The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-02-28 00:00:00

The Glasgow Free Press
Lawrence hill- 1

(:limies Hutchison
James Simpson

£1,658 U 6

The Bishop of EXETER presented ;petition from the inha-
bitants of Great Torrington. and Its neighbourhood, against the
duties on coals carried coestwise—Orde be laid on the table.
QUEENSBERRY CAUSES.
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that on Monday the
llouse would be moved to give judgment in the Queensberry
causes.

AMELIORATION OF SLAVES..
l'iscoust HEREFORD presented • petition from the inha-
bitants of a village in Essex, praying the House as far as possible
to ameliorate the condition of 'Laves in the West Indies ; which,
owing to some informality, was withdrawn.
111 r. S. Won't r, and other Members from the Commons,
brought up the Leeds Tithe Bill, which, on the motion of the Earl
of Shaftesbury, was read a first time, and ordered to be referred to
s Committee.

The Earl of LIVERP(BH, observed, that he had brought up
certain returns relating to tithes in Ireland, which differed in some
respects from those moved for by a Noble Earl (Darnley) on a former
day : but the difference was not enough to create a practical argu-
ment ; and therefore he would move that they be printed ; which
was agreed to.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, that he was authorised by
his Noble Friend, the Earl of Darnley, at present in the country, to
state, that it was not his intention to bring forward his motion on
Tuesday; but to postpone it to a future day. His Noble Friend
would attend in his place on that day, and put off his motion to a
distant day • and at the same time move for further pipes' con-
nected with his notice. The Noble Marquis stated, that he should
not more for the order to be discharged.
EXeIIEgUER BILLS BILL, &e.
On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, the Exchequer
Bills (13,(1.0,11b01.) Bill, the Irish Courts of Law amendment Bill,
the Transfer in Aids Bill, and the Reciprocity of Duties Bill, were
read a second time.
MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

The Bishop of EXETER moved that the Report of the Mar-
riage Act amendment Bill be received on Tuesday.—Ordered.
Adjourned to Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FRIDAY, FES. 27.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

Mr. MARTlNprime petition of ---------- K the inhabit-
ants of Liverpool, praying that the laws for preventing cruelty. to
animals might be extended to dogs; and also that bull-baiting
might be abolished. The latter part of the petition, Mr. Martin
observed, was now useless,. because the Attomey-General had
given his opinion on the sitheect, and had decided that the Act for
the prevention of cruelty to cattle gave # power to prevent bull.
baiting.
Laid on the table and printed.
COAL nrri ES.
Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a petition idiProjaut.
Desonehire, praying for a tedeedoe of the dudes on
laid on the table.
HOLME SUMNER presented a similar petition from the
inhabitants of Dorking, Surrey.
Laid on the table.
SLAVERY.
Lord G. FITZROY presented a petition from the inhabitants of
Bury St. Edmunds, praying for the abolition of slavery.
Laid on the table.
RECOVERY OF SMALL DEBTS.
Sir WM. INOILBY presented a petition from the inhabitants
of a subdivision of Lincoln, In support of the Bill for the Recovery
of Small Debts.
Laid on the table.
LICENCE DUTIES.
Mr. HEATHCOTE presented a petition from the innkeepers,
innholders, and licensed victuallers of Boman, county of Lincoln,
praying for a repeal of the licence duties.
MINES IN IRELAND.
Mr. SPRING RICE moved for leave to bring in a Bill for
incorporating a company for working various mines in Ireland.
Leave given.
MR. FLINT'S CASE.

