The Sun.
London, England, 1824-02-28 00:00:00

CASE OF MR. CHARLES FLINT.

ptre.oicavisiirroseionho,ne
Mr. DENMAN said, he held in his hand a petition of con-
tsiicdeer;aabnledintillpeoirutoarneceso7
frreolmatedthetopothweerasdiwnii;iisihstraatlioanteoAf
Act
tuos-f
Parliament gave to Magistrates. The petition was from a
Mr. Charles Flint, complaining of the conduct of a Magis.
trate of the county of Stafford, and who acted as the' Chairman
of Sessions at Stafford, and also a Member of the House of
Commons. He regretted that it was his duty to present a'
petition which complained of the conduct of a gentleman for
whom he entertained so great a personal respect as he did for
the Honourable Memistr for Stafford (Mr. Chetwynde). The
petition was very long, and contained man, allegations. The
Hon. Member was already informed of their nature, and in
his opinion they were such a 9 called upon hiM for .an answer.
It was probably not unknown to the House, that the town of
Stafford had, fora considerable time past, been agitated by
the claim of a person named Cooke, to some lands in the pos-
session of Sir George Jerningham, and also to a barony for
which that lion. Baronet was also a claimant. A Mr. 1% ilks,
who acted as the agent for Mr. Cooke, got possesion of some part
of the property, which had been held under Sir G. Jerningham
by a man named k icken. In whatever way Mr. Wilks took
vibs
Hyawsokenn'ri.eoc
Member
jeounetis:nl iibifineeeardna
meant
witioanty:xept
tvreAl
oiniccdcethi,odl
eigittriu
Geo.e his
isodn(elllst
If..
the possession of this property, it was not now the question ;
—That act was made to prevent wilful trespasses ; and, in his
but
Penman's)it wrailssg
tdoliii:eipnujotend, circumstances of the case of Mr. Flint, which have already
appeared before the public in, several shapes. The substance
was this—that Mr. 1 icken, accompanied by several constables,
went to recover possession from Wilks. They broke locks,
and took down gates, and succeeded in taking possession of the
property, and also of the persons of Wilks, Hammeraley, andanother, whom they carried away prisoners. This proceeding
attracted a very considerable crowd. There were 300 or 400
persons present, and though many of the parties used very
strong language, yet there was no violence attempted—no
attempt to rescue, nor any assault. While these things.were
passing, information was given to Mr. Flint, who was at The
time at Stafford, transacting business for the Corporation.—
Mr. Flint was an attorney, and Mr. Wilks was his client :
finding that his client was in custody, Mr. Flint proceeded
from his inn to the spot, and asked one of the constables by
what authority he had taken 111 r. Wilks into custody ? The
constable said, that he had his authority in his pocket, and
would shew it afterwards. The warrant was afterwards pro-
duced, and it appeared not to be a special warrant for the occa-
sion, but a general warrant appointing the party a consta-
ble. The petitioner stated that this was the only way in
which he had interfered. He had never attempted to inter-
rupt the constable in the discharge of his duty, and had
taken no other part in the proceedings whatsoever. Indeed,
this was proved by a, very full report of the trial, which he
had seen. For this, however, he was included in the indict.
ment for a riot, along with others, and tried. It certainly.was
a very slight case on which to find a man guilty. The Hon.
Member (Mr. Chetwynde) was the Chairman of the Sessions
on the occasion, and it was stated, that in his summing up to
the Jury, which was what is called summing up against a
party, he said there was no distinction to be made between the
cases of the prisoners. He would not even acknowledge Flint
as an attorney, though the fact was admitted by the counsel
for the prosecution. He (Mr. Chetwynde) told the Jury that
the case was fully made out against him. The Jury without
hesitation, returned a verdict of guilty against the petitioner
and others indicted. Evidence was then given to show that
the petitioner had taken no share in the 'proceedings; that his
going to the. spot was altogether unpremeditated; and that it
was occasioned only by hearing that his client Wilks was in
custody. Indeed, the Learned Chairman himself admitted the
fact. However, it made no distinction in the sentence. He
(Mr. Denman) should here observe, that there was only two
Alagistranks present on this occasion—the Learned Member
(Mr. ChetWynde) and a Rev. Divine. After consulting together
for Some short time, sentence was pronounced on the parties : it
was, that they should be confined for 3 months to hard labour,
which was now known to all to consist of the labour of the tread-
mill. The Hon. Member then observed, that even if the con-
viction was founded on the foulest and clearest evidence, the crime
did not subject the party to hard labour in the tread-mill. The pe-
titioner was sent to prison, and there put on the mill, though at
the time his health was in that state which rendered him wholly
unfit for such labour. He remonstrated, and it was only by
the advice of the surgeon that he was released from this severe
labour—a fact which in itself reflected not much credit on the
attention of the visiting magistrates. The petitioner also
stated, that he sent a memorial to the Secretary of State for
the Home Department, complaining of his treatment, and
praying for redress. This, lie added, was delayed by the
gaoler, by whom it was handed to Mr. Chetwynde before it was
sent off, and it did not reach its destination till the end of De-
cember, two months after the petitioner was committed to pri-
son. He (Mr. Denman) was rather surprised that when the
memorial did reach the Secretary of State, it did not produce
a strict inquiry into the transaction, which would have ended
in an order for his release. The petitioner remained until the
expiration of his three months, wearing during that time the
same prison dress with the common malefactors confined there.
