The Sun. — London, England, 1825-06-25 00:00:00

11811 t. They had note of their ?egular pitch marking when the' sheep came home, so they made up some with tallow and smudge. The other sheep in Beale's fold were shorn. The man who said he saw Beale take the ram off the common was sailed Huggins. (To another question of how he came to know where the ram was, witness replied, " Why, I'll tell you all about it, if you like." Mr.. PEEL.—" Do eo." He then de tailed the whole affair, but no part of his statement was au dible in the gallery.) . Examination continued.--The ram was a South Down ram, piths value of 455. or 505.; but he would not have taken any stoney for him. He told Adams' that he had a charge against one Beale. Examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—Westwood common is about three or four miles from Beale's. He told Adams that he had a complete chain of evidence. He could -not say that he told Mr. Kenrick of the name of Huggins. He - did not know the name of Huggins himself at the time. He did not tell Mr. Kenrick of Beale having been seen leading off the ram by a string. He believed that Beale turned sheep on Westwood-common. He told Mr, Kenrick that Beale refused to give up the property. He was-satisfied, from Beale's tie ociption of the mark, that the ram was his. Mr. Kenrick did not say that Beale was a respectable man, and would come if sent for. Beale did say that the ram was his, and stuck to it, and that.it was marked afresh. Mr. Kenrick asked a great many questions. Examined by Mr. Bitoraxasf.--Huggins told him that he had seen Beak pass by with a ram in a string. Beale's own sheep had no particular mark at all that witness knew of; and the ram in the string was shorn. The man saw no sheep Wpa4s - on that occasion with their fleeces on, nor any fleecesalone. Witness's own sheep bore no particular mark. They were merely smudged with paint on the flank. It was true that wit.. ness had said to Beale that he believed Mr. Kenrick roust have been a great friend to him (Beale), for otherwise he would be in very awkward situation. The first time witness saw Mr. Kenrick, after - seeing Beale, was on Sunday about one or two o'clock in the g t ernoon. Witness said that Mr. Kenrick, on the next irt'Y after the transaction, told him that the sheep was Beale's, and he would not give it up. By Mr... 11. A. TAY I.oa.—When . Adams came into the room, he- brought in his hands a printed paper; Mr. Kenrick said, " What is that ?" and Adams told him it was a paper for him to sign. Witness does not know, but believes that it wan a search-warrant. Neither Mr. Kenrick nor Mr. Adams asked the witness to sign any paper; butwitness is positive that when, tie first carne to-Mr. Kenrick's, he stated-that he came for a -ssrch-warrant against Beale. Then it was that Adams brought -in the printed form to he signed, and, then it was Mr. Kenrick said that a note from hini would do as well. • By Sir li.:Ntirr.soN.—When witness had- made Beale ae -quainted with his intention to accuse him of the felony, it was possible, he believed, that Beale might have pulled out and de- stroyed that mark on the fleece. By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL.— Mr. Nash was a very re-. spectable farmer in that part of the country, and generally em ' ployed as a " valuer" by farmers, on questions of property aris tog among them: . Why did you go to Mr. Kenrick the last time, after you had I got your fleece and your costs ?—I went to call upon him. • And. you, said nothing flippant or insulting to that gentle-: man ?—Oh, dear no, by no means. It is not your habit so to express yourself ?—(A laugh.)— Certainly not. Witness . said nothing to irritate Alr. Kenrick before be applied for the search warrant. He did not go there the last time to pay his respects to Air. Kenrick ; but he went to state the facts of his case, and to show that there was good ground for the application made by him. By Dr. - PHiLLTSIORE.—BeaIe stated that he had lost a ram. Witness did not know exactly how many sheep he had at that time in his fold; there were two rams there. By Mr. GOULBURti.—Beale lives at a farm-house, a good 'way, witness believes, out of Betchworth :.how far, witness could not say, being a stranger in that part of the country. Witness does not know whether or no there is a series of com mons extending beyond Beale's farm, and adjoining Betch worth. Witness should suppose Charlwood may be about seven miles from Betchworth. How, then, did yourram happen to stray so far ?—Why, ay, .:Sr, that now is just what I want to know myself.—(Laughter.) By Mr. PEE r... When Beale produced the fleece, I had no doubt whatever that it was from my ram—l knew it was mine; ha had not put a new mark on it ; he did not make any attempt .to bring-forward another fleece. It was not at all the custom to tie op _the fleece to make what is called the " van,". in order to carry it. Ile never saw such a thing done in his life. There was no part of the fleece spoilt by tying, or any other cause that he saw. How it happened that he had petitioned the House of Commons on that subject was, because he could not bring the matter forward sufficiently, nor carry it on any further in a Court of Law. He had carried it into a Court; but a man that was poor could not (as we understood the witness) hope to do any good there. _He could not go through with a matter unless he had spirit and money. By Mr. W. LAMB.—Witness did not write this petition ; it was written for him by his attorney. His attornies were Alesars. Wilson and Broughton (we believe), in Falcon-square. They drew it up under his instructions— i 4 laugh)—and he then put bis name to it, and signed it. lie was perfectly aware of the contents of that petition, and he had determined on preparing it Itom the sense he felt of the great prejudice arising from the denial of justice. Witness could not say but that he should have presented that petition, even if Mr. Kendrick had paid him the whole of his expences : he did not know that it was doubt ful whether he should hays done so. He did not thing he would easily have been induced to drop the subject; and utterly denied that he had been induced to take this step in consequence of Mr. Kenrick's not having paid hint the full amount of ex pences to which he conceived himself to be entitled. By a MEMDER.