Rochford and the Justice, “that Mr. Reynolds demanded immediate admittance to his client.” Several messages passed, but that which could not be denied as a matter of right, was granted as a matter of favour. Mr. Reynolds was admitted, and having been introduced to Lord Rochford and Sir John Fielding, the latter put the following question to Mr. Reynolds:

“Is it Mr. Sayre’s desire that you should attend in his behalf?”

Mr. Reynolds replied in the affirmative. Sir John Fielding said, “that this was not true.” Mr. Reynolds replied, “that Sir John Fielding, as a Magistrate, might say that which, as a gentleman, he could not justify.” The Knight then desired that it might be asked of Mr. Sayre, “Whether he had sent for Mr. Reynolds.” Mr. Sayre replied, “he had sent for him, without mentioning the place where he was to attend.”

These disputes being adjusted, it was agreed that Mr. Reynolds might attend the private examination of his friend. The first advice Mr. Reynolds gave to Mr. Sayre was, “that he should not answer any interrogatories “which Lord Rochford or Sir John Fielding might propound, and that he should not sign any paper.”

The information which contained the charge was a second time read, at the request of Mr. Sayre, who smiled at the recital, (Mr. Reynolds joining in the laugh,) and said, “that the whole was too ridiculous to be seriously attended to.” An altercation then ensued between Mr. Reynolds and Adjutant Richardson, the informer. Lord Rochford and Sir John Fielding were requested by the informer to silence Mr. Reynolds. He saved them the trouble, by observing, “that he should always pay a proper deference to authority, but whatever he had there said of the informer he would repeat in any other place whatever.”

Mr. Reynolds then told Lord Rochford, “that if, after consulting the great law officers of State, (which his Lordship would do of course,) as the information did not amount to a direct charge against Mr. Sayre, his Lordship should think himself warranted to receive bail, ample and sufficient bail should be given; but if it was thought warrantable to commit, he scorned to ask a favour for his client.”

Mr. Sayre was ordered into an adjacent apartment, and he was soon afterwards committed a close prisoner to the Tower.

The following is a true copy of the warrant of commitment.

“WILLIAM HENRY, Earl of ROCHFORD, one of the Lords of His Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, and principal Secretary of State:

“ These are, in His Majesty’s name, to authorize and require you to receive into your custody the body of Stephen Sayre, Esq., herewith sent you, being charged upon oath before me, one of His Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State, with treasonable practices, and to keep him in close custody, until he shall be delivered by due course of law; and for so doing, this shall be your warrant.

“Given at St. James’s, on the 23d day of October, 1775, in the fifteenth year of His Majesty’s reign.

“ROCHFORD.

“To the Earl Cornwallis, Constable of His Majesty’s Tower of London, or to the Lieutenant of the said Tower, or his Deputy.”

The. information against Mr. Sayre must strike every sensible mind as impossible to be true. A private individual was to seize the King’s person on that very day when His Majesty is most securely guarded. This private person, having so seized the King, was to have secured His Majesty a close prisoner in the Tower; the guards were to be bribed into acquiescence, &c.

After Mr, Sayre was committed to the Tower, he sent the following letter to the Secretary of State:

“ Mr. Sayre to Lord Rochford:

“MY LORD: I find, upon reading the warrant of commitment, that the commanding officer here cannot permit my friends to visit me, unless by express orders from your Lordship. If it is in your Lordship’s power, I have no doubt but you will readily grant me that indulgence.

“I am, &c.
“Tower, 3 o’clock, October 23, 1775.”

In consequence of which, Mrs. Sayre only was permitted to visit him. Lord Effingham, Mr. Edmund Burke, the Lord Mayor, Mr. Ellis, &c., &c., were refused.

October 28, 1775.

A writ of habeas corpus having been granted for the purpose of bringing Mr. Sayre before a Judge, in order that the informality of the warrant whereby he was committed might be argued, and that bail in consequence might be tendered for his enlargement, the writ being made returnable before Lord Mansfield, Mr. Sayre was this day conducted to his Lordship’s house, in Bloomsbury Square. Mr. Sayre was attended by several counsel, together with Mr. Reynolds, his Solicitor. Mr. White, the Solicitor in behalf of the Crown, was also present. The counsel in behalf of Mr. Sayre rested their plea “on the extreme impropriety of committing a prisoner to close confinement by virtue of a warrant which conveyed no specifick charge whatever.” A tender of bail was then made, and Lord Mansfield, after inspecting the warrant, declared, “that not a doubt remained on his mind but that Mr. Sayre was clearly entitled to be bailed. The charge,” Lord Mansfield said, “admitting it to be true, amounted only to a misdemeanor. Had, therefore, Mr. Sayre been brought up unattended by counsel, his Lordship declared he should instantly have admitted him to bail; and if the Court of King’s Bench should be moved, on the first day of the ensuing term, Lord Mansfield intimated, that, for his part, he should have no scruple to discharge Mr. Sayre on his own recognizance.”

Mr. Sayre said, “I thank your Lordship for granting me this ready admission to bail, and for your politeness on this occasion; and your Lordship must think with pleasure, as I do, on the wisdom of our ancestors, in providing this barrier against despotism.” Lord Mansfield: “True, Mr. Sayre, but law is the barrier against both extremes, and to live within it, is the only way for us all to be secure and free.”

Bail was then tendered and accepted. Mr. Sayre was bound in five hundred Pounds; Messrs. Reynolds and Coote Purdon in two hundred and fifty Pounds each.

CHESTER COUNTY (PENNSYLVANIA )COMMITTEE.

Monday, October 23, 1775.

Pursuant to publick notice given, the Committee met at the house of David Cowpland, in the Borough of Chester. Present:

Anthony Wayne, James Moore, Evan Evans, and Francis Johnston, Esqs.; John Hart, Richard Thomas, John Richardson, Persifor Frazer, William Adams, Henry Hayes, Isaac Lloyd, Benjamin Brannon, Peter Hartman, Samuel Culbertson, William Evans, David Simson, John Fullton, Andrew Boyd, Jona. Vernon, Paul McKnight, Samuel Cunningham, Samuel Trimble, Frederick Fair-lamb, Thomas Levis, Caleb Davis, William Montgomery, James Dunwoody, Patrick Anderson, George Pierce, Joseph McKinley,Dr. Samuel Kennedy, Thomas Smith, and Lewis Gronow.

Anthony Wayne, Esquire, was elected Chairman, and Francis Johnston, Esquire, Secretary.

Extract from the Proceedings of the Congress.

1st. “Such as are venders of Goods or Merchandise will not take advantage of the scarcity of Goods that may be occasioned by this Association, but will sell the same at the rates we have been respectively accustomed to do for twelve months last past; and if any vender of Goods or Merchandise shall sell any such Goods on higher terms, or shall in any manner, or by any device whatsoever, violate or depart from this agreement, no person ought, nor will any of us deal with any such person, or his or her factor or agent, at any time thereafter, for any commodity whatever.”

For the more effectual carrying into execution the foregoing Resolve:

Resolved, That if it shall come to the knowledge of any Member of this Committee that any Retailer of Goods in this County demands or takes any higher rate for the same than allowed of by the Continental Congress, such Member shall require of him or her so offending a true copy of the original Invoices of said Goods, and shall lay