The Honourable Member proceeded to state, that a 'meeting
of the magistrates of the county was held in
into the
after,
and they came to a resolution not to inquire the parti. •

culars of the petitioner's case—not to take any steps for
mitigation of his punishment, but to do what the House-of
Commons had done about a week back, when a Noble
Friend of his submitted a motion on the conduct of Mini.:
stets, which was met by an amendment pronouncing an etrlo-
gium on than conduct' which the motion went to impugn ;
in the same manner the magistrates pronounced a pare.
gyric on the conduct of the Hon. Member (Mr. Chetwynde) on
the occasion alluded to. Perhaps it might be said, that a pro.
ceeding upon this subject was already pending in the Court of
King's Bench, and that he (Mr. Denman) should hive deferre
presenting Mr. Flint's petition until the event of that criminal
information was ascertained. But it would be found that, front
the delay used in moving for the criminal information, no trial
could take place upon the subject before the summer assize;
so that the petitioner had his choice only to come now, or te
wait until the next Session of Parliament. The petition con-
cluded with the usual praYer for relief, and with a recommen-
dation that powers so despotic as those which had been exer-
cised upon the petitioner should no longer be intrusted-to the
command of Magistrates. But there was one previous part or
it which imputed certain motives to the Hon. Member for Staf-
ford in what he had done, which, as they appeared in the peti-
tion, it was right should be stated to the House. Mr. Flint did
ascribe the severity with which he had been treated to a differ-
ence which existed between the Hon. Member for Stafford and
his (Mr. Flint's) brother; and it farther appeared that his bro.:
titer, Mr. Abraham Flint, having been . convicted some time
-hack of.,a trifling assault upon a woman, had been sentence
by the very Hon. Member against whom the petition now com-
plained, to six months' imprisonment, and to a fine of 100 i.;
which sentence had subsequently been remitted at the recom-
mendation of the Right Hen. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel),
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, after further stating that he
believed the Hon. Member for Stafford had himself interfered
to get Abraham Flint's sentence commuted, sat down by mov-
ing that the petition should be brought up.
Mr. HOLME SUMNER opposed the bringing up of the
Petition, and declared that no gentleman could act as a magi-
strate if he was to be subjected illegally to calumny and attack.
He doubted not that the Honourable Member for Stafford
could give the fullest answer to every charge that the Petition.
contained ; but the proper mode of proceeding, if any pro-
ceeding were necessary, was in the Court of King's Bench ;
and be certainly would divide the House before he saw the Pe.,
tition brought up.
Mr. CHET WYNDE offered his prayer to the House that
the Petition might be brought up, anti every assertion in it in-
vestigated. He should feel himself unworthy to sit in Parlia..
ment, or ever again to act as a Magistrate, if he consented to
its rejection on any point or form. If he did not, to the very
letter, refute every charge that it contained, he would be con=
tent that the House should dismiss him from its walls, and
that the Lord Chancellor should strike his name out of the
commission.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had no doubt that the
Hon. and Learned Member for Stafford was well prepared to
answer all the statements of Mr. Flint in his Petition.; but
the question was, whether the House would allow.him to
answer those statements; and he (the Attorney-General)
hoped that it would not. At the same time, however, that he
thought the I lonourable Member for Stafford ought to be pre-
cluded from noticing the petition presented, there were some
declarations in it, and imputations, so transparently at variance
with truth, that he could not himself consent to pass over them
in silence. With respect to Mr. Abraham Flint, against whoin
the Hon. Member for Staffbrd was supposed to entertain a pre-
judice, it was to the interference of that Hon. Member (first,
with Lord Sidmouth, who thought that there was no ground
for the exercise of mercy, and next with the present Right Hon.