—He did not attack Mr. Kenrick becauseof this, though Mr. Kenrick sent him word that lie would not pay _him what he demanded. Witness then began to consider in what way he could " tackle" hin—(a laugh)—and after he had I thought upon it, witness's attorney prepared the petition. Wit ness certainly, in consequence of the money in question not being paid to him, began to think how he should tackle Mr. Kenrick; but still his determining on, and giving instructions for, this petition, had nothing to do with that circumstance at aJI witnes. did not know how the two statements were to be reeonciled, but repeated, that Mr. Kenrick's not paying him his Auth Itad nothing at all to do with this petition. By Mr. ilttotetmast—Witness had offered to make his de poaitiop on oath before Mr. Kenrick; but Mr. Kenrick did not examine him, and administered no oath. Since this affair had happened, witness had not employed Sir. N. to do any business for him. He had bee to Mr. Nash's once, but he found hint not at home; otherwise he would then have given Mr. Nash .something to do for him. Ile had never prosecuted Beale for --the felony ; he could not do so because the evidence against him was gone; he had, however, just the same sort of evidence aftereltis transaction before Mr. Kenrick had happened, as he had .had before. Certainly he could still produce Huggins; but he had promised not to prosecute Beale. Mr. PEEL—The compromise was not entered into by Mr. Kenrick's directions. When witness heard what the compro naise was which his Counsel had entered into with Mr. Ken rick, be was satisfied with the amount of that compromise itself, or he would not hare accepted it. He agreed to take 51., Mr. Kenrick to pay all expences; but witness's instructions to his Counsel were, that if such expences were not 'paid, then they were to goon. He had heard that Mr. Kenrick had said all over the country, that he would ruin witness; whereupon wit ness his observed that they would see. Witness is aware that Mr. Kenrick holds another situation—that besides being a.Ma. gistrate;'he is also one of the judges of the land. That was one,of The reasons why he presented this petition ; for though be would not say that Mr. Kenrick (as we understood) would -hang him, he thought he would go pretty near to do so. His motive for presenting his petition was not these expences which he ought to have been paid, but that he did not think Mr. K, a fitting person to administer justice. He thought that such a person ought to act according to his oath: Had you any wish to prevent the publication of the proceed ings about this affair in the public pre,s ?-0h ! I nevezArouble my head with proceedings in the public prows. Then whatdo you mean in your petition by saying, " the pe titioner disclaims all personal hostility . to the said William Kenrick, which he submits has been sufficiently indicated in his desire-, by the compromise of the said action, to prevent a detail Of the foregoing facts ?"—lf one man in a thousand had been tried as I have been, he would not have taken it as I have done. By the AT TO RNE Y-G ENE NAL—Witness was present at the compromise between his Counsel and Mr. Kenrick's; but what they did, he did not know.—(A laugh.)—Mr. Thesiger was Counsel for witness, whoh ad some conversation with him upon the subject. Witness certainly spoke to Mr.Marryat, counsel on the other side. Whatever the terms were of the compromise as finally settled, the instructions which witness meant to give for it, he gave immediately to Mr. Thesiger. Witness was out of court when he spoke to Mr. Thesiger; and when he came in, the counsel on both sides were talking and communicating to gether. Whether they wrote any thing down, witness did not know ; he did not see them put or, paper the terms he had dic tated, but trusted the whole arrangement of the matter to coun sel. He lied received no money in consequence, though his attorney had, he believed, some little. Witness slid not know that be had ; but thought he remembered to have heard him I say something about paying a sum to witness. Witness had conversed withhim on this subject several times. Witness had ' never expressed any dissatisfaction with the amount proposed; but did not mean to say that he had never said a word about it. As to why he incurred the expenses of law about the costs, if he could afford. to pay 2001.. he could afford to pay 3001., and it did not matter a farthing to him whether he got this 1601. or not. He could not 'recollect when it was that his attorney informed him Mr. Kenrick had paid the costs ; it might be one, two, three, four, or five months ago ; he did not know exactly how long. lie had never cared or noted about it ; .he did not receive the 5/. damages, but his attor ney had receivd it for him. lie could not state how long it was after hearing that the costs had been paid, that he directed his attorney to draw up this petition. Witness lived in Church street, Stoke Newington ; and his attornies in Falcon-square, in the city ; but whether lie gave his attorney the instructions for drawing up the petition at the attorney's office,, or his own house, he did not recollect; it would most likely to haVe been at the office. When this petition was fiat shown-to him, he could not say. It was, not sent to him by post, but by; one of the attorney's clerks. At the time he approved of it, arid inoked over its contents. He never proposed a compromise to Mr. Kenrick before that business was arranged by the Counsel; and denied that he had ever sent any message to that effect. By Dr. PHILLIMORE.—He did not exactly recollect to whom he had made a promise that he would not prosecute Beale • but he believed he had said that he never would pro secutelini. By Mr.DExatax.—Witness's instructions to Mr. Thesiger were, that if the business could be settled and all the costs were paid, there should be no further prpceedings., lle was told that he was to be at no expences about the matter; and understood that all his costs were to be paid. By Mr. BuoaDtx.—Witness did not know whether Hug gins was alone when he saw Beale with the ram. By Mr. Lot:in...RT.—He bad never employed the same at torney before when the compromise was agreed to by Counsel, and he was told that he would be at no expence. The witness was then desired to withdraw. Mr. DENMAN stated, that he did not intend to call any more witnesses on this subject. The CHAIRMAN.—What does the Learned Counsel pro . - pose to do ? The Counsel stated, they wished to give in Mr. Kenrick's pe tition in answer to the facts. 