by the defendants, at Birmingham. The defendants had, however, lately caused a large shield, emblazoned with the most remarkable events of the Duke of Wellington's campaigns, to be manufactured at their establishment in Birmingham, and had also caused to be struck 25 reverses of the medals belonging to the plaintiff, which they had placed as ornaments round the shield. This shield the defendants had brought to London, had advertised for exhibition, and had also offered for sale. In addition to this, the plaintiff had cause to believe, that the defendants had lately struck off a large quantity of medals from his dies, and that they had disposed of some for money, and that they had then in their possession others not ordered to be struck by the plaintiff. Under these circumstances the application for the injunction was made.

Mr. Hart, in the course of his statement, said, the expense incurred by Mr. Mudie in manufacturing the medals amounted to nearly 10,000l.

The Lord Chancellor observed, that the terms of the agreement rendered it unnecessary to refer to any statute, and he, therefore, granted the injunction.

MARCH 27.

Queen's College, Cambridge. The question at issue related to the Mastership of Queen's college, Cambridge. The college was founded by Elizabeth, the wife of Edward IV., and from her the college received a book of statutes, by which it was provided, that the fellows should proceed to elect a new master within

eight days after the office should become vacant: and if they omitted to do so, that the right of appointment should devolve to the Crown. It was also required by the statutes, that the senior fellow should admit the person elected to the office of master, under pain of expulsion from the college. The subject came before the Court upon two petitions. One petition was from Mr. King, a fellow of the college, who prayed that the Court, as visiter, would inquire, whether the office of master of Queen's college was vacant; and if it should be found to be so, whether the fellows ought to proceed to a new election, or whether the right of appointment had devolved to the Crown. The grounds on which this application rested were, that on the 12th day after the death of the late master, Dr. Milner, the fellows, in compliance with the statutes, proceeded to elect a new master, when Mr. Godfrey was chosen by a majority of votes. Immediately after the election, Mr.Godfrey required the senior fellow to admit him to his office, when he was informed, that it was first necessary for him to sign the declaration of faith required by the act of Uniformity. Mr. Godfrey, however, disregarded this intimation, and, as Mr. King contended, went through the usual form of admission, by receiving the keys and a copy of the statutes. The other petition was from Mr. Mandell, who was the opposing candidate to Mr. Godfrey at the time of the election. Mr. Mandell stated, that Mr. Godfrey obtained a majority of votes by voting for himself as fellow for Middlesex, although there was at that time another fellow for that county, and it was

provided by the statutes that there should never be more than one fellow for Middlesex at the college at one and the same time. Upon this ground, therefore, Mr. Mandell claimed to be the master of the college.

The question for the Court to decide was, whether, by the act of Uniformity, passed under Charles II., Mr. Godfrey had not forfeited his office. By that act it is declared, that if any master or head of a college shall omit to sign the declaration of faith therein contained, before or at the time of his admission to office, such office shall, ipso facto, be considered void, as if its possessor were naturally dead. The Court was also to decide, whether, supposing Mr. Godfrey to have forfeited his office, the fellows ought not to have proceeded to a new election within twelve days, and whether, as they had not done so, the right of appoint ment to the office of master had not devolved to the Crown. Mr. Godfrey, in answer to the affidavits filed against him, contended, that the form of admission was not completed by the delivery of the keys, &c., until some subsequent ceremony was performed in the chapel of the college. This ceremony he had gone through several days after he had signed the declaration of faith before the vice-chancellor of the college. He therefore maintained, that he had not violated the provisions of the act of Uniformity. With respect to the allegation that he was not entitled to vote as fellow for Middlesex, Mr. Godfrey asserted, that it had been the immemorial usage of the college to maintain two fellows for that county.