. —..— ...
Mr. DENMAN said he held in his hand a petition, the cond.
deration of which was of the utmost importance to the interests and
liberties of the country; particularly as it related to the power which
was rested in the Magistrates ; it animadverted in a severe tone on
the conduct of a Magistrate of the county of Stafibrd, Chairman of
the Sessions, and • member of the House. It appeared that ttee=ii
tion also contained charges against some of the principal and
members of the Magistracy of the county of Staftind, whose conduct
certainly requiml to be minutely inquired int, by the House; and
who, if the assertions contained in the petition were true, had cer-
tainly gone very far indeed beyond their duty as Magistrates. The
petition was • very long one • yet he (Mr. Denman) did not see
how it could have been curtailed. It stated all the circumstances
which were necessary to be laid before the House. It also contained
several reflections on the Magistrates, and animadversions on the
motives which had induced them to act as they had done. On
this subject he (Mr. Denman) should not say anything ; he would
merely state the facts set forth in the petition. It appcad that
the county of Stafford had been recently much agitated in conse-
quence of • disputed title to a Haronetage, and a large landed pro.
petty, which had been claimed by Sir G. Jerningham. A person
of the name of Wilke had been deprived of his house and farm,
and a man named Wiggins had been put in possession of it. Wilke
afterwards recoveted possession, and by the advice of his Attorney
(Mr. Flint), kept possession of it: and he (Mr. Denman)
thought it • queation, not only of' justice, but on a point of law,
how far such an attempt could be justified or not. There
exietsan Act of Parliament which gives to Madames the power
of arresting persons who are guilty of trespass ; but be did not con-
ceive that they would act rightly in so doing when the right of pos-
session was in dispute._ I7ntler this warnuit for trespass, the cons
stables appointed by the Magistrates proceeded to take possession,
tore of the lac kN broke down the gam:, and did take of
the premises. They then arrested two persons, and r.
who had previettaly taken possession of the property. A crowd
then collected round the pones, to aak the cause of the-proceedings.
They amounted to about 400 persons; but no injury had been sus-
tained, nor was any attempt at rescue made, nor any person as.
malted. The petitioner, whose cause be was about to relate, had
been the legal adviser of Mr. Wilke. When he heard that his
client was arrested, he immediately went to the inn to which he
had been takes a prisoner. Many persons were assembled round
the place, who were not attempting a Tame, but who certainly did
complain of the straining of authority. He asked the constable to
produce his authority ; the constable replied that he had it in his
pocket, but he refused to chew it. The attorney, when he after-
wards did see it, discovered that it did not apply to the Act in ques-
tion, but was simply •document appointing him constable. He (Mr.
D.) had read the affidavits on the subject, and a full report In a coun-
try newspaper, and it appestat that the facts were as the petition
stated. There was one circumstance which was admitted—it was,
that Mr. Wilke had said that he would not go with the constable,
yet no opposition whatsoever had been used. But supposing that the
act was one which came within the laws relative to and
supposing that all the charges were true, it was not cert n that any
of the parties who were arrested were concerned in it; and if they
were, they were guilty of nothing but of using words, which cer-
tainly did not subject them to the consequences that were made to
I follow. With regard to the petitioner, Mr. Flint, he knew nothing
of the transaction ; he had gone accidentally to Stafford, when,
hearing that his client hail been arrested, he visited him to know
the cause of such arrest. It appeared to him (Mr. Denman) that
the case had been sufficient to warrant the Jury in acquitting the
petitioner in particular; but it appeared that the charge of the
Chaimian to the Jury was of such a nature as to lead to a verdict
of' guilty. The Chairman stated that the attorney ought to have
written to his client, but it was by no means clear that he would
have done his duty if he had not gone. The Learned Chairman
also told the Jury, and repeated the expression more than once,
during his charge that the case had been clearly made out against
the petitioner. When it was certain that he went down to the inn
after the riot—if there was a riot—had commenced, and was there
altogether accidentally. The consequence was, that the Jury al-
most immediately returned a verdict of guilty against him ; and it
was a natural verdict, after the manner In which the charge had
been given. The only question then was, as to the punishment.
Ile (4lr. Denman) understood that the attorney, after he had been
found guilty, had put into the Court additional affidavits, stating
