The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-05-29 00:00:00

LORD BYRON'S LIFE.

Mr. Moore has published the following letter on the de-
struction of the MS. of Lord llyron's life :
sin—ln consequence of the many misconceptions that are
abroad, with respect to the share which I have had in the deitruc-
tion of Lord Byron's Memoirs, 1 think it right to state the leading
facts of that transaction to the public..

Without entering into the risipective claims of Mr. Murray and
myself to the property in these :Vlemoirs (a question which, now
that they are destroyed, can be but of little moment to any one), it
is sufficient to say that, believing the manuscript still to be mine,
I placed it at the disposal of Lord Byron', sister, Mrs. Leigh, with
the sole reservation of a protest against its total destruction—at
least without previous perusal and consultation among the parties.
The majority of the persons present disagreed with this opinion,
and it was the only point u?iri which there did exist any difference
between us. The manusenpt wit accordingly torn and burned be.
fore our eyes; and I immediately paid to Mr. Murray, in the pre.
sence of the gentlemen assembled, 2,1100 guineas, with interest, Ac.
being the amount of what I owed him upon the security of my
bond, and for which I now sand indebted to my publishers,
Messrs. Longman and l'o.
Since then the family of Lord Byron have, in • manner highly
honourable to themselves, proposed an arrangement, by which the
sum thus paid to Mr. Murray might be reimbursed me; but, from
feelings and considerations which it Is unnecessary here to explain,
I have respectfully, but peremptorily, declined their offer.
I am, Sir, yours, Ike.
May 26, 1824. THOMAS MOORE.

Sea REFI,IEES.—Since our last, several more of
these friendless foreigners have passed throrgh this city, on
their way to London. We are happy to observe, by the
London papers, that Mr. Canning, with a liberality that
dogs him honour, has directed these unhappy gentlemen to
he assisted from the public purse, in the same way as the
French enii7rants were in tile early part of the first revo-
lutionary war. The Constitutional Spaniards spoke with
a deep feeling of gratitude of the kind treatment they hail
experienced ever since they had trod British ground ; it
was so dill:rent, they said, from what the French police
hail taught them to expect. When they applied for pa,s-
ports for England, they were coolly assured, with that
spirit of detraction which distinguishes so many of the
French, that they had better go back to Spain, and trust to
the clemency of " Mt Louts arsointel," their beloved
Ferdinand, than venture among the English, whom these
French police gentlemen asserted were the most harbarows
pcuide is Me universe." Robbery, and a sound beating,
thei were assured, were amongst the least evils to he ex-
pect,il in their journey through this country of barharians.
What object could the French have in view in using such
endeavours to prevent these men tom coming to England ?
Did the fear they would swell the ranks of the friends of
freedom in South America ? We cannot suppose the
to. re underlings of office woubl have taken any steps to
dissuade them from their projected journey, if they haul
not the onlers or sanction of their superiors.—first Herald.

The road leatling from Castle-square to the Old Swine
has been very greatly improved, by throw/1g open the la
feet graciously given by his Majesty to the town, and form-
ing part of the situ of the late t'astic Tavern.—Brighlos
laper.

i•
•
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
„so—
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FRIDAY, MAY IL

