The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-03-02 00:00:00

MR. CHARLES _FLINT'S P'

'ETITION.

To the Hon. the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Ireland.
The humble Petition of Charles Flint, of Uttoxeter, in the
County of Stafford, Gent.,
Sheweth--That ypur petitioner wits, on or about the month of
August, 1819, articled to his brother, Mr. Abraham Flint, of
Uttoxeter aforesaid, one of the attorneys of his fllajesty's Court of
King's Bench, for the term of five years, and bath now served up.
wards of four years thereof; and is twenty-six years of age, or
thereabouts.
That your petitioner bath hitherto lived in strict observance of,
and in conformity to the laws of his country ; and bath at all times
' been a peaceable and quiet subject of this realm, and bath not at
any time, until the time after mentioned, been charged with, or ac-
cused of any breach of the pence or violation of the law whatever.
That previous to the 11th day of June last past, a person of the
name of Richard Stafford Cook, together with his brother and
agents, appeared at Stafford. in the County of Stafford, and laid
claim to the title of Lord Stafford and the Barony of Stafford, and
also to certain lands and estates there, then possessed by Sir George
Jen:lngham ; and in pursuance of such elaim took various mea-
sures and proceedings, which were, by the Magistracy of the said
County, and the generality of the inhabitants thereof, deenied un-
lawful and merman's, and they formed the foundation of different
proceedings in the Court of Quarter Sessions. held at Stafford,
previous to the month of October last past, and also in his Ma-
jesty's Courts at Westminster.
That amongst such transactions, a person of the name of John
Wilkes, claimed to be entitled to the possession of, and to hold a
piece of land in Stafford aforesaid, under, and as tenant to the said
Itichanl Stafford Cook, which piece of land, and the possession
thereof, was also claimed by a person of the name of Joseph Pickin,
as tenant to the said Sir George Jerningham.
That disputes arose between the said John Wilkes and Joseph
Pickin, in respect of the possession of the said piece of land, and
each of them exercised acts of ownership thereon, when on the
llth du of June last put, the said John Wilkes having so done,
the said Joseph Pickin caused him to be apprehended by the con-
stables and peace officers, as a person committing wilful trespass
on his land and property, and to be conveyed to a newly erected
prison, or lock-up-house there, although, as your petitioner sub-
mits the case of the said John IVilkes, if in fact, a trespass, was
not within the statute of the Ist George IV.
That in consequence of the proceedings before detailed. and of
the apprehending and conveying to prison of thesaid John Wilkes,
and the interest excited in the public thereby, numerous persons
assembled to see the said John 'Wilkes conveyed to prison, which
assembly formed the ground of the prosecution after mentioned.
That on the said 11th day of June, your petitioner was at Staf-
ford, upon professional business, unconnected with the said R.
Stafford Cook, or any preceeding in relation taltis claim, to the dis-
putes aforesaid, (by the order and direction of his brother and em-
ployer,) and that at the time the said J. Wilkes was apprehended,
your petitioner was taking his supper at his lodgings in Stafford,
quite ignorant of such apprehension, and unacquainted with the
circumstances which gave rise thereto, and while so engaged he was
applied to on behalf of the said John Wilkes (who was a client of
pair petitioner's said master and employer), and requested to go and
see by what authority he was b 0 apprehended and taken to prison,
whereupon your petitioner instantly left his said supper, and went
towards the said prison, and met the constables with the said John
Wilkes in custody, on th jr way there, when your petitioner. act-
ing, as he considered, as the professional friend of the add John
Si dices, applied to the said constables, and requested to see be
what authority he was apprehended and taken to prison, when they
requested your petitioner to wait until they had lodged hint in the
round-house, and they would then produce same, and desired your
petitioner to go with them for that purpose, which your petitioner '
did. and having inspected such authority as the said constables
produced, your petitioner returned to his said lodgings, and took
no part whatever in the said assentbly. otherwise than as aforesaid, '
and in repeatedly requesting the persons there to remain quiet and
peaceable.
That in a few days after the said 11th Jay of June, various perr.
sons were charged by the haw Agent of the said Sir George Jer-
ninghatti, before the Rev. Thomas Whitby, clerk, one of his Ma- '
jesty's Justices of the Peace, in and for the said county, with a
riot upon the said 11th day of June, and with ofistructing the
officers in apprehending the said John Wilkes, when the said
Magistrate went fully into the said complaint, and dismissed the!
same. .