The Lord Chancellor, after de. tailing the facts of the case, and declaring that Mr. Godfrey ought to be considered, at the time of the election, as de jure fellow for Middlesex, decided, that according to the intention of the statutes, and the constant usage of the college, the admission of the master was not completed by the delivery of the keys, &c. In this view of the case, it was evident, that Mr. Godfrey had signed the declaration of faith, required by the act of Uniformity previously to his admission. His lordship stated, that he would hear any observations from counsel on the question of what ought to constitute admission. If no applica tion were made to him on this point before Saturday, it must be understood that Mr. Godfrey was duly elected master.

KING'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER.

The King v. Clement.-This was a proceeding upon a rule obtained by Mr. Denman, for cause to be shown why the proceedings in the Court below should not be removed by certiorari into this Court. The matter in question was, the fine of 500l. imposed by the judges in April, last year, at the Old Bailey, for a contempt of Court, in publishing a full account of the proceedings on the trials of Thistlewood and Ings, contrary to the express orders of the Court, forbidding the publication of any of the proceedings against those two prisoners, until the trials of six others, included with them in the same indictment, for the same crime, should be terminated.

The Attorney-General showed

cause against the rule, and contended, that every court of record had an undoubted legal right to make such orders, with respect to its proceedings, as should prevent any impediment to the ends of justice. In the discretionary exercise of this right, the order in question had been made, for suspending the publication of the evidence and proceedings until the trials of the whole eight persons included in the same indictment should be terminated. The defendant, in contempt of the Court, had violated the order, by publishing a full account of both trials in the Observer Sunday paper, of which he is the printer, publisher, and proprietor; and, in aggravation, of his offence, he had published in the same paper the very order of the Court which he had violated. The Court, in consequence of this contempt of their order, did, upon the motion of Mr. Attorney-general, make another order, for the personal at tendance of Mr. Clement on a subsequent day, that he might answer for his misconduct, and show cause why the Court should not punish his contumacy. This order was served at the Observer publishing office, in the Strand; but Mr. Člement did not attend, as required, upon the following Friday, the 28th of April; and the Court, for his offence, and such contemptuous non-attendance, fined him in the sum of 500%. The learned Attorneygeneral observed, that Mr. Clement had stated in his affidavit, that on the day upon which the order for his attendance was made, he went out of town, and on that and the two following days he had travelled through VOL. LXIII.

several parts of the county of Kent, and arrived in Feversham in the evening of the 28th; and on the next morning, and not before, he saw a newspaper, stating the order for his attendance, and also an account of the conviction of Thistlewood and Ings, and of the fine imposed on himself by the Court. But in this affidavit he did not state that he had not absented himself from his office, and left town, for the purpose of eluding personal service of the order for his appearance. He had therefore no ground to complain of injury, by the fine being imposed in his absence, as he was aware of the contempt he had been guilty of, and might have been present, if he had chosen to offer any thing in palliation or excuse for such contempt. He adduced several authorities to show that the Court had a legal right to punish by fine, persons contemptuously violating its orders. He could not anticipate what kind of arguments his learned friend on the other side had to offer in vindication of the defendant's conduct, and if any should be offered, he hoped to be allowed the opportunity of reply.

He was followed on the same side by the Solicitor-general, Mr. Littledale, and Mr. Gurney; and it was contended, that, if Mr. Clement felt he had any reasonable grounds of palliation for his offence, or against the justice and quantum of the fine imposed, the proper place for him to seek redress was the Court of Exchequer.

Mr. Denman, on the part of the defendant, denied the legal power of the Court below to 2 E

punish summarily by heavy fine in such a case as the present, or to make the order prohibiting the publication of the proceedings upon the trials in question, which were fully terminated at the time. Such publication was in perfect coincidence with the publicity of all proceedings in courts of justice, which was one of the most important privileges of the people of England. The laws of this country, by the constitution, were required to be administered in open court, in the most public manner, exempt from all mystery, and to which the whole public had the right of access. If the whole people of England could be present, it would be so much the better. The defendant, then, had only communicated that, which the whole people of England had a right to know. It was not an ex parte statement, calculated to prejudice any party. It was not a partial or garbled statement, but a full, fair, and true statement, and not liable to the ill consequences which might result from partial extracts, or exaggerated representations, which might go forth from verbal representations; and, therefore, upon a fair balance of the conveniences and inconveniences, the preponderance would be in favour of the former. The whole panel of the jurors were present during the two first trials, and heard the whole evidence, and consequently could imbibe no prejudices from a fair statement of that evidence in print. Witnesses could not be prejudiced by this means alone, because from communication with each other after the two first trials, what was sworn by the witness examined