At ten o'clock the bed Chief Justice eat at Nisi Prise. Some
undefended causes were disposed of, after which Mr. Justice
Hd-
royd heard motions.
DOE, ON THE OVISISE Or TOOINAS, V. ACICLAIN.
This WU an action of ejectment tried at the last Cornirall
A verdict *o found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the
Omit, whether the child of • person bdrn in the Untied Stares be.,
foe the neftkiation of their independence, we entitled to inherit as
the 'child of • natural born subject. The ease we argued this term
by Mr. Tindall rut the plaintiff, all Mr. Parke far the defendant'
Judgment Was deferred in order that the CONTI might take time to
consider the question.
At twelve u'clock, the Court being full,
The Loin Curter Justice gave judgment. The eete had
been very ably argued. Sonic doubt had areal as to de sense
in which the words of the Act 1 Oen. 11. cap. M. should le con.
strucd. In order to entitle a person bbrn out of the Kinaes domi-
nions to inl!erit as it British subject, It was necessary that the pa.
rent of the claimant should be. not o subject only, but • tubjet by
birth. The words of the Act were, •• • natural born abject bf •he
Crown of Orson Britain. In this case, James halo., the/after
of the plaintidTrancts ThnmaS, was undoubtedly • natural born
subject of Greet Britain, the I:nited States of America, in which
he was hoot. being at that time British Colonies, but he had ceased
; to be a British subject at the time of the birth Of his dadghter.
Mt' W. 24 born after the C olonies had become united and echoed-
; ent States, and a hen the inhabitants of thus, countries had flettene
citizens of those 'lintel. The independence of the United States
was recognised, c• rather confirmed, by treaty, on the 3d September,
178.1. several Acts it Parliatuent were passed in the tad (fro. 111.
in which those countries were tpoken of as independent States, and
i the fullest sanction rat the Legislature given to their sovereignty. By
the first ar.iele of tlin treaty, his 31ajesty acknowledged them to be
free, sovereign, and independent Sates, and unquestionably • re-
hnquittliment of this government in these terms was a relinquish-
ment of the King's authority over the inhabitarts, in such manner
that they could no long» he considered his subjects. It had been
• argued that, by the '37th George 111. cap. tip, the cietens of the
United States were considered as the children of natural born sub-
jects; but the Court, on a full consideration of the argument, were
of opinion otherwise. The third article of the Testy gave to the
citizens of the United States the liberty of *Meg on the coast of
i Newfoundland.' If they had still been considered natural born sub.
jets, that article was unneceigarr. By the fifth article, it was
stipulated that the American Government should recommend to
Congress to provide for the restitution of the confieuta estate of
those who had adhered to the British Crown. and that they should
have li:zerty to go there fur twelve months to arrange their SOSO'S.
The sixth article provided against any future toast:atlas for the
part taken by individuals dunng the war. By a subsequent Treaty,
it was agreed that British subjects and American citizens should
continue to hold lands, and grant, sell, and itemise them, and rot
be considered as aliens in ether omntry. This provision was con-
fined to the holding of lands in gentwat terms, and the distinction
thus drawn between Itruti•h subjects and American citizens ',hewed
that they were considered as aliens with regard to all other righter.
The Court had weighed the inconvenience that would result from
the subjects of one country and the citizens of another being held
to owe this kind of double allegiance, and they were, under all the
circumstances of the case, clearly of opinion that James Ludlow
had ceased to be a subject of the Briiah Crown, and become alien
thereto, before the birth of his daughter Frances Thomas, the
plaintiff; and therefore that she was incapable of inheriting land
in this country. The Court had great satisfaction in knowing, that
their judgment was conforinable to a decision of the Supreme Court
of Petinsylvannia, on the claim of a British subject to inherit lands
in that Sta..
Judgmett. was accordingly entered for the defendant.

TIIE RING r. JOHN TANS.
In this case, in which the defendant yesterday. received judg-
ment of eighteen months Imprisonment a the House of Correc-
tion, at Purunanith, fur a disgusting libel on James Carter, Esq.
the Maor of that borough,
Mr. OASEI.LE wished to more the Court that the place of the
defendant's confinement should be changed. It was equally dis-
'notable to the prosecutor and the defendant. The gaoler also in
whose custody he would be p?aced, had been a witness against him
on the trial. It Pas desirable, theftfore, on every account, that
the gaol should be changed.
The LORD Cuter Justine directed the defendant to be
brought up again on Monday.
CRIMINAL. INFCRMATION AGAINST THE
RRITISH PRESS.
THE KING V. CARLTON AND OTHERS.
The further argument of this case was then resumed.
Mr. Sergeaht WILDE said that when he was interrupted on
Wednesday last, he was endeavouring to direct the attention of
their Lordships to the real question belbre the Court, and with that
view he had stated the substance of the libel. His object was to
'hew that the affidavits furnished reasonable ground to believe that
Mr. Chetwynd vat influenced by personal sod vindictive motives
when sitting in judgment on the Flints. It was an important pan
of the question to ascertain the state of Mr. Chetwynd's motives.
He should, therefore, look at the transactions respecting Abraham
Flint anti his family. The conduct of Mr. Chetwynd towards
them was pertinent to the question before the Court, because, if on
review it left no other inherence than that he had acted from undue
and corrupt motives, he had no right to stand before the Court as
a suitor for its protccti.. n, by means of a criminal information.
Supposing that he could prove a declaration made on the part of
Mr. Chetwynd, that if Flint was brought before the Quarter
Sessions, he would take care to preside at the trial and
inflict a punis inient upon him of the most severe and de-
grkling co:outer, would the Attorney-General deny that
the proof of such a declaration would be most important ? Sup-
posing then that Mr. Chetw;n3 had *hewn, not by • declaration
proved against him by a witness who might possibly speak falsely,
but in • more latisfaciery manner by the whole course of his cos,.
duct, and by a acne' of facts, plain, intelligible, and public, would
the proof be less cogent ? If the facts against Mr. Chetwynd were
false, he might inert them by indicting the Flints for perjury. He
(Mr. Sergeant Wilde) did not pretend to set up such a plea of jus-
tification for every part of the libels as would vindicate the defend-
ants II an action toe defamation wan brought against them. If the
Court refused the application it would not pronounce any judgment
as to the character of the libel. When he was stopped on Wed-
nesday he was "hewing that Mr. Chetwynd had been engaged in a
personal conflict with Mr. Abraham Flint t that acting as a Corn.
missioner under the commission of bankruptcy against Emery, he
had held cilia.* meeting', and had see disputes with Abraham
Flint; that when Flint had taken the bankrupt's brother into cus-
tody on a warrant issued by the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Chet-
wynd had personally rescued the prisoner and given him refuge in
has own house.

