Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-05-27T00:00:00

LAW! RPORr. - Th vv 1~EYVG~E1jEAL appliedt to the Uourt to fix a tm for the trial at bar directed fiii this case by the Lord Chancellor. The -Iso ltD, CseEFIJOSTSC Ereplied, that the next termi was a issuabule termt, and tety, never fixea a trial at bar in an issuable tem,un s in cases immiediately affleCtiOg thesecuritY of the Crown. therm unl aNE .EaI ,'d he supposed, then, that he The ATTOR1TEY_GE"cas coud noRbe rie mizlht venture to tak,e itfor griviti#*hat the cs udntb re before Michaeimas Term. Their LordshiPs laughied, ana bowed assent. THE KING, ONl THE PROSECUTION' 0' JAOIES CARTERL, ESQ., V. TANrK. This was an indictment for a libel on a gentleman of highrepc tability, tried at the last assizes for MAnUs, when the defendant was found guiltv. A rule Was obtained on s former day to show cause why, there should not be a. new trikl, on the ground that improper evidelnce was admitted, tending-to Pirejudice the defendantt, and that there was no evidence of publiiationi to go to the jury. The evidence Said to be improperly adlmitted consisted of a previous conviction of the defendant,andw~hie-liit was arguedadid not tend to prove thiatheub~ lished the libels, hut did tend to (ast a tgauo i. There was no direct proof'that,the defendan4t composed, wrote, or sent the] letter ir question, nor that it ever was in his Possession; but there werefoudinnisiesinprison otherpapers,nlotexactlv correspodn wihhlblbtealrsmln t in Parts, and clearly indcae an intention to write suich a libel, andathe watermark of which,as similar to that of the paper on which the liel was written. proof was given that he asked leave to write a etraottre weeks before, but no one was called to show ta oSetiouofhegaol. Air. AIEREWETrEKER, in slip Ortto e ra,rfre to the case of Sir FranIcis Budtt hi, he dernuse rmte present as a mere question ofusu,w-hereas hetewolcarewas in The CouftT ~were clearly of opinion t`Vtt there was abundant evi, dence to go t6 the Jury, and refused the qule. The further hearing of the case was postponed in consequenceof the absenre of 1r. C. F. Williams, one of the defiiad4nt'9 couMel. THE KtING, ON1 THE PROSECUTIONf OOG. CHETWYNDE, ESQ., V. CARLTONVAND OlIIERS. MVr. SCARLETT proceeded i.nhis addr0s, which was interrupted yesterday. After observing that he thoight it a more convenient course first to state the facts, andI then to Pad the articles charged as libellous he reSunled his statement of tbl afridavit of )Jr. Charles Flint. kfe alleged that he repeatedly I I ilied to the ;aoler, anld to Al r- CheEwynde in person, representing s ill-stateoof h ealth, and enstreatsng that he imight be allowed to pirchase, or receive from his friendls, additional food, and mnighit obti~?i a relaxation from severe labour, but met s%ith a direct refusal. Fod which-was transmiitted by his friends wa,% sent back by the gaolk. Ile afterwards laid his case before the visiting magistrates, of ~'hom 15r. Chetwynde was unreS M1r. Dyot, another mnaistrate, dreeded-him-artjculaxly to nddrtesAh lrt:o3mp1ants to Mlr. Chetwyn4 : he did so in a respectful manner, but he did so i% vain ; Mlr. CMcwynde repXyina that they had n&other speci-ts of labouxr in theorison, and could make no distinction between him and others ommitted under the same sentence, althiough other prisoners were imployed in lixhter lahiours, and allowred to.receive food from th-Ir friends. fter thiis, on Mlonday. the 10th of November, he wga again orderedI to the tread- miU; buit on his remonstrance and rei*ated refusal. was dismissed to break stones. His friends hearinglist he was ill,requested llr. Hawhor, is amly ureon s cabpn him. That gentleman accrdiglyrepire t sh gal: herhewas, metby Mr. Hlughes, and as nlyallwedto ee he risn~ n hs pomie not to con. sidi is isi asprfesionl, r t spakto i on the state of his The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked if DI r. Hawthiorn h.a d ed an affidavit? - Mfr. SCARLETT replied that he had, and had minutely, stated all the circumstainces, and ditinctly confirmed Flint in all his asser- tions respicting this vist On- Saturday, the 7th of September, Charles Flint reported himself ill to the Burgeon, but received no medicine; when he afterwards took, medicine, .he was still kept to hard labour ; and at length he wasconfined, for alleged misbehaviour at chapel, to his cell. He entreated thatbhenmight be allowed to hear and to repel the charge; but all opportunity of defence