that he was accidentally present at the place of the disturbance,
and did not, in any way, interfere. The liewourable Chairman,

however, and the Haven-nd Divine who misted him, could see no
difference in the case of the one front the case of the other, and they
sentenced to the same punishment those who acted, and him who
was accidentally present at the scene : this punishment was--three
months confinement in prison, and to be condemned to hard labour
—which hard labour means, that they should be classed among fe-
lons of the very worst description, and be forced to work among
them. Such a punishment could not tail to excite the greatest's-
tonishment. The petition stated, that the charge against him only
went so far as to accuse hint of illegally antembliog t in which
OM the Magistrate could net have been justified in putting him to
hard labour. The petitioner, however, was confined in gaol fora
period of three months, and during that period be was placed to work
at the tread-mill. Another statement in the petition is, that the pe-
titioner prepared • memorial to the Honourable Gentleman oppo-
site (Mr. Peel), stating his ease, and praying for relief. This me-
morial he (Mr. Denman) understood had been kept back, and-the
Honourable Gentleman did not receive it until two months of the
imprisonment had expired. It was a matterof surprise, that in the
Secretary of State's uthee such circumstances were not inquired
into. Se that the petitioner remained for the period of his confine-
ment in a common gaol, obliged to associate with the very worst
characters, to wear the gaol dress, and to labour at the tread-mill,
without being treated in any. respect as different from the common
felons who thronged the person. He (Mr. Denman) understood
that some circun.stances had afterwards induced the Magistrates
of Stafford to meet and take the subject into consideration.
They =me to a determination, which resembled a decision lately
made in the House of Commons, when a motion was made by his
Noble Friend (Lord Nugent) to inquire into certain transactions,
the House had resolved—not on making the inquiry, but on pro-
nouncing a panegyric on the parties concerned. It was thus with
the Magus:ate* ; they did not decide on the inquiry, but they did
deeideen paying their thanks So the Chairman. It was true that
this/wades had been brought, in another shape, before the Court
of King's Bench. But he (Mr. Denman) thought the petitioner
was most completely justified in bringing the matter before the
House of Common' as won as he was enabled so to do. And he
(Mr. Denman) trusted the House wouli consider whether or not
the conduct of the Magistrates merited inquiry,and take front them
a portion of their extensive powers if they had. The case which
he alluded to as having been introduced into the King's Bench,
was the criminal information which had been moved for against tile
printer and publisher of a public newspaper. But it was AhOge'ller
of a different nature from the matter now before the House. The
paragraph in that paper he had nothing to do with; it might
be or it might not be, a wilful and malicious libel; but
the case of the petitioner could not have been anywhere so
properly inquired into, as before the House of Commons. He
(Mr. Denman) had now performed bis duty, in having gime into
the facts which had been stated in the petition. He thought, if it
were admitted that the persons who had been charged with com-
mitting an illegal act had done so, it was not just to involve in
blame an individual who had been present by chance at the scene
of the alleged disturbance: and if he were guilty, was it right to
confine hint to hard labour at the tread-mill, among common
culprits, many of them of the most abandoned kind ? Ile
Denman) would conclude by reading the termination of the peti-
tion, in which the petitioner humbly prayed the House, in their
wisdom, to consider his case, and to prevent similar acts of oppres-
sion. He (Mr. Denman) thought it necessary to mention that the
petitioner attempted to account fur the manner in which he had
been punished, by stating that his brother had had a quarrel, some
time ago, with the Member fur Stafford; but on this point be
(Mr. Denman) would not dwell ; he would, however, observe that
Mr. Flint's brother had been formerly prosecuted for an assault on
a woman, which was described as being very slight indeed. For
this offence he was sentenced to six months imprisonment, and to
pay a fine of 1001. He made an application to Lord Sidrnouth,
which came iato the hands of :Mr. Peel, that gentleman having
then succeeded his Lordship in office. The first act of the Right
Hon. Secretary was, to set Mr. Flint at liberty, and to remit the
fine of 1001. It might certainly be inferred front this fact that the
Magistrates had then gone beyond their authority, or the Hon.
Gentleman would not have interfered. Whoever bad so done must
have deemed the sentence unjust. He (Mr. Denman) had now
stated the whole of the facts as they were represented in the petition,
and he would make no further comments on it.

