The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1824-05-27 00:00:00

I'll t • • ~G~ !, I 1 material evidence relating to Mr. Flint "oa f that he bad three Nimes inked the &instable who touk . Wllkes into custody to produce I L warrant. A constable named Rowley, who admitted, in emu examination, that he was hard of hearing, swore that Mr. Flint aid Wilkes elmidd not he locked up, hut other who were nearer to lir Flint than Roe/ley, heard no such expression. On summing tap the Chairman did not observe that Mr. Flint had interfered only feuroseitutally, not did he suggest any matter of doubt in his favour. (flee find part of the libel, to which he was now approaching, was written when the memorial had been presented to the Secretary of State by Mr. Flint. A copy of that document found its way to the provincial paper or to the British Press, and, most likely, was sent be the parties interested. The Learned Gentleman then read the that article from the British Press of the 27th of December tut. 'rho observations on the outset were very general, and re limed principally to an Act (the Vagrant Act) which h id been per. lumps misunderstood. It certainly contained some clauses which read been construed to the gnevanee of many people; but as it was about to be repealed, it was not necessary to make as. further observations upon it. The learned Counsel proceeded I now onus to that part of the libel which was published on the 6th of January. It begins—" We abstained from offering any further titservations Me e Flint's case during the last week, limn a wit. stare se to wait still further the result of the memorial submitted to air. Peel, as Secretary of the Home Department. We have row reason to know, that our public statement has produced its Jot. and that Mr. Peel has, though late, directed an inquiry into thesis elm ; as a special meeting of Magistrates, at which Earl Tdbut, the lewd lieutenant of the county, attended, has since buts called together at Staffonl. Earl Ilsrrewby attended, and an bonneted discussion took plate, in which the Lord lieutenant took a prominent and highly honourable part. We learn, however, that his propositions were outvoted by the adherents of Mr. Chetwynd. It may be proper to remark, that Mr. Flint himself was not ex amined at this meeting, nor was any previous communication made 'many of his friends on the subject. The result, however, is to him et little import, as the period of his sentence will expire on Wed nesday, the 11th instant, and any interposition on the part of Mr. Peel, were it even intended, would now come too late, either to cancel tl e injustice of his punishment, or to lessen its disgrace." Mr. CU wynd adverts to this statement in his affidavit. Ile says, mat n ii• q airy was directed, but generally that there was a meet ingot M g strates, who took his conduct inlet consideration, and that the 'teth was, a rote of approbation as to his conduct with re gent to Flint. It does not appear by his a ffi davit, how the vote was pained, whether by a majority of the Magistrates or otherwise. Its not stated whether the vote was opposed by any individual, or whether it passed without opposition. The article then pro ceeds :—`• Front the importance of this case, as it affects the fun damental principles of English law and of English freedom, we have given the trial at full length in another part of our Paper. It M to Parliament alone—to whose guardianship the Conillitntion two entrusted the security of the subject—that he can now ap peal for redrew. The power vested in Justices of the Peace Is at once to extensive and uncontrolled, that it has become at length an undefined tyranny of the worst kind. This ne ter was Intended to be the condition of the people of this reubtry. Mr. Charles Flint, a young gentleman under articles of clerkship, preparatory to his entering into the profession, ha, been sentenced to three months imprisonment and th; labour of the Tread-mill. for no other offence, as appears from a mese. accurate report of the trial, than requiring from it constable a sight of his warrant ! and this at the request of the client who was apprehended upon it, no assault having taken place, nor a single abusive or angry expression having escaped hint !—the only impute ion alleged against him being that " the mob had derived confidence from his prmeime, when one little admonitory word froin hint might lave dispersed them." And he has been made to undergo this 1 ignominious sentence with every unfeeling accompaniment of dis. gate and privation that could exasperate its severity—compelled to leer the prison dress l—restrined peremptorily to the prison al lewanre prohibited, though in ill-health (being subject to a love complaint), from purchasing or procuring any thing bevone El though lie had absolutely fasted forty hours, from an inability tout the bread and water, and gruel, which was the erison food, put on the ground for him by the turnkey ; and this too while he woe extremely unwell, and had so reported himself to the doctor, Mr. R. Hughes. Hut no notice was taken of this report of his ill. eau. He was confined in a cell, and all access from hie friends re resod!" The article then entered again into some detailsof 3lr. Flint's treatment, and concluded with saying—" We shall speedily advert to the eau of Mr. Abraham Flint (the brother) the particulars of which we shall lay fully before the public, in which the conduct of this legislative g uardian of the public rightsives another, and an equally instructive, lemon to the public. Whether the supreme tnbunal of justioe--a British Parliament—will countenance such proceedings, remains to be seen. The case will be brought before it in the ensuing Session." l'he third libel, published on the 16th of January, was to the following effect:—" One of the first notices Oven in the approaching Session of Parliament will be, we trust. for the repeal of the Vagrant Act, and an inquiry into the conduct of the magistracy. Mr. Flint's ease, detailed in our paper some days stace., will, we know, be brought by a distinguished Member before the House, and it cannot be made public without creating great and genendindignation wherever it is heard of. (In this most oppressive case, Mr. Chetwynd, the author of the arbitrary Statute in question, displayed little of that impartiality and temper suited to a NI agistrate and Legislator: the detail of his conduct can isinciliate few supporters, when the motion conies before the Cotu mons Houses The Vagrant Act forms one of the most arbitrary encroachments made on the liberty of the subject for many years; it 'Mows into the hands of Magistrates the moat extravagant and unconstitutional powers—powers that appear to have been st;:ese qaently exercised, by Mr. Chetwynd himself, in the most op pressive manner. In fact, the conduct of Magistrates in general his created of late loud and continued complaint ; were it not for the control exercised by the public press, their tyranny would be unbearable. While the Judges of the land exercise their high Olio:* with moderation and forbearance, accusation alone is suf ficient to call down the iron hand of the Magistrate, and en tail on the individual charged every sort of suffering. The 31a gistracy of .Ireland has hitherto been publicly denounced as de graded and corrupt; but, from our own knowledge and expe rience, we can assert that their acts have not been one half so arbi trary as those of the same class in this country. Such a case as that of 31r. Flint is unexampled in Ireland : there no Magistrate, or bench of Magistrates, would think of any thing so monstrous ae sending a respectableendeman, for a mock riot, to