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

•

~G~

!,

I 1
material evidence relating to Mr. Flint "oaf 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as it was about to be repealed, it was not necessary to make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 Mee 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 affidavit, 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 guardian 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 3lagistrate has
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-General) justified in expect-
ing that those 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 farther, but 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 charge) 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) would 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 Stafford.
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 fall 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 JUSTICE 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
to retails 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 whether
. 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 suspicions as 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.

argChuiefJustice 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,