Mr. H. SUMNER said, that if be understood the petition, it
an Honourable Oentleman, a Member of that House, with
fitil:TVring acted fairly in his situation as a public Magistrate. As
to the individual attacked, all who knew him knew his fair and
honourable character in the county which he represented, and also
how able his talents were to rebut any charge which could be
brought against him. fie (Mr. Sumner) did not feel for him, be-
cause he was assured that his cause was a good one; but he felt for
others who might be hereafter smacked, whose diameters might
not be so well known, and who might not possess eqiud talents to
defend themselves. If the case belt.; the House were such as it
was stated to be, and if the motives were such as were attributed
• el the Renewable Member, theri saW be no doubt bet the pen-
dia...add receive eatisfsetioo in the Cam of Ding's Bench, and
then the transgression would be punished with a severity equal to
his crime. He (Mr. Sumner) would oppose the petition, on the
Ertlthat if mim if the King's Bench had not powere satisfaction,
not be a case to bring before the House.
CHETWYNDE said that be should feel he was tnost un-
Mistily to sit in that House, if he did not satin the petition to be
brought up, fully read, and every charge separately entered into.
He would pens the House to go through every sentence, and if
khere were the slightest grounds for any one of the charges contain-
ed it, he would implore die House to pass the most severe animad-
versions on him, and almost to dismiss him from his place. He
entreated the House, In the name of justice, to let the petition be
brought up, and fully read.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said—The House mutt be
already aware that I have some knowledge of the transactions now
brought before their notice, particularly as to those parts of them
which are more Intimately connected with the conduct of my Hon.
and Learned Friend, who is now the subject of accusation. In the
first place I have then to state, it was by the desire of my Hon. and
Learned Friend that the petition in favour of Mr. Abraham Flint
was forwarded to Lord Sidrnouth, the then Secretary for the Home
Department. Flint, as has been stated, was tried, found guilty,
and sentenced to be punished, which we have all heard. His pe.
tition was supported by my Hon. Friend, the Member for Stafford,
but Lord Si mouth, after adverting to aft the facts, declared he
paw no grounds for interference on the part of the Crown. After
my Lord Sidmouth's retirement, my Right Hon. Friend succeeded
to his high station, and so far was my lion. Friend (Mr. Chetwynde)
from being prejudiced against Flint, that he again renewed his ap-
plication, presented another petition, and the prayer pf that mi.
Hon was attended with 'tureen, in consequence of the zealous acti-
vity. of the Member for Stafford. I ask, then, is there any ground
for mputing. undue prejudice on the part of my Hon. Friend, either
to the petitioner, or to any part of his family? (Hear hear,
from the Ministerial benches.) What right has the petitioner to
make so groundless a charge ? What are the facts of this case ?
An individual was supposed to have violated the law and commit.
ted a breach of the peace; the constables were ordered to appre.
bend him, when 4 or WO people attempted to rescue him. I hope
the House will not suffer itself to be misled by hearing only an
rx•parte statement, for I can aasure them that when the facts are
stated, they will find the conduct of my Hon. and Learned Friend
to be all that could be desired. The Magistrates have stated %men
affidavit in the King's Bench, and so has my Hon. and Learned
Friend, that every material fact alleged by the petitioner is false;
and the same has been sworn to by every one cognizant of the whole
transaction. It is now suggested in the petition, that when Flint
was brought before the Magistrates, he was not .i:ound over to the
Sessions ; though I must in candour admit It has not been stated
by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who has introduced the peti.
tion. But this assertion is positively denied, and the Magistrate
swears he did bind them over. ( Hear, nom the Ministerial benches.)
Another fact stated in the petition, though not noticed by the Hon.
Member (Mr. Denman), I conceive requires sonic notice, inasmuch
as it shews how ready the petitioner is with assertions. The peti-
tioner states, or at aft events suggests, that the bill of indictment
was prepared by Mr.,Chetwyntle, which he denied upon oath when
moving for a criminal information against the publishers of certain
newspapers. If I therefore oppose the bringing up of the peti-
tion, I do so because the petition states what is untrue—because
it contains calumnies and aspersions against an lion. Member of '
this House and a Magistrate. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial
benches.) Let us now look to the subsequent proceedings after the
indictment was prepared, and see what was done? A Jury tried
the case, and my Hon. and Learned Friend, together with another
Magistrate, presided. My Honourable and Learned Friend, as
the Chairman, read over every syllable of the evidenze to the
Jury as he had it on his notes. Was the individual accused
unprotected ? No; he had the advice and assistance of Coun-
sel, and the Jury returned a verdict of guilty. It was
'said that my Honourable and Learned Friend had wrongly
stated the law; but front whom does that statement come? Are
we to take it, and take it too for truth, from the mouth of an accused
and convicted individual, when my Hon. and Learned Friend, is
well as the other respectable magistrate, Mr. Clare, deny it upon
oath ? Up to this period, then, from the committal to the charge
of the Judge to tine Jury, we find nothing to have been irregularly
or improperly done. And now we come to the judgment : the ac-
cused was found guilty of a riot, and then came the question as to
the punishment. Mr. Clare sat in judgment with niy Honourable
and Learned Friend, who did not wish to rely upon his own. But,
beyond that, he also consulted others of his brother magistrates,
and amongst them a gentleman known to many of the gentlemen at
the other side of the House. I allude to Sir Oswald Moseley. All
these magistrates consulted together, and were unanimously of opi-
nion that the judgment of my Hon. and Learned Friend was cor-
rect and proper. is this, I ask, the conduct which is now to be
impeached? If my Hon. and Learned Friend be guilty, all the
other respectable magistrates are equally guilty. I knot' nothing
of Mr. Flint; but now I ask, when others convicted of the same
offence were sentenced to hard labour, why not sentence him also to
hard labour? What would be said of the administration of public
justice, if distinctions were to be thus made? I need not anticipate
what would be said—and said correctly too. So tar, then, ILA to the
trial, the charge, and the judgment, I think no man will be disposed
to think my lion. and Learned Friend culpable in the least dmr«.
And now as to the hardship which the petitioner alleges he endured
from a sentence of three months to labour at the tread-wheel. Why
the fact is, he was sentenced so three months hard labour, but upon
his representation that his state of health was such as not to allow
him to work at the wheel, he was not worked at it fur more