41r. DENNLAN would state what he proposed as his ulti mate course. When the petition, and all the evidence on the part of Mr. Canfor, should have been gone through, he would leave it to the House to allow evidence on the other side to be given ; and then the other case might be proceeded with ; but whether it would be convenient for Mr. Kenrick to be put on hit defence before that other case came on, it would be for the House to, determine- The ATTORNEY-GENE'RAL did not know that there was any necessary connexion between the two cases ; and it. might. be very unjust towards Mr. Remick to proceed as if there were. . Mr. DENMAN disclaitnekl all intention of acting unjustly; he was merely stating what the course was which it would be for them to decide for, or to reject. Mr. BROUGHAM stated, that if the Counsel tor Mr. Ken rick wished that the answer or petition of, Mr. Kenrick should be brought in, the House should endeavour to enable them to do so.. The regular course would be, that such answer should be in the shape of a petition to the House; they had never received answers of this kind in any other form. - Mr. CANNING thought, that as Mr. Kenrick would bo heard by his Counsel, the substance of his petition might be stated in the Learned Gentleman's speech, There could be no objection to that. Mr. BROUGHAM'S only object was to prevent Mr. Ken rick from being precluded by the forms of the House the full benefit of being heard, both , by counsel and by petition. There could be no objection to hear the Learned Counsel first, and then he might give in any paper' on Mr. Kenrick's behalf. The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Learned Counsel might read the petition as part of his speech. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read the paper; but in a tone of,voice that rendered it quite inaudible in the gallery, excepting that we collected from it that it assigned his reasons for not giving up possession of the fleece to Cantor, and stated. that when he detained it, it was detained with the view of not giving it up to the other party, until after the question should hive been legally tried. Mr. GURNEY then said, he should have thought he might very safely leave the case of his client, Mr. Kenrick, upon his own statement, which they had just heard, were it not for one part of that case in which he (Mr. Gurney) hap. pened to have been personally concerned. Mr. Kenrick had intrusted his defence to Cantor's action against him, to his Learned Friend Mr. Holland and himself. Upon the trial of that action being called on, he (Mr. Gurney) un derstood from Mr. Cantor, that his object was .only to secure costs. Now, he did think that his client, Mr. Kenrick, had no available defence to make in that case, and that a verdict mast pass against him, which of course would carry costs. He (Mr. Gurney) therefore suggested to the Learned Counsel on the other side, that if such was Mr. Cantor's object, he had no ob jection to give him the verdict; upon which suggestion, the plaintiff's counsel was called, and he made a most explicit ar rangement, as it was then understood to be, for plaintiff's tak ing a verdict with costs in the terms which had just been stated. Those . costs were afterwards to be taxed by the officer of the Court in which the arrangement was proposed. The officer of the Court, by whoinsuchecoets were -to be taxed, would-have to take into his consideration the terms of the agreement so en tered into by :he parties; and he would allow cests according to their full extent and meaning. It would, therefore, be for the House to determine whether Mr. Canfor (the complainant), because he had been disappointed in the amotint of these costs, and not because of any denial of justice that he had experienc ed at the hands of Mr. Kenrick, had not resorted to this petition as a measure of revenge and malice?—whether it had not been in the hope and expectation of obtaining fur ther costs from Mr. Kenrick that lie had continued proceed ings of this kind, after the compromise and termination.uf his action ? A perfect stranger, it appeared, came and asked for a search-werrnt against a person of known good character . in the neighbourhood of the Magistrate. It was a moot point, whether the ram was stolen or had strayed ; and the upshot of the charge ultimately was, that the ram had actually strayed. No evi. dence was adduced that the beast had been stolen. The only complaint was, that the other party, Heals, had refused to give up the animal; and as it appeared to the understanding of the Magistrate that this was a case of disputed property, he had deemed it improper to grant a search-warrant. With respect to the violence said to have been manifested by Mr. Kenrick, he would' only say, that from the manner in which the witness answered the interrogatories at their bar—from the intempet ance which he displayed, some defence might be imagined for the conduct pursued by Mr. Kenrick. -He could hardly suppose it would be presumed,- under all the circumstances of this painful case, that the Magistrate in whose behalf he ap peared had been .guilty of corruption. Under the circum stances which had been stated, it appeared to him that the Magistrate had exercised a sound discretion. What, he asked, would be the situation of the subject, if a Magistrate, in every case where application was ma d e t o him, violated the sanctity of private residence ? It would diminish the respecta bility of the magistracy if they complied with these applications, unless where strong suspicion existed. , If magistrates, acting from the best motives, were to be thus inculpated, no gen tleman of station, no gentleman of learning, would accept of the office.• Would any magistrate, he demanded, tinder similar circum stances, have consented to grant a search-warrant? He thought not. upon every frivolous occasion, the liberty of the sub ject were to be thus invaded—if a man's dwelling-house were to be entered. at the pleasure of any person who thought fit to prefer a vague complaint, then the situation both of the ma. gistrate and of the 'party complained against would he most .distressing. Mr. Kenrick, on this occasion exercised his best judgment; and he (Mr. Gurney) confessed, that in his opie nion ;Ir. Kenrick had exercised his judgment soundly in re fusing a search. warrant.—( Hear, hear !)—He saw no reason whatever for calling a magistrate to that bar to answer the complaint now urged. If a magistrate acted wrong, the law was open to the aggrieved party. In such a case, the lowest, the poorest individual might report to a Court of Justice for redress._ He could, for instance, move the Court of King's Bench for a mandamus, to compel the Magistrate to perform his duty.--: The individual had done no such thing. For the injury which he - alleged he had received, lie brought an action in the Court '.of King's Bench, and. he had received a - compensation.