would be communicated to all, If Mr. Clement had committed any crime, he might have been indicted, and punished by the intervention of a jury; but he most earnestly deprecated the assumption of so terrible a power, as that of making an order for which he could find no precedent, and then for non-compliance with that order, summarily amercing a man in his absence with so heavy a fine. It was a most alarming circumstance; and if the sessions court of the Old Bailey assumed a power which he always understood to belong exclusively to the superior courts of Westminster-hall, every court of quarter session in the kingdom might claim a similar power of summary amercement at its mere discretion. He did not deny the power of the court to fine its own officers, or any of the persons connected with its proceedingsas the sheriff, the constables, the jurors, the witnesses, or the parties in the case, or the persons actually present in court; but he positively denied, that the court had any such power over strangers absent, and not in any way connected with the proceedings before the court. Upon these grounds, therefore, he contended that a certiorari was the best mode of bringing the orders of the court below before this court, to inquire into the legality, and decide upon the question solemnly.

The court held, that the order of fine had been correctly made by the court below; and decided that the rule for certiorari must be discharged.

FEBRUARY 21.
SEDITIOUS BILLS.

The King v. O'Bryen and Another.

The first witness called was, Arthur Seale.-Examined by Mr. Wilde. I am a printer, and live in Tottenham-court-road. I know a man named Fletcher, or Franklin, or Forbes. I first knew him by the name of Oliver, on the 1st of July, 1818. He then applied to me to print a posting bill, which I did. He brought it to me on the Saturday, and I worked off about 400 or 500 by Sunday evening.

A posting-bill was here handed to witness, which he said was the same as that which he had printed for Fletcher. It was dated July 2, 1818, and purported to come from the Westminster committeeroom, and was addressed to the electors on the election of sir Francis Burdett. It was of a most inflammatory nature.

Seale continued." I remember the chairing of sir Francis Burdett. It took place, I believe, on the 11th of July, 1818. I saw Fletcher about that time. I printed about 500 copies of a bill which he brought me. I also printed some hat-labels. I had some conversation with Mr. Fletcher about them, and he said, "Let the fools wear them; they will be the more easily picked out to be put down." The placard was here put in and read. It was headed, "The Triumph of the People." It alluded to the chairing which was to take place, and in one part it mentioned that the only alternative for the people was" liberty or a glorious grave!" Another bill was now handed to witness, which he iden

tified also as one of which he had printed 400 or 500 copies, by the order of Fletcher. It was dated September 1, 1819, and purported to be an address to the

electors of Westminster on the refusal of the high bailiff to call a meeting at that period. This was as violent in its character as the former. Witness said, he had no manuscript copies of any of these. A manuscript was now put into his hands, which witness proved to have been written by Fletcher at his (witness's) desk. He printed about 500 copies by his order: it was a kind of address, of a most seditious character, to the Non-represented Reformers; and was signed, "One of the Non-represented." The next placard handed to witness, he identified as having been printed by him, about the 21st of July, 1819, addressed to the Nonrepresented; it was still more seditious in its character than the former, and was a direct incitement to rebellion. The witness continued-" This was delivered to Fletcher in parcels, the same as the others: Fletcher came to fetch the parcels away in a hackney-chariot. The chariot did not drive up to my door, but stopped about seven doors off, between Carmarthen-street and St. Pancras-street. This I remember was on a Monday. Fletcher had been with me on the Saturday be fore with the manuscript of the bill. It was about four o'clock when he came on Saturday, but I cannot say whether he came in a coach or not. He came on the Monday about a quarter past seven. I cannot say in which direction the chariot came; but when I saw the horses, their heads were turned towards the St.