•
_
kir. DENMAN—Do you mean altogether ?
The ATTORSKY.OLNERAL—.IItogether. Upon his re.
presentation that his constitution unfitted him to work at the tread_
wheel, that {shone was discontinued. new • portion of his confine-
ment he was put to spinning wool, and fiar the remainder of bid
imprisonment he did no:hing—he was idle. There are other all.
gatioas in the petition, such as his having been shut up for forty
hours, and his being confined to bread and water; but •• these ha
not been noticed by the Hon. and Learned Gent. (Mfr. Denman),l
shall not touch them. In Consequence of that statenient having ap-
neared in some of the London papers, my lion. and Learned Frier d
applied for $ criminal information to the Court of King's Bench;
which that Court never grants, unless the party applying for It
makes oath that what is contained in the matter complained of it
false. There were the affidavits of my lion. and Learned Friend
to that point—of Mr. Clare—of the agent of Sir GoorpJerninghant
—of the taskmaster and surgeon olthe prison—in short, of eve*
individual who had nny cognisance of the matter. The matter was
not decided in the Court of King's Bench, and for this reason, dist
the defendants applied to let it stand over till next Term, in ordV
to collect new lustier to answer these affidavits. Under these tie.
cuinstances, I think it would have beep much better for the petL
tioner not to have presented this petition until an tavestigattan had
taken place before the proper tribunaL The petitioner would, per.
lisps, have waited for this investigation, unless he had supposed he
could create some partiality by his et...parte statement--astat'asent
which he knew, whether true or false, would draw down no had
I consequences on his head 4 but fur this object I sod certain he would
have waited. For these reasons, and for others which would only
weweary the House
a' by detailing, I shall certainly oppose the brierng
The the cti ICITOR-BENERAL observed, that if the present
petition were received, no 3loghogate fOrthe future would undertake
the duties of that arduous office. There were three course'', open 1,1
the petitioner to have pursued—personal action, criminal intorma-
tion, and an appeal to the Lord l'hanefillor, before he came to this
House; and mile.' he (the Solicitor-General) was satisfied that
these courses had been tried and fulled, it was not competent ice the
House of l'ommons to entertain the petition, and by such a pro.
ceeding assume an authority they did not posses. It injustice.
were dune the wt itioner the Kings Bench was open to him for re-
dress; and s that and all the other courses had, as he said be-
fore, been tried and failed, he thought it would be a violation of the
Constitution for the House to intertere. For these reasons lie shoufd
oppose the reception of the petition: Then was one word more
that he wished to add. His Hon. and Learned Friend (31r.Chet-
wynde) wished to enter into a vindication of Ills conduct; bat, hr:(the Solicitor-tieneral) asked, should the House allow him ?
should they suffer one of their Members to be tried?—should they
suffer any Magistrate, whether a Member or not a 41auber of this
House, to be tried, on the allegations of an accused Joni coetietal
offender ? It so happened, however, that the accused was a Mem-
ber—that he was a man of talent and veracity sufficient to defend
himself; but lie (the Solicitor-General) contended it would be a
violation of the Lonstitut late to allow him to do so.