--:; (Hear !)—Notwithstanding this, he now came to the House of Commons, and said that •he suffered in consequence of a denial - of justice ; and he accused Mr. Kenrick as having been guilty of tyrannical conduct. NV 'hat denial of justice had been rills- taMed ? What more could the complainant have obtained by - the'search.warrant than was effected by the summons, or notice, • which was placed in his hands ? lie procured his fiecce—he • procured that which he applied for ; and what more would he have? Ile humbly submitted to the House, that, from the facts elicited, Mr. Kenrick ought to be no further proceeded • against. Cantor had asked him to do a particular act—on that request lie had exercised his judgment, and he refused to grant a search -warrant where, as it appeared to him, it was not wanted ; at the same time, the complainant, by the course which was adopted, procured that which he had himself required. Taking the case altogether, he contended that there was no pretence whatever to impute to Mr. Kenrick a ' refusal of justice, nor to stigmatize him for acting improperly, much less corruptly, in the course which he had pursued. In his opinion, Mr. Kenrick, or any other Magistrate, ought not to grant a search.warant, unless he had very good cause for supposing that the person against whom the warrant was de manded was really guilty. A Magistrate certainly ought not to invade the liberty of the subject, unless reasonable cause was shown for his interference ; and, viewing all the circumstances of this case, he felt confident that no cause had been made out, which called tOr the notice of that Honourable House. The CHAIR 31AN (Mr. Gordon).--Do you mean to call any witnesses, Air. Gurney ? Mr. GURNEY answered that he did not. The CHAIRMAN.— Have you, Mr. Boland, any thing to address to the House ? Mr. BOLLAND, as we understood, declined, after the quent adelress which they had just heard, to address the House. The Learned Gentleman also stated, that he did not mean to call any witnesses. An Hon. lEMBER, whose name we could not learn, said, that the Hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Denison) having, on a former occasion, borne testimony to, the excellent character of Mr. Herrick, he felt it to be his duty . to pursue a similar course, and, from his own knowledge, to-vouch for the honour and re apeetability of that individual. He was, in all the relationsof life, a most amiabl e an d honourable man. When a ;search-warrant was applied for, it appeared to him that the mere spplication was connected with a feeling of distrust towards the individual whose premises were to be search ed. If a susnicion existed respecting the character of an individual, in ihat case it might be very proper to grant such an instrument. That,'hOwever, was nut the case here. The party accused resided with his mother, on a farm immedi ately adjoining (as was und erstoo d ) Mr. Kenrick's estate, and had been alWays spoken of as an honourable and honest man. —( Hear !)—lt the . applieition had been made to him, he con fessed that he would. not be - easily induced to believe that a man of so upright a character could have been guilty of the crime imputed to him. .The Honourable Member then proceeded- to speak of the respectability of the two arbiters to whom the case of Cenfor was submitted. He wished dis tinctly to state, that Mr. Nash was above the situation of an ordinary farmer.. Ile Occasionally surveyed lands, and also settled disputes :amongst his neighbours. lie was, in truth, a fair and honourable- man.—( Hear Mr. CANNING said, he apprehended it was quite impos sible to proceed with thacase in its present state. They had, on one side, evidence given at .their bar, which would be printed ; on the other side, they had the speech of a Learned Counsel, which was evanescent, and of which they had no record. They certainly could not proceed without some mo tion was made. Mr. DEN I.- said, he would move that the evidence be printed. • Mr. CANNING thought it would be unfair to assent to a motion of this kind, the evidence being all on one aide. He was ready to go to a decisive verdict on the case, as it now stood ; and, it no other person would make a specific motion on the subject, he would. . Mr. DENMAN said the course he intended to pursue was a plain - and clear one.. eChorges bad been brought against an individual at the bar, and a witness had been heard. Indivi duals had been mentioned who, if it were necessary, might have been examined on .the other side. As those persona had not been called, how could they dispose of the business except by printing the evidence e and - adjourning it. A most able, in genious, and eloquent speech, had been delivered by the Coun sel for Mr. Kenrick—a speech which he was convinced would not be so evanescent as the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose—.a apeech which would fix itself in the minds of the members of that Committee, and without duly considering which no M miller of that Committee would, be was conviced, at tempt to give a verdict. There were many novelties con nected with this case, and amongst them, perhaps, the greatest was the proposition which had been laid down by the Right Honourable Gentleman, when he asked, why should the evidence becirculated without the speech of the learned Coun sel ?—(llear !)—He should like the Right. Hon. Gentleman to point outliner precedent where a speech delivered by Counsel, or by any other person in that /louse, or at the bar of that llonse, was so sent forth along :with the evidence. Was there much danger, he would ask, from sending out the evidence in the way proposed, when it was quite clear that other speeches and other sentiments—speeches and sentiments opposed to that evidence —would be delivered in the course of the discussion on the subject ? The question here was between a poor isolated indi vidual, who endeavoured to recover his property, and who, in noiking that effint, was imprisoned. Now he should like to know whether, without the publication of any speeches, a just verdict might not be given on the evidence which had beau ad duced ? He (Mr. Denman) was taken -by surprise, when he found that persona who might have been called on the other side had not been brought forward. But the Right Hon. Gen tleman seemed to think that the case could not be properly gone on with, because the memory of the Members of that House could not be trusted with the eloquent speech which had accom panied the evidence given at their bar. •Ijntil, however, it