Secretrary, who had been of a different opinion) that Mr. Flint
owed the mitigation of a sentence which had been passed upon
him under the verdict of a jury.—(Hear, hear !)—Upon Mr.
Abraham Flint's ill-treatment, therefore he would say no more.
Now, then, what was the case, and what were the charges of
the Petitioner ? A certain individual having committed .a
breach of the peace, and being in the custody of a constable,
Mr. Flint had been one of the mob of 500, who endeavoured to
rescue him. The petition suggested, that when he had been
brought first before a Magistrate for this offence, that Magis-
trate had refused to bind him over to the sessions. That state-
ment was in the petition, although the Hon. and. Learned Mem-
ber for Nottingham had not Mentioned it ; and, like many,
other statements in the petition, it was untrue. Another sug-
gestion in the petition, that the petitioner had not originally
been meant to be indicted, but had subsequently been prose-
cuted at the instance of the 1-lon. Member for Stafford—this
suggestion was contradicted upon oath, by the Hon. Member
for Stafford, in the Court of King's Bench, and also by the
Agent who had managed the prosecution on the part of Sir
George Jerningham. If he (the Attorney General) opposed
the bringing up of the petition, it was because it contained
statements false and calumnious.--(Hear!)—flow could the
Hon. Member for Stafford act but as he had done ? He waschaire
man of the sessions. The case was tried before a jury. In sum-
ming up, he repeated every point of evidence to the jury ; and
in his law, as he laid it down, all the Magistrates on the Benzb
made affidavits that they agreed.—(Hear, hear!)—Then, a sen-
tence was to be pronounced. In that matter the Bench had not
relied alone upon itself. Magistrates in attendance—(this fact
was proved by Sir Oswald Mosley)—Magistrates of the highest
respectability, who were in attendance, had been consulted,.atid
the sentence pronounced had been the result of their united
opinion.—(Hear, hear !)—With respect to the sentence, then,
if the Hon. Member for Stafford had been wrong, how were the
rest of the Magistrates situated ? With respect to the puniili-
ment, it would not have been possible to sentence the persons
indicted with Mr. Flint to hard labour, without including bins
in the same degree of penalty.—(Cheers.)—One word, however,
upon the mode in which the punishment of " hard labour"
had been inflicted. The Hon. Member for Nottingham had
talked of theitread-mill, and had spoken of hard labour for three
months. Now, in the whole three months the petitioner had
worked in the tread-mill five hours.—(Hear!)
Mr. DENMAN.—Did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
mean five hours only in all ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL meant no more.—(Hear,
hear !)—After that, on a representation, he had been enlployed
in carding wool and spinning it,—(" Hear," and laughter)...
and after that, upon a second representation, he had been allow-
ed to do nothing. The story of his having been shut up for 40
days—of his having been fed on bread and water, &c.—of these
matters and others in the petition, the Attorney-General would
say nothing, because the Hon. Member for Nottingham hid
not touched upon thnin. The whole statements of the petition
had been contradicted upon oath in the Court of King's Bench,,
by the affidavit's of Mr. Clare, the agent of Sir George Jerning-.
ham, the surgeon of the prison, the task-master of the prison,
and the Hon. Member for Stafford himself.—(Hear, hear 1)
The delay of which the Hon. Member for Nottingham had
spoken in the King's Bench proceedings arose out of the appli;
cation of the defendants for time to answer the affidavits filed
against them ; but the petitioner probably found it most con-
venient to make his statements in the shape of a petition, where,
if they happened not to be true, they carried no legal conse-
quences along with them.—(Cheers.)
Mr. WETHERELL opposed the bringing up of the peti-
tion, considering that a petition was not the course by which the
party, if aggrieved, should have proceeded.