was denied him; and he remnainedl forty hours in his cell, with nothingr but the Prison allowiLice, which he could not and didI not taste, and which was- place on the ground because there was no other place for it. Itwas tobe susPectedI that the "4misbehavioar at chiapel" meant really the composition of the paper foundl in his coil, in wlhich lie vented his, sorrows, and attempted vainly to obtain redress. lin conclusion, Mlr. Charles Flin3t expressed his conviction that the sen- tence on him was unjust; that it was carried into execution withi needless cruelty; ad that the mode in which it was executed was in his belief.attribultable to the vindictive feelings of Dir. Chetwynde. Next came a se.con-d affidavit of Mfr. Abraham Flint, expressing his belief that the trial of hilt brother was not fair and impartial; that the 'suniming up was not fair; and that he verily believed Mr. Chetwynde intended to excite a .prejudice, and to mislead the Jury. AMr. Flint expressed hiis opinion that thiere was iio evidence to go to the jury ; in that opinion he (11ir. Scarlett) did not concur, but he did fully concur in the propriety of the course taken by Mr. RYan, who.conduscted the defence, apil whoise talent and discretion were well knowni to him, in declining to call witnesses to rebut the charge. The learned counsel then adverted to the evidence on the trial as applicable to the case of Alr. C. Flint, and contended that it was so slight, so contradictory, andso little applicable to theindict-ment, as to fall far short of warranting Q. eDnvictien.Afterstating theaffiavitofDllr. Hiawthorn, the surgeon, wvho confirmed the staitement respecting the conditions imposed upon him at his visit, he read the alleged libels, and in so doing again admitted that there was no proof of- the insinua- tion thlat Mlr. Chetwynde promoted the charge. Having done so, he would now make bet a very few observationg, and leave the case ini their lordships' hands. Hle was aware that there was great deli- cay required on the part of the public press, when animiadverting on the conduct of eeriteenen who filled the important situation of magistrates ; and ic would even sonletimnes applaud its conductors if tiseypasuled over some instances of questionable demeanour in si- lknP-e rather than agitate the public nind h atsurely some adivan- tage wasi derived from exposino- to the test of public opinion, con- duct whiceh could be arraizgnd before no othier tribunal, andl which but for the Press m'ust be buried in secrecy for ever. HeI did, not mean to argue, that if' the proprietor of a newspaper on the moat juist and argenit grounds should attack, the chasacter of a imagistrate, and bring himi into great odium, he would be justifiedbyvthe strict letter of the law. But when a magistrate, instead of appealing to the ordinary process of thec law, caliled on tiheir IordIships for their Pow- erful protection, andi asked themn to grant hiim their extraordinary aid, it became one of their most sacred duities, in the exerci-te of their high discretion, to tee whethier lie came before tlhni with hands so pur as should entitle hi-i to the great engine whbichi lie soutght to wield; and their lorlsihips wouldl, if they found that he had given cause for reasonable sulspicion-that he had so acted as to awaken the vigilanice and thle angeer of a fair and lionoairable mind. mneet his deinand by a refuial. In so doing. thieir lordships9 wouild mainly contribute to the best and most sahutasry operation ofpublic Opinion-that opinion which contributed so strongly to preserve all mien, in stations however exalted, firin and pure in the exercise of their public duties. There were cases, no doubt, inwhich this opinion was founded in error, and tended to delusiont-in which it excited Passion, anid stifled tlse still small voice of reason ; but on the whole it preserved the integrity of indtividuals, and the purity of public ijustice. And( should thc7maTn who himiself appealed to that ptisblic pnin though the mediumn of this Court, rcceive its sanction, whei a cae of grievous oppression was made out against him, anid when reasonable grounds were shown for inducing a belief that he nai allowed hiimself to carry vindictive feelings into the judgment- teat, and had suffered thein to interpose in the exeution of his own setence ? By refusing to a miagistrate, so standing before tIme Court, their extraordinary interposition, they would do much to sus. raintlhelhonouir, the probity, and the character of