was shown to be the regolar course to print such speeches, he would pursue that line of conduct which he had already inti mated. The only difference that lie could perceive between this and ordinary-eases was, that Mr. Kenrick had all the ad vantage of having an excellent speech made in his - favour. If theltiiht Hone Gentleman could give him an example from authority, or could adduce something like reasoning to shew that an inquiry had taken place before a Committee where the evidence was not printed. for the purpose of enabling duals to judge fairly-of the matter in dispute, because the speech which followed that evidence was not also printed, then he would be content to deviate from the course which he originally intended to pursue. e . t such were the practice, he would bow to the majority of that House ; but if the contrary were the fact, as he believed it was, he should move " that the Chairman do not leave the Chair, that he report progress, and that the evi dence be. printed."- • Mr. Pt EL said the speech of the Learned Gentleman was entirely beside. the real' question. Ile began with a charge against Mr. Remick, and those who really wished to investi gate the matter called on .him to bring forward some written specific accusation. - Tile Learned Gentleman declined that course, declaring that abe petition of Canfor contained the charge. The question, therefore. was—whether 'the evidence given by Canfor produced such a feeling in the House as ren dered it necessary to proceed further. It appeared to him that no persons were so fit to judge of the merits of this case as those who had just heard the evidence given at their bar. Hav ing attended to all that had been stated by Cantor, he was per fectly ready to move, "That the House having beard the tes timony adduced by Mr. Canfor in support of his petition, do not think it necessary to institute any further proceedings."— (Hear, hear I)—lie would now say s in defence of the indivi dual accused, th a t there was nothing (at least in the evidence brought forward) which could authorise the House to proceed any further. Mr. A BE RCROM BY did not mean to give any opinion on the case itself, or on the evidence which had been brought for ward ; but this he would say, that if they wished the jpdgment of that House to give satisfaction to Mr. lienrick, and to the public at large, the course proposed by the Right lion. Gentle. man would not effect that object. The proper mode of proceed ing was to report the evidence, to have it printed, anti if his Learned Friend did not forthwith call on the House for its judgment, it was competent for any Hon. Member to do so. This was the practice of the House, and he, as a Member of the House, did not like to see any departure from it. Mr. CANNING said, the m ot i on appeared to be for a disso lution of the Committee, without taking any further proceedings and without any pledge that they would take further notice of the subject. lie thought it would be better not to dismiss it in this way. If it would not interfere with the Darned Gentle. man's convenience, the subject might be resumed to-morrow, or upon any other day which he might think fit to appoint.. Cer-. tainly some motion should be made on the'subject. The Learn. ed Gentlemen might do so so soon as the evidence was printed. The matter was in his hands, and he (Mr. Canning) had no de sire to take it up. He thought means might be adopted not only to meet to-morrow, but to meet at an early hour, in order to take this question into consideration. Mr. DE NM.A N said his intention - certainly was, that the evidence should be printed and laid before the House. After hearing the evidence, and a long cress-examination of the wit ness, it would not-raise the c h aracte r of the House in the eyes of the public by summarily disposin g o f t h e case. H e t h oug h t i t would not be a prudent course to meet to-morrow, because it • was necessary; if they wished to form a ,right judgment of the case, to weigh that evidence maturely which they bad only heard idea voce. Beside; Gentlenien very well knew that the attendance of Mein bens on Saturday was any thing but nu- • merous., • In his opinion, the evidence ought to be printed, and Monday next fixed for : thelarther consideration of the case. The !al'Eak KER. astiti; the iinpression on his mind was, that slime specific resolutionnught to emanate from the Committee. What he - said related only to the form of the proceeding, and had nothing to do with the merits of the case. Thatresolution, when laid before the House, was in their hands, and they might deal with it as th ey t h ought fit. He begged leave to observe with respect to the evidence, that he could have it printed at any time the House might deem prOper. lie did not spealewith respect to the propriety of meeting on to:inorrow or Monday, ' he only meant to pledge himself that the evidence should be printed immediately. • Mr. PEEL said he retained the opinion which he originally professed—namely, t h at the.coarse most consistent withjustice was, that the Committee should come to a resolution that there was not sufficient matter to put Mr. Remick on his trial. Mr. WESTERN perfectly agreed with the Right lion. Gen tleman in the sentiments which he had just expressed. Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, evidence nad been called in sup port of the petition. Counsel had been heard in defence of Mr. Kenrick, and that Counsel he. ) . had an opportunity, if he pleased, of calling witnesses, which lie had not availed himself of. So that all the stages of a regular trial,• even if the charges had been of the most serious nature, had been gone through. This being th e case, he thought the suggestion of the Right Hon. Secretary opposite was not correct. In his opinion the course should be that which was suggested by the highest au thority in that house—namely, that the Committee should come. to a resolution to report progress, and ask leave ,to sit again, and on th e i r so sitting, they ought to arrive at some decision. It would not be right that they Should now come to a resolution, as had been suggested by the Right Honourable Secretary, that Mr. Kenrick had not been heard.