each, “to be of good behaviour for one year.” The fines were paid, the sureties given, and the defendants liberated from that charge. In July the unlucky defendants again surrendered, when their trial was again postponed to await the result of the _certiorari_ by which the aristocratic defendants (Viscount Chetwynd and Mr. Maley, the solicitor) had removed their cases to the Court of Queen’s Bench. These having failed, in the ensuing November, Burke and his fellow victims of the law’s delay were placed at the bar. In the interim we find in the _Bedford Mercury_:―― “PRIZE FIGHT AND LORD CHETWYND.――Lord Charles Russell laid before the Court a statement showing the position of the prosecution against Burke and thirteen others, for a riot at a prize fight at Holcut, in this county, and did so to know whether the prosecution should be proceeded in. Already an expense of £50 had been incurred, and probably between £80 and £90, exclusive of witnesses, would be further required. By a writ of _certiorari_ Lord Chetwynd had traversed the case to the Court of Queen’s Bench, to obtain the privilege of not pleading on the trial in the usual way by holding up his hand. The other parties accused had not been aware of the object of the course taken by Lord Chetwynd, and were in the same position as they were before traversing to the superior court. The county was at a great expense, and the defendants must have been at double the expense. His lordship also laid before the Court a correspondence between Lord Chetwynd and that gentleman, expressing his regret at what had occurred. Mr. Smith was not satisfied with the correspondence, and the opinion of the Court was that the prosecution should be continued, having begun it. “From this we infer that the Rev. Mr. Smith is not satisfied with the apology tendered by Lord Chetwynd, and that to satisfy his feelings, the county and the defendants are to be involved in a still heavier outlay. To those who were in no respect consenting to Lord Chetwynd’s determination, this seems a measure of cruelty for which we were not prepared; but it would seem that after having already entered into recognisances to appear and take their trials, and having strictly and respectfully complied with that undertaking, from whence they were relieved by no act of their own, they are again called on to put in fresh bail in the Court of Queen’s Bench at Westminster, some of them living in distant parts of the kingdom. This may be necessary in form of law; but surely, even the Rev. Mr. Smith can have no wish to add to the hardships of the defendants, who were, and are still ready to submit to take their trials at the proper season.”