all othlers. To the Influence of patblic opiniomi, fromn whichi no wealthi and no powver .ould exemipt, we owved the decencies. of life-thie high dischiarge of high duties-.a.ll that rendered power tolerable, and station respect- hibe, in the minds of the people;, for what virtue was there which niad not its nourisghment and safeguard in the love of honest fame? It was true that the whlole statements of the defendants--statements which they believed, and thought they had grouLnds for believing--. were not supported ; bust the Couirt would reniemb6r,that when somne rears ago, a ngblemnan of higls ranik applied to theni in consequence of impistations cast on him in reference to a yotung lady in a pro- vinialtow, tey efsedto ssit hm,because had brough t the :hargeon himelf bysome lvitiesof deeanour. So wo.l Air. Cheuynd fin tht nethe hisleanimg nor station, nor his illustri. oti fotun, oul enitl hm t an oher measure of justice than themeaes sujet mghtas an r~eie.It was now alleged against himtha hehadcheialed inrictve eelng towards Mlr. Abraham Fit, for private diffi'erences ; thiathe puirsued that individual to con- Vicin that he brought the same partialitles to tise trial of his bro. whih eeryhumn ein mut fel o e eornons tat he pur- sued ili icti int hisdungen-folowe himthrogh al the va- rietes f totur, ad stoveto spprss ven is erycoinplaints and eep hem rom he gnera ear A slebrted istrian, in do- merbin te mseresof he onanssunerTiberius, sumnied themi asp intewrs" sa-epiria subseribunttr"'-even thecir very sighs wee mareddw1nas crinies; and thus even out ofthle groans of this wretched man ha,d Mlr. Clietwynde sought for ground of fresh charges. It was a delicate thing for thiepreissto interfere witb the inter- nal regalationof prisons; but it wasweillthat it should look intothiose recesses of crime and suffiering, where an innocent manimigit somle- times be cast, and where he liight else sigh ror redress in vain. Let the press convey his groans to thte ear o1' the powerfutl-let it thus perform the best of the great services which it conferred en societ -.. and let not this Court interpose, in ordier to suppress the last exp res sinotgoony which harl been breathed out by the sufferer, end to punisis thse who had disclosed that suiffering to the world 1 Mr. Sergeant WVILDoE rose to follow it, opposition to the rule, but Tise COUIaT, after consulting for a few imonients, intimated, thiat for the present, they would hear the other side. The ATTORnEY-GEN ERAL then rose to support the rule. He remarks were too severe on the statemnents supposed, ~but that those statements were false. He would go through the whole case-not like his hcarmied friend,, by leaving the charges tiU the last, but he would begin with them, and trusted that heshould convince the Court they were entirely witbout foundation. First,he wouldshow what tbeinpu- tations were which the defendants hadventured to promulgate ;2dly, he would direct the attention of the Court to the conduct of Mlr. Chetwynde, on the trial of Dir. Charles Flint, and show that it was fair and impartial; thirdly, he would advert to time share of Mir. Chetw,ndein determining the sentence; fourthly,hewould show that Mr. Cnetwynde was not responsible for the treatment of Flint in prison, even if it was improper; and lastlv, he would advert to the aflidavit of Mr. Abraham Flint, aDd showv that it contained allega- tions which it was impossible for Mir. Chetwvnde to anticipate-to which no reference ought to be mate, and wvhich were merely in- troduced to give a colour to the case which otlerwise would appear groundless. First, then, what was the charge ? Tbe main feature of it-that which was by far its most atrocious imputation-was, that MIr. Chetwynde, after the case had been dismiissed by the ma. gistrate, himself interposed, and being the Chairman of the Sessions who would nrobably try the cause, advised tle insertion of Mfr. Flint's name among thedefendants. A moreinfamous act than this wuld not be imaginedi and this charge was the mailn reason why MIr. Chetwyndc moveA for the information, thougli lie thought it right to keep back noncof the in' riouremarkswhicthcdeendants had published tespecting him. Norw wiatwas the ftct? Flint,indecd, was never charged- before iUr. Vhitb'v, because,, at the time, alIr. Seckerson, *hsetlaw agent of Sir George Jerniugham, res. not acquainted with the facts which implicat.ed hini in the transaction; but iWr_ 5eckerson swore; in thse-most positive terms, hathe