—(Cries of " No, no.") Mr. PEEL stated that he had not said that. His proposi tion was, that looking to the evidence which sad been given; there was no necessity to put Mr. Itenrick on his defence. If the Learned Gentleman (Mr. Denman) said he had further evidence, he (Mr. Peel) was ready to go on. If not, he was prepared to vote for such a motion as that which lie had previ ously alluded to. Mr. J. WILLIAMS again contended, that Mr. Kenrick had been pat on his trial—Counsel had been heard on his behalf —and that Counsel had declined calling any evidence in his favour. No persOn had been brotigheforward for the purpose of inculpating what had been advanced in support of the peti tion. It'hy, _tinder these circumstances, Mr. Kenrick having ( detended-himeelf 2 -byoognse.l, should the House be thus pre maturely called on to decide on the case? The main question was. in what manner the subject should be taken up at a future period. - (In thispoint the highest authority in the House had given his opinion. His reasoning was perfectly satisfactory to him (Mr. W.) The Committee ought to be allowed to sit alain, -and the future course to be adopted would then become tit matter for consideration. air DENIS° N said- he was prepared to vote with the Right Hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department. Of Mr. Kenriek he had 'little knOwledge.. Though they were neigh bouts, they were opposed in political matters .;. but while lie had a vote in that House, no private feeling should ever prevent him from doing what he conceived to be his.duty. Knowing the party against whom the search warrant was sought to be obtained, he thought Mr. Kenrick was right in not bringing that individual before him for a felony: His conduct in getting back the note from Canfor was, he thought, wrong ; but he saw no. reason fbr proceeding further in the case, and therefore he would vote with the Right Hon. Secretary. Sir J. WRO fTESLEY said, that .they ought to come to some decision on this case, and he was not unprepared to do so. The individual who petitioned the House had been examined and cross-examined most strictly, not only by Counsel but by diairent Honourable Members. The Learned Counsel had stated that they had no evidence to bring forward. This I constituted a fair trial, and he would not blink the question ; but say at once that the Committee had an opportunity of gaining as correct a judgment now as they would at any! future period. With respect to the conduct of Mr. Kenrick, he (Sir J. Wrottesley) certainly would not, under. the circum stances, have put upon oath the person who applied fur the search-warrant, and when the clearge was made-against a re speetable farmer, he shouldhave been, exceedingly cautious as to the course which he adopted. For iris own part,the certainly would have written to the person accused, and taken very nearly the same course that Mr. Kendrick had done. When a war rant was applied for to search a man's premises; very strong circumstances should be adduced before he would grant it. To issue such an instrument lightly was a most unwarrantable abuse of authority—it was a most gross attack on the liberty and character of the individual.—( Hear !)--While he admitted this, lie could not excuse Mr. Kenrick's conduct to Canfor when he went into the magistrate's room ; that could not be passed over without censure. On that point the Learned Coune gel had never opened his lips. What was he to inter from that circumstance ? That one of the inost able and prudent counsel at the bar did not dare to touch upon this fact.—(flear!)—He must suppose that the Learned Counsel felt that culpability was attached to the transaction. lie was not the accuser of Mr. Kenrick. If severe censure on his conduct were proposed, lie certainly would not agree to it; but, on the other hand, be could not, for the honour - of the Magistracy of the country : suffer his conduct to pass unnoticed. Mr. PEEL, thought the object had been to show, that as a Magistrate, Mr. Kenrick had committed home gross abuse of authority. It was quite clear, however, that he had not acted from any corrupt motive. That was the important part of the case, and of that no proof whatever had been given. The second accusation was, that Mr. Kenrick had ordered his servant to search the petitioner. This undoubtedly was very improper ; but could he (Mr. Peel) dismiss from his recollection that an action had been brought against Mr. Kenrick, that he had been visited by a verdict of his country, and put to an expence of 2001. ? He thought that Gentlemen ought to be satisfied with the adjudication of a court of justice with respect to one part of the case, when with reference to the other they acquitted him of all corrupt and improper mo tives. Mr. MABEItLA', as a Magistrate of Surrey, would not be content, whether Mr. Kenrick acted wilfully or in error, to sup port any motion which seemed to say that this House counte nanced such proceedings. Mr. W. NV YNN said that the motion contemplated by his Right Hon. Friend did not in any degree imply the approba tion of that House to the conduct of Mr. K. It could not, how ' ever, be said that no redress had been obtained for the wrong j which Mr. Kenrick had committed, 'on the contrary he had been tried before tha proper tribunal, and had paid the penalty awarded against him. It was now .required in addition, that the opinion of the house should be pronounced upon his con duct. Ile had been removed from . the -commission of the peace in the county of Surrey, and it was now urged that he should be dismissed from his office of a Welsh Judge. In any person in the House thought that a sufficient case had been made out to justify such a proceeding, he was at full liberty to propose a motion to that effect; for his own-part, 'he (Mr. Wynn) openly confessed that he was of a directly contrary opinion. He saw no ground for any further proceeding; he, and those with whom he acted, did not say they were not called upon to say, how far Mr. Kenrick's conduct hacl,been blame able, and in what respect -it had been correct, but they said simply that they could discover no reason to induce the House of Commons to pr ocee d an f urt h er . Mr. BARING th oug ht th at , i n th e present state of the opi nion of the Co mm i ttee , i t was not. necessar y to carry this discus sion any farther now. if it were so, he should agree that he had never seen a witness whose examination was less calculated to substan t i a t e th e c h arge h e was b roug h t t o make out. Ther e could be no do u b t t h at M r . K enr i c k' s con d uc t had' been indis creet and repreh ens ibl e ; but the question now was , whether it had been so muc h so as to j ust i fy t h e H ouse in addressing th e Crown to procure his removal from the office he held. He must confess find he saw no ground for doing so. At the same time he thought the case was not one on which the House should come to a Precipitate decision, or in which