Mr. PEEL, on the subject of this petition, did not mean to say
a word. He felt himself in some degr, ein the situa-ion of his
Hort. and Learned Friend (Mr. Chetwynde). and if it were the
pleasureof the !louse to enter:into &detail (Wall the alaumetarces—
If they called' upon him to account for the ads ice he had gis en to
the Crown not to extend its mercy, he was fully prepared to do se.
There were, however, two points collaterally connected with the
subject of the petition, on which he 'eight be allowed to touee•
The Hon. and Learned (iendeinan who introduced the petition had
first expressed his surprise at the delay which occurred in his office :
secondly, that a proper inquiry was not instituted ; and, as the re-
sult of these two points, that the prerogative of mercy was nut inter.
posed. On the two film points, he might be allowed to give some
explanation ; and from the nature of that explanatioo, the Must
would, in charity, infer the answer to the third point As to Mr.
Abram Flint, it was one of hi:. first official acts to advise the Crown
to the exercise of mercy, and it was upon these imam& r..He had
received a letter front his lion. and learned Friend (Mr. Cheti
wynde), which lie now held in his hand, and io which it was stated
that he had some doubts of the credibility of one of the witeeues
brought against Mr. Flint, in consequence of sonic testimony he
gave at a subsequent trial, and he (31r. Chetwyndel thought it but
fair that Mr. Flint should derive all the benefit naturally ationa;
out of such a discovery. lie (31r. Chetwynde) therefore hion'ily
submitted that fur thisreasop he was justified in imploring the Ronal
mercy fur him,--the more so, as he suffered much from his con.-
finetnent, and his family being in great distress. The Roval„.tsrey
therefore, up this recommendation, was extended to .31r7klittc
Now as to the charge of delay he had received the letter ds •Lti sat
the 29th Jan. 182.3, in two days after, upon the 31st, and on the 1.1
of February the warrant was signed for his liberation. (Cheers Wow.
the Ministerial benches.) With respect to the charge of delay in
the ode Of Mr. Ckm. hint, the peasant petitioner, it wm said tad
it was forairded Its October and not noticed till the December of:
lowing. (Mr. Denman here intimated same dissent.? If aa-
tlemen did not know when matters wept before the et
Stateif they did not take pains to ascertain the truth of
before they made them, it pas strange that they should so=
make up their minds to venture uporftrifling charges. (Cheers tiara
the Ministerial benches.)
Mr. DENMAN—I said that one of the allegations in the pen.
dal charged delay, but 1 expressed no 111111711 e, for this obvious
reason, that 1 did-not know when the petition reached the kw* -
ledge of the Secretary of State.
111 r. PEEL—The first knowledge I had of this trial was upo
the 6th of December, through the ;Mans of a paper forwarded ta
me by a 31r. t:rewe, in which he requested me to name a day and
hour, when he Might See me on the subject. 3ly answer to hint
and Mr. Hobhouse was, that if he felt any eetisfactiern in suing
him (Mr. Peel) he should be seedy to receive him (Mr. Crewel,
but that it was not Mr. Pees!) .rWia• to notice any think otLeucia
subject unless it were written. On criminal matters such albuttoa
be found to be absolutely necessary. In consequence of what he
had heard he wrote to Mr. Chetwynde, and on the 17th Deeenihe:'
he received his answer, so that only *rut days elapsed ' • and so tit
he thought be had answered as to the charge of delay. Next, wiee
respect to the nature of the inqeiry, he candidly owned that he re-
ferred to the Judge who presided at the trial, and be should be
ashamed of himself holding the situation be did, sad knowing
the character ef his Hon. and Learned Friend who presided as the
Judge, if he had referred to any other person. Ilia Hens Red
Learned Frirod sent him a literal transcript of his clierge aid of
the minutes of evidence, and it was but justice for him (Mr. Purl)
to say, that, under all the circumstances, be thought the sentence
right and lenient, and that it would be wrong for him to advise the
Crown to remit it. He should postpone any furtheedetaile until he
discovered what course would be taken by the House.
Mr. LI'TTLETON considered that a more groundless smut
was never made on any gentleman than that ea his lion. sad
Learned Friend. lie knew hire well as a Magistrate and a neigh-
bour; and he (Mr. Lyuleton), could say upon his honour that be
never 'knew a more honourable, scrupulous, or pains-taking Ma-
gistrate in his life. The lion. and Lammed Gentleman who ir. -
troduced the petieise, seemed to identify himself whh the peti-
tioner (NO, no!) it appeared certainly to him (Mr. Lyttleton) as
if he did so. • ties also spoken of the resolutions of the 3ligw
trams as injurious to the petitioner; but the Magistrates bad tine h
0101`e mama to complain of his doing them an injury. The Ms.
carefully in sestUrate t- d the whole matter ; thee sifted cres
grants
gstro the bottom before they proceeded to pay such honourable
testimony to the character of his Hon. and Leanest Friend. The
Chairman could not say, when piloting sentence, " You, Char es
Flint, are to be committed to prison tor three monhs;" and to
each of the other four or live persons convicted with him, " You
are to be committed to prison for three months, and alto to hard
labour." On the whole, he thought the conduct of his HUD. and
Learned Friend had been just and honoundate in the extreme.
Mr. STURGES BOURNE opposed the bringing up the Fic-
tion, because the petition imputed the misconduct sat his Hon. a. d
Learned Friend to corrupt motives ; and surely this House was nut
the place for the petitioner to institute a trial into that allegation.
, The grortorecx of the petition was, that iniustice was dune to the
petitioner be an improper jurisdiction—that a jure had artnetitted
an injustice -by the direction of his Hon. and Learned Friend, as
Chairman of the Sessions. How could the House dead, that
question, unless they heard the whole 'of the qaestionover again e
If they allowed every convicted individual to act in this mantle%
where would they end ? He hopkd die House would pause beton:
they entertained a petition like the present.
Mr. HUME expressed a hope that the House would never he
closed spinet hearingit ykvances of the people. Ile understosa
that the petitioner pro to verify his allegations upon his own
oath as well as upon t me of other people ; sod he believed that his
HOG'. and Learned Friend (Mr. Damian) was fully impressed with
that feeling when he presented the petition. He could not help
thinking that he (31r. Denman) was very unfairly dealt with, in
mixing him up with the charges made by the petitioner. Front
what lie had Just heard, he must say he was satisfied as to the coo.
duct pursued by the Right lion. Secretary for the Houle Depart.
malt; and he also thought that the feasted Gentleman who soar
the subject of those charges had certainly been free front that of
prejudice or grudge against the family of the petitioner. But los
Hon. and Learned kriend (Mr. Deemen) could nut tkirly refuse
his credence to Mr. I'lint, a man who certainly held a respectable
rank in society ; for it was impossible to expect data he (Mr. Den-
man) should know matters which were only known to time Right
lion. Gentleman opposite. He confessed he fah a difficulty mot
to d0..11e wished the petition to be laid on the table; but as such
contradictions to io allegations were made by lion. Gentlemen so
etaan he could not refute credit, he suggroted the propriety of
withdrawing the petition. lie did not wish it to go abroad that
the petitions of the people would not be received in that House:
when they stated their grievances; and upon that principle he
thought that all those Gentlemen who equal with hue would vote
fur its reception.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY said, that as allusion had been 111: 4_
to the conduct of the 31agistrates who signed the resolution in ti.•
your of his Honourable and /earned Friend, he leave to say
a few words in explanation of their conduct. ore
those resole-
lions were agreed to, the Magistrates entered into t thll inveero a-
tints of the subject, and heard from the Chairmen (Mt. Chowynde)
the same statement as that which had just been uttered by the A!
tomtit-General ; and in the truth ef that statement be was tit! y
borne out by his brother Magistrate, Mr. Clare, and also by
Oswald Morley, whose name wss almost a pledge for caution a,
carCUIll.lllCCitalL ilia Honourable sod Legated k Lad been lit.d