That no charge was then made against your petitioner by the
Mid Law Agent of Sir George Jerninghann, who, or. the contrary
thereof, then declared that there was no ground whatever for in-
^luding your petitioner therein, and your petitioner was tnereupon
examined as a witness for the several other persons then charged.
That although the charge so made before the said Magistrate,
had been dismissed as aforesaid, and no charge had then been
made against your netitioner, yet at the then next ensuing Quarter
Sessions for the said county of Stallind, the said Law Agent of the
said Sir G. Jerningbani, preferred a BM of Indictment, not only
against the several persons 'who had been charged before the said
Magistrate, but also against your petitioner, against whom no
charge hall been then made.
That your petitioner is informed, and verily believes it to be
true, that such indictment was preferred, and your petitioner in-
I chided therein, under the advice and direction of the Chairman of
the said Quarter Sessions, who afterwards presided urn the trial
thereof.
That the said Indictment came on to be tried at thelast Michael-
mas Quarter Sessions held in and for the said county of Stafford,
when a verdict of guilty was returned against your petitioner and
the other dlendants therein, and they were each of them a ntenced
to three months imprisonment, and to hard labour in his 3lajesty's
ga for the said County of Staflind.
That your petitioner, very humbly and with great deference, but
yet with entire confidence, submits that the said trial of your said
petitioner was not a fair impartial trial, and such a one as he was by
the laws and constitution of this realm entitled to ; and that the
verdict of the Jury was against the evidence then adduced, and was
procured by the partial and improper conduct of George Chetwynd,
Esq. the Chairman of the said Quarter Sessions, who, together with
the Rev. John Clare, were the only Magistrates who were present
thereat ; and that the sentence of the said Court against your said
petitioner, if he had been guilty of the offence charged, was not
proportioned to or in accordance with the share or part which yours
petitioner could by any ;nous he found to have had or taken in the
transaction upon which the said prosecution was founded, but that
the same proceeded troin a feeling of malice and resentment which
the said Mr. Chetwynd had imbibed against your petitioner, and
from prejudices conceived on account of the proceedings of the
said Richard Stafford Cook and his agents.
That your petitioner, with a view to submitting his case to such
consideration anti animadversion as he was by the laws and consti-
tution of his country entitled to, caused an application to be made
to the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, for a copy of his notes
taken on the said trial, and of his summing up to the Jury, which
he declined to five ' • but your petitioner has, nevertheless, been
enabled to obtain a faithful report of the sad trial, with a copy of
the indictment upon which the same was had, which he submits to
the consideration of your Honourable House, in the schedule here-
unto annexed. . .
_ _