The Logo J uST Ica asked en what day Emery was
taken into custody.
111 r. Sergeant Wi t. og said. he did not know, but he was appre-
hended and rescued by Mr. Chetwynd, who had taken him to his
own house. and kept him there till the next day. Abraham Flint
was on that occasion assaulted by Emery's wife, with a stick and
pitchfork, and in order to induce her to disolgage her hold he bud
struck her on the hand with his whip. Emery was tried before the
Lord Chief Justice, and sentenced to six months imprisonment.
An indictment was afterwards preferred against Flint, and strange
to tell, Mr. Chetwynd was, after all that had happened. fotind
tin,/ on the beach as the Judge on Flint's trial. He (111 r. Sergcart
Wilde) would not repeat what he had before said, but he could nut
refrain ft mof ssving tl a this conduct was a maternal feature in
the ease, sip far as Mr. thetwynd was concerned.
Mr. Juan c Batt.t:t —The charge of rescue is made. not on the
actual knowledge of any person, but merely stated on the intudna-
tion and belief of Flint.

Mr. Sergeant ift L --The clerk speaks in his affidavit of 3lr.
Chetoynd Acing there, and that lie conducted himself with
warmth, Then Milano statement on his information and
belief. Mr. thetwynd had certainly acted improperly, and there
were reptort, in circulation—

Mr. :Pumice BAY ;.F.;:—No report that Emery was rescued.
Mr. Sergeant Wit or fnly as it may be interred from the con-
stable's affidavit I wish to put no part of the caw unjustly to-
wards Mr. Clietwynd.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY read the passage from the affidavit.
Mr. Sergeant Whet: said, he would not ask the (.bur to he-
Bete Mr. Chetwynd guilty of all that the affidavits imputed to him.
It was not fur their bmtiships tt say that a case was nook out
against Mr. Chetwynd, but at the same time he could not help re-
marking, that though the facts rested on the most distinct anti ipst-
skive testimony, it was not easy to institute • prosecution %mimic
Mr. Chetwynd in the county in which he sat as Chairman of the
quarter Sessions. The cased the Flints au a severe example of
his vengeance on those who provoked him. If part of the defend-
ants' affidavits, therefore, seemed erroneous, he (Mr. Sergeant
Wilde) begged to remind the Court that he appeared before then.
for a London Newspaper, prosecuted for some comments on tram,
actions that had occurred in Staffordshire. He had no compulsory
I process to obtain affidavits in his beiailf. He maid produce each
only as came voluntarily tibia hamds, under all the perilof exciting
the displeasure of Mr. Chetwynd, yet, on these he could chew, that
his conduct was such as ought to preclude him front standing there
and claiming the protection of the Court. lie was about to call
their hardships' attention to a port iii 4r. l'hetwyn,..'t conduct
which was only reconcilable to the vindictive motives imputed to
hint ia the detendantu' affidavits, certainly not to any just or ho.
pourable feelings. After the Jury wait sworn for the tr :1 tit Mr.
Abraham Flint, the prosecutor was not forthrenting. The ordi-
nary course was. that the defendant took the benefit of his acquit_
tel. Hut Mr. thetwynd dischargA the Jury. If he acteJ buy
flit/. this was unfortunate for him 3 but sUppOW h hipprllt I twice.
what would the Court think ? Vet Mr. Chetwynd placed hitsiself
a second time in the Chair for the trial of Mr. A. Flint. and be-
cause the prosecutor was again not forthcoming, he, • *sword time,
discharged the jury; and this. too, their Lowdships would Murree,
on an indictment against an attonal. for an assault arising out of
transactions in which he was personally involved. When Mr.
Flint was convicted, it wa. nisi • strange circninatance to see the
Chairman of the Stafford Quarter 5t.16400% referring to the punish.
nest inflicted by a Judge of Assize. in &different C 147. *so rule for
the judgment he was topaz' on Mr. Flint. When Mr. Flint's friends
proposed to make application to the l'rown for the remission of his
punishment, Mr. ('hetwynd interfered, to suggest the name of rh3
barrister by wham the menholll should be drawn up. and renewed
the panegyric to be retained which that Learned Gentleman had,
in the warmth of of his friendship, thcrucht proper to introduce.
When Flint refused to suffer this passage to remain. was it in the
due discharge of his duty, that (Mr. ('hetwynd) refund to sup-
port the application? It on next suggested, that Mr. Flint
should send a private memorial to the Conn. Mr. t hetwynd kept
it in his poss...don twenty-six days, and then sent i; to the Secre-
tary of State, who, for tome reason. rejected its caret. Ile after-
wards made another offer or his services to Flo on condition
ti...t he would join in a petition for Emery', Was this