111

Ii

~~

up to the public by some of the newspapers, in a manner on which
be would bestow ne epithet, because of the conduct which he pursued
au the trial of Charles Flint • and he (Sir J. Wrottesley) thought
that no man could bear suchabuse—rio undeserved and so unjust,
without instituting some proceedings against his abusers. After
hearing a full explanation, the Magistrates agreed to thoeeresolu-
atone which were so honourable to the conduct of his Honourable •
and Learned Friend. Though he (Sir J. Wrottesley) himself was
fully satisfied with his conduct, he objected to their being placed
Oa the records of the court, Or advertised ; and before he signed
them, he stipulated that they should not be advertised. The pe-
tition, however, being now brought beforethe public, he would take
the sense of the House upon it, though .he should stand almost
Saone. He meant not to disparage the conduct of any portion of the ,
Angie/racy ; but of this he was sure, that none excelled, take all
England through, the attention paid to their duties by the Magi:i-
ts acy of the county of Stafford.
Sir R. WILSON said, that although he had attentively listened
to all that was said by Gentlemen at the other side, and by the
Honourable Member for Surrey (Mr. H. Sumner), who seemed to
think that orators and rhetoricians alone were to be heard,—al-
though he had also heard from the Attorney-General, answers to
some of the allegations contained in the petition, yet he (Sir Robert
Wilson) must say, that there were many other allegations which
were not answered. He himself knew nothing of the case ; and
therefore wished the petition to be read, in order that he might be
able to decide on what future course lie should take. He under.
stood fmrn what had fallen from his Right Hon. Friend the Save.
tary for the Home Department, that he could repel all the allegations
contained in the petition ; if so, he (Sir R. ifilson) saw no rea-
son why the petition should not be brought up and read, in order
at once to decide upon its reception. It would be establishing a
•bad and dangerous principle to refuse hearing the petitions of any
portion of the community, when they respectfully stated their
grievances and complaints. In fact, to do so would be to violate the
provisions of Alarms Charles, which secured that inestimable trea-
sure to all classes of the people. If the allegations of the petitioner
were erroneous, and if, as he understood, they could be at once re-
futed, it was the duty of the (louse to let the refutation go forth
to the world, together with the charges, and thereby defeat the ob-
ject of the petition, if it were wrong, and do justice to the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Cbetwynde) by permitting a fair jus-
tification of his conduct.
Mr. W. IINNN was decidedly adverse to the petition being
brought up. It was contrary to the whole usage of Parliament to
receive a petition filled with calumnies and aspersions against any
man, much less a Magistrate, and a meniber of the House. It was
the duty of all Members, as long as Parliament was Parliament, to
pledge themselves for the contents of those petitions which they pre-
sented. (Cries of " Hear !" and "No, no !" from the Opposition
benches.) Such interruptions were not courteou s. and if again re-
peated, he must appeal to order. (Hear.) It was the duty of 3lem- '
ben, he repeated it, to pledge themselves for the contents of the
petitions they presented. (Cries of " Hear!" and " No, no!" from
the Opposition benches; returned by cries of " Hear, hear !" from
the Ministerial benches.) Yeti:lists were not to be brought up as
matters of course--they were not to be received as matters of
course—and Members, in presenting them, were bound to
pledge themselves that they contained nothing offensive to the
House. (Cries of " Hear !" from the Opposition benches.) If
the Hon. Gentlemen who thus cried out " (sear!" had only al-
lowed him to have gone on, he would have finished his sentence,
by saying that which they now thought proper to cheer. Ile had
listened with attention to what fell from the different speakers,
but he did not rest his opinion against the reception of this peti-
tion on that alone. The object of this petition was to question a
legal trial; and by whom was it questioned ? By the object of its
punishment, complaining that that punishment was vindictively
inflicted. If petitions of that nature were to be received as matters
of' course, all persons legally convicted would send petitions to this
House, and fill them up with calumnies against Judges and Juries.
It' a complaint were instituted 'against any proceeding, there was a
court of appeal in criminal proceedings to the Court of King's
Bench; there redress might be obtained. And again in cases of
alleged grievances, impeachment might be instituted, and charges
preferred against any judge fur comiption or malversation of judi.
cial functionts. (Hear, hear, front the Opposition.) 'ln the adop-
tion of any course of proceedings which were usual in similar cases,
be had no objection, if a case of impropriety could be sustained,
but he could not consent to the entertainment of every petition in
which an individual might think proper to vent vague and idle
accusations. _ .