Mr. PEEL, who considered himself in some measure as
similarly situated with the Honourable Member for Stafford,
would not detain the House more than a very few moments
upon the question. The remission of sentence which he had
thought himself entitled to make in the case of Abraham Flint,
had proceeded (it was the second application) upon the inter-
ference of the Hon. Member for Stafford. The ground of that
Hon. Member's application had been, that a witness who had
given evidence upon the trial of Mr. Abraham Flint, had
had his credibility shaken upon a subsequent occasion ; and
the letter of the Ilon. Member had concluded in these terms—
" 1 feel fully justified, under such circumstances, in imploring
the Royal clemency for this unfortunate person ; and as he is
now suffering from confinement, and his family are in distress,
I beg leave to solicit your earliest attention to his case."—
(Hear, hear !) This was the person against whom the Hon.
Member for Stafibrd was said to be prejudiced—within a week,
a warrant had been issued for his liberation.—(Hear !)—NOw to
the case of the petitioner : and first, to the charge, against
himself, of delay. The petitioner had been convicted in Octo-
ber last, it was said --it was not until December that he (fr.
Peel) had ever heard of his trial.—(Hear!)
Mr. DENMAN said, that he had not been aware when the
case had reached the Hon. Secretary.
Mr. PEEL.—Then why did the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man come forward, without knowing, to make the charge ?
Mr. DENMAN had stated the complaint, as he found it in
the petition.
Mr. PEEL proceeded to state, that he had first received the.
petitioner's memorial on the 6th of December. He had ap-
plied for information to the Hon. Member for Stafford, as the

Judge before whom the indictment had been tried, and he
should have felt ashamed of referring to any other authority.—
The Hen. Member lead net been content with sending up his
opinion ; lie had sent up the whole case, with tUe evidence, and
had said, " Do what you think fit." His opinion (Mr. Peel)
had been that mercy could not consistently be recoturnended.—
Into the reasons for that opinion, he should nor-now detain the
House by entering ; hut he thought it right to say that, in his
view, the sentence was a lenient one ; and he postponed further
detail until he saw what became of the petition.
Mr. LITTLETON thought the complaints of the peti-
tioner groundless. There could not be a more zeeious, able, and
intelligent Magistrate than his Hon. and Learned Friend,agains,
whose conduct the petitioner complained. Be bad some right
to tir.d fault with the manner in which the Hon. and Learned
Member had brought the petition forward. Surely he ought
at least to have taken care to gee that all tire allegations were
well grounded and supported by testimony of s...fficKnt charac-
ter. The Hon. and Learned Member seemed to have identified
himself too closely with the feelings of the petitioner, and to
have accepted,without due examitunion and caution,the charges
against his lion. anti [.earned Friend. The Magistrates had
done more justice to Mr. C. Plint than the lion. and Learned
Gentleman had done to the Magistrates. They at least took
the precaution of obtaining a statement of the case from the Se-
cretary of State's Office, and had looked into the evidence
with the closest circumspection. Another of the Magistrates,
Mr. Clare, had desired him to declare to the House, that he
was most anxious to take his share in whatever blame, might
-attach to the conduct of the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions.
There was not a word of the charge in which this (sentleman
did not concur. The name of Sir Oswald Mosley was another
pledge of the propriety and justice of the conduct purged by
the Bench of Magistrates, than whom there coniclnot hr a more
upright and conscientious man. Had there been a different
tneaenre of justice dealt out to Mr. Charles Flint from that
which was visited upon his accomplices. who were men in the
lowest wails of life--shoema%ere, tailors, and cordwaiucrs—
there Would have been just cause for complaint. He opposed
the bringing up the petition.
-Mr. STURGES BOURNE could not consent to allow the
petition to be -brought up. His objection was this—that the
Hon. and Learned Member alleged no injustice attributable to
the corruption of the Magistrates. If the petition did allege
corruption, as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman did, then this
was not the proper tribunal for the appeal. The Court of
King's Bench was the Court to which the petitioner ought to
have-taken his complaint. The gravamen of the charge was
net against the summary nature and arbitrary conduct of the
jurisdiction, but aguinst the finding of the Jury—a matter
upon which the House could not erect itself into a tribunal of
appeal, because the consequence would be the most extreme in-
courehi-nce.

HUME warned the House against shutting its doors to
petitioners. His Hon and Learned Friend had offered that the
allegations should be established upon oath, not merely of the
petitioner himself, but by other parties. His lion and Learn-
, ed Friend had therefore been hardly treated in the observations
of the Gentlemen opposite, by the endeavour to mix him up with
the complaint of grievances in the petition. He readily listeded
to and credited the statement of the A ttorney-Gener al , as far as
regarded the conduct of the Chairman of the Sessions, especi-
ally,when it was supported by the testimony of so many other
Honourable Gentlemen around him. If the petition were
broughtup,therefore, in. the present state of facts, perhaps the
House would be bound in fairness to oppose it—a question
which could not, however, be decided until the petition was
read. The proper course,- at present, would be to allow his
lion. and Learned Friend to withdraw the petition, till the al-
legations should be confirmed upon oath, and then allow him to
,present it again.—(" No," from the Ministerial benches.)
Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY had signed the resolution of
the Magistrates passed in approbation of the conduct of the
Chairtran, and concurred in every- thing advanced by the Attor-
ney-General upon the same subject. lie had, however, made
one reservation, which had not been strictly observed—namely,
that the resolution should not be directly published. His rea-
son for thinking it unfit for present publication was, that the
conduct of his worthy and excellent friend, the Chairman, had
been attacked in one of the journals in a manner which he
would not stigmatize with any particular epithets at present,
beceunte it was likely to become the subject of judicial decision
would only say that the attack was such as no person of
honour and sound feeling could suffer to past unnoticed, or
without calling for the decision of a Court of Justice upon his
conduct. He could not accede to withdrawing the petition,
because the conduct of the Magistrates, which he thought un-
in:Pettehable, was concerned too deeply in the discussion ; and
lie asserted, without fear of contradiction, that in all England
there could not be a teat of more meritorious Magistrates than
those of the county of Stafford.
Ste R. WILSON wondered at the proposition of the Hon..
Mexber fur Suirey—that the House ought not to receive the
if true, for fear that other Magistrates should be at-
treeked in settle distant time with charges of malversation, who
were neither orators nor rhetoricians. The Attorney-General
op potted the bringing up the petition, because he watt prepared
to deny the allegations. He (sir R. Wilson) knew nothing of
.I.lle pe:ition, and wished to learn its contents by hearing it read.
rii,tt was the right of the people.of England, and he would not
inflow this attempt to subvert it without opposing it, and de-
though he should stand alone, that there should still
be access to the house for their petitions.

Mr. C. WYNN was convinced that this petition ought not
to be received. It was the duty of every Member to be pre-
pared to vouch for the contents of a petition before presenting
it the House.—(Loud cries of 44 No, no.")--Hon. Members
had no right to interrupt him in addressing the Chair, and he
called for its protection by enforcing the General Order. Ile
contended that no individual Member had a right to present a
"petition to the House without pledging himself to the contents
of the petition—(4• No, no, no")—that it contained nothing
disrespectful to the House.—(Hear, hear !)—When Hon.
Members were disposed to apply that kind of contradiction to
his observation, they ought, at least, to take care to hear all
that he had to say; it would be a much more safe and judi-
cious course. He expatiated on the general danger and incon-
venience of allowing appeals from the jurisdictions of the county
to the House, and upon this principle opposed the bringing up
of the petition.
Mr. BRIGHT had not a single doubt of the truth of all
that had been urged in defence of the conduct of his excel-
lent and very worthy friend, the Chairman of the Quarter
Sessions of Staffordshire. But throwing aside all personal
feeling and consideration connected with this subject, he
called upon the House, and especially upon the Country
Gentlemen present., to reflect deeply how far the treatment
recommended for this petition agreed with the right of the
people to present petitions to Parliament, which right was
secured to them by the Great Charter. He would assent to
the withdrawing of the petition, but not to the opposition
made to bringing it up. He never would .consent to so dan-
gerous an encroachment- on the people's rights. Were they
really prepared to say, that because a magistrate happened
to be a Member of the House, that the House would not
hear any petition accusing him of malversation ? The Hon.
Gentleman said, that a Member presenting a petition was
bound to take care that there was nothing disrespectful to the
Douse in it. Would any one say that- this petition was disre-
spectful
to the House, which sought the interference of the au-
thority of the House in a case of alleged oppression ? For
what purpose did they sit there, if not to listen to the com-
plaints of the people ? It was said that the complaint in the
petition, if true, was matter triable by the ordinary jurisdic-
tions. He allowed thal might be the more proper course ; but
it was one thing to deny the truth of a petition or the propriety
it its appeal, and it was quite another to refuse to hear it. It
did not follow that they must adopt its suggestions, or that a
.Umber might rot be prepared to refute the allegations in it,
or that the House would not throw it out. But how could they •
know the value of its contents without first hearing it ? Some
laid that it ought- not to"be entertained or received, because it
was an appeal front the common jurisdictions, for which there 1
was remedy in the courts of law. He understood that a part I
of the prayer of the petition was to alter an oppressive law.