f~

~f

•

the conduct of a Magistrate, in the proper discharge of his duty
Vras this acting with l'ltnt refused to assist in (+-
Ossining the liberation of Emery. Mr. Chetwyeal then 31411,1
Pelf and Emory, who had been tried and sentenced by the Lord
Chief Juatice„ was liberated. Ms Chetwynd, by some means it
appesrest, had the good fortune to satisfy the Learned Judge. or.
pecbspi, the tir•csetary of State, without the knowledge of the
Locoed Judge, and he succeeded in obtaining Emery's discharge.
31e. Chetwynd hod eadeayoured to prevent all communication by
Diet, to the Crown; and yet this man, who had required an
apology from Flint for an expression in a confidential letter to his
wife, which he had intercepted, at last volunteered !iii services on
behalf of Flint. The defendant's affidavit alleged that this inter.
cessiosby Mr. Chetwynd originated in his anxiety to prevent any
communication to the Crown of the circumstances of Mr. Flint's
case. which would necessarily have led to an investigation, likely
to be atterded with unpleasant results to Mr. Clictwyrul. The •
Attorney-General had objected to the statement of the fan re-
at.ag to Mr. Abraham Flint's case. It was ininossild.., he had
awned, that Mr. ('hetwynd could have anticipated its intreiluetion
in the affidaviis. Why, the libel mentioned the t. unjust jud ;
mint!' en Abraham Flint in two places. How, then, could ties •
Attorty-tieneral seriously contend, that the 'tele:mini:Cs es.soi
ton of mercy never felt, and kindness never shewn by 31r. Cret-
synst, was not most pertinent to the question betbre the not The
:Val statist distinctly that the conduct of Mr. Chetwynd towards
Charley Flint, would be tt illustrated" by his scam:eat of Abra-
bins Flint. This was an application rot against the Lit, Vold
Jilercu,y, containing the report of the trial, which was 'die emit: st
libel of all upon .Mr. Chetwynd, but against a London newspaper.
gathericg its knowledge of the facts only from that report, and
from Flint's memoriaL
The ATTURNEY.GENERAL--There was no application against
the Litchfield Ahoy/ere, but against Sir Cheeks ll'olseley, fora
hbek published in that paper, respecting the ease of Chas. I. lint.
Mr. Sergeant WlLDE—There was lin application respecting. a •
letter published by Sir Charles Wolselev. Ths fact is enough tor
me.. Mr. Chetwynd haying applied before, therefore knew what lie
wouldhave to answer.
The ATTORNEY-6ENERAL—We applied to the Lifeltflet,l
Mercury, who gave up Sir C. M'olseley.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE—I say it is improper to conceive that on
applying to this Court against a Landon newspaper, he should not
anticipate that the am of Abraham Flint would be introduced in
the affidavits. He found himself charged, not on one occasion bet
two, with improper amduct against the Flints. From the prof ceil-
ings it Chancery, be knew that Abraham Flint had no confider's..
In his impartiality.
Me. Justice BATLEY—The report of the trial is stated, by the
defendants to be copied from the LitchOrld Mereu,y ; but that i
only the trial of Charles Flint.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE-31r Chetwynd was aware, when Chart s
Flint carte to be tried, that Abraham Flint doubted his imparti-
ality, Nothing had occurred in the interval to :soothe his feelings
towards them. Our affidavits state, that Flint WA. known to be
acting as attorney to Cooke, the claimant of the itarony of Star. '
ford; and he was also moving for a quo searrunto, to eiisqualiiy
certain burgesses of Sraffhrd, and Mr. Chetwynd diming tln rest. li
This was calculated to indium rather than soot. the prejudices et
111 r. Chetwynd.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—The afidavits do not state that Flint was
engaged in a yno stun-meta
,
Mr. Sergeant 1% 1 LDE read the passage.
r. Justice BALLET acknowledged that he had not filo:meg:lly
reed through Charles Flint's affidavit.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE proceeded—lt might be, that Mr. Chet-
wyled was ignorant of the transversal's:a He (Mr. Sergeant IlTile)
could not undertake to say lie believed Mr. Chetwynd was ignorant
of it, but tulmitting that lie was, certainly he was not then in a
titter a, to try this indictment than before. The Attoreey-Ge-
ritual had stated, that thedefeadant's affidavits sought to impose
tin thi Court in renyeet to the unusual presence of Mr. Ch• vynd