a prison and herd labour ; cut off from every comfort, and degraded by asso ciating with felons and a jail-dress. If acts of this description can pe - petratid with inipanity in England, no man whatever is a di ; private anti public liberty equally become a mere name—an empty sound, and nothing else. We do sincerely trust that this onportant question will meet the fullest and most serious attention in the coming Smite° of Parliament ; and that the Legislature will, by to ry revision and enactments, shield the people in. general Bona the Magisterial tyranny, which we have seen restated much too often of late, to the degradation of the laws, and the serious injury and oppression of the subject." This article is, undoubtedly, a reflection on Mr. Clietwylei's con duct; and the writer makes a mistake in supposing diet Mr. Flint was sent to prison under the Vagrant Act, mimed of the 3d of Geogr. IV. The charges are certainly of a very serious character against Mr. Chetwynd ; but I submit, that the qiirstioe for your Lordships to consider is, whether this Court would be justified in interposing its authority in the form of a criminal information at the instance of Mr. Chetwynd; and to that point I will now address same observations to your Lordships. I know how delicate a ques. ;ton it is to discuss the extent to which the public press should meddle with the conduct of Gentlemen in the discharge of their official duties as illegitimate'. For my own part, I would whir aoplaed him who should forbear to notice a publication which might be unpleasant to his feelings, or even mischievous to his re putaiien. I know that unwarrantable publications may be injuri ous to 4hat which is the best foundation of the administration of justice, its support in public opinion, sometimes even by bringing to light the improper conduct of the Magistracy ; yet I feel that some advantages are derived by the public from the exposures that are made occasionally in particular cues, and that by that means the appropriate punishment is given to that sort of conduct whisk can never be called before any other tribonal. I know well that any writer who makes free comments on the Magistracy, must ex pose himself to the chance of a prosecution; and that, however justifiable the feeling, however excusable the motive with which he Sias written, the party who shall make a publication tending to bring the Magistracy into contempt, cannot, according to the strict le ter Of the law, be justified; but the question is widely different when you, my Lords, are called on to interfere by a criminal information ago...st the party offending. It then becomes your ditty to i.ethat the party calling foe this interposition has so conducted himself as to be altogether free from all just suspicion of blame attaching to him, and whether his whole conduct, as it appears befoul the Court, is each as entitles him to this sort of protection. I take leave, my Lords, to say humbly, but not the less confidently, that this Court sets mainly in aid of the best operation of public opinion, which in this country, and in this country only, keeps all men in ail stations to the performance of their duty. tredoubtselly, my Lords, I do not deny, that there are instances in which, when founded on delusion, public clamour may drown the still small voice of reason. Vet, to it, my howls, we owe the safety of our best institutions, and therefore lie who at his own peril and hazard ventures to appeal to public opinion against what he supposes to • be . the misconduct of a magistrate, and who can lay such a case berjou as to make yore Lordships feel that the 3lagistrat e h as exposed to reasonable suspicion, naturally arising in the noted of a man not judging rashly or hastily, that he had acted with vindictive feelings, and hod forgotten the impartiality which should guide his conduct as a magistrate, with respect to the per sons submitted to his jurisdiction. I say, my Lords, that a party offending under these circumstances, though he may not be able to vindicate himself' according to the strict letter of the law, may, nevertheless, tell tke Magistrate, when he asks for redress in this eatraortiinsry manner, that he is not entitled to it. 1 feel, my Lords, the advantage derived to the hest interests of the public from their attention being drawn to such cases as these, which, while . they deeply affect the honour, integrity, and character of one ma gistrate, have a strong tendency to preserve the honour, integrity, , and char suer of all others. In this country every man owes some thing to public opinion. AU the decencies of life, the duties of high station, and the feelings that actuate die best of men, have their root and founestion in the Immo( honest fame. No condition is exempted front the mighty power of opinion. It affords a refuge to the most deserted and abandoned, while nu rank, however lofty--wo state, however exalted--co fortune, how. <me splendid, c mid shelter its pascuor from the reach of pub lic censure. I ask your Lordships, then, whether, in conformity with the practice of this Court, and in analogy with the odor cases of a similar nature, you can file an inforniation in this ease ? In re-' Oiling it, yr* will adhere to the sole rules that heretofore guided you, without passing any judgment against Mr. Chetwynd, and much more without acquitting the defendants. Your liable( duty, my horde, 1 submit therefore, calls on you not to interfere. Let me remind your Lordships of a case that occurred not ten years ago. It was that of • distinguished nobleman whose name I will not re. Pest be complained that his name had been mentioned in a MM. 'try paper, which had made use of it certainly in an improper way with regard to some ladies in the town in which the paper was published. On the facts bring shown to the satisfac tion of the Court that there had bee.' cerai h levr ie.. in the Noble Lord's conduct, certain appearenees, which had given rise to remarks similar to those ip the final, by . several respect. able persons residing in that town ; this diatingmehed nobleman, a person of unquestionable honour, and of the highestcharaeten was refused the redress he asked for. I will not deny that Mr. Chet wynd is entitled to the fullest protection of the law, both as to his feelings and his fortune, but when he comer into ibis Court as a suitor for criminal justice, your Lordships know no distinction be tween him, ample is are his riches, and my client, the humble printer of this newspaper. Mr. Chetwynd must ask for it on Or same principles, and satisfy your hardships with as sufficient era. dence, of the propriety of your interposition. In considering this case I wish to supply no fact that does not appear on the thee of the affidavits ; antialiere at least there is strong reason to presume that vindictive feelings on the part of Mr. Chetwynd, originating in a private quarrel, pursued Mr. Abraham Flint to his coovicdm. They were afterwards found on the bench, where they were intro dneed to serve a purpose not connected with the criminal juetice of the country. Again they appeared on the trial of the brother, Mr. Charles Flint, superintending the execution of a sentence, which I have no hesitation in saying any man insist feel to have been ash in human exercise of power. These vindictive feelings watched their' a victim through every species of torture which the law would warrant ! them in intlictint:, until at length the very groans of the sufferer were concerted into materials of accusation against hhn. It re minds me, try Lords, of the words of the historian, who, describ ing the miserable condition of the Roman people under Tiberius, says—. aripiria