Mr. BRIGHT was of opinion that it appeared from the expla.
nations which had been given that no blame attached to the lion.
Member for Staffordshire. However, he was desirous that the
present petition should be entertained, for he was of opinion that
the question was one which was less important as it related to the
conduct of a Magistrate than as it involved &point of Parliamentary
right. If the present petition were rejected without being read, its
rejection would amount to this—that the people might write peti-
tions, but that they should not be presented, and then lion. Mem-
bers would be obliged to confine the petitions of the people to their
pockets. It was not a satisfactory mode of disposing of this petit
thin to say. that the language in which it was couched might be
disrespectful Besides, the term disrespectful was of doable im-
port in this instance. It was one thing for the language to be dis.
respectful to a Magistrate who was a Member of that House. and
another for it to be disrespectful to the House itself. (Hear,
hear.) Provided the petition was couched in no disrespect.
tail language to the House itself, it ought to be entertained
by Parliament, which was the grand inquisitorial inquest of the
nation, and to which those in the higher grades of society, as well
as plebeian subjects, were amenable. Let the petition be enter-
tained •, if the allegations it contained were true, the House should
determine what weight ought to he attached to them ; if false, let
the petition be rejected. The petition had not been read, and yet
an attempt had been made to refute its assertions: surely it should
be read before Hon. Members knew what to answer. Should it be
known that a petition, setting forth such a grievance as the present
was supposed to complain of, was rejected by the Hasse of Com-
moos ? Another point to which he was desirous of directing the
attention of the House was, that the rejection of this petition would
amount to a prohibition on any subject to present a petition for the
repeal of a law. If this House possessed the right and authority
of making laws, and if the subject found this law oppressive, it
would not be contended but he had a right to apply for its altera-
tion. That was the case of the present petitioner. He presents a
petition ; that petition states a grievance; let then the grievance be
inquired into; let the House trace it to its origin, and, if after in.
vestigation, they found the law to be oppressive, let it be repelled.
The House was not called upon to exercise judicial but legis-
lative functions ; but what was the consequence by the rejection of
the petition, without permitting it to be laid on the table of the
House? Inquiry was stilled, and justice done to nu man. If the
accusations it contained were false, it would be more satisfactory to
have its falsehood ascertained after being entertained by the House,
than to reject it without being heard, and affix the character of
falsehood to it. Impressed, therefore, with the propriety of having
petitions entertained by this House, and unwillirg to countenance
• disposition to peremptory rejection, he would support his lio-
nourable Friend (Mr. Denman) in his motion, that the petition be
brought up.
Mr. CANNING wished to know if the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman intended to withdraw the petition.
Mr. DENMAN said, that an intimation had been made on the
part of an Hon. Gentleman near him, that the motion for bring-
ing up the petition should not be withdrawn. As one Hon. Mem-
ber had the right of preventing him from withdrawing it, he should
everefore forbear from saying what he should have done were he left
t his own discretion on the subject.
.M r. CANNING renewed his expression of a wish that the pe.
t'tion should be withdrawn. If premed to a division, he would op.
• pose it simply on the ground that its prayer, if seceded to, would
Lave the tendency and effect of revering: and altering the ver.
dirt of a jnry.
Mr. PEEL (as we understood) also recommended that the peti.
hen should be withdrawn, and intimated his intention to rote
against it if pressed to a division.
Mr. S. WORTI.ICT and Mr. H. Su MKER said a few words. The
former reminded the House, that whether they sanctioned the
bringing up of the petition or not, the subject-matter of it would
find its way to the public through another channel.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEIIUER recommended
the withdrawal of the petition. By doing so, the question which
it brought before the consideration of the blouse would not in any
winner be prejudiced, and would stand in the same position as
though the present petition were not presented.
Mr. DENMAN rose to reply. Although it is not usual on the
perseedation of &petition for a Member to rise in reply, yet I hope
en such an occasion as the present, i may be permitted to do so.
I am 'maims to do so, in order to explain the share which I had
is this businesses business which has been to me certainly not an
agreeable one. It has been stated that I mixed up my feelings
with those of the petitioner, and that I had presented to the House
an exaggerated statement of facts. On the contrary, I confined
a-polite a simple detail of the allegations of the petition, and cau-
tiously abstained from the expression of any opinion on wry con-
trenned point or disputed fact. 1 certainly had before me a cor-
rect report of the trill and of the sentence, and with reference to
thew, and the events connected with them, I was not shy in
=Lge the impression which they produced upon my mind. It
. sidd by the Attorney-General that the petition only con-
tained allegations, whilst the Right lion. Gentleman only met
that by counter-allegations, which were known only to himself, as
Counsel for the lion. Gentleman whose conduct war complained
et. As to the allegations of the petitioner, surely it was an insuf.
&lent ground to re.ect the petition merely on the presumption of a
possibility that the facts stated in it were not correct. (Hear.) It
Ina enough if the petitiouer was aggrieved ; feeling himself
be aggrieved it was his right to present a petition, and it was the
duty of the House to entertain that petition, provided it was
couched in respectful language. Moreover, it was the duty of
eve y Member of that House to present such &petition when of.
feed to him far presentation. 4do not say that the Sergeant-at-
Anne bas aright to run atter a Member and oblige him to take it;
bat in the fair discharge of the duty which a Member owes the
public, I conceive he ought not to refuse it. If a subject were pre.
vested to state his grievance to this lionise, what redress would be
allowed him ? Should he he obliged to present an appeal, or coo-
damned to the more embarrassing. mode of running Ike gauntlet of
the Court of Chancery, and waning there until all the cases that
stud for judgment, and the long catalogue of arrears, had been
gone through. It was net because a law had been established that
therefore a subject should be prevented front petitioning again •: it,
Was not ship-money authorised by the regular forms allow ? Vet.
an a grievance, petitions were presented and entertained against it,
' v established by this House, and if there was any
in their operation, it was the duty of this House
'here is a Court in which 1 preside, and I am sure
ed, were I to hesitate for a moment in having
ifted. I hope no Irian in this (louse would
vt from investigation inn" hie conduct. All
allegations until they were exiimined into.
in.' hail its a particular instance been put in
ting it an excessive judgment had been given,

Theselaws were establi
thing oppressive in the
to earn* them. There i
1 1 1 should be ashamed,
any am duct there sifsifter
sourtsuch an evasion
petitions depended on a
' I Jr the •• Trespass Act
fete, and if in enfurcit
•
----..-„
* ,