in the traverse Court. Ho (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) admitted, that
the affidavit was not so explicit as it ought to be, but the Attorney-
Generals comment was not fairer than the text. lie had said that
the obits of the statement was, to insinuate that Mr. Chetwynd
did not try traverses. The affidavit stated, that it was not his usual
coursers). preside in the Traverse Court. He might certainly try
traverses in the Crown Court, but the affidavit stated, that he had
kit the Court in which he ordinarily sat, in order to try Flint in
the other. He bad such an anxiety to preside on that trial, that
when it was adjourned he (mind his way a second day into the Tra-
verse Court, where it was sworn he had never been known to pre-
side. He might or might not try traverses in the Crown Court, but
the affidavit charged, that be came horn one Court to another, in
order to sitin judgment in a rause which he ought rather to hate
avoided by leaving the ('ourt in which he commonly sat. He was
not called by his day in the ordinary cameo( prnteedings to try
Flint, hut he violently and wantonly thrust himself into the judg-
ment sent. This fact, coupled with his conduct thtic, called tor
an asswer, which Idr..Chetwynd had not given. The Atturney-
Geaeral had drawn their Lordships' attention, in a marked manner.
to Climates Flint's denial of the riot. Were the defendants in-
soirsted in denying it ? Not at all Their complaint was, that
Mr. Chetwynd had . forborne to point out to the July the
tiers in fawner of Charles Flint. In his affidavit that young
man had shewn clearly how, why Land when, he joined the
persons convicted with him. He (Mr. Sergeant coin-
nhaned of the injustice done, not to the other deleadanto but to
Charles Flits. If there was not a demonstration of injustice in his
use, it had never been given in moral matters. Mr. Chetwynd left
the evidence in the gross, not pointing out how it applied to the de-
7.er.nats individually. It was always with great difficulty and
ee!icray that Counsel suggested to the Court facts omitted in the
siarnang up, but on this trial Flint's Counsel were obliged more
tine) °neat(' make suggestions. Mr. Chetwynd had stated that he
had read all his netts how came he then not to read what his at-
tsraion was called to? Was it a proof of his justice that he stated
there facts to the jury after the Counsel interfered ? Though there
were several hem in favour of Flint, yet all were condjed. Could
theeethen be a doubt that he had been harshly and unjustifiably
dealt with, not by the Jury, or they perhaps took no notes, but by
7.1 r. Chetwynd, the Chairman of the quarter Sessions, the legal
man, the legal author who had seated himself where no man could
imperially do his duty, sad where therefore no just nian would
'nave placed himself.
Mr. Justice BATLEY asked for the paper of the fith of January,
earn aining the report of the trial.
SergeansWit.DE—My Lords, I care not whether there was
a riot or tut; I care not whether Wilkes was in possession of the
held or,whether he was guilty as wilful trespass, and consequent-
ly that the constable had a right to apprehend him without a war-
rant, duet I doe are for the evidence against Charles Flint. He
was betore the Magistrate when the complaint was heard respect-
, or the assault with intent to tame Wilkes.
Mr. Justice BALLET—There were two complaints before Mr.
Whithwe.
Mr. Sag. Wrtne—Yes. my Lord, one was for the wilful tTeS-
peis, Smother for the riot. I allude to this circumstance. to chew an
important fact on the trial of Charles Flint. Bosley on the trial
proved that Flint used the words that he should not take Wilkes to
prison. Rowley was examined before Mr. Whitby; Charles Flint
'hen challenged the opposite party to prefer a complaint airaint him
if they hail any. Mr. Seckerson admits that he then had no such
intention. became at he says he was not aware of the part Flint had
Jlio, my 'Lords' Rowley was present, and could he hate
tweet:ea what Flint hadsaid when the riot charge was investigated,
thiwchallenge tnade by Flint? How extraordiaary is it then
that Eliot should afterwards be convicted, on the esidene of Row.
!ee, of taking part in the riot, when all the witnesses before 3lr.
Whitby-with one voice acquitted him of all share in tint transac-
roe ? 'Wilkes swears distinctly, that though he was lined ten shit_
to the others were all dismissed.
The Loan Costar JUIIT ICE—You mistake it in lest, f think.