vras u ted,lhstfioal any samgge3tioao Mr. Chetwypde1 but.fom.te reommedation of Mlr. Pearsod, the counsel'who con- ductedI the proceedings. Air. Chetreynde. also, in the most uniequi- VOWa language, denied that he had an~y knowledge whatever of the !Uleasure; and, nlo this charge was abandoned by, those who na-de It ! Was not fr. wChetwvnde enititled to protection when ass-ziled by so roul and soe grounidless a calunanv? He came now to what passd a th tral,and hc wvouild fearlesAly tak-e the renort pub lish.. cr1byth dfedatsthemsselve.s and ask the Court whetherthe ver. die W5 Wrng?Mr.Flintlhatitaken utpon himself to swear,. not onlytha hedidnotparticipate in- the riot, but that there was no riotwhaever thughit was swyorn, that 800-or 400 persons were ns- semled tht ciesand shouts were heard; and that an attempt wasmad toresuethe prisoners. And was it because counsel, in the xercse f thicliscretion, dlid not thiink fit to call witnesses, fheaig perhaps. t subject thecm to cross-examination, or dreading th fetof a reply, that thierefore the parties were flow to comnpai-n of the issue? It had. been insiniuated aLgainst AMr. Clhetwy-nd- that he on this day took his seat in a court orer whichThe was ~not accustomed to preside, in order that he might ,it a-judge in this trial-a most iinjurious and scandalous insinna. tionk! True. lie had not sat in that court, because the place of sit- ting had been altered, but he had always presidedI over the trial of the traverses;- and thus the Flints sought to raise a prejudice by a statement whiich, though true in terms, conveyed a falsehood. Mfr. Se-rgeant WILDE interposed, and contended that the lan- guage Of the affidavit was clear and precise, and imported thtat Mlr. Ohetwynde presided no%w for the first time, at the trial of traverses. The ATTORNEY-GENEPAL contended the contmrvr; but said he would not go out of the affidavits to appeal to his learnedI friends aroundl him, who knew that it was the practice of Mlr. Chetwynde to preside at thie trial of traverses and appeals, buit would merely dlirect the attention of the Court to the manner in which Flint's affdavit was sworn. M1r. ChetwyndeDousitively stated that he took fullnotes of the trial; that lie read them to thejury; that he pointedout to them all the bearings of the evidlence as it afFected eachi individual; and left thenm to exercise their own conscientious judgment, and in all this he was supported by Mr. Clane, the magistrate, wvho sat by his side. Were the Court, thien, to impute to him base crimninality for his condluct on the trial, uppn the depositions of' ti'e party con. victd, and his brother and the witnestes whom they did not choose to call ? Next came the sent-ence, on whichl so muchi observation had been cast ; anxd sutpposing that it were too severe-that it were not exactly thesentenco which their Luordships would have awarded- still, were they to hold Mr. Chetwynde responsible for it, as thou-gh it l,adi proceeded fromn himn alone ? After thie trial he retired wvith MIr. Clane into a room, whbere they met Sir Oswald Alosley, and communicated to him the circumstances on whichl they were called to decide; and they determined on the sentence, in consultation with him and with another magistrate. If, then, thie sentence were too severe, was he to be singled out for atrocious libels for a judgment, in forming which he was advised by others, and in delivering which he was onily their organ ? But would this Court, knowing nothing of the'character of the parties, or of the circumstances out of. which the transaction arose, tak-e on themnselves to say that the magristrates had donie wrong to whom' all these things were familiar? Then caime the allegations respecting the treatment of Flint in prison, and which had been so brought forward as to create an imipression on thebhearers. It should be recollected throughout,that Flint was sen- tenced, not only to imprisonment, but to hard labour ; and that, therefore, the visiting magistrates were not responsible tor the con. seqencs wic tht sntecenecssailyinolved. It was stated in ll he lljavjs i supor ofsherul, ad ot contradicted, that no eveitywa inlicedon he rione whchwas not made neces- sar bythereglaton an dicipineof heprison, andI that those reguatins ad tat iscilin hadbee reeatedly relaxed- in his Mlr. Justice BAYLEY asked if it was a rule of the gaol that pri- soners should not receive food provided for them by their friends ? The ATTORNcEY-GEW{ERAL replied, that he, believed it was, whcre prisoners were sentenced to hard labour; at all events, the coo- t7ary- wta noLt-awoskh.