the usual forms should be cut short. There was no reason why the evidence should not be print ed. This could not be done by to-morrow, at least it could not be read and well considered by to-morrow,but byMonday he thought it might he. The Hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Denman) might then state the case as the evidence disclosed 'it, and propose any measure he thought necessary—if he should think any measure necessary. This; it should be remembered, was not the whole of the case against Mr. Kenrick, and the Hon. Member might think fit to bring the other parts of it before the Committee. He, therefore, moved that the Chairman should now report progress, anti ask leave lo sit again on Monday. Mr. CANNING said his opinion was, that the question which had been referred to the Committee required the decision of the Committee. He would not say what . that - decision _ought to be ; but if the motion suggested by his Right Ho nourable Friend should be put, the Honourable and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Denman), if he had any thing critninatory to propose, might move it by way of amendment. The whole of the case, it seemed, had been gone through. At half-past seven o'clock it was said that there was nothing further to state against the accus e d ; an d it was now proposed to break up the Committee and take further time to consider what deci sion it should come to. If it were thought necessary that time should be taken for this purpose, he was content that the post. ponement should take place. He had received scintelnformation since he spoke last, that the evidence could not be printed in time Ihr to-morrow, owing to the length of time it would take to have the short-hand writers notes transcribed. He was therefore willing that the Committee should be adjourned until Monday, with the *understanding that it should be proceeded with first, and that the Hon. and. Learned Gentleman should be then prepared to say what he thought ought to be done. Mr. DENMAN gladly accepted this proposal, : which, in deed, he thought could not in any way have beeti refused him. He should regret _very much if the Committee had been induced to express precipitately an opinion upon the subject of so grave a charge against a person of their own rank in society, which charge had, in his opinion, been fully substantiated. Ile was not now prepared to move any particular resolution on the sub ject. It was possible that he might, upon further considera tion, think it unnecessary to say any more upon the subject, ao. respecti e i t could al though, if that should he his determination, he confessed th a t his opinion must undergo such a revolution as he Could not a t preeent contemplate. The case, as it stood b e f ore the Com mittee, was one which concerned the fair administrati on o f jus ee c s s es l a im of a o the oo t I t te comm l u s t e n i s ty ro , i o an a te d h t i tho n had o ti o ce an t s o w a e l r l cl l ah not bring himself to believe that the House would so far forget its duty to the country as to omit to pass such a censure upon the conduct of Mr. Kenrick as it should seem to deserve. If he should continue in his present opinion on that subject, e he would propose a motion on Monday ; if not, he would willingly ' withdraw the proceeding he had begnn, lie had spoken one on the subject, and, as his Hon. Friends would to no le had asked for no support from thent—(hear wohtet had formed no scheme as to ulterior proceedings. Ile lead .) only d the charge contained in the petition, and the evidence preferred d re in his opinion substantiated all the allegations ' • of that petition.— By Monday he would be prepared to state the to H nse what cou rse he proposed to take, an d h e thought he should o certainly make some motion. He, ho wever, took leave tosay, that n if y the course first proposed h a d been adopted, he should walked out of the House a nd h ave taken his leave of the Com.: mittee. Mr. CANNING did not hesitate to say, that when the sub ject came before the h ouse, h e should be prepared to vote against any further proceedings in this matter. The charges against Mr. Kenrick appeared to be two. The fist was one which had already been tried in a civil action, and for which he had paid the penalty awarded against him. The second was a charge of refusing a warrant, not , one tittle of the evidenos ftx support of which was to be relied on. Mr. W. SMITH said a few words which were not distinctly' audible in the gallery. Mr. PEEL was still of the opinion he had formerly express , ed, that the Committee ought at once to have discharged the duty imposed upon it. He could not understand upon what pretext it could he said that the Committee ought not now to do that which was always done in every branch of the adminis , tration of criminal justice-in the country. Grand Juries came to a decision upon deliberatiOns not longer, and Common Juriete sent criminals to execution upon an immediate view of the caste and after evidence had been heatcl. He however consented to the postponement —not for the reasons which had been urged in support of such a step, but because several members of the Committee had not stayed to discharge the duty which they had entered upon. Mr. HUME thought nothing could be more suitable to the justice of the case than that the House should duly deliberate before they came to a decision. Ile should be sorry if any no tion were to get abroad in consequence of what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the Committee had not doss their duty in pastponing this question. He thought, on the contrary, that the course they were about to pursue was at once most consistent - with justice and with the dignity of the House- Mr. GOULBURN concurred with the opinion expressed by his Right lion. Friend (Mr. Peel), and thought that an imme diate decision might have been come to quite consistently with the justice of the case. Those - who had reard the evidence were much more competent than any other persons to come to that decision, because, although others might read the evidence when printed, they could know nothing of the manner in which that evidence had been given, and which in all cases (partial. larly in this) must have considerable influence. Mr. W. WYNN said, he should have been ptetiareid ai this moment to have come to a conclusion ; but , since the'postkons ment was so strongly urged, he was willing to agree to Mr. GORDON (the Chairman) wished for instructions of the Committee as to whether the statement of Mr. Henri& Was to be printed together with the evidence ? Mr. CROKER said, that the statement of Mr. Henrick was to be presented to the House in the shape of a petition, after which it could be printed. . . The House resumed ; the Chairman 'isf the Committee re ported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday. The evidence was ordered to be printed. The report on the Colonies Trade Bill was received. SURPLUS OF GRANTS BILL. On the Surplus of Grants Bill being brought up, Mr. S. RICE rose, not for the purpose of objecting'tchtle re• port, but to move a clause enabling the Lord iEietteeeane of Ireland to withhold the grants, or such parts of them,ease he should think fit, from Mor of the institutions mentioned in it. He did this in consequence of the. report of the Com mittee on the Education of the Poor in Ireland, and in - Order that the Lord Lieutenant might, if he saw reason, give eucoa ragement to the new and more general systerneif education. 