Mr. Sergeant Wt I.DE read the passage front %Vilkes'saflilarit.
The !son I) CHI CT JUSTICE—V.OO will find, on ...imparing that
a'..eunt with what afterwards took place, that though on the 12th
••ti were dismissed, on the 16th a subsequent charge wias made,
gci•c a distinct matter, and then Mr. Whitby bound them mar to
appear at the Sessions.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE—The first inquiry was on the 12.ih, and
tho.i Wilkes was charged with a breech of the. peace. That charge
limited to %%'ilkea._

. -. ....... ......_ .. ____
The LORD Cutts, JVITICE—They were distir et transactions
quite. All takes place on the same day, but still they are per-
fectly distinct.
3fr. Sergeant NVILDE continued.—On the 12th of June the sup-
rased bleach of the peace, wilful trespass and riot, with intent to
rescue, took place. When before the Magistrate, all the witnesses
were present. and if there had been a well-founded complaint of
ri n and Mate it waa not probable the charge would not bare been
brought forward. Charles Flint challenged inquiry respecting him-
selt, and it .was admitted there was no charge against him. flow
happrnettit that all the facts and the declaration of Charles Flint
were not:then stated ? That was a circumstance to have been
roticed ittcoasidaing the guilt or into cenee of Flint. Nu attempt
was mads by Mr..Chetwyoul to distinguish Flint from the other
detemilets. in several affidavits his manner was stwed to have
be.• i ear a and inumip Tate -more like al advorri..- than a judge.
'flaw Learned Sergeant then read the summing tr.', at et continned :
Al r. Citetwynd left the case to the jury, with the remark, that a
more ourcageous broach of the peace had never rene!ted his know.
/edge. ?4v. Ch'Jwynd had published an edition of Thre's Juxtier, '
in which, unhappily for his impartiality, his law on the subject of
unlawful and riotous assemblies differed widely from what he had
stated from the bench on the trial of Flint. lly this misstatement
1 e had procured the opportunity of passing an unjust judgment.
Could lie have acted /*ma fide in giving the public one view of the
law and another to the jury. Why had he not read an extract
from his own back ? flow did he account to their frordship. for
plating himself where he ought not to have been, and stating the
law net applicable ti the case'? lie ( l r. Sergeant Wilde) would
next collie io the judg:ntut. Was not Mr. ('hctwynd responsible
for the judgment, because some other Magistrates hail ronnirred
with hint in passing it ? Yea he was ; he midi' no:, he should rot
escape. Tire Attniney.tieneral had said not a weed in defence of
O.* judgment. It was Ma outrageous to he de: mtlel for n meant et
by ant map of honourable tedings. lint waa 31r. Chetwynel. when
be had gre. his sictiin into his power, to be acquitted of the crurWe•
he bad practised upon him. breau ..e ?Arnie other Mitgi*trates lead
been induced to concur in passing h..itenCe ? 31r. 4.l:etwynd was
the visiting filagirtrate. lie well knew, therefor:. from actual
ohservatio:a what he is shout to condemn Mr. Flint to suffer. 17)
the preamble of the kJ of Gen. IV., esp. 114, it azs ereba,..d the,
it was tee sadlcut that the punishment of hard labour should
be appli. to certsin misdemeanors below finny- -sg.zoteatee
they might to be, which should he punished as Mr. Chetsind ad-
judged -Flint to !Offer. Now, the Court could ewimate his im-
partiality. Mere was a yoang man of liberal education, the
master of & respectable plate;.._ standing before him to receive
judgment, under circumstances wit.4l warranted hint in expeeting
every mitigation of punishment. Wh/ife did 31e. eneissYtd send
41ils unfortunate young man to expi an involuntary offence'
beforehom
Good God ! what an abuse the Court had t hem. This
ststs
young maw was sot to associate with erimi w but to look

upon was pollution. Mr. Flint was sent tot ertire•l7l g.-. 01, to herd '
with wretches whom it was infamy w ha. spoken with. 'flint
Court was the tribunal to correct the errors of all internwtiiate
jurisdiction. If they did not in some shape visit with th. it censure
tlw conduct of Mr. Chetwynd, they would. indeed. in the wards of
the libel, treat the rights of men as " dust beneath tout it W. 1." 31r..
' Chetwynd eninplained of the libel, because it n. it written iii-1
cautiously and ttnguardedly. Where was It eaut ion or tenant when I
lie passed his kolgments on the Flints? The Atte:oil/A ;etieral had
said, the sentence must be executed becaese the rMes of the ea. ,
was inevrable. But that was no excuse for 3!r. t 'het% i nit. 11e
knew alien he passed judgment what were the rules of !Iti. gi,i,
which, us a 3lagistrate, lie was a party in inaki....g. In iV. v.. tin
passing sentence, he hail said, "You have been conviett el of a sight
assault, for which, I admit, there are many cirennistances it unti-
lgatinn ; yet I will sentence you to the punishment appropriated t.i
a:,,gravaied misdemeanors below felony. Volt shall live net Mead
nod water ; you shall labour at the tread-mill ; you shall I . ill
with the most infamous of mankind ; yon shall be •ii;:i;i.ii
of your decent clothing., and fed on haul which w ill gra-
theilly undermine your health and strength. As yeitr qr., 311
il ecreaites, further demands upon it shall lie me .1,.. Po lore
you ti.-cane an Attorney of the I Mot of King's Briicli, in shall
•r,,nd three mouths at the tread-mill. among associates ahem it
:.i .ill he ever ignotninieus for you to remember." If 3lr. t !het-
wynd knew the melts of the prison to be inexorable. his case wits
not amended, as he knew the fact before lie passed the s....ntence.
Whatever suspicion rested on 11r. Chetwynd'a. summit ..t up et“;
statement of the lav:, was consistent with the motives im;iii ted t.,
him by the libel, but utterly inconsistent with the Innanii,,.ie and
Intotane princitle to which he pretend,sl. It pemil : have
erred—and he (dlr. Sergtiant NV tide) hoped they had as torte
feelings and disposition of Mr. Chetwynd—nol• sly cot • I had
more than himself the removal of the stain on the ad-
msnistration of justice, which not the article in • bells-
paper had Omen upon it, but the suspicious conduct or
Mr. Chetwynd himself: Was it charitable then for him to move
h,r a criminal information, when he had himself misled the public?
The (Nitirt would next see how the sentence was carried into execu.
tion t and here he repeated, he maintained that Mr. Chetsynd
was zesponsible for every pang Flint had suffered in prison, and
that he might hereafter suffer during the rest of his life. 3lr.
Chetwynd might have sentenced Flint to tine and imprisonment.
He might have met the justice of the case by other means
than those that sealed Flint with ruin and degradation for ever.
A statute passed in the month of July last (the 4th of George
the Fourth), by which all the provisions relating to gaols
were consolidated, was so recent, that 3lr. Chetwynd mold not have
been ignorant of its enactments. It was there defined what might
be done and what might not he done in prison. Whatever 'bight
he the rules of a gaol, they most bend to certain ea.-s._
Men were rot to die by rule. Attention should be pant to the pre-
s.•rention of th;:ir hceilli and lives. 3lr. Chet %Ind, in his affidavit,
said, that no severity, bev.mil what the rules of the gaol required,
was practised towards Flint. 3lr. Chetwynd took an active part in
swwrintentlirg the management of the gaol. When the unfinished
memorial of Flint was taken Iran him, anti sent by Mr. Chetwynd
to tb . Secretary of Snee, he soggestcd that, perhaps, it would be
I sa.i•tsietory it Mr. Peel had a report Irtrli the visiting Magistrates.
I Ile d'il not mention that lie r.as one, hut he clearly referred to them
i .is pi noes acquainted with wliat took place in the gaol. What
I then was clearly I- Inlet treataii.nt there? Front the 17th of October
Ito the 17th of November, he had nothing but the gaol diet. From
the 17th of November to the 12th of D.:cold:ter a pint of milk was
subsdatted instead of water. At the end of two months be was
allowed two none., of tea, one pound of sugar, and animal food for
ahiut three weeks, and then to the end of his time he hail the gaol
allowance. - - . _ . ...