- It-bhad been made a subject of grievous comnplaint, thiat this young mnan, of liberal education, and accus tomed to enjoy the comforts of life, had been placed on the tread- mill. Would not the Court be surprised to hear, after these elo- quent complaints, that during the whole of his imprisonment. he was; placeel on the wheel only fr five hiours ? MVr. Justice BAYLEY akd if his chief comolaint was not of a fulling-mill, which he was compelled to work ? The ATTO ftNEY-GEXERAL replied that formed a part of lils complaint also, lierepresented that thielabour of thietread-mill was too severe for liis health. lHe was ordered to break, stones ; he com- plained of this also, anid from thiis also he was excused, and then lie was ordered to work at the fulling-mill with others, of whose society he comiplained. To this orcupation, also, he objectedi; and then he wvas emiployed in spinnitig and carding wool; till he remonstrated against this also; and then, duiring th remainder of his imprison- ment, he was allowed to be altogether without labour. Afr. Sergeant WVILDE pointed out that the total cessation from lat- bour did not take place till the surgeon reported him too ill to work. The ATTORtNEY-.GE-NERAL allowed that this was so; butt ob- served that, after the sentence, no oiie liad power to remiit labour upon any, other plea than that of illness. Mlr. JUStice BAYLEY referred to the 15th rule of the late act for the government of-prisons, wvhereby it was, directed, that prisone-s sentenceed to hardI labouir shiould receive no foodl froint their friends, usnless under the regulation of the judges, or one of the visiting ma. The ATTr,NEy-GENCRAL resumed.-If all the necessary (rise- cipline of prisons intended for the reception of convicts, were r rayed in ternis and set before an individual of hiumane dispsition and delicate sensibility, no doubt it wrould produce a strong imupres.. sion on his feelings; vet still tiat discipline might be ahsolutelv necessary for the pubfic good. Did the charge agaiinst Mr. Cher- wynde atmount to mnore than this-thiat he had not suispenidedl all the rules of the prison in favour of this particular prisoner? MAr. C. Flint was not restricted to the gaol-allowanice, whichb consisted of pDtatoes, bread and mieal and water; at his request miilk wvas substituited for the ineal and wvater, and he was afterwards allowedl sugar andl tea,.lie alleged that he was confined to his cell for forty hours ; but what was the fatct ? That he was confined for- one day, consisting, according to the rules of the prison, of only 10 hours and thereforc he included in his comiputation tse preceding anti followring nights. This punishment was inflicted by the Governor for niisbehaviourat chapel, and liedlid notnowyenture toswearthat he had conducted himself with propriety in that place. Heniade itsa sub- jectofcomnplaint that hewasuiot heard in his defence; as if the discipline of a prison could be sustained, or its business coniducted,I if its go. venior were obligedi to go through the form and ceremiony) of a trial, before he could cornline a prisoner whom lie deemed it necessarr to punish. Hle had sworn that his healthi was not attended to; Mr. Hlughes, the surgeon, swore the contrary iiinmost pasivive teruiis ; ancd the conjtrary was the' manifest inference fronii all the relaxations whiichi even lie admitted that lie obtained on the recommiendlation of the suirgeon. iMr. 1-luglies's affidavit was very important : lie swore that he received dlirectitons from the visiting magistrates, of whom- .ll r. Chetwynde was one, to pay particular and co'nstant attention to the health of Mlr. Charles Flint; thiat he did accordingly pay him par- ticular attention ; andl that he was never in aniy mianner treated withi unidue severity, buit always withi humanity and judicious care- But whlat had Mlr. Clietwvtiire to do withi his treatmient, mnore than his brothier magistrates ?