RALPH ALLEN, ESQ. TO MR. PITT.

MY DEAREST SIR,

Prior Park, June 9, 1763.

WITH the greatest anxiety and concern I have, in obedience to your positive and repeated commands, executed the most painful commission that I ever received.

Upon this disagreeable occasion give me leave just to say, that however different our abilities may be, it is the duty of every honest man, after he has made the strictest inquiry, to act pursuant to the light which the Supreme Being has been pleased to dispense to him; and this being the rule that I am persuaded we both govern ourselves by, I shall take the liberty now only to add, that it is impossible for any person to retain higher sentiments of your late glorious administration than I do, nor can be with truer fidelity, zeal, affection, and respect than I have been, still am, and always shall be, my dearest Sir, your most humble and most obedient servant,

R. ALLEN. (') The best wishes of the family wait on Lady

Chatham.

(1) Lord Chief Justice Pratt, in a letter to Mr. Pitt, dated Bath, Nov. 1., says: "I have delivered your compliments to Mr. Allen, who desires I would return for him the warmest expressions of friendship, respect, and honour for you: he has resigned his office of alderman in the corporation, and means no more to concern himself in any public affairs; so that the Bath address will be his last."

THE EARL OF BRISTOL TO MR. PITT.

SIR,

St. James's Square, June 9, 1763.

I DESIRED Lord Temple would communicate to you some few anecdotes, which I informed him might be depended upon, as the channel through which I received my intelligence was authentic.

The Duke of Bedford is waited for with impatience; as all eyes are turned towards him. His friends declare he means to have no employment; but they insinuate that his grace is the only proper person to be at the head of the Treasury. This language is not difficult to be understood. The present administration is bent on resisting whoever would attempt to overturn them, and will oppose the Duke of Bedford's schemes, as strenuously as they would withstand the efforts of those we call our friends to remove them from power. Lord Shelburne is possessed of the partiality of the closet; yet Lord Halifax is gaining ground in the opinion of it. This occasions great jealousy between these two peers; and I hear that the principal has discovered, that government can go on, although the Earl of Bute does not preside at the helm of it. Lord Rochford at last kissed hands yesterday for the embassy to Spain.

I am, Sir, your most obedient and faithful servant, &c.

BRISTOL.

THOMAS NUTHALL, ESQ. TO MR. PITT. (')

SIR,

Crosby Square, July 7, 1763.

THE first of fourteen trials, in actions brought by the journeymen and people employed by one Leach, a printer, who were taken up by the secretary of state's warrant, and in custody of the messengers some hours, as the printers of the North Briton, No. 45., when in fact they were in nowise concerned in it, came on to be tried before Lord Chief Justice

(1) This letter contains a spirited report of the proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas, on the trial of the messengers, for taking certain journeymen printers into custody on account of the "North Briton." In consequence of strictures on the King's speech at the prorogation, which appeared in the 45th number of that publication, it was deemed expedient to issue a warrant from the Secretary of State's office, requiring four messengers in ordinary to make strict search for the authors, printers, and publishers of the above seditious and treasonable production, to apprehend and seize them, together with their papers, and bring them before the secretary of state. Under this authority, one Leach, a journeyman printer, to whom the messengers had been erroneously directed, was apprehended, but discharged. Kearsley, the avowed publisher, was next day taken into custody, and voluntarily acknowledged before Lord Halifax, that one Balfe was the printer, and Wilkes the author of the paper. The crownlawyers being of opinion, that the publication of a libel was a breach of the peace, and therefore not a case of privilege, the messengers were directed, by virtue of the same warrant, to bring Wilkes before the Secretary of State. He applied to the Court of Common Pleas for a writ of Habeas Corpus. The motion was granted; but, before the writ could be prepared, Wilkes was committed to the Tower. These were the circumstances which brought under public discussion the important question of the legality of general warrants.

Pratt, at nine yesterday morning, and lasted till eight at night; when the jury found a verdict for three hundred pounds damages against the messengers generally, and refused to find a special verdict; which was much pressed by the counsel for the defendants, namely, the attorney and solicitor general, and the four King's serjeants.

The plaintiffs' circumstances certainly were not taken into consideration by the jury, for much less had been sufficient in that view only; but they probably considered the danger of the precedent, and saw pretty plainly, by the manner in which the defence was conducted, that the messengers were well and sufficiently indemnified. Besides this, the defendant's counsel delivered in a bill of exceptions (a very unusual proceeding) to the chief justice's opinion on the questions of law, which much incensed the jury, and did not a little contribute to enhance the damages; for these exceptions must be argued before all the judges of the court of common pleas, and may afterwards be carried to the King's bench, exchequer chamber, and ultimately to the house of lords, which would be attended with great expence as well as delay to the plaintiff.

The two questions on which the bill of exceptions was founded were these: first, that by a late act of parliament constables must be sued with the justices of the peace, and not separately; and the justices must have a month's notice before action brought, in order that they may have an

opportunity of tendering amends or satisfaction to the party, and it was argued, that secretaries of state must be considered as justices of the peace, and messengers as constables; and therefore no notice having been given in the present case, nor any action brought against the secretary of state, this action could not be supported.

But this objection was overruled, for two reasons, by the chief justice; first, because the statute nowhere mentions secretaries of state, or messengers, nor are they within the purview or intent, more than within the letter of the act; and it is perhaps but a fiction in law to consider them as justices of the peace: secondly, supposing them to be justices of the peace, and the messengers to be constables, yet the latter could not be brought within this act, because they had no warrant for doing what they did; for the warrant was to apprehend the printers and publishers of the North Briton, No. 45, whereas they did not take up those people, but innocent men, who had never any concern with that paper, and therefore they were not entitled to the protection or sanction of the warrant, which expressly directed them to do what they did not.

The second point laboured by the attorney and solicitor general was, that there was a probable cause for apprehending these people, which was sufficient to justify the messengers, if considered as constables. The first answer to this is, that in actions of false imprisonment, probable cause is no