The Petitioner complained that he had suffered under the op-
pression of that law. Would the House, therefore, refuse to
hear him, because he asked of them to repeal that oppression ?
The allegations might be true or false ; but he offered grounds
for-his complaints, and petitioned for a remedy. All that was
required in the first instance, was for the House to listen. It
was an appeal, not to their judicial, but to their legislative
functions.. To refuse leave to bring the petition up was op-
pressive. He hoped that the country gentleman would at least
have the discretion to shun the Agitation of a question of such
dangerous consequences as that which would be inevitably
involved in a refusal. There was a safe course left for them,
which was to allow the petition to be withdrawn.—(Murmurs.)
Mr. CANNING wished to know if the Hon. and Learned
Member was inclined to withdraw the petition?
Mr. DENMAN said, that some of the Hon. Gentlemen who
had spoken had refused to suffer it to be withdrawn ; and un-
der those circumstances he declined saying what he would have
done had the matter been left to himself.

Mr. CANNING wished that the petition could be with-
drawn. If pressed, however, he must oppose the bringing it
up, on the single ground of it containing a prayer for an in:-
pessibility,—namely, that the House would reconsider add re-
verse the verdict of a Jury.
,Mr. PEEL said, that the Hon. and Learned Member seem-
ed to be displeased with him for not reversing the sentence. of
the Quarter Sessiona. With regard to his own individual feel-
ings, he could have no objection to the adoption of that course
by the petitioner with a view to a revision of the case ; and if
the petition were withdrawn, the case wonid stand just as fa-
vourably as before for that purpose..
Mr. S. WOR'rLEY entreated his Um. Friend the Member

for Surrey not to persist in his opposition to the withdrawing
the petition.
Mr. H. SUMNER said, that this was so great an abuse of
the privilege of petitioning, that he could not allow the peti-
tion to be withdrawn. _

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that it
appeared to him the argument brought forward by the Hon.
Member for surrey would apply, if the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman persisted in pressingelhe House to receive the peti-.
ion, but it had no application if the Hon. and Learned Gen-
ttleman eishecl to withdraw the petition.
Mr. DEN MA N said, though he was aware it-was not quite
regular, yet he trusted the House would indulge him with a few
words. it had been supposed that he had mixed up personal
feelings with the statements of the petition, but he had stated
no opinion of any disputed facts. He certainly did entertain a
strong opinion,as to the trial and sentence, which he should
never be backward at expressing. Th-epossibility of a petition
containing wtiat was false was no reason why . the House of
Commons should reject it. It was enough that the petitioner
felt himself aggrieved ; and if the petition was couched in re-
spectful language to the House, and stated what the member
• conceived to be a grievance, with all deference to the Right
Ha. Defender of the privileges'of that House, it was the duty
of Members to present such. petitions. It was not an answer to
say there was a legal remedy; and that the petitioner was to go
and wait at the doors of the Court of Chancery till all the ap-
peals there were disposed of. Against ship-money the House
had entertained a petition, though the Judges had given their
opinions (honestly for aught he knew) that ship-money was
legal. It had been put to him, as presiding sometimes in a
Court of Justice, how he should feel if such a petition were pre-
sented arainst him. He trusted there was not a Magistrate in
that House who would object twentertain a petition, if it were
imagined that any party had been. either unfairly or unjustly
treated. He was, however, willing, seeing the temper of the
Ilouse, to withdraw the petition, and he did it on this ground,
—that he feared the House would establish the precedent that
such a petition ought not to be received.
The question was then put, and the petition withdrawn.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
The CHANCELLOR ,if the EXCHEQUER then moved
that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY had not understood the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer on a former evening in stating his
plan for the reduction of the interest on the 4 per cents.. to have
mentioned the period at which the final payment would take
place to the dissentients. It would be a great convenience to
the stockholders to have some idea of the time when that would
take place.
The..CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Re-
solution on that point went to this—that all those persons who
did not agree should in October be paid one-third of their stock.
He certainly had not stated at what period it would be conve-
nient to pay off a further proportion, because thatmust depend
on the means possessed by Government at the time. What
was meant by the mention of a subsequent payment, of 10 per
cent. was, that no less sum should be paid off._