_ NVas he responsible- was lie liable .to be at- tacked as one of the most cruel of mcii, because he diid not interpose to set asidle all the regulations of a prison ? Vas he to blamne be- catuse a prisoner emnployed hiis time in writing unifounided calumnies, andI the task-master took, the paper and laid it before thie justices I? lie camie now to the affidavit of Abrahiam Flint, whichi had been pressed into the service of a cause to be supported only by making a numiber of unconnected circumstances seem to hear upon it, andI imparting to them a delusive colouring. The libel adverted in general terms to a prior case of this personi, in wvhich he had been the victim of' an oppressive sentencee pronouinced by M1r. Chetwynde, which had been instanitly anunilled by the liht- inane interference of lArd Sidniouth. Alr. Chetwynde shiowed thait this statement was whiolly false; that Lord Sidmouth refused to remnit any part of the sentence ; and that the remisKsion of the sen- tence was at lengthi obtainedI from Mlr. Peel, at hi., own interposition and request. Couldlhe anticipate alltlie matter which lied now beeni brotughit forward to induce the Coutrt to believe that he wa's actuated by miotives of revejige ? Could he know that all the proceedings under Jpiiery's bankruptry-that the trial and senteniec of two young mien nanied Bares, and that the prosecution tried at the asisises, wouild all be introducedi and coloured as thiey hiad been by' hiis ac-cusers ? Unprepared, however, as lie wvas to ansawer all these statements, miany of which w iere incredible, lie could show sonie of thmto be wilfully false. Fey exampile, it was stated by Mlr. Scarlett, fromn his instrutctions, that Emnery was tried for a frand ; and great indignation was expressed against MVr. Chetwynde, be- cause lie had passed thte same sentence of impns3onment for an as- sault as the judge hash passed for this fraud : whereas, in truthi, Emiery was tried, not for a frauid, but for an aissault, arising ouit of the very transaction in whiich Fliiit was concerned, and uponi whichi he wras convicted. An iinputation was cast on Air. Chetwynde, because lie desired that the menmiorial to be psresentite should hr drawn by, a barrister whiomi he should nominate. Butt what would the Court say when they heard that this barrister was MVr. Flint's own advescate-hmis lionourable andI learned friend, (M~r.RusseIl,)whc sat behind him ? It was als;o asserted, that Lord Sidntouth refuised to grant the prayer of the mem-orial, in consequence of the letter from Mlr. Chietwynde by which it was accompanied. Hec wished the defendants hiad set out that letter, aind then it wouldI have appeared how false the insinuation was which they grounded upon it. M5r. SCARLETT saidl they could not set it out, because they liad no copv. IThe ATTcOUN2EY.GExEaAL replied, theyv might have received one fromi the prosecutor, or if lie had refuisedI it, might have coin. pelled him to give itby aJudge's ordler. The libels cotitained other matter which the 0defendants had ilot attempted to jutstify. They asserted that there was a meeting of msagistrates, in which the Lord. Lieuitenanit took an honouira ble part (meaning, of couirse, a part on their side,) but was ouit-voted by thec adherenits of Mlr. Chetwynde; which Was totally false. They also conLained unijust reflec- tionsI on Mr hetvrynde as the maker of the Vagrn Act-an act whiich, whatever might be its demnerits, did little miore than condenso pre-existing laws; and fsmrtlier iptdto hiint that he hash usedl this; his;own work to countenance his own tyramuny. l Was he not entitled to redIress for calumnies so injuriouisto hischaracter as a legislator, a magistrate, and a nian ? If the Court loolked dispassionately at the whole of his conduct whichi he had voluntarily brought before the:n, throwing out of the case that extri-sic matter wlich he liad no reason to expect, and could not be prepared to answer, he was assured they would feel that he had done nothing to deprive him of his claim to their full proteetion. le also respected publicopinion; to that opinion Alr. Chetwynde was ready to submit; but lie did ask, as he had a right to ask,that this opinion should be founded on truthi, and not on falsehood. lie wished all the facts to be sifted to the utmost. En. joying the high esteem of liis brother magistrates and his country,he was willing to stand or &1ll as hc shouild be found to merit, and lie now left the decision with confidence in their Lordship's hanids. The LoiRD CUsEF JUSTIcE asked whether there was not a rule ag,anstother defendants tbra similar libel?. 