salwritsintur." The very sighs of the wretched we.e made the subject of criminal charges against them. At least, my lards, let the unhappy be free to express their misery. bet the putlie press at least convey to Government, and three who have the power of redressing the wrongs of the sufferer, a knowledge of the mushy practised towards hint. I know the danger of inter- fering improperly in the discipline of gaols; yet I know also that if it were not that the public press opened up the conduct of those , in power, it is impossible for any man to say what inflictions the prisoners might be compelled to endure in those receptacles of mi. eery,. where sometimes honest men suffer. By means of the press, public wrongs, committed on the persons of private individuals are made known, and public sympathy is awakened into vigour. In this case, therefore, I expect that the Court will not exercise that authority, by which it pronounces beforehand that final judg ment should follow. The public know that both parties are heard before the information is filed, and that the matter is fully considered in the first instance. The question then is, whether there are not such demerits on the side of the prosecution, es should disincline the Court to give that judgment now by which the verdict must be affected. The ordinary modes of redress will stiU remain open to Mr. Chetwynd. lye may obtain a fair and' impartial trial if he chooses to italiet there persons; but I submit that he is not entitled to ask for the extraordinary interposition of your Lordship., in order to stifle the last groan, and suppress the last effort of his victim. Mr. Sergeant WILDE then rose to follow. hut Their Lordships having consulted a few minutes, The LORD ewer JiTeTtce said, the Court would now hear the otter aide, and directed the Attorney-General to procred. The ATTOIIXEY•tIE N ERA L said, that no person was more dis- Posed to subscribe to what his Learned Friend had stated, as to the power of public opinion, than he was. No one felt more the Mi norite es of the freedom of the rms. or more approved of its being called into action to restrain the improper conduct of alagistrates, or other individuals exercising power, but on all these occasions it was material to ascertain whether the stotenients made were &A -1 neural in truth. 'What he complained of was, that false statements I were puhlished. and that on those false statements reasonings were I founded, by which public opinon, Instead of being enlightened, was obscured, and by which, therefore, the voice of the people was raised against the best interests of society. It was because the statements in the libel were untrue—because Mr. Chetwynd was satisfied they were untrue, that he had directed him to make that application. Ile would follow the course his Learned Friend (Mr. Scarlet[) had punned, in directing the attention of the Court, in the first place, to the facts, and lie should afterwards make as few comments as possible. He would then leave it in their Lordships' hands. sitislitd that they would conic to the same conclusion as himself, ail° the justice of the case. His Learned Friend had promised in the outset that he would state the contents of the Ai ' davits with as much candour as he could. He (the Attorney- General) confessed lie was a little surprised at what his Learned Friend hal aterwards done, for instead of reading the libel, and entering into the history or the transactions, respecting Charles Flint, lie had begun with the affidavit of Abraham Flint, intro ducing facts which Sir George Chetwynd could not possibly anticipate. By this course he had endeavoured to excite • most unjust prejudice against Sir George Chetwynd in the minds of their Lordships, and those who heard die argument. He (the Attorney-General) would pursue an opposite course, and satsifylltheir Lordships that his Learned Frietul was not entitled to refer to the facts stated in Abraham Flint's affidavit. lie would, first of all, direct their attention to the charges in the letter, next to the proceedings on the trial, then to what passed as to the sen tence on Flint and the others indicted with him, and lastly to the occurrences in the prison, which had been pressed into the service of the defendants so strongly on this occasion. He would satisfy the Court that Sir George Chetwynd was not responsible for whit had taken place during the confinement of Charles Flint ; and, finally, he would shew what part of Abraham Flint's affidavit ap plied to this case, and what could not be noticed without injustice to ' I Sir George Chetwynd. It was stated in the libel, after some gene. ral sneers on the conduct of Sir George Chetwynd, and some at- ' tacks on him as a Magistrate and Legislator, that a complaint was exhibited before Mr. Whitby, the Magistrate, for a riot; that, after a full investigation it was dismissed; that afterwards Mr. Chetwynd, who was • Magistrate of the county, and Chairman of the Quarter Session, and who, therefore, in the ordinary course of things, would try the parties accused, interposed for the purpose of introducing Flint as a defendant in the indictment in the prose cution which Mr. Whitby had refused to countenance. He wished particularly to direct their Lordships' attention to this passage:— " A few days after, various persons were charged, by the law agent of Sir George Jerningluini, with obstructing the constables in ap prehending the said John Wilkes, when the Magistrate, the Rev. J. Whitby, went into a full investigation of the affair, and dis missed the complaint." Every part of that statement was' untrue; it was not even pretended to have any foundation. lf, as it had been suggested, the information proceeded from Chas. Flint, be most have known the statement to be untrue; arid the defendants, by adopting his representations, had made themselves; responsible For his conduct. The libel went on, "No charge"— and to this fact we would draw the public attention—" No charge' was made against Mr. Charles Flint; he was not included among' the various persons against whom this charge hail been made. Nay Sir GeorgeJeminghain's law agent had even declared that he was omitted, because there was no ground whatever fur including him." In reply to this, he begged to direct their Lordships' attention to. the affidavit of 31r. Seckerson, Sir George Jemingham's attorney, who stated that no charge was at first preferred against Chas. Flint, because he was not aware of all the facts connected with the trans.' action. Flint was introduced as a defendant into the indictment, not from the suggestion of Sir George Clietwynd, but on the advice end recommendation of Mr. Pearson, the barrister, to whom all the' fact* were stated. . _ . 111 r. scan LET T made an observation, which we could not heir. The TT OR W EY-UENERAL refetved to theaffidavito(Setkerson The LORD Cuter JI , STICE—This is the pan :—" Nor was the said Charles Flint included therein (in the indictment) by the advice or direction of George Chetwynd, 1.3 q. the chairman of the said quarter sessions; nor did this deponent ever uk for, nor did the said George Chetwynd ever give any advice, assistance, or re eomi,endation as to preferring the said indictment, but that it was preferred against the said Chutes Flint and the said other persons, and that the said Charles Flint was inelipled therein with the appro. bstion and by the advice of the banister whom this deponent con. suited upon the occuion, and who prepared the indictment." r. Sergeant 11II.DE referred to the contents of one of his affi davits. The Lonn filler J usr tcr—irhithy states that he bouod over Hammerslty and the others to app sir at the quarter withal& Mr. Sergeant WILDE—That is an artful statement, my Lord. They were bound over because there was a question as to a ma licious ttespasa They wishA to go to the quarter sessions. The others were lined 10a. at once. The ,ITTOIt X Y.GENEttA L said, one charge against them wu as to a wilful trespass and the other as to riotous conduct. Whitby stated that slier hearing the complaint he bound them over to ap pear at the quarter sessions, to do and receive what should then be. enjoined them by the Court, and in tho mean time to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Mr. SCAUL LT T said the mistake of Mr. Whitby was, that there were two complaints before him ; one related to the trial, the other ' to the trespass. The Loan CHIEF JUSTloE.