1 he ATTOMNEV-1317XEstat —After he first began to have milk
be lid it to the end of hi imprisionnicnt.
31r. Sergeant 11'11.ai: then proceeded from the diet to the
work. (In the 17th of October be sat convicted. On the liith he
worked on the tread-mill, And again on Monday the 2tith. lie
was then removed to the fulling-mill, where he worked that week
and part of the next. lle was then taken back to the tread-mill
yard. From the 15111 of Dacaiber to the let of January he was re-
ported too ill to work at all. The A ttomey-lleneral had imputed to
31r. Flint's affidavit a misstatement as to tete forty hours during
which he was confined to his cell. It was not of the confinement,:
but of the fasting that he complained. He could not eat what was
given to him, and during that period he was without food. He re-
quested water, and was refused even that. He was put to labour,
to which be was not used, and denied die food necessary to support
his health, which consequently became injured. He was taking
medicine three times a-day, yet he was kept to that hard and
exhausting labaue. The Learned Sergeant then referred to the
provisions el the Ith Geo. IV. cap. 21. for the purpose of sheaving
that most of the rules therein enacted fur the regulation of gaols
bad been violated in the gaol at Stafford. He then proceeded to
chew, from the affidavits of Mr. Hughes, the surgeon, that Flint's
health had nut been properly attended to.
3lr. Justice IBAYLEY-1 his does net apply to Mr. Chetwynd.
Tire boul, Cutler JUSTICE—.3Ir. Ssarlett directed oar atten-
tion to those paniculars.
3lr. Sergeant WILDE said, if he had followed Mr. Scarlet he
should not have thought it necessary, but as the Attorney-General
had said that Mr. Chetwynd was not responsible for the proceed-
ings in the gaol, he felt it his duty to submit these observations to
the Court. . .