That the said trial was not a fair and impartial trial, in proof
whereof your petitioner shews, amongst other reasons appearing
upon the face of the said report, that the said two Magistrates who
presided thereat suffered themselves to be greatly prejudiced against
your petitioner and the said defendants by reason of the proceed-
ings of the said Richard Stalfent Cook and his agents, with whom
they erroneously conjectured your petitioner aral the other defen-
dents to be connected.
That the said Richard Stafford Cook also claims carious estates
in the said county of Stafford, also possessed by some of the Ma-
gistracy there, who might be also, on that account, greatly preju-
diced upon the trial of this case.
'fh • t the Chairman of the said Quarter Sessions summed up the
evidence, and gave his charge to the Jury with great partiality,
omitting. until reminded by your petitioner's Counsel, very ma-
eeriel evidence on his behalf, and making no comment or observe-
Moo thereon--but, on the contrary, strongly impressing upon the I
minds of the Jury his own conviction that yourpetitior,o, as well as I
;he said defendants, was guilty or the offence charged • uesignating
it as a piost outrageous breach of the peace ; and also in his said
swooning up. totally abstaining from making a single observation
in favour of tile petitioner, or any one of the said defendants.
That he also told the said Jury, in answer to the argument of
toe petitioner's Counsel, that it did nor appear that the petitioner
was acting as the professional adviser of the said John Wilkes;
*mans pews pasitionee dome that sa • InOt Jigtjectly admit
ted by the Ccuirsel for the prosecution, in his opening o the case, or
that your petitioner would otherwise have proved the same, being
then prepared with witnesses for that purpose.
That the sakl Chairman very improperly appealed to the feelings
and prejudices of the Jury, to obtain a verdict against your peti-
donee and the other defendants, by observing to them that they had
tenants, or were tenants themselves, and that such proceedings
(meaning the proceedings of the said Richard statiord Cook and
his party) to obtain pessessioa of Sir George Jeminghant's estates.
were not to be tolerated; thereby connecting your petitioner and
the other, defendants' case with the disputes and proceedings be-
tween the said Richard Stafford Cook and Sir George Jerning-
ham.
'l hat the said Chairman mis-stated the taw of the ease to the
Jury ; for that your petitioner and the other defendants were in-
dicted fur a riot, a rout, and unlawful assembly, three distinct
[offences, of any one of which the Jury might have found your peti-
tic nee and the other defendants guilty.
That the law as applicable to the said three offences is different ;
hut that the said Chatnr.an stated the law as applicable to the lesser
or minor offence, namely, that el an unlawful assembly only,
and took the verdict of guilty generally from the Jury, without
haying even stated what constituted the other two offences of a rout
and not. or without having called their attention to the difference
lin the said three offences, or the law as applicable thereto.
That if the law as applicable to the said three offences had been
properly stated to the Jury, and their attention properly called
thereto, they :ingot have Mond your petitioner and the other de-
fendants ratify of an unlawful assembly only ' • and your petitioner
handily submit? they must have clone so (if they had returntsl a
verdict of guilty), and that there ass no evidence to prove them
I guilty of the offence of riot.
That the sentence passed upon your petitioner and the other de-
fendants (being to hard labour) could only be justified under the!
Statute of :hi Geo. IV. c. 111; and by their being convicted of a
riot, as to which offence the law was not stated to the Jury. but
that applicable to an unlawful assembly only, for which oilers
the satil Statute does not authorize the passing of sentence to hard
labour.
That in passing the said sentence the said Chairman announced.
that the sentence to hard labour was for that the defendants had
assaulted the constables in the execution of their duty, whereas
yont petitioner charges that they were no; indicted for any such
offence, and the: the sentence could not therefore be justified on
tits: ground.
That the faeLogs sad prejudice' of the said Maoism:es against

' your petitioner and the other defendants, is further evidenced by
the sentence passed upon them, when contrasted with that of an-
other ease of the same nature, tried at the same Sessions, wherein
the defendants were proved to have violently assaulted and beat the
constables, broke open the loom where the prisoners were confined,
and forcibly rescued them from and out of the custody of the law
' short report of which is also annexed hereto, and humbly sub-
mitted to the consideration of your lfonourahle House); upon
whom, although the offence charged was so widely different from
that charged against your petitioner, a touch more lenient sentence
was passed.
That after the verdict of the Jury had been returned, your peti-
tioner, well knowing the fatal consequences that would follow to
him from a sentence of imprisonment, as the same might affect
his health and vitiate his articles of clerkship, caused his Counsel
to signify to the said Court of Quarter Sessions, that your petitioner
was ready to submit to any tine which they might consider the jus-
tice of the case required to be inflicted upon him, notwithstanding
which no fine was imposed upon your petitioner, but the sentence
aforesaid.

That the said sentence was in effe^t doubly severe upon your
petitioner, when compared with'its effects upon the other defend-
', ants, who were labouring persons, moving in a very different sta-
tion and sphere In life to that of your petitioner.
That after the passing of the said sentence, your petitioner was
taken to the common gaol, and immediately divested of his own
clothing, and clothed in a gaol dress, and was classed and atm).
dined with vagrants and tilons, and the worst description of
offenders.

That lie was for a length of time after his first imprisonment,
and until within 1 short period of its termination, refused permis-
sion to procure or have any other nourishment or fond than the
gaol allowance, consisting of bread and water and a few potatoes
per day, together with a little warm meal and water, the !atter
which your petitioner found it impeesible to eat or to partake of.
(To be continue,: )