—Whitby states that Hammer,- Johnson, Hines, Sellers, and Read, were charged before him with obstructing a constable and his assistants in the execution oil their duty, un the Ilth of June last, when Wilkes and Hawkins were apprehended fora wilful trespass, and that Hammersley and the others were also charged with riotous conduct, to the best of his recollection and belief. The ATTOMNEY.GENCIAL said, that the affidavit of Mr. Seckerson confirmed that of Mr. Whitby, in those respects. The libel then proceeded to represent that Sir George Chetwynd had, in a " malignant interval, encouraged the base and revengeful attack upon 31r. Flint." It was remarkable, that in the affidavits no attempt was tnade on the part of the defendants, to prove any part of this allegation. If indeed, Sir George Chetwynd had been an base and infamous as he was charged with being in the libel, it was yoke imposaible he could appear in Court, and ask the inter position of their Lordships in his behalf ; but in terms as distinct, positive, and public as possible for man to use, he had negatived this charge. Mr. Searlett had stated that it was difficult to make out the affirmative, that Sir George Chetwynd had interfaed for this base and Infamous purpose. If it was thus difficult to prove, at least the person who had stated his " informa tion and belief" that he was included in the indictment, by the advice and direction of the Chairman of the Quarter Ses sions, might have stated in his affidavit from Ciora he had received this hformation. The editor of the newspaper mule this statement his own, by adding, in his own words—" And this Chairman of the said Quarter Sessions, is no other than George Chetwynd, Esq. the Member foe Stafford." The defendant here adopted the language of Flint. and became responsible for all that had pre ceded. When his Learned Friend (Mr. Scarlett) spoke of the value of public opinion, an far as it related to preserving the punty of tile magistracy, was not he (the Attorney-G en er a l) justified in expect ing that t hose who assumed the duty of guiding and directing that public opinion, should take care that the facts they published were founded in truth, and not of the calumnious nature stated in this libel ? lie did not hesitate to state that in bringing forward these proceedings, kiir G. Chetwynd felt that no part of the libel was more infamous or intolerable than this. That after a charge had been heard and dismissed, a person should interpose to revive it before whom it would afterwards be tried, in order that he might gratify a nialignant feeling he entertained towards one of the indi- ' valtuds accused, was, if unfounded, • libel of niost infamous stamp, and in this ease the delendants.fai not acempted to assert that it Was true. Sir G. Chetwynd might have stopped at this part of the article without going farth er , b u t he thought it his ditty to set o' .: I the whole, in order to give an oliportunity to the defendants to bring his whole conduct under consideration, and therefore to prevent the I least doubt remaining as to the uprightness of his magisterial labours. It would be doing him an act of injustice if the atten ! Lion of their 'ordships was not eallnl to the words in which he' denied all participation in the prosecution. He said that he teas ! in Lo Klan at the time the original complaint is stated in the said title to have been made before J. Whitby, (whose Christian name is, in bet, Thomas) against the ser.eal persona who were then ch arge) with the offence foe which the said Charles Flint and I the saidiother defendants were so indicted as aforesaid, and that he did not Start fain London to the rnit county of Stafford until the 20th day of June lags " Keith that the said indictment was not pre. tarred, nor was the said Charles Flint included therein under the adrireer direction of this deponent, and that he, this deponent, did nut in any manner give his advice, assistance, direction, or TeCOM. mendation to the law agent cf Sir ()forge Jerningham, or to any ether person or persons woomsoever, as to preferring the said in. dielment or including the said Chit les Flint or any other person sin." He might also reter to the statement made by Mr. Seek. in language that could not be excelled for clearness and force, 1 which his Lordship had already read. 'Filerefore, as far as related to that material part of the charge against Sir 0. Chetwynd, the libel was entirely negatived, lie next come to the proceedings on the trial. It was sworn by Flint not only that he had taken no part in the riot, but that in fact there was no riot whatever. The Individuals to 'Loin Mr. Scarlett had referred, and who had made sonic voltuni. nous affidavits to persuade their Lordship' that there was no riot, Were the witnesses whom Mr. Flint's Counsel had not thought I proper to examine on the trial. On • motion for a new trial their' LonLhips could net receive those affidavits. The witnesses were : in Court, but the Counsel would not examine them, because he' did nai. choose to expose them to eroessexamination or himself to a' reply. But an application was now made to the Court to per- suede their Lordships that in reality no offence had been com. initted. 'Phis Course of proceeding was really not to be endured. 1 Mr. Scarleti hail reproached Sir Oeorgethetwynd for not annexing to his affidavit his voluminous notes of the trial. Sir (leorge Chet_ wynd had referred to passages in the newspaper l but he stated also distinctly, that on the trial he read all his notes ; that he took down as much evidence as he co id, with accuracy and attention; anti that he stated what arguments suggested themselves to his mind as fairly and impartially as he was able. An objection had been urged to his impartiality because of a certain omission. Rowley had sworn, that Flint and Wilkes should not be put in the imitate. Another man, named Jones, had not heard these words. I Now be (the Attorney-Oeneral) wou ld take the printed report of the trial, which was certainly not drawn by a very impartial hand; but the affidavits on the other side stated it to be correct. The only omission that 31r. Ctietwynd had made was mentioned to hint by Mr. 14311, and he immediately stated the fact to the Jury, but without any continents, as when he spoke of the words addressed to Rowley. Heconse Jones had not heard the words, it did not foi -1 low that Rowlett did not. Mr. Justice ISAy LEY—But then it admits of this observation, that Rowley is deaf, and might have misunderstood the words ad dressed to him. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Yes, my Lord, but we are not now on an application for a now trial. He would than proceed to what passed respecting the sentence on Flint. Sir Oeorge Chet wynd was not the only magistrate on the bench during the trial; Mr. Clare was there also, and he stated in his affidavit that Flint had a fair and impartial trial ; that Sir George Chetwynd conduct ed himself with great impartiality, and that he did not appeal to any feelings or prejudices of the Jury to obtain awerdict against either of the defendants. Sir George Chetwynd, as the presiding magistrate, conducted the trial, but another was there to watch his proceedings, and he was of opinion that his conduct was fair and impartial. On the other side, the Court had a great variety of affi davits by parties interested in behalf of Flint, who described Sir George Chotwynd's conduct at partial ; but these affidavits, under the circumstances of this case, he would hold to be unworthy of Mr. Justice BAY LEY referred to the affidavits to see whether it was stated that Rowley had a warrant when he apprehended Wilkes. The ATTORNIZT-OZWERAL—Under the trespass act, my Lord, a warrant is not necessary. By the 3d of George IV. a constable may apprehend • wilful trespasser without a warrant. Wilkes claimed under a person named Cooke, who had never been inpos. session of the property. Cooke pretended to the Barony of Sta fford . Wilkes wu taken before a magistrate, and fined ten shillings. He appealed to the Sessions, who disallowed his appeal. Sir George Chetwynd had nothing to do with that transaction; it was wholly foreign to the merits of the inquiry before the Court. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to read the report of the trial, to shew that no material omissions bad been made by Sir. G.Chetwyrid, and that there was strong evidence of a riot and attempt at rescue. Having finished reading them, he asked their Lordships whether he had not i made out that there was no partiality in the conduct of Sir G. Chet. wynd as the Chairman of quarter Sessions on that occasion ? Was it necessary for him to pry into the evidence of Mr. Clare, who had given such dear and unequivocal testimony in favour of Sir George Chetwynd ? As to the judgment, supposing the Court to be of opinion that it was more severe than the offence deserved, it was not the act of Sir George Chetwynd alone. After the verdict, he retired with Mr. Clare Into an inner room, where also were two other Magistrates, the Reverend Mr. Leigh, and Sir Oswald Mosley, who all consulted together, and after the circumstances of the case were considered, they all eesrcurred in the propriety of the sentence that was afterwards passed by Sir George Chetwynd, u the organ of the Court. What foundation was there then for the imputsuon ' that the judgment was his single and solitary act ? Mr. Clare, who was present at the trial, concurred in it, and two other Magistrates, to whom the facts were also stated. But there was an extraordi nary imputation on Sir Geroge Chetwynd, that he had gone out of his ordinary course of proceedings to injure Flint. Sir George Chetwynd always tried the traverses ; but it was true, as stated in the affidavit of Flint, that be did not try them In that Court. The insinuation was, that he had exercised a different jurisdiction. This statement *hewed the spirit in which these affidavits were drawn up. The Loan Cuter Jusizer—Does the affidavit state that it was not his practice to try traverses ? Mr. Sergeant WI cniread the passage, which stated, that to the best of the deponent's knowledge and belief, 31r. Chetwynd had always regularly sat on the Crown Side previously to his trial. The Loan Cuter JrSTICE—It states also, I thick, that he remained till one other indictment was tried, and then returned to the other side ? Mr. Sergeant WILDE—It does, my Lord; and the affidavit of Putman states that it was his regular custom to sit on the Crown Side. The ATTORNEY•GENERAL said, the affidavits always spoke in reference to the Court. The insinuation was, that Sir George Chetwynd was not in the habit of trying traverses. It was impos bible to read the affidavit, and not come to the conclusion that he went out of his usual course to try the traverse from personal motives towards the deponent. He (the Attorney-General) spoke in the hearing of many gentlemen who knew the practice of those Quarter Sessions, and it was notorious that Sir G. Chetwynd tried traverses. Why were the Courts spoken of then as localities, except that the deponents might swear by the card and to the letter? He then came to the treatment of Flint in the prison, which he contended was not within the control and jurisdiction of Sir George Chetwynd in particular. It was subject to the regulations framed by the Ma gistrates of the county, and sanctioned by the Judges of Assize. There was no evidence that a knowledge of Flint's situation was brought home to Sir George Chetwynd. With respect to the se verity of his treatment, he was, during three months, employed only live hours at the tread-mill, and had had his labour changed every time he had complained of it. After arguing at great length in support of the rule, the Learned Gentleman concluded with saying—•• I agree fully with my Learned Friend, that public opinion is of importance to every individual, and par ticularly to this gentleman, the Magistrate of a County, and Chair. man of the Quarter Sessions. Let his conduct be investigated, examined, sifted to the utmost by the public press—but let it be bound to state the facts truly—and then Sir George Chetwynd will fearlessly stand or fall by the result ; but let not the press invent facts, and create a false public opinion to run down and traduce the characters of respectable individuals. Sir George Chetwynd desired me to state the facts of his case fully. I have done so, perhaps too diffusely • but I felt it my duty rather to go beyond my instructions, than fal l of them on an occasion so important to the reputation of m! client." The Loan Crux r JUSTICE then asked if there was not another use for the sirce libel, . . Mr. BROUGHAM said that the other case, the King r. Stokes, was not for the same libel. The introduction and conclusion were different; and the second and third publications were not confined to the present case. Their Lordships having consulted some time— The LORD CHILF JUSTI CE observed, that his brother Wilde now appeared disposed to address the Court in behalf of the de fendants. If he was still inclined to do so, though it was rather tut irregular course, the Court would listen to him, u they were de sirous to hear all the gentlemen in the cause. Mr. Sergeant WI 1. 11E, said that when he rose before he ghoul I have added to what Mr. tcarlett had offered to the attention of the Court only, such remarks as appeared necessary to prevent the suc cessful display of the great talent by which be anticipated the At torney-General would endeavour to withdraw the merits of the tion from the consideration of their Lordships. Now he felt that it would be his client's misfortune, arising solely from the weakness of their advocates, if the cue was not restored to the state in which it stood when the Attorney-General rose to address the Court. The parties before their Lordships were, he humbly begged leave to re mind them, Air. (now become Sir George) Chetwynd, not against Flint, but against the editor of a public journal, tor remarking on • transaction most deeply affecting the public interest. He would concede to the Attorney-General that the character of the Flints might not be entitled to that perfect approbation which was on the first instance bestowed upon them. But the question was now be. tween the editor of a public journal and sir G. Chetwynd, and his merits were more pertinent to the question than those of the Flints. Something had been said about the press, and both the Learned Gentlemen had agreed that the public derived much benfit from that source. If then the presawsa admitted to be of advantage—if its existence was worth preserving, he begged to remark that it could usefully discharge no public duty,tinless when remarking on public officers it was held to stand excused, when its statements were found to be substantially correct. He therefore put in his claim on behalf of this press, to which we owed so much, and to which we looked t o retail s what we possessed, that it should not be held to be unjus tifiable, because every tittle of every statement it might publish nuld nes be proved in evidence. He apprehended that the At. torney-Orneral was net entitled to ride off - with Mande, because he might have found a little pnesge here, and eacther there, which was not, in the fullest senile of the words, coglaPligalY substantiated, He .(Mr. Sergeant Wilde) admitted, with his learned lesdet, that if the statements in the alleged libel before the Court were not sub stantially true, the rule must be made absolute. The question was not whether this was an innocent publication. The question was Dot whether proccsdings ought not to be instituted against it by the ordinary forms of law. The question tau not w hether . Sir George Chetwynd ought to have no remedy by action or indictment against I the pinks offending. The question was not whether the door of justice should be shut against Sir George Chetwynd, but whether it shogld be approached by that particular avenue. It the Court refused the rule there were other modes of redress. The real question was, whether he had so conducted lnin. self as to entitle him to this extraordinary interposition for the protection of his character? The substance of the libel was, that the prosecutor, in his capacity as a magistrate, had grievously oppressed Flint, through the forms of law, from vindic tive motives of a personal nature. If the defendants made out that Sir George Chetwynd had grievously oppressed Flint, and could trace him to be either the sole pronouncer of an unjust judgment on Flint, or a principal participator in the injustice, he (Mr. Ser. pant Wilde) apprehended the rule could not be made absolute. The Attorney-General hail argued the case with very great ability, but he had avoided the main points on which the question turned. The defendants charged Sir George Chetwynd with coming to the trial of Flint with vindictive motives, and a predetermination to do him injustice. Sir George Chetwynd, in his affidavit, challenged investigation into his conduct, but the Attorney-General had com plained that the transactions relating to A. Flint had been introduced. It was stated in the libel, that Sir George's conduct towards Charles Flint might he illustrated by his unjust judgment against Abraham Flint. Sir George Chetwynd had claimed the merit of procuring a remission of Abraham Flint's sentence. But the defendants asked how be came to be at all concerned in the trial of that man, with whom he had had a personal quarrel? If their Lord ships found, that by the most improper conduct, Sir George Chet wynd had given rise to suspicion s a s to his motives, would they allow him to attack those who drew the conclusion which his con duct warranted ? Every applicant for a criminal information might not anticipate all that would appear against hint, but he came at the peril of the explanations he called for. Vl' hat con duct could a Judge pursue less entitled to the protection of the Court, than that of sitting in judgment on an individual with whom he had been engaged in a personal conflict? His regard to the duty he owed to his country, and his own honour as an indivi vidual, ought to have prevented him front sitting on the Bench on such an occasion. If their Lordships made the rule absolute, it would be an approbation of Sir G. Chetwynd's conduct. If they discharged it they only sent hint to the ordinary course of law. It appeared that Sir G. Chetwynd had acted as a Commissioner of Bankrupts under the commission against Emery, and that three several times much warmth and hostility had taken place between him and Abraham Flint. The next stage in the proceedings brought Abraham Flint to trial for some act in relation to that commission, respecting which Sir G. Chetwynd had taken an oath to discharge Ms duty faith fully, and without prejudice to either party. Vet Sir G. Chetwynd had actually rescued a man pursued by a Judge's warrant for what he had done relating to that commission. In the King r. Brooke, 9d Term Reports, the Court had granted a criminal information against a Magistrate fora less offence. :lyre the Attorney-General was placed in the unfortunate situation which compelled him to argue, that a man so acting was entitled to a criminal information against those who censured his conduct He might rescue a pri boner and then sit in judgment on an assault arising out of that transaction ! Could the Court doubt that such conduct tended di. reedy to bring the administration cad' justice into contempt ? Surely no judicious man, no correctly-minded man, no just man, could have dune so, for it was a part of justice to protect people from the injustice they were liable to suffer front our passions. Abraham Flint was tried, however, anti convicted of an assault on a wcman, whom he had struck with a whip on the hand to prevent a rescue. The Learned Judge then presiding had sentenced Emery to six months' imprisonment for a very different offence ; but Sir George Chetwynd made that sentence his guide, and even went beyond it. The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE asked when that trial took place? Mr. RusserA. stated in answer, that his Lordship, when he tried it, was assisting the other Judge. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—ii think I recollect it. Mr. Sergt. WILDE proceeded. Emery was then under judgment, and therefore it would appear the passions of Sir 0. Chetwynd had not subsided. On the trial it was proved there was no witness against the defendant but those connected with the parties prosecuting. (In such a case M. at Nisi Pries would have been a sufficient verdict ; yet because the Learned Judge had sentenced Emery to six months' Imprisonment for a rescue, Flint was sentenced to the same term for preventing a rescue. This sentence was most severe, and dis proportional to the offence. Afterwatds Sir George Chetwynd tampered with Flint, to wring from his distresses a justification when the day should arrive en which his conduct was arraigned. Mr. SCAaLETT—And also to procure the remission of the n mainder of Emery's imprisonment. Mr. Sergeant IVILDE—From that just judgment which your Lordship had passed upon him. The Attorney-General had intro duced the name of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Russell). He (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) wished it had not been mentioned. His Learned Friend was an honourable man, but he would ask, never theless, what right Sir George Chetwynd had to suggest his name ? Flint was a professional man, and could best have selected for him self. Could any man doubt that Sir George Chetwynd had chosen Mr. Russell because he was friendly to him, especially when he looked at the panegyric on Sir George Chetwynd's conduct which that memorial contained ? When before was a Judge known to ask in this manner for a panegyric on his own conduct—or why would Sir George Chetwynd have made this application to Flint, unless he expected it would be impuned ? Flint was then in such distress that even Sir George Chetwynd was moved at it.— He then tampered with Flint to protect himself; but the other ma. gistratu could not sign the memorial with that panegyric in it, and Flint remained in prison, and endured his sentence. Of what va lue indeed could relief have been, purchased by such means? and indeed of what value could the acquittal of Sir George Chetwynd have been to him, extorted by a mode which rather reflected dis grace than honour ? The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE interrupted the Learned Sergeant, to request him to discontinue his argument at present, and resume it on Friday morning, unul when the further consideration of the rule was deferred. TIIE LINO V. RICHARD CARLILE. Mr. FRENCII moved for a rule to show cause why a criminal In. formation should not be filed against the late Sheriffs of London, Messrs. Rothwcll and Parkins,for retaining in their possession, in stead of selling, a quantity of printed works (70,000 volumes we believe), seised under a writ of levari facing issued against the defendant in a fine levied upon him for blasphemy. Mr. Justice BAY LET—.3lr. ltothwell is dead I believe. you can't call upon him. (A laugh.) The LORD Cater JUSTICE observed, that the proper course would be, to apply for a writ of renditioni rrponas, but he believed there were some objections as to the character of the works. His Lordship was also of opinion that some steps had been taken to ob tain a writ before, and advised the Learned Counsel to inquire re. sparing those circumstances. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, 'WEDNESDAY, MAT 20, ACT OF BANKRUPTCY. DAWSON AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES Or •-•.-., • 44444 GrT, v. HAIGH. This was an action tried before Lord Gifford, at Guildhall, for a debt due to the bankrupt, in which a verdict was obtained by the plaintiffs, but with liberty for the defendant to move to have the same set aside, and a non-suit entered, in case it should appear to this Court that there was not sufficient evidence to support the act of bankruptcy ; and Mr. Serjeant Vaughan had obtained a rule Nisi for that purpose. Mr. Justice Rraaouotts reed the Learned Judges notes of the trial, by which it appeared that the evidence adduced by the plain tiff's to prove the bankruptcy was, that the bankrupt had gone to Calais, and from thence to France, and had written letters at dif ferent times to the father of one of his creditor respecting the em. barrassed state of his affairs ; and particularly in the last of three letters had said, that he was then quite safe at Paris, understand ing that his creditors were becoming uneasy, and fearing if he re turned he should be arrested, he should therefore remain where he was. argCh u iefJustice BEST—What is the question that is intended to be ? Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN said, that the question he meant to argue was, that the letters which were given in evidence at the trial having been written by the defendant himself, some time after he left England, ought not to have been received, and could not be considered sufficient proof of the act of bankruptcy ; and if so, then that there was no proof to support the commission, for it surely would not be said that a man going to and remaining in France was of itself an act of bankruptcy. Chief Justice FiEdT—Certainly not ; because you might be de. tained there for the purpose of transacting your business, or by many other causes quite unavoidable on your own pan; but if your remaining there be coupled with cireumstunces of a suspicious, or at least of a doubtful kind, then it might become perhaps a pan of the act of bankruptcy. Mr. Justice BE ano uo ns—Suppose a man goes abroad, not with the intention or committing an act of bankruptcy, and should never come back, would that be an act of bankruptcy Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN—Certainly nut, and your Lordship will see in the new Bill that that point is expressly stated, for by a clause in that Bill it is provided, that if any person shell remain abroad, and thereby delay his creditors, it shall he an act of bank ' ruptey, thus clearly implying, that such was not the law at present. The Learned Sergeant then argued, that tf.• letters of the bank. rupt were net written at the time of his leaving England, but that a considerable period had elapsed, and that they could not there fore be taken as expressive of the motives for which he went abroad, no person being capable of becoming a witness of his own bank ruptcy, and nothing which he might say after the supposed act being admissible to prove it to have been an act of bankruptcy. Mr. Justice PAR g—.l3l . otheT Vaughan, it is as clear as day-light, that whatever comes from the bankrupt pending his absence, which, in itself, is only a doubtful act, respecting his remaining abroad, is a proof of his motive for going abroad in the first instance. Chief Justice BEST—If the act of bankruptcy was complete, then what the bankrupt says afterwards is not evidence ; but if the act is in itself doubtful, his own words, expressive of his motive far doing that act, will be evidence. Mr. Sergeant VAUOUAN—Then that will establish this piaci pie, that if any man goes abroad for pleasure, or any other innocent cause. and two or three years afterwards, finding himself in embar rassed circumstances, conceives it would be convenient for him to have been a bankrupt some time since, he has only to write a letter to tome one and say, " 0 ! my motive for leaving the kingdom was to avoid my creditors." But I recollect that many cases go to make it doubtful whether a declaration made only on the follow ing day would be sufficient, but that it ought to accompany the very act, or, at lead, be so soon after it, that no doubt could exist as to the truth of the declaration, which ought to be a ',art of the reit gists of the transaction. The Learned Sergeant then contended, that the fact had net been left by Lord °Word to the Jury, but that he had himself decided upon it as a matter of law. Mr. Sergeant PELF. begged to state that lie expressly mentioned it to t'le Learned Judge at the trial, that it was a question for the Jury, and that it had been left to them, although Brother l'aughsa said it was a question for the Bench, and not the Jury. Chief Justice BEST said, that, as the question had been left to the Jury, all they had to decide eras, whether there was sufficient evidence of an act of bankruptcy. Ile was dearly of opinion that there was evidence upon which the Jury was justified in boding that the bankrupt left this country fur the pur pos e of delaying his creditors. The first letter was written by him from Calais, desiring his creditors not to be uneasy ; and the last t o ld t h em, that finding they were alarmed, and that fearing he should be arrested if he came back, it was hi:: intention to remain where he was. This was dearly an act of bankruptcy of the old kind, and not of a new description, as Brother Vaughan had called it. But it had been said that the letters were not evidence ? He was clearly of opinion that the letters were admissible in evidence. Going abroad au an equivocal act; but the motives for which that was done might be collected from the letters or declarations of the party himself, but which must be made while he was committing the act, and be part of it; the remaining abroad being one continued act, and the writing of the letters, or making the declaration, being circu m . stances amounting together to an act of bankruptcy. Ile was, therefore, of opinion, that the verdict for the plaintiffs should stand, and the rule be discharged. Mr. Justice PARE and Mr. Justice BURROUGHS were of til t same opinion. Rule discharged. POLICE. HATTON DA RDEN. CHARGE or ROBBElV.—Yesterday, John Rennv, Esq. was brought up from Pentonville watch-house, charged with harin g robbed Mr. Douglas of 2,:itnlf. ill bank notes. M , des a constable of ('lerkenwell, deposed that y ester d ay even i ng he' was sent for by Mr. Douglas of Pentonville. who desired hint to take the pei. soner into custody, as he had robbed him of the above Nuned 1111112. The prisoner at the time was in Mr. Douglas's house, and on searching him, were found on his person two notes of a thousand pounds each ; one of three hundred, and a hundred pound note; he immediately took hint to the watch-house. A Solicitor attended on behalf of each party. It was urged oft the ;tart of the defendant, that there was • good deal of money eansactions between the parties, originating out of accommodattan bills ; and as he conceived that he had some claims on complain ant. Therrosecutor, after a gond deal of discussion between the parties, consented not to press the charge of felony, bat to have the money paid into the hands of some respectable banker, until their private accounts were arranged . The parties then retired sith Wiles, the Cor ,, table (who had the money in his possession since i the preceding evenin g) t o lodge tin • banking-house in Lom. bard-street. UNION-HALL. CAMBERWELL SUSPECTED MURDER.--VeSMITULy abl three men, Spencer, Johnson, and flaw. who have undergone severe) examinations, charged on suspicion with the murder of Mary Villkins, were put to the bar. There not being au fficie it evidence Intend either of the prisoners before a Jury, they wtre all set at large. -- ANNIVERSARY OF THE EISTEDOVOD, OR MEETING OF THE WELSH BARDS AND ans. smias, &e. Since the publication of our report of this meeting, con tained in Monday's paper, we have been favoured with the following particulars of the medals presented on the occa sion, in addition to those we then noticed. The first medal awarded was presented by Miss Morgan to the Rev. W. J. Bets, rector of Casgob, Radnorshire, as the proxy of the Rev. W. Probert, of Walinsley, the au thor of the successful essay " On Ancient Genealogies." Then followed the investiture of Dr. ()wain Pughe and Mr. Flaxman • and, fourthly , a medal, award e d by t h e ancleient Society of Gieynejiligion to Richard Jones, o f Caernarvon, for the best od e i n Welsh, " On the Advan tage of Knowledge," with which, in the absence of the author, Griffith Jones, Esq., President of the Society, was invested by Miss Morgan, as the Bard's proxy. SNIPPING INTELLIGENCE. CUSTOIII-HOUSE, MAT 26. ENTERED INWARDS. Atalanta, Byrne (De Bic, broker), from Harlingen. L'Aigle, Starbuek (Boulcott), from the South Seas. Ocean, Cant (Scott). from Riga. Marshal Blucher, Collins (Symonds), from Rotterda m . Ruby, Comehy (Gammon), from Libon. Jooge Jan, Boverkarop ((lisfman), from %Vermin. Poayssitourn, Mar 25.—Arrived his Majesty's ship Spars rorrhawk, from a cruise; and Success transport, from Cork. Sailed the Triumph, Omen, for Bombiy; and Aurora, ,--, for Banizic. FALMOUTH, MAY 24.—Sailed the Lady Mary Pelham, packet, for the Leeward Islands. A large brig passed here this morose . to the Eastward, with loss of fore and main-topmast and bowsprit DEAL. MAY 2b.—Arrived and remains, the Zephyr, Arrow smith. from Hoodoo's. Passed through last evening, the follow. ing outward bound ; viz.--The Bedford, Martin ; .11irables, Rm. therford; Esther, Carr; and Sceptre, Norfor. The Amity, Pease, from Liverpool to New York, was driven ca shore the 2311 ult. on Squam Beach, near Sandy Hook, and bilged —the dry goods would nearly all he got out without injury. A brig, supposed to be the Cumberland, Smith, from Liverpool to Montreal, was seen on tho 10th inst. in lat. 45. long. 27. alma. dotted, by the Barton, Banks, arrived at LiverpooL SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. YORK. SPRING MEETING. [From the York Courant.] MONDAY, MAY 21. Sweepstakes of 20gs. each, for all ages; three-year olds, 7st four, list. 31b. five, gat. six and aged. 9st. 41b.-41b. allowed to maiden horses at the time of naming. —Three and four-year old fillies allowed 31b.—Two miles. (8 Subs.) Mr. Russet's b. c. Abroo, by Whisker, 4 yrs old (R. John -1 son) - - - - - . 1 I Mr. Richardson's b. c. Conductor, by Filbo da Puta, 4 yrs Lord Fitzwilliasn's ch. f. Nitrogen, 4 yrs old . . . 3 i Mr. Iticlodale's ch. c. Rhubard, by Comus, 4 yes - - 4 Mr. 'Whitaker's b. c. Lottery (late Tinker), 4 yrs . . 4 The Produce Stakes of 30gs. each, h. ft. for two-year old colts, to carry Bst. 31b. fillies, Bst.-31b. allowed to those got by untried Stallioos, Az. Two-year olds' course. (6 Subs.) Mr. Wyvill's ch. c. by Comus, out of My Lady's dam (T. Lye) - - - - . . 1 Mr. Gascoigne's b. f. by Ardrossan, darn by Waxy - . 2 Lord Milton's bl. f. by Amadis, out of Marianne - . 3 Sweepstakes of 20gs. each, for three-year old colts, Bst. 311). fillies, fist—Last mile and three quarters.—(B Subs.) Mr. Lumley's b. e. by Blackloak, dam by Delpini (T. Nichol son) - - - - - 1 lord Milton's b. c. Whiskerandos, by Whisker - . 2 Mr. Ridadale's ch. c. Carouser, by Comus - s . 3 Mr. Ridsdale's ch. c. by Comus—Eliza Leeds's dam - . 4 Mr. Osboldeston's ch. c. by Aladdin, out of Aquilino - li Lord Scarbrough's ch. c. by Cervantes-.-Miss Cotton . - 6 The Filly Sapling Stakes of 30g s. each, h. ft. for three.yesr olds. Bst. 31b. each. Last mile and ho'l —(1 Subs.) Lord Fitzwilliam's bay, Parthenessa, by Cervantes, out of Ma rianne (W. Clift) - - . . . - 1 Mr. Gascoigne's black, by Walton, out of Dulls . . 2 Lord Scarbrough's br. Sister to Byrom, by Amodio . . 3 The St. Leger Stakes of 23gs. ea ii, for three-year old colts, fist. 31k. fillies, fist Last mile and th-ee quarters. (II Subs.) Mr. Osocaigne's bl. c. by Smolensito—Corinthian's dam (Ed. wards) - - - - . . 1 !Rape Cunningham's ch. c. by Outcry, out of Bella . - 2 Lord Kelburne's b. c. by Fills* da Puta—Delpini . . 3 The following also started, tut were not placed : Mr. Jones's br. c. Irennoff, by Snuleusko . . . 0 Mr. Watt's br. c. by Blacklocl-31iss Cranfield . . 0 Mr. Wigfull's bl. c. by Smolensk°. dam by Payr.ator • 0 Mr. Tan:on's Id. c. Streatham, by Blacklock . . . 0 Lord Kelburne's gr. h. Jock the bird's Brother, by Viscount, 6 yes old, 9st. rec. ft. from Col. Vote's ch. colt, Meath's, by Sooth sayer, 1 yrs old, fist last mile, 200 soy. b. ft. BUIRILARV.—Inkra,Ation was yesterday received at Hatton. garden Police-ollice, of the premises on Mr. German, grocer and tea-dealer, of .knn-street, Spitaltields, being burglariously entered in the morning between the hours of twelve and three o'clock. The entrance was effected by braking open a back parlour window, Sixty sovereign', in money, with various artides of plate and west ing apparel, with a valuable gold watch, were taken from the back parlour; and from the shop thirty.two pounds of tea, with other groceries. On Thistleton, the officer, being despatched to inspect the premises, he found the dial of the watch in the rear of the pre, mixes, which was probably removed to prevent detection. On Sunday night, or at an early hour on Monday morning. the house of Mrs. Shaw, a widow lady, living at No. 50, Charles-street. IVestminster, was also feloniously entered and robbed of a consi derable quantity of family plate, consisting of table, tea, dessert, gravy, and salt-spoons, soup-ladles, sugar-tongs, &c. COAL MARKET, MAY 26. Ships bold. 7i - 3ls Od to 37s Od 24 - - 305 91 to 42s Od 2 - -33 s Od to 36s Od O - . Od to —4O Od • . . —s Od to Od Ships at Market. 81 Newcastle . 2! Sunderland . 3 Scotch Coal Stone Coal 1 Welsh Cual HIGH WATER THIS DAY AT LONDON-BRIDGE. Morning, 46 min. after 12. 1 Afternoon. 15 min. after 1. Printed at THE BRITISH PRESS Office, be J. W. Cia Amos 131, Strand, and Published by R. CAN sou, same platy. I