1r. BnouGsHAsI replied, that there was a rule against the con. ductors of the British Travellcr,for whom he appeared; but that the case was not similar, as his clients had omitted the comments in the first article, and had not inserted either of the others. lllr. RtTSSELL was abouttofolowin sumiport of tdie rule; but The LonD CIIIEF JUSTICE intimated that the Court would hear all the counsel, and therefore called on iMr. Sergeant WIilde. Alr. Sergeant Ar.LDg, after observing that his duty was greatly increased by the ingenuity with whiclh the Attorneyg:General had evaded all the lcadiv.rt points in the cause, begged to recal the atten- tion of the Court to the parties and the question before them. The defendants were not now the Flints on whom so much observation had been made, but the conductors of a newspaper who had pub- lished. thdrisentiments and feehins on their case, and whom the Court wecre now required to visit witht their extraordinary process, on the claim of Mr. (since beconie Sir Genrgu)Chetwyxde. It hadbeen admitted by all 'that the press was a great publiecbenefit: on that subject he could say no more than this-that if thaf press was to be still of service_if still it had to preserve to.us,all we had worth pre. servinlg, it must stand excused- whenever;it Fiould be found sub. stanidal'y accurate. The 4uestion was not now,;whetber thepub. lication vas wholly iunocent or wholly true, but iwhether Air. Chetwynde was entitled to call on the Court to interfere: not wvhe- - thler the defendants deserved to be punished,but wlhetherhe deservet- to receive the sanction and thc encouragement whic' he souzht: not whether access to justice shorlld be barred, butt -whether itihould be approached through this particular avenue. If the Court discharged the nile, they woold finally decide nothing-, but merely decline to in- terfere on the state of facts presented on affildavit before them-;,but if they made it absolute, they- would proclaim to the worldAihat they approved Dlr. Chetwvnde's 'conduct, and absolved him from All P blame. Did he merii this sanction ? - How could he a.sert that. he was unable to anticipate theeproduction of ilIr. Abraham Flint's case, when it was referred to in the libel, as illustrative of. his conduct on thle trial of the brother, and Avhen he, in his own affi. davit, took merit to hinself for procuring a remission of the sentence? 'That case did not pass, too, without discussion.nt : the time, as he well knew, for nn less that eight magistratea signed. the memorial. What rightihad he to preside on the trial? Did he not know that be had been involved in frequent disputes with the defendanr-that there had been high words and il blood between. them-that he had himselt, forgetting his duty as a magistrate, re- scued Emery from the lawful custody of the officer, ar.d sheltered him in his own house-and that he had subsequently interfered in his favour? Wouldthe Court sanction a man, wit this conscious- ness, coming to the judgment-seat, at leust castifg suspicion onpub^ lic justice, and exposing himself to the influence of. his. own reak passionsfrom which he was botndtoprotectothers? Wouldtheybe-: lieve that none of these passions influenceda sentence-agreed to by others, but probably influenced by biraself-of six raonthb' imprison- ment and a ine of 1001., {br an assault, which if it had been the subject of a civil action would have becn amply compensated with 51. damages? WVQuld they approve of the conduct of Mr. Chet- wynde, in tampering with his victinm, to wring from his distresset; an acquittal for himself against accusations which he then foresaw ? He nominated, no doubt, a gentleman of the highest honour to draw the memorial; but did he not select him because he knew that he wasprepossessed inahis oVin favour? and was nothis choice jugtificd by the eulogy which the magistrates who ultimately signed the docu. ment refused to sanction ? Had he obtained tconent, It would only have disgraced him: but Mr. Flint, though sofferin trider distress which moved even Mr. Chetwynde to pity rejected all compromise, and disdained, to own the irmpa-tiality and thejus tice of his fcc. The LonD CHIEF JUSTICE here stopped the learned Sergeant, observing that as tbe hour (thr-e o'clock) had arrived when -r. Justice Holroyd miust leave the Court, the further hearing of thecase must be postponed till Friday. THE KING V. TANE. Mtr. GASELEE prayed for judgment in this case, in which the Court, in the early part of the day, refnsed a new trial. Mr. C. F. WiLLIAaIS and Mr. mEREwETHERshortlyspoke in mitigation, and begged to state (though it was uniecessary) that the character of the prosecutor was above all suspicion. The COURT sentenced the defendanit to be imprisoned for 18 months in Portsmouth eaol. -- lrkv 1711jalq j,BEN H, VVEST%nNStEn, AIAr 2C. - %,W-- _- _-- - F.EIL V.WVALUD -