'He was confident that this power would not be abused. He'should. indeed, have preferred it, if he could have ensured to Parlia ment xn account of the manner in which this money was to be expended ; but opportunities would be afierded in the next See sion for discussing that subject. He should like to know whe.;• tiler this appendix to the report of the Education Committee was ready. Mr. GOULBURN said it was not printed. Mr. S. ft ICE still hoped that it would be presented: it might then be afterwards printed, and lion. 'Gentlemen would be able to consider it during the recess. lie concluded by moving e' clause, enabling the Lord Lieutenant to withhold the grant from the Protestant Charter S heals, the Associa ion for the Stipples sion of Vice, the Society for the Education of the Poor, and the schools established by voluntary contributions. Mr. GOULBURN.said the appendix being very voluminous' had been sent piece-meal from the Contmittee to the printers, in order to save the time which would have been consumed iu transacting it. He would take every care to ensure- its: being ready for delivery before the end of the Session. Mr. CROKER said he understood that the appendix alluded to would explain many points in the report, which it was im possible to form a correct judgment upon at present, and roe specting which he had received letters from numerous corres pondents who were at variance with the conclusions of the Corn mittee.—The clause was then agreed to, and the report received= The Smuggling Prevention Bill was read a third time, and passed, after a few words from Mr. Baron T and Mr.CuitrEts. The Customs' Consolidation Bill passed through a Commit tee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Monday. Mr. GOULBURN presented a petition from Mr. Williatn Kenrick, which was ordered to be printed. The other Orders of the Day being disposed of, the House adjourned at a Quarter before Ten o'Clock, to Monday. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. HOUSE OF COMMONS. seconden Bill; and a & Vencris, 24° die fund, 1825. MESSAGE from the Louns—That they have agreed to-- time,Distilleryand Bill ; Abingdon Itiipro a t time, andcom mitted. Liver pool Docks, c. Bill, without amendment. EsTATEs—Paddington, and Markham's—Bills read a third passed. St. Thomas's Hospital, Bold's 01.1logh ton's, and Romilly's—Bills read Vernon's, and Bristow's__Bills read aftirst tithe. NAVIGATION—Lough Neagh Ire..) APOTHECARIES ECARIES SURPLUS OF GRANTS SMUGGLING PREVENTION CUSTOMS LAWS REPEAL LINEN TRADE (Ireland) PUBLIC ROADS (Ireland) REFORM OF PARLIAMENT—Petition from Wallingford' praying that the Elector's Oath be rendered prospective, 1 , 2 . order to prevent bribery and corruption at the election gi Members—to lie on the table. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE—Petition of George Miller, Esq' of Comberton, contradicting the allegation s contained the Petition of George Henry Bays—to lie on the table. CHURCHES—Address for " Returns of the numb er of APP I " cations to the Bishops of the Dioceses in England and lre' r land, f or t h e i r consent to t h e b u ildi ng or purc h as ing °` Churches or Chapels by private subscription, pursuant 1 0 the Act 5 Geo. 4, c. 103 ; and of the number of Consent* any such Applications." Mn. KEivarcK - -Petition of Wm. Kenrick, Esq. in answer a Petition of Martin Money Cantor—to lie on the table. Bills read a thir4 t 4l/e ' and passed. • - NOTICES of MOTIONS, and ORDERS of the DAYx which n ow stan d on the ORDER-BOOK of,the HOCir-" of COMMONS, for the PRESENT WEEK. Monday, May 27. ORDERS OF THE DAY. • 1. Combination of Workmen Bill—Committee. 2. Report Private Business—Adjourned Debate. 3. Indictments Removal Bill—Further consideration of Rol3er t. 4. Horses Slaughtering Bill—Third reading: . • a 5. Pilots and Flo a ti ng Lights Bill—Further consideration .. Report. 6. Petition against Mr. Kenrick—Committee thereupon , 7. Colonies Trade Bill—Third reading. - 8. Customs Temp orary D ut i es Bill—Third reading... 9. Customs Consolidation Bill—Third reading. 10. Spring Guns Bill—Further consideration of Report. 11. Gardens Protection Bill—Further consideration of RePar t t 12. Rolls Court Decrees Bill—Committee. 13. Serjeants at Law Bill—Committee. 14. Church Lands Exchange Bill—Third reading. 14. Law of Merchants Bill—Third reading. NOTICES OF 310TION)K I. Mr. Martin (of Galway)—Bill to alter and amend so m+ of Act 4 Gen. 4, c. 54, as relates to unlawfully killing , maiming, or wounding any Cattle. 2. Mr. Bankes—To refer to a Committee of the whole House, a Resolution for an Address founded on the Report from` the Journal Index Committee. MEMORANDUM.—NO Notices of Motions, nor Orders of th e Day, stand in the Order B o ok f or th e subsequent days of th 4 Week. PRIVATE BILLS. Second Reading: for Monday. Banks' (Sago Estate, Sullivan's Divorce, and St. 11cIaty-W i bone Rectories. A singular ptrblic company has been formed in Paris, with a capital of 100,0001. English, for the purpose ° I importing from South Atnercica all the new publications of that country, and causing them to be sold is France, as also trans" lations. SHOCKING SIAM/E.—This morning the work' men in the employ of Mr. MoLDITCH, carpenter and builder in the norseferry Road, went t° work about four o'clock, and, on entering th e workshop, they were horror struck at finding their master hanging by the neck with a rope from a large beam, he was quite dead ; Yv t ' notwithstanding medical aid was called in, and every means were adopted to restore him, bu t all of course were useless; no cause can be 1 15 ' signed for the dreadful act. An Inquest will held on the body this evening.