Air. Justice BAYLZY—Mr.Chetwynd may generally know how
the prisoners are employed and associated, but whether the surgeon
perfusion a particular duty he cannot know.
Mr. Sergeant 1V runt then commented on the cruelty of exclud-
ing the family medical advisers of Mr. Flint from an interview ;
with him, unless on condition that he would not give him advice an I
to his health. No part of the affidavits denied that the visiting
Magistrates had it e power to mitigate the severity of the rules of
the prison. Thus closed the fact then, when the editor of a Lon-
don newspaper, having seen the memorial presented to the Secretary
of State, sits down to comment on the transaction. If there was ,
anything useful and necessary to the administration of justice, it I
wan unrestrained freedom of discussion. Our institutions stood on
a better foundation than the mere power of the state; there was a
healthy vigour about them which prevented all harm from the ex-
position of- their irregularities. If it was found that the libel was '
written boort fide on a matter of real complaint, he apprehended
the Court would not regard the ham of the expression. The
Learned Sergeant then read the article of the 27th of December,
and commented on it as he proceeded. lie submitted, that on the
affidavits a very grievous case was made out against Mr. Chet-
wyad ; the Flints might be undeserving or otherwise, but the re-
port of the trial was sworn to be correct, and from that report it was
clear that Mr. Chetwynd had presided on the trial in an unusual
manner ; that he had smutted up with many omissions to the preju-
dice of the defend nit ; that he had stated the law differently from
his own opinions in his law books, and that he had passed a very
severe senteece. there being but one other Magistrate on the bench
with him on the trial. It was also clear that Flint's cane wan one
with many mitigating circumstances, and as the visiting Magi-
strate, Mr. Clietwynel must have known what would follow the
judgment. 11'hile umlcr sentence Flint was denied the use of pen,
ink, and paper, because it was said he idled when he had them;
an unfinished memorial to the Secretary of State was taken away
hum him, and a medical friend refined admittance to him, except
on consitlyra.ion that he would not prescribe fur hint. lie (
Sergeant 11 Me) asked their Lordships to take no doubtful
facts as he gretindwurl: of their judgment. If Mr. Chetwynd
misled the public by his own conduct, he bad no right to
ask for a crin:inal information. lie might be able to answer
every niat:ee in the affidavits, and yet would have no right
to a criminal information. 11. cre his conduct on the trial. his
summing up, and 'lie sentence right? If lie hail erred, he ass
net entitled to this mode of retire a. 31r. Chetwynd ought not to
bear hardly on Ma:N.:rade, in reporting. When it was his duty to I
be most accurate, he hail aserniett sentiments to persons in the
highest stations which they had repelled with indignation. Let
their Lordships weigh the errors of 11r. Chetwynd and Mr. Chas.
Flint. and contrast them. Blot was a young man, sent for pro-
fessionally, aril sinning unconsciously. .11r. Chetwynd was a man
somewhat advanced in life, who had wantonly, premeditatedly, and
aCrisediy, done a gross act of iljustice. if Charles Flint's errors
deserved to be dealt with as Mr. Chetwynd had punished
them. how stood Mr. Chetwyntrs case ? I:. ai,plieations of this
nature their Lordships miner failed to look at the conduct of prose-
cutors as well an defendants. Thew never was a case in which that
core and cheimispection was of more importance. Some humble
parsons had applied for criminal ir formations and been refused, be-
cause their liordiehips never granted one unless the conduct of the
prosecutor entitled them to it. In this county a poor man,punished
contrary to law, had les+ chance of redress than a rich man. Sup-
pose a man convicted illegally under the game laws. Their Lord-
ships would hold, that till the prosecutor swore that he was
innocent of the of he would ask in vain for the extraordinary
interpolation of that Court. Ile would be told that he must pursue
the ordinary course of law. Yet if this poor man went before a
Grand Jury, his chances would nut be improved. But how sto,d
Mr. Chetwynd ? Would he tind any difficulty in obtaining juntl.-e ?
The sympathies of Grand Juries would be all in his favour. Ilia
rank and fortune would ensure him a good reception. 11e (Mr.
Sergeant W)lde) did not call upon their Lordships for judgment on
3lr. I .hetwyticl. Ile had not been heard in his defence. But the case
he (Mr. Sergear; 11"vhlet had supposed was a roil one, that had
occurred before their Lordships, and lie was convinced that in all
cases, whether the prisoner was a Marquia or a poacher, unleu he
sand pure before the (run, unless no blame was fairly imputable to
hint, the Court would send him away. The Learned Sergeant conclud- '
ed with respectfully apologising to the C•uat for having occupied so
much time, but he confidently expected front his experience of the
Court, and his conviction of the justice of his client's case, that the
Court would.finvee with him in pane of the observations he had
addressed to them. The Court soul(' say to Mr. Chetwynd—" (In
you we pronounce no opinion. No imputation rests upon you ; but
sullich:rt facts have been brought before us to induce us to refer
you to the ordinary forms law fur the redress you seek."
Mr. lit:fist:Li, in t;:pport of the rule, then addressed the Court.
.%fttr complimenting the great ability displayed by the Learned
rgealt, he proceeded to contend that the Court were hound to
it this inforinati. n. If they rejected the applie,Mon they would in
..;11.ct deny 11r. t-in:twyntl :my remedy. The Learned Gentleman
Was proceeding. is lien_
The Lt, it a ( .1111'1 .11' ST ten: said it became necessary to inter-
lope the a. gument, and as theory was only one day more in terse, Pe
nouid iL:er ti.e further, consideration of the question till next'l ern:.

In the Court of Chancery yesterday, Mr. Sugden re-
newed his motion for setting aside the order, appointing
a Receiver to Covent Garden Theatre, upon the answer of
Mr. Harris coining in. The Lord Chancellor gave Mr.
Harris till Monday for putting in his answer.
The lion. John Henniker, Thorium Charles Higgins,
E.q., Henry Barry, Esq., John Hubbersty Mathews,
Esq., Thomas Clark, Esq., and Edward Harvey Maltby,
Esq. , were yesterday called to the Bar by the Honourable
Society of LlDA:obis Inn.