salary nor emolument of 66 any kind beyond the £200 a year you "have spoken of?—None at all; last year, on account of the number of Causes, "must be a little more than that; but I "believe with that it will not average "£800 a year. I sent my return, as "Marshal of the King's Bench last year, "to the Judges. - DO YOU AC"COUNT FOR ANY PART OF THE "PROFITS YOU DERIVE FROM "THE OFFICE OF MARSHAL OF "THE KING'S BENCH? -I do NOT "account for a halfpenny to any person, " and it is an office of great risk." Gentlemen, judge now for yourselves. People of England, judge now between Sir Francis Burdett and this Mr. Jones. I will add but a few words by way of explanation. Mr. Jones